Who is the Rock?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pauline:
S. Baptist
Could you give me the reference in Scripture where it says the keys were given to others besides Peter?
Pauline<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then S. Baptist could follow up and explain exactly what the "keys of the kingdom" mean in the metaphoric reference the Jews understood, as we see in Isaiah 22:22.

Without a hint, I would like for him to come up with the very word, "keys" represents metaphorically.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

[ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Are you asking him what the keys are supposed to represent?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ONENESS:
Are you asking him what the keys are supposed to represent?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, I guess so...

Sometimes I try too hard to explain things, and simply make it worse!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

 

"THE KEYS"


Could it be the plan of salvation? Or the instructions on what it is going to take to become a child of God?

Seems that way to me.

ACTS 2:38 = KEYS

 

"THE KEYS"


Could it be the plan of salvation? Or the instructions on what it is going to take to become a child of God?

Seems that way to me.

KEYS = ACTS 2:38

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ONENESS:
"THE KEYS"


Could it be the plan of salvation? Or the instructions on what it is going to take to become a child of God?

Seems that way to me.

KEYS = ACTS 2:38<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is obvious that that you did hot read Isaiah 22:22.

Try it again in reference to what you read there and maybe you will have better luck...

Oh, and another thing: Think "metaphorically" and maybe it will come to you...

God bless,

Merry christmas to all,

PAX

Bill+†+


My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. [Luke 1:46-48]

 

I dont see what that has to do with Peter. He was talking about Eliakim the son of Hilkiah.

What is your point?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ONENESS:
I dont see what that has to do with Peter. He was talking about Eliakim the son of Hilkiah.

What is your point?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Concentrate on the word "key," not on Peter. Exactly what was the "keys" Jesus gives? No, it is not a real physical key, but key is a metaphor for something else. And Isaish 22:22 is again the hint.

Another hint: Does not Hilkiah have something called authority with the "key" given him? But then, I just gave it away...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
[Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate]

 

Umm.... I know that it is symbolic, but the question is here what are they symbolic of?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ONENESS:
Umm.... I know that it is symbolic, but the question is here what are they symbolic of?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do I get the impression you did not read my message carefully?

I practically gave you the answer!

But I will give it to you again:

A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

I can't believe this. I just can't believe it! With a handle like mine I missed 8 pages of this discussion lately.

God=Rock in the wilderness (Psalm 78:35)
Rock in wilderness= Christ (I Corinthians 10:4). Therefore God and Christ are the same. God is our Rock. I used this "mathematical" approach before to demonstrate that God is Christ and vice versa for those who do not believe.

There is an actual rock that some believe (including myself)exists today that the Israelites supposedly carried with them in the wilderness where they got their water from (symbolic of Christ)--- today it's known by Jacob's Pillar, LiaFail, the stone of destiny, etc.

Regarding Peter and the keys, I have no problem with what the Lord said to him. We who believe are also called sons of God are we not? Same idea.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by liafailrock:
I can't believe this. I just can't believe it! With a handle like mine I missed 8 pages of this discussion lately.

God=Rock in the wilderness (Psalm 78:35)
Rock in wilderness= Christ (I Corinthians 10:4). Therefore God and Christ are the same. God is our Rock. I used this "mathematical" approach before to demonstrate that God is Christ and vice versa for those who do not believe.

There is an actual rock that some believe (including myself)exists today that the Israelites supposedly carried with them in the wilderness where they got their water from (symbolic of Christ)--- today it's known by Jacob's Pillar, LiaFail, the stone of destiny, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the discussion got off onto the keys, but if you will refer back to some of my original posts, "rock" is a metaphor that can be applied to many people, God especially, and Jesus, of course, but then, using that metaphor does not restrict us (or Jesus) from calling anyone else "rock" if He chooses to do so, since, after all, "rock" is the perfect metaphor for steadfastness, faithfulness, unchanging, and other supurlatives you wish to assign to it.

So, Jesus Called Peter "ROCK." It is obvious that He did so. And by the way, Peter is the only apostle Jesus changes his name, an important distinction, don't you think?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Regarding Peter and the keys, I have no problem with what the Lord said to him. We who believe are also called sons of God are we not? Same idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet Peter is the only one who Christ gives the "keys" to, so you avoid the issue even more. What are the "keys"? What does it signify?

I gave my answer in my last post, so what say you? Any questions?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+



Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
[Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate]

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

[ December 26, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why do I get the impression you did not read my message carefully?

I practically gave you the answer!

But I will give it to you again:

A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y!

