John The Baptist

[Joe Gofish]

I would like to know where John the Baptist got the practice of baptizing as I see it no-where else in the
bible.

[Tladatsi]

Probably from the Essenes (if they are the same as the Quram community). They practiced baptism extensively and had a whole theology of baptism (read the dead sea scrolls). Joesphus discusses their practice as well. Some folks have argued that John was a renegade Essene as his theology seems very similar to theirs except from the their secrecy. They were reclusive and exclusive while John was mixing it up with the ordinary people.


I would like to know where John the Baptist got the practice of baptizing as I see it no-where else in the
bible.

[Provoker]

Hello Joe:
Baptism(burial) was an initiatory act of one who accepted the good news the the kingdom was going to be resurrected, and it was made to order for fundamental(true) Judaism, because it enacted the death and resurrection of the kingdom of Israel. It was also symbolic of dying to one's old purpose, and rising from that death, born again with a new purpose...watching and waiting for the messiah, and the resurrection of the kingdom of Israel.
I have read that baptism was customary for converts to Judaism, before the Jerusalem Jews became the backslidden, lost sheep of the house of Israel.

I would like to know where John the Baptist got the practice of baptizing as I see it no-where else in the
bible.

[geoff]

Rabbinic literature has baptism being quite a common thing in the first century. It takes on a different meaning in the light of Jesus' death and ressurection.

[commonman]

I would like to know where John the Baptist got the practice of baptizing as I see it no-where else in the
bible.

A bit of a tangent, but Peter describes the great flood as a type of baptism.

[Amazing Rando]

I would like to know where John the Baptist got the practice of baptizing as I see it no-where else in the
bible.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites were frequently commanded to go out and wash themselves whenever they committed certain sins, or did something that made themselves ritually unclean. For example, check out Leviticus 11:25, 28, 40; 13:6, and chapter 15. Also see how Naaman was cleansed from his leprosy in 2 Kings 5.

The idea was that this ritual washing was done to remove the stain of impurity, sin, and uncleanliness. It was done repeatedly, whenever anyone committed a sin or touched something that was unclean.

When John the Baptist came around, he seems to have taken this rite of ritual cleansing and transformed it into something new. It was no longer done repeatedly, but done only once, upon profession of faith (Mark 1:5). For John, baptism seems to be an initiation rite of sorts, symbolizing and effecting once and for all cleansing from sins. It was in this way he prepared the way for Jesus.

[Provoker]

When John the Baptist came around, he seems to have taken this rite of ritual cleansing and transformed it into something new.
Hello Rando:
Baptism was a Jewish rite long before John the baptist, and it was simply a customary response, confirming, after the fact, one's conversion to Judaism.
The Greek word "Baptizo" refers to "immersion", as in burial, not as in washing, and connotes death, burial, and resurrection.
Baptism was used in conjunction with one's conversion to "the gospel of the kingdom", which is the good news that the Davidic kingdom of Israel, which is long dead and buried, will be resurrected from the dead.

[Amazing Rando]

Hello Rando:
Baptism was a Jewish rite long before John the baptist, and it was simply a customary response, confirming, after the fact, one's conversion to Judaism.
The Greek word "Baptizo" refers to "immersion", as in burial, not as in washing, and connotes death, burial, and resurrection.
Baptism was used in conjunction with one's conversion to "the gospel of the kingdom", which is the good news that the Davidic kingdom of Israel, which is long dead and buried, will be resurrected from the dead.

I'm unaware of any contemporary first century (or earlier) Jewish documents that refer to baptism being taken in this way. Can you cite something?

[Provoker]

I'm unaware of any contemporary first century (or earlier) Jewish documents that refer to baptism being taken in this way. Can you cite something?
Hello Rando:
I'm not sure exactly what part of my post you are wondering about, but consider that baptism is "the answer of a good conscience", which places it after one's conversion to the gospel of the kingdom, and it is pretty hard to deny that the rite of baptism represents death, burial, and resurrection.
Symbolic "death, burial, and resurrection", in conjunction with John the baptist's proclaiming of "the good news of the kingdom", ties the concept of death, burial, and resurrection, with the resurrection of the long dead Davidic kingdom.
Remember the prophesy used concerning Jesus' birth, that "a child would be born who would receive the kingdom of his father David".
Years ago, I read that baptism was a pre-first century rite, performed on proselytes to Judaism, and years later, when I realized that Judaism began as a nationalist movement, after the prophesy that a child would be born who would receive the kingdom of his father David, it became obvious that baptism was an integral part of that nationalist movement, and represented the death, burial, and resurrection of the Davidic kingdom, which the Christ will receive according to prophesy.

[Amazing Rando]

Hello Rando:
I'm not sure exactly what part of my post you are wondering about, but consider that baptism is "the answer of a good conscience", which places it after one's conversion to the gospel of the kingdom, and it is pretty hard to deny that the rite of baptism represents death, burial, and resurrection.
Symbolic "death, burial, and resurrection", in conjunction with John the baptist's proclaiming of "the good news of the kingdom", ties the concept of death, burial, and resurrection, with the resurrection of the long dead Davidic kingdom.
Remember the prophesy used concerning Jesus' birth, that "a child would be born who would receive the kingdom of his father David".
Years ago, I read that baptism was a pre-first century rite, performed on proselytes to Judaism, and years later, when I realized that Judaism began as a nationalist movement, after the prophesy that a child would be born who would receive the kingdom of his father David, it became obvious that baptism was an integral part of that nationalist movement, and represented the death, burial, and resurrection of the Davidic kingdom, which the Christ will receive according to prophesy.

What I'd like is a reference to some 1st century or earlier text that describes baptism being performed as an initiation rite with all the symbolic death, burial, and resurrection meaning that imparts. As far as I know, it was original to John, but if you can cite me something that proves otherwise, I'm all ears.

[themuzicman]

Hello Rando:
Baptism was a Jewish rite long before John the baptist, and it was simply a customary response, confirming, after the fact, one's conversion to Judaism.
The Greek word "Baptizo" refers to "immersion", as in burial, not as in washing, and connotes death, burial, and resurrection.
Baptism was used in conjunction with one's conversion to "the gospel of the kingdom", which is the good news that the Davidic kingdom of Israel, which is long dead and buried, will be resurrected from the dead.

Actually, baptizw literally means to dip or immerse, and is frequently used for the washing of hands and pots and such.

The death aspect is simply an euphamism.

Michael

[Provoker]

Actually, baptizw literally means to dip or immerse, and is frequently used for the washing of hands and pots and such.

The death aspect is simply an euphamism.

Michael
Hello Michael:
There is not a specific sentence in the bible, for each and every thing that is gleaned from scripture. Context is always the key, and the story that scripture tells is the context.
It is simply a matter of common sense, in that "Judaism" did not exist prior to the prophesy that the Davidic kingdom would be resurrected, and baptism is specificly linked to the process of "conversion to Judaism".
The reason that there was an effort to convert people to Judaism, was to prepare for the coming Christ, by raising up a body of people to follow him when he comes, into battle for the promised land(Armageddon?).
When the Judean Jews backslid from the founding principle of Judaism, they turned their focus inward, and no longer proselytized.
When "true" Jews, like John the baptist, and Jesus, came to bring the backslidden Jews back into the fold, the practice of baptism was revived.
John baptized for repentance, which means that he baptized people when they "changed their minds" and believed that the Davidic kingdom would be resurrected. They would certainly not submit to baptism if they were not already convinced/converted.
The idea that the gospel of the kingdom was refering to a "spiritual kingdom", is simply a misunderstanding, because the prophesy definitely refers to the resurrection of "David's kingdom", by "David's son", and the "spiritual kingdom" refers to all those who believe, and are committed to, the good news that the kingdom will be resurrected. They have the spirit of the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel in their hearts and minds, and therefore they are "the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel...in-spirit".
The Covenant nation/kingdom of Israel, has not literally existed since it's division and fall at the end of Solomon's reign, but all those who have been committed to it's resurrection since that time, were/are "spiritual Israel/the spiritual kingdom", because their hearts and minds look forward to the coming of the Christ, and the resurrection of the kingdom.
When the final trump sounds, indicating that the promised land has been re-possessed by "spiritual Israel", they will all be changed in the twinkling of an eye, into "literal Israel", resurrected from the dead.
When the Christ makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem(his bride), he will be consumating the marriage of covenant Israel with the land which makes them a nation/kingdom.
Everything which has happened in scripture, from the death of king Solomon on, has been about the coming resurrection of the covenant Davidic kingdom of Israel.
Baptism...Death, burial, and resurrection of covenant Israel.

[themuzicman]

Hello Michael:
There is not a specific sentence in the bible, for each and every thing that is gleaned from scripture. Context is always the key, and the story that scripture tells is the context.
It is simply a matter of common sense, in that "Judaism" did not exist prior to the prophesy that the Davidic kingdom would be resurrected, and baptism is specificly linked to the process of "conversion to Judaism".
The reason that there was an effort to convert people to Judaism, was to prepare for the coming Christ, by raising up a body of people to follow him when he comes, into battle for the promised land(Armageddon?).
When the Judean Jews backslid from the founding principle of Judaism, they turned their focus inward, and no longer proselytized.
When "true" Jews, like John the baptist, and Jesus, came to bring the backslidden Jews back into the fold, the practice of baptism was revived.
John baptized for repentance, which means that he baptized people when they "changed their minds" and believed that the Davidic kingdom would be resurrected. They would certainly not submit to baptism if they were not already convinced/converted.
The idea that the gospel of the kingdom was refering to a "spiritual kingdom", is simply a misunderstanding, because the prophesy definitely refers to the resurrection of "David's kingdom", by "David's son", and the "spiritual kingdom" refers to all those who believe, and are committed to, the good news that the kingdom will be resurrected. They have the spirit of the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel in their hearts and minds, and therefore they are "the covenant nation/kingdom of Israel...in-spirit".
The Covenant nation/kingdom of Israel, has not literally existed since it's division and fall at the end of Solomon's reign, but all those who have been committed to it's resurrection since that time, were/are "spiritual Israel/the spiritual kingdom", because their hearts and minds look forward to the coming of the Christ, and the resurrection of the kingdom.
When the final trump sounds, indicating that the promised land has been re-possessed by "spiritual Israel", they will all be changed in the twinkling of an eye, into "literal Israel", resurrected from the dead.
When the Christ makes his triumphal entry into Jerusalem(his bride), he will be consumating the marriage of covenant Israel with the land which makes them a nation/kingdom.
Everything which has happened in scripture, from the death of king Solomon on, has been about the coming resurrection of the covenant Davidic kingdom of Israel.
Baptism...Death, burial, and resurrection of covenant Israel.
Um... proviker? While context may be important, the general use and meaning of the word at the time defines its primarly lexical form, and baptizw during biblical times meant dipping or immersing. You can wave your hands all you want about theology and how the Jews baptized and all that, but you're not going to get away from the base lexical meaning of the word to the NT writer.

To use baptizw to refer to baptism or death of any kind is to assign a symbolism to the foundational lexical meaning of the word. Yes, in the context of a religous ceremony, dipping or immersing had a specific meaning, and in Christianity, it is associated with death, but that doesn't change the foundational meaning of the original word.

You need to keep that in mind.

Michael

[Amazing Rando]

I still have trouble swallowing the idea that 1st century Jews viewed baptism as an initiation rite. As far as I know, John was an innovator in that regard, and without some sort of contemporary citation from the 1st century or earlier, I will not be able to see it any other way.

[themuzicman]

One explanation: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Jesus/baptism.htm

Not saying that I necessarily agree with the site, but the history is interesting.

Michael

[Provoker]

Um... proviker? While context may be important, the general use and meaning of the word at the time defines its primarly lexical form, and baptizw during biblical times meant dipping or immersing. You can wave your hands all you want about theology and how the Jews baptized and all that, but you're not going to get away from the base lexical meaning of the word to the NT writer.

To use baptizw to refer to baptism or death of any kind is to assign a symbolism to the foundational lexical meaning of the word. Yes, in the context of a religous ceremony, dipping or immersing had a specific meaning, and in Christianity, it is associated with death, but that doesn't change the foundational meaning of the original word.

You need to keep that in mind.

Michael

Hello Michael:
I'm not sure what the word "βαπτιζω" is, or even what language it is, and it certainly may connote dipping, or immersing, just as the English word "burial" does, but I think it is splitting hairs to suggest that one cannot be immersed in the earth, or buried in water.
While the secular word "baptism" may refer strictly to the act of immersion, or burial, that immersion, or burial, is always followed by a resurrection, which completes the ritual.
"Immersion" does not imply "washing", because "washing" does not require, or imply, "immersion", but "burial" implies "death", and "death", to a Jew, implies "burial".
The "baptism" of the great flood, refers to the death of the old world, and resurrection of a new world. I'm sure that those who were being immersed in the great flood, did not consider the flood to be a wash-up opportunity...LOL

[Provoker]

One explanation: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Jesus/baptism.htm

Not saying that I necessarily agree with the site, but the history is interesting.

