God has only one name made known to us.

[glorydaz]

What is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? JESUS (see Colossians 2:9). Clearly, as I stated above, Jesus is the name through which the Father is revealed, the name of the Son, and the name in which we call upon the Holy Ghost. Besides that in the Great Commission in Luke is recorded as "in his name" (refering to the name of Christ). It matters if Acts 4:12 is correct. Since there is salvation in no other name, salvation cannot come through Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is no power in those titles. There is however power in Jesus name!

Ah, here's where legalism puts a damper on the message.
We can groan out a name and God knows our heart.

Some get offended when we say Jesus instead of Yehoshua.

You say there is only one God. He has many names. Jesus is God...he has many names.

 

[follower of Christ]

I figure I'll just start posting random scriptures that prove the individuality of Jesus.

My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. And if someone should sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
(1 John 2:1 EMTV)

We have an advocate with the Father - We still have him before the throne who died for our offenses, and rose again for our justification; and there he makes intercession for us. He is the righteous; he who suffered, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Do not, therefore, despair, but have immediate recourse to God through him.
Adam Clarke


1Jn 2:1-2
When have an Advocate with the Father; one who has undertaken, and is fully able, to plead in behalf of every one who applies for pardon and salvation in his name, depending on his pleading for them. He is “Jesus,†the Saviour, and “Christ,†the Messiah, the Anointed. He alone is “the Righteous One,†who received his nature pure from sin, and as our Surety perfectly obeyed the law of God, and so fulfilled all righteousness. All men, in every land, and through successive generations, are invited to come to God through this all-sufficient atonement, and by this new and living way. The gospel, when rightly understood and received, sets the heart against all sin, and stops the allowed practice of it; at the same time it gives blessed relief to the wounded consciences of those who have sinned.
Matthew Henry

Here and now we have an advocate....someone who takes our case before the Father.
So Jesus is talking to Himself up there ?


.

 

[JudaicChristian]

What is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? JESUS (see Colossians 2:9). Clearly, as I stated above, Jesus is the name through which the Father is revealed, the name of the Son, and the name in which we call upon the Holy Ghost. Besides that in the Great Commission in Luke is recorded as "in his name" (refering to the name of Christ). It matters if Acts 4:12 is correct. Since there is salvation in no other name, salvation cannot come through Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is no power in those titles. There is however power in Jesus name!

Ah, here's where legalism puts a damper on the message.
We can groan out a name and God knows our heart.

Some get offended when we say Jesus instead of Yehoshua.

You say there is only one God. He has many names. Jesus is God...he has many names.

How come you guys do not know the difference between a personal name and a name title?

 

[toddm]

Hi toddm

I don't want to downplay the role of Baptism. To start with, I believe that God is in the business of transforming lives and Baptism affords that transformation. Thus, I hold more of a view that I am saved, but I am also being saved and Baptism fits in the, if I have to categorize... "Being Saved" category.

As far as Paul downplaying Baptism in 1 Cor, you'll have to do some studies on the church in Corinth and you'll find that they had gone wild with their new found freedom in Christ... They were even marrying their step mothers which was detestable even to the pagans.

But to focus on Paul's response to Baptism to the church in Corinth, the church was divided internally by social stature where Baptism was not an act of grace, but instead held bragging rights of stature. You see, Peter and Paul and Apollos were all baptizing and Paul wants everyone to know that, well, let's let Scripture speak here ok?
1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Follow the letter up the the ladder after Paul lays his foundation to the church, and he adds,
1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Grace and peace,
Jeff

I know the context of 1 Corinthians and I understand all that. I should have put downplay in "quotes" as I certainly do not mean to downplay the importance of baptism - I fully affirm that every believer should be baptized. My point was that if it was a requirement for salvation then Paul would have made a big deal about it, the fact that he doesn't implies that though baptism is important, it is not an essential element to salvation.

 

[follower of Christ]

I did this some time ago to show our position on water baptism.


Water Baptism...just do it
By Wm Tipton

Instead of discussing whether water baptism 'saves' a person...an issue we personally believe is conditional seeing that some folks repent of their sins yet are unable for whatever reason to be baptised...Id like to discuss whether water baptism was practiced AFTER Jesus had ascended and after Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Some seem to think that after a time that water baptism was removed from our faith or something, but I personally do not believe that is the case.

The day of Pentecost and the coming of the Holy Spirit is recorded in Acts 2, as we well know, so do we see any water baptisms going on after this baptism of 'fire' spoken of in Gods word?