God bless,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SOMETHING WE ACTUALLY AGREE ON I JUST WANTED TO HEAR YOU SAY IT.

NOW EVERYONE....(NOT SHOUTING JUST HAPPEY)

GBEY ACTS 2:38. CAUSE PETER HAS THE ATHORITY AND WHAT PETER SAYS GOES FOR THEM AND FOR US.

GOD BLESS

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ONENESS:


SOMETHING WE ACTUALLY AGREE ON I JUST WANTED TO HEAR YOU SAY IT.

NOW EVERYONE....(NOT SHOUTING JUST HAPPEY)

GBEY ACTS 2:38. CAUSE PETER HAS THE ATHORITY AND WHAT PETER SAYS GOES FOR THEM AND FOR US.

GOD BLESS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, and the actual formula for baptism is given in Matthew 28:19.

Peter wants the crowd around him to realize that he is speaking of Jesus' baptism, not the baptism of John the Baptist.

And somehow, I am not sure you agree with me that Peter has an authority greater them the other apostles, right?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

WPutnam:

From what I know about keys, they represent the power to make decisions--- such a person who has such keys is in the position of authority. Isaiah 22:22 speaks of opening and shutting, the same idea as in Matthew 16:19 regarding binding and loosing. Peter had the authority to open the doors to Christianity with the events on the day of Pentecost because the Gospel was to go to the Jew first, then the Gentiles including Israelites that were not Jews. Jesus gave that privilege first to Peter because of his confession (which is what the gospel was based on), and once the gospel was launched, it was taken abroad by other apostles and by Paul to the Gentiles (non-Israelites) as well. As for Peter's authority, the Bible clearly teaches he was the apostle to the circumcision. Grant it, he opened the doors of the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10, but that was not the people he was called to target. In fact, later on the apostle Paul and Peter clashed about issues regarding the Law. A Gentile ought to listen to what Paul taught if he or she had to make a choice. Actually, I am not saying that one should have to make such a choice, but if the hypothetical situation arose that would be the way to go. Isaiah 22 is talking about the key to the house of David something reserved for royalty. Except for indicating the metaphorical meaning of the word "key", the Isaiah passage is both a historical event and an end-time event regarding the throne of David. Jesus has that key (Rev. 3:7). I don't want to confuse the literal throne of David with the present day gospel, other than the fact that in the millennium Christ (and all believers) will rule and reign over the Earth from that throne. Until then, an infidel for all we know can occupy it.

 

Wputnam

Here is where we differ i guess. I dont know if you read this on my other post. But if you would please read this and tell me waht you think. Its concerning why Peter baptized in the Name of Jesus

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Name of God is Jesus. Now let me show you how I know this.

Look at the Great Commission in Matt 28:19. Jesus told them to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost.

Now look at the Great Commission in Luke 24:45-49. Same Commission but diffrent author decribeing what was said.

44. And he said * unto them, These are the words which I spake * unto you, while * I was yet with you, that all things must * be fulfilled * , which were written * in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45. Then opened he * their understanding, that they might understand * the scriptures,

46. And said * unto them, Thus it is written * , and thus it behoved * Christ to suffer * , and to rise * from the dead the third day:

47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached * in his name among all nations,beginning * at Jerusalem.

48. And ye are * witnesses of these things.

49. And, behold * , I send * the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry * ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued * with power from on high.

Note: Jesus is the one doing the talking here ok.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached * in HIS NAMEamong all nations,beginning * at Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I want to say this where you will understand what I am saying.

Note: If Jesus is Talking and says To Preach Remission of Sins in "HIS" NAME. He is not referring to himself b/c he said HIS.(Meaning someone diffrent.) b.c he said "HIS" and not "MY" Name.

Does that Make since?

Now woulden't you agree that Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of The Great Commission listed in Matt 28:19 and Luke 24:45-49?

Jesus told them to teach Repentance, And thats what Peter preached(Acts 2:38)

Jesus told them to preach Remission of Sins in "His" Name (remember what I said about "His"?) and Peter Preached remission of sins through baptisim in THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS(Acts 2:38)

now the final question is "Who is "HIS NAME" referring to?"

If you will look at Matt 28:19 you will find out whose NAME Jesus was talking about in Luke 24:45-49


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go ye * therefore, and teach * all nations, baptizing * them in the NAME of the Father, AND OF the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: "AND OF" the father "AND OF" the son "AND OF" the holy GHost is not referring to three diffrent names or people, but it is referring to the ONE Name of the ONE God With those Three diffrent titles. NAME is singular not plural.