Michael
Thankyou Michael:
It was many years ago that I learned that baptism was a Jewish ritual prior to John, and I have no idea where I learned it.
I could not seem to come up with the right combination of words, to Google up a reference like that one...LOL

[Provoker]

One explanation: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Jesus/baptism.htm

Not saying that I necessarily agree with the site, but the history is interesting.

Michael
Thankyou Michael:
It was many years ago that I learned that baptism was a Jewish ritual prior to John, and I have no idea where I learned it.
I could not seem to come up with the right combination of words, to Google up a reference like that one...LOL
The article does not make it clear whether or not this self immersion refers to "washing", or to "death to one's impurity, and resurrection to purity", but it would seem that they are both in the same metaphorical ball park anyway.

[Provoker]

While context may be important, the general use and meaning of the word at the time defines its primarly lexical form...

Hello Michael:
I cannot express how much I disagree with that statement.
The New Testament writers wrote in a Greek dialect which was completely dead by the end of the 4th century, and "the original Greek" you appeal to is a doctrinally biased paraphrasing, in the completely different Byzantine language which became the new Koine Greek by the end of the 4th century.
There is no 1st century Koine Greek New Testament. The very first Greek New Testament; Erasumus' 16th century textus receptus, was also known as "The Byzantine text".
The only completely valid part of scripture, after several, consecutive, interpretive paraphrasings into different languages, is the story told by the continuity of the historical record of scripture.
I don't care how systematic your theology is until you show me that it's biblical.
"Biblical" does not mean "a chapter and a verse", it means "in context with the bible story".

[Tladatsi]

Read the Dead Sea Scrolls, they are full of references to baptism.

Also, read Josephus, he also describes the Essenes baptismal practices.


What I'd like is a reference to some 1st century or earlier text that describes baptism being performed as an initiation rite with all the symbolic death, burial, and resurrection meaning that imparts. As far as I know, it was original to John, but if you can cite me something that proves otherwise, I'm all ears.

[Tladatsi]

The key element that made John so different (and dangerous) was not his baptismal practices but his theology. He said that your sins could be forgiven and that you did not need to go to Jerusalem and pay the priests to have that happen. All you had to do was confess your sins and ask forgiveness from God. The baptisms that John performed were just the outward sign of the inward transformation.


I would like to know where John the Baptist got the practice of baptizing as I see it no-where else in the
bible.

[Provoker]

The key element that made John so different (and dangerous) was not his baptismal practices but his theology. He said that your sins could be forgiven and that you did not need to go to Jerusalem and pay the priests to have that happen. All you had to do was confess your sins and ask forgiveness from God. The baptisms that John performed were just the outward sign of the inward transformation.
Hello Tladatsi:
It is my opinion that the sins which Jews could be forgiven for, were the sins committed by national Israel, when it split into two enemy nations, which both went down to destruction without repenting(reuniting as one assembly which loved God, and **Loved one another**).
Judaism was a nationalist movement founded on "the gospel of the kingdom", proclaimed by prophets in Babylon during the captivity, but the Jerusalem Jews backslid from the gospel, and became the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus came to heal their backsliding, by re-proclaiming "the gospel of the kingdom".
The transgressions of individuals, were taken care of by the penalties perscribed by the laws of the land they lived in.
What do you think?

[apostoli]

One explanation: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Jesus/baptism.htm

Not saying that I necessarily agree with the site, but the history is interesting.Thankyou Michael:
It was many years ago that I learned that baptism was a Jewish ritual prior to John, and I have no idea where I learned it.
I could not seem to come up with the right combination of words, to Google up a reference like that one...LOLIf it is of interest, here are links to the Jewish Encyclopedia's slant on John the Baptist and Baptism...

"With reference to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," R. Akiba, in the second century, made the utterance: "Blessed art thou, O Israel! Before whom dost thou cleanse thyself? and who cleanses thee? Thy Father in heaven!" (Yoma viii. 9). Accordingly, Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=371&letter=J
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=baptism

[Provoker]

If it is of interest, here are links to the Jewish Encyclopedia's slant on John the Baptist and Baptism...

"With reference to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," R. Akiba, in the second century, made the utterance: "Blessed art thou, O Israel! Before whom dost thou cleanse thyself? and who cleanses thee? Thy Father in heaven!" (Yoma viii. 9). Accordingly, Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist"

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=371&letter=J
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=222&letter=B&search=baptism
Hello Apostoli:
The fact should be considered, that the Jews(Josephus included) were backslidden, unless they had been converted by Jesus and/or his apostles, so the Jews obviously misunderstood the message of scripture, so again, the greater context of the whole story is going to be more reliable than common era, biased, Jewish, explanations of scripture.
Another consideration must be that "baptism", which means "immersion" or "burial", is not the "sprinkling" that the Ezekiel passage mentions.
The very reason that "baptize" is a transliteration, and not a translation, is because king James was the titular head of the church of England, which baptized by sprinkling. The translators took the politicly correct route, and wisely did not translate the word...LOL

[apostoli]

Hi Provoker,

The fact should be considered, that the Jews(Josephus included) were backslidden, unless they had been converted by Jesus and/or his apostles, so the Jews obviously misunderstood the message of scripture, so again, the greater context of the whole story is going to be more reliable than common era, biased, Jewish, explanations of scripture.You are assuming that the Jews have no ancient testimony. There is the dead sea scrolls and other Jewish writings that pre-date the 1st century. So, I think it imprudent just to write off whatever they say about their traditions as post Christian inventions. That aside: regarding the use of the words for immersion...

"[Baptizo should] not to be confused with bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/9/1135524112-1625.html

If I recall correctly: the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that an initiation/cleansing ceremony through immersion in water is/was also common to many pagan religions. Therefore, we can't discount the possibility that the "baptizo" custom was adopted by some Jewish sects when they were exiled in Babylon.

Somewhere I read, that the controversial thing about John the Baptists teaching was it negated the need for participating in the temple sacrifices for forgiveness of sin. All that was required is true repentence. However, we must remember that John's baptism was deficient.

In Acts it mentions that there were Jewish converts to christianity who only knew the baptism of John, and had to be put straight about the baptism in Christ (eg: Acts 18:24-28; 19:3-6).

As you might note from Acts even some early Christian converts were vague on what baptism entailed and needed help in their understanding.

Another consideration must be that "baptism", which means "immersion" or "burial", is not the "sprinkling" that the Ezekiel passage mentions.The word can actually mean a washing. But as pointed out above it is a special form of washing that goes beyond merely being immersed in water. Also note Mark 16:16 where belief occurs first and then baptism. Baptism by itself has no value.

Your comment does raise an important point: are we baptised by water or (I think it was Calvin that said) symbolically sprinkled with the blood of christ. A.Paul does say without the blood there is no salvation. And Jesus foretold that the disciples would be "baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with" (Matt 20:23) and he doesn't mean immersed in water. Thinking back on Nicander and his pickles (see above): Is it possible that our water baptism is just a preparation for our real baptism?

It just occurred to me, that I don't recall mention of the disciples being baptised (except for those who had followed John the Baptist). Baptism of the Holy Spirit doesn't seem to count (Acts 10:44-48). I guess we have to assume that Jesus baptised them after the ressurection or that they are exempt from water baptism as they received the baptism of faith, through staying with Jesus and obeying him.

The very reason that "baptize" is a transliteration, and not a translation, is because king James was the titular head of the church of England, which baptized by sprinkling. The translators took the politicly correct route, and wisely did not translate the word...LOLOut of curiousity I just checked Exe 36:25 at blueletterbible the 10 versions they cite all have sprinkle which translates the Hebrew work zaraq. Apparently the term is used 35 times in 33 verses. I've just read through the cited verses, most relate to the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice on the alter. However, 3 relate to water...

sprinkled with the water of seperation
Num 9:13; 19:20

In Ezekial the term is used three times referring to coals, water and blood
Exe 10:2; 36:25; 43:18

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1135522404-467.html#25

[Provoker]

Hello Apostoli:
As I have mentioned before, it is my opinion that the continuous story which runs through scripture, is much more reliable, for interpreting, than the Greek dictionary is.
The historical story which runs through scripture, tells of the rise of covenant Israel to national greatness as a kingdom...then it tells of covenant Israel's fall from existence, through national division, and the lack of national repentance...then it tells of how the messianic resurrection of the Davidic kingdom is prophesied, and the watching and waiting for the coming messiah, and kingdom resurrection, began.
In a nutshell, the recorded past history, and prophesied future history, in scripture, represent "the rise, the fall, and the resurrection", of covenant Israel.
The good news of the kingdom is that the kingdom is going to be resurrected, and when one who does not believe it, changes his mind(repents), and becomes a believer in the good news of the kingdom, he performs the ritual of baptism, to show that he has changed his mind(repented). Baptism for repentance, makes it clear that one is baptized to show that he has changed his mind. The person who has changed his mind, has died to his old way of thinking, is buried and born again(raised from the dead) to his new way of thinking. The subject of his mind change(repentance) is the long dead and buried Davidic kingdom, which will be born again(raised from the dead). What more fitting ritual than the complete immersion(burial) of one's body, and rising triumphant from that immersion(burial).
The context suggests that baptism represents resurrection of the dead. Since it is not practical to actually put a person in a grave and then raise him up again, water is a convenient medium for symbolizing the grave.
The fact that there were already Jewish rituals having to do with washing with water, does not mean that first century baptism represents ritual washing, but on the other hand, pre-first century ritual washing may have earlier symbolized the resurrection of dead Israel, but the meaning simply became forgotten as the Jews became backslidden.
It is my opinion that the Jewish tradition of practicing old, redudant, Israelite laws and rituals, was begun to keep the Jews prepared to practice them by law when the kingdom is resurrected.
We have to remember, that 1st century common Greek was a dead language by the end of the 4th century, and the original NT texts were translated, interpreted, and paraphrased into the later Byzantine, and it was the Byzantine Greek, not 1st century common Greek, which was translated into English, and so we don't know what doctrinal assumptions were made during the Greek to Byzantine translation.
What do you think?




Hi Provoker,

You are assuming that the Jews have no ancient testimony. There is the dead sea scrolls and other Jewish writings that pre-date the 1st century. So, I think it imprudent just to write off whatever they say about their traditions as post Christian inventions. That aside: regarding the use of the words for immersion...

"[Baptizo should] not to be confused with bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/9/1135524112-1625.html

If I recall correctly: the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that an initiation/cleansing ceremony through immersion in water is/was also common to many pagan religions. Therefore, we can't discount the possibility that the "baptizo" custom was adopted by some Jewish sects when they were exiled in Babylon.

Somewhere I read, that the controversial thing about John the Baptists teaching was it negated the need for participating in the temple sacrifices for forgiveness of sin. All that was required is true repentence. However, we must remember that John's baptism was deficient.

In Acts it mentions that there were Jewish converts to christianity who only knew the baptism of John, and had to be put straight about the baptism in Christ (eg: Acts 18:24-28; 19:3-6).

As you might note from Acts even some early Christian converts were vague on what baptism entailed and needed help in their understanding.

The word can actually mean a washing. But as pointed out above it is a special form of washing that goes beyond merely being immersed in water. Also note Mark 16:16 where belief occurs first and then baptism. Baptism by itself has no value.

Your comment does raise an important point: are we baptised by water or (I think it was Calvin that said) symbolically sprinkled with the blood of christ. A.Paul does say without the blood there is no salvation. And Jesus foretold that the disciples would be "baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with" (Matt 20:23) and he doesn't mean immersed in water. Thinking back on Nicander and his pickles (see above): Is it possible that our water baptism is just a preparation for our real baptism?

It just occurred to me, that I don't recall mention of the disciples being baptised (except for those who had followed John the Baptist). Baptism of the Holy Spirit doesn't seem to count (Acts 10:44-48). I guess we have to assume that Jesus baptised them after the ressurection or that they are exempt from water baptism as they received the baptism of faith, through staying with Jesus and obeying him.

Out of curiousity I just checked Exe 36:25 at blueletterbible the 10 versions they cite all have sprinkle which translates the Hebrew work zaraq. Apparently the term is used 35 times in 33 verses. I've just read through the cited verses, most relate to the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice on the alter. However, 3 relate to water...

sprinkled with the water of seperation
Num 9:13; 19:20

In Ezekial the term is used three times referring to coals, water and blood
Exe 10:2; 36:25; 43:18

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1135522404-467.html#25

[Daco]

I would like to know where John the Baptist got the practice of baptizing as I see it no-where else in the
bible.


