I ask then

Jesus kept the law of Moses. Do you?
The ceremonial law attached to the mediatorship pertaining to the Old Covenant has passed away, by the command of Jesus, the new high priest of the new convenant, but where the spiritual component of the law of Moses remains forever, where Christ's words interpret it.

A problem with unitarians, and you are one as you deny Christ to be pre-existent, is that they can't reconcile themselves to the divine authority of Christ. In a sense, unitarians supplant Christ as interpreters of the bible. The need to interpret Christ's words is only required when to take them literally would result in an absurdity, such as someone being reduced to being a beggar, which actually wasn't ever advocated or required of anyone. But to "interpret" them just because some denomination that you choose to belong to doesn't accept them, is folly and unbelief. Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" Did Jesus tell you to be a unitarian?
 
One thing you need to realize, is that in the sight of God, infant baptism, if sincere, is a significant act,
Not for the infant. It may make the parents feel better..

and that God will do his best to bring the prodigal son back to the church.
God wants everyone to be saved, whether they were baptized as an infant or not.
 
The measure of the Holy Spirit once receives depends on the extent of one's repentance.
No it doesn't. Everyone who is born again receives the exact same gift of holy spirit. What a person does with it is another thing.

Without repentance, faith will die. Water baptism for the saved is all about repentance. As you yourself suggest, being saved doesn't infer that one will continue in a repentant state. Those who overlook baptism overlook the need to keep themselves free from sin.
No they don't.
 
The ceremonial law attached to the mediatorship pertaining to the Old Covenant has passed away, by the command of Jesus, the new high priest of the new convenant, but where the spiritual component of the law of Moses remains forever, where Christ's words interpret it.

A problem with unitarians, and you are one as you deny Christ to be pre-existent,
I'm a Unitarian because I believe the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus Christ is God's human Messiah.

is that they can't reconcile themselves to the divine authority of Christ.
That's false.

In a sense, unitarians supplant Christ as interpreters of the bible.
That's false.

The need to interpret Christ's words is only required when to take them literally would result in an absurdity, such as someone being reduced to being a beggar, which actually wasn't ever advocated or required of anyone.
The need to interpret Christ's words is always required.

But to "interpret" them just because some denomination that you choose to belong to doesn't accept them, is folly and unbelief.
What Christian denomination does not accept Christ's words?

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?"
Sobering words..

Did Jesus tell you to be a unitarian?
Yes. Unitarianism is all through the Bible. Jesus is a Unitarian. Trinitarianism, whether "high" or "low," is not in the Bible.
 
Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Yes, but not in the philosophical sense. Meaning that regardless of the circumstances the Apostles and disciples never passed over an opportunity to baptize someone, but if in theory something extraordinary happened to prevent baptism before death that is left to God.

A reason the Apostles and disciples didn't passover an opportunity to baptize is the promise of God in Mark 16:16. ““He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16, NASB)

The participles translated as believed and baptized tell us of the verb translated as shall be saved. In other words, they tell us about the set of people that will be saved.
Is baptism the same as being born again?
No, but it is the ordinary means through which one is regenerated, or born from above, or born again, see John 3:1-8, and/or Romans 6:3ff and/or Titus 3:5.

And so Jesus told the Apostles, “And Jesus said to them, Truly I say to you, You who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Matthew 19:28, LITV)
 
I'm a Unitarian because I believe the Father is the only true God, and that Jesus Christ is God's human Messiah.
This isn't why you're a unitarian. You're a unitarian because you have espoused some doctrine which you got from some sect (as to which we are not currently enlighted) that dogmatizes that Jesus had no prior existence.

And this involves rejecting the church that baptized you, for reasons that again we have not been made party to.

That's false.


That's false.
Jesus wasn't a unitarian, as he didn't share the same opinion as you that he had no prior existence. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am."

He didn't say "Before Abraham was, I was part of God's plan."

In Revelation 22:12 he said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

So he didn't share your opinion of him. And he has abolute authority over all interpretation, but you interpret contrary to him.

The need to interpret Christ's words is always required.
Interpretation is only required where words invite an ambiguity. You interpret Christ's words where there is no ambiguity.

