Trail of Blood

[37818]

@Alan Gross,
A few things.

Ephesians 4:5, ". . . one baptism, . . ." I understand to be water baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13, ". . . For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, . . .". I understand NOT to be water baptism.

.

 

[Alan Gross]

Landmark Missionary Baptist Church - The Trail of Blood

Decent.

 

[Alan Gross]

@Alan Gross,
A few things.

Ephesians 4:5, ". . . one baptism, . . ." I understand to be water baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13, ". . . For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, . . .". I understand NOT to be water baptism.

.

Judge Judy loves this kind of testimony.

This gal was telling Judge Judy one time
that somebody had stolen her purse
and that it had her keys, her I.D., and $100 dollar bill in it.

The defendant who had been brought in before Judge Judy,
said, "There wasn't no $100 dollar bill in there!"

Judge Judy LOVED IT!

 

[Alan Gross]

@Alan Gross,

A few things.

Ephesians 4:5, ". . . one baptism, . . ." I understand to be water baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13, ". . . For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, . . .". I understand NOT to be water baptism.

This is a typical comprehensive, word-for-word,
treatment of I Corinthians 12:13,

https://www.faithbaptistchurchwauseon.com/baptized-by-one-spirit-into-one-body/

however, drawing from the scriptural phenomenon
of "line upon line, precept upon precept",

I find that there are places where people are at,
with some "line" or "precept" they have
that they are operating under, apparently, that I am not aware of,

because, from where I'm standing, "I can't get there from here",
concerning what they say that they are seeing in there.

So, I can't claim any responsibility.

For example, what we were just joking about.

We know math.

But, we can't "do the math" and still have things work out,
when someone suggests to me something along the lines of this.

With all due respect, from your post, above, as an example,
when someone tells me something like this,
it leaves me out in no-man's-land, because,
"I can't get there from here".

If we start from here:

Ephesians 4:5, ". . . one baptism, . . ."
I understand to be water baptism.

Then, by following that train of thought, go here:

1 Corinthians 12:12-13, ". . .
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,
. . .". I understand NOT to be water baptism.

How can we still arrive back at:

Ephesians 4:5,

". . . one baptism, . . ."

You can't do the math, because it just will not pan out.

What do you do?

How do you get there from here?

Or, better yet, where is here?

And I don't think we want to be trying to bring it before a Judge, ether.

Something tells me that might not be very pretty.

 

[37818]

You can't do the math, because it just will not pan out.

Your difficulty is not mine.

There are Biblical teachings Christians disagree on.
Hebrews 6:2, ". . . Of the doctrine of baptisms, . . ." Old Testament or New Testament baptisms?

Matthew 3:11, ". . . I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: . . ."
Three baptisms, with water, with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

 

[Alan Gross]

I find that there are places where people are at,
with some "line" or "precept" they have
that they are operating under, apparently,
that I am not aware of,

So, I can't claim any responsibility.

Ah, Hah! Bingo!

Your difficulty is not mine.

...

Matthew 3:11, ". . . I indeed baptize you with water

". . . I indeed baptize you with water"

Literal baptism of the Divinely Originated church Ordinance,
that John, the man sent from God, with the Authority of God to baptize
was baptizing with, as being water baptism.

he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost

"he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost".

figurative application of the literal baptism in water,
suggesting a similar 'immersion', 'saturation', or 'anointing'
that Jesus Administered on the Day of Pentecost,

where He had promised to "Send Another Comforter",
to Indwell Jesus' Creation, of a 'governing body of believers
organized to be witnesses for God', all during The Church,
at His public announcement and inauguration
of His Divinely Originated Organization,
that He had called, "My church", the first church at Jerusalem,

as well as, His anointing of individual believers,
immediately before or after Pentecost, with Miraculous Gifts,
of the Holy Spirit,

both of which John was referring to, when he was speaking
and preaching to those who were there,
at the time he was baptizing with water, and heard him say,
"he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."

That would then fulfill Joel's prophecy, in Joel 2:28,
"In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams."

he shall baptize you with .... with fire: . . ."

To "the rest" who were there listening and heard John
when he was baptizing with water
as he was speaking and preaching, and warning those who were lost
to repent, saying, "he shall baptize you with ...fire",

and was a fulfillment of the immediate context,
before and after Matthew 3:11*, if they remained lost,
using the same figurative application
of the literal baptism in water,
suggesting a similar fate of 'immersion', 'saturation',
or 'drowning' 'inundation' that awaited them, in the Lake of Fire.

