xjwsforChrist

Hello, everyone! Hope you are doing well.

1 John 5:6-8: This is the one who came by means of water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And the spirit is bearing witness, because the spirit is the truth. 7 For there are three witness bearers: 8 the spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

What is meant by the water and the blood in these verses? JWs and many others hold that the water represents his baptism, and the blood, his death (or crucifixion). Another interpretation I came across is that because verses like 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7 reference him coming "in the flesh", that this refers to his human plus divine nature all in one, since it seemed some were denying that he came in the flesh. I don't really know what the water and the blood means in this context, especially that John makes the statement, "not with the water only" and that he puts them together with the spirit as witness bearers. So, second question, in what way are the water and blood witness bearers?

Greetings, dear LQ, and peace to you (and to your household)! All is well in our household and I hope the same is true for you.

There's a bit of a problem with your quotation, which might be why the verses are hard to understand. The Old Latin Vulgate (written in 4th century) includes more than what is present in most Bible versions today (which originate with a later Vulgate); however, even that has been altered by the scribes. Our dear Lord has graciously shared what Simon Lazarus actually wrote, however, which might make things clearer. Here is how he read the verses to me:

"For whoever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that has conquered the world: our faith. Who is he who conquers the world but he who believes that [Jesus] is the Son of God? This is he who comes by water and the blood of [Jesus] Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the spirit that bears witness, because the spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: [the] Father, [the] Word, and holy spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: spirit, water, and blood; and these three are in that one."

Just as he wrote the letter to the Hebrews (and not all of the Body), Lazarus was again writing solely to the Hebrew members of the Body. We can know this because:

1. While Paul, et. al, were sent to the nations, the 12 were only sent to Israel (Jews and Samaritans - John 4:7-10; Acts 1:8); and

2. Only Israel (Jews and Samaritans) was/is required to undergo both water baptism and baptism by "fire" (holy spirit, the blood of Christ and of the Father - Matthew 3:11, 13-16; John 1:30-33; Acts 10:44-48);

3. The non-Israelite Gentiles only had/have to receive baptism by holy spirit; they are/were never under the Old Law and so don't need to "die" with respect a relationship under that edict; and so

4. Here, Lazarus addressed the water and the blood, because he was speaking to the Jews/Samaritans; Paul did the opposite with the non-Israelite Gentiles (Ephesians 4:4).

If you view the verses in the Light that is Christ, and the light of all we have been taught by him and not by religion or even the Bible, we can be led (by HIM) into ALL truth (Matthew 13:11-17; John 14:23; Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 10:19 and 1 John 2:26, 27.

We read with are eyes (well, most of us). We listen with our ears. If we have them (Psalm 40:6).

Again, peace to you!

Your servant, sister, and a slave of Christ,

Shel

Yesterday got away from me, so I didn't read this until the evening, but couldn't respond then.

I'm actually quite surprised by this since the version you cited is very similar to the KJV (not quite the same) and is largely considered to be a spurious addition. Many Trinity folks like to use this verse as clear proof ("... and they are one") but scholars caution against that. I did a minor amount of research on this verse this morning and found there's been a raging debate since around the 1600s about the whether it belongs or not. This is possibly one of the most debated verses in the Bible.

In the version you wrote, "This is he who comes" does not seem to refer to Christ, but instead, refers to the one who is born of God. Do I understand that right? In other versions, "This is he" or "This is the one" refers to Christ himself, "This is the one who came by means of water and blood, Jesus Christ". That makes a major difference in how these verses are to be understood. In what you are saying, it is the person who comes by water (baptism) and blood of Christ, not that Christ came by water and blood.

Also, you differentiate between Jews/Samaritans and non-Israelite Gentiles. However, Paul made it clear there was no difference, several times. (Rom 3:9; Rom 10:12; Rom 12:13; Gal 3:26-29; Col 3:9-11; Eph 2:14) From what you say, only natural Israelites have to undergo water baptism, while Gentiles do not, and that "one baptism" only applies to non-Israelite Gentiles. Didn't everyone have to die to their sins? Paul indicated as much (Eph 2:1).

FYI, Paul did go preach to Jews as well as Gentiles, though his "mission" was mainly to be an apostle to the Gentiles. (Acts 14:1; Acts 17:1-4; Acts 17:33-18:4; Acts 20:21; Rom 11:13).

Let's talk about water baptism for a moment. Acts 13:24 shows that water baptism was "before the arrival of that one [Christ]". Is Paul doing away with water baptism in Acts 19:1-6? Here, Apollos was performing the water baptisms, John's baptism (see Acts 18:24,25), but he was unaware of being baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus" which appears to be the holy spirit baptism. (Acts 19:5,6). Does this mean that water baptism, from that point forward was really no longer required? Does this also mean that the command at Matthew 28:19 is about holy spirit baptism, not water baptism? (Though, I think baptism is always done by water, right? It's just the symbolism represented changes when done in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do I have that right?)

Absolutely no worries, dear LQ (peace to you, dear brother, and to your household!). I responses to share, if you will bear with me. The first, and shortest, is a reiteration of my previous admonition:

If you view the verses in the Light that is Christ, and the light of all we have been taught by him and not by religion or even the Bible, we can be led (by HIM) into ALL truth (Matthew 13:11-17; John 14:23; Ephesians 2:13; Hebrews 10:19 and 1 John 2:26, 27).

