Christians and Jews are both anti Acts 2:38.
- Thread starter Truther
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
it is proper to say that Mary is the mother of Jesus.
True. All the way to the cross, Scripture calls Mary 'his mother', until He gives her to John for mother.
After the cross, the risen God of Israel is known to us no more after the flesh (2 Cor 5:16), but is with God the Father in His throne and has many brethren (Rom 8:29), whether male or female, Jew or Greek.
No mother.
Define "after the flesh," people do not give birth to just bodies they give birth to individuals
After the flesh is the Scriptural term for natural birth in the world.
The God of Israel was not conceived naturally, but was born naturally of a woman.
She had nothing to do with Him being God in the flesh, and the Redeemer come out of Sion, other than to give birth to His natural body. She played a natural human role only, howbeit by faith.
Mary believed God before conceiving a boy by the Spirit, and after His resurrection she believed Jesus was the God of Israel come in the flesh.
proper to call her the Mother of God, unless the deity of Christ is denied
That is a humanistic leap of nonscriptural logic. Show the Scripture: 'Mother of God'.
By a capital M, She is made Deity, which I deny.
If Mary were the Mother of God, then she would also be the Mother of His body. Our Mother.
The only mother that the body of the risen Savior has is heavenly Jerusalem that is above (Gal 4:26). Not Mary.
God is our Father. Mary is not our Mother.
He has a human mother
He had a human mother.
He no longer has any mother at all, except them that hear and do the Word of God. They are His mother and sisters and brothers, called brethren that He is firstborn of. (Matthew 12) (Rom 8)
being "born of a woman."
God was in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and come in the flesh made of a woman (Gal 4:4). The body of flesh was made of a woman, not God. And the woman that made him after the flesh was called His mother pertaining to the flesh only.
Mary had no role of mother of the Son of God pertaining to the Spirit, other than to be overshadowed by the Spirit, who is the One that conceived Jesus' body within her. She was the bearer and mother of the body of Jesus, not the bearer and mother of God.
Even as Isaac was born of promise of God after the Spirit (Gal 4:29), so was Jesus. This did not make Sarah the Mother of God's promise, nor Mary the Mother of God.
Neither Sarah nor Mary was given any title other than mother of a natural born child of promise. Sarah is not the Mother of Israel of God, nor is Mary the Mother of God.
railing against
I don't rail. I just give Scripture and my reasoning of it, and reserve the right to reject anything as heresy that has no Scripture for it. It's nothing personal.
But, thank you for your honest effort to go to the Scriptures for you understanding. Until you show plain Scripture saying so, it is flawed by human reasoning.
Last edited:
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
Repentance is not a decision. It is an act.
There is confession of sin from the heart, but until there is the act of turning from sin, there is no repentance from dead works, without which we are not saved.
Baptism without the fruits of repentance (Luke 3:8) is as dead as faith without works (James 2:14).
In such a case, physical baptism nor more saves than empty faith.
All I am saying is God cannot be separated from His word because it is God. The word of God is God.
He is a speaking Spirit.
It is a tangible part of His being to us.
In an indirect way, it is relevant because per John 1, folks think there is a "God the son" nicknamed "the word", causing the idea in their minds of a "trinity", causing them to disobey Peter per Acts 2:38 and adopt the RCC version of the titles in baptism.
If a non presupposition person read John 1 for the 1st time without someone coaching him, he would read it this way....
1 In the beginning was the(SPOKEN) Word, and the(SPOKEN) Word was with God, and the(SPOKEN) Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made....
14 And the(SPOKEN) 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.
Presupposition made it say this compliments of the RCC....
1 In the beginning was (JESUS), and (JESUS)was with God, and (JESUS) was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made....
14 And (JESUS) 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.
Wala,.... thus you remove the spoken Word meaning altogether and insert a second person of the trinity doctrine,... being made a microscopic cell(flesh).
The problem is simple to analyze, was Jesus made by the Word of God like everything that exists or did he make himself without external help?
That is not an answer.
Was Mary, a sinner, birthing God?
Can God be born of a sinner woman?
You must answer yes or no here.
Can a person commit the act without a decision to act first?