* 3:7; 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:"

10 "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees:
therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

12 "Whose fan is in his hand,
and he will thoroughly purge his floor,
and gather his wheat into the garner;

"but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."

11, again, "he shall baptize you with ...fire",

Got that?
...

Three baptisms, with water,
with the Holy Spirit
and with fire.

Three baptisms,

One literal baptism with water,

Literal baptism of the Divinely Originated church Ordinance,
that John, the man sent from God,
with the Authority of God to baptize
was baptizing with, as being water baptism.

". . . I indeed baptize you with water".

Then, a figurative use of the original concept of water baptism,
where Jesus was going to baptize with the Holy Spirit.

Another figurative use of the original concept of water baptism,
where Jesus was going to baptize with fire.

There are many other figurative uses
of the original concept of water baptism.
...

 

[Alan Gross]

Ephesians 4:5, ". . . one baptism, . . ."
I understand to be water baptism.

Ephesians 4:4-6 lists and speaks of each of the Divine Possessions
that the church at Ephesus has obtained
and that contains The Authority of God associated with them,

(which is also true and applicable to all of the same kind
of like faith and order, New Testament churches,
that Jesus founded that carry the Authority of God.)

1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord,
beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation,
("the saints which are at Ephesus", 1:1b.)
wherewith ye are called,

2 With all lowliness and meekness,
with longsuffering,
forbearing one another in love;
("the saints which are at Ephesus", 1:1b)

3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit
in the bond of peace.
("the saints which are at Ephesus", 1:1b.)

4 There is one body,
(as you have been taught, over and over,
is the kind of local church assembly
that you "saints which are at Ephesus", 1:1b.

have all been organized into
which you as the one kind of local church body
that the church at Ephesus possess knowledge of
and have obtained, that contains The Authority of God associated with it),

and one Spirit,
(which you as the local church body at Ephesus possess
and have obtained, that contains The Authority of God associated with it),

even as ye are called
("the saints which are at Ephesus", 1:1b.)

in one hope of your calling;
(which you as the local church body at Ephesus possess
and have obtained, that contains The Authority of God associated with it),

5 One Lord,
(which you as the local church body at Ephesus possess
and have obtained, that contains The Authority of God associated with it),

one faith,
(which you as the local church body at Ephesus possess
and have obtained, that contains The Authority of God associated with it),

one baptism,
(as you have been taught to be water baptism, by the Lord's example,

and is the Literal one baptism in water,
of the Divinely Originated church Ordinance, that John,
the man sent from God, with the Authority of God to baptize
was baptizing with, as being water baptism,

". . . I indeed baptize you with water",

which you as the local church body at Ephesus possess
and have obtained, that contains The Authority of God associated with it),

6 One God and Father of all,
(which you as the local church body at Ephesus possess, vs 7,
and have obtained, that contains The Authority of God associated with it),

who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

7 But unto every one of us is given grace
according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

 

[Alan Gross]

Let’s attempt to narrow it a little (or a lot). You have mentioned several times the use of the word “church” by Jesus and suggested somehow congregations have adopted the opposite meaning than what Jesus intended.

The use of the word "church", as used by Jesus and in the New Testament, when speaking of the institution Jesus built, always refers to "a local organized assembly of baptized believers, etc."

Every time. 114 times.

Christianity has also been sold the seemingly impossible suggestion that
since another opposite meaning "appears" to be what "must be what God is referring to instead", then the Divine Authority to add in that new diametrically polar opposite meaning "is probably just fine and O.K. with God to do."

It makes God into a liar concerning what He originally had written in the Bible, by using the Greek word He did and causes the Bible to be contradicting itself, now, from what it had always been expressing previously.

The new meaning added to that of "a local organized assembly of baptized believers, etc.", is exactly what you have heard"the church" to be, that God have chosen a perfectly normal Greek to express, of that is what He had intended to do, is actually the definition of a "kingdom".

All of God's children alive on the face of the earth, are born into the Kingdom of God when they are saved and are then under Jesus, their Savior and King.

That Kingdom of God is world-wide and contains every saved soul alive on planet Earth, as we said.

That description of The Kingdom of God is drastically different and the virtual opposite meaning of "a local organized assembly of baptized believers, etc.", which is what Jesus Divinely Originated and was to build and equip to carry out the business of God, in a specific location.