That is who "HIS NAME" is referring to in Luke 24:45-49!!!!

Jesus did not tell them to preach remisson of Sins in "THEIR" name. That is how we know that God is one PERSON. (His is singular)


Now Jesus told them to teach all nations in Matt28:19. And if we Look at Luke 24:45-49 we can find out what Jesus wanted them to teach.(Repentance and Remission of Sins in his name)

So now when we look at Acts 2:38 We will find out what that One Name is Of The Father, Son And Holy Ghost.

What did Peter say that Name was? JESUS

Peter had the keys to heaven and He knew What that Name was and that why he preached what he did. I Know Peter knew what he was talking about.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Note: these are not two diffrent Comissions. They are the same comission with two diffrent story tellers. They were not mixed up when one said one thing and the other said another thing.

His Name is referring to THE NAME OF the father, AND OF, the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: ONENESS ]

 

Liafailrock replied:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From what I know about keys, they represent the power to make decisions--- such a person who has such keys is in the position of authority. Isaiah 22:22 speaks of opening and shutting, the same idea as in Matthew 16:19 regarding binding and loosing. Peter had the authority to open the doors to Christianity with the events on the day of Pentecost because the Gospel was to go to the Jew first, then the Gentiles including Israelites that were not Jews.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You come soooooooooo close, yet you somehow seem to miss the whole point. Pentecost was only the beginning of what Peter's authority encompasses. Certainly, Peter's authority begins to be expressed at Pentecost but it goes beyond that. To say that Peter has authority to "open the doors of Christianity" is far too restrictive - It is indeed, that but much more.

Peter is the one who speaks at Pentecost to begin that grand mission of not only himself but of the other apostles, who also have a power to "bind and loose" (Matt. 18:18) just as a lieutenant has authority granted him by his superior, a general with higher authority. Peter Holds that keys of authority that give him a chief apostleship - he is the Chief of the Apostles - who derive their authority from that of Peter and as such, Peter and only Peter holds the "keys" of authority given to him by Christ.

How does Peter's authority extend into the divine mission of the Church?

Peter was the first to cause a divine cure (Acts. 3:7).

Peter was the first to discipline others - Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11).

Peter disciplines again, this time, Simon the Magician (Acts 8:9-24).

Peter heals again - Aeneas of Lydda (Acts 9:32-35).

Peter restores life to Tabitha (Acts 9:36-41).

Through visions, Cornelius is told to seek out Peter, where Peter gives his second speech concerning the non-partiality of God to all mankind (as shown to him by Peter's vision), Jew or gentile, and then baptizes Cornelius. (Acts 10:1-49)

Through prayers of the church, Peter is released from his chains (Acts 11:1-18)

The first Church Council - Peter speaks with pricipal authority as the Chief of the Apostles concerning circumcision for Jewish Christians and for all Christians (Acts 15:1-12). James, who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and as such would normally hold primacy there, deferred to Peter speaking by speaking next, backing up what Peter had just said. Thus Peter took precedence over the council.)

Of course the other apostles were active as well and their mission is not to be discounted or diminished in any way, especially Paul, for which the rest of Acts concentrates upon. But it was Peter who took the bull by the horns in the early days after Pentecost and only a leader of the apostles should.

Dave Armstrong, a most excellent Catholic Apologist and a convert to Catholicism, goes into greater detail then I gave here, so I will give you a link to his paper on the subject:

http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/mtc/peter02.htm


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jesus gave that privilege first to Peter because of his confession (which is what the gospel was based on), and once the gospel was launched, it was taken abroad by other apostles and by Paul to the Gentiles (non-Israelites) as well. As for Peter's authority, the Bible clearly teaches he was the apostle to the circumcision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, Christ established a "core" of men who would spread His gospel, so it is not surprising to find that authority is granted to the others as well (Matt. 18:18; John 20:22-23) But to say that Peter is "the apostle to the circumcision" is not to diminish Peter's role as the Chief of the Apostles. Peter finally went to Rome, where he also became the founding Bishop of Rome. But by being the Bishop of Rome, his "big hat" role as the Chief of the Apostles remains just as it does today with the present Bishop of Rome - John Paul II - who is a many times removed successor to Peter. I am prepared to discuss this in detail if you wish…