Question: who judges whether someone qualifies to be baptized via true repentance?
Answer: per Acts 8, a confession of one's faith per Phillip.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
All I am saying is God cannot be separated from His word because it is God. The word of God is God.
True. God was never, and now is never separated from the Word of God. However, the Word of God made flesh was separated from God on the cross, when the sins of the whole world were placed upon His soul.
He is a speaking Spirit.
That is why the Spirit of God is not a 'force' as some say. A force doesn't speak.
In an indirect way, it is relevant because per John 1, folks think there is a "God the son" nicknamed "the word"
No nickname, but called His name:
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Rev 19)
causing the idea in their minds of a "trinity", causing them to disobey Peter per Acts 2:38
And so it is about Oneness and baptism by 2:38.
I know there is three Persons in the Godhead, and I have not disobeyed any Scripture on baptism.
The salvation by baptism with specific words spoken is based entirely upon the false doctrine of Oneness.
If a non presupposition person read John 1 for the 1st time without someone coaching him, he would read it this way....1 In the beginning was the(SPOKEN) Word, and the(SPOKEN) Word was with God, and the(SPOKEN) Word was God.
No they wouldn't. Any child would read:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same child would read:
And the Word was made flesh.
You're funny. You misquote Scripture by a presupposition of doctrine that must add to the Scripture.
Unfortunately, you do the same kind of manipulation of John 1:1 as do the JW's, that want to be rid of the Word was God.
You're not a cult like them that say Christ was created, but you are now acting like one pertaining to what is actually written and what is not.
And now I see why you try to believe God is His spoken words. I knew something was strange about it.
That is a Buddhist concept, not Scriptural teaching.
In the beginning was (JESUS), and (JESUS)was with God, and (JESUS) was God. thus you remove the spoken Word meaning altogether and insert a second person of the trinity doctrine,... being made a microscopic cell(flesh).
Not me. I have never heard of such a thing, until you wrote it.
The Word and God of Israel was called Jehovah, before He called Himself Jesus coming in the flesh.
It's always best to stick with Scripture, and not insert our presupposed ideas into it.
If you really want to paraphrase Scripture, it would be more accurate to say:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God called Jehovah...And the Word was made flesh and called Jesus.
And the name of Jesus is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow. Not at the name of Jehovah.
was Jesus made by the Word of God like everything that exists or did he make himself without external help?
That is carnal thinking, purposely making no sense, in order to reject a doctrine of Christ, that is presupposed to be rejected.
Jesus is not 'like everything else that exists', neither was He made of a woman like everything else born of man.
The God of Israel was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Ghost overshadowing her.
It was His prepared body for Him that was made in her womb by the Spirit. Mary did not make Him at all, neither did He make Himself, nor was He conceived in Her womb by Himself.
It was the work of the Spirit of God, commanded of the Father, to send Him into the womb of a woman:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law. (Gal 4)
The only making of Himself, that the God of Israel did, was to make Himself of no reputation in order to provide Himself a burnt offering for sin.
Jesus laid down His life, power, and authority as God and made Himself of no reputation to be conceived by the Spirit and made of a woman after the flesh.
The help was not 'external' but from within the Godhead.
I left the UPC in 1987. In spite of then being called out of there by God, I know that they think there is much more to our faith than water baptism. It was there that I received the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It was there I learned to read and appreciate the Bible for the first time in my life. It was there that received the gift of tongues from God back in 1976.
We serve a mighty God who works His works where He will and when He will. It was in a Catholic Church at the age of 6 years that I first knew in my heart and acknowledged that there really was a God.
Give God the glory!
Thank you for explaining your point, it is what I thought it was but I had to make sure.
For the first point concerning 2 Corinthians making null the relationships He had through His humanity since you believe that He had natural brothers as far as I know I'd like to know why St. Paul continues to call St. James the "brother of the Lord" in a sense distinct from this one of Him having many brethren?
