Jubei's assesments of the Gospel

Elohim

The title or name Elohim is the plural form of the word “El or Elohah” and is the first name given for GOD in the Tanakh. 

It is unique to Hebraic thinking and occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient semetic language.

The masculine plural ending does not mean “GODS” when referring to the true God of Israel however, as the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular. Considering trinity though, the form indeed allows for the plurality within the godhead.

In the traditional jewish view Elohim is the name of God as creator and judge of the universe. (Gen1:1-2:4)

In the second creation story, the name YHVH is given as the semetic root name for god that demonstrates Gods closeness to mankind.

Elohim is combined with other words to provide additional descriptions about god. These other names or titles for god are sometimes called “construct forms” indicating that they are constructed from the base name Elohei

Elohim = The plural form of EL, meaning “Strong One”

Elohei = a “construct form” that never appears without a qualifying descriptor.

Ben Elohim = The Son of God

a.       Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. – spoken by peter

b.      Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Question by the court.

c.       John 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God –spoken by peter

 

A challenge had been issued to any adherent of the oneness doctrine by another website I found. It read:

“I challenge any Oneness adherent to find otherwise ! How can all three be attributed to being the creator if there is only one existing at a time?”

Hmm, one existing at a time? Interesting observation isn’t it? So lets look at this particular position, Is there ever an instance in which the spirit and the father exist in the same space at the same time, as I clarify the challenge a bit.

The father in creation as the bible reference the person who does the creating as “Lord God”

A Son of god is any person indwelled with the power of god in order to perform the desire of god. So a son of god only existed as long as humans existed? No angels are the sons of god as well as men who’s initial law was to perform the will of god in procreation prior to the flood. Remember the statement god made that “My spirit shall not always strive with man”? Genesis 6:3

That was god recalling his power making men sons of god, and beginning to remove the old law and form a new one that would make men sons of god. Before that statement, men were called “sons of god” after that statement they were never called that again.  So we seem to have a validation of the thought that the father and the son never existed together, or do he? The Christ is called the “anointed one”(messiah)  in Isaiah he is called “immanu – El” or “with us-God” so let us look at the “son of god reference in practical terms.

The son of God is anyone indwelled with the power of god to perform the will of god, there are many sons of god some are angels and others are the fathers of Israel, anyone who had a name changed by god is considered a son of god for instance. Does this mean that that Jesus existed with God since his name was declared before his birth? No, no one else existed with god until he created a son of God a star. The first son of God created was Lucifer was it not?  Before him no other thing was created, he was the son of the morning, the first star now the question becomes, if jesus was considered the “bright and morning star (revelation 22:16) and Lucifer the son of the morning (Isaiah 14:12) then Lucifer prior to the fall was a son of god as well. This is a significant development because the argument is that how can the son of god be present with the father if at no instance does it show that they existed together. And As I have shown, Sons of god did exist with the father, maybe not in the capacity that one would have us to believe, but in the truth I have shown it.

The Holy spirit as the indwelling presence in a location has always been with god because where god dwells is him. So if the holy-ghost is the presence of god in heaven then the holy ghost is God.

But it says in Matthew 1:18 that the woman was found with child of the holy ghost” does it not? So then is the holy ghost something altogether different? Did Mary speak in tongues when the holy ghost inhabited her womb?  It does say that Elisabeth spoke words or made a proclaimed Mary as the vessel of God’s choosing.

But once again did they speak in tongues?

The answer is yes and no, you see, the old testament has three reference in which the holy spirit was placed in man, Psalm 51:11 in which David testified of his indwelling by the holy spirit, Isaiah 63:10 and 11 in which Isaiah detail the working of God with the children of Israel and how he dealt with Moses by placing his spirit in him.

The Tanaukh references an activity that accompanies the placing of the holy spirit in men as shekinah, this is witnessed by the person receiving the “holy-spirit” speaking or uttering the things of god, and being presented with the law of God directly from God in a finite human frame.

So if Elisabeth received the holy ghost, she had to have displayed on some level the activity which is identified as being synonymous with shakan or shekinah, both her and Mary.

As he states that all three (father, son and Holy-ghost) were responsible for creation.

-          I agree that all three titles were present in the one god as God is only one.  Not in the sense that the Godhead is three individual persons agreeing in which manner creation is to be presented at any time, for In job God plainly states the question, “who stands in counsel with him? (Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.) It is not when we..but when I singular.

-           Throughout Jobs interaction with God’s declaring himself who he was, God never said “ we did this or we did that, ” it was always I, or Who as in “who do you think did this or that”. There is a reference however in which god in creation dealing with Adam twice spoke as though he were speaking to more than one being.  Genesis 1:26, this seems however to be more akin to God speaking to all that he had created up to that point as though they heard and agreed with God’s proclamation. So if we look back at what he had already created, we see he was speaking to every living creature on the land and sea, the day and night, both the earth and heaven birds and herbs.

-          And In Genesis 3:22 in which God stated that man had gained knowledge of himself and his abilities just as they had. He had obtained awareness of his actions as being good or evil.

-           Isaiah 43:11 states that I, even I am the lord; and beside me there is no other (saviour) while

-          Isaiah 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and beside me [there is] no God.

-          44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared [it]? ye [are] even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, [there is] no God; I know not [any].

-          Isaiah 45:5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

-          45:6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else.

-          45:21 Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me.

-          Hosea13:4 Yet I [am] the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for [there is] no saviour beside me.