6 entire chapters later we have a very clear baptism in water being practiced still. If Spirit baptism is all that is *required* or expected at this point, then why is this even occurring? (of course we expect some to come up with illogical reasoning's and excuses, but read it for yourself and take no ones word for anything. Does it make sense to YOU that this water baptism is taking place *IF* it is no longer of any issue? )

Act 8:36-39
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (37) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him
And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

This next passage is quite clear. These HAD already recieved the Holy Spirit and yet WERE going to be baptized in WATER as well.

Act 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46)
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.
Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Now, dear reader, is there any doubt in your mind about what is clearly shown there?
These who HAD already received the Holy Spirit were commanded to be baptized in water. we know its water since they had ALREADY received the Holy Spirit.

Here is yet more evidence that water baptism is practiced in the church

Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ."
Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ should be deprived of its power.
(1Co 1:12-17 EMTV)

Are we to believe that Christ did not send Paul to baptize men into His name and Spirit ?
Paul shows us here that he did not baptize men himself, nor was he called to, and this conclusively shows us that he is referring to water baptism as it would be absurd for Paul to claim that Jesus did not call him to 'baptize' men into the Spirit.

These who argue against water baptism do so with their own personal agendas.
Do not let these who teach falsely rob you of the blessing of water baptism...

 

[follower of Christ]

Everyone who transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, this one has both the Father and the Son.
(2 John 1:9 EMTV)

Has BOTH.
Pretty silly statement without the trinity... ;)

 

[follower of Christ]

Another question to the Oneness adherents concerning this 'Flesh' thing.

Scripture shows that Jesus (the 'Flesh', I suppose) does not know the day and hour of His return, but the Father does.
Now, if the 'Flesh' doesnt know something then that, by default, shows individuality...the Son doesnt know something the Father does.

So when Jesus went back up into heaven, what happened to this 'person' who doesnt know what the Father does know ?
Was He re-assimilated back into the hive-mind like the Borg, or what ?

 

[follower of Christ]

Therefore let that which you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.
(1 John 2:24 EMTV)

Again, without the trinity this passage makes no sense.
Why not just say 'abide in God' instead of making ANY distinction between the two?

 

[follower of Christ]

Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either.
(1 John 2:23 EMTV)

Again, if no Trinity then why make any distinction here?
"God" would have sufficed instead of making a distinction between the Son and the Father.

 

[follower of Christ]

that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, in order that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.
(1 John 1:3 EMTV)

Our fellowship is with the Father AND with His Son.
This passage makes little sense without the concept of the Trinity.

 

[glorydaz]

And I do not the Flesh of Jesus as a puppet. However, Jesus only lived to DIE. The whole point of the Flesh was for eternal (blood) sacrifice. There was no other point in God coming to Earth in the manner he did. Jesus even told us that he came only to die.

Luke 24:46 - And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

If Jesus only came to die, then we would be forgiven, yes, but there is more...

He came that we might have life, which requires the resurrection.
He came that we would be quickened by the Spirit and indwelled by the living God.

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

We therefore have the crucified Jesus and the risen Christ.
We are crucified, buried and risen with Christ, and filled with His Spirit in order to have life more abundantly....not just forgiveness for our sins.

 

[glorydaz]

What is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? JESUS (see Colossians 2:9). Clearly, as I stated above, Jesus is the name through which the Father is revealed, the name of the Son, and the name in which we call upon the Holy Ghost. Besides that in the Great Commission in Luke is recorded as "in his name" (refering to the name of Christ). It matters if Acts 4:12 is correct. Since there is salvation in no other name, salvation cannot come through Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. There is no power in those titles. There is however power in Jesus name!

Ah, here's where legalism puts a damper on the message.
We can groan out a name and God knows our heart.

Some get offended when we say Jesus instead of Yehoshua.

You say there is only one God. He has many names. Jesus is God...he has many names.

How come you guys do not know the difference between a personal name and a name title?

Yehoshua isn't a name title, is it?

 

[follower of Christ]

Apostolic Soldier wrote:
And I do not the Flesh of Jesus as a puppet.

So then, you recognize that Jesus WAS His own persona then ?

Cant have it both ways, friend.
Either Jesus' Flesh was a puppet or He was His own person.
So which is it ?


.

 

[glorydaz]

Everyone who transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, this one has both the Father and the Son.
(2 John 1:9 EMTV)

Has BOTH.
Pretty silly statement without the trinity... ;)

The Greek word for both is ??? - a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force.