As to the second and longer response, please note that the Douay-Rheems, 1599 Geneva, Wycliffe, and Young's Literal are also very similar to the KJV (which I didn't consult - I rarely do because of the archaic language it's written in) with regard to these verses, and since ALL Bibles are compiled by men we shouldn't be surprised that any version has some truth (and definitely not surprised when it doesn't). Your "surprise" may be largely due to the aversion to the KJV instilled by the WTBTS, however, and I totally get that. Still, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water.

As to the positions of and cautions by scholars, c'mon - surely you know that what scholars opine or caution as to, or even state as "truth," bears no truck with me. You know as well as I do that THEY don't know (and hopefully, you are referring to "worldly" scholars and not any WTBTS "scholar" because, for me, that's even worse, considering who some of them claim to be and yet, still call our dear Lord "Jesus". Not to mention, have absolutely NO clue as to John 6:48-58 or, if they do, close THAT "door" to most of their members. And don't let me get to their utter disregard for John 7:37-38; 14:6; 1 John 2:26, 27... I could go on for pages...). Please don't mean those "scholars," else I will really be concerned about you (LOLOL!).

As I shared with you, it is what I received from our dear Lord. And, per him, it was in the Vetus Latinas ("Old Vulgate"), which predated the Vulgate written by Jerome, a Catholic priest commissioned by the College of Pontiffs (surely, you knew this was the faction that infiltrated the Body, just as we were told would occur?), the Roman state church during our dear Lord's day here, which later changed its name to the "College of Cardinals. If not, please do yourself a solid and read the history of the Vetus Latinas, Jerome's Vulgate, Jerome, the College of Pontiffs, the Catholic Church, the College of Cardinals, etc. OR... ask the Master. I find the latter much easier (though the former is quite fascinating, I must admit!).



You do understand that right. That's why he directed me to include the previous verses - to give accurate context to who Lazarus was speaking about. This situation is very similar to people not understanding "who" was speaking to who about "whom" in the account of "Lucifer" (which is our dear Lord, and not the Adversary).



It does. But this has occurred before, yes? We have MANY instances where what Bible versions set out is different from what our dear Lord tells us. One very good example is Matthew 28:19... yes?



That is what I was given from our dear Lord to share with you, yes. And is that not accurate? I think you will see below that it is,



I find it interesting that you invoke Paul here... and over Christ. Ho-kay, my brother, but...

Paul taught a lot of things accurately. He also taught a lot of things inaccurately. You do recall Peter writing that Paul wrote "many things hard to understand," yes? That's because Paul often deviated. So, where Paul and Christ differ... who do WE listen to? Me? I choose Christ. But let's look at Paul here, using the NWT:

As to Romans 3:9, Paul wrote -

"What then? Are we in a better position? Not at all! For above we have made the charge that Jews as well as Greeks are all under sin;..."

Where, pray tell, did I share that Jews AND Gentiles are not all under sin? What I shared what that they were not all under the Old Law (Psalm 147:19, 20), which Paul himself acknowledged (Romans 2:14; 3:1, 2) and why he was so upset that the Jews were trying to make the non-Israelite Gentiles become circumcised (Acts 15:1, 2; Romans 2:26; 1 Corinthians 7:18; ). If they WERE under the Old Law they would have HAD to get circumcised... yes?

As to Romans 10:12 -

Why did you overlook the previous and subsequent verses? They explain verse 12:

For the scripture says: “No one who rests his faith on him will be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek. There is the same Lord over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of JaH'eShua will be saved.

Using just verse 12 to support your premise here is misleading, dear brother.

As to Romans 12:13 -

Share with the holy ones according to their needs

I'm not sure of your application here...

As to Galatians 3:26-29 -

You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ [Jesus]. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in union with Christ [Jesus].

This is EXACTLY the point. Did you notice Paul didn't mention water baptism but only the baptism into Christ? How is that baptism no effectuated? Did our dear Lord himself not tell us how at Matthew 28:19? Before we look at that, let's look at how the NWT sets out the verses:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit,

What do they mean by "in the name of the Father 'and of the Son' "and of the holy spirit'"? Yes, I know they teach there is no Trinity and that "the holy spirit" is God's active force. And they are right in this. But what they publish is "in the name of the Father"... "AND of the Son" (implying that in that name, too)... "AND of the holy spirit." Are they not implying a name there, as well? If not, how is that distinguishable?

But read as our dear Lord said it and shared with us, we know how such are baptized. Because HE said:

Go, therefore, and teach the peoples of the nations what I have taught you, baptizing them in the name of the Father into the Son with holy spirit...

And that is what they did. To the Jews, they went baptizing in water AND holy spirit - to the non-Israelite Gentiles, in holy spirit only (Matthew 3:;7; John 3:26; 4:1, 2; Acts 1:5, 2:38, 41; 8:12, 13; 8:16, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47, 48; 11:16; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:1-5 and you will notice, Paul had the men there undergo a second baptism; 22:1, 2, 14-16).

[NOTE: I refer to "non-Israelite Gentiles" because a "Gentile" is anyone who is not a Jew. Including those of the other 10 tribes of Israel. But, while not Jews (and so, Gentiles), those... the Samaritans... are still "Israel". Indeed, more so than the Jews who were/are "Judah". They are not categorized out from the non-Israelite Gentiles because the JEWS taught (and some still teach and many "christians" believe) that only the JEWS matter/will be saved, that the other 10 tribes are "lost" and never to be found... or saved by God... again. That is a lie - ALL of the tribes from Jacob will be saved - Romans 11:26.]

As to Colossians 3:9-11 -

Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Yes! But this also does not speak to water baptism but baptism into Christ by means of holy spirit! As the previous verses help us see:

"If, however, you were raised up with the Christ, go on seeking the things above, where the Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Keep your minds fixed on the things above, not on the things on the earth. For you died, and your life has been hidden with the Christ in union with God. When the Christ, our life, is made manifest, then you also will be made manifest with him in glory. Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. But now you must put them all away from you: wrath, anger, badness,j abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth."