Now I recognize the immediate criticism will be that I am using the scriptures incorrectly, that he’s saying there is no other “way” available but besides his way, or that no other manner is available for assistance but God himself, not that he is saying there is only one God.

But he is saying exactly that there is no other being in heaven that provides salvation in anyway shape or form other than HIM.

Creation existed because of HIM. The functions that work through him are his functions of work, this includes indwelling himself with the power to perform the work of creation, placing the spirit of creation into this creation and coming up with the thought to create this thing or that.

So in all this the very activity of creation consists of three parts, Defining what is to be created, creating that thing which is to be and providing for that thing that is created, Father in design, son of god as the title calls for in implementation, and the spirit of god in defining the abilities of the creation.

All things that exist are of these three facets of creation.

So the question is answered, The one God creates alone and that work is done in three steps or functions as planning, creation and instruction, or father, son and holy-ghost. This is also synonymous with:

1. Repentance in planning, establishing your walk with Christ.
2. Baptism in creation as being newly born in the water by the spirit.
3. Receiving the holy ghost as instruction in the Shekinah, or utterances of the law.

There is also the position in I john 5:7-8 in which the three bear witness, yet this is a reference to the law of bearing witness in regards to “confirming” a position of presentation. In that 3 witnesses are required to bring forth the sentence of death upon an individual while one witness is able to remove the same sentence of death.  (Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15)

Deut 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deut 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

From the above verses you will see that the idea of two or three bearing witness is originated from the law and it confirms an accusation unto ones guilt. If I use this statement correctly in I John 5:7-8 it would read as though john is saying that the three that bear record in heaven which account for the sins we perform against the law of God and that the “one” that these three are is Jesus.

Now how do I make that claim?

Deuteronomy states that by one witness the thing which stands as “convicted” by three witnesses will be spared from death. The passage above is not saying that the father son and holy-ghost are one or are in agreement, but that the three convict and the one acquits.

I fault “oneness” doctrinal interpretations for not presenting the doctrine well enough for the major errors in the interpretation of the doctrine even though the revelation is given only unto those called out of sin by God as it always has been. Not explaining it well or trying to use Trinitarian logic to explain the Apostles doctrine is destined to fail. You must use the approaches which exist in the biblical tomes as the whole. If you just use the bible and discount all other tomes of reference you are shorting yourself in reliable information, even as the holy-ghost must lead you through the scriptures it will be consistent with all other sources of itself.

The Trinitarian explanation to the creativity that sustains mankind on this earth provided for us is that:

1. The father was the source in the creation ( I state that this is planning in the thought of what was to be that is to be)
2. The Son was involved in the creation as everything was made through him (Yet sons of god perform the work of god upon command or by divine understanding, yet as Jesus was the “son of god” being indwelled with the power of god, It is right to say that God created man through the word being spoken which became flesh unto our salvation)
3. The holy ghost was involved in the creation as “by his spirit made he the heavens” (which is to say that by his command which is the word of god or “the law of god” the heavens exist for he separated the heavens from the earth by his law, he created them then told them what they were to do.)

I hope this explains things a bit better.

If not then maybe this simple illustration god just dropped into my head helps:

One day in Sunday school a child asked a teacher a question “ what is the difference between oneness and trinitarianism”. Wondering where the question was coming from at first the teacher being wise and patient looked at the child and said, ok let me explain…”Class we are going to make some pottery” and taking out a hand full of clay, the teacher gave the child a lump of clay. “Now everyone come here”, as the teacher called everyone over to two desks, at one desk she gave the one child that asked the question a lump, and at the other she called out three kids and gave them one lump of clay between them. The teacher said “make an animal or human character and tell me what job is after you finish it”.The one single child made a simple dog out of his clay, and the three kids together after a few moments taken to decide on whether they would break the clay apart and make one thing each, or work together and make only one thing, finally decided upon what that thing would be began to work together.After an a few minutes, the two groups presented their work to the teacher, and the teacher asked the child who worked alone, what it was he created. The reply was “a dog and he will be my pet”, “ohh” and what will the pet do? Asked the teacher “he will do what all pets do, love me and play with me and be my pet”, ok said the teacher then the other group said “we made a clown and it will play in a circus”. The teacher then asked the three children one by what the clown would do in the circus and the first said, “he will play with a puppy and be very funny”, the other said,” he will ride in a red fire engine and make everyone laugh” and the third said, “he will do flips and jump high in the air and play with a puppy”.  The teacher looked at the one child who asked the question earlier and asked “now do you see the difference between trinity and oneness”?No the child answered, the teacher said…In trinity three must agree to do one thing, while in oneness only one person is responsible for everything, So if our father is our father, then the son of god cannot love you like a father can, only like a brother, and the holy ghost cannot love you like a father or brother more like a friend. Even as they all agree and fashion one thing they still maintain a different perspective of the one agreed upon work

This is how we ultimately view the relationship with limited understanding of aspects. Yet we leave it to mysteries to show the relationship of how the three exist one to another. It does not matter how many theologians maintained the correctness of Trinitarian doctrine. The bottom line is that there can be no continuity among three separate perspectives until the very end of the directive is attained and even then the course is distinct. there are no three heads and one body, nor three bodies with the same face. these are gnostic depictions. there is only ONE being, and the one being does all the work

The three in heaven which bare witness, give three separate accounts of which the accused has performed spirit for the he unrepentant nature of the sins, word as for the sins unto the inappropriate nature of the flesh, and blood as unrighteous desires of our heart,but the one who stands in as the “propitiation” for us and takes over as the accused on our behalf, becomes the sacrifice and unto the spirit it is repentance, unto the flesh it is cleanliness, and unto the blood it is righteousness.