However, now wait. Sometimes after the New Testament Era and the writing of the Bible, a shift began to occur on the organization that Jesus had established, as being local self governing independent "church" bodies and assemblies, to more of a hierarchical design in government and function.

Eventually, some editing began to emerge also, into the minds of religious people and leaders, that had a need for explaining their existence, as being altogether different than a local assembly.

The Roman Catholic "Church" got there pretty quick and made official the way they saw it, that henceforth they are what they have stolen for their name, as now a "church" that has been forged into a new definition, since they were claiming to have a presence world-wide THEY COULD CALL THAT GLOBAL DISPERSEMENT OF THEIR PARTICULAR RELIGION THE CATCH ALL PHASE OF THE "UNIVERSAL VISIBLE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH".

So, you see an evil religious doppelganger had come into world stage and the adoption of the meaning for ",a kingdom" had begun to have been nefariously sabotage, contaminate, and counterfeit (surprise) JESUS' FULL INTENSION OF REVEALING TO MANKIND HIS CHURCH THAT HE HAD DIVINELY DESIGNED TO BRING HIM GLORY.

That's it.

God did not come along late in the game to Divinely God-Breath a new opposite definition to the Greek word "church" we have in our English Bibles.

Please state the definition you believe is correct

Above. A local organized assembly of baptized believers. etc., etc.

d why

The Greek word at the time of the Bible and 300 years prior, had this meaning exclusively, in Greek writings and usage that would have been the one and only meaning the actual hearers of Jesus' words, would have known to understand He was expressing to them.

To some, it has always had this as its sole meaning.

Such as my home church since her founding in 1786.

That is what the Bible teaches. Why wouldn't we?

who do you think has changed the meaning.

Satan.

God doesn't work that way, of switching out the meanings of the words used in the Bible and exchanging them with new meanings to those words that assign and give His original ideas He was talking about, UTTERLY AND TOTALLY OPPOSITE "IDEAS".,,

That is only Satan's business of doing in the world, to? Deceive.

And to act in direct opposition to God, God's word, and Jesus' New Testament Age long witnesses for God that He established as the New Testament Age assemblies in which God is to be Worshipped, in a very similar design He gave for the assemblies of the Tabernacle and the Temple, etc., THAT SATAN HAS ACTIVELY GONE ABOUT TO SEEK AND DEVOURER BY ADULTERATING AND BASTARDIZING MEANINGS TO WORDS IN THE BIBLE,

AND THEN PAWN THEM OFF TO MANKIND
AND CHRISTIANITY IN PARTICULAR
AS IF THEY NOW HAVE:

"TWO POSIBLE MEANINGS
THAT HAVE TWO COMPLETELY OPPOSITE MEANINGS TNE ANOTHER"????

HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO WORK?

WHEN DID "THEY" START DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

TO WORDS IN THE BIBLE???

ANSWER: LONG AFTER THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN.

WHY? TO ACCOMMODATE THE FALSE RELIGIONS OF MAN
IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO BRING THEM
SOME DEGREE OF PHONY LEGITIMACY
THAT THEY DON'T POSSESS IN ANY OTHER WAY.

 

[canadyjd]

The use of the word "church", as used by Jesus and in the New Testament, when speaking of the institution Jesus built, always refers to "a local organized assembly of baptized believers, etc."

Every time. 114 times.

Christianity has also been sold the seemingly impossible suggestion that
since another opposite meaning "appears" to be what "must be what God is referring to instead", then the Divine Authority to add in that new diametrically polar opposite meaning "is probably just fine and O.K. with God to do."

It makes God into a liar concerning what He originally had written in the Bible, by using the Greek word He did and causes the Bible to be contradicting itself, now, from what it had always been expressing previously.

The new meaning added to that of "a local organized assembly of baptized believers, etc.", is exactly what you have heard"the church" to be, that God have chosen a perfectly normal Greek to express, of that is what He had intended to do, is actually the definition of a "kingdom".

All of God's children alive on the face of the earth, are born into the Kingdom of God when they are saved and are then under Jesus, their Savior and King.

That Kingdom of God is world-wide and contains every saved soul alive on planet Earth, as we said.

That description of The Kingdom of God is drastically different and the virtual opposite meaning of "a local organized assembly of baptized believers, etc.", which is what Jesus Divinely Originated and was to build and equip to carry out the business of God, in a specific location.

