-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
As you have written it, no. I don't believe that the name of the Father is "Jesus".
To do something in the name of someone else is not to give the appellation of that person. If a messenger carries a letter "in the name of the Queen", the fact that the given name of the present English queen is "Elizabeth Windsor" is quite irrelevant. Similarly, to baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not to imply that the three share one given name. Rather, it is a functional extension of authority.
Idioms cannot always be broken down to their component words and have their meaning preserved.
To do something in the name of someone else is not to give the appellation of that person. If a messenger carries a letter "in the name of the Queen", the fact that the given name of the present English queen is "Elizabeth Windsor" is quite irrelevant. Similarly, to baptize someone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not to imply that the three share one given name. Rather, it is a functional extension of authority.
Idioms cannot always be broken down to their component words and have their meaning preserved.
I am surmising that the name is the 'Father', 'Son' and "Holy Ghost" and that is sufficient. I am confident that God will understand what is meant by addressing with these titles. If it is actually required that the actual names are used besides Jesus, who is the Son, than no one has ever been baptized. Actually, I don't recall John even mentioning these titles when he baptized Jesus or used specific names. The question is not what is the name but rather what's in a name. Personally, I would start with this premise if further study is pursued.
I would appreciate if you would not make a post by someone else, again. Please write in your own words what you believe. I couldn't get through the messed up OP, with all the caps lock and run on sentences. I suspected it was a copy and paste from the beginning.
Write a thought. Then support it with a verse or passage. Then write another thought. Conversely, state a thesis, then support it - 1, 2, 3! Then a small conclusion or question as to what we think.
I do not have the time of day for copy and pastes. If you want to participate in this forum, I think you will find most people feel this way. Once you are known, and your theology, then a copy and paste, might occasionally be appropriate.
Write a thought. Then support it with a verse or passage. Then write another thought. Conversely, state a thesis, then support it - 1, 2, 3! Then a small conclusion or question as to what we think.
I do not have the time of day for copy and pastes. If you want to participate in this forum, I think you will find most people feel this way. Once you are known, and your theology, then a copy and paste, might occasionally be appropriate.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
NewChapter, responding to our opening post.
2 Cor. 5:19 God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself.
Not Jesus was God reconciling the world to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
John 1:1 In the beginning, Jesus is God and Jesus was with the Father who is also God.
Luke 9:35, not in the King James but all modern bibles have the Father say, "this is my chosen son."
I take this verse literally which makes Jesus the chosen son.
This is the doctrine of the firstborn son of the old testament patriarchs in Genesis.
The historical church and the modern church don't agree with me.
Hebrews 1:8-9, Jesus was anointed from his companions.
I take this verse literally meaning there was a ceremony of anointing before In the beginning.
Responding to another of your posts, The King James has Father, Son and Holy Spirit in 1 John 5:7 but all modern bibles do not because Trinitarians inserted the phrase (The phrase is not in the earliest known manuscripts.)
I surmise Trinitarians changed Matthew 28, the great commission From "Baptize in My Name" to The Phrase (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Jesus is the mediator and the way to the Father. Baptism in the name of the Father is not the way to the Father.
If Jesus said, "Baptize in my Name," would that change your doctrine?
2 Cor. 5:19 God was in Jesus reconciling the world to Himself.
Not Jesus was God reconciling the world to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
John 1:1 In the beginning, Jesus is God and Jesus was with the Father who is also God.
Luke 9:35, not in the King James but all modern bibles have the Father say, "this is my chosen son."
I take this verse literally which makes Jesus the chosen son.
This is the doctrine of the firstborn son of the old testament patriarchs in Genesis.
The historical church and the modern church don't agree with me.
Hebrews 1:8-9, Jesus was anointed from his companions.
I take this verse literally meaning there was a ceremony of anointing before In the beginning.
Responding to another of your posts, The King James has Father, Son and Holy Spirit in 1 John 5:7 but all modern bibles do not because Trinitarians inserted the phrase (The phrase is not in the earliest known manuscripts.)
I surmise Trinitarians changed Matthew 28, the great commission From "Baptize in My Name" to The Phrase (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). Jesus is the mediator and the way to the Father. Baptism in the name of the Father is not the way to the Father.
If Jesus said, "Baptize in my Name," would that change your doctrine?
If "Trinitarians" changed these two passages, what else was changed? This is a dangerous assumption. I strongly encourage you to do more research on both passages, and if you're going to make such assertions, do so on the basis of sound research, not guesswork.