These are contrary to the work of both the son and the holy ghost, if indeed the father loves us like a father, and the son loves us like a father, and the holy ghost loves us like a father, and we know we have only one father, how can we have three which cannot?

Then the son cannot be as loving as the father towards us, does he lest resent in some way the work placed before him in our salvation? The scriptures do not say so. Is the holy-ghost completely neutral in its work unto mankind…No the holy-ghost is dispensed out of love for the “creation”, It would be safe to say that God does not employ the opinion of anyone else in his decisions. Yet he dispenses his gift as he sees fit, not as we request it, even though we can. Did not even at some point those lost to perdition requested forgiveness yet none was found, and therefore resolved themselves unto their station.

 Therefore these three must be the one god in completeness. Not in the sense that they share functionality or prestige or power, for the son has no more power than that which is given him, and the spirit has no more power than that which it is guided by, the father contains all power to be both son and spirit, to think of the work, to do the work and give the work meaning.

 

Now with this said, I dare not say that I don’t recognize that the doctrine of trinity has come upon as such compromise unto its validity as this before, it has and then some and has proven it’s strength to this day.

Yet there are serious flaws in the manner of which interpretation has been upheld even as those who uphold the doctrine, after serious study” doubt the validity to some extent. Resting upon the proposal to “just believe in faith” is to say, take my word for it because I am a greater theologian than you on these matters”, my friends that is nico-laiten doctrine. Many people always speak the 2 timothy verse, study to show thyself approved, but they refuse to accept what they study.  And that studying is not done by your own unction, but given direction through the “holy-ghost.

So if you don’t have the “holy-ghost” to lead you through the studying how can you show approval of the gospel? What, did you think that was written to “toot you own horn”? I told you people aren’t reading the gospel right.

2 timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

It says the word of truth, not the interpretations of the words written.

-Peace be unto him who reads and hears.

I'm gonna try to get this one done, but having a lot of interruptions.

may take me another week or so.

If you want to speak to me in blog manner or comments please do so, or if you want to banter over reference discoveries you can send me an email at Jubei3@verizon.net

if they dont get too crazy I'll respond, but I dont argue, I simply present findings as they are paralleled through 2 or more references. I wont validate anything from one reference, and I tend not to accept writings of already agreed upon positions unless there is an agreement on the matter at an earlier time before the writer mentioned it.

Logical reasonings or conclusions dont persuade validated truths, thus lengthy dissertations of dispute must be made with relevancy on the point at hand.

 

-peace

Baptism

This is a touchy subject that will garner a lot of second and third guessing on the part of the reader. I will be very distinct in my points as a lot of people tend to do more “hindsight” evaluations on the matter.

Baptism has its roots in Jewish law, regarding the cleansing or washing or offerings and bodies in order to make them capable for gods use. However god was to use something in regards to sacrificial offerings that thing was washed as ceremonies in accordance with the manner outlined in the mosaic law.

So how many baptisms are there?

We must define between baptisms and washings, immersion baptism and sprinkling baptisms are used for different reasons.

The idea of baptism by immersion

a.       baptism ought to be by immersion because the meaning of the Greek word, for baptize is to immerse.

b.      What baptism symbolizes, confirms the idea of immersion.  Baptism, it is stressed is a sign of spiritual regeneration, death to the old nature, and resurrection to newness of life.  And therefore the best sign for that is to be immersed.

c.       The New Testament practice of baptism affirms immersion as the proper mode. 

d.      The practice of the early church affirms immersion.

The Idea of baptism by Sprinkling

-This originates from the Old testament perspective of “sprinkling the mercy seat” for the atonement of sins. As you will find out it is a practice of an “unrepeatable” baptism.

Blood Baptism  - the sprinkling of the blood of the covenant at Sinai;

Exodus

So if we look at this we see that blood baptism is used in the reconciling through obedience to the law or in agreements to the word of God. In these agreements the blood sealed the covenant.Water Baptism – Consecration of the levites (preists)

Numbers 8

8:22 And after that went the Levites in to do their service in the tabernacle of the congregation before Aaron, and before his sons: as the LORD had commanded Moses concerning the Levites, so did they unto them.

The water baptism is used for preparation for service unto God’s tabernacle. It was to make the priests clean enough to be acceptable by god to work in his presence.  So if I may paraphrase this concept, No man may serve the lord without baptism. Now think on this, If we are the church and the church is Christ’ and we are to serve Christ, then who’s name should we be baptized in? If we serve the church by our mere presence and by witness of Christ, in our being in the church, we are bound in the performance of being baptized. It is not a formality it is a prerequisite. Before you can be considered a member of the body of Christ you must be ordained for service in that body and that body has a name, the body of Jesus Christ.

Now I know that’s a hard statement because a lot of churches have people serving in the name of the lord and they have not been baptized or they have been baptized in the “titles” or attributes of God. My point is that God does not recognize service in his kingdom without that person having been baptized into service to the king of that kingdom. If we baptized in the name of Yahweh, it would not be acceptable. Why, because Yahweh as a name was not given a kingdom. Jehovah was not given a kingdom either, God does not have a name by which his kingdom falls under, he is god and creates kingdoms, heaven and earth he created, so what kingdom does God himself rule over? The kingdom of heaven has been given to Jesus’ name. So God gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to the “son of god” (title of the one given authority and power to perform gods will) in the name of Jesus. Sounds like I’m saying that God and Jesus are two separate people, but I’m not, I’m saying they are two separate “NAMES” for the same entity.