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Grant it, he opened the doors of the gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10, but that was not the people he was called to target. In fact, later on the apostle Paul and Peter clashed about issues regarding the Law.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only one I recall is Paul's rebuke of Peter in a moment of weakness. Peter is still a man, like all popes are, and Peter is not the only pope to be rebuked! The great St. Catherine of Sienna rebuked the popes in her day to return the papacy to Rome (at time it was in Avignon, France.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A Gentile ought to listen to what Paul taught if he or she had to make a choice. Actually, I am not saying that one should have to make such a choice, but if the hypothetical situation arose that would be the way to go. Isaiah 22 is talking about the key to the house of David something reserved for royalty. Except for indicating the metaphorical meaning of the word "key", the Isaiah passage is both a historical event and an end-time event regarding the throne of David. Jesus has that key (Rev. 3:7). I don't want to confuse the literal throne of David with the present day gospel, other than the fact that in the millennium Christ (and all believers) will rule and reign over the Earth from that throne. Until then, an infidel for all we know can occupy it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was Isaiah 22:22 speaking of a "real" key, or of the authority given to a new steward of the House of David? Note the authority given to this man, where we see an uncanny resemblance of "when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one will open" with "whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."

My 30 years of Naval service tells me this is awesome authority, and the experiences of my career tells me what authority is when I see it!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Oneness replied:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is where we differ i guess. I dont know if you read this on my other post. But if you would please read this and tell me waht you think. Its concerning why Peter baptized in the Name of Jesus

quote:


The Name of God is Jesus. Now let me show you how I know this.

Look at the Great Commission in Matt 28:19. Jesus told them to baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost.

Now look at the Great Commission in Luke 24:45-49. Same Commission but diffrent author decribeing what was said.

44. And he said * unto them, These are the words which I spake * unto you, while * I was yet with you, that all things must * be fulfilled * , which were written * in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

45. Then opened he * their understanding, that they might understand * the scriptures,

46. And said * unto them, Thus it is written * , and thus it behoved * Christ to suffer * , and to rise * from the dead the third day:

47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached * in his name among all nations,beginning * at Jerusalem.

48. And ye are * witnesses of these things.

49. And, behold * , I send * the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry * ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued * with power from on high.

Note: Jesus is the one doing the talking here ok.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I thought we were talking about the "keys" given to Peter, but I will do the best I can to understand where you are going here…

Anyway, of course, it is Jesus doing the talking…


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached * in HIS NAMEamong all nations,beginning * at Jerusalem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I want to say this where you will understand what I am saying.

Note: If Jesus is Talking and says To Preach Remission of Sins in "HIS" NAME. He is not referring to himself b/c he said HIS.(Meaning someone diffrent.) b.c he said "HIS" and not "MY" Name.

Does that Make since?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly. Look back to verse 46 and note who Jesus is speaking of. It is the Messiah that God promised. And when you look at the noun "His," grammatically, it can only refer back to "Messiah" in verse 46. And since we know that Jesus is indeed, that Messiah, then Jesus is referring to himself when He says "His."

If Jesus had not used a "third person speaking" approach, starting out in verse 46 as "I am the Messiah that was promised" or similar words, then it would have been appropriate for him to use the "My" in verse 47 instead of "His."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now woulden't you agree that Acts 2:38 is the fulfillment of The Great Commission listed in Matt 28:19 and Luke 24:45-49?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a fulfillment, but the grand beginning!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jesus told them to teach Repentance, And thats what Peter preached(Acts 2:38)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, it is the grand beginning of the gospel that is still being preached in the Church today, as it began at Pentecost! And in that preaching comes conversions, and in conversions, comes baptism. Christ Himself gave the formula to use in this baptism, using the phrase, "…in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," not "in His name" or My name" or whatever. When Peter says "baptize in the name of Jesus" is to define what type of baptism it is - Jesus' baptism.

Christ is specific as to how this is done in Matthew 28:19 Peter, in the rethoric appropriate in a speech, would have found it awkward to say, "…Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the holy Spirit." Instead, Peter says "…in the name of Jesus Christ.." as to focus on the act they are to have performed upon them, rather then in the precise formula Christ gave, to emphasize the impact of what he is saying.

Let me give you an analog example of this:

Let us say that Jiffylube has a specific program for changing the oil and oil filter in your car that goes something like this, "With the car safely elevated above, remove the oil plug and allow to drain. And then remove the old oil filter and allow it to drain. After ascertaining that the gasket area is clean and lubricated with a small amount of new oil, install the new filter, tightening it only by hand until it is snug. Install the drain plug, only tightening it about ¼ to ½ a turn with a hand wrench with modest torque so that it is not too tight for future removal. Install new oil to the correct level and then turn on engine to test for possible leaks."