On top of that, back to 2 Corinthians, I do not see why a Resurrection makes her not His mother. "Christ was like us in all things but sin," so other than that I can sometimes look to us to find out about Him and sometimes to Him to find out about us. The exact same body which was born from my mother will be raised again and be glorified, but it will be the same body. His even more so, the Scriptures (see Luke especially) make it clear that His body is continuous with the one He had before. He had flesh and bones, and the same body which was buried was raised. At what point in the Resurrection does by body somehow stop being the body my mother gave birth to, so that I stop being her son? Or if not a point in, why does or when does this happen? It's not as if He has a different body that was made up out of nothing, but it is the same body that was crucified (seen by the marks on it and so on). Is it contradictory to have a natural family and a spiritual family at the same time?
As for His body being made of Mary and she not causing the Spirit, that is true. But like in the case where Sarah is the mother of Isaac so Mary is the mother of Jesus, the title (which capitalization it is no more calling her a deity than capitalizing "Apostle" or "Pastor" or "Prophet," no one even had capital letters for a long time it doesn't matter) is a statement about who Jesus is primarily. I do remind you of the theology that the divinity of the person of Jesus is also attached to His body, even in death. Mary did not create it, it did not come from Mary, but if Jesus is a divine Person then what is a person meant to say of Mary? Our mothers do not give us our personhood either, it does not come from them but from the spirit of God in us yet that does not stop us from calling them our mother whole and entire.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
What I mean by Acts 2:38 is its purpose of receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit, without which keeping the law is by works and not from a new nature.
Repentance for salvation has nothing to do with repenting from keeping the works of the law of Moses.
Repentance from dead works of the law of Moses was for Jewish converts who wanted to still keep the law of Moses, as Christians.
Let’s slow this down a minute. Do you think that the word was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God? Yes or no?
Also, was Jesus made or not?
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
True, the confession of faith in the Lord Jesus, by which we are saved, is accepted for baptism in the sight of men.
We are saved and walk by faith, not by sight. If an outward act were to save us, then we would be boasting before men.
Confession is the decision: agreement with God from the heart of sin. Forgiveness is with confession to God.
Forgiveness remains with repentance: not committing the sin.
Confession is the change of mind, and repentance is the change of life.
Baptism is the answer of a good conscience toward God by confession that Jesus is Lord. Baptism results from agreeing with the Lord Jesus by faith.
Baptism does not put away sins of the flesh, but we do so by repentance.
We believe and confess, and God forgives and saves. We go on in repentance of dead works, and are baptized in due time with opportunity.
If we die before opportunity of baptism, we are in the presence of the Lord.
Baptism is a figure of salvation, not the salvation. (1 Peter 3)
Noah was saved as by water, when the flood took all the wicked away, and so baptism is a like figure thereof.
The water that saves is the water of the Word, by which we are born and the soul is cleansed from all sin. (Eph 5)
Baptism is a figure of what has already occurred by the operation of God through faith, and so baptism is a figure of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. (Col 2)
Baptism therefore is not the salvation, no more than it is the death, burial, and resurrection of us in Christ Jesus.
Hello you whoever may be reading this,
A comment from a Man who has never completely read through Acts,
Though it is needed to be done: Reading the entire book. From my understanding is that The Acts of the Apostles is about the many Acts, and trails, and tribulations that occurred with-in the context and contents on that book itself. They had went out to continue on preaching the Good News, and along their travels came across many different situations.
These trails and things they had gone through remind me a lot of what Jesus had told His disciples of what would end up happening to them and so thus the Acts of the Apostles is where you can find out what happened along the travels.
With love in Christ,
Matthew G.
A comment from a Man who has never completely read through Acts,
Though it is needed to be done: Reading the entire book. From my understanding is that The Acts of the Apostles is about the many Acts, and trails, and tribulations that occurred with-in the context and contents on that book itself. They had went out to continue on preaching the Good News, and along their travels came across many different situations.
These trails and things they had gone through remind me a lot of what Jesus had told His disciples of what would end up happening to them and so thus the Acts of the Apostles is where you can find out what happened along the travels.
With love in Christ,
Matthew G.
No, baptism DOTH NOW save us.
You said exactly the opposite.
It saves us by clearing our conscience.
How? Easy, because it includes remission of our sins.
Repentance, nor confession remits sins, though required as a prerequisite for baptism in the name of jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
Also, we don't bury folks that have already been saved.
