Quote:
Yesterday got away from me, so I didn't read this until the evening, but couldn't respond then.
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!).
Quote:
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?
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).
Quote:
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.
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?
Quote:
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.
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,
Quote:
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)
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 needsI'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.
Quote:
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).
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?
Quote:
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).
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.
Quote:
Let's talk about water baptism for a moment. Acts 13:24 shows that water baptism was "before the arrival of that one [Christ]".
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!
Quote:
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?
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).]
Quote:
Does this also mean that the command at Matthew 28:19 is about holy spirit baptism, not water baptism?
YES!!!!! YES... YES... YES... YES... YES... and no - LOLOL! You'll understand in a sec - LOLOL!!!!
Quote:
(Though, I think baptism is always done by water, right?
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)
Quote:
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?)
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