However, now wait. Sometimes after the New Testament Era and the writing of the Bible, a shift began to occur on the organization that Jesus had established, as being local self governing independent "church" bodies and assemblies, to more of a hierarchical design in government and function.

Eventually, some editing began to emerge also, into the minds of religious people and leaders, that had a need for explaining their existence, as being altogether different than a local assembly.

The Roman Catholic "Church" got there pretty quick and made official the way they saw it, that henceforth they are what they have stolen for their name, as now a "church" that has been forged into a new definition, since they were claiming to have a presence world-wide THEY COULD CALL THAT GLOBAL DISPERSEMENT OF THEIR PARTICULAR RELIGION THE CATCH ALL PHASE OF THE "UNIVERSAL VISIBLE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH".

So, you see an evil religious doppelganger had come into world stage and the adoption of the meaning for ",a kingdom" had begun to have been nefariously sabotage, contaminate, and counterfeit (surprise) JESUS' FULL INTENSION OF REVEALING TO MANKIND HIS CHURCH THAT HE HAD DIVINELY DESIGNED TO BRING HIM GLORY.

That's it.

God did not come along late in the game to Divinely God-Breath a new opposite definition to the Greek word "church" we have in our English Bibles.



Above. A local organized assembly of baptized believers. etc., etc.



The Greek word at the time of the Bible and 300 years prior, had this meaning exclusively, in Greek writings and usage that would have been the one and only meaning the actual hearers of Jesus' words, would have known to understand He was expressing to them.

To some, it has always had this as its sole meaning.

Such as my home church since her founding in 1786.

That is what the Bible teaches. Why wouldn't we?



Satan.

God doesn't work that way, of switching out the meanings of the words used in the Bible and exchanging them with new meanings to those words that assign and give His original ideas He was talking about, UTTERLY AND TOTALLY OPPOSITE "IDEAS".,,

That is only Satan's business of doing in the world, to? Deceive.

And to act in direct opposition to God, God's word, and Jesus' New Testament Age long witnesses for God that He established as the New Testament Age assemblies in which God is to be Worshipped, in a very similar design He gave for the assemblies of the Tabernacle and the Temple, etc., THAT SATAN HAS ACTIVELY GONE ABOUT TO SEEK AND DEVOURER BY ADULTERATING AND BASTARDIZING MEANINGS TO WORDS IN THE BIBLE,

AND THEN PAWN THEM OFF TO MANKIND
AND CHRISTIANITY IN PARTICULAR
AS IF THEY NOW HAVE:

"TWO POSIBLE MEANINGS
THAT HAVE TWO COMPLETELY OPPOSITE MEANINGS TNE ANOTHER"????

HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO WORK?

WHEN DID "THEY" START DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

TO WORDS IN THE BIBLE???

ANSWER: LONG AFTER THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN.

WHY? TO ACCOMMODATE THE FALSE RELIGIONS OF MAN
IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO BRING THEM
SOME DEGREE OF PHONY LEGITIMACY
THAT THEY DON'T POSSESS IN ANY OTHER WAY.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

View attachment 9022

Actually, I’m quoting Jesus though Spock is cool

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Actually, I’m quoting Jesus though Spock is cool

peace to you

Live long and prosper.

 

[37818]

The use of the word "church", as used by Jesus and in the New Testament, when speaking of the institution Jesus built, always refers to "a local organized assembly of baptized believers, etc."

Matthew 16:18, ". . . upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. . . ."
That church is made up churches of baptized believes and all whom He saves.

 

[canadyjd]

Live long and prosper.

Appropriate response….

“Peace and long life”

peace to you

 

[bit-john11]

I just found this thread and have been reading through this little booklet again. Has anyone been through the referenced books that are mentioned at the end of the booklet? I would like to start adding some of the m to my own library. There is a bunch of them. Of those, which of those offer the best and well documented insight and evidence of what the Paulicians believed? I always thought highly of this little booklet, as it was my first real exposure to Baptist history, outside of the Bible.

Also, I found this part interesting, from Lecture#2, part 8
8. Let it not be thought that all these persecuted ones were always loyal in all respects to New Testament teachings. In the main they were. And some of them, considering their surroundings, were marvelously so.

On what basis does Carroll associate the Paulicians with Baptists?

 

[John of Japan]

It's been a while since I read it, but my impression of the view that we have Baptists in church history going all the way back to the first century is that the holders of such views simplify what it means to be a Baptist. Often they believe that simply believing in salvation by grace and baptism by immersion is enough to make one a Baptist. This ignores the historical meaning of the Baptist distinctives. Now, Carroll does list a version of the Baptist distinctives, but then he does not prove that the Paulicians et al actually held to these.