I had the same question as you, only it began from the phrase born again. Where did Jesus get this idea? It is never mentioned in the Old Testament as such.

In the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus (John chapter 3:3-10) it says, "3Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

What I found (The Life and Times of Jesus Messiah, Alfred Edersheim, Hendrickson Publishers, new updated edition 1993, Appendix 12 On the Baptism of Proselytes, pp. 1014), was that when a Gentile wanted to convert to the religion and worship the God of the Jews, there were three things he was required to do. 1) He must be circumcised, 2) He must bring a blood sacrifice, and 3) He must be immersed in water. Upon completing these things, the Gentile proselyte to Judaism was then considered to be "born again" - that is, he was now a "born again Jew." This was the reference Jesus was making to Nicodemus, then, that even though Nicodemus was born a Jew, he also needed to be "born again" in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. This new birth was of a spiritual nature rather than having to do with the physical nature. Thus, in the Church Age, baptism takes on the application of the burial of our old sinful nature. This is found in Romans 6:3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Baptism is not an intiation, it is a burial of the old man. Repentance is the death, baptism is the burial, and the baptism or infilling of the Holy Ghost is the resurrection of Jesus Christ applied to the believer. This makes baptism necessary to salvation and not just an initiatory or ceremonial performance to be done when one "joins" a church.

[Mercuryrules]

I still have trouble swallowing the idea that 1st century Jews viewed baptism as an initiation rite. As far as I know, John was an innovator in that regard, and without some sort of contemporary citation from the 1st century or earlier, I will not be able to see it any other way.

According to research by Rudolf Steiner, The Baptism practised by John was different to how it is popularly conceived of today.

It was most definately an initiation of a particular kind. The person to undergo it was actually brought almost to the brink of death through partial drowning. It's not easy to describe the experience but it would be very similar to many modern experiences of near death reported today (especially connected to drowning ,though not exclusive to it) - where people commonly report a kind of reexperience of their life and a moral reevalution of themselves. Remember John is popularly known as preaching repentance, but the actual Greek word is "metanioa" which means a changing of the mind or similar.

Real rites of initiation were kept secret and very unlikely to be documented . As well as the secrecy of the tradition, John was also working very strongly out of the guidance of an angel and possibly higher beings as well.

[Provoker]

Hello all:
I find it curious that posters are quite prepared to appeal to authors who write books about the bible, and to selected verses and passages from the bible, but no one seems to be interested in the story which results from all the verses and passages together.
The bible was not written in verses, it was written in context and it contains a very clear story from beginning to end, which cannot be told with single verses, or passages, but is only discovered by the continuous flow of context(the story) through the bible. Selected verses can be employed to build any story one cares to build, but only the complete story interprets all the verses.
When we read a story which has a definite beginning and a definite ending, it's basic plot can usually be synopsized in a few sentences, by leaving out all the details of how the conclusion was achieved, but if we concentrate on interpreting the details, without synopsizing the story, we are missing the point.
Consider another story with a definite plot:
James Bond is sent out by Britain to save the world from an evil plot, and he gets the job done before the last page, but the fact that he smokes Players cigarettes, and drives a Bentley with 2 inch diameter exhause pipes, has nothing to do with the outcome. The only way to know that Players cigarettes, and Bentleys, are not important doctrines in the fight agains evil, is to read the whole story. At that point, one realizes that it is interesting that 007 smokes Players cigarettes, and he drives a Bentley, but it does not imply a rule that one must smoke Players cigarettes, and drive a Bently, in order to save the world from an evil plot.
If 007 fans become divided because some think that it is alright not to own a Bentley, but we must smoke Players, and others think that we must own a Bentley, but we cannot smoke players, and others think that neither a Bentley, or Players, is important, as long as one smokes something, and owns some kind of a car, we are simply getting further and further away from understanding the plot of the story.
The point that I am trying to make here is, that it is important to understand the problem and the solution first(the story), before all the details will be clearly understood.
Concentrating on the details(trees), without recognizing the plot from beginning to end(the forest), will without doubt, cause one to miss the point of the story, and scholars of "the story", end up knowing nothing more than a bunch of selected sentences from here and there in the story, which they use to "prove" their interpretation of details, regardless of how the greater context(the story) interprets them.
A very clear and obvious story, runs with complete continuity through scripture, but amazingly it is hidden from eyes which have been blinded by the man-made division of scripture into verses, testaments, and dispensations, and the recognition of that story, will clear up all the doctrinal arguements which divide the post-apostolic church...Baptism included...LOL

[Daco]

Hello all:
I find it curious that posters are quite prepared to appeal to authors who write books about the bible, and to selected verses and passages from the bible, but no one seems to be interested in the story which results from all the verses and passages together.
The bible was not written in verses, it was written in context and it contains a very clear story from beginning to end, which cannot be told with single verses, or passages, but is only discovered by the continuous flow of context(the story) through the bible. Selected verses can be employed to build any story one cares to build, but only the complete story interprets all the verses.
When we read a story which has a definite beginning and a definite ending, it's basic plot can usually be synopsized in a few sentences, by leaving out all the details of how the conclusion was achieved, but if we concentrate on interpreting the details, without synopsizing the story, we are missing the point.
Consider another story with a definite plot:
James Bond is sent out by Britain to save the world from an evil plot, and he gets the job done before the last page, but the fact that he smokes Players cigarettes, and drives a Bentley with 2 inch diameter exhause pipes, has nothing to do with the outcome. The only way to know that Players cigarettes, and Bentleys, are not important doctrines in the fight agains evil, is to read the whole story. At that point, one realizes that it is interesting that 007 smokes Players cigarettes, and he drives a Bentley, but it does not imply a rule that one must smoke Players cigarettes, and drive a Bently, in order to save the world from an evil plot.
If 007 fans become divided because some think that it is alright not to own a Bentley, but we must smoke Players, and others think that we must own a Bentley, but we cannot smoke players, and others think that neither a Bentley, or Players, is important, as long as one smokes something, and owns some kind of a car, we are simply getting further and further away from understanding the plot of the story.
The point that I am trying to make here is, that it is important to understand the problem and the solution first(the story), before all the details will be clearly understood.
Concentrating on the details(trees), without recognizing the plot from beginning to end(the forest), will without doubt, cause one to miss the point of the story, and scholars of "the story", end up knowing nothing more than a bunch of selected sentences from here and there in the story, which they use to "prove" their interpretation of details, regardless of how the greater context(the story) interprets them.
A very clear and obvious story, runs with complete continuity through scripture, but amazingly it is hidden from eyes which have been blinded by the man-made division of scripture into verses, testaments, and dispensations, and the recognition of that story, will clear up all the doctrinal arguements which divide the post-apostolic church...Baptism included...LOL

Excellent point and well illustrated. Yet, after all the illustration, you did not synopsize the Bible's story for us. What is the very clear story from beginning to end?

I agree completely with what you are saying, however, I find that Paul instructed that we should study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (For once I hesitate to list where one might find this written). Chapters and verses alone do not rightly divide the Word, but the coupling together of chapters and verses in context so that it is rightly done give sense to the reader concerning doctrines of God. It appears to be the intent of the Holy Ghost, who inspired all Scripture (again, you know where to find this written, as well) that we study the Word by dividing it.

Again, I do not discredit what you have said. I agree there is a whole and complete story that must be ascertained, and you illustrate well how we can sometimes stray from the real point by arguing details.

[Provoker]

Hello Daco:
I did synopsize the story; "The rise, the fall, and the coming resurrection of the covenant kingdom of Israel."
One must appeal to the details to find out why this is the story of the bible however.
"The rise" covers the time from Adam to Solomon, but "the rise" which pertains to the story of Christianity, begins with God choosing to offer an everlasting covenant to the sovereign, nomadic, assembly, called the children of Israel, that if Israel keeps God's laws, God will make Israel into a great nation which will be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth.
The spirit of God's law boils down to; "Love God and love one another", which Israel accepts, and signs by circumcision of the flesh.
The covenant nation of Israel gradually becomes greater until sometime in Solomon's reign, when the kingdom becomes divided against it'self, and when Solomon dies, covenant Israel ceases to exist in a civil war which results in two enemy nation/kingdoms(they no longer love one another, so how can they love God who they have not seen).
All the two nations had to do was repent, by reuniting into the one covenant nation of Israel, but they both went down to their respective destructions without repenting.
The covenant is everlasting, so it is simply in a phase where Israel is not keeping it's part of the covenant, and God is then legally obliged to refrain from making Israel into a great nation.
God turns His face away from Israel, and cannot turn His face back until Israel repents. The problem is that the nation of Israel no longer exists, and therefore cannot repent.
When the captives in Babylon received the good news prophecy that an annointed child would be born, who will receive the kingdom of his father David, they get the spirit of the kingdom in their hearts and minds, and begin to watch and wait for the messiah, and kingdom resurrection.
According to the terms of the everlasting(old) covenant, God cannot help Israel become a great nation, unless Israel is repentant, so God cannot assist in the resurrection of Israel, and therefore, the messiah cannot be God, or sent by God.
It is up to those who have the spirit of the kingdom(spiritual Israel), to increase their numbers by proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and accepting converts into the assembly of spiritual Israel, so that the prophesied messiah will have a following which is viable as a force to take back, and hold, the promised land, at which time spiritual Israel will be changed, in the twinkling of an eye, into covenant national Israel, resurrected from the dead.
In any case, when an honest scholar recognizes that there is a complete story running through scripture, in spite of the man-made division of scripture into verses, he must consider that story as context, and interpret the details accordingly.
What do you think?


Excellent point and well illustrated. Yet, after all the illustration, you did not synopsize the Bible's story for us. What is the very clear story from beginning to end?

I agree completely with what you are saying, however, I find that Paul instructed that we should study to show ourselves approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (For once I hesitate to list where one might find this written). Chapters and verses alone do not rightly divide the Word, but the coupling together of chapters and verses in context so that it is rightly done give sense to the reader concerning doctrines of God. It appears to be the intent of the Holy Ghost, who inspired all Scripture (again, you know where to find this written, as well) that we study the Word by dividing it.

Again, I do not discredit what you have said. I agree there is a whole and complete story that must be ascertained, and you illustrate well how we can sometimes stray from the real point by arguing details.

[apostoli]

Hi All,

Provoker, a couple posts ago makes a very important point which many people, through their church understanding, might miss.

Catechists will make a cite such as the following...

This is found in Romans 6:3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Baptism is not an intiation, it is a burial of the old man. Repentance is the death, baptism is the burial, and the baptism or infilling of the Holy Ghost is the resurrection of Jesus Christ applied to the believer. This makes baptism necessary to salvation and not just an initiatory or ceremonial performance to be done when one "joins" a church.

...However, they neglect to note that in the book of Acts it is plainly said that the form of John the Baptist's baptism was deficient and there were those who received the the Holy Spirit either before baptism or after baptism. Also that nowhere in the scriptures is it said that Jesus' disciples were baptised (except it is implied they participated in the baptism of Christ - which wasn't by water), that Jesus himself defined baptism (he didn't define it as water baptism) and A.Paul said he was not sent to baptise but preach the Gospel.

An important point: Water baptism must be perceived as a symbolic initiation into a new life but it is not said in scripture that it is a pre-requisite salvation!

Something we need to ask ourselves: Have I participated in the baptism of Christ or have I just participated in a church ritual? The answer should be both but then you need to know what it is to participate in the baptism of Christ!

[Provoker]

Hi All,

Provoker, a couple posts ago makes a very important point which many people, through their church understanding, might miss.

Catechists will make a cite such as the following...



...However, they neglect to note that in the book of Acts it is plainly said that the form of John the Baptist's baptism was deficient and there were those who received the the Holy Spirit either before baptism or after baptism. Also that nowhere in the scriptures is it said that Jesus' disciples were baptised (except it is implied they participated in the baptism of Christ - which wasn't by water), that Jesus himself defined baptism (he didn't define it as water baptism) and A.Paul said he was not sent to baptise but preach the Gospel.

An important point: Water baptism must be perceived as a symbolic initiation into a new life but it is not said in scripture that it is a pre-requisite salvation!

Something we need to ask ourselves: Have I participated in the baptism of Christ or have I just participated in a church ritual? The answer should be both but then you need to know what it is to participate in the baptism of Christ!
Hello Apostoli:
The deficiency in John's baptism was simply that the physical act may have indicated a change of heart, but it did not actually mean that one had a changed heart. When one's repentance finally seeped down into his heart of hearts, the spiritual part of baptism had taken place...baptism in the holy spirit.
It is simply the difference between making a logical committment to the gospel of the kingdom with the head, which is all that was actually necessary in changing one's mind, and actually getting into the spirit of that committment.