John was baptizing in water in repentance before Christ came. Because that baptism was as to the Old Law and "dying" as to transgression against it. So, those who were "repenting"... but not necessarily coming to Christ... underwent it. Those Hebrews who DID come to Christ had to be "dead" as to the Old Law. "Die" as to their transgressions as to it - that is what they were repenting OF. That's why the Pharisees and Sadducees came, too! But, again, non-Israelites weren't under that Law... and so would not be judged according to it. THEY will be judged according to the "sins" of their consciences! By their "nature". If they do the things of the Law by NATURE they ARE a law unto themselves. And if they transgress their OWN law... they are condemned. Just as Israel is condemned by its Law.

Unless... they have exchanged their own Law... for Christ's Law. The law of love which judges of the basis of mercy and forgiveness: show mercy... and you will be shown mercy. Forgive... and you will be forgiven.

As to Ephesians 2:14 -

For he is our peace, the one who made the two groups one and destroyed the wall in between that fenced them off. By means of his flesh he abolished the enmity, the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, in order to make the two groups in union with himself into one new man and to make peace, and to reconcile fully both peoples in one body to God through the torture stake because he had killed off the enmity by means of himself. And he came and declared the good news of peace to you who were far off, and peace to those near, because through him we, both peoples, have free access to the Father by one spirit.

The Old Law was the "fence," the wall between Israel and the nations. It was what kept them separate. Hence, Israel had to repent of their transgressions against that Law; the non-Israelite Gentiles did not because they were never under such Law. Their ancestors didn't stand at the base of Mt. Sinai and swear an oath for their progeny; Israel's did. Hence, Israel was the only other party to the Covenant with the MOST Holy. The non-Israelite Gentiles were not; they never were.

And that is the POINT: that God, who formerly named ONLY the seed of Abraham, through his son Isaac, through his son Jacob/Israel, through his 12 sons... as His "holy nation," "people for a special possession," and [future] "royal priesthood,"... turned His attention away from these and to people who were NOT of Israel... to take out of THEM "a people for His name." Yet, He will not forget Israel - ALL of them will be saved. But the nations... the "great crowd"... must be called in first. As king/priests. To take the place of rebellious, disloyal Israelites. Acts 11:26; Revelation 5:9,10; 7:9-15. But He did not forget His promise to Abraham and so 144,000 from that man's seed (Revelation 7:4-8) will be sealed in order to ensure the promise is kept.

Then, under Christ, instead of two laws (Old Covenant for Israel/nature for the others), these will have one law, one Lord, etc. And they will have one shared baptism, a baptism that they BOTH have undergone, the baptism by fire/holy spirit.



Water baptism is not symbolism as to dying of one's sins; if we could die as to our sins, none of us would ever sin again. Else, we keep re-impaling the Christ, yes? Water baptism is in symbolism of repentance of sin against the Old Law. Which is why John came preaching it, and why Christ set the example and underwent it. The non-Israelite nations were not required to undergo water baptism but only the one baptism (by fire/holy spirit). While there were a dozen Hebrew disciples (Acts 19:1, 12) in Ephesus (Turkey), Paul went there to call (and subsequently wrote to) those called there who were non-Israelite Gentiles.

Even so, I think you misread Ephesians 2:1, which states:

Furthermore, God made you alive, though you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. Yes, among them we all at one time conducted ourselves in harmony with the desires of our flesh, carrying out the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and we were naturally children of wrath just as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of his great love with which he loved us, made us alive together with the Christ, even when we were dead in trespasses - by undeserved kindness you have been saved."

So, was it with Christ that God made us alive... or was it with water baptism? Paul didn't wrote that everyone has to die to their sins. He wrote that everyone is dead IN their sin. Which is true because, unless one has been granted life one IS dead... isn't one? For one will die and not receive a resurrection to life but to judgment and then the 2nd death. In the eyes of the MOST Holy, NO ONE is "living"... until they are granted eternal life. Until then, they are considered dead (Matthew 8:22). We, too, were/are dead... until we receive the (holy) spirit of life, which we receive from the Holy (Spirit), Christ, who is the Life. Yes?



My dear brother, I did not share that Paul did not preach to Jews. I shared that he was not SENT (an apostle) to the Jews (which is why he was rejected by them); he was SENT (an apostle) to the non-Israelite Gentiles. Paul, a former Pharisee, often had to learn things the hard way; that's why he was chosen to fulfill Stephen's position. He didn't suffer at the hands of the Gentiles he was sent to - he suffered at the hands of the JEWS he WENT to (Acts 9:16), who then turned him over to the Romans.



Yes!!!!! Exactly!!! It had nothing to do with him, per se, but with the Old Law. That's why were doing it before he arrived on the scene. That's why the Pharisees and Sadducees presented themselves for it! THEY were looking for or to the Christ!



No, he was not. These men were "disciples" of JOHN. Hence, they were Jews/Hebrews. Paul was sharing with them as to the baptism with holy spirit, something they had never even heard about. If you notice, he didn't tell them that they didn't NEED John's baptism, no more than Peter told Cornelius (a Samaritan and so an Israelite Gentile (non-Jew)) and his household that THEY didn't need it. In fact, Peter called for it to be done... for them to be water baptized... not just after Christ's death, resurrection, appearance, and ascension... but AFTER these had received baptism by holy spirit... yes? These still had to undergo water baptism. Acts 10:44-48

[NOTE: I might add, though, that this shoots all manner of holes in the false teaching of the WTBTS that one cannot be anointed unless they're water baptized first. Here, not only Cornelius but his household, relatives, and friends were anointed first and THEN were water baptized (Acts 10:24).]