What Christian denomination does not accept Christ's words?
All unitarian denominations reject Christ's words.

Sobering words..


Yes. Unitarianism is all through the Bible. Jesus is a Unitarian. Trinitarianism, whether "high" or "low," is not in the Bible.
The opposite of Trinitarianism isn't Unitarianism. That's a false dichotomy. There are many doctrines that impute Jesus with prior existence. They are not necessarily all "trinitarian" in the Council of Chalcedon sense (imputing two "natures" to Christ). In fact the Council of Chalcedon only recognized one Trinitarian doctrine, despite there being others, which it anathematized.

So to pretend that there exist only two doctrines in the world, Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, is unreal.
 
This isn't why you're a unitarian.
That is why I'm a Unitarian.

You're a unitarian because you have espoused some doctrine which you got from some sect (as to which we are not currently enlighted) that dogmatizes that Jesus had no prior existence.
The Bible does not teach that Jesus had a "prior existence" except in God's plan.

And this involves rejecting the church that baptized you, for reasons that again we have not been made party to.
Long story, but there are many things that Presbyterians believe that are not true.

Jesus wasn't a unitarian,
Jesus was, and still is, a Unitarian. One day everyone will be Unitarian.

as he didn't share the same opinion as you that he had no prior existence. He said, "Before Abraham was, I am."
That does not mean he preexisted his conception. He was not saying that he preexisted, but that he was the Messiah that was promised to come since before Abraham.

He didn't say "Before Abraham was, I was part of God's plan."
He was saying that he was the Messiah who was promised to come since before Abraham

In Revelation 22:12 he said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End."

So he didn't share your opinion of him.
He knew who he was, and is, and he is not a spirit-being who incarnated as a man.

And he has abolute authority over all interpretation, but you interpret contrary to him.
That's false.

Interpretation is only required where words invite an ambiguity. You interpret Christ's words where there is no ambiguity.
You misunderstand the phrase "came down from heaven."

All unitarian denominations reject Christ's words.
That's false.

The opposite of Trinitarianism isn't Unitarianism. That's a false dichotomy. There are many doctrines that impute Jesus with prior existence. They are not necessarily all "trinitarian" in the Council of Chalcedon sense (imputing two "natures" to Christ). In fact the Council of Chalcedon only recognized one Trinitarian doctrine, despite there being others, which it anathematized.

So to pretend that there exist only two doctrines in the world, Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, is unreal.
That's a strawman. I did not say that only two doctrines exist.
 
That is why I'm a Unitarian.


The Bible does not teach that Jesus had a "prior existence" except in God's plan.


Long story, but there are many things that Presbyterians believe that are not true.


Jesus was, and still is, a Unitarian. One day everyone will be Unitarian.


That does not mean he preexisted his conception. He was not saying that he preexisted, but that he was the Messiah that was promised to come since before Abraham.


He was saying that he was the Messiah who was promised to come since before Abraham


He knew who he was, and is, and he is not a spirit-being who incarnated as a man.


That's false.


You misunderstand the phrase "came down from heaven."


That's false.


That's a strawman. I did not say that only two doctrines exist.
Jesus was, and still is, a Unitarian. One day everyone will be Unitarian.

Jesus is not a member or adherent of any group or school of thought that came after him. Jesus is not a conservative nor a liberal, He is not a Catholic, or a Pentecostal, Unitarian, Church of Christ (himself) member, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, etc. Christ is the originator from whom others get their ideas (hopefully). Christ was not "one of us", we're "one of His" (hopefully). Nor can one say "Well Jesus was the original and first Unitarian, Catholic, etc ." Jesus was just Jesus.
 
Jesus was, and still is, a Unitarian. One day everyone will be Unitarian.

Jesus is not a member or adherent of any group or school of thought that came after him. Jesus is not a conservative nor a liberal, He is not a Catholic, or a Pentecostal, Unitarian, Church of Christ (himself) member, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian, etc. Christ is the originator from whom others get their ideas (hopefully). Christ was not "one of us", we're "one of His" (hopefully). Nor can one say "Well Jesus was the original and first Unitarian, Catholic, etc ." Jesus was just Jesus.
Unitarianism is not a denomination. It is the belief that only God, the Father, is God, and that Jesus is the Christ, God's human Messiah.
That's what Jesus believed, along with every writer (God is the Author) of the Bible, and every first-century Christian. The idea that God is a Trinity was developed later.
 
