Friday, February 24, 2023

 

Baptism in Jesus"Name" Does not mean authority only! Eph. 1:21 Says Jesus name is above every single name that is named not only in this world but that to come.

Eph. 3:15 Talks about the name the whole family in heaven and earth wears.

John the Baptist was circumcised and named on the eighth day of his birth every male Jewish child was. read Luke 1:59-60

Paul himself wrote about this Spiritual naming and typed with the Old covenant circumcision in Col.2:11-13
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Berean Literal Bible James 2:7 Are they not blaspheming the good Name having been called upon you?

Christian Standard Bible Don’t they blaspheme the good name that was invoked over you?

Holman Christian Standard Bible Don’t they blaspheme the noble name that was pronounced over you at your baptism?

New Revised Standard Version Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?

Geneva Bible of 1587 Doe nor they blaspheme the worthie Name after which yee be named?

Bishops' Bible of 1568 Do not they blaspheme that good name by the which you are named?

Coverdale Bible of 1535 Do not they speake euell of that good name after which ye be named.

Tyndale Bible of 1526 Do not they speake evyll of that good name after which ye be named.

Literal Standard Version Do they not themselves speak evil of the good Name having been called on you?

Young's Literal Translation do they not themselves speak evil of the good name that was called upon you?

Smith's Literal Translation And do they not defame the good name called upon you?

Literal Emphasis Translation Are they not blaspheming the good name, having been called upon you?

Oneness are Not "Baptismal regenerationist" We do not believe Baptism alone saves anyone. In Fact Paul says in three places that belief and Baptism alone does not save. anyone.

1.) Acts 19:1-3 When he Asks followers of John the Baptist have you received the Holy Ghost since or when you believed? if you receive automatically upon belief then Paul would not be able to begin to even ask that question.The question would simply be: "have you believed on Jesus?" That would have told him everything he needed to know, but since that is false doctrine and Paul had no idea who these men were when he asked this shows the popular but wrong false doctrine is not bible fact but bible fiction!

2.) Romans 10:13-16 he went through a long list that people like to isolate in a vacuum to prove all sorts of false doctrines concerning Soterieology. Paul goes through the list and then negates salvation can come by believing in the privacy of your own room when he says the following.

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except THEY BE SENT? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all OBEYED the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? You cannot do any of those things without a preacher sent of God to tell you how to do those things. The only preachers we know that were sent of God for sure were the Apostles in scripture.(John 17;17-18) Thus again refuted! They preached Acts 2:38 to be saved!

3.) 1 Cor.15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? Paul is not talking about some cult that existed in his day. The proof is he is defending this. Why would Paul defend a Cult? Why not just allow them to think what they think? He is teaching the church at Corinth. He is teaching them about resurrection because some did not believe in resurrection from the dead and mentions baptism in passing. Why bother being Baptized as dead alien sinners if you are not going to raise from the dead? What are you doing this for? Paul says those who believe and are Baptized are still dead alien sinners until they have the Spirit also to raise them to new life. One does not get you the other automatically. Anyone who tells you, you are saved at belief alone or plus repentance or plus baptism and that you get the Spirit automatically with just any of those things in combination or alone is a liar! They are all good and are needed but Jesus said you must be born of water and of the Spirit or you cannot enter the kingdom.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts
 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

Acts 10:44 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 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.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:1-6 was already mentioned. Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name. Revelation 3:12
All three names are the same name. Jesus does not get a new name the overcomer gets the New view of the blasphemed name.
Do they not blaspheme that worthy name called over you at your Baptism? James 2:7 New Jerusalem is simply a picture of the Church. it is in both worlds.

I do believe there is an authority component to the name, but the three first passages I gave are talking about the literal spoken name Jesus. You do not have the authority without the name Jesus . I am not talking about saying in the name of Jesus every-time we take a step. every step we take is in the authority of Jesus since we have his name and Spirit. 

Colossians 3:17 The Seven sons of Sceva had a head knowledge of the Jesus whom Paul preaches.  They were not covered by the name.

Acts 19:13.



John 20:23 Whose soever sins you remit they are remitted unto them. Whose soever sins you retain they are retained. Jesus own words. I have used this argument several times with Trinitarian's. Given only knee jerk answers "you're Catholic." We must be honest. Claiming someone sins are forgiven because they asked is not honest. Now the bible says we can ask for forgiveness if we sin afterwards and we can believe we are because he is faithful to forgive. 