A name identifies the work of a person that exists. We give names to our children to identify the working of that individual from the work of another human being. Many times throughout the bible God changed the name of a person that was to be ordained to perform a certain work on his behalf, Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel and others. Jesus was the work of “god in flesh” while Yahweh was the work of God in the tabernacle and Jehovah was the work of god in operations. We are baptized in the name of Jesus because that is the work of the kingdom unto salvation.

 So what biblical verses are there that support this thought.

Names change

Genisis 3:20 – Adam named his wife eve because she was the “mother of all things”

Genesis 17:5 God changes abram to Abraham calling him “the father of many nations”

Genesis 17:15sarai to sarah, Genesis 17:19 Issac, Genesis 35:10 Jacob to Israel

Son of God title justification

Genesis 6:2 Sons of God reference the title he called men upon the earth for angels do not copulate with humans. There is no law of creation in which this is accomplished under either in heaven or earth.

Daniel 7:13 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God regarding the burning of the Hebrew boys for their offense to the king of Babylon. The one with the three was said to be like the “son of god”. It is used as a brick in the wall to support trinity doctrine. The problem is that none of the passages in the Old Testament support the idea that there was a particular son of God, even the wrestling match with Jacob at Peniel does not account for the visage of an individual person separate to god. What he does say is that he saw “God” himself face to face and did not die, I submitt:

So what was seen? I would state the same person Daniel shows in:

 Daniel  7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

This is where Daniel saw the one who held the title of “Son of Man” receiving the kingdom from God unto the salvation of mankind. Its the person who is called the “son of man” that would inherit the kingdom of god. His name is Jesus, so Jesus was that son of man, I submit that at jesus’ baptism The shekinah of God rested upon the head of Jesus and proclaimed that He was pleased

Submitt

Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:10-11, Luke 3:21-22, John 1:31-34 Now 34 calls him the “son of god” as interpreted by some that he was an individual person separate from god, but it is a title he is using.Matthew 8:20, 9:6, 11:19, 12:8, 12:40, 13:37, 13:41, 16:13, 16:27, 17:22

As you can see there are a number more, that outline that Jesus was the Son of man and some that equate him as the “son of god” as well, seen by Daniel and prophesied of in Isaiah.

John the Baptizer

Notice that Baptism as under the Rabbinical usage of baptism was to establish a person for service as cleansing. Repentance was established by prayer.

John the baptizer stated that his baptism was unto “repentance” (Matthew 3:11) and here we see John baptizing, but I also said that many mandeans were baptized by john as well, historically speaking.

A fleeting examination of John’s baptism using the Pharisees who came to question him in John 1:19-28 shows that the understood reasoning I spoke of earlier can be validated. They came to him and the first thing they asked john was “who did he think he was” Who art thou (john 1:19)

They then reply after john answers them, if he was Elias, the one prophesied as returning, He stated no, so the Pharisees and saducees had the intention of defining just what John was baptizing people for. They knew of Mandeanism and the Essenes, but John provoked a particular difference, he used the scriptures and the validation of the scriptures in completion in his baptism. He got it right, and they needed to know how. They then asked who he was so they could tell their superiors and debate and decide if they were to bring formal charges or such against him or condemn his work as blasphemy. If you notice they asked him why he was baptizing people if he wasn’t the Christ of Elias. Why was he practicing presenting the peoples confessions to god if he did not have the authority to do so is what they asked him in a nut shell.

John answered something that was a clue to “baptism of Jordan”, that he baptized with water, not blood.

Matthew  3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire

Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

So two witnesses exist proclaiming that John the baptizer’ baptism was unto repentance. The Mandean/Sabean Gnostic followers venerate John the baptizer as a patron of their belief, they perform frequent baptism' of Jordan, of which the baptism that John performed in cleansing themselves from daily sins, unto repentance but the catalyst or the person that is to reconcile the sin is different under mandeanism than it was under John.

Baptism of Jordan –Baptism of John the baptizer

Mandeans – those who wash themselves, were the people called the Sabeans, they followed the doctrine of John the baptizer, and they washed themselves in accordance to the “baptism of Jordan”. Many jews at the time also followed the doctrine of John, as it was seen as a contrarian point to the manner of the law in which sacrifices were made in the temple by the priests and repentance was once a year, or you had to pay a heavy cost for the sacrifice to be acceptable by the priests.

Looking at why God established Johns doctrine is a long look in and of itself, so I won’t be long on it, but in a nutshell, the corruption of the temple, prompted a new way to reconcile mankind unto repentance through the baptism of Jordan, and reconciled further the temples mannerism of reconciliation through sacrifices through Jesus being the final acceptable sacrifice in his baptism. This may be considered a position of hindsight being 20/20, but  oh well, since Jesus was baptized, we too must be baptized in his name to identify with his offering. In all honesty, Jesus was the last baptism deemed acceptable by God for the remission of sins. Therefore anyone not baptized in his name, may not be considered for service to the kingdom. You cant be baptized in the name of "insert your name" because your name isnt acceptable unt god, nor in the name of an apostle or in the name of a follower of an apostle or any other person of fame.

What does the “baptism of Jordan” mean?