Yes, but not in the philosophical sense. Meaning that regardless of the circumstances the Apostles and disciples never passed over an opportunity to baptize someone, but if in theory something extraordinary happened to prevent baptism before death that is left to God.
I have heard people ask "what if there isn't enough water to get baptized?"

My answer is, if there isn't enough water to even fill up a tub then no one could live there in the first place. Humans are always going to be wherever the water is because it's necessary for survival.
 
Unitarianism is not a denomination. It is the belief that only God, the Father, is God, and that Jesus is the Christ, God's human Messiah.
That's what Jesus believed, along with every writer (God is the Author) of the Bible, and every first-century Christian. The idea that God is a Trinity was developed later.
That is not the unitarian belief. The unitarian belief is that Jesus was not the Son of God, where the Son of God is defined be that one who descends from heaven: Isaiah 9:6. Contrary to your belief that unitarianism is biblical, unitarianism was the original heresy of Cerinthus, the progenitor of unitarians. Similarly to the Ebionites, he maintained that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was a mere man, the biological son of Mary and Joseph. He was condemned as a heresiarch from the outset and by the apostle John.

As you have stated it, the crux of your objection to Trinitarianism is antipathy to the two natures doctrine of Chalcedon (i.e. God and man), whereas the Church of Alexandria felt that Chalcedon should have stated that Christ be acknowledged "out of two natures" rather than "in two natures".

Actually being a unitarian just because you reject the Chalcedon formula isn't even credible. You're either ignorant of history, or you are incapable of articulating yourself.
 
Unitarianism is not a denomination. It is the belief that only God, the Father, is God, and that Jesus is the Christ, God's human Messiah.
That's what Jesus believed, along with every writer (God is the Author) of the Bible, and every first-century Christian. The idea that God is a Trinity was developed later.
Unitarianism as a belief system was developed after Jesus's time on earth. Jesus is not subject to belief systems developed after his time on earth. Jesus did not identify himself as a Unitarian.
 
That is not the unitarian belief.
Yes, it is the Unitarian belief.

The unitarian belief is that Jesus was not the Son of God,
That's false. Unitarians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

where the Son of God is defined be that one who descends from heaven: Isaiah 9:6.
Jesus Christ did "descend from heaven," but not as you believe, that he was "the preexistent sentient spirit-being called the Word of God."

Contrary to your belief that unitarianism is biblical, unitarianism was the original heresy of Cerinthus, the progenitor of unitarians. Similarly to the Ebionites, he maintained that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but was a mere man, the biological son of Mary and Joseph. He was condemned as a heresiarch from the outset and by the apostle John.
Cerinthus was not the originator of Biblical Unitarians. Biblical Unitarians do not believe that Jesus Christ was the biological son of Joseph. He is the Son of God.

As you have stated it, the crux of your objection to Trinitarianism is antipathy to the two natures doctrine of Chalcedon (i.e. God and man), whereas the Church of Alexandria felt that Chalcedon should have stated that Christ be acknowledged "out of two natures" rather than "in two natures".
You have too much "schooling" and not enough biblical knowledge.

Actually being a unitarian just because you reject the Chalcedon formula isn't even credible. You're either ignorant of history, or you are incapable of articulating yourself.
I have articulated myself just fine. I cannot help that you do not agree, nor can I help that you are putting too much stock in your education.

Jesus Christ is a man, a human being miraculously fathered (created) by God.
 
Unitarianism as a belief system was developed after Jesus's time on earth.
No it isn't. Every believer in the Bible was a Unitarian. Yahweh was their God, Yahweh alone.

Jesus is not subject to belief systems developed after his time on earth.
I agree.