And for the record, do you believe in the Trinity?
And for the record, do you believe in the Trinity?
-
1
- Show all
I've only baptized one person, in a river. And this is what I said... "(Their Name) do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the one and only Son of the one and only living God? (They stated yes) (Name), Upon your confession that Jesus is the Christ, I now baptized you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit for the remission of your sins..."
Yes, I believe in the trinity, but i do not believe they are all one person. They are of one mind and purpose- this is unity. Everyone in the church is also to be one one mind and purpose. Does that mean we are all one person? Of course not. (Wow, what a multiple personality case that would be). : /
Yes, I believe in the trinity, but i do not believe they are all one person. They are of one mind and purpose- this is unity. Everyone in the church is also to be one one mind and purpose. Does that mean we are all one person? Of course not. (Wow, what a multiple personality case that would be). : /
I agree with you...it is important and I did wade through that wall you presented.
I also noted some of the responses...on the whole negative.
Is there an answer to your question ? yes if we keep it simple ! but it will gender a lot of DISagreement !
Here is my understanding for what it's worth....
Jesus/Yashua is fully God IN SPIRIT....He is also fully Man in human BODY.
I also noted some of the responses...on the whole negative.
Is there an answer to your question ? yes if we keep it simple ! but it will gender a lot of DISagreement !
Here is my understanding for what it's worth....
Jesus/Yashua is fully God IN SPIRIT....He is also fully Man in human BODY.
Since you want me on the record, I side with the apostle Paul who opened up all of his letters acknowledging God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord. Paul follows the old testament convention of LORD God of hosts, LORD of hosts and Holy One of Israel which make up the Godhead.
The Father is Lord God. Jesus is Lord.
Titus and 2 Corinthians are the only places that I know of where Paul signs off with Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians is where Paul calls the Spirit the mind of God which is also the mind of Christ.
I believe the mind of God was given to Christ. (All things are given to me by My Father.)
In other words, the Spirit is not a person.
But it's okay with me to think of Him as a person just don't persecute me.
The Creeds don't allow that tolerance. (Unless you believe these things, you cannot be saved).
John 16 calls the Comforter/Advocate a 'He 'that the Father will send after Jesus ascends to heaven.
Missler says the definite article (the 'The') of the Spirit is always neuter. In other words, an 'it.'
First John requires belief in Father and Son as God but not Spirit but there is a Spirit (the water, blood and Spirit are in one accord).
Jesus is called the Comforter/Advocate which is not capitalized in bibles so as not to disagree with John 16.
The Granville/Sharp rule of Greek grammar makes Jesus as God in Titus.
This exception to Paul's rule of calling Jesus Christ but not God (Jesus has the fullness of the diety - Colossians),
The fullness was given;
This exception become the rule that informs Trinitarians interpretation of the Godhead.
If this was a medieval heresy trial, how do you think it would play out?
Enoch 987 understands the Bible but he goes against the authority of the church.
Now if you persecute me and I am right, what does that say about your walk with God?
The Father is Lord God. Jesus is Lord.
Titus and 2 Corinthians are the only places that I know of where Paul signs off with Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
2 Corinthians is where Paul calls the Spirit the mind of God which is also the mind of Christ.
I believe the mind of God was given to Christ. (All things are given to me by My Father.)
In other words, the Spirit is not a person.
But it's okay with me to think of Him as a person just don't persecute me.
The Creeds don't allow that tolerance. (Unless you believe these things, you cannot be saved).
John 16 calls the Comforter/Advocate a 'He 'that the Father will send after Jesus ascends to heaven.
Missler says the definite article (the 'The') of the Spirit is always neuter. In other words, an 'it.'
First John requires belief in Father and Son as God but not Spirit but there is a Spirit (the water, blood and Spirit are in one accord).
Jesus is called the Comforter/Advocate which is not capitalized in bibles so as not to disagree with John 16.
The Granville/Sharp rule of Greek grammar makes Jesus as God in Titus.
This exception to Paul's rule of calling Jesus Christ but not God (Jesus has the fullness of the diety - Colossians),
The fullness was given;
This exception become the rule that informs Trinitarians interpretation of the Godhead.
If this was a medieval heresy trial, how do you think it would play out?
Enoch 987 understands the Bible but he goes against the authority of the church.
Now if you persecute me and I am right, what does that say about your walk with God?
Let's deal with this first...