YES!!!!! YES... YES... YES... YES... YES... and no - LOLOL! You'll understand in a sec - LOLOL!!!!



Ah, brother... isn't holy spirit "water"? Life's "water"? What our dear Lord, the Life, calls us to him to DRINK?? TRUE drink??? (John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39; Revelation 22:17)


Not quite. Again, it's in the name of the Father... INTO the Son... WITH holy spirit. Do you "see"?

I hope (all or at least some of - LOL!) that is helpful, dear LQ. But, again, there is a better and easier way (John 10:27; 14:6; 1 John 2:26, 27)

Again, peace to you and to your dear household!

Your servant, sister, and a slave of Christ,

Shel

Oh, wow... you clearly went to a lot of effort to answer me, for which I am greatly appreciative. Unfortunately, I wasn't clear in one of my statements that led you down a path I wasn't intending.



When I wrote this, I was not referring specifically to baptism, but more in general, no difference between the two. The whole point I was trying to make was that Jews and Gentiles were to be treated the same. I wasn't speaking about baptism specifically (in my own mind when I wrote it), but would include baptism in there. These verses were referenced to show that they were the same now, with no distinction, thus I'm failing to understand why you distinguish between Jews/Samaritans and non-Isrealite Gentiles with regards to baptism. (And you caught a mistake: Rom 12:13 should have been 1 Cor 12:13. My bad.)

That said, regardless of my intention, you did reference them in regards to baptism, which I found helpful nonetheless.

I am struggling with the distinction between Jews/Samaritans and non-Israelite Gentiles in regards to baptism. In your first reply to me, you said:



And then to your most recent reply:



I have never understood water baptism in symbol of repentance (John's baptism) to be death to transgressing the Old Law. I've always understood it to just be sins:

Mark 1:4 - John the Baptizer was in the wilderness, preaching baptism in symbol of repentance for forgiveness of sins.

It seems you are equating "sins" with transgressing of the Law. I know of no verse that says water baptism is related to the Old Law, however I suppose I have to agree with you on "sins" relating to the Old Law on the basis of Rom 5:13.

For sin was in the world before the Law, but sin is not charged against anyone when there is no law.





Follow up question to this. Cornelius was a Gentile. So far as I can tell, a non-Israelite Gentile (possibly Roman centurian Acts 10:1). Yes, he was in Caesarea, in Samaria, but was he really considered a Samaritan just because he was stationed there? Or was he a Roman, since he was an army officer in the Italian unit? If water baptism was related to repenting from sinning against the Old Law, why would he and his family need that baptism since they may not have been under the Law (if he was indeed a Roman)?

I'm seeking to understand the distinction of water baptism as I have understood it all my life (repentance for forgiveness of sins) versus what you're saying in regards to the Old Law. Since water baptism is "repentance for forgiveness of sins", wouldn't it be for all sins, regardless of whether it's under the Old Law or by nature since all have sinned? (Rom 2:12:16; Rom 5:12)





I know how you feel about scholars. I feel the same way. I only made mention that many scholars view the KJV rendering of 1 John 5:7 as spurious since it didn't show up in the earliest manuscripts. Of course, with so many "scholars" out there all saying different things, it's impossible to know who is right and who is not. (Yes, I know you will say to go to our Master, but I have not been given ears to hear to as clearly as you do, so I am left with little else to go on. We've been over this ad nauseum, so not much more to say about this.) I laughed when you referenced WTBTS. I'm so far out of WTBTS that I don't even care what they say anymore. They might be right about some things, but so what? So are other religions. But no one religion is right about ALL things. Therefore, there is no singular true religion. It's a joke to think otherwise. So, no, I wasn't referencing WTBTS "scholars".




I had forgotton this. (My mind is a leaky sieve). I did a quick search on this forum for Matt 28:19 and came up with this thread. I re-read it, and any questions I still have are answered there, so no need to reiterate the same info again.

Greetings and peace to you again, dear LQ! Since there's no need to go over issues already discussed (and hopefully understood), I will start here:



Dear one, wouldn't someone in/of Samaria be a... wait for it... "Samaritan"? To help you "see" this, consider:

1. The Samaritan woman that our dear Lord met at [i[Jacob's[/i]. Where, but within the lands given to Israel, would Jacob's well be? Why would a anyone but an Israelite be drawing water at Jacob's well? The lands had not yet been redispersed by Herod and the Romans. Why did the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans? Why did the disciples go into the town in Samaria to buy supplies if they had absolutely NO dealing with Samaritans? Why would the woman say to our dear Lord "OUR ancestors worshipped in this mountains" vs. "MY ancestors worshipped in this mountain" or "the ancestors of MY people worshipped in this mountain"? She did so because before David conquered Jerusalem, before his son Solomon built the temple there, and before Solomon's general, Jeroboam, changed worship for the 10-tribe kingdom [back] to Bethel, Israel worshipped in the mountains, not Jerusalem (Exodus 3:1; Joshua 13:6; Judges 1:8; 1 Kings 12:16-33; 19:8, 11). It was this history that allowed Jeroboam to mislead the 10-tribe kingdom to leave off worship at Jerusalem.