That is being buried alive.
That is frightening.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
Good questions.
Do you think that the word was Jesus and Jesus was with God and Jesus was God? Yes or no?
The name Jesus was not given for the Word nor made known to man, until He gave it to Joseph in a dream.
The Word was God from everlasting, and was with God in the beginning of creation, and He called Himself the LORD God in the garden with Adam, and Almighty God with Abraham, and the LORD Jehovah with Moses and the children of Israel in the wilderness, and lastly was called Jesus, when The Word came down out of heaven and was made flesh.
At that time God was made flesh and was called Jesus. And Jesus is now the everlasting name of the risen God of Israel, the man Christ Jesus, which is above every name ever named by God.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
Also, was Jesus made or not?
The Word was never 'made' nor created, but rather was made flesh, made of a woman to be a man on earth. The preparing of His body was by the Spirit, even as His body on earth today is born of the Spirit.
The Word was never 'born' of a woman like unto man in sinful flesh, but rather He was born of God by the Spirit to be made like unto sinful flesh (Heb 2:17), but without sin.
He was not made, but rather a body was made for Him. By which body He came into the world from heaven (Heb 10:5), and was called Jesus.
That body was conceived and made in the womb of the woman by the Spirit, and the Word came into the world by that body: He came Himself into the body in the womb prepared for Him by the Spirit, and so He was born of God and called the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father.
The Word was from everlasting with God, who was not called the Son of God, nor was God called His Father, until the Word came into the world to be made flesh.
He made Himself in the likeness of men by the working of the Spirit, and took upon Himself the form of a man, the form of a servant made specially for God. (Phillip 2:7)
God the Father did not 'make' Him, nor God the Spirit, who only prepared the body for Him in the womb of the woman.
God the Father sent Him by command, and He made Himself of no reputation, but rather to be a servant in the body of a man made of a woman.
He created all things by command of His word to the Spirit, Who did the work of creation. And so in like manner by command the Spirit made a body for Him, and by Himself entered into that body in the womb, which was made of a woman by the Spirit.
A babe in the womb is made of a woman, made of the flesh of the woman, even as the woman was first made of the flesh of a man, that flesh of the rib.
And so, even as God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into him to become a living soul, so the Spirit formed the body of man of the flesh of a woman, and the Word of Life entered into that body to make Himself in the form of a servant:
The way, the truth, and the life breathed in that body in the womb and in the world, and breathed out of that body from the cross: all by Himself and by His own will in obedience to the commandment of His Father.
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
The Father gave the commandment and sent Him into the world thereby, but the Son did so by Himself and His own power. It was done in this way the same as God had always done since the beginning of creation: by commandment and working of the Spirit.
The Word was not created nor made, but rather created and made a new thing on earth:
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man. (Jerem 31:22)
God made Himself in the form of a man in the womb of a woman, to fulfill the prophecy of Abraham that He should provide Himself a burnt offering for the sins of the whole world.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
That would be more accurate, except that baptism in water is not necessary for baptism of the Holy Ghost, which therefore is not necessary for salvation:
(Acts 10)
While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 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.
For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Saved and baptized with the Holy Ghost by God upon seeing the faith of Jesus in their heart. Then baptized in water.
New wine isn't put into old bottles.
God doesn't save and send His Spirit based upon the beliefs of man, even if those beliefs are supposed to based upon Scripture.
And there is always Scripture where God puts away any dispute about Scripture.
Baptism in water is not necessary for salvation nor receiving the Holy Ghost.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
No, baptism DOTH NOW save us.
Nope. I referred to the whole Scripture, and did not take anything out of context, as you are now doing.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Baptism is a figure of what has already occurred, and has been compared to the death, burial, and resurrection of us in Christ Jesus.
Baptism is a figurative act in answer to an already purified conscience by faith of Jesus as Lord.
You said exactly the opposite.
The teaching of the Scripture is the opposite of what you say it is.
Also, we don't bury folks that have already been saved.
You're being facetious, right?
There is always Scripture that puts an end to any dispute about Scripture:
We receive the Spirit and Holy Ghost baptism by hearing of faith:
This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? (Gal 3)
The Spirit is not received by the unsaved, nor is new wine put into old bottles.
