The Oneness Anti "Christ" doctrine ....

[SDG]

The anti "Christ" doctrine is still alive and well ... in H-town.

At a meeting last week ... My ears screeched when the singers changed the time-honored translated lyrics to "Yo Me Rindo a El" ... "I surrender All'

from ....

todo a Cristo ... yo le entrego

to

todo a Jesus ... yo le entrego.

It's insanity ... dressed as piety and superior revelation.

[SDG]

The word Christ appears more than 500 times in the NT ...
often alone ... unaccompanied by the his name ... Jesus ...

to eliminate it from our vernacular ... is to eliminate his greatest purpose.

Matthew writes:

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.


All the Gospel writers and epistle writers had no issue using the word by itself. Keep in mind they wrote post-ascension.

HAVE WE NOW OUTGROWN THE APOSTLES TOO, IN OUR REVELATION OF TRUTH??/

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The word Christ appears more than 500 times in the NT ...
often alone ... unaccompanied by the his name ... Jesus ...

to eliminate it from our vernacular ... is to eliminate his greatest purpose.

I agree, there is no reason to eliminate the word "Christ" and many reasons to include it. However, it is not a replacement for, or substitute for the name Jesus.

Note what you said above :
"The word Christ appears........."
"unaccompanied by his name Jesus."

Now we know all the power is in the name, so the name MUST be included anytime we want the power applied. Now, if we are just talking about him, using "Christ" alone I think is perfectly fine. But for baptism, prayer, anything that needs the power of God applied, the NAME must be used.
And personally, I feel that if the word "Christ" is used, or not makes little difference, but the name is where the power is.

Matthew writes:

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Again, his NAME is Jesus, and Jesus, is CALLED, or described as, the "Christ"

All the Gospel writers and epistle writers had no issue using the word by itself. Keep in mind they wrote post-ascension.

I agree with you here too, BUT, they certainly included his NAME when they needed the power applied. Although they referred to him many times as "the Christ".

HAVE WE NOW OUTGROWN THE APOSTLES TOO, IN OUR REVELATION OF TRUTH??/

Not sure where you are going with that, or who you are aiming it at.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by meBNme

I agree, there is no reason to eliminate the word "Christ" and many reasons to include it. However, it is not a replacement for, or substitute for the name Jesus.

Note what you said above :
"The word Christ appears........."
"unaccompanied by his name Jesus."

Now we know all the power is in the name, so the name MUST be included anytime we want the power applied. Now, if we are just talking about him, using "Christ" alone I think is perfectly fine. But for baptism, prayer, anything that needs the power of God applied, the NAME must be used.
And personally, I feel that if the word "Christ" is used, or not makes little difference, but the name is where the power is.


Again, his NAME is Jesus, and Jesus, is CALLED, or described as, the "Christ"



I agree with you here too, BUT, they certainly included his NAME when they needed the power applied. Although they referred to him many times as "the Christ".


Not sure where you are going with that, or who you are aiming it at.

The power is not simply in the name ... it is in the person ... conjuring the name served no power to the sons of Sceva .... I do not view the powerful and wonderful name of our Lord as an "abra cadabra" ....

Hence it won't change who he is ... or all the power and authority he possesses if I sing a song that uses the word Christ.

I fully believe one can pray in His name ... with the power and authority he has given us ... w/o pronouncing the name Jesus and get the same results ... I've even seen demons immediately leave simply because Jesus was present in the meeting ... or in the person doing the praying ... as I've seen the same with his proper name invoked.

Peter's shadow ... was a catalyst to the miraculous .... because he possessed all of the power and authority of the Jesus and possessed the Spirit of Christ in him.

[meBNme]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I fully believe one can pray in His name ... with the power and authority he has given us ... w/o pronouncing the name Jesus and get the same results ...

Please go further into this.

I agree with the rest of what you said, and would like to understand fully what you mean here

[SDG]

Originally Posted by meBNme

Please go further into this.

I agree with the rest of what you said, and would like to understand fully what you mean here

I have elaborated ...

simply lacing one's liturgy w/ the name of Jesus at every stop or replacing Christ in the lyrics during song service does not guarantee the presence of the Holy Spirit. The efficacy in the presence of the one one who possesses the name

[meBNme]

But how do you pray in his name without using his name?

[scotty]

You don't. the disiples baptized in the name of Jesus Christ after His being gloryfied in the heavens. I see no merit to subject personally. If you do away with Christ alone then do away with all of it. Why pray, sing, or worship using the words Lord or God or King or Father or Almighty.

Oh darn, I gotta go get the guy that penned "He is the Alpha, Omega, First, Last, Beggining, End.etc." so he can repent or he is really gonna be in trouble.

Pretty silly analogy huh, Good then you get the point.

[scotty]

You don't. The diciples baptized in the name of Jesus Christ even after He was glorified in heaven. I'm afraid I see no merit to the topic. So all of these Holy Ghost filled saints have been wrong all this time when praying, singing and worshiping using the words Lord, God, Almighty, Father, King, etc.?

We need to find and repent the man who penned "He is the Alpha and Omega, the Begining and the End, the First and the Last,etc. cause he is in real trouble.!!!

Silly analogy huh?. Good, then you get the point.

[OneAccord]

This has probabaly already been discussed ut years ago there was a very small organization called The Church of Jesus. It was headed by Sam Officer and based in Cleveland Tennessee. Later the group evolved into The Church of Yah or something similar. In middle Tennessee there was group of churches called "The Church of Jesus". They believed Christ was a title, like Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I saw one Bible used by one of the preachers and he had went through it and marked out the word "Christ" anywhere it was used in conjunction with Jesus. They based their teaching on the verse in Zachariah which says something like "In that day, there shall be One Lord, and His Name ONE". Also when the angel announced the Saviors Name prior to His Birth, he said "Jesus" as opposed to "Jesus Christ". They baptized strictly "in the Name of Jesus". Some were very adament. One told me to be baptized "in the Name of Jesus Christ" was the equivelant of being baptized " in the Name of the FSHG". He also said adding "Lord" and "Christ" was adding to the Word. At least two of these churches are now in the ALJC.

I was very close to some of the brethren, though we differed on baptismal formulas. "The Churches of Jesus" I have visted (and held revivals for) were in Winchester, Huntland and Elora, Tennessee. I considered Bro. Marvin Taylor, a fine but strict brother, as my pastor at one time.

Another church in St. Augustine, Florida baptized "in the Name of the Lord Jesus". They weren't as hardnosed about it, and were loosely asscoiated with David Terrell, though he baptizes "in the Name of Jesus Christ".