Questioning you is not persecuting you. Challenging your understanding, reasoning, or logic is not persecuting you. Even calling you a heretic (I'm not, by the way), if the term fits, is not persecuting you. If you feel persecuted already, you need to grow a much thicker skin.
If I say, "My Dad taught me everything I know" does that mean he taught me absolutely every last little piece of information that I have ever learned, or is it simply an idiom? In the same way, when Jesus says, "All things are given to me by My Father", does that mean every aspect of His being as well? What about the parts of Him that are inherent to His divine nature? The Spirit of God is not a "thing" in the same sense that a rock or a piece of clothing, or even the Church, are "things".
This indicates a lack of understanding of Greek, and a derivative misunderstanding of the English. Neuter in Greek does not necessarily mean non-person; it means non-gendered. English doesn't have that concept for persons, and assumes that anything that is ungendered is a non-person and therefore a thing. It does not follow.
Capitalization doesn't exist in the original texts. It is a choice of the translators, and cannot help but reflect their theology. Don't take the presence or absence of it as significant by itself.
I would encourage you to spend some time studying the attributes of the Spirit in Scripture... exhaustively. Don't start with the assumption that the Spirit is a non-person; rather, do the study and see where it leads you. You may be surprised.
Questioning you is not persecuting you. Challenging your understanding, reasoning, or logic is not persecuting you. Even calling you a heretic (I'm not, by the way), if the term fits, is not persecuting you. If you feel persecuted already, you need to grow a much thicker skin.
If I say, "My Dad taught me everything I know" does that mean he taught me absolutely every last little piece of information that I have ever learned, or is it simply an idiom? In the same way, when Jesus says, "All things are given to me by My Father", does that mean every aspect of His being as well? What about the parts of Him that are inherent to His divine nature? The Spirit of God is not a "thing" in the same sense that a rock or a piece of clothing, or even the Church, are "things".
This indicates a lack of understanding of Greek, and a derivative misunderstanding of the English. Neuter in Greek does not necessarily mean non-person; it means non-gendered. English doesn't have that concept for persons, and assumes that anything that is ungendered is a non-person and therefore a thing. It does not follow.
Capitalization doesn't exist in the original texts. It is a choice of the translators, and cannot help but reflect their theology. Don't take the presence or absence of it as significant by itself.
I would encourage you to spend some time studying the attributes of the Spirit in Scripture... exhaustively. Don't start with the assumption that the Spirit is a non-person; rather, do the study and see where it leads you. You may be surprised.
Jesus said to baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Term " IN the name of " is actually by HIS authority DO this . Do what? Baptize. In His authority preach the Gospel, In His another be baptized in the Holy Spirit.
When Peter said in Act 2:38
" “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [a]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter said this so they will Idenfy with Christ the Savior and Bpatizer in the Holy Spirit found in the Gospel of John chapter 1 :33
"I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
Peter was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ who is LORD. They did not know this but as many today accept the idea of existence God , that does not mean they have a relationship with God. Peter was telling them Who Jesus is and who to put your faith in for salvation the promised by God to come; said in His word and by the Prophets. Jesus is Lord which baptism is a public announcement you have confessed and put your trust in Christ for salvation to receive eternal life And the gift of the Holy Spirit.
When Peter said in Act 2:38
" “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the [a]remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter said this so they will Idenfy with Christ the Savior and Bpatizer in the Holy Spirit found in the Gospel of John chapter 1 :33
"I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’
Peter was preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ who is LORD. They did not know this but as many today accept the idea of existence God , that does not mean they have a relationship with God. Peter was telling them Who Jesus is and who to put your faith in for salvation the promised by God to come; said in His word and by the Prophets. Jesus is Lord which baptism is a public announcement you have confessed and put your trust in Christ for salvation to receive eternal life And the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Let's deal with this first...
Questioning you is not persecuting you. Challenging your understanding, reasoning, or logic is not persecuting you. Even calling you a heretic (I'm not, by the way), if the term fits, is not persecuting you. If you feel persecuted already, you need to grow a much thicker skin.
If I say, "My Dad taught me everything I know" does that mean he taught me absolutely every last little piece of information that I have ever learned, or is it simply an idiom? In the same way, when Jesus says, "All things are given to me by My Father", does that mean every aspect of His being as well? What about the parts of Him that are inherent to His divine nature? The Spirit of God is not a "thing" in the same sense that a rock or a piece of clothing, or even the Church, are "things".
