Accepting Him or Rejecting Him; Jesus Name Baptism and Pentecostal Trinity Churches

Originally Posted by Carpenter

Holy cow, as the UPC once did? What do they preach now?

That beards are a sin.

[COOPER]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The bible says very specifically that those that are "led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God"(Rom 8:14). It also says that this Holy Ghost will "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). I think most of us here agree that the correct method of baptizing in water is "in the Name of Jesus Christ". This is what makes us Apostolic, and separates us from others that claim the Pentecostal experience.

So why is it that most Pentecostal trinitarian churches reject water baptism in Jesus Name? Are they refusing to be led by the Spirit into all truth. Why is it that this fundamental, foundational doctrine is not being accepted by these that have received the Spirit?

Will God accept them if they do not follow the leading of the Spirit and accept the truth of water Baptism in Jesus Name?

It is the same problem as with Apostolics, the trinitarians are stuck in tradition.
Their orgs are so big they can not change.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

I agreed that Jesus did say He manifested His Father's name. But to go beyond that is nothing more than INTERPRETATION of scripture.

Do you have an opinion as to WHAT His Father's name is/was?

The same way that a human male can be a father and yet he is not his fatherhood. The same way a son can be like his father yet he is not like his father's fatherhood.

I quit analogizing God a while back.

How can God only manifest certain parts of Himself (not His fatherhood) when scripture says "GOD was manifest in flesh"? Aren't you reading an interpretation into that belief?

It is the name of God...

Cool. So, where scripture says "God" we can always insert YHVH, right?

I think you (and maybe certain others here like Brother Epley) confuse "manifest" with "became."

I don't know about others, but if the Word became flesh and God was manifest in flesh and the Word was God, isn't it plausible to assume that "God became flesh"?

GOD is not the Messiah, God's only begotten Son is the Messiah.

Hmmmm? Isn't the Messiah God?

Well, here's the passage: "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Show me where it "clearly" tells us the name of the logos.

What was the name of the One who was made flesh, whose glory they beheld?

Originally Posted by OGIA

Do you have an opinion as to WHAT His Father's name is/was?

The same as it was throughout the Old Testament.

I quit analogizing God a while back.

You asked a question and I answered it.

How can God only manifest certain parts of Himself (not His fatherhood) when scripture says "GOD was manifest in flesh"? Aren't you reading an interpretation into that belief?

I'm not the one who said God manifests only certain parts of Himself. Go back to where I specifically said it was GOD that was manifest in the flesh and not His fatherhood, His holiness, etc. In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute.

Cool. So, where scripture says "God" we can always insert YHVH, right?

Actually, where the scripture says LORD in all capital letters we can always insert YHVH.

I don't know about others, but if the Word became flesh and God was manifest in flesh and the Word was God, isn't it plausible to assume that "God became flesh"?

God was REVEALED (manifest) in the flesh. The logos became flesh. The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know.

Hmmmm? Isn't the Messiah God?

The Messiah is God's "only begotten Son."

What was the name of the One who was made flesh, whose glory they beheld?

Why are you asking me? You said that it was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

The same as it was throughout the Old Testament.

Which is?

I answered it.

With an analogy that does not fit or work.

I'm not the one who said God manifests only certain parts of Himself. Go back to where I specifically said it was GOD that was manifest in the flesh and not His fatherhood, His holiness, etc.

You are not saying it, but there's no other way for me to take it. If GOD was manifested in flesh, then ALL of Him was. He did not leave His fatherhood or holiness at home.

In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute.

So, Jesus Christ is the "person/being" of God?

Actually, where the scripture says LORD in all capital letters we can always insert YHVH.

But, you said that YHVH was the name of God, didn't you? If that is so, can't I insert that proper name anywhere I see the title "God"?

The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness.

So when John states that "the logos was God", he really didn't mean that?

The Messiah is God's "only begotten Son."

Yep.

You said that it was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

John 1:14 (NIV, NASB, AMP, NKJV)
And the Word became flesh...

Is that what you're looking for?

[OGIA]

*bump for Chan*

Originally Posted by OGIA

Which is?

Asked and answered.

With an analogy that does not fit or work.

The analogy is what it is and it is a sufficient answer.

You are not saying it, but there's no other way for me to take it. If GOD was manifested in flesh, then ALL of Him was. He did not leave His fatherhood or holiness at home.

THIS, more than anything else, is what annoys me about some people here. STOP READING THINGS INTO WHAT I POST!!!!!!!!!!! You are to take my posts exactly as written; I said what I said and didn't say anything other than what I said. Don't give me this "there's no other way for me to take it" nonsense. Read the words and stop trying to read the blank spaces between them.

So, Jesus Christ is the "person/being" of God?

Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son.

But, you said that YHVH was the name of God, didn't you? If that is so, can't I insert that proper name anywhere I see the title "God"?

Only where the Hebrew text of the Old Testament does it.

So when John states that "the logos was God", he really didn't mean that?

John didn't say "the logos was God." He wrote his gospel in Greek. You are relying on the words of an English translation that are not necessarily accurate. Jesus' divinity is God's divinity and not some other divinity (not that there is any other divinity). Again, "God was REVEALED (manifest) in the flesh. The logos became flesh. The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know."

John 1:14 (NIV, NASB, AMP, NKJV)
And the Word became flesh...

Is that what you're looking for?

No, I want you to show me what YOU CLAIMED the passage said! You said that His name was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. (The exact quote: "John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.") Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

Asked and answered.

