Sometimes I wonder about the Trinitarian view.

reply to post by Joecroft

Anyway, I’m not sure what aspect you say Paul got wrong etc…perhaps you can expand on that, in your next reply…

You misunderstood me, Saul/Paul are the same person, but you remember how he persecuted the Christians before conversion, that was what he got wrong, but with zeal and sincerity in his adherence to the clergy and dogma of Judaism that wanted to stamp out this new cult from their perspective, but it's leader was Jesus Christ who they considered a false Messiah.

After his conversion to Christianity he then had a zeal according to accurate knowledge of how to serve God properly, which he did throughout the rest of his life.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

. . . the genocide that will come from Jesus Christ authorized by his Dad to the people of this planet at Armageddon ?

That's just a goofy cult interpretation.
It doesn't actually say that in Revelation.
You have to splice a few unrelated verses together to make it say that.
Armageddon is a symbolic telling of God having a very serious talking-to with the kings of the Earth

reply to post by Joecroft

All I can do is give you my own perspective, which is pretty unique…

Blue Jay is giving out standard, cookie-cutter Jehovah's Witness propaganda.
It may seen "unique" if you have not been exposed to it before.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Just as I thought, you haven't even reconciled the coming judgment of present day humanity to yourself. And what it will really mean for billions. For those that have categorically rejected Jesus Christ, not in ignorance, but with sufficient knowledge.

I don't now how old you are, or what your health is like, or when the end is coming, but I really hope you live long enough to see it all unfold.

So I say this to you with the utmost sincerity; good health, live long and prosper and then witness the Great Tribulation, maybe only then you will understand.
And if you still disagree with the way Christ is judging the world at that time.....I guess you already know what that will mean.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Reckart implies that if you use the foreign equivalent of Jesus, such as the Spanish "yay-sue", it won't work, but if that's not right (as it obviously isn't) then it doesn't seem like pronunciation would matter one iota.

He actually says the opposite of what you claim.

Originally posted by adjensen

There ya go with your mental telepathy and assumptions again. As I said, it is a colloquial term that I use occasionally and it isn't an insult.

Ok... Einstein.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by adjensen

 

Reckart implies that if you use the foreign equivalent of Jesus, such as the Spanish "yay-sue", it won't work, but if that's not right (as it obviously isn't) then it doesn't seem like pronunciation would matter one iota.

He actually says the opposite of what you claim.

No, he says exactly what I claim.

I will say with all gravity and sincerity that no where in the Scriptures are we told that we had to speak any word or name in an exact Hebrew manner. The Apostles did not feel it a sin to translate the sacred name into Greek as Iehsous (Iesous) and I feel it no less degrading that this great name be translated into every language of the world. So, I will not condemn or betray the faith of those who say the name of Jesus Christ in Chinese, German, Spanish, Russian, etc. We will let our God be the judge. (Source)

"We will let our God be the judge" = those foreigners don't speak any word in exact Hebrew manner, but I'm (Reckart) not saying anything more about it.

If Reckart agreed with me, that would say "I will not condemn... blah blah blah... because it doesn't matter."

reply to post by adjensen


I see it as you have been shown the proof, but your pride keeps you from admitting being wrong.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Just as I thought, you haven't even reconciled the coming judgment of present day humanity to yourself.

I have. You are just not getting it. I'm getting close to 60, and all my life, up 'till about two years ago, I believed in all that rubbish, and there are lots of posts, by me, on this forum, in support for the 'end times' and 'the tribulation' and all of that.
Then I realized it was all cult propaganda that does not stand up to what the Bible says.
That is the difference, is I finally saw the Bible as not just a mass from which to mine 'proof-texts' but a real work of literature that was trying to say something.
And a great example of how people do not see this is in what I have been discussing on this forum over the last three days, which is this verse in 1 Tim. about scripture, where I get into a big discussion about how early Christians had a sense of their own 'scripture' instead of anyone but me looking at the context of the verse and seeing it clearly describing the then current situation in the church, and having to be talking about what we would call today, the New Testament. Once I could read things like Revelation as a whole piece, then I could see how the cult interpretations that I was taught just did not fit.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

I see it as you have been shown the proof, but your pride keeps you from admitting being wrong.

So, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then Reckart is saying that one does not need to be baptized in the name of "gee-zus", with that pronunciation, they can be baptized with any pronunciation that a person believes represents Jesus, correct?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You misunderstood me, Saul/Paul are the same person, but you remember how he persecuted the Christians before conversion, that was what he got wrong, but with zeal and sincerity in his adherence to the clergy and dogma of Judaism that wanted to stamp out this new cult from their perspective, but it's leader was Jesus Christ who they considered a false Messiah.

No, I understood you perfectly, and know that Saul and Paul are the same person etc…I just wasn’t sure what you meant by “Paul got it wrong”, and thought you were maybe hinting about him teaching the Trinity, (which was a natural assumption to make, considering the subject matter)…anyway you have cleared up what you meant, by your last post…


- JC

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

I see it as you have been shown the proof, but your pride keeps you from admitting being wrong.

So, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then Reckart is saying that one does not need to be baptized in the name of "gee-zus", with that pronunciation, they can be baptized with any pronunciation that a person believes represents Jesus, correct?

As long as it is not a different name.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

I see it as you have been shown the proof, but your pride keeps you from admitting being wrong.

So, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then Reckart is saying that one does not need to be baptized in the name of "gee-zus", with that pronunciation, they can be baptized with any pronunciation that a person believes represents Jesus, correct?

As long as it is not a different name.

What constitutes a "different name"? If it's spelled differently and pronounced differently, is that a different name? If it isn't, what would be?

reply to post by jmdewey60

I believed in all that rubbish, and there are lots of posts, by me, on this forum, in support for the 'end times' and 'the tribulation' and all of that.
Then I realized it was all cult propaganda that does not stand up to what the Bible says.

Then I suggest you read what the bible teaches in Matthew chapters 24 & 25. This is Jesus telling us what was going to happen. If your cognitive dissonance you have developed is too strong you won't understand it's meaning.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

I see it as you have been shown the proof, but your pride keeps you from admitting being wrong.

So, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then Reckart is saying that one does not need to be baptized in the name of "gee-zus", with that pronunciation, they can be baptized with any pronunciation that a person believes represents Jesus, correct?

As long as it is not a different name.

What constitutes a "different name"? If it's spelled differently and pronounced differently, is that a different name? If it isn't, what would be?

Yahweh would be an example of a different name.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by adjensen

 

I see it as you have been shown the proof, but your pride keeps you from admitting being wrong.

So, if you're right, and I'm wrong, then Reckart is saying that one does not need to be baptized in the name of "gee-zus", with that pronunciation, they can be baptized with any pronunciation that a person believes represents Jesus, correct?

As long as it is not a different name.

What constitutes a "different name"? If it's spelled differently and pronounced differently, is that a different name? If it isn't, what would be?

Yahweh would be an example of a different name.

Except that I didn't ask for an example, I asked what constitutes a different name. "Bob" would be another example that doesn't carry the same negative connotation that you attach to "Yahweh", so if someone honestly thought that Jesus' real name was spelled and pronounced "Bob", is it a legitimate baptism to be done in the name of Bob?

I suspect that you'll say "no", probably without an explanation, so we'll just move along to the real issue -- those words in other languages. In Spanish, they think that Jesus' real name is spelled "Jesu" and is pronounced "yay-sue", neither of which are "gee-zus", so this is a different name, in the same sense that Bob or Yahweh are different names. By extension, then, a baptism done in the name of "yay-sue" must be invalid, just as a baptism in the name of Bob would be.

Since you attach supreme importance to the name "gee-zus", believing that you cannot be saved unless that word is spoken at your baptism, how can you say that baptizing in a different name, whether it be Bob or "yay-sue", is a valid baptism? Given that the result would be that only English speakers could be saved, which is ridiculous, the only reasonable explanation is that it doesn't matter, and that the whole "gee-zus" thing is just an example of poor teaching to promote an elitist position.

Who baptizes in the Name of YHVH? I haven't heard of that before.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Who's name do you think that John the Baptist was using to baptize his followers before he met Jesus? What about the "ritual bathers" of Qumran? Who do you think that they were praying to while ritually cleansing themselves before the advent of Christianity?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Who's name do you think that John the Baptist was using to baptize his followers before he met Jesus? What about the "ritual bathers" of Qumran? Who do you think that they were praying to while ritually cleansing themselves before the advent of Christianity?

edit on 3-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

The text doesn't specify. I have no idea if they baptized in anyone's name as the Christians began to do after Pentecost. I would think John did more of a ritual cleansing like they did in the golden laver at the temple.

If you have a source that lays out the exact procedure then post it, as I said I've never heard of anyone baptizing in the Name of YHVH.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Then I suggest you read what the bible teaches in Matthew chapters 24 & 25. This is Jesus telling us what was going to happen. If your cognitive dissonance you have developed is too strong you won't understand it's meaning.

I don't have cognitive dissonance.
I now believe something different than I did a couple years ago.
The weird cult interpretation that I previously believed in, I don't believe any more.
So there is no conflict in my mind concerning what I believe.
Matthew chapters 24 & 25 describes things that were to happen within the lifetimes of some of who were listening to Jesus. They were fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans laid siege on Jerusalem and eventually entered in with the result of the destruction of the temple.
I believe that I do understand correctly the meaning of Jesus' predictions.

reply to post by windword

What about the "ritual bathers" of Qumran?

I found out that you can say, Essenes, if you want to.
Even if it may not be completely accurate, it seems that because so many people call them that, that it is now a sort of accepted convention.

As for a name that people were being baptized in by John, it was being baptized into repentance.