Jesus did not identify himself as a Unitarian.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee [Father] the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
 
But Acts 2:38 does not expressly say baptized in water..it only says ‘baptized (immersed) in His name’ it doesn’t require water to be ‘immersed’ (baptized) in Christ and His doctrines.
Acts 10:47-48 establishes that baptism in Jesus's name is in water. Therefore Acts 2:38-39, 19:5, 18:8/1 Corinthians 1:13, etc. are in water.

Water does not remit our sins, only the blood of Christ, 1 John 1:7. As for Acts 22:16, water washes away no sin, only His blood, 1 John 1:7
As per my post #55, this is a play on words that members of the by grace alone, through faith alone community use often.
Members of the by grace alone, through faith alone community know and go by the understanding that there is God's part and our part in being saved, otherwise according to Jesus's blood either everyone on planet earth is already saved with no involvement from us whatsoever or God decides solely and exclusively who is saved and who is lost. But the grace alone, through faith alone community teaches that we must put our faith in Jesus to be saved, and according to some repent and confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus Romans 10:9-10.
Members of the by grace alone, through faith alone community would not say "Faith is not needed for the remission of our sins, only the blood of Christ." You don't compare God's part against our part. But they do use a double standard when it comes to baptism. They do compare God's part against our part when it comes to baptism, not faith.
Either Jesus's blood washes away our sins without any say from us, whether we want it or not, or our involvement/our response to the blood is part of the picture in being saved. In which case the comparison with our part in being saved is faith & baptism or faith alone, not faith & baptism or Jesus's blood.
It is my suspicion that this argument is circulated so much, challenged so little, and accepted so much that it's users don't think the argument through.

So I don’t take Acts 2:38-39 as a reference to water baptism, using scripture to interpret scripture.
Acts 10:47-48 is a much more direct scripture to interpret Acts 2:38, than 1 John 1:7.

lso, another poster (maybe it was you) mentioned the passage where Peter says ‘who is to deny them water that the Ghost fell upon’ or something to that extent. Which means water baptism is for those whom have received the Holy Ghost.
Which means water baptism is for those whom have received the Holy Ghost.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit (described in Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19) is associated with baptism in water in Jesus's name Acts 2:38-39. Baptism of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and company as a precedence for baptism being for those whom have received the Holy Ghost doesn't make sense, since Peter had to remember years back to the last time "baptism with the Holy Spirit"
happened Acts 11:15-16, and the last time it happened it wasn't even the 3000 who got baptized in water in Jesus's name Acts 2:41 who had been baptized with the Holy Spirit, but the 120.

But the way you present the passage of Acts 2:38-39 suggests that the water baptism comes before the Holy Ghost so there is a contradiction here.
The passage itself explicitly states it
Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

There is no contradiction since the indwelling Holy Spirit was promised to "...you and your children and for all who are far away, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”
As opposed to being "baptized with the Holy Spirit" to which Peter had to remember back to Pentecost to the last time it happened.

No offense intended
None taken. You are very respectful and I hope to be the same.

my point is just to encourage people to read for themselves and let the scripture say what it says and use scripture to interpret scripture rather than the dogmas of denominational religion. I think there are many misleading doctrines and false teachings out there.
Agreed and I share your sentiment.

There is no direct reference to water baptism (immersion) there, but rather, immersion in Christ from what I see. Also notice how it says ‘baptized‘ before it says ‘calling on the Lord’.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Calling in the name of the Lord is the only subjunctive "ing" in this sentence, indicating calling would be attached to the previous, being done along with at the same time as the previous, in this case both being baptized and washing sins away.

More importantly, the passage put also put be baptized before washing sins away as would not be expected if being baptized came after sins were washed away. It's not saying "be baptized and then wash your sins away calling on his name". The way it's written, it all happens at the same time.

Acts 9:18-19 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. [19] And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

This is not how a "spiritual" type baptism is described. This is how baptism in water is described.

Matthew 28:19 also does not make any direct reference to water baptism, I take that as a command to immerse all nations in the doctrines of Christ. Which is far more important than to be immersed in water.
I would make the case that baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the same as baptism in water in Jesus's name Acts 10:47-48, 2:38-39.

The apostles never made reference again to baptizing people or nations in the doctrines of Christ, but there are numerous examples of baptizing people in water Acts 8:36-39, 10:47-48, and the instances such as that one, that baptizing people in Jesus's name is in water Acts 2:38-39, 19:5, 22:16, 18:8/1 Corinthians 1:13, etc.

