All Claims of The Son's Deity

[e v e]

Jesus didn't pre-exist his birth to be able to do that. I also don't believe Jesus practiced necromancy or communication with the dead.

every soul of Him, who is living in their soul
and not their fleshmind, can listen to Him...
and if He wills that, hear Him and learn from Him..
Such as did the prophets... who being humble souls
not living in their natural mind/flesh mind could do so...
also God is not dead and can do anything he chooses
so why would Christ not speak with His Father?

As for dying, that is His souls
here in the Death Realm.
And yes, Christ has visited and talked to us
in the OT and here during His incarnation
and soon at rapture when we leave behind
this earth and are recreated in our Original body
made by God, referred to often as Resurrection
body but that refers to our Originals in Eden
before the fall.

 

[e v e]

@Runningman
the only necromancers are evil esaus (as type) and serpent souls...
those topics have nothing to do with God or His Souls...

 

[Runningman]

His desciples did baptize . HE DIDNT , his desciples however did .
Now as far as baptizing with the HOLY GHOST
that had not yet been given for JESUS had not yet been GLORIIFED .
but earlier we read where it showed the desicples baptized more than did john
BUT NOT JESUS HIMSELF . HE DID Not , it was his desciples that did that .

I know that. Thanks.

 

[Runningman]

@Runningman
the only necromancers are evil esaus (as type) and serpent souls...
those topics have nothing to do with God or His Souls...

Then Jesus didn't communicate with Moses or the prophets. Where did you see that in the Bible?

 

[Capbook]

Jesus and his disciples never baptized according to Matthew 28:19. So this reads like you're pronouncing judgement on Jesus and his disciples. It's amazing how confused trinitarians are.

Is Matthew 28:19 Jesus' teaching or not?
Should be followed or not?

 

[Capbook]

I would say it's not a real verse since it does not fit with the rest of the Bible and therefore makes no sense.

Does your Bible don't have Matthew 28:19?

 

[Peterlag]

Does your Bible don't have Matthew 28:19?

I think the verse was added. Here's what some say about it...

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. -Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion,Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

 

[Capbook]

Then someone heard God's voice.

The context of the text is understandable, when God the Father testified to the Son's baptism, for us to listen to Jesus, yes, a clear instruction from the Father to follow what Jesus would teach most specially Matthew 28:19. If we go beyond or too far and does not remain in Jesus teaching , we also does not have God. (2John 1:9)
Clearly enough, as Jesus taught us to baptize new believers in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
True Christian should listen and follow, if we don't, we're also not doing the Father's command.


Joh 5:37 “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified about Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.

 

[Capbook]

I think the verse was added. Here's what some say about it...

The early church was always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the development of the Trinity doctrine in the 2nd century. The Catholics acknowledge baptism was changed and Scripture such as Matthew 28:19 that was never in the Bible was added by them.

Baptism was changed from the name of Jesus to the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the 2nd Century. -Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365.

The early church baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until the second century. - Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, page 53.

Christian baptism was administered using the words "in the name of Jesus." page 377. Baptism was always done in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr, page 389. - Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion,Volume 2.

Here the authors acknowledged that the baptismal formula was changed by their church. - Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, page 263.

The New Testament knows only the baptism in the name of Jesus. - Schaff & Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, Volume 1, page 435.

It must be acknowledged that the three fold name of Matthew 28:19 does not appear to have been used by the primitive church, but rather in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ or Lord Jesus. - Hastings Dictionary of Bible, page 88.

You did not answer my question.
Does your Bible don't have Matthew 28:19? Just yes or no.

 

[e v e]

Jesus and his disciples never baptized according to Matthew 28:19. So this reads like you're pronouncing judgement on Jesus and his disciples. It's amazing how confused trinitarians are.

baptism is a heathen practice. the text is corrupt. so yes, He never baptized...

 

[Capbook]

baptism is a heathen practice. the text is corrupt. so yes, He never baptized...

Does your Bible do not have Matthew 28:19?
If it have, who gave the instruction to do that heathen practice?
Rendering it "corrupt text" is it just the excuse to face the truth?

