Meat The Trinity Baptism Versus Truth

[Haya]

Actually, no. The early followers of 'The Way' certainly knew His real Name. There was no one called, or baptized in the name of, 'jesus' for 16 centuries. That name simply did not exist prior to the AKJV, and the introduction of the letter 'j' to the English language around 1600 AD. And even then, only in English.

I am personally persuaded that the 'triune' references are a later, and arguably pagan (Queen of heaven, Tammuz, Ishtar) addition (including the modification to Matthew.) But none of us can "prove" it, and repeating the arguments will prove pointless, no doubt.

This is not, repeat not, a subject I find particularly profitable to debate. I contend (above) that the important issue about coming "in the Name of" YHVH is doing so in His actual Authority, in accord with His Will and His Word. But if it's worth discussing at all, we ought to at least get the right Name as one of the options. At least one of 'em, anyway...

I think a HEALTHY debate is great. When people become degrading, and negative, that just shows their personality. Others take this concept personally and are easily hurt, again showing their character. It's excellent to know these things, so they can be corrected. Or if nothing else, others can witness who they are.

I'll add that the KJV is a REALLY POOR Bible translation.

One of the more interesting issues on Christian baptism imo, is that of immersion. That's important. John was sometimes called John the Immerser. But never John "the Sprinkler." Only Adults were baptized historically, never infants- that's modern nonsense.

All interesting. I hope everyone has a blessed day!

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Only Adults were baptized historically, never infants- that's modern nonsense.

All interesting. I hope everyone has a blessed day!

What proof is there that children were never baptized? Is that an argument from silence? Just curious where you might get that from scripture if that is where you are pulling from...

 

[steve]

I think a HEALTHY debate is great. When people become degrading, and negative, that just shows their personality.

I couldn’t agree more.
It’s sad that people choose to be this way, especially here.

 

[steve]

What proof is there that children were never baptized? Is that an argument from silence? Just curious where you might get that from scripture if that is where you are pulling from...

What proof is there that children were ever baptized?

 

[Mojo]

“I'll add that the KJV is a REALLY POOR Bible translation.”
A little bit of hyperbole. It’s not the best or only translation for English speakers, but it’s not really poor, or even poor for that matter…but that’s a side note.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The Hebrew gospel of Matthew has it preserved.

The apostles taught from the Torah throughout their letters. We know that the “followers of the way” were commended for their zealousness of the Torah through faith in the risen Messiah.

We know that Paul regarded his own words as human opinion, but what’s written in the Torah as the very word of God:

View attachment 11507


Over time the time religious leaders have been doing violence to the perfect instructions of the Creator - meanwhile - adding their own human tradition/opinion.

But in the future - when Messiah returns to rule on the earth as King - the law he chooses to govern the whole world will be Torah.

So you’re incorrect that the Torah is a new movement. It’s the past, the present, and the future.

And once again your referenced text doesn’t support your claim. You imply that all of Paul’s writings were just his opinion and that only the Old Testament is the inspired word of God. That’s not what that verse says though. There is no verse that says that. There are specific ideas that Paul identifies as his teaching, I believe two.

This means you are even further down the road of denying Christ than I thought. You will soon have to reject Peter and Acts as authoritative and inspired. That means you have to reject everyone who was at the council of Jerusalem which basically accounts for the rest of the New Testament.

 

[OttoM]

And once again your referenced text doesn’t support your claim. You imply that all of Paul’s writings were just his opinion and that only the Old Testament is the inspired word of God. That’s not what that verse says though. There is no verse that says that. There are specific ideas that Paul identifies as his teaching, I believe two.

This means you are even further down the road of denying Christ than I thought. You will soon have to reject Peter and Acts as authoritative and inspired. That means you have to reject everyone who was at the council of Jerusalem which basically accounts for the rest of the New Testament.

The foundation of the early faith was loving the Father in Heaven with all your soul, strength, and heart. The 2nd is to love your neighbor as yourself. And we do this through faith in the Lamb of God - His Son - Yahushua the Risen Messiah.

The Torah - and the writings - and the prophets - is a preserved instruction manual - every bible has it - which is extremely beneficial to a worker fulfilling those two most important commandments his Master gave him.

The letters in the NT focus on expounding on the things written in the Torah, and showing through what is written in the prophets that Jesus Christ (Yahushua) is the promised Messiah - and will be King over the house of Jacob on earth when he fulfills the final feast of the year - Sukkot (exodus related). Remember - Paul wrote all the feast days allude to Messiah fulfillment. They point to him.