 This is how Phillipians 2 should be read.


Philippians 2 Is about what Trinitarians term" the Incarnation" it is not about "Pre-existence of the Son of God." I am going to add comments to this passage. My comments will contain an asteric * and parenthesis ()... *() 2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. *(The above is about being humble, All the other passages coming are about Jesus our example)
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: *(God's form is the man Jesus. It is not the other way around. he Had No form or commliness that he should be desired. Because his form was beat up beyond recognition)
7 But made himself of no reputation,*(He was humble although he was God in Flesh. The Only true God John 17:3, He was made both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:36, He was made the Life Giving Spirit 1 Cor. 15:45, By being given the Spirit by no measure. John 3:34) and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (*He was made)
8 And being found in fashion as a man,(* Not God the Son, The Son was the man Jesus) he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.*But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins sat down forever on the right hand of God.(Hebrews 10:12) How many Gods does it take to think it not robbery to be equal to one another? If your God you do not have to give it any thought, the genuine man doubted and needed help from his God and father.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Like
Comment
Send

Most Relevant

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

                                                                The Trinitarian Misconception of Echad.

None of my  postings on this  blog are meant to do anything, but to evoke thought and discussion for Trinitarians and Oneness adherents. I do not ever use the blog to make a thesis statement  set in stone of any particular doctrinal issue. I use it as a sounding board for myself and for others who read it. Lately I been discussing the Trinitarian's usage  or misuse of the Hebrew word Echad. The word echad  is the word for one in the Hebrew scriptures used 967 times. Trinitarians whom I have encountered on debate groups on Facebook and Youtube like to argue rigidly, that one only means a unity of one and not a an absolute one. This narrow view would absolutely contradict scriptural teaching for the word and especially in Malachi 2:10. Malachi 2:10 uses the word Echad 2 times once for the word Father and another for the word God. The Trinitarian's are being inconsistent in my opinion and I welcome anyone in the comments to tell me I am wrong? But if  Echad is a oneness of unity only for God in Malachi 2:10 then to be consistent it would have to be a unity of One in relation to the Father in the passage also. Who are the other Father's in the passage? We know already that they believe there are other person of God to maintain their view that one is a unity of God persons, but what about the one for the word Father?


I contend that yes there are gods many, but Only one absolute true God. There are  also father's many, but only one absolute true Father our God. That is the reason for the usage of the compound unity and it has nothing to do with God being a unity of God persons. I do not mean for this to be exhaustive whatsoever because I also do not like to telegraph all of my arguments when discussing these issues with Trinitarian's but would love to hear in the comments of other ideas.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

                                          Modalism

Modalism what is it? We should ask ourselves that question often, especially in light of the fact being, that Trinitarian's are more Modalist than any Modalist.

I know there are Trinitarian readers (possibly) scratching their heads think the writer has lost all of his respective marbles. Maybe not, stay with me for just a moment?
Trinitarian's have a weird eternal role playing game of Father and Son throughout all eternity, where one person of God plays the role of the Father, and yet the other eternal person plays the role of the son. 

There is no real "progeny where a child has any parent in the sense of the word." The definition of progeny says the following:"The organism or organisms resulting from sexual or asexual reproduction. b. A child or children of a parent "(thefreedictionary.com/progeny). The Father and Son of the Trinity are in name only and are on equal footing as divine persons so that the roles could be switched up and nobody be the wiser.

The next time trinitarian's want argue over "Modalism," I think it is high time we give them the sobering fact/facts of the matter and show them that they are more Modalist than we Oneness ever thought about being.


 

Saturday, February 24, 2018


We Are Still Waiting For The Debate.

https://streamable.com/nl7fy

*Well, I see that Edward Dalcour still views me as a thorn in his side.  In his typically pompous fashion Dalcour charges me with selecting sources "bit and pieces" and then cobbling them together to defend the biblical Oneness doctrine. 
*Of course, this has been pointed out to him ad nauseum, but, this accusation coming from someone (Dalcour) who repeatedly appeals to Dr. Joseph Thayer - who was a unitarian that denied the coming of Jesus, taught baptism for the dead and openly rejected that Jesus was God! 
*Dalcour also often appeals to grammarian Robert Funk who founded the "Jesus Seminar" in which critics would cast beads to vote on which sayings of Jesus in the Bible were legitimate or not. 
*Shall we discuss how Dalcour appeals to the specific theological interpretations of the Aramaic Targums, Jewish Rabbi's and Judaic-Hebrew scholars - all of whom openly deny Dalcour's "Trinity of divine persons!"