Well, It identifies the third aspect of mankinds/isreals baptizing or the cleansing by passing through water. There were three events in the cultivation of mankinds relationship with god and there is a reason water is used extensively with cleansing. I will cover the three events first.

1.    The flood – Noah passed through the flood. Genesis 7,8

2.    Israel’ exodus from Egypt through the sea of reeds. Exodus 14

3.    Israel’ passing into the promised land through the Jordan river. Numbers 33:51-56

The baptism of Jordan earmarked the possessing of gods promise unto the children of Israel, the culmination of their sojourning and their repentance as those in the wilderness died and those who of their youth at the time of the transgressions that caused the wandering in the wilderness came of age and offered repentance through their obedience to Gods law. Remember in repentance a part of you must die in your being. Your heart must be changed. And the heart of the children of Israel had changed as those who disturbed God died and those who remained obeyed.

David’ heart changed after his sin was brough out by Nathan and the prayer he made requesting gods forgiveness outlined that request.The baptism is performed in the Jordan river as flowing water is required and it signifies receiving repentance or possessing the promise god gives us. So as you can see the baptism of Jordan served it’s purpose explicitly, the promise was that the people would receive the messiah, the one who would accomplish the final promise to mankind of reconciliation. This was evidenced in the cloud that descended and the words spoken after the baptism of jesus, that God was well pleased..or that God accepted the repentance of mankind in the baptism of jesus Christ. Notice that soon after jesus baptism God allowed the conclusion of Johns doctrine with his death. John said that he needed to be baptized by Jesus but jesus said let the scriptures be fulfilled. Had jesus not been baptized, then the acceptance of repentance through baptism would not be available.Repentance is the change of heart, baptism is the presentation of the sacrifice or blood offering for acceptance of that repentance (change).

We saw that blood baptism was used to seal man to the law in compliance to gods word and that water baptism was used to cleanse man and identify them in doing the work of God in his tabernacle or church or kingdom.

We have not seen at anytime where the fathers of the children of Israel were baptized. Abraham no formal baptism, Issac no formal baptism nor Jacob had any formal baptism. So what true purpose does baptism serve, proving that it must be performed as this question constantly pops up.

- I mention this because some people have raised the point of contention to baptism along these lines.

The fathers of the nation of isreal were individuals, they were tribes, but all that accompanied them were of the family of abraham Issac and jacob. so as god is concerned, when he dealt with abraham he dealt with everyone that existed with abraham in his family. or the seeds of these fathers of the nation. Baptism wasnt really required and in all practicality neither was faith. They had evidence in sigh mind and first hand encounters with God himself. Who needs faith if god is speaking to you in words. You know he's there, faith comes into play when you are not presented face to face with someone yet you "hope" that you will at some moment.

The new testament

Established service

The process of establishment for service unto God in the old testament was as follows”… Before the Levites could be given to the Lord, however, they had to be purified.  How did the purification happen?   (1) Sprinkling of water and the shaving of their hair and washing of their clothes  (2) The representatives of Israel laid their hands upon them, identifying the nation with them, and they were offered to the Lord as a wave offering.  (3) Before the beginning of their service, they offered an atonement offering for their sin. ***Reference  (Numbers chapter 8:12)

Note* it is the meaning of baptism by which the levites were sprinkled not the manner taken by the simple sprinkling of water.

So can a man be presented for service to god being sprinkled in baptism or immersed or does it matter? The above really doesn’t prove that it must be done.

Baptism must be by immersion.

Reason for washing /cleansing

Leviticus 16 outlines the mannerism in which Aaron was to perform atonement for the sins of Israel.

They were to wash themselves both he and the scapegoat releaser before they would be considered clean. This washing is called in Aramaic “Rachats” meaning a primitive root; to lave (the whole or a part of a thing). Therefore when we say that to cleanse something we must use the form of cleansing something in it’s original verbiage. This is to wash the whole thing or part of a thing. In our bodies we are to wash the whole body. Sprinkling upon the head is anointing, pouring upon the head is anointing, we don’t anoint in baptism we wash, cover, bury the body of the man repenting in his change.

Point – The easiest way to prove that baptism must take place by immersion is in what some call the “great commission”. I find that position troubling only because the very proof that the statement made was altered does not sit well with me. It is not that the intent does not occur, it is the manner of translation that stick out as the problem.

Matthew

*this passage in Matthew is considered the great commission, but It does not reflect the continuity of the other gospels. In each witness it is quoted that Jesus said do these things in his name, not in the name of the…titles. The original writing does not state that we were to baptize in the name of the father son and holy ghost but in the name of Jesus.Eusebius initially translated the passage as “'Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.' How is this known? Very simply read the writings of Eusebius between 300-336 ad in the commentaries of the psalms, Isaiah and his Demonstratio Evangelica, his theophany in the book, the History of the Church and in Panegyric of the Emperor Constantine.

 In Origens Work outlined in Greek translations the first part of the verse in Matthew 28:19 is there but it stops short of completion, thus showing that the portion “in my name” has been struck out. It was in the writings of the Gnostic Theodotus who wrote the following :'And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  

Justin Matyr baptized in Jesus Name, and not in the triune formulae. 

-frequency-17 times does Jesus use the phrase “In my name” Not once is the phrase “in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost used”

-Argument - Each baptism performed by the apostles in acts were performed in the name of Jesus, Not a single one was performed in the name of the father, son and holy ghost.