[apostoli]

Hi Provoker,

Hello Apostoli:
The deficiency in John's baptism was simply that the physical act may have indicated a change of heart, but it did not actually mean that one had a changed heart. When one's repentance finally seeped down into his heart of hearts, the spiritual part of baptism had taken place...baptism in the holy spirit.

It is simply the difference between making a logical committment to the gospel of the kingdom with the head, which is all that was actually necessary in changing one's mind, and actually getting into the spirit of that committment.To some extent I agree with your comment. However, in Acts, those that had only been baptised with the baptism of John were rebaptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:3-5) then they received the Holy Spirit.

[Provoker]

Hi Provoker,

To some extent I agree with your comment. However, in Acts, those that had only been baptised with the baptism of John were rebaptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:3-5) then they received the Holy Spirit.

Hello Apostoli:
I would interpret that to mean that John had convinced them of "the good news of the kingdom", but he did not emphasize that it could take place in their lifetime. When they heard "the gospel of the kingdom" from Jesus' apostles, they became convinced that the good news event could be close at hand, and they simply got into the spirit.
There is no doubt that John and Jesus proclaimed the same "gospel of the kingdom", but there may be some doubt over which was the better evangelist...LOL I have always had the impression that John was a bit of a pessimist, and probably did not instill a lot of zeal in his converts.
What do you think?

[apostoli]

Hello Apostoli:
The deficiency in John's baptism was simply that the physical act may have indicated a change of heart, but it did not actually mean that one had a changed heart. When one's repentance finally seeped down into his heart of hearts, the spiritual part of baptism had taken place...baptism in the holy spirit.
It is simply the difference between making a logical committment to the gospel of the kingdom with the head, which is all that was actually necessary in changing one's mind, and actually getting into the spirit of that committment.Hmm! Valid point.

However, elsewhere in Acts there where those that received the Holy Spirit and then were baptised! Seems to me that water baptism is an outward sign to others but not a pre-requisite of salvation.

The RCC holds (as I do) three forms of valid baptism: the physical water baptism, by faith (those living the Godly life but know not Christ), and of blood (those that believe in Christ, have died (martyed) without water. baptism).

[Daco]

Hi All,

Provoker, a couple posts ago makes a very important point which many people, through their church understanding, might miss.

Catechists will make a cite such as the following...
This is found in Romans 6:3-4, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." Baptism is not an intiation, it is a burial of the old man. Repentance is the death, baptism is the burial, and the baptism or infilling of the Holy Ghost is the resurrection of Jesus Christ applied to the believer. This makes baptism necessary to salvation and not just an initiatory or ceremonial performance to be done when one "joins" a church.


...However, they neglect to note that in the book of Acts it is plainly said that the form of John the Baptist's baptism was deficient and there were those who received the the Holy Spirit either before baptism or after baptism. Also that nowhere in the scriptures is it said that Jesus' disciples were baptised (except it is implied they participated in the baptism of Christ - which wasn't by water), that Jesus himself defined baptism (he didn't define it as water baptism) and A.Paul said he was not sent to baptise but preach the Gospel.

An important point: Water baptism must be perceived as a symbolic initiation into a new life but it is not said in scripture that it is a pre-requisite salvation!

Something we need to ask ourselves: Have I participated in the baptism of Christ or have I just participated in a church ritual? The answer should be both but then you need to know what it is to participate in the baptism of Christ!

I do not overlook that baptism by John the Baptist was before the New Testament was of force. He, himself, said that he baptised unto repentance but [Jesus] he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. I guess I assume everyone already understands this. The reason that baptism is of such importance is that it is through baptism that one applies the burial of Christ to themselves. This is after repentance, in which one applies the death of Christ to oneself and before the infilling of the Holy Ghost, which is the application of the resurrection of Christ to oneself. I don't know of any other way to "obey" the gospel. If the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:1-4), and it is, how does one "obey" that otherwise?

[Provoker]

Hello Daco:
Jesus' apostles did his "water baptizing" for him. I think that's what it means when it says that they baptized in Jesus' name.
John was probably a bit dull, but he knew that his cousin Jesus was a little more extroverted, and would probably inspire his converts to greater enthusiasm for the kingdom.
Apparently, the "new covenant" will not be made until covenant Israel(the kingdom) is resurrected from the dead...see Jeremiah 31:31-34.
The only requirement to be a Christian, would appear to be circumcision of the heart...a heartfelt acceptance of the everlasting(old) covenant.
What do you think?


I do not overlook that baptism by John the Baptist was before the New Testament was of force. He, himself, said that he baptised unto repentance but [Jesus] he who comes after me will baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. I guess I assume everyone already understands this. The reason that baptism is of such importance is that it is through baptism that one applies the burial of Christ to themselves. This is after repentance, in which one applies the death of Christ to oneself and before the infilling of the Holy Ghost, which is the application of the resurrection of Christ to oneself. I don't know of any other way to "obey" the gospel. If the gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection (I Corinthians 15:1-4), and it is, how does one "obey" that otherwise?

[Daco]

Hello Daco:
Jesus' apostles did his "water baptizing" for him. I think that's what it means when it says that they baptized in Jesus' name.
John was probably a bit dull, but he knew that his cousin Jesus was a little more extroverted, and would probably inspire his converts to greater enthusiasm for the kingdom.
Apparently, the "new covenant" will not be made until covenant Israel(the kingdom) is resurrected from the dead...see Jeremiah 31:31-34.
The only requirement to be a Christian, would appear to be circumcision of the heart...a heartfelt acceptance of the everlasting(old) covenant.
What do you think?

I think if Jesus needed to baptize anyone, He would have done it Himself. John's baptism was sufficient unto repentance. That is, it called the people to repent and prepare their hearts for the coming of the Lord. When Jesus began His ministry, those whose hearts were cleansed naturally followed Jesus. After His death, burial, and resurrection, the new covenant could then be instituted. The new covenant is the Church Age, born on the Day of Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 2. When a person receives the baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Lord puts His law in their inward parts and in their heart per Jeremiah 31:31-34. We are living in the new covenant or new testament today because of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
I think when it says the apostles baptized in Jesus' name it means they pronounced the name, or called on the name (see Joel 2:32, Amos 9:11-12, Acts 15:14-17) of Jesus when they baptized someone. Colossians 2:11-12, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Apparently, the circumcision of the heart occurs by an operation made by God (without hands) in water baptism. Circumcision was performed on Jewish males when they were 8 days old. It was also at this time that they were given their name. The number 8 represents "new beginning." Jesus resurrected on the 8th day (Sunday) of the week. By pronouncing His name over the person in baptism, they receive their new name in the family of God in baptism (Ephesians 3:14-15, "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." That's what I think.

I see John the Baptist as being anything but dull.

[Provoker]

A couple of questions Daco:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the new covenant began on, or before the day of pentecost, or where you get the idea that the new covenant has anything to do with Jesus' death.
Jeremiah, prophesying in the first person of God, completely and entirely explains His new covenant, in Jeremiah 31:31-34. He says it will be made with Israel...both houses, indicating that it will be made with resurrected/reunited Israel. The new covenant will be made because Israel failed to keep the conditions of the everlasting(old) covenant 2900 years ago, when it became divided against it'self and fell, resulting in two enemy nations which both were destroyed without ever repenting(reuniting as one covenant nation). The new covenant will consist entirely of God writing His laws on the hearts and minds of Israel, causing Israel to forever do by nature the things contained in the law(everlasting fulfillment of the everlasting(old) covenant). When God makes the new covenant, all preaching will forever cease because all Israel will forever know God.
Since covenant Israel(God's chosen people) will be in existance again, then under the terms of the everlasting(old) covenant, God will be obliged to make Israel into a great nation forever, and Israel will become forever a blessing to all the peoples of the world.
There are not 8 days in the week, so Jesus could not have been raised on the 8th day of the week, any more than he could have been raised on the 15th day of the week, and I cannot find any scriptural reference to the number 8 representing a new beginning.
I cannot find any scriptural reference to anyone pronouncing anything over a person during baptism, let alone pronouncing Jesus' name.
Students who learned violin making under Stradivarius, signed Stradivarius' name on the violins they made while working for him. The students of the great master painters, signed the name of their master(teacher), to their paintings done in his school. Even Paul's pharisaism is defined by his teacher, Gamaliel.
When a student is sent out to do the work of his master(teacher), he always does that work in the name of his master(teacher).
I am a millright/machinist, and when I go for an interview, the first question I am asked is; "who did you apprentice under?".
Everyone who learns his "trade" from a teacher, plies his trade in the name of that teacher.
What do you think?

[Daco]

A couple of questions Daco:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the new covenant began on, or before the day of pentecost, or where you get the idea that the new covenant has anything to do with Jesus' death.
Jeremiah, prophesying in the first person of God, completely and entirely explains His new covenant, in Jeremiah 31:31-34. He says it will be made with Israel...both houses, indicating that it will be made with resurrected/reunited Israel. The new covenant will be made because Israel failed to keep the conditions of the everlasting(old) covenant 2900 years ago, when it became divided against it'self and fell, resulting in two enemy nations which both were destroyed without ever repenting(reuniting as one covenant nation). The new covenant will consist entirely of God writing His laws on the hearts and minds of Israel, causing Israel to forever do by nature the things contained in the law(everlasting fulfillment of the everlasting(old) covenant). When God makes the new covenant, all preaching will forever cease because all Israel will forever know God.
Since covenant Israel(God's chosen people) will be in existance again, then under the terms of the everlasting(old) covenant, God will be obliged to make Israel into a great nation forever, and Israel will become forever a blessing to all the peoples of the world.
There are not 8 days in the week, so Jesus could not have been raised on the 8th day of the week, any more than he could have been raised on the 15th day of the week, and I cannot find any scriptural reference to the number 8 representing a new beginning.
I cannot find any scriptural reference to anyone pronouncing anything over a person during baptism, let alone pronouncing Jesus' name.
Students who learned violin making under Stradivarius, signed Stradivarius' name on the violins they made while working for him. The students of the great master painters, signed the name of their master(teacher), to their paintings done in his school. Even Paul's pharisaism is defined by his teacher, Gamaliel.
When a student is sent out to do the work of his master(teacher), he always does that work in the name of his master(teacher).
I am a millright/machinist, and when I go for an interview, the first question I am asked is; "who did you apprentice under?".
Everyone who learns his "trade" from a teacher, plies his trade in the name of that teacher.
What do you think?

Where Do I Get the Idea that the New Covenant Began on the Day of Pentecost? How Does the New Covenant Have Anything to Do With Jesus’s Death, Burial, and Resurrection?

1) I realize that the division of the Bible is man-made, but the first and perhaps most glaring indication is that the Bible is divided into 2 major segments: one called the Old Testament (Covenant) and the second called the New Testament (Covenant). While the events contained in the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) occurred yet in the Old Testament jurisdiction, they are placed in the New Testament division of the Bible because they tell the story of Jesus, who is the dividing entity between the two. When Jesus died, the veil miraculously was ripped open from top to bottom indicating that the way into the Holy of Holies in the Temple had been opened for everyone and not for the high priest alone, once a year. The writers of the New Testament mention this with the implication that God had something to do with it happening. This means that there was a God ordained change that had occurred in the present way of approaching the presence of God (the Old Covenant).

Jesus, Himself, said that He had not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. When He cried, “It is finished,” on the cross, He had fulfilled or completed the Old Covenant.

2) Psalm 110:4, “The LORD hath sworn and will not repent Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” This is the prophetic oath of God to His Son, written before the birth of Christ, calling Him to be High Priest forever. Now, it is known that Jesus was not of the lineage of Levi, which was the priestly line under the Old Covenant. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, concerning which Hebrews 7:11-28 says, “11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

Verse 11 asks, “What need was there for another priest who was not after the Levitical priesthood, if the Old Covenant was sufficient?”
Verse 12 states that if the priesthood changed, then the covenant or law that governed it also had to change. I would add, if the Old Covenant ceased, are we without a covenant until this new covenant you speak of is instituted?
Verse 22 says that Jesus has become the surety or guarantee, or co-signer (if you will) of the new or better testament (covenant) based upon the power of His resurrection, wherein He has endless life (v. 16). Therefore, His death and burial are pre-requisite to His resurrection and all are pivotal to the force of this New Covenant He has instituted. Having accomplished this in His death, burial, and resurrection, He now (even today, 11JAN06) operates as High Priest in heaven on behalf of the redeemed.

Without the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, we (Gentiles) would still be outsiders to the covenant of Israel and the Old Covenant would still be in force.