So we are clear I have nothing against water baptism
We never suspect the "by grace alone, through faith alone" community of having something against baptism. However I hear this phrase often and don't know where it comes from, since we don't normally make any such claim.

but I believe that the religious system has false teachings on it and some denominations even place water over His blood such as the lutherists and catholics..that is a big problem. They claim water baptism saves.
On this I agree with you. I don't know as much as you about Lutheranism, but it does seem to me that Catholicism places undue emphasis on the water itself (Holy water, etc.), whereas we see it as God who saves when he sees the expected response of belief in Christ and baptism in His name. God ultimately saves, not H20.

Would you be as kind to try and help me understand something?
All the arguments you have gone to thus far are familiar, and counterarguments have existed for a long time for these and the following:
-The Paul being thankful he didn't baptize many
of them 1 Corinthians 1:14
-Mark 16:16b "but he didn't say those don't believe
and are baptized will be condemned..."
-Acts 2:38 eis because of argument.
-Ephesians 2:8-10 Works argument
-Romans 10:9-10, 13 and John 3:16 don't say
baptism.
-Romans 6:3-4 used to be used as a representation
of the d,b,r, but more recently it is said to refer to
baptism with the Holy Spirit or spiritual baptism.
-Colossians 2:11-12 baptism serves the same
purpose as circumcision did before.
-Baptism isn't mentioned as many times as belief is.
-The thief on the cross.
and others.

These arguments and others are confronted on a regular basis. It would seem that the by grace alone, through faith alone would get the word out "we need new material" or "they're ready for these, we need to go deeper", but that doesn't seem to happen. I wonder if the community is just too large to get the word out to everyone to break out of the same pantry of responses. But even if this or some other factor is preventing word from getting around, these canned arguments have been around for decades or longer. Even that should get people to realize "they may have heard the
- not every reference to baptism in the NT is about water
-The thief on the cross

arguments before".

My question is, how are we familiar with the most of the "by grace alone, through faith alone" arguments regarding baptism, but the "by grace alone, through faith alone" community seems largely unaware of the counterarguments or that there are counterarguments? Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is the Unitarian belief.


That's false. Unitarians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Unitarians don't grasp what "the Son of God" denotes in Hebrew theology. They have invented their own definition of what "son of God" means, separate from Jesus's own definition. Thus they promulgate a falsehood when the credit Jesus as "the son of God." In Hebrew theology, "the Son of God" can only mean "coming from God himself, " in contradistinction to God's adopted son i.e. Israel + the church.

Being miraculously created denotes "being created." One could posit every human being as a "miraculous creation" if one desired. The miraculous element is inconsequential before the key thing you say, which is that Jesus was created. So you deny that he was the alpha, the first, and the beginning. He was just human being no: 123,456,789.

Jesus Christ did "descend from heaven," but not as you believe, that he was "the preexistent sentient spirit-being called the Word of God."
Again you promulgate a wanton falsehood when you say Jesus Christ did "descend from heaven."

Cerinthus was not the originator of Biblical Unitarians. Biblical Unitarians do not believe that Jesus Christ was the biological son of Joseph. He is the Son of God.
Whether or not you think Jesus was the "biological son" of Joseph is an academic point. I believe that, in so far as Jesus's genomes are concerned, it is as if Jesus was biologically descended from Joseph, even though he was born of a virgin. Jesus had to have male chromosomes, otherwise he wouldn't have been male.

When I said Cerinthus is the father (progenitor) of unitarianism, I didn't mean modern unitarians credit everything Cerinthus credited. I deferred to the essence of his belief, the core belief of Cerinthus, which was denial that Jesus pre-existed.

You have too much "schooling" and not enough biblical knowledge.
Vain words.

I have articulated myself just fine. I cannot help that you do not agree, nor can I help that you are putting too much stock in your education.
You are utterly deceived by your cult: you manipulate language all the time, you repudiate Jesus's own words all the time to make them say other than what they plainly mean, you are devoid of any historical knowledge, you are clueless as to the history of doctrine, you are of the heresy of Cerinthus, who was the progenitor of all doctrinal heresy.