 

[Peterlag]

Does your Bible do not have Matthew 28:19?
If it have, who gave the instruction to do that heathen practice?
Rendering it "corrupt text" is it just the excuse to face the truth?

Here's more data on the baptize thing that so many Christians thing is necessary...

Water baptism is a carry over from part of the Levitical Law. There are many examples of people in the Old Testament who would wash themselves with water as a final step to being clean. Water baptism was an outward sign of washing, and then you would be clean to God. Baptism in water, and the need to be circumcised passed away with the coming of Pentecost, as did the other Levitical Laws. To be led by the spirit is to not be under the yoke of bondage with the extreme of legalism, seeking the works of the flesh from the old covenant concerning the past Law administration that was written to Israel.

It's clear from the gospels that water baptism had to do with the kingdom, which was ministered by John who was known as the Baptizer, and not a minister for the Church of God. John who was a prophet functioning under the old covenant was appointed by God to prepare and confirm the promises made to Israel. His message was to tell those who lived under the old covenant that the king had come and “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” He used water as a sign to baptize those who believed the promised Messiah would be coming in just a matter of months and to illustrate that he would be the Christ, who would baptize them not with material water, but with holy spirit, which is “power from on high.” From the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

In the epistles written just a little bit past the beginning of the New Testament is where we read the only time water baptism is mentioned is to note there is no more need for it, and that we are now to be baptized with holy spirit. And this is why in Acts 2:38, Peter commands “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ.” In Acts 8:16, Peter and John “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10:48, Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” In Romans 6:3, it declares “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ.” There is not one exception to this practice where we see water baptism, which belonged to the time period when Christ walked the earth, being used once the Church of God had become established.

 

[Runningman]

Is Matthew 28:19 Jesus' teaching or not?
Should be followed or not?

Don't baptize anyone like that since that isn't how they actually practiced baptism. It wouldn't make sense to not follow the example of what the early church actually did in practice.

 

[mikesw]

Don't baptize anyone like that since that isn't how they actually practiced baptism. It wouldn't make sense to not follow the example of what the early church actually did in practice.

The early church includes baptisms not recorded in scriptures and those into the second century that recommended Matt 28:19-20

 

[Peterlag]

The early church includes baptisms not recorded in scriptures and those into the second century that recommended Matt 28:19-20

A huge red flag should be waking up out of bed and realizing that you follow the same doctrine as the Catholics.

 

[mikesw]

A huge red flag should be waking up out of bed and realizing that you follow the same doctrine as the Catholics.

oops. Imagine following what people knew for almost 2000 years. You are trying for an ad hominem attack to reject what Jesus said.

 

[Runningman]

The early church includes baptisms not recorded in scriptures and those into the second century that recommended Matt 28:19-20

You lack the advantage of having any recognized authority to lean on while I lean on the authority of Scripture. That's how all of your doctrinal debates go.

 

[Runningman]

oops. Imagine following what people knew for almost 2000 years. You are trying for an ad hominem attack to reject what Jesus said.

The Bible explicitly condemns tradition as a guideline for what is true. Stick with Scripture only.

Matthew 15
3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
6he need not honor his father or mother with it.c Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you:
8‘These people honor Me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from Me.
9They worship Me in vain;
they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’

 

[mikesw]

You lack the advantage of having any recognized authority to lean on while I lean on the authority of Scripture. That's how all of your doctrinal debates go.

haha. You must mean you have a unitarian edited version of scriptures that omits the testimony of Jesus and the OT. All you need to shift people is start to share sufficient arguments against the Triune God. You have had over 18months to make a decent argument.

 

[mikesw]

The Bible explicitly condemns tradition as a guideline for what is true. Stick with Scripture only.

Matthew 15
3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
6he need not honor his father or mother with it.c Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied correctly about you:
8‘These people honor Me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from Me.
9They worship Me in vain;
they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’

Oh. So you think everyone against the unitarian history has been living for 2000 years. Pretty crazy.