I misspoke when I mentioned the 8th day of the week. The number 8 does represent “new beginnings.” Also, Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week, which if you count from the first day of the previous week is the 8th day. That’s what I meant to say. It was a new week, or a new beginning. Pretty simple really, I just erred in semantics.
Jesse had 8 sons, the 8th of which was David, who represented a new beginning in kings. Saul had failed and God had rejected him. The house of David was established as the dynasty from which the Messiah would reign in Israel.
It was an 8th day, (first day of the week) that Jesus made His triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem riding on the foal of an ass. The previous day was the completion (to the day) of the 69th week of Daniel’s vision of 70 weeks. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it had leaves only and no figs, yet Mark says that it was not the season for figs. He symbolically stopped the clock, preventing the first day of the 70th week from beginning. It was a new day in a dispensational sense. Within one week, Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected from the dead.
You say you can’t find any scriptural reference to the number 8 representing a new beginning. Keep looking; you should be able to find it. I don’t profess to know all the places it can be found.

You say you cannot find any scriptural reference to anyone pronouncing anything over a person during baptism, let alone pronouncing Jesus' name. I have already given you 2 Old Testament scriptures that speak of “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered” ( Joel 2:32). In Acts 2:21 Peter quoted this as, “and it shall come to pass that whosever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Also the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15:14-17 refers to Amos 9:11-12 as meaning that Gentiles would have the name of the LORD called over them. This is a reference to baptism where it states: “over whom my name is called.”

Of course, if, when you read that the apostles did something (baptize) “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Lord” it means to you that they were His apprentices and they were doing it under His name as His apprentices, many of the references in Acts would not mean what they mean to me. Yet, when Jesus taught His disciples to pray in His name, I expect that you would acknowledge that nearly all churches who are called Christian pray and usually end their prayers by pronouncing “…in the name of the Lord Jesus,” or “…in Jesus’ name,” or “…in the name of Your Son, Jesus,” or something like that. They are not so much praying in apprenticeship to Him as they are pronouncing His name in their pray.

I respect what you say concerning apprenticeship, etc. but I do not think this is altogether the full meaning of what the scriptures are telling us. I think the name of Jesus was pronounced over people in baptism. I think that it should be done so today, as well.

The nation of Israel is united today. They are not Northern Israel and Southern Judea anymore. God has re-established them in their own land like He said He would do. They have not nationally returned to Him, but they are on their way in God’s time. Before that happens fully, I believe the Church will be taken out of the earth and the 70th week of Daniel must begin, but that’s another topic altogether.

[Provoker]

Where Do I Get the Idea that the New Covenant Began on the Day of Pentecost? How Does the New Covenant Have Anything to Do With Jesus’s Death, Burial, and Resurrection?

1) I realize that the division of the Bible is man-made, but the first and perhaps most glaring indication is that the Bible is divided into 2 major segments: one called the Old Testament (Covenant) and the second called the New Testament (Covenant). While the events contained in the 4 Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) occurred yet in the Old Testament jurisdiction, they are placed in the New Testament division of the Bible because they tell the story of Jesus, who is the dividing entity between the two. When Jesus died, the veil miraculously was ripped open from top to bottom indicating that the way into the Holy of Holies in the Temple had been opened for everyone and not for the high priest alone, once a year. The writers of the New Testament mention this with the implication that God had something to do with it happening. This means that there was a God ordained change that had occurred in the present way of approaching the presence of God (the Old Covenant).
Hello Daco:
You do well to note that the division of the bible was man made, however, that division was made on the basis of unscriptural doctrinal preconceptions.
The rending of the veil was probably a metaphor, since there is no indication that the prophesying high priest of John 11, began allowing people into the holy of holies.

Jesus, Himself, said that He had not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. When He cried, “It is finished,” on the cross, He had fulfilled or completed the Old Covenant.
A law which is not destroyed(still in existance), but is fulfilled, is clearly seen in Jeremiah 31:31-34, because when God makes His new covenant with Israel, it will consist entirely of God simply writing His laws on Israel's hearts, so that all Israelites will know God, and all preaching will cease.
There is not likely to be a better explanation of how a law which continues to exist, is fulfilled...LOL When people do by nature the things contained in the law, all the requirements of the law are met because of Israel's changed hearts, which causes them to do by nature the things contained in the law, thus the law is fulfilled.
There cannot be any legal conditions placed on God's new covenant, because it's purpose is to forever fulfill all the legal conditions of the "everlasting" old covenant. This is why Israel's everlasting salvation will be by God's grace, and not by the law.


2) Psalm 110:4, “The LORD hath sworn and will not repent Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.” This is the prophetic oath of God to His Son, written before the birth of Christ, calling Him to be High Priest forever. Now, it is known that Jesus was not of the lineage of Levi, which was the priestly line under the Old Covenant. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, concerning which Hebrews 7:11-28 says, “11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope [did]; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
20 And inasmuch as not without an oath [he was made priest]:
21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
24 But this [man], because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, [who is] holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, [maketh] the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

Verse 11 asks, “What need was there for another priest who was not after the Levitical priesthood, if the Old Covenant was sufficient?”
Verse 12 states that if the priesthood changed, then the covenant or law that governed it also had to change. I would add, if the Old Covenant ceased, are we without a covenant until this new covenant you speak of is instituted?
Verse 22 says that Jesus has become the surety or guarantee, or co-signer (if you will) of the new or better testament (covenant) based upon the power of His resurrection, wherein He has endless life (v. 16). Therefore, His death and burial are pre-requisite to His resurrection and all are pivotal to the force of this New Covenant He has instituted. Having accomplished this in His death, burial, and resurrection, He now (even today, 11JAN06) operates as High Priest in heaven on behalf of the redeemed.

David was not prophesying when he wrote the psalms, he was reminiscing about what God said to him, about him, and about his son Solomon. The writer of Hebrews takes scriptures which were actually written about David and Solomon, and applies them to Jesus. For instance; "I will be his father, and he will be my son", is an exact reiteration of God's words to David, regarding his son Solomon, who was the son of God.
Solomon(the son of David, and the son of God) was the last king of the covenant assembly/nation of Israel before it was disassembled in the civil war which began when Solomon died. The messiah, who is prophesied to resurrect the kingdom of his father David, will be Solomon's immediate successor on David's resurrected throne, and he will receive, by imputation, Solomon's titles; "son of David, and son of God".
However, since Jesus did not resurrect the Davidic kingdom, It is my opinion that the book of Hebrews has been doctrinally paraphrased to conform to orthodox thinking, and was not paraphrased according to the greater context of the whole bible story.
Without the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, we (Gentiles) would still be outsiders to the covenant of Israel and the Old Covenant would still be in force.
There was no necessity for Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection to make gentiles "insiders" to covenant Israel, because right from the time that the **mixed assembly** known as the children of Israel, exodused Egypt and became God's chosen covenant people, the only requirement for anyone, gentiles included, to be a covenant Israelite, has never been anything more than simply to live within the law, within the national assembly.
No one was ever excluded from covenant Israel because he was a gentile, and no one was ever included in covenant Israel because he was a descendant of Jacob. The covenant principle has always been; "whosoever will".
The old covenant is everlasting, and as such it will always be in force.

I misspoke when I mentioned the 8th day of the week. The number 8 does represent “new beginnings.” Also, Jesus was resurrected on the first day of the week, which if you count from the first day of the previous week is the 8th day. That’s what I meant to say. It was a new week, or a new beginning. Pretty simple really, I just erred in semantics.
Jesse had 8 sons, the 8th of which was David, who represented a new beginning in kings. Saul had failed and God had rejected him. The house of David was established as the dynasty from which the Messiah would reign in Israel.
It was an 8th day, (first day of the week) that Jesus made His triumphal entry into the city of Jerusalem riding on the foal of an ass. The previous day was the completion (to the day) of the 69th week of Daniel’s vision of 70 weeks. Jesus cursed the fig tree because it had leaves only and no figs, yet Mark says that it was not the season for figs. He symbolically stopped the clock, preventing the first day of the 70th week from beginning. It was a new day in a dispensational sense. Within one week, Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected from the dead.
You say you can’t find any scriptural reference to the number 8 representing a new beginning. Keep looking; you should be able to find it. I don’t profess to know all the places it can be found.
I don't think I will comment on that, other than to say that illogical arguements can often seem logical, when viewed from one's own doctrinal position.

You say you cannot find any scriptural reference to anyone pronouncing anything over a person during baptism, let alone pronouncing Jesus' name. I have already given you 2 Old Testament scriptures that speak of “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered” ( Joel 2:32). In Acts 2:21 Peter quoted this as, “and it shall come to pass that whosever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Also the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15:14-17 refers to Amos 9:11-12 as meaning that Gentiles would have the name of the LORD called over them. This is a reference to baptism where it states: “over whom my name is called.”
None of those references clearly refers to baptism.

Of course, if, when you read that the apostles did something (baptize) “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Lord” it means to you that they were His apprentices and they were doing it under His name as His apprentices, many of the references in Acts would not mean what they mean to me. Yet, when Jesus taught His disciples to pray in His name, I expect that you would acknowledge that nearly all churches who are called Christian pray and usually end their prayers by pronouncing “…in the name of the Lord Jesus,” or “…in Jesus’ name,” or “…in the name of Your Son, Jesus,” or something like that. They are not so much praying in apprenticeship to Him as they are pronouncing His name in their pray.
I think that when one ends a prayer by saying "in Jesus' name", he is simply acknowledging the one who taught him to pray..."Our father which art in heaven....."

I respect what you say concerning apprenticeship, etc. but I do not think this is altogether the full meaning of what the scriptures are telling us. I think the name of Jesus was pronounced over people in baptism. I think that it should be done so today, as well.
I think that one should follow his convictions, but I also think that he should not automaticly assume that every detail of a paraphrased interpretive translation, should be used to establish a doctrine...LOL

The nation of Israel is united today. They are not Northern Israel and Southern Judea anymore. God has re-established them in their own land like He said He would do. They have not nationally returned to Him, but they are on their way in God’s time. Before that happens fully, I believe the Church will be taken out of the earth and the 70th week of Daniel must begin, but that’s another topic altogether.
It is my opinion that the apostolic church is "spiritual Israel", looking forward to becoming "literal Israel, resurrected from the dead", when the christ leads it into a successful battle(armageddon?) for all the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, and he ascends the resurrected Davidic throne.
I think that the bible story is actually a lot simpler than the story developed from the man-made division of scripture into verses, testaments, and dispensations.
What do you think?

[Daco]

David was not prophesying when he wrote the psalms, he was reminiscing about what God said to him, about him, and about his son Solomon. The writer of Hebrews takes scriptures which were actually written about David and Solomon, and applies them to Jesus. For instance; "I will be his father, and he will be my son", is an exact reiteration of God's words to David, regarding his son Solomon, who was the son of God.
Solomon(the son of David, and the son of God) was the last king of the covenant assembly/nation of Israel before it was disassembled in the civil war which began when Solomon died. The messiah, who is prophesied to resurrect the kingdom of his father David, will be Solomon's immediate successor on David's resurrected throne, and he will receive, by imputation, Solomon's titles; "son of David, and son of God".
However, since Jesus did not resurrect the Davidic kingdom, It is my opinion that the book of Hebrews has been doctrinally paraphrased to conform to orthodox thinking, and was not paraphrased according to the greater context of the whole bible story.

I don't have a lot of time to devote to this right now, but I do not accept that Psalm 110:4 had anything to do with God's words to David about his son Solomon. Solomon was not sworn by an oath of God to become a high priest "for ever" after the order of Melchizedek. Based on what you are saying, the New Testament writer of Hebrews wrongly applied this Old Testament scripture to somehow fit what he wanted to say about Jesus, whether the Holy Spirit (who is supposed to be the originator of all Scripture) intended it to mean that or not. I do not agree. I believe that Psalm 110:1 and 4 are both prophetic of Christ based upon how the writer of Hebrews applies it to Jesus (I tend to accept the Book of Hebrews as divinely inspired scripture and not wishful thinking by some first century writier). Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1 in His question to the Pharisees about the Christ and who they thought He was...not about Solomon, the son of David (Matthew 22:41-46). Indeed, Jesus' question to the Pharisees emphasizes how unlikely it was that David would call his son "Lord." In fact, David was calling the Christ "Lord." This would be both likely and appropriate.