I LOVE that you asked that! The Italian unit was NOT the same as Rome at the time but part of Latium, which was not initially Roman. Hence, you have distinctions between Cornelius, "an army officer in the Italian unit" and, say, the "commander of the Roman troops" (Acts 21:31). The "Italian unit" were the soldiers of Latium, which was the area surrounding Rome. Latin was their language (they were called the "Latini"). Rome had its own language ("lingua Romana"). Rome was founded and developed within a land much older than they and more prevalent so they adopted the language of the surrounding lands (as they always adopted the religions on the surrounding lands and/or lands they occupied). The information here might be helpful: https://latin.stackexchange.com/questio ... d-of-roman

If water baptism was related to repenting from sinning against the Old Law, why would he and his family need that baptism since they may not have been under the Law (if he was indeed a Roman)?

Cornelius was not a Roman but a Samaritan, employed as an officer of the Italian (Latium) unit. Even so, being a Roman had nothing to do with it. Paul was a Roman... and a Jew. A Jewish Roman. You know, like a Jewish American. Cornelius was an Israelite who lives in Caesarea, Samaria. Thus, he was a Samaritan. He wasn't a Jew - he wasn't of the tribe of Judah or Benjamin and so wasn't a Jew - Paul was of Benjamin, thus making him a Jew:

Jew - 2-tribe kingdom of "Judah" made up of those from Judah and Benjamin --> "Oholibah"
Samaritan - 10-tribe kingdom of "Israel" made up of those from the other 10 tribes --> "Oholah"



What you understand is based on what you were taught by the WTBTS. Such things may be "strongly entrenched" but I exhort you to LET... IT... GO. Let it ALL go! Indeed, tear it down to the foundation [Cornerstone] which is Christ and let HIM help you "build" your "house," dear brother! Let EVERYTHING you were ever taught by the WTBTS GO. ALL of it. Even what may have been true! Start with a COMPLETELY LEAN slate and stop trying to put new wine in an old wine skin or sew a new patch on OLD cloth. You MUST become as a young child - one who knows NOTHING but must be TAUGHT (by Christ). Dear one, they're not only still teaching differences between the 144,000 and the "great crowd" but that the 144,000 are ALSO taken out of every nation. C'MON, dear LQ - Let CHRIST [help you] "build" your "house." Build it on the ROCK that is our dear Lord... and not on the "sand" that is the teachings of men and which mislead and result in a weak "house" which is washed away when a great storm comes through!!



No. You cannot hold someone to the tenets of a Covenant they are not a party to. And all parties have to agree to be a part. Only Israel (and those who left Egypt with them) agreed to the Old Covenant. The PURPOSE of the Old Covenant was to KEEP Israel FROM sin. Sin such as committed by the nations. Sin for which the nations can be judged. But the nations cannot be judged according to the Old Covenant, dear one. Only those of Israel can. John's baptism was as to repentance for sin against the tenets of the Old Law.

But to help you "see", let's say there are people... non-Israelites... who commit murder. Can they be judged for that? Yes. Because it's a crime against mankind. Even their own people will have NATURAL laws against murdering a brother. Killing an enemy? No problem. Murder (which requires premeditation) a "brother"? No so easy. Same as under the Law Covenant.

Let's say they, though, that as a people they eat pork. Unless they have they have their own law against it, how would they be eating in sin? What "law" made it a sin? They never heard of, let alone entered into, the Law Covenant? One cannot be judge by a Law that was not known to them. That isn't the same as being ignorant of a law. But if a law was never adopted by those governing you, you can't be held accountable for it... in your own land. So, for instance, adultery does not have a death penalty in the US. It does, though, in certain Middle Eastern countries.

Don't let the WTBTS brainwashing fool you or continue to permeate. They have NO idea what this is all about, which we can know simply by means of their misunderstanding and so misteaching as to the "great crowd." And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Go to JAH and ask Him to send you HIS truth. Not the WTBTS', not religion's, not that of scholars, not mine... not yours. HIS. If you TRULY want to know. But make sure you "count the cost". Because you need to be sure you will be able to FINISH "building" your "house" (Luke 14:28).

I can PROMISE you, it would be worth EVERY "penny" you spend; however, I have learned that, for some, the of the "riches" of the world, whether that be money, prosperity, acceptance/reverence by others, prestige... and more... will often seem more appealing. It is an illusion, though - I have yet to find any who have chosen that over Christ to be truly happy. To the contrary, I've seen more unhappiness, misery, even mental illness, if not right out apostasy, be the result.

Start at the foundation cornerstone, dear LQ. In fact, look up that term and see what a cornerstone is and how it's used.

Again, peace to you... and to your dear household, my dear brother!

Your servant, sister, and a slave of Christ,

Shel

Yes, but does that make him an Israelite bound to the Old Law? Samaria had its share of non-Israelite gentiles living in that country. You said he was an Israelite. I'm curious why you say that.




I absolutely agree with you. WTBTS is dead to me. Has been for a long time. Unfortunately, I haven't been given ears to hear like you do. Tiny bits and pieces here and there, but that's about it. I take what I can get in that regard.




So, what you're saying is that water baptism, in symbol of repentance for forgiveness of sins applies only to those under the Old Law because the non-Israelite Gentiles (and yes, I am aware Samaritans were considered Gentiles by the Jews), were not bound to the Old Law, thus no need of repentance for sinning against/transgressing that Law. Do I have that correct?

Now I'm a little confused as to exactly how baptism into Christ is performed. I thought by water also, but now I'm not so sure.




I'm aware of what it is and how it's used, but I will refresh myself again. Maybe I'll pick up on something I missed before.

Peace to you, again, dear LQ!



