Search results

That true, that's why Jesus said, But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. (Matt. 24:36 KJV) Notice Jesus said His Father was the only one who knows. He didn't say He know, only His Father.

Yes, He created all things. It was at the Father's command.

You're argument here fails. Jesus did appear in the Flesh in the OT. He appeared to Abraham. You're grabbing passages out of context and trying to for a narrative. Read these passages in context. You're all over the place. Again, no man can see God, people saw Jesus, thus they cannot be one and...

There is no error. You're simply misunderstanding this passage. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus is the express image of the Father and that He doe the will of the Father. Again, no man has seen God at any time. That statement is crystal clear. Paul said that no man can see God. If no one can...

it was the same, it was Jesus. Jesus is the one who appeared to the Old Testament saints and prophets. It was Jesus who created all things. The Father spoke and the Son created. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these...

You're taking passages of Scripture out of context to make a narrative. Please explain, in context how the Passage from Isaiah is relevant to what Jesus said. Jesus is not the Father. John makes that very clear. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom...

Actually, it's not. Jesus said the words He spoke were the Father's. So, there is only one almighty and that is the Father. Paul too acknowledges that the Father spoke through the Son. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in...

One thing to keep in mind is that the word "God" is a title. It's like president or king. The Father being God and Jesus being God means that they are both divine. It doesn't mean they are one being. There are not. The Father is God Almighty. Jesus is His Son. Two separate beings. Here is a...

What does this prove? As I said, these early churches had the spoken word. They didn't have New Testaments.

That's irrelevant. They only had the spoken word

But it does apply to a word that is spoken.

Agreed. However, if it's not recorded then it must be a spoken word, correct?

It is seen as a cleansing agent. It's also seen as a means of destruction in the Scriptures.

Sure, a spoken word can become a message. What we have to remember though is that when Paul wrote Ephesians they didn't have a New Testament like we do. What they had was oral teachings, thus rhema being a spoken word.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:1 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our...

It's not I that is in error. I've already shown that the washing in Ephesians 5 is a bath. It's a bath with water. It's not metaphor. The word in that passage is a spoken word. Again, it's not a metaphor it's a spoken word. However, since we're quoting Peter. 18 For Christ also hath once...

No, it isn't. If it was you would have posted the passage.

What does it mean to be baptized with fire? Remember, John was talking to unbelieving Jews

That may have been what you were told, but it's not what the Scriptures teach.

As I said, it's not wrong. It's clear in the Scriptures and there are several hundred years of Church history that show the same thing. Those who were taught by the apostles believed that water baptism was the means of new life.