In this verse, I believe it points more to the oneness of the Father and Son, than to a separateness.
The doctrine of Christ is the risen Lord...no longer in His humanity.

 

[follower of Christ]

Everyone who transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ, this one has both the Father and the Son.
(2 John 1:9 EMTV)

Has BOTH.
Pretty silly statement without the trinity... ;)

The Greek word for both is ??? - a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force.

In this verse, I believe it points more to the oneness of the Father and Son, than to a separateness.
The doctrine of Christ is the risen Lord...no longer in His humanity.

Firstly, lets leave the translating to the actual scholars ;)

Secondly,*IF* there were NO individuality at all then ONLY mentioning 'God' would have sufficed.
But instead a distinction is made between the Father and the Son.
Of course if we have one with have the other.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Some get offended when we say Jesus instead of Yehoshua.

You say there is only one God. He has many names. Jesus is God...he has many names.

How come you guys do not know the difference between a personal name and a name title? [/quote]
Yehoshua isn't a name title, is it?[/quote]
Yahshua is derived from Joshua. Yahshua is his given birth name. Yahshua is the trans-literal into English. Peniel is his original personal name. He was the messenger of Yahwah. The word "angel" translated into English is messenger.

 

[JudaicChristian]

The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius: Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. According to that eyewitness of an unaltered Book of Matthew that could have been the original book or the first copy of the original of Matthew. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all
things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.

Eusebius was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as “the Father of Church History.†Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it is today in our modern Bibles, but he always finishes the verse with the words “in my name.†For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.â€

And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name.â€

There is not a single occurrence of the disciples baptizing anyone useing the Trinitarian formula. All of the scripture in the New Testament shows that people were baptized into the name of Jesus, even after Pentecost.

And when people in church leadership recieved the Holy Spirit, it was without the Trinitarian formula as in Acts 8:17.
Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[glorydaz]

Another question to the Oneness adherents concerning this 'Flesh' thing.

Scripture shows that Jesus (the 'Flesh', I suppose) does not know the day and hour of His return, but the Father does.
Now, if the 'Flesh' doesnt know something then that, by default, shows individuality...the Son doesnt know something the Father does.

So when Jesus went back up into heaven, what happened to this 'person' who doesnt know what the Father does know ?
Was He re-assimilated back into the hive-mind like the Borg, or what ?

I'm sure you believe Jesus was 100% divine and 100% human...right?
Jesus willingly put aside His divine nature while taking on the flesh of natural man...
He became like us. Right? Tempted as we are...suffering as we do. He put aside His ability to see into the future, to be everywhere at the same time, to create, to do all those things God is able to do. God, who was still with/in Him knew, but the man Jesus did not.

While He was a man (in the flesh), He was limited in His knowledge and ability...just as we are.
When He rose from the dead, He ascended to the throne to the bosom of the Father...taking on His divine nature again.

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

He is now all in all with the Father again with His glorified body as John saw him.
This is Jesus today...not a Borg at all, but the One Almighty God.

13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

[follower of Christ]

I'm sure you believe Jesus was 100% divine and 100% human...right?

I believe the Son of God came in the flesh, yes.

Jesus willingly put aside His divine nature while taking on the flesh of natural man...
He became like us. Right? Tempted as we are...suffering as we do. He put aside His ability to see into the future, to be everywhere at the same time, to create, to do all those things God is able to do. God, who was still with/in Him knew, but the man Jesus did not.

Youve just admitted with every 'He' and 'His' in reference to Jesus that you do believe in His individuality.
Was that the intent ?

Jesus is the Word who was WITH God and who IS God...ie part of the Triune God.


edit to add...
glorydaz
Could you clarify if you believe in the Trinity or not ?
Some of your posts are very confusing, almost as if in one breath your arguing FOR and in the next youre arguing AGAINST.
Could you take a clear position here ?
I just dont want to mistake your position



.

 

[follower of Christ]

There is not a single occurrence of the disciples baptizing anyone useing the Trinitarian formula. All of the scripture in the New Testament shows that people were baptized into the name of Jesus, even after Pentecost.

SO....WHAT

YOu keep running to bits and pieces that you can use to dismiss the REST of the data, friend.
ALL THRU the New Testament Jesus IS portrayed as being His own person.

He is the Word who is WITH God and IS God.
Even if our tiny, pathetic minds cannot grasp it all God IS triune in nature based on the WHOLE scope of evidence.