[Provoker]

Hello Daco:
Of course you must recognize the scriptural fact that God specificly made Solomon His son, because it is recorded in several places in the old testament. The importance of this act of God is only surpassed by the ignorance of this act of God, within "orthodox Christianity".
Anyone who was familiar with this scriptural act of God, would immediately think of Solomon when he heard either of the terms; son of David, or son of God. Surely if you consider the fact that the church volunteers nothing on this subject, you have to ask yourself why.
If you consider the reason that God chose "a people" in the first place, and the reason for the specific terms of His everlasting covenant with "that people", you will realize that after the division and split of Israel, into two enemy nations, "the people" that God had chosen, no longer existed.
Sure, the individual people still existed, but God did not make His everlasting covenant with individuals...He made it with a people, an assembly, a nation, a kingdom, a body, a church, a synagogue, etc, all of which mean assembly.
The connection between Solomon and the coming messiah is obvious; Solomon was the last king of covenant Israel before Israel fell into non-existance, and "the messiah" will be Solomon's immediate successor when David's kingdom is resurrected from the dead, and the messiah ascends David's throne.
Jesus did not fulfill the one and only prophesy which would absolutely have made him the messiah...he did not resurrect the nation/kingdom of his father David, and therefore could not ascend the throne of his father David. The writer, or editor, of the book of Hebrews, correctly connects the messiah with Solomon, by quoting Solomonic passages in relation to the messiah, but the problem is that Jesus could not have been the messiah, because he did not succeed Solomon on David's throne.
The book of Hebrews appears to have been edited by people who wanted to cover up the true meaning of Jesus' "good news of the kingdom" message, and we know that there were several factions in that group.
The Romans certainly did not want the nominal(backslidden) Jews to start plotting the resurrection of the kingdom of David, and the chief priests and the Pharisees who plotted and executed the plan for Jesus' death, did it because they were afraid that Jesus was going to start a war with Rome, which would end with the Roman army killing all the Jews.
There is no doubt that the writer of Hebrews was quoting scripture which refered to Solomon, and appears to be applying it specificly to Jesus, and that was an honest mistake for one who wrongly believed that Jesus was the messiah.
Compare the following OT passages refering to Solomon, with the references to Jesus in Hebrews:

II Sam 7:14
12 And when thy(David) days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

I Chron 17:13
I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:

I Chron 22:10
He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

I Chron 28:6
And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

One of the possibilities for the misunderstanding of Hebrews, may come from the fact that the word "Jesus", was not only a given name, but it was also a word for "saviour", and interpreting translators may have simply paraphrased a general reference to the coming saviour, as a specific reference to the man Jesus.
The point is that while the writer of Hebrews may have been quoting scripture in context, it has probably been mis-interpreted and paraphrased according to misunderstood context. Specific wording means nothing if it is not understood in the greater context of the whole story told in the bible.
Regarding your arguement regarding David calling christ lord, remember that David was christ(annointed), Solomon was christ(annointed), and a king is lord over his father.
What do you think?


I don't have a lot of time to devote to this right now, but I do not accept that Psalm 110:4 had anything to do with God's words to David about his son Solomon. Solomon was not sworn by an oath of God to become a high priest "for ever" after the order of Melchizedek. Based on what you are saying, the New Testament writer of Hebrews wrongly applied this Old Testament scripture to somehow fit what he wanted to say about Jesus, whether the Holy Spirit (who is supposed to be the originator of all Scripture) intended it to mean that or not. I do not agree. I believe that Psalm 110:1 and 4 are both prophetic of Christ based upon how the writer of Hebrews applies it to Jesus (I tend to accept the Book of Hebrews as divinely inspired scripture and not wishful thinking by some first century writier). Jesus quoted Psalm 110:1 in His question to the Pharisees about the Christ and who they thought He was...not about Solomon, the son of David (Matthew 22:41-46). Indeed, Jesus' question to the Pharisees emphasizes how unlikely it was that David would call his son "Lord." In fact, David was calling the Christ "Lord." This would be both likely and appropriate.

[Daco]

Hello Daco:
Of course you must recognize the scriptural fact that God specificly made Solomon His son, because it is recorded in several places in the old testament. The importance of this act of God is only surpassed by the ignorance of this act of God, within "orthodox Christianity".
Anyone who was familiar with this scriptural act of God, would immediately think of Solomon when he heard either of the terms; son of David, or son of God. Surely if you consider the fact that the church volunteers nothing on this subject, you have to ask yourself why.
If you consider the reason that God chose "a people" in the first place, and the reason for the specific terms of His everlasting covenant with "that people", you will realize that after the division and split of Israel, into two enemy nations, "the people" that God had chosen, no longer existed.
Sure, the individual people still existed, but God did not make His everlasting covenant with individuals...He made it with a people, an assembly, a nation, a kingdom, a body, a church, a synagogue, etc, all of which mean assembly.
The connection between Solomon and the coming messiah is obvious; Solomon was the last king of covenant Israel before Israel fell into non-existance, and "the messiah" will be Solomon's immediate successor when David's kingdom is resurrected from the dead, and the messiah ascends David's throne.
Jesus did not fulfill the one and only prophesy which would absolutely have made him the messiah...he did not resurrect the nation/kingdom of his father David, and therefore could not ascend the throne of his father David. The writer, or editor, of the book of Hebrews, correctly connects the messiah with Solomon, by quoting Solomonic passages in relation to the messiah, but the problem is that Jesus could not have been the messiah, because he did not succeed Solomon on David's throne.
The book of Hebrews appears to have been edited by people who wanted to cover up the true meaning of Jesus' "good news of the kingdom" message, and we know that there were several factions in that group.
The Romans certainly did not want the nominal(backslidden) Jews to start plotting the resurrection of the kingdom of David, and the chief priests and the Pharisees who plotted and executed the plan for Jesus' death, did it because they were afraid that Jesus was going to start a war with Rome, which would end with the Roman army killing all the Jews.
There is no doubt that the writer of Hebrews was quoting scripture which refered to Solomon, and appears to be applying it specificly to Jesus, and that was an honest mistake for one who wrongly believed that Jesus was the messiah.
Compare the following OT passages refering to Solomon, with the references to Jesus in Hebrews:

II Sam 7:14
12 And when thy(David) days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

I Chron 17:13
I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:

I Chron 22:10
He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.

I Chron 28:6
And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

Heb 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

One of the possibilities for the misunderstanding of Hebrews, may come from the fact that the word "Jesus", was not only a given name, but it was also a word for "saviour", and interpreting translators may have simply paraphrased a general reference to the coming saviour, as a specific reference to the man Jesus.
The point is that while the writer of Hebrews may have been quoting scripture in context, it has probably been mis-interpreted and paraphrased according to misunderstood context. Specific wording means nothing if it is not understood in the greater context of the whole story told in the bible.
Regarding your arguement regarding David calling christ lord, remember that David was christ(annointed), Solomon was christ(annointed), and a king is lord over his father.
What do you think?

Interesting, but I have a problem with the idea that Jesus is not the messiah. Yet, you say that both David and Solomon are messiah (annointed). Was Jesus heretical when he said, "A greater than Solomon is here"? Certainly, Jesus was annointed (messiah/christ) and I still believe that He is the Messiah/Christ.

What do you make of Psalm 132:11, "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."? This is the JHVH God of the Old Testament telling David that it's not just going to be one of David's sons (Solomon or his descendant) but it will be JHVH in the flesh through the lineage of David who will sit upon the throne of David. You say Jesus cannot be messiah because He did not resurrect the re-united nation (Davidic or Solomonic) Israel. It's not too late for that. Because of His resurrection from the dead and His promised return to the earth, and at that time, Jesus will assume the throne in Israel. It is already united and not divided into the two enemy kingdoms. All that must happen for Israel is that they must repent and turn to the LORD. Jesus said that they would not see Him until they say (of Him) Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the LORD.

Again, I apologize, but I am out of time for now. I hope I have not cut my thought short.
Later.

[Provoker]

Psalm 132:11, "The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne."
Hi Daco:
If the Lord was a laying hen, he might "set" on David's throne...LOL
Are you suggesting that the Lord said to David; "I will SIT on thy throne"?
I think it is quite clear that the Lord said; "I will set(place) one of thy sons on thy throne".
Any throne that God sits on would not be called David's throne...LOL
Kings have always wanted to be, or thought they were, gods, but I don't think that God aspires to be a king...LOL

There are several reasons why Jesus was not "the prophesied messiah", and the main one is that Jesus did not become the king of "...the kingdom of his father David".
There is nowhere in scripture where it is even suggested that "the messiah" will come more than once, and it would be impossible for the messiah to come twice anyway, unless he resurrected the Davidic kingdom and became the king the first time("messiah", in context, means "king"), and Jesus never became the king.
There is another important point that needs to be addressed here. God made an everlasting promise to the mixed group of people called Israel, that He would make Israel into a great nation which would bless all the peoples of the earth, "IF" Israel kept God's laws.
God made it clear that if Israel failed to keep God's laws, He would accept Israel back into His favour as soon as Israel repented.
Israel failed to keep God's laws when it became divided against it'self, and split into two warring enemy nations, which were destroyed and dispersed without ever repenting.
God is still waiting, with His face turned away, for covenant Israel to repent, but covenant Israel no longer exists, except in spirit. The apostolic church was "Israel in spirit", or "the kingdom in spirit", and was increasing in size with the goal of taking back the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, and becoming Israel in fact, resurrected from the dead.
According to the terms of God's everlasting promise to Israel, God cannot be involved in making Israel into a great nation until Israel repents, and that clearly means that God cannot be involved in resurrecting the kingdom of Israel, and therefore God cannot be the messiah, or the messiah cannot be God.
According to the terms of the everlasting promise God made to Israel, God has His face turned away from Israel, and by extension, away from all the peoples of the earth, until Israel is resurrected to repentance.
Jesus was a martyred hero of the messianic(Christian) movement, but he could not have been the messiah, or God, if one considers all the context of scripture.
What do you think?

[Daco]

Hi Daco:
If the Lord was a laying hen, he might "set" on David's throne...LOL
Are you suggesting that the Lord said to David; "I will SIT on thy throne"?
I think it is quite clear that the Lord said; "I will set(place) one of thy sons on thy throne".
Any throne that God sits on would not be called David's throne...LOL
Kings have always wanted to be, or thought they were, gods, but I don't think that God aspires to be a king...LOL

There are several reasons why Jesus was not "the prophesied messiah", and the main one is that Jesus did not become the king of "...the kingdom of his father David".
There is nowhere in scripture where it is even suggested that "the messiah" will come more than once, and it would be impossible for the messiah to come twice anyway, unless he resurrected the Davidic kingdom and became the king the first time("messiah", in context, means "king"), and Jesus never became the king.
There is another important point that needs to be addressed here. God made an everlasting promise to the mixed group of people called Israel, that He would make Israel into a great nation which would bless all the peoples of the earth, "IF" Israel kept God's laws.
God made it clear that if Israel failed to keep God's laws, He would accept Israel back into His favour as soon as Israel repented.
Israel failed to keep God's laws when it became divided against it'self, and split into two warring enemy nations, which were destroyed and dispersed without ever repenting.
God is still waiting, with His face turned away, for covenant Israel to repent, but covenant Israel no longer exists, except in spirit. The apostolic church was "Israel in spirit", or "the kingdom in spirit", and was increasing in size with the goal of taking back the land between the Euphrates and the Nile, and becoming Israel in fact, resurrected from the dead.
According to the terms of God's everlasting promise to Israel, God cannot be involved in making Israel into a great nation until Israel repents, and that clearly means that God cannot be involved in resurrecting the kingdom of Israel, and therefore God cannot be the messiah, or the messiah cannot be God.
According to the terms of the everlasting promise God made to Israel, God has His face turned away from Israel, and by extension, away from all the peoples of the earth, until Israel is resurrected to repentance.
Jesus was a martyred hero of the messianic(Christian) movement, but he could not have been the messiah, or God, if one considers all the context of scripture.
What do you think?

For too long, I have misread that verse. I cannot believe that I have overlooked the difference between "sit" and "set." My apologies, and thanks for pointing it out to me.

I still, however, see it to be fulfilled in Jesus. He is King of kings and Lord of lords; God in the flesh through the lineage of David. Yes, I am suggesting that God will SIT on the throne of David in the person of Jesus Christ because Jesus is the fleshly manifestation of God, the visible image of the invisible God. When God SETS His Son (Jesus) on the throne of David, He will in fact, also SIT upon the throne of David.

There is nowhere in scripture where it is even suggested that "the messiah" will come more than once

Luke 19:11-15 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return (υποστρεψαι hupostrepsai).
And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us (βασιλευσαι εφ ημας basileusai ef hemas).
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

This is a parable that Jesus gave because those whom He was teaching thought that the kingdom should immeadiately appear. In the parable He pictures Himself going away to receive a kingdom and returning. To further illustrate that the people of His day were expecting the messianic kingdom to be established at that time, consider Acts 1:6-7, "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." By saying this, Jesus indicated that it was not time yet for the messianic kingdom to be established. I would say that this does not negate Him from being the messiah. Based upon the things that you keep going back to for requirements for messiah, etc. I am prone to say that your thinking is much like the Jews' of Jesus' day.
You are, I am sure, as aware as I am that there are many scriptures that speak of the second coming of Christ (messiah), so I will not attempt to list more of them. While you may deny that Jesus is Christ (and there is not another. Consider Jesus' response to the disciples of John the Baptist in Matthew chapter 11:1-6), to deny that there are scriptures that speak of the second coming or return of Christ (messiah) is ludicrous.