Now, if I tell you to get your oil and filter changed, which is better for me to say, all of the above, or to simply say, "Get your oil and oil filter changed according to Jiffylube"?

Now, the formula for baptism as given by Christ in Matthew 28:19 is not quite that complicated, nevertheless, it is appropriate for Peter to say "…Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus" without detailing the specifics, the rubrics of how this is to be done by the minister or priest who performs it.

Another thing; would it not be appropriate for one to study how the early church performed baptism? Here is a link that not only goes into more detail on the issue of "Oneness" baptism, but also quotes several of the early church fathers, including the famous Didache dated to as early as A.D. 70 (at the very edge of the apostolic era) that you should read and consider. I give the link here:

<A HREF="http://www.catholic.com/library/trinitarian_baptism.asp" TARGET=_blank>http://www.catholic.com/library/trinitarian_baptism.asp[/URL]</A>


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jesus told them to preach Remission of Sins in "His" Name (remember what I said about "His"?) and Peter Preached remission of sins through baptisim in THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS(Acts 2:38)

now the final question is "Who is "HIS NAME" referring to?"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Answer: Jesus' baptism! And Jesus has the precise formula for doing that as I have already given.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you will look at Matt 28:19 you will find out whose NAME Jesus was talking about in Luke 24:45-49<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the name is GOD! Jesus says, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son (Himself) and of the holy Spirit." The glorious TRINITY that is a mystery we will not fathom until we are in His company, in the Beatific Vision of Our Lord in heaven!

Here are a couple of links that explains the Trinity better then I can:

http://www.catholic.com/library/trinity.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/god_in_three_persons.asp


Have a good read!


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go ye * therefore, and teach * all nations, baptizing * them in the NAME of the Father, AND OF the Son, AND OF the Holy Ghost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: "AND OF" the father "AND OF" the son "AND OF" the holy GHost is not referring to three diffrent names or people, but it is referring to the ONE Name of the ONE God With those Three diffrent titles. NAME is singular not plural.

That is who "HIS NAME" is referring to in Luke 24:45-49!!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, not at all! It is, in totality, GOD. Christ is the Second Person of the Trinity - The Son.

Yet Jesus is indeed, God in totality, as well as the Father is God in Totality, as well as the Holy Spirit is God in totality, yet in three persons is God expressed. Three persons in the One God!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Jesus did not tell them to preach remisson of Sins in "THEIR" name. That is how we know that God is one PERSON. (His is singular)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

God is the ONE GOD, yet he has three "persons" called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not three gods, but ONE God! Jesus is God, The Father is God, and the holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. And that is why it is a mystery we do not understand…

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now Jesus told them to teach all nations in Matt28:19. And if we Look at Luke 24:45-49 we can find out what Jesus wanted them to teach.(Repentance and Remission of Sins in his name)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, I see the need for baptism as well, don't we?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So now when we look at Acts 2:38 We will find out what that One Name is Of The Father, Son And Holy Ghost.

What did Peter say that Name was? JESUS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, Peter is referring to the baptism as established by Jesus, per John 3 with his discourse with Nicodemus. But that involves the salvific nature of baptism, which I am thoroughly prepared to discuss with you sometime…

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Peter had the keys to heaven and He knew What that Name was and that why he preached what he did. I Know Peter knew what he was talking about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what Peter is talking about as well, and it certainly was not "oneness" baptism! See again the links I provided that demonstrates this…

Oneness, You are a "oneness" Pentecostal person, right?

I love all you guys and I will not sit here and condemn what you believe, but only demonstrate what my church believes and teaches. If I do not convince you of anything, you will at least know where I argue my position from, both from scripture and from the earliest teachings of the Church via the writings of the early church fathers. I would suggest you read them, but beware, you will find them talking just a bit too "Catholic" for your own taste, I think…

Seek the truth, Oneness, and I hope you find it…

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: WPutnam ]

 

Oneness,

This forum refuses to let me edit my last message to correct the error shown for the first link I gave, so I will give it again here:

http://www.catholic.com/library/trinitarian_baptism.asp

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

 

Hey thanks alot for your post. And yes I am United PEntecostal.

Alot of what you said I guess I can see why you guys belive like that, SO I will not knock it as well. As for Me I wish to do the same as you, express my views (Although there are more out there who are alot better than I) and I to stand on the Beliefs of the United Pentecostal Church, And I do not look down upon you.

I do see where you are comeing from in verse 46 about the NAme of Christ. Thanks for showing me that.

Well God bless.