To preach against the perfect instructions of Torah - either if the topic is marriage, divorce, usury, transgenderism, incest, or whatever the topic is; is the definition of darkness (Isaiah 8:20). If someone in the NT appears to be contradicting the forever righteousness found in the Torah - then either you’re dealing with a mis translation - or something has been twisted or mis-interpreted due to a doctrine bias that moves away from the perfect and forever instructions of the Almighty.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why do I ever take things seriously? There is no existent Hebrew copy of Matthew. It’s a complete recreation based on wild speculation. Why are people so ready to assume that there is error in the religion that they won’t even attempt a simple internet search to check their wild imaginations?

This is ridiculous Otto. Do some research before you spread falsehood.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

1 John 3:24
Those who obey God’s commandments remain in fellowship with him, and he with them.

John 9:31
We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but he is ready to hear those who worship him and do his will.

I keep the Creator’s instructions/commandments/torah/law - not for justification - but because I know who died for me - and paid the penalty in the curse of the law. It was YAH’s own Son - the perfect Word made flesh. And he said - “If you love me keep my commandments.” That simple.

Constantine didn’t die for me. I owe no allegiance to him or anyone after him. Constantine said - “Let’s have nothing in common with the detestable Jews.” Well - what happens if the Jews believe in YAH’s commandments - “Thou shall not steal or practice homosexuality?” Because of the wickedness in your heart - should you steal and practice homosexuality? And if the answer is no - then my question is why is it any different for any other commandments? Because the same Creator that said - “Thou shall not steal” - also said - “Remember the (7th) day Sabbath.” The way I see it - whenever a Christian doesn’t agree with YAH’s instructions - just blame it on the Jews. It’s always the Jews that are the scapegoat. As if the Jews wrote the Torah. The one who died for our sins on the stake/tree was the one that wrote it. If someone despises God’s instructions - then your problem is then with your Lord - Savior - Creator - and not the Jews.

These are powerful words of truth!

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

What proof is there that children were ever baptized?

I did not claim that there was but asked the question of the one whom declared, "Only Adults were baptized historically, never infants- that's modern nonsense". It seems as if their argument/statement was made an argument from silence.
That is a strong claim that declares the idea to be modern nonsense.

Given that the sign of the covenant was commanded to be placed upon infants only 8 days old, why is it a confusion to think that we should baptize our children also?

The closest thing we have to an example is when Cornelius household and near kinsmen and friends was baptized and there were no references made to NOT baptizing the under aged ones. There is also no reference too there being under aged ones. Given the odds though, there likely were under aged ones there.

Act 10:24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Act 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

 

[Mojo]

I think the movement to make Paul a contrarian to the Law is alluring only to those who are not careful in their reading and discernment.

Paul makes sure to tell his readers when he’s giving his advice or opinion. In doing so, he is giving his reader an opportunity to fast forward if they choose. But, when he does give his opinion, it’s never contrary to the Law. It’s generally done in a practical sense.

Take his opinion on marriage. He offers the option of celibacy or singleness in order to focus on ministry and devotion to the cause of Christ. Is that option contrary to the Law? I don’t see how. It does skirt the admonition to be fruitful and multiply physical children, but Paul isn’t advocating for asceticism. By freeing themselves from the obligations of marriage, he’s encouraging them to be fruitful and multiply disciples. Some of the prophets of old don’t seem to have been married and it’s hard to tell, but John the Baptist was likely not married, and Jesus wasn’t. Paul was not attached.

Giving opinions within the boundaries of the law is not antinomian.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I think the movement to make Paul a contrarian to the Law is alluring only to those who are not careful in their reading and discernment.

Paul makes sure to tell his readers when he’s giving his advice or opinion. In doing so, he is giving his reader an opportunity to fast forward if they choose. But, when he does give his opinion, it’s never contrary to the Law. It’s generally done in a practical sense.

Take his opinion on marriage. He offers the option of celibacy or singleness in order to focus on ministry and devotion to the cause of Christ. Is that option contrary to the Law? I don’t see how. It does skirt the admonition to be fruitful and multiply physical children, but Paul isn’t advocating for asceticism. By freeing themselves from the obligations of marriage, he’s encouraging them to be fruitful and multiply disciples. Some of the prophets of old don’t seem to have been married and it’s hard to tell, but John the Baptist was likely not married, and Jesus wasn’t. Paul was not attached.

Giving opinions within the boundaries of the law is not antinomian.

if Yeshua obeyed the law perfectly, and he did, then singleness is not a violation of the law.

The command to populate the earth was given to Adam and Eve. Not to every single person who would come into being.
If the command was for all of us, then there would also have to be an age associated with it. Ie. By the age of X you must have born Z number of babies.... Without that, how would you know if you had obeyed or not.....

So, Mojo, I am agreeing with you and just adding some coloring of my own onto it.

 

[Mark C]

There is no existent Hebrew copy of Matthew.

Wow. As if YHVH Himself couldn't preserve it, but Zec knows all.

Why do I ever take things seriously?

You said it.

 

[Mark C]

if Yeshua obeyed the law perfectly, and he did, then singleness is not a violation of the law.