Once the Romans occupied it, yes (and hence, the WTBTS and other religions' false teaching that Cornelius being a soldier in the "Italian" unit/band was the same as him being a Roman soldier. It was not.).

Samaria was the land given to Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh). Its capital, Bethel, is where Jeroboam set up his center of false worship for the 10-tribe kingdom of "Israel" ("Judah" worshipped in Jerusalem).

This isn't just info I received from our dear Lord, my brother; it's out there, including in the Bible (1 Kings 11:28-14:31):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaritans

This TRUTH is not common knowledge because the "christian" religious leaders don't want to offend Jews (who have unilaterally... and wickedly denied the existence of the other 10 tribes for millennia, falsely pointing to 1 Kings 13:34 as applying to the extermination of ALL of the kingdom of "Israel" versus only to the house of Jeroboam. They have perpetuated the lie that "Israel" is solely Jews, which it is not. Israel (in the flesh) is the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah/Benjamin (aka "Judah") and the kingdom made up of the other 10 tribes (aka "Israel").

But let's look at it logically: if there were Jews (those of "Judah") living during Christ's time here, why wouldn't there have been those of the other tribes? There were: "Israel." But calling them "Israel" was an affront to the Jews because:

(1) they were Israelites, too, and

(2) they considered themselves better... more faithful... than the other tribes because they had rebuilt and so still worshipped at the temple in Jerusalem.

So, the JEWS renamed the other tribes "Samaritans," so as to separate them as being Israelites, identifing them with the land where they lived versus their descendancy from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.

Christ, however, acknowledged them, first with the woman at the well, then by telling his disciples who they would be sent to ("the lost sheep of the house of Israel")... and the order such would be called:

"But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.” Acts 1:8

Why mention "all Judea and Samaria"? Why not Judea and Antioch? Judea and Egypt? Judea and Ephesus? Because Judea was the land of the southern kingdom of Israel, "Judah," and Samaria was the land of the northern kingdom of Israel, "Israel." The Jews occupied Judea; the Samaritans occupied Samaria.

I hope that helps but, again, you don't have to take my word for it. You do acknowledge that I hear, though, yes? And you've been coming to this board for at least 10 years or so, yes? And in that time I have not only openly shared with and everyone here what I received and who I received it from. I have not only not lied to you and not only have I shared the support (biblical and otherwise) for what our dear has given me, but in many cases posted such solely on the basis of his voice, trusting that HE will provide the "witness"/corroboration in HIS due time, which he always has. And so, I'm not sure I understand the "tone" underlying your professed confusion.

For that reason, as your sister in Christ, I MUST address your "hearing" issue(s), as you brought it up several times here, even comparing it to mine. I must state MY truth as to this, though, so I apologize if my words cause you (and anyone else) discomfort. When it comes to Israel, though, sometimes a little discomfort is needed. Here goes:

I understand that you believe you don't hear as well as I do. I am not sure why I am the target of your chagrin about that, though (which is how I feel, yes). I greet you ALL with a wish for peace AND use your forum name, regardless of how I feel, how my day is going, what's occurring in my life. I address you as brothers and sisters ALWAYS. What I don't do... can't do... is grant ears/hearing; only Christ does that.

If you're not irritated with me about this (which is how it reads to me), but perhaps with him, I also don't understand that. Because ears are not withheld from those who TRULY want them. Now, you might say you truly them but is that TRUE? I would say no. To you and anyone else here who has the same issue. I would say that your lack of hearing does not lie with me OR with Christ but lies with you and YOU must take a personal inventory and ask yourself what's up and whether you doing ALL he has said you NEED to do in order to prepare for him? I can tell you, not due to some special hearing about ot but just from what is shared on this sight, most do not. I don't share this because I'm given some special insight - your own words (or lack of words) reveal this.

Want to hear? Perhaps start with obeying. Maybe cleanse the inside of the cup - rid yourself of anger, jealousy, hypocrisy, judgmentalness, or whatever is standing in the way (YOU know what it is and it isn't me or him). Quit touching unclean things, even with your heart (think, Lot's wife). Stop being indecisive. Make a solid choice. Choose who you will follow. Choose who you will listen to. Choose whom you will obey. BE HOT. Or... be cold. But e one OR the other. Because being lukewarm warm won't get you anything.

All of you, any of you - if you DON'T truly want to follow Christ, don't. Do I rejoice if you do? Absolutely! Will I mourn if you don't?
I will, for a time, yes. ALL of us should rejoice if another living stone is added to the Temple. All those in the heavens do, most specifically JAH and Christ. And all of us should mourn if one doesn't. Because every stone is to JAH's praise and Christ's.

But it doesn't work if one doesn't truly want to. One can [try to] pretend, but eventually their truth will come out, reveal itself. And it will do so via anger, contention, jealousy, hypocrisy, pretense, deceit, unkindness, snide remarks, hurtful humor, finger pointing, backbiting, etc. All of which is pointed at everyone... except oneself. Even at JAH and Christ.

Or... in the eventual denial of them. Which I have experienced occur over the years by those who took issue because they (believe they) didn't hear "like/as well as do." What each one missed, though, indeed, [i]completely overlooked was:

1. What they revealed as to their own conduct, from all manner of errors (none of which I judged them for);

2. Their "anger" at JAH/Christ because "they" didn't give such one what the one asked for (even when it belonged to someone else!) or do some "miraculous" thing when the one asked for it (although admitting they weren't "sure" they even believed in JAH/Christ).

They want to be "paid" FIRST and then (maybe) they'll do some work. And even when they receive... even are well-cared for... they soon forget and cry again about how JAH/Christ aren't doing (something) for them. Classic Israel.