*One of many of his quotes that I could marshal shall suffice:
"There has never been a Jewish commentator, Rabbi, or Christian scholar or writer that has interpreted Isaiah 9.6 as Oneness teachers do."  (Dalcour; A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology; Pg. 61)
*Hmm, who is now abusing their sources by grabbing "bit" and "piece" here and there from people who openly - and rightfully - rejected Dalcour's entire "Trinity" doctrine?  Typical Dalcour. 

*Worse, Dalcour is completely wrong in his assertions that Christians have not concluded that the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9.6 plainly identifies Jesus as the "eternal Father."  Trinitarians might reject the natural sense of this inspired passage, but biblical Christians allow the text to speak for itself and accept it as it's written. 

*Dalcour just never seems to learn and puts his foot in his mouth at virtually every turn.  Of course, all of this could be cleared up in formal 3-hour polemic platform.  In the meantime I am currently working on yet another exegetical rejoinder to Dalcour's painful dodges in his recent article on Acts 2.38.  I am hoping to post it on my blog in the next few weeks (https://apostolicacademics.com/).
*God bless ~ Roger Perkins
https://apostolicacademics.com/

Friday, February 16, 2018

https://streamable.com/s/evi16/rnjypb
The reason I put up this video is because you will notice Dr. White waved his hand and dismissed my argument.He did not even give it a second thought.. He will turn right around and ask his own absurd questions and demand that we answer. One absurd question they frequently ask: "was Jesus talking to himself?" "Was it the Father or the son who hung on the cross?" Etc. It goes on and on.

Friday, January 26, 2018

                                    My New  Absurd Argument.

Here is how trinity divides God: The church is the bride of Jesus, who is the bride-groom. The church is not the bride of the Trinity. You have one person of God married to the church The Son of God and the other two persons of God eternal bachelors.
I know the argument points out absurdity, but I would like to hear in the comments from both Oneness adherents and Trinitarian why or why not the argument does not work or should not be used?

Thursday, January 11, 2018

                                       James White Proves What Exactly?                                             
Dr. James White was reviewing the Steven Ritchie versus Edward Dalcour debate that took place on January 6, 2018. While on the Dividing Line program January 11, 2018 and was attempting to explain the Oneness position as two persons for Oneness. You can view the one minute clip that I captured below.
Did James White expose his own position as polytheistic in explaining the Oneness position? You can be the judge?

The relevant portion of the video is where he attempts to explain the Oneness position and begins by saying :  the Father and Son "are having a conversation internally between the human Son and the  divine Father who are one person, but.. Sort, not really, they are sort of two persons because they are talking to each other."  I believe Dr. White was attempting to display an absurdity in the Oneness position when it makes his own trinity doctrine more absurd and is very revealing of what he actually believes if one is being honest. If there is one only God would he not be having an internal discussion? There most certainly could not be another God to have a discussion with. This is where the multiple God persons come about fr the Trinitarian position. This proves the Oneness position and actually highlights the truth of the incarnation. What makes an incarnation? One God and one man make the incarnation.

I have submitted two versions in case some are more interested in what is said the second video actually just highlights Dr. Whites attempts at explaining the Oneness view the first is a little longer.










Tuesday, August 01, 2017

Steven Anderson Says Jesus is the Father.


This is short clip of Steven Anderson preaching that Jesus is the Father from John 14:8 in 2008. This is a supplement to the other videos of Elliot Ray's own videos where pastor Anderson excoriates four men who were removed from the church for teaching Oneness instead of the Trinity.

Monday, July 24, 2017

                                                      More Video From Elliot Ray.

https://youtu.be/ybCqZs-KuF0?t=1 4 guys who left Steven Anderson's church for truth of One God.




https://youtu.be/lymVuNU-ny4