"The Paulicians "were dualists, holding that this world is the creation of an evil power, while souls are from the kingdom of the good God.... They viewed Christ as an angel sent by the good God, and hence Son of God by adoption" (A History of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., by Williston Walker, pp. 213-214). Not Baptists!

 

[bit-john11]

@John of Japan - thank you, so now I would need to ask, on what did THAT author (Williston Walker) base his statement? I dont have that book.

 

[bit-john11]

@Alan Gross - you posted some very interesting material, thank you! One section in particular, Baptist History Notebook, By Berlin Hisel
This mentions the "Baptist History Notebook" where the author mentions two men Photius and Siculus as where most of the claims of heresy of the Paulicians come from. I had not heard of these two men before.

Ive got a lot of reading to do. This subject is very interesting to me. Ultimately though I am a Baptist because of the Bible, not history, and yet I believe that if I pulled on the string that was tied to the man that got me saved, that string would move all the way back to Antioch and beyond.

 

[John of Japan]

@John of Japan - thank you, so now I would need to ask, on what did THAT author (Williston Walker) base his statement? I dont have that book.

I'm afraid he does not source it.

 

[bit-john11]

Interesting, I used Chat gpt to ask the following:
"What is a source of for the claim that the ancient group of Christians known as the Paulicians were dualist and on what basis is this source made?"

Below is the response:

The claim that the Paulicians, an ancient Christian group, were dualists is rooted in historical sources primarily from the writings of their opponents, particularly within Byzantine and later Roman Catholic traditions. The Paulicians were active between the 7th and 9th centuries in the Byzantine Empire and are often considered part of the broader Christian "heresies" of the time, associated with Gnostic and Manichaean influences.

Key Sources and Basis for Dualism Claim

1. Byzantine Church Historians: The primary sources for the claim of Paulician dualism come from Byzantine ecclesiastical writers, particularly those who opposed the Paulicians. The two most notable sources are:
   
   • Peter of Sicily: In the late 9th century, Peter of Sicily was sent by the Byzantine emperor Basil I on a diplomatic mission to the Paulician stronghold of Tefrice (modern-day Turkey). He later wrote a treatise, "History of the Paulicians," which portrays the Paulicians as dualists, associating their beliefs with Manichaean cosmology. This includes the idea of two competing forces: one good (associated with the spiritual world) and one evil (associated with the material world).
     
     
   • Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople: Photius, a major theologian of the Eastern Orthodox Church, also wrote against the Paulicians in the 9th century, further emphasizing their alleged dualistic tendencies.
     
2. Manichaean Influence: The accusation of dualism is often linked to the perception that Paulicianism was influenced by Manichaeism, a dualistic religion founded by the prophet Mani in the 3rd century. Manichaeism posits a cosmic struggle between the forces of light (good) and darkness (evil). Because the Paulicians rejected many of the Orthodox Christian doctrines, such as the veneration of icons, the sacraments, and the hierarchical structure of the Church, their opponents were inclined to label them as dualists, possibly as a way to discredit their teachings by associating them with Manichaeism.
   
   • Some scholars suggest that the dualism attributed to the Paulicians might have been exaggerated or even misrepresented due to these polemical sources. However, the Paulicians themselves left very few written records, which complicates a direct understanding of their beliefs.
3. Modern Scholarship: Modern historians often approach the claim of Paulician dualism with caution. Some contemporary scholars have pointed out that the Paulicians' beliefs were likely more complex and that their dualism, if it existed, may not have been as stark or systematic as their critics suggested. Armenian and Syriac Christian sources also describe Paulicians, but they focus more on their ecclesiastical practices and reformist nature rather than on their theology of dualism.
   
   • Clive Foss and other historians emphasize that much of what is "known" about Paulician beliefs comes from their opponents, and the polemical nature of these sources may have led to distortions or oversimplifications of their theology.

Conclusion:
The claim that the Paulicians were dualists primarily originates from Byzantine church writings, particularly from Peter of Sicily and Photius, who associated them with Manichaean dualism. These sources, however, are biased against the Paulicians, and the exact nature of their beliefs remains debated among scholars. Modern scholarship tends to view these claims with a degree of skepticism, recognizing the possibility of exaggeration or misinterpretation.