It also doesn't work, though, if one is only going through the motions out of fear. Fear of dying, fear of "hell/Armageddon,"... fear of losing loved ones... fear of being wrong ("What if they ARE there? The things Shel shares make sense! I don't want to put myself out there - I might look like a fool! But what if she's right? She sounds right!" But they don't talk to me like they talk to her.").

They do, though. To everyone (Proverbs 8:4-8). It is not about them not speaking. It's not even about our not being able to hear. It's about our hearing... but not listening. Because one doesn't want to hear ALL that they're saying to one. Especially... if it's discipline. If it's something the one doesn't want to hear.

And the reason for this is... a lack of love. Because service to them HAS to be out of LOVE. HAS to be. Listening... because you love them. Because if you love JAH and Christ, you WILL love your neighbor and even your enemy. Because that's what they want us to do and when you (truly) love someone you do what pleases them. And if you love your brother... and even your enemy... you are loving JAH and Christ. Because they ARE love.

But you cannot serve them while comparing yourself to others or others to you. You cannot. For you will either consider yourself better... and so have contempt for the other, or view the other as better and so foment jealousy, even anger. Or worse, "murder" them in your heart. As Cain murdered Abel in the flesh.

If any need to, a re-read of Cain's "problem" with Abel might be helpful.

If I misread your "tone," dear LQ, I apologize. But it was not only concerning to me... and not the first time it concerned others.

I wish you the greatest of love... and peace, as our dear Lord, the Holy Spirit and Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJaH) gives it... you and your household.

Your servant, sister, and a slave of Christ,

Shel

Oh, dear. Oh my. I'm so sorry. That was not at all my intention of saying that I don't hear as you do. Please accept my sincere apologies for making you feel that way.

As for the rest, how do I express that I'm not offended, and you're not entirely wrong? Well, I guess I just did. I'll leave it at that for now.

Good evening my brother and sister, peace to you both and may Jah and Christ bless you and your households,


I love the way this is summed up. We do hear! We ALL hear! They speak to ALL of mankind. Our hearing is only limited by our choice. Whether we choose to obey what we hear or not. It’s not the hearing that’s the issue, it’s the obeying what we do hear that blocks their spirit from flowing. And Shel is right. She has seen all differing scenarios in folks that profess to belong to Christ ( being anointed) and then stop altogether. Because they didn’t receive what they thought they should ( fame, glory, gifts, power, acknowledgement of being important) instead of learning “ to serve.” Serve Jah and Christ out of love. Love for them! Not what they can do for us. Love for them because of what they’ve already DONE!
And to SERVE ONE ANOTHER! Humbling ourselves before the Most Holy and His Son. ( He that humbles himself will be exalted).

Jah and Christ love us so much. They want only what’s best for us. They know what we need, are far ahead of us and are trying to teach us what we as mankind cannot learn on our own or through man and religion.
All we have to do is surrender to them. Listen to them! Kiss the Son! Keep our eyes and ears focused on Him. Obey what they tell us do. It is not burdensome. The world, religion and what it offers and requires is the burden.

I love you all and may Jah and Christ’s mercy be upon us all,
Your sister fellow servant and slave of Christ,
kim




They do, though. To everyone (Proverbs 8:4-8). It is not about them not speaking. It's not even about our not being able to hear. It's about our hearing... but not listening. Because one doesn't want to hear ALL that they're saying to one. Especially... if it's discipline. If it's something the one doesn't want to hear.

And the reason for this is... a lack of love. Because service to them HAS to be out of LOVE. HAS to be. Listening... because you love them. Because if you love JAH and Christ, you WILL love your neighbor and even your enemy. Because that's what they want us to do and when you (truly) love someone you do what pleases them. And if you love your brother... and even your enemy... you are loving JAH and Christ. Because they ARE love.

But you cannot serve them while comparing yourself to others or others to you. You cannot. For you will either consider yourself better... and so have contempt for the other, or view the other as better and so foment jealousy, even anger. Or worse, "murder" them in your heart. As Cain murdered Abel in the flesh.

Peace ... as our dear, DEAR Lord gives it... to you BOTH, dear LQ and dear Mom (Kimmie)!

It's late am I am about to fall asleep, and so won't expound further just now except to THANK you... BOTH.

Your servant, sister, and (fellow?) slave of Christ,

Shel

May you all have peace (and love) as our dear Lord Jaheshua gives peace (and love),


I'm not sure there is much for me to add to all that has been shared, except perhaps to add my witness that Cornelius was a Samaritan and so also Israel - from the ten tribe northern kingdom of Israel; as opposed to the two tribe southern Kingdom of Judah (Judah and Benjamin - aka - the Jews).


I will add one thing that I received from my Lord about water baptism being for forgiveness of sins (in general)... because, is not the blood of Christ for forgiveness of sins? Does His blood not cover us so that we have forgiveness in Him?

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.



We have His blood for forgiveness of sins!


John's baptism was a symbol of repentance for transgressions against the law of the old covenant. (I mean, what other sins would John the Baptist or any other Jew have been referring to except those committed against that law?) Leaving (peace to you), you even received/gave a witness to this yourself when you brought up Rom 5:13!



As for the verse in question from the OP, Shelby (peace to you!) shared this as our dear Lord read it to her:



I love this so much! This makes so much more sense (obviously, being truth from our Lord)! Thank you my dear sister for sharing that!







Amen, to both.

Peace and love to you all, and to your households,
your sister and servant and a fellow slave of Christ,
tammy

"This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."- Matthew 26:28

THANK you, for that, dear, dear Tams (peace to you and to your household, my dear sister)!!! That verse perfectly sums up what grants forgiveness for our sins (winks at dear LQ - peace to you, as well, dear brother, and to YOUR household) - LOLOLOL!