As far as Jesus not becoming the king, the above scriptures show that it is not time for messiah to be made king. Jesus was heir to the throne through both the lineage of His social father, Joseph in Matthew chapter 1 and through his mother in Luke chapter 3. Jesus' literal connection to the throne of David is through His mother, Mary because, of course, He was not truly the son of Joseph. That makes His direct link to David through Nathan, the son of David, not Solomon, the son of David (See Luke 3:31). [Was does that do to your line of David, Solomon (the son of God), and Messiah (heir to the resurrected throne of the re-united kingdom of Israel)?] Evidently, Mary had no brothers, so she was a legitimate heiress because of the law of Moses concerning the daughters of Zelophehad of the tribe of Manassah (See Numbers 27:7). This was the only law that allowed woman to be heirs of their father's inheritance. The only stipulation was that such a daughter marry within her own tribe. Mary did that by marrying Joseph. They were both of the tribe of Judah.

Jesus was not made king because the Jews rejected Him, not because He was not their king. His coronation was a mock trial, His crown was not of gold, but of thorns. But all of this was for the greater purpose in the council of God before the world began, that the price for sin might be paid in full and salvation from sin be made available to the Jew first and to the Gentile as well, according to the ancient promise to Abraham - in thy seed (which is Christ <Galatians 3:16>) shall all nations of the earth be blessed.
What do you think?

[Provoker]

For too long, I have misread that verse. I cannot believe that I have overlooked the difference between "sit" and "set." My apologies, and thanks for pointing it out to me.

I still, however, see it to be fulfilled in Jesus. He is King of kings and Lord of lords; God in the flesh through the lineage of David. Yes, I am suggesting that God will SIT on the throne of David in the person of Jesus Christ because Jesus is the fleshly manifestation of God, the visible image of the invisible God. When God SETS His Son (Jesus) on the throne of David, He will in fact, also SIT upon the throne of David.



Luke 19:11-15 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return (υποστρεψαι hupostrepsai).
And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this [man] to reign over us (βασιλευσαι εφ ημας basileusai ef hemas).
And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.

This is a parable that Jesus gave because those whom He was teaching thought that the kingdom should immeadiately appear. In the parable He pictures Himself going away to receive a kingdom and returning. To further illustrate that the people of His day were expecting the messianic kingdom to be established at that time, consider Acts 1:6-7, "When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power." By saying this, Jesus indicated that it was not time yet for the messianic kingdom to be established. I would say that this does not negate Him from being the messiah. Based upon the things that you keep going back to for requirements for messiah, etc. I am prone to say that your thinking is much like the Jews' of Jesus' day.
You are, I am sure, as aware as I am that there are many scriptures that speak of the second coming of Christ (messiah), so I will not attempt to list more of them. While you may deny that Jesus is Christ (and there is not another. Consider Jesus' response to the disciples of John the Baptist in Matthew chapter 11:1-6), to deny that there are scriptures that speak of the second coming or return of Christ (messiah) is ludicrous.

As far as Jesus not becoming the king, the above scriptures show that it is not time for messiah to be made king. Jesus was heir to the throne through both the lineage of His social father, Joseph in Matthew chapter 1 and through his mother in Luke chapter 3. Jesus' literal connection to the throne of David is through His mother, Mary because, of course, He was not truly the son of Joseph. That makes His direct link to David through Nathan, the son of David, not Solomon, the son of David (See Luke 3:31). [Was does that do to your line of David, Solomon (the son of God), and Messiah (heir to the resurrected throne of the re-united kingdom of Israel)?] Evidently, Mary had no brothers, so she was a legitimate heiress because of the law of Moses concerning the daughters of Zelophehad of the tribe of Manassah (See Numbers 27:7). This was the only law that allowed woman to be heirs of their father's inheritance. The only stipulation was that such a daughter marry within her own tribe. Mary did that by marrying Joseph. They were both of the tribe of Judah.

Jesus was not made king because the Jews rejected Him, not because He was not their king. His coronation was a mock trial, His crown was not of gold, but of thorns. But all of this was for the greater purpose in the council of God before the world began, that the price for sin might be paid in full and salvation from sin be made available to the Jew first and to the Gentile as well, according to the ancient promise to Abraham - in thy seed (which is Christ <Galatians 3:16>) shall all nations of the earth be blessed.
What do you think?
Hello Daco:
With all due respect Daco, it is obvious from your writing that you have a firm grasp on the rules of English composition, and the fact that you ignored those rules you know so well, in order to conform that verse to your beliefs, suggests to me that you might be wise to re-examine all your beliefs...LOL
Timing is always of the essence, and one is not a king until he ascends the throne. In the intended context, the title; "messiah/christ", refers to a king. Jesus was only a pretender to the throne, and was prematurely refered to as the messiah/christ, because he, and his followers, fully expected that he would resurrect the kingdom and become king. Even the titles; "son of David", and "Son of God", were applied prematurely, because those titles will only be imputed to the king who has literally succeeded Solomon on the resurrected throne of David.
We can refer to Prince Charles as "the next king of England", but it would be premature to refer to him as "the king of England".
Jesus told his local followers that he was going away, but he would be back within their lifetimes, because they would see him coming in the clouds of dust which accompany an army on the move. His local followers would be caught up with the army as it passed on it's way to the overthrow of Rome, and the resurrection of the kingdom of Israel.
This did not happen for whatever reason, and the generation which received that promise from Jesus, passed away.
The doctrine of "the second coming" appears to be a necessary invention to account for the fact that Jesus was executed before he could fulfill the one and only "clearly messianic" prophecy, that one would come and receive the kingdom of his father David.
It is quite clear that John the baptist expected Jesus to resurrect the kingdom, because he appears to have become frustrated while he was in prison awaiting execution. He sent a message to Jesus, asking; "are you the one, or do we wait for another?" Jesus answered simply that the good news of the kingdom was being preached, and the backsliding of the Jews was being healed.
Surely Jesus understood what John was asking, so his less than direct response to John appears to mean; "I don't know if I'm the one or not, so I'm simply doing what I am supposed to be doing, and we will just have to wait and see what happens."
If we read Jesus' words without applying our doctrinal preconceptions to them, Jesus never said whether he would, or would not, resurrect the kingdom, but he clearly expected the kingdom to be resurrected within the generation living at the time.
Apologetic arguements regarding the names in the Matt. and Luke genealogies, are simply red herrings to cover the fact that regardless of any of those arguements, both lineages end with Joseph, and neither ends with Mary. Such an obvious contradiction, and coverup ploy, clearly shows a serious attempt to make Jesus conform to some kind of manufactured messianic formula. What the perpetrators were attempting to cover up, is the fact that the messianic term; "son of David", does not refer to lineage, but to Solomon's titles; "son of David", and "son of God", which will be imputed, according to the rules of royal succession, to the king who is Solomon's immediate successor on the resurrected throne of David.
Jesus did not become king because he did not resurrect the kingdom, and he did not resurrect the kingdom, because the chief priests and Pharisees had him killed so that he wouldn't launch an unsuccessful attack on Rome, causing the Roman army to come and destroy all the Jews. Jesus died to save all the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Roman army.(John 11+12)
The promise of God to the covenant nation of Israel was; If you keep my laws, I will make of you a great nation, which will be a blessing to all the peoples of the world.
The resurrected covenant nation/kingdom of Israel will be that blessing.
Incidently, the messiah who reigns when the kingdom is resurrected, will be the "Jesus Christ", because those words in context, mean "Saviour King".
However, I do not speak for God, and what I have written is simply my honest opinion, based on the greater context of whole bible story...LOL
What do you think?

[Daco]

Hello Daco:
With all due respect Daco, it is obvious from your writing that you have a firm grasp on the rules of English composition, and the fact that you ignored those rules you know so well, in order to conform that verse to your beliefs, suggests to me that you might be wise to re-examine all your beliefs...LOL
Timing is always of the essence, and one is not a king until he ascends the throne. In the intended context, the title; "messiah/christ", refers to a king. Jesus was only a pretender to the throne, and was prematurely refered to as the messiah/christ, because he, and his followers, fully expected that he would resurrect the kingdom and become king. Even the titles; "son of David", and "Son of God", were applied prematurely, because those titles will only be imputed to the king who has literally succeeded Solomon on the resurrected throne of David.
We can refer to Prince Charles as "the next king of England", but it would be premature to refer to him as "the king of England".
Jesus told his local followers that he was going away, but he would be back within their lifetimes, because they would see him coming in the clouds of dust which accompany an army on the move. His local followers would be caught up with the army as it passed on it's way to the overthrow of Rome, and the resurrection of the kingdom of Israel.
This did not happen for whatever reason, and the generation which received that promise from Jesus, passed away.
The doctrine of "the second coming" appears to be a necessary invention to account for the fact that Jesus was executed before he could fulfill the one and only "clearly messianic" prophecy, that one would come and receive the kingdom of his father David.
It is quite clear that John the baptist expected Jesus to resurrect the kingdom, because he appears to have become frustrated while he was in prison awaiting execution. He sent a message to Jesus, asking; "are you the one, or do we wait for another?" Jesus answered simply that the good news of the kingdom was being preached, and the backsliding of the Jews was being healed.
Surely Jesus understood what John was asking, so his less than direct response to John appears to mean; "I don't know if I'm the one or not, so I'm simply doing what I am supposed to be doing, and we will just have to wait and see what happens."
If we read Jesus' words without applying our doctrinal preconceptions to them, Jesus never said whether he would, or would not, resurrect the kingdom, but he clearly expected the kingdom to be resurrected within the generation living at the time.
Apologetic arguements regarding the names in the Matt. and Luke genealogies, are simply red herrings to cover the fact that regardless of any of those arguements, both lineages end with Joseph, and neither ends with Mary. Such an obvious contradiction, and coverup ploy, clearly shows a serious attempt to make Jesus conform to some kind of manufactured messianic formula. What the perpetrators were attempting to cover up, is the fact that the messianic term; "son of David", does not refer to lineage, but to Solomon's titles; "son of David", and "son of God", which will be imputed, according to the rules of royal succession, to the king who is Solomon's immediate successor on the resurrected throne of David.
Jesus did not become king because he did not resurrect the kingdom, and he did not resurrect the kingdom, because the chief priests and Pharisees had him killed so that he wouldn't launch an unsuccessful attack on Rome, causing the Roman army to come and destroy all the Jews. Jesus died to save all the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Roman army.(John 11+12)
The promise of God to the covenant nation of Israel was; If you keep my laws, I will make of you a great nation, which will be a blessing to all the peoples of the world.
The resurrected covenant nation/kingdom of Israel will be that blessing.
Incidently, the messiah who reigns when the kingdom is resurrected, will be the "Jesus Christ", because those words in context, mean "Saviour King".
However, I do not speak for God, and what I have written is simply my honest opinion, based on the greater context of whole bible story...LOL
What do you think?

I agree that timing is of the essence. That is what I was saying from Acts 1:6-7. Jesus indicated that it was not time yet for the messianic kingdom to be established.

Jesus told his local followers that he was going away, but he would be back within their lifetimes, because they would see him coming in the clouds of dust which accompany an army on the move. His local followers would be caught up with the army as it passed on it's way to the overthrow of Rome, and the resurrection of the kingdom of Israel.

I do not quite get this from the scriptures I read. Does He in fact intend "clouds of dust which accompany an army on the move?" Can you explain where you get this rendition?

When Jesus told his local followers that He was going away, He was speaking of His death. Certainly, He came back within their lifetimes, on the third day after His crucifixion. In Matthew, when He spoke of coming in clouds, it says, νεφελων του ουρανου which is clouds of heaven (or the sky) not clouds of dust. This is speaking of the Second Coming of Christ at the time when He will establish the kingdom of Israel under His reign.

Am I correct to think that you do not accept the infallibility of Scripture?

Jesus was only a pretender to the throne, and was prematurely refered to as the messiah/christ, because he, and his followers, fully expected that he would resurrect the kingdom and become king.
*** ***
The doctrine of "the second coming" appears to be a necessary invention to account for the fact that Jesus was executed before he could fulfill the one and only "clearly messianic" prophecy, that one would come and receive the kingdom of his father David.
*** ***
Such an obvious contradiction, and coverup ploy, clearly shows a serious attempt to make Jesus conform to some kind of manufactured messianic formula. What the perpetrators were attempting to cover up, is the fact that the messianic term; "son of David", does not refer to lineage, but to Solomon's titles...