This indicates a lack of understanding of Greek, and a derivative misunderstanding of the English. Neuter in Greek does not necessarily mean non-person; it means non-gendered. English doesn't have that concept for persons, and assumes that anything that is ungendered is a non-person and therefore a thing. It does not follow.
Capitalization doesn't exist in the original texts. It is a choice of the translators, and cannot help but reflect their theology. Don't take the presence or absence of it as significant by itself.
I would encourage you to spend some time studying the attributes of the Spirit in Scripture... exhaustively. Don't start with the assumption that the Spirit is a non-person; rather, do the study and see where it leads you. You may be surprised.
Questioning you is not persecuting you. Challenging your understanding, reasoning, or logic is not persecuting you. Even calling you a heretic (I'm not, by the way), if the term fits, is not persecuting you. If you feel persecuted already, you need to grow a much thicker skin.
If I say, "My Dad taught me everything I know" does that mean he taught me absolutely every last little piece of information that I have ever learned, or is it simply an idiom? In the same way, when Jesus says, "All things are given to me by My Father", does that mean every aspect of His being as well? What about the parts of Him that are inherent to His divine nature? The Spirit of God is not a "thing" in the same sense that a rock or a piece of clothing, or even the Church, are "things".
This indicates a lack of understanding of Greek, and a derivative misunderstanding of the English. Neuter in Greek does not necessarily mean non-person; it means non-gendered. English doesn't have that concept for persons, and assumes that anything that is ungendered is a non-person and therefore a thing. It does not follow.
Capitalization doesn't exist in the original texts. It is a choice of the translators, and cannot help but reflect their theology. Don't take the presence or absence of it as significant by itself.
I would encourage you to spend some time studying the attributes of the Spirit in Scripture... exhaustively. Don't start with the assumption that the Spirit is a non-person; rather, do the study and see where it leads you. You may be surprised.
I believe that Jesus was chosen (Luke 9:35).
This means that Jesus was chosen.
Trinitarians have to interpret this as symbolic.
I believe before In the Beginning, Jesus was chosen from the other sons of God.
God the Father knew that Jesus is the obedient son.
This upset Satan who then rebelled.
I don't take sides on whether Satan is a created angel or an uncreated son of God or a created son of God.
My opinion is sons of God are uncreated and angels are created but it doesn't matter for this discussion.
Satan rebelled because he thought that he would be chosen to be called firstborn.
What happened in the heaven is played out with Cain and Abel;
and is why God the Father always choses the last born son to be ancestors for Jesus.
(Shem, Abram, Isaac, Jacob.) Joseph's son Ephraim was given the right hand blessing over his older brother Manasseh by Jacob.
Jesus' titles and roles change but he remains the obedient son.
His nature of obedience to the Father is what makes Him the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13).
His office changes throughout Hebrews.
1 Corinthians 2, Paul compares the Spirit of God to the spirit of man.
"Who can know what a man thinks except for his spirit. The same for God.""We have the mind of Christ (which is the Spirit of God)."
So do you believe that Jesus on earth didn't know things that the Father knew unless the Father told Him?
Do you believe the spirit of a man is another person?
Why did Jesus spend so much time in prayer?
Pentecostal Oneness believers can't answer.
From my perspective, Trinitarians can't either.
Jesus had the authority to forgive sins on earth after the Father forgave the sins in heaven.
In John 20, Jesus tells Mary Magdelene that the Father is her Father and My Father and her God and My God.
I take this literally that the Father is Jesus' God.
The Father calls the Son "O God" in Psalms 45:6-7 requited in Hebrew 1:8-9.
My conclusion is if God can take mortal man and turn him into a son of God;
God can make a son of God into His equal.
Trinitarians are taught a system that is close to what the Bible teaches but the firstborn son doctrine is closer to God's truth.
My understanding can't be taught because of censorship or persecution or reporting heretics to the site monitors.
I'm sure you can find verses that make Jesus' office of God eternal.
I agree with John 1:1, In the beginning, Jesus was God and He was with God the Father.
Thanks for straightening me out on the neuter definite article for the Holy Spirit.
German and Spanish have the masculine , feminine and neuter that don't always match the noun but sometimes they do match.
If you internet search "Eusebius My Name" you will find an nonTrinitarian website that explains that Eusebius writings (he is known as the church father who wrote the church's history. 7 times in his writings, it reads to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit but 14 times, he writes that Jesus said to baptize in the My Name.
The earliest manuscripts have Matthew 28 as baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
The earliest manuscripts have Matthew 28 as baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."