Apology absolutely totally accepted, dear LQ, and I apologize if I misread your "tone." It did read to me as if you were... frustrated... (and perhaps you were, even unknowingly at yourself) and needing a target to express it upon. I apologize if I made you feel bad in ANY way.

Dear ones, look. I must remind you that I don't do this for YOU. Not really. I mean, I know that it can be helpful to you, WANT it to be helpful to you, but cannot our dear Lord help even more? Of course, he can. Which is why I urge you to go to HIM. Because I do it... for me and MY household (... "with the mouth one makes PUBLIC declaration for salvation"). And for this reason, I have not lied to you, cannot lie to you, about these things. Cannot mislead you (intentionally or unintentionally) about these things. Because it's MY [eternal] life and that of my household's that is at stake. And while I might risk my own life, I will NOT risk their's!

True, I might not be speaking with you with my mouth, but this is the medium given us to "speak" in our time. Once, it was orally. Then things were written on paper with ink. Now... we have electronic communication methods. And I am very grateful that we have because once something leaves the MOUTH, it cannot be unspoken. With this medium, we have a chance to review our words, check them, to make sure they are accurate, that they set forth what was received "just so." And perhaps as well as that they are kind, to greatest extent possible.

My dear sisters and brothers, as I have shared many times... I took a vow: to ALWAYS share the truth as to JAH and Christ, and just as I receive it from either of them. Even if that meant quoting them exactly and even admitting to unbelievers that they are the source. I took that vow out of love... FOR them. Because they have saved, protected, cared for, taught, led, shown, guided, and even humbled me (when needed, and it has been needed and often) as far back as I can remember... and STILL do all of these things even today. And they made ME a promise: that if I wasn't ashamed of them before men, whoever such men/women might be... even father, mother, husband, children, brother... I would not be treated with shame when I came before them. Well, I could NEVER repay them for what they have done for me and my household, and will yet do. NEVER. The LEAST I can do for THEM, then, is to tell the truth. Share the truth. Even (try to) set the record straight when and where I can. EVEN if others don't listen, don't want it, oppose... or even kill me.
I have dedicated my life them and to doing that among my "kind"... OUR kind... for them. On their behalf.

And so, when I share something, it's not just my opinion, POV, or speculation. I PROMISE you. If I was not CERTAIN that what I was sharing was true, or more, that it was from them... I would not share it with YOU. That's just too dangerous (for you AND for me) a thing to do! That's what religion does. That's how they (and scholars!) mislead: putting forth their own thinking, opinions, speculations, and so teachings. One of the most important instructions I know of is that which says:

"Trust in JAH with ALL your heart and do NOT lean upon your OWN understanding. In ALL your ways take notice of/submit to/acknowledge/know/think on/listen to HIM/put HIM first and HE will make your path straight/level/smooth/successful." - Proverbs 3:5, 6 (in various Bible versions)

If you know me at all, you know that I take that admonition VERY seriously. VERY. And so, as I've also shared with you all before, this is NOT a game for me. It's not and so I try, to the very best that I am humanly capable of to do just that: trust in JAH which, for me, means trusting in His Son, our dear Lord, JAHESHUA (Psalm 2:12; Matthew 17:5; John 14:6). And for me, that trust is often down to the tiniest of details ("Don't change lanes, yet, child - there is a motorcycle coming that you haven't seen!"). Do I always do it down that that level of detail? No, I don't - sometimes I am on "life autopilot" like everyone else. But I mostly do and those who know me personally will tell you that about me.

My point is that I don't come here to argue or debate these things but only to share them (and/or respond, if someone is asking for clarification and I have been given a response/understanding/clarification. But you ALL know whom I tell you to go to FIRST... always. That you do not have to take ANYTHING from me. I get it that that's not necessarily "easy" for all to do - totally get that. But if you haven't done that or, for whatever reason, can't do that... or have but [don't think] you've "heard"/been given anything, I would not wickedly, unkindly, and unlovingly tell you, "Oh, well, too bad - You should have gone the Master. You'll just have to wait until you have ears/are able to hear on your own. I'm not going to share what he's given ME." Where is the love in THAT???

I received free, I will share for free. And I will not hold back just because human nature (and the Adversary) would try to compel me to. I will ask for strength and courage to overcome my human nature... and the faith and loyalty to overcome the Adversary... and any he might try to use... and share what he has given/taught ME as to a matter with you.

May the undeserved kindness and mercy of our great Father, JAH of Armies, He who is the MOST Holy, and the love and peace of our dear Lord, His Son, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJAH), be upon you ALL... and upon your dear households... to time indefinite!

Your servant, sister, and a slave of Christ,

Shel

My apologies, dear ones (peace to you, all!) - I must correct a typo. Above, dear LQ (peace to you, dear brother!) posted:



And I responded:

Yes!!!!! Exactly!!! It had nothing to do with him, per se, but with the Old Law. That's why were doing it before he arrived on the scene. That's why the Pharisees and Sadducees presented themselves for it! THEY were looking for or to the Christ!

I meant to respond:

"Yes!!!!! Exactly!!! It had nothing to do with him, per se, but with the Old Law. That's why were doing it before he arrived on the scene. That's why the Pharisees and Sadducees presented themselves for it! THEY weren't looking for or to the Christ!"

My sincere apologies for any confusion.

Again, peace to you all... and to your dear households!

Your servant, sister, and a slave of Christ,

Shel