YHVH?

The analogy is what it is and it is a sufficient answer.

Not sufficient to address God, though. That's why I don't use them anymore.

Read the words and stop trying to read the blank spaces between them.

That seems to be the most intelligible parts, though.

Jesus Christ is God's only begotten Son.

Yep. But, I quote you: "In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute."

Is Jesus Christ the One you identify as being "revealed"? If so, then am I wrong to assume that you are saying that Jesus Christ is the person/being of God revealed?

Only where the Hebrew text of the Old Testament does it.

What about all of the other words rendered, OT and NT, as "God"? Am I not allowed, by your rules, to apply that personal name to those?

John didn't say "the logos was God." He wrote his gospel in Greek. You are relying on the words of an English translation that are not necessarily accurate.

Would you mind giving me the correct translation, then?

Jesus' divinity is God's divinity and not some other divinity (not that there is any other divinity).

I agree.

The logos was divine but the logos is not God in all His fullness. The best way to understand the logos is to understand what the Jews referred to as the memra or revealed essence of God. This revealed essence is not all of God that there is, it's just the part of God that we can know."

Bear with me, because I'm going to have to do some deducting here:

• logos is divine but not God's fullness
• logos is the part of God we can know
• logos is not all of God that there is

Doesn't that mean that there is a part of God that was not revealed?

You said that His name was clearly stated in John 1 where John said that the Word became flesh. (The exact quote: "John 1 clearly tells us the name of the logos when He was manifested in flesh.") Go to that passage (John 1:14) and show me where it says what you claim it says.

Forgive me, but I assumed you knew who that passage referred to. No, the name Jesus Christ is not in those 14 verses, Chan, but you're being a bit childish in denying that Jesus Christ IS the One who was the logos incarnate, aren't you?

Or, are you even denying that? I certainly hope not.

Originally Posted by OGIA

YHVH?


Not sufficient to address God, though. That's why I don't use them anymore.

It was sufficient to address what you asked.

That seems to be the most intelligible parts, though.

What? Don't you like challenging your brain?

Yep. But, I quote you: "In other words, it was the person/being of God that was revealed and not merely some role or attribute."

Absolutely. But "revealed" does not mean "became," though you seem to be trying to equate the two.

Is Jesus Christ the One you identify as being "revealed"? If so, then am I wrong to assume that you are saying that Jesus Christ is the person/being of God revealed?

No, GOD is the one being revealed. HE is being revealed by/through Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.

What about all of the other words rendered, OT and NT, as "God"? Am I not allowed, by your rules, to apply that personal name to those?

No, because the various words translated that way may not be referring to YHVH. Some of the Greek words translated God sometimes mean divinity, deity or divine nature.

Would you mind giving me the correct translation, then?

The problem in the translation of John 1:1 is the phrase translated "was with God." A proper translation would be "pertaining to deity" or "with regard to deity," much the way it was translated in Hebrews. Thus, "In the beginning was the logos and the logos, with regard to deity, was God." In other words, the divinity/deity of the logos is the divinity/deity of God and not a separate divinity/deity - contrary to John Calvin's use of autotheotes (God of Himself) with regard to Jesus.

I agree.

It's good that we at least agree on something.

Bear with me, because I'm going to have to do some deducting here:

• logos is divine but not God's fullness
• logos is the part of God we can know
• logos is not all of God that there is

Doesn't that mean that there is a part of God that was not revealed?

I thought I had said that when I was explaining about the logos/memra.

Forgive me, but I assumed you knew who that passage referred to. No, the name Jesus Christ is not in those 14 verses, Chan, but you're being a bit childish in denying that Jesus Christ IS the One who was the logos incarnate, aren't you?

Or, are you even denying that? I certainly hope not.

I'm taking what you post to mean exactly what you wrote (which is what I expect people to do with my posts). I know that the logos that became flesh and dwelt among us is none other than Jesus Christ - based on the context of the passage - but coming to that conclusion is an act of INTERPRETING scripture, which is not the same thing as saying the Bible actually says something.

[OGIA]

Originally Posted by Chan

It was sufficient to address what you asked.

No, it wasn't. No analogy is sufficient to address God, Chan.

Absolutely. But "revealed" does not mean "became," though you seem to be trying to equate the two.

OH! Let me see if I've got it right now: it was the person/being of God that was revealed, but that person/being did not BECOME anything (eg: a man). Yes? No?

No, GOD is the one being revealed. HE is being revealed by/through Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son.

Then the Lord was just a vehicle to "show" that part of God (logos) that we could (or, maybe, that He would "let" us) know?

No, because the various words translated that way may not be referring to YHVH. Some of the Greek words translated God sometimes mean divinity, deity or divine nature.

Are there certain ones you'd agree do identify the Father, YHVH? If so, could you give me some examples?

The problem in the translation of John 1:1 is the phrase translated "was with God."

What about the last part of that verse: "and the word was God"?

In other words, the divinity/deity of the logos is the divinity/deity of God and not a separate divinity/deity

"God" as in YHVH?

I know that the logos that became flesh and dwelt among us is none other than Jesus Christ - based on the context of the passage - but coming to that conclusion is an act of INTERPRETING scripture, which is not the same thing as saying the Bible actually says something.

Point taken. I just think it's juvenile to use the tactic you did, because it is clear from John 1:1-14 that the Person being spoken of is Jesus Christ. That was my point.