In like manner did the house of Cornelius receive the Holy Ghost by hearing with faith.
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
They received Him in the same way as the apostles.
And so he commanded that they be baptized in water, and not be forbidden to be baptized in the same way they had been, which would compel receiving them as brethren in the faith, though having been Gentiles.
Baptism is commanded to the ministry as a matter of commanded acceptance into the church and family of God, for any who confess Jesus as Lord.
To preach baptism as necessary for salvation and receiving of the Spirit is to make perfect by the flesh.
It frustrates salvation by grace through faith, by adding works of a law to it.
As the separatist Jews did with circumcision, so Oneness Pentecosts do with baptism.
You make it your life's mission to preach baptism as such, even as the Judaizers did with circumcision.
You bring unnecessary trouble into the body of Christ and separate yourselves from others by it.
You also trouble them that are newly saved and confess Jesus, by bringing in another gospel that commands water baptism to be 'really' saved, and you do so in a formulaic manner that would bind them to your separation.
No doubt you take pride in gaining any such proselyte to yourselves.
I would never preach baptism in water as necessary work of salvation of the soul.
robert derrick
Well-Known Member
(1 Peter 3)
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
1. Water baptism is place in context of the flood that separated Noah from the wicked of the world. He was thus saved by water.
Several Scriptures speak of new believers not being 'forbid' water baptism, which is commanded by the Lord to His ministers to do for all them that confess His faith.
Thus, in the beginning of the church of Christ, it became the commanding means by which the Gentiles would need be wholly accepted into the household and Israel of God: the church and body of Jesus Christ.
They were thus separated from association with the Gentile world into the full fellowship of the Christians, that had been born and circumcised as Jews according to the law of Moses.
Therefore, in like manner as Noah, they are saved by water baptism from being heathen outcasts from the family and commonwealth of the risen God of Israel.
2. Water baptism is plainly written as a figurative act in answer to the good conscience, which is solely by hearing of faith:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
The only 'saving' that occurs with not being forbid water, is that of being delivered from the association of the world as an enemy of God, and instead being accepted wholly and completely into the faith of the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Today, baptism is often commanded as a necessary 'burden' upon new believers, when it was Scripturally intended as a commanded burden upon the children of Israel to receive Gentiles into their company, and to call no man clean, whom God has cleansed. (Acts 10)
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. (Gal 2:15)
Now that has become a burden upon Christians to fully accept them that are called Jews, freely into the church of Christ by water baptism.
The teaching of Paul about them being grafted in again was not to confirm how special they are after the flesh, but rather to rebuke Christians that claimed the Jews by nature were forever cast off from the God of Israel.
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
1. Water baptism is place in context of the flood that separated Noah from the wicked of the world. He was thus saved by water.
Several Scriptures speak of new believers not being 'forbid' water baptism, which is commanded by the Lord to His ministers to do for all them that confess His faith.
Thus, in the beginning of the church of Christ, it became the commanding means by which the Gentiles would need be wholly accepted into the household and Israel of God: the church and body of Jesus Christ.
They were thus separated from association with the Gentile world into the full fellowship of the Christians, that had been born and circumcised as Jews according to the law of Moses.
Therefore, in like manner as Noah, they are saved by water baptism from being heathen outcasts from the family and commonwealth of the risen God of Israel.
2. Water baptism is plainly written as a figurative act in answer to the good conscience, which is solely by hearing of faith:
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
The only 'saving' that occurs with not being forbid water, is that of being delivered from the association of the world as an enemy of God, and instead being accepted wholly and completely into the faith of the Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Today, baptism is often commanded as a necessary 'burden' upon new believers, when it was Scripturally intended as a commanded burden upon the children of Israel to receive Gentiles into their company, and to call no man clean, whom God has cleansed. (Acts 10)
But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. (Gal 2:15)
Now that has become a burden upon Christians to fully accept them that are called Jews, freely into the church of Christ by water baptism.
The teaching of Paul about them being grafted in again was not to confirm how special they are after the flesh, but rather to rebuke Christians that claimed the Jews by nature were forever cast off from the God of Israel.
Similar threads
