06-22-2005, 01:22 AM
I love when people make themselves out to be an authority over others at times, it just makes me smile inside. Little do they know just how far removed they are.
If you wish to alienate yourself here from the topic, simply because "we" are not able to comprehend your bias, by all means do so.
Trying to pull something out of scripture that is not readily being said is bad juju, and you know it Dave. The only reason that you would even attempt such a feat here in front of us is to justify your own bias to the text here.
Look at what your saying to us, To baptize is to baptize, blah, blah, blah,..
That is totally incorrect, totally biased, and totally outside of what any educated Christian in the scriptures would ever do, and you know it. Your putting words into the Apostles mouths that they didn't speak. You don't ever knowingly take scripture out of context like that to justify yourself and your beliefs!
This is not one of those times when things are implied in the word that is backed up by old testament scripture, yet it seems that your trying to use that structure here.
Peter and Paul never, read that again, NEVER, ever said or implied that usage of the word as you have just tried to run past us, wether their audience was the Judeans or the gentiles, there is no bit of scripture applied from them to desinate any other authority other than "in the name" singular, of Jesus, none buddy.
Everything we do has to be applied "in the name of Jesus." Why? That is our only authority from heaven we have been given to utilize here.
This is one of those times when your just wrong and you need to accept it instead of lie about it in front of people Dave. Paul in this topic brought up a legimate section that is questionable, and it shows tampering from someone over the years, people have known about this already, it is not new here to us. Unfortunately for you and others on here, this tampering carried over in the syriac, which does blow your originality theories out of the water, at least in this particular book.
And why wouldn't it carry over? The adherence to catholic litugies is so evident in the church of the east and others, it is a no-brainer that it would not be accepted as original by those who wished to justify their religion. It's make perfect sense why it would be accepted by that community. Action equals reaction.
Here is some more indepth reading:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm">http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm</a><!-- m -->
Now, on to your annointing theory:
Read your old testament post:
Did you catch those two separate actions there Dave?
Does not this passage in the old tesament post two separate actions here?
I surely thought that I caught two separate actions there?!
Could someone show those two separate actions to Dave for me?
Wow! Look at that! Two separate actions spelled out in the old testament Dave!
But why does the new testament sections equate the annointing as the very same act of receiving The Holy Spirit? Could it be that someone played around here in these areas also? Most likely. I bet if I look around in the older texts, I will find areas here that others have overlooked, that clarify these problems.
What's funny is how the old testament anointing process is the example that is going to be followed by The Lord on to His believers, yet the NT texts have distorted this and brought them together for whatever reason. Funny huh?
If you wish to alienate yourself here from the topic, simply because "we" are not able to comprehend your bias, by all means do so.
Trying to pull something out of scripture that is not readily being said is bad juju, and you know it Dave. The only reason that you would even attempt such a feat here in front of us is to justify your own bias to the text here.
Look at what your saying to us, To baptize is to baptize, blah, blah, blah,..
That is totally incorrect, totally biased, and totally outside of what any educated Christian in the scriptures would ever do, and you know it. Your putting words into the Apostles mouths that they didn't speak. You don't ever knowingly take scripture out of context like that to justify yourself and your beliefs!
This is not one of those times when things are implied in the word that is backed up by old testament scripture, yet it seems that your trying to use that structure here.
Peter and Paul never, read that again, NEVER, ever said or implied that usage of the word as you have just tried to run past us, wether their audience was the Judeans or the gentiles, there is no bit of scripture applied from them to desinate any other authority other than "in the name" singular, of Jesus, none buddy.
Everything we do has to be applied "in the name of Jesus." Why? That is our only authority from heaven we have been given to utilize here.
This is one of those times when your just wrong and you need to accept it instead of lie about it in front of people Dave. Paul in this topic brought up a legimate section that is questionable, and it shows tampering from someone over the years, people have known about this already, it is not new here to us. Unfortunately for you and others on here, this tampering carried over in the syriac, which does blow your originality theories out of the water, at least in this particular book.
And why wouldn't it carry over? The adherence to catholic litugies is so evident in the church of the east and others, it is a no-brainer that it would not be accepted as original by those who wished to justify their religion. It's make perfect sense why it would be accepted by that community. Action equals reaction.
Here is some more indepth reading:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm">http://www.godglorified.com/matthew_2819.htm</a><!-- m -->
Now, on to your annointing theory:
Read your old testament post:
Quote:The Spirit of The LORD is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor
Did you catch those two separate actions there Dave?
Does not this passage in the old tesament post two separate actions here?
I surely thought that I caught two separate actions there?!
Could someone show those two separate actions to Dave for me?
Wow! Look at that! Two separate actions spelled out in the old testament Dave!
But why does the new testament sections equate the annointing as the very same act of receiving The Holy Spirit? Could it be that someone played around here in these areas also? Most likely. I bet if I look around in the older texts, I will find areas here that others have overlooked, that clarify these problems.
What's funny is how the old testament anointing process is the example that is going to be followed by The Lord on to His believers, yet the NT texts have distorted this and brought them together for whatever reason. Funny huh?