If so, how does one know what to accept as reliable and what to reject as coverup ploys, etc.? No doubt we all stand in constant jeopardy of trying "to conform verses to our beliefs" and therefore we should all be willing to re-examine all our beliefs.

Jesus did not become king because he did not resurrect the kingdom, and he did not resurrect the kingdom, because the chief priests and Pharisees had him killed so that he wouldn't launch an unsuccessful attack on Rome, causing the Roman army to come and destroy all the Jews. Jesus died to save all the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Roman army.(John 11+12)

The chief priests and Pharisees had their reasons and fears that motivated them to have Jesus killed. However, the behvior of Jesus was not toward an attack on Rome to liberate Israel from their jurisdiction. It is my opinion, that either way Jesus would have been executed: (1) The Jews rejected Him as their Messiah and the chain of events went as are recorded, (2) The Jews accepted Him as Messiah, which would have grown into a groundswell of political unrest against Rome, even if Jesus was not promoting it. The Romans would have come and dealt with Him anyway. Since it was in the foreordained plan of God that He would die for the sins of many, the death of Jesus was going to happen either way.

You refer to Him dying to save all the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Roman army. I found in John 11:49-52 what I believe you were speaking of, which, in my opinion has multiple implications. For Caiaphas and the elders, they were thinking as you said, that it was better for one (Jesus) to die than to incited the wrath of Rome on the whole nation. It seems that God's intent (and I do not speak for God either) was also that the sin-debt of the world would be paid in His death. Of course, I'm trying to view this from what I perceive your perspective might be - if Jesus is an imposter, etc.; then this matter of the sin-debt being paid would not be accomplished. Am I correct in this?

I would be interested to hear from you how you propose that the resurrected covenant nation/kingdom of Israel is to be accomplished by messiah when he comes.

[Provoker]

I agree that timing is of the essence. That is what I was saying from Acts 1:6-7. Jesus indicated that it was not time yet for the messianic kingdom to be established.When the Chief priests, Pharisees, and the temple guard, arrested Jesus, and the high priest sent him to Pilate, I think that Jesus realized that he was not about to resurrect the kingdom. "Not of this World" does not mean "not of this earth", but more likely means "not of this time". There is also the problem of doctrinal interpretation, and paraphrasing scripture into a different language, which may put the wrong emphasis on the wording. For instance, Jesus may have said "The" kingdom, and the translator(Erasmus), doctrinally paraphrased it as "His" kingdom. The thing which is commonly not understood by most churchmen, is that first century koine(common) Greek, was a completely dead language by the end of the 4th century, and that a new and completely different Byzantine language had replaced it by the end of the 4th century. In the 16th century when Erasmus published his "textus receptus"(the first Greek new testament), Byzantine was the koine(common) Greek of his day. Erasmus' Greek new testament was refered to as a "Byzantine document" in his day. Erasmus was a Catholic who opposed Luther, so we can expect his translation to have been doctrinally influenced.
I do not quite get this from the scriptures I read. Does He in fact intend "clouds of dust which accompany an army on the move?" Can you explain where you get this rendition?The same doctrinal interpretation and paraphrasing arguement applies here also. The dust which would indicate an army on the move, could certainly be refered to as clouds in the air. In context, I believe that it is more likely to refer to clouds of dust in the air.When Jesus told his local followers that He was going away, He was speaking of His death. Certainly, He came back within their lifetimes, on the third day after His crucifixion. In Matthew, when He spoke of coming in clouds, it says, ?efe??? t?? ???a??? which is clouds of heaven (or the sky) not clouds of dust. This is speaking of the Second Coming of Christ at the time when He will establish the kingdom of Israel under His reign.Of course that is the pre-conceived party line, but it doesn't fit with the greater context.Am I correct to think that you do not accept the infallibility of Scripture?Yes you are correct. There is nothing in scripture to back that old tradition of the church. However, it is my opinion that when rightly divided, scripture clearly reveals the greater, true, story of the bible, and it is we theologians who are fallible...LOL
If so, how does one know what to accept as reliable and what to reject as coverup ploys, etc.?In a word; "The Greater context"...oops, that's three words...LOL No doubt we all stand in constant jeopardy of trying "to conform verses to our beliefs" and therefore we should all be willing to re-examine all our beliefs.I completely agree Daco. If we are honest, and are really interested in knowing the truth of scripture, we will be willing to re-examine all our beliefs in the light of any new, scripture based theory. Part of my theory is that since scripture was not written in verses, but was written in the context of a story which unfolds with great continuity throughout scripture, then we should ignore our doctrinally selected verses and let the greater story reveal what the whole volume of text means.
When one quotes a single verse, or passage, he loses the synergy which is only found in the flow of the context.
The chief priests and Pharisees had their reasons and fears that motivated them to have Jesus killed. However, the behavior of Jesus was not toward an attack on Rome to liberate Israel from their jurisdiction.You may be aware that Jesus taught the principle of loving one's enemies, so there would appear to be reason for the Romans to kill all the Jews because the followed Jesus. However, if you read John 11&12 again carefully, you will see that the problem which instigated the council of the chief priests and Pharisees, was the fact that since the raising of Lazarus, it looked like all the Jews might follow Jesus, and then the Romans would come and destroy all the Jews. The question has to be...what would Jesus do with a large folloing, which would cause the Romans to kill all the Jews? Considering the fact that Jesus came proclaiming **the good news that the kingdom was coming**, it is quite easy to see what the chief priests and Pharisees thought that Jesus would do. Surely it is obvious that the church uses the verse out of context, which says that one man must die to save the world. It is my opinion, that either way Jesus would have been executed: (1) The Jews rejected Him as their Messiah and the chain of events went as are recorded, (2) The Jews accepted Him as Messiah, which would have grown into a groundswell of political unrest against Rome, even if Jesus was not promoting it. The Romans would have come and dealt with Him anyway.Both of those conditions existed anyway. As I have mentioned, there were enough Jews following Jesus to cause a panic among the chief priests and Pharisees, but it had to be the anti-resurrection Saducees and the priesthood, who rejected Jesus and called for his death. The interesting thing which is obvious from this interesting passage is, that the Jews did not reject Jesus because he was not going to resurrect the kingdom(as the church teaches), but because they were afraid that he might actually attempt to resurrect the kingdom.
You refer to Him dying to save all the Jews from destruction at the hands of the Roman army. I found in John 11:49-52 what I believe you were speaking of, which, in my opinion has multiple implications. For Caiaphas and the elders, they were thinking as you said, that it was better for one (Jesus) to die than to incited the wrath of Rome on the whole nation.The question is...what could Jesus have done with a large following, which would cause Rome to come an kill all the Jews? When you consider the gospel which Jesus preached, it should become obvious...LOL It seems that God's intent (and I do not speak for God either) was also that the sin-debt of the world would be paid in His death. Of course, I'm trying to view this from what I perceive your perspective might be - if Jesus is an imposter, etc.; then this matter of the sin-debt being paid would not be accomplished. Am I correct in this?Jesus was not an imposter. He is a martyred hero of true Judaism/true Christianity, and the only sin debt that the world had, and still has, is the failure of covenant Israel to continue in love for God and love for one another, when it became divided against it'self and fell, and the resulting two, non-covenant, warring, enemy kingdoms, went down to their respective destructions without repenting(reuniting as the one covenant nation/kingdom of Israel again).
The whole point of Jesus' "good news of the kingdom" movement, was to raise up a body for the coming Christ to lead to kingdom resurrection, so that a resurrected, repentant, covenant Israel, will be returned to God's favour, and He can return to His everlasting plan to bless all the peoples of the earth through covenant Israel.
I would be interested to hear from you how you propose that the resurrected covenant nation/kingdom of Israel is to be accomplished by messiah when he comes.It is my opinion that Covenant Israel is going to be resurrected when the messiah sucessfully leads the "finally large enough body of" spiritual Israelites into a battle(Armageddon?), and when the final trump sounds, indicating that the battle has been won and the land between the Euphrates and the Nile has been reposessed, then in the twinkling of an eye, all those who were Israel in spirit, will be changed into literal covenant Israel, resurrected from the dead. The messiah will then make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem(his bride), consumating the marriage between the son of David/son of God, and the capital of the land promised by God, to Abraham's seed.
What do you think?

[Daco]

When the Chief priests, Pharisees, and the temple guard, arrested Jesus, and the high priest sent him to Pilate, I think that Jesus realized that he was not about to resurrect the kingdom. "Not of this World" does not mean "not of this earth", but more likely means "not of this time". There is also the problem of doctrinal interpretation, and paraphrasing scripture into a different language, which may put the wrong emphasis on the wording. For instance, Jesus may have said "The" kingdom, and the translator(Erasmus), doctrinally paraphrased it as "His" kingdom. The thing which is commonly not understood by most churchmen, is that first century koine(common) Greek, was a completely dead language by the end of the 4th century, and that a new and completely different Byzantine language had replaced it by the end of the 4th century. In the 16th century when Erasmus published his "textus receptus"(the first Greek new testament), Byzantine was the koine(common) Greek of his day. Erasmus' Greek new testament was refered to as a "Byzantine document" in his day. Erasmus was a Catholic who opposed Luther, so we can expect his translation to have been doctrinally influenced.The same doctrinal interpretation and paraphrasing arguement applies here also. The dust which would indicate an army on the move, could certainly be refered to as clouds in the air. In context, I believe that it is more likely to refer to clouds of dust in the air.Of course that is the pre-conceived party line, but it doesn't fit with the greater context.Yes you are correct. There is nothing in scripture to back that old tradition of the church. However, it is my opinion that when rightly divided, scripture clearly reveals the greater, true, story of the bible, and it is we theologians who are fallible...LOL
In a word; "The Greater context"...oops, that's three words...LOL I completely agree Daco. If we are honest, and are really interested in knowing the truth of scripture, we will be willing to re-examine all our beliefs in the light of any new, scripture based theory. Part of my theory is that since scripture was not written in verses, but was written in the context of a story which unfolds with great continuity throughout scripture, then we should ignore our doctrinally selected verses and let the greater story reveal what the whole volume of text means.
When one quotes a single verse, or passage, he loses the synergy which is only found in the flow of the context.
You may be aware that Jesus taught the principle of loving one's enemies, so there would appear to be reason for the Romans to kill all the Jews because the followed Jesus. However, if you read John 11&12 again carefully, you will see that the problem which instigated the council of the chief priests and Pharisees, was the fact that since the raising of Lazarus, it looked like all the Jews might follow Jesus, and then the Romans would come and destroy all the Jews. The question has to be...what would Jesus do with a large folloing, which would cause the Romans to kill all the Jews? Considering the fact that Jesus came proclaiming **the good news that the kingdom was coming**, it is quite easy to see what the chief priests and Pharisees thought that Jesus would do. Surely it is obvious that the church uses the verse out of context, which says that one man must die to save the world. Both of those conditions existed anyway. As I have mentioned, there were enough Jews following Jesus to cause a panic among the chief priests and Pharisees, but it had to be the anti-resurrection Saducees and the priesthood, who rejected Jesus and called for his death. The interesting thing which is obvious from this interesting passage is, that the Jews did not reject Jesus because he was not going to resurrect the kingdom(as the church teaches), but because they were afraid that he might actually attempt to resurrect the kingdom.
The question is...what could Jesus have done with a large following, which would cause Rome to come an kill all the Jews? When you consider the gospel which Jesus preached, it should become obvious...LOL Jesus was not an imposter. He is a martyred hero of true Judaism/true Christianity, and the only sin debt that the world had, and still has, is the failure of covenant Israel to continue in love for God and love for one another, when it became divided against it'self and fell, and the resulting two, non-covenant, warring, enemy kingdoms, went down to their respective destructions without repenting(reuniting as the one covenant nation/kingdom of Israel again).
The whole point of Jesus' "good news of the kingdom" movement, was to raise up a body for the coming Christ to lead to kingdom resurrection, so that a resurrected, repentant, covenant Israel, will be returned to God's favour, and He can return to His everlasting plan to bless all the peoples of the earth through covenant Israel.
It is my opinion that Covenant Israel is going to be resurrected when the messiah sucessfully leads the "finally large enough body of" spiritual Israelites into a battle(Armageddon?), and when the final trump sounds, indicating that the battle has been won and the land between the Euphrates and the Nile has been reposessed, then in the twinkling of an eye, all those who were Israel in spirit, will be changed into literal covenant Israel, resurrected from the dead. The messiah will then make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem(his bride), consumating the marriage between the son of David/son of God, and the capital of the land promised by God, to Abraham's seed.
What do you think?

I apologize for being so long in replying. I have been extremely busy and unable to get back. I intend to respond when I am able to devote some time to what I will say.