Jesus Christ is a man, a human being miraculously fathered (created) by God.
That's just a denial of everything Jesus said.
 
Last edited:
Unitarians don't grasp what "the Son of God" denotes in Hebrew theology. They have invented their own definition of what "son of God" means, separate from Jesus's own definition. Thus they promulgate a falsehood when the credit Jesus as "the son of God."
All three statements are false.

In Hebrew theology, "the Son of God" can only mean "coming from God himself, " in contradistinction to God's adopted son i.e. Israel + the church.
Jesus Christ did come from God Himself. He is a direct creation of God.

Being miraculously created denotes "being created." One could posit every human being as a "miraculous creation" if one desired.
No they can't. Humans come from procreation. Men and women have sex.

The miraculous element is inconsequential before the key thing you say, which is that Jesus was created.
The "miraculous element" is definitely not inconsequential. If it had not happened, Jesus would not have existed.

So you deny that he was the alpha, the first, and the beginning. He was just human being no: 123,456,789.
This is false too. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

Again you promulgate a wanton falsehood when you say Jesus Christ did "descend from heaven."
No, it's absolutely true. You, despite your good vocabulary and scholarly wannabe writing style, do not understand what it means.

Whether or not you think Jesus was the "biological son" of Joseph is an academic point. I believe that, in so far as Jesus's genomes are concerned, it is as if Jesus was biologically descended from Joseph, even though he was born of a virgin. Jesus had to have male chromosomes, otherwise he wouldn't have been male.
No, it is not an academic point. Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. And it is not "as if" Jesus was biologically descended from Joseph. The male chromosomes came from God.

When I said Cerinthus is the father (progenitor) of unitarianism, I didn't mean modern unitarians credit everything Cerinthus credited. I deferred to the essence of his belief, the core belief of Cerinthus, which was denial that Jesus pre-existed.
Then in that case, Cerinthus was correct.

Vain words.
They were true words.

You are utterly deceived by your cult: you manipulate language all the time, you repudiate Jesus's own words all the time to make them say other than what they plainly mean, you are devoid of any historical knowledge, you are clueless as to the history of doctrine, you are of the heresy of Cerinthus, who was the progenitor of all doctrinal heresy.
All false accusations.

That's just a denial of everything Jesus said.
That's false too.

You have a good day, cjab.
 
JTB called the baptism he performed "baptism of repentance". Submitting to his baptism wasn't a sign of repentance?
The background of baptism in water was the Mikveh
http://www.essene.com/B'nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm
Purpose of the mikveh
1. To the ancient Jews, both Essene and non-Essene, the mikveh was a process of spiritual purification and cleansing, especially in relation to the various types of Turmah or ritual defilement when the Temple was in use.
2. The Jewish baptism candidates were often immersed three times. The idea of total immersion comes from the Scripture in Leviticus 15:16 when it says, "he shall wash all his flesh in the water." One reason it was customary to immerse three times was because the word mikveh occurs three times in the Torah. We know this to have been an early Nasarenes practice under Yeshua.
4. The immersion candidate was not initially touched by the baptizer in Yeshua's (Jesus') day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," Rabbinical Judaism stresses that the entire body must come in contact with the water of the mikveh. To insure the immersion was valid, no clothing or individuals could touch the candidate. Any such intervention that prevented the water from reaching a part of the body was known as Chatzitzah and rendered the immersion invalid. Although the mikveh was more spiritual than physical, often the bath had two sets of steps, one entering and another leaving so as not to defile what had been purified. We know from Mandean tradition, and also Cyril of Jerusalem, that early Nasarene baptisms were performed without restricted clothing. Once relatively pure from preliminary self immersions, catecumens could be touched by the officiating Priest and Priestess for full Baptism.

This is the backdrop of John the Baptist baptizing in the Jordan River and the mikveh is what John the Baptist would be doing.

To the Jews, immersion in water and cleansing/purification were a pair like peanut butter & jelly, mashed potatoes and gravy, cafe con leche. They completely related immersion in water, to actual purification/cleansing.
When John the