-Analogy – There is nothing analogous (equivalent )in any biblical passages that suggest there is a commonality with baptism in the name of the father son and holy ghost…there is with the”in jesus name” practice.

 I share the following conclusion- That baptism in the threefold manner does not prove the expression of faith nor the identification process proven on the merit of  Judean consistency and the law of atonement and reconciliation. Yet it serves a man made creed established to solidify growing dissention of the church and to unify behind one solid banner the idea of the “world church” intention.

I understand why it was done, I disagree with what was done.

Mark 16

(Now some will say that this does not state that we are to baptize in Jesus’ name, But I state that it is in his name that those things that shall identify believers as such are done in his name, that included being baptized.)

Luke

(Even still some will say this is just stating that Jesus is telling them to speak of his work, not perform repentence in the name of jesus nor baptism in the name of jesus, yet I say it also details the mannerism of baptism by spreading by way of preaching that in Jesus name are the remission of sins and repentance to be performed, which baptism outlines.)

John

This shows that the references to the accepted corresponding event in Matthew, is not supported by the renderings  of the other apostles nor does it have support through the acts of the apostles.

Sprinkling and Immersion11 repeatble baptisms extending

Lets look at the types of baptisms that occurred , remember I said there were

The sprinkling practice in both the water and blood baptisms showed a symbolic reference towards the proclamation of identification of an event for the nation as a whole. It was not important to distinctively sprinkle each individual, when as god saw it that he blessed the nation as a whole. If so then sprinkling the blood upon the mercy seat rather than to have every person sprinkle it was sufficient and that the sprinkle the blood in the direction of the nation was sufficient for the reconciling men to god.

Immersion however was personal and ritual in both. Personal because the individual needed to be cleansed in order to work in gods service by his choice, and ritual as the work we was to do would benefit the kingdom on the whole. In our baptism today we find the same concept as far as god is concerned, In baptism we make a choice to obey god and turn from our prior mind, and we are identified with the sacrifice that God deemed acceptable though it’s cleansing in Jesus (not the father son and holy ghost these are titles and the sacrifice was never a title).

So in baptism we are:

Identified with the sacrifice of acceptance for atonement.

Cleansing from the prior sins performed up to that point (not future)

Presenting our bodies as sacrifices in the name of Jesus (or we should be anyway)

Are people to be baptized again in jesus name if they were already baptized in the triune formulae?

My answer to this is two fold, If God accepted the baptism in the triune formulae based upon your heart then the promise has been dispensed, but remember that paul made it very clear that baptism in any other name is not unto salvation. The name of Jesus must be identified in the establishment to the service of his kingdom. There are no christians in the bible mentioned as a part of the kingdom of God....Only saints!

I would say that to receive the fundamental holy spirit or law of god through his spirit, No you don’t, but to be considered an participating member of his kingdom yes you do.

Does this mean that I can't work in the church if I’m not baptized in the jesus only formulae? No you can work in any church on the planet be it oneness or Trinitarian, but Gods kingdom is not in the edifices that make up the denominations of the day, it is in the hearts and common spirit which exists in each person as they are entered into the church. Baptism identifies one as a partaker in the manner of one thing or another, always has always will.

-peace

Foundations of consistent Gospel

 

This writing has it’s origin in a purpose I originally began towards clarifying positions taken on baptism. In my research I ran upon a site that provided a popular clarification of baptismal practices that outlined the separated churches. In continuing the ogling of the site I found some popular “untruths” elegantly worded, yet not entirely taking into account the full extent of the position of the Apostles words in the letters by Paul. So I figured I’d begin a study, based upon what I have already been made aware through the Holy Ghost then validate that information by both the bible, dissertations of 1^st century church elders and letters written by St Augustine, Eusubius, Origines and Judean historical literature the Tanakuh, and the Aramaic Bible in accompany to the KJV bible. I must state that every biblical passage I use has been validated by both original greek bibles, Aramaic bibles or latin vulgate if required to validate the authenticity of the KJV scriptures even when I don’t write the counterpart scripture in reference, normally if they were too similar in writing I let the KJV stand, but if there is a difference I tended to mark it when it made a significant difference.

*I will not in anyway shape or form present my own perception on any of the following areas that I will be covering, If I can’t find a resource validating the position found on the matter of subject by more than two resources I will only then outline popular opinion.

The Areas I will be covering are only in relation to the “Gospel” not in sober living, or perceptions of mans praises unto God, but they will only be rooted in truths as they pertained to Jews who had converted to Christianity and Gentiles who had converted to Christianity and their churches as Paul wrote of it in the Pauline letters and Activities of the apostles.

What will I be covering?

1.       Repentence

2.       Baptism

3.       Reception of the holy ghost “shekinah”

I am covering those things the apostles taught the churches they established regarding sound doctrine to both Jews and Gentiles as the above targets corresponds to the Jewish law of reconciliation Recognition and change, cleansing and dedication, reconciliation and acceptance. I will cover historical data referencing both Old and New Testaments using the KJV bible only, with both Greek and Judean perspectives lending assistance when needed. I will try not to insert my own perception on the matters and if I do I will clarify them as my own and not as discovered data.

The purpose is to identify certain areas of established perceptions of Gospel as outright miscues or subtle lies to suggest that certain functions of gospel are required or not. Thus presenting a package of complete understanding of the gospel and it’s practices in relation to denominational practices.