Uh-oh. Dare I point out that His 'singleness' is an argument from silence? And you just offered yet another decent rebuttal...

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Uh-oh. Dare I point out that His 'singleness' is an argument from silence? And you just offered yet another decent rebuttal...

hehe I would actually like to argue that he had already been married to two women and divorced one of them... So, yeah, I would argue against myself on this one. lol

 

[frederick]

The command to populate the earth was given to Adam and Eve.

Genesis 9:1 So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

 

[OttoM]

2 Peter 1:19

You must pay close attention to what the Prophets wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, 21 or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

1 Peter 1:25 (quoting Isaiah)
but the word of YAH endures forever.

The Risen Messiah said - “It’s easier for Heaven and Earth to pass than the smallest iota to drop from his Torah.” Not all the fall feasts have been fulfilled. He fulfilled the spring feasts - Passover, unleavened bread, first fruits, and Pentecost. Heaven and earth are still here.

The last feast of the year is Sukkot. It is related to an exodus, which means the Messiah will fulfill the greater exodus. Twice in the NT it tells us that Jesus shares the same name as Joshua from the Old Testament. Joshua lead the people into the land. Yahushua (Jesus Christ/Joshua) will lead his people back into the land - this time - from all the nations of the earth. There also appears to be a renewed or 2nd baptism as well. Ezekiel chapter 36 mentions it when he’s talking about the greater exodus.

The 2nd exodus is mentioned throughout the prophets. Isaiah 66 is one of the many references to a new exodus. That same chapter makes it clear that the food laws are not done away with, and there is still sabbath. What did Messiah tell the Pharisees?

Matthew 23:23
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

And:

Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Pharisees had some righteousness. What is the biblical definition of righteousness? Because men have their own definition of things (adultery), which contradicts the Father in Heaven’s definition. I always go with the Creator’s definition over man’s:

Deuternomy 6:25
Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before YAH our God, as He has commanded us.’

And

Isaiah 51:7
Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My Law (Torah).

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

2 Peter 1:19

You must pay close attention to what the Prophets wrote, for their words are like a lamp shining in a dark place—until the Day dawns, and Christ the Morning Star shines in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must realize that no prophecy in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, 21 or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God.

1 Peter 1:25 (quoting Isaiah)
but the word of YAH endures forever.

The Risen Messiah said - “It’s easier for Heaven and Earth to pass than the smallest iota to drop from his Torah.” Not all the fall feasts have been fulfilled. He fulfilled the spring feasts - Passover, unleavened bread, first fruits, and Pentecost. Heaven and earth is still here.

The last feast of the year is Sukkot. It is related to an exodus, which means the Messiah will fulfill the greater exodus. Twice in the NT it tells us that Jesus shares the same name as Joshua from the Old Testament. Joshua lead the people into the land. Yahushua (Jesus Christ/Joshua) will lead his people back into the land - this time - from all the nations of the earth. There also appears to be a renewed or 2nd baptism as well. Ezekiel chapter 36 mentions it when he’s talking about the greater exodus.

The 2nd exodus is mentioned throughout the prophets. Isaiah 66 is one of the many references to a new exodus. That same chapter makes it clear that the food laws are not done away with, and there is still sabbath. What did Messiah tell the Pharisees?

Matthew 23:23
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.

And:

Matthew 5:20
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Pharisees had some righteousness. What is the biblical definition of righteousness? Because men have their own definition of things (adultery), which contradicts the Father in Heaven’s definition. I always go with the Creator’s definition over man’s:

Deuternomy 6:25
Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before YAH our God, as He has commanded us.’

And

Isaiah 51:7
Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My Law (Torah).

and here is a NT addition to the righteousness verses....

1Jn_3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.


Otto, thanks for this post. God is good and his kingdom and righteousness will be established upon the earth. It is coming very soon and I am eager for it!

Shalom..

 

[The Revolting Man]

Wow. As if YHVH Himself couldn't preserve it, but Zec knows all.


You said it.

Here you go, the oldest copy of a Hebrew version of Matthew originated in the 14th century from an anti-Christian rabbi who actively argued against Jesus being the Messiah. It’s called the Shem Tob version. It appears to be the one @OttoM is referencing and has no obvious basis in an earlier Hebrew text.

This is a completely untrustworthy text. Here’s the Wikipedia link for anyone wanting to read the basics of it.

Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[The Revolting Man]

And just for one more indignity, here’s the passage in the “Hebrew Gospel of Matthew”.

18 Jesus came to them and said: �All power in heaven and earth has been given to me,

19 you go to them

20 and take care of them so that they fulfill all the things I have commissioned you. (I am)
with you forever�.

You may notice @OttoM that what’s also deleted is any mention of baptism at all. Of course I’m assuming you actually went and read the passage which is not at all certain at this point.