The sequence of events in regards to the gospel all flow around the life work and death of Jesus Christ. It is the adherence of the work of Jesus Christ that provides mankind the ability to “reconcile” itself to the word, law and intention of God himself.  It is for the cause of that “reconciliation” that the end product called “redemption” we find the work of God being implemented throughout the Old and New testaments. In order for us to begin we need to understand the roots of the church.

Not the romanticized version but the actual intention of God in providing mankind a way out of his troubled situation and judgment of death.

We all know the story of the “fall of man” or at least have some inkling of Robert Miltons “Paradise lost”, which details a perspective of what must have occurred with regards to man’s interaction with satan and God in the garden of Eden. The result of this was that mankind as a whole lost his place in life, by achieving the judgment of death through disobedience. This story we all know or should know well. So as mankind generationally obtained death through his actions, it would take the death of mankind to satisfy the sentence of death upon mankind.  Each man requiring reconciliation must die in some way shape or form, in order to satisfy the law God established in the garden upon man.

The biblical references to my statements are as follows:

Genesis  (The law)

Genesis (The expulsion)

So as we look at the reason we need reconciliation, although this is general it is not quite as specific in terms of individual salvation. Since not every man is specifically condemned in the same manner as Adam, so when are individual salavific forces come into play?

After the flood God presents the Noahdic laws. Now we are treading into not that often spoken of areas of Gospel. Since most people equate Noah with Judean belief..as we have Gilgamesh’s story to contradict the similar event somewhat, People rarely take time to tell people about the noahdic laws that apply to everyone, which are the general human yet the first laws given that judge mankind specifically as each person performs good or evil. You see before the flood God Judged mankind evenly, across the board be they all good or evil. He marked them all the same. So the judgment of man cut across the land as well.  Example of when God discontinued that law was here:

Genesis

 Repentance

What is repentance, and what does it really mean to “repent” is there something missing in the teaching of the church in regards to what the apostles intended repentance to mean? Let’s look at the definitions of repentance from both the gentile and Judean perspectives.

Gentile/Repentance a.       Summarized that "repentance entails a change in thinking and behavior by people who realize that their present way of think [sic] and behaving is displeasing to God".b.      Repentance functions "to help fulfill God's plan of universal salvation and to help establish a community embracing all people"c.       Repentance is available to all people-Jew and Gentile-and that repentance requires formerly adversarial persons to live in harmonious community with God's people. Judean/Teshuva (is the key concept in the rabbinic view of sin, repentance, and forgiveness)

a.       Repentance requires five elements:

1)      recognition of one's sins as sins (hakarát ha-chét')- It involves knowing that certain actions are sinful, recognizing such actions in oneself as more than just lapses of praxis, and analyzing one's motives for sin as deeply as one can.

2)      remorse (charatá) - It is composed of feelings of regret, of failure to maintain one's moral standards. It may also encompass feelings of being lost or trapped, of anguish, and perhaps of despair at our own sinfulness, as well as a feeling of being alienated from God and from our own deepest spiritual roots, of having abandoned our own inner selves.

3)      desisting from sin (azivát ha-chét') - is neither a moral-intellectual analysis nor a feeling; it is an action. It is a ceasing from sin, a desisting from the patterns of sinful action to which we have become addicted. Desisting from sin involves actually stopping the sinful action, consciously repressing thoughts and fantasies about the sinful activity, and making a firm commitment never to commit the sinful act again. 

 4)      restitution (peira'ón) - the act of making good, as best one can, for any damage done. If one has stolen, one must return the object or pay compensation. If one has damaged another's reputation, one must attempt to correct the injury to the offended party.

5)      confession (vidúi)- two forms: ritual and personal. Ritual confession requires recitation of the liturgies of confession at their proper moments in the prayer life of the community. Personal confession requires individual confession before God as needed or inserting one's personal confession into the liturgy at designated moments. The more specific the personal confession, the better

As you can see the difference between the two are similar yet distinct.  The apostles taught that before everything else, repentance was a required component, evidenced in the heart of mankind and seen and heard through the mouth of the repented being. There are different kinds of repentance however.

One where the intellectual mind of a man is “provided” the understanding that God himself has called him and that he is “in his present state” unworthy of such a calling and recognizes his existence as being outside of the will of God and as such finds a compelling need to reconcile that difference. The other is rooted in fear, the fear of the judgment of God which is rooted in understanding that God rules all things and that without reconciliation we are lost. Still another is rooted in Love, and that is that the perception of God is such that there is an overwhelming need to please the lord for his approval to be rendered.

The problem with the last two of these is that:

First, Repentance that is established through the fear of judgment is fleeting most often and is hard to maintain through moments of great comfort. It is the core reason for the change of heart but should not be the main reason.

Second, Repentance established through love occurs without cessation of current sins, it is rooted in the thought that God will forgive the prior sins because the individual loves god and is therefore self establishing the relationship with God.

In Judaism these two repentances are called” teshuvá mi-yir'á” repentance rooted in fear and “teshuvá mei-ahavá” repentance rooted in love. The apostles show evidence of believing that true repentance is provided not only through the individual choice to accept God but that choice is prompted or made available by Gods selection that while reconciliatory methods are available to all as a free gift, not costing us anything, yet that gift is meted out by God himself based upon certain established criteria he has already set forward. The book “The Sheppard” outlines this belief very distinctly in the vision given multiple times to Hermas regarding the mannerism of building the church, unfortunately people are not taught the Shepard so they lose very sound doctrinal points.If we were to look at an Old Testament example of the incorporated expectancies of God in repentance we could mark King David after Nathan confronted him with the truth of his works in acquiring Bath-she-ba from her husband Uriah. David was contrite and prayed earnestly for god to undo his judgment upon his child. Yet the baby was taken in death, and when the child was gone David got up anointed his own head, cleaned himself off, buried his son and went on with his life. In the passages of Psalm 51 David requests the removal of his transgressions and the restoration of his place in gods kingdom.

 It covers the position of expected repentance by Judean standards.

Psalm 51:1-4 Recognition of sin

Psalm 51:5-8 Desisting from sin

Psalm 51:11-15 Restitution of sin

Psalm 51: Confession of sin

a.       Ritual Psalm 51:4b.      Personal Psalm 51:10-11

This is just one example of a repentance prayer (core) yet nowadays we don’t advocate people actually repenting in this manner just admitting they are wrong and Christianity is right. Many churches of the ecumenical persuasion present repentance as a choice by man based upon communal awareness of the need to change, too often many of them are a watered down perspective of true repentance which provides a sense of repentance that is not on par with apostolic teaching nor the true worship as it reflects back to Judean principles. S

ome will say that we are not Jews, so why should we attempt to measure up to those standards of expectation in our presentation of repentance.

To this I offer that We serve a God that is the same yesterday as today and tomorrow, his laws do not change, they remain the same, therefore the expectations established of those who are to follow these laws are the same, even though the implementation is “refined” through his means. This “refining” does not remove the core ideals and reasons for which things are done, just in how they are performed. We don’t need to build an altar and then start butchering animals to reconcile sins. Yet we do need to have something die. Since Jesus is our sacrifice presented to God as the one that we shall kill and the blood we shall sprinkle upon the mercy seat. We’re not trying to find and dig up those bones or trying to preserve that blood. We are required to present that sacrificial representation in the manner he established as being acceptable.

What we are doing is “invoking” that blood through his name and everything that comes along with it. This invoking plays a serious part in baptism as we continue.  It is still an earnest and contrite heart of MAN, for MAN’s sake that must be presented but we need to be aware of what attributes are associated with a contrite heart to determine in ourselves and to be decent witnesses of the progression of the holy ghost which is to determine If we are truly repentant or just scared. It is not god that needs to see the contrite heart, nor the attributes of repentance which are outlined in Judean understanding, but it is “US” that needs to be at a place in which our prayers show these qualities.

Should we then take account for our prayers even?

Should we stop in our times of hurt and take account of the attributes of prayer?

Yes, the churches should be teaching the ideals of repentance as a whole, and not telling people that a prayer if repeated or agreed upon or believed upon that is written by another for the general public is good enough to bring them into communion with God on the matter of repentence unto salvation.The drawn up prayers by some of these churches who tell others that repentance can be obtained by repeating pre-scribed prayers does more to hurt individuals by creating false understanding of repentance. They become knocked out of the promise at the door.

I even heard a “calvary chapel” church on the radio, tell a person to repeat a simple prayer of forgiveness and recognition that Jesus is God and then quantify that individual as saved and received salvation thereafter. The woman on the radio sounding stupefied asking “is that it?” and was replied to “yes” that’s it, your saved. She said I don’t need to be baptized? Not if you don’t want to he replied, that’s just a formality. I don’t need the holy ghost? He replied, the holy ghost was already with you before you prayed, what more is there for him to do?

I said to myself, that this is the stuff that will send so many people to hell in self righteousness. That person received nothing more than what any false prophet would present, even the devil and his parties know who Jesus is. It’s not just about accepting who Jesus was but also who he is to be, who you are, and what you are going to be. Repentance begins in the heart, change must be in the heart, the mind will follow the heart. If the mind changes once by words it will change back by words, but the hearts change by words is only changed by the heart.  The heart the mind and the soul must be captured by Christ.

Called and chosen

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen.

Lots of people don’t cover this correctly, and while many pastors of churches know this verse very well, in dealing with unruly congregations, they apply it incorrectly in regards to salvific properties. The parable that preceded this passage outlined Gods position on those who are come to fellowship and those chosen by god to fellowship.

 Most presume that the passage is in regards to the Jews blatant rejection of the message and work of Jesus Christ. But it isn’t completely true. He said the “kingdom of God is like unto….” This means that the everlasting kingdom that God is establishing has a similarity to the following parable of Matthew 22:1-14 meaning that When God established the church, as it is the kingdom of God, people will be called, and will reject it outright, while others will come in and won’t be dressed correctly for the wedding. They will be discarded. For even those who were called by the servants in the highways and by-ways , were inspected by the king and as it shows anyone not dressed in the appropriate attire acceptable by the king will be removed. 

Think of the expected wedding garb as the message preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost, Repentance, not in the manner of Gentiles but in the manner expected under the law, Judean Teshuva.

Now that I’ve covered the very first provision, the next one is just as Crucial. Baptism

 

Hello guys,

 

I'm in the middle of a very big writing regarding the consitancy of true gospel.

 

In this topic I will be covering the consitant messages of God to mankind in regards to salvation. It is a very long post so I may do it in three sections as putting it all in one blog will get too cumbersome and the blogs formatting since I changed the motiff has made most of my wirtings all off scale.

 

I'm still around just researching and stuff.

 

Think i will change my blog look to something that gives my change of fonts more clarity.

            Legalism (roots of the gospel)

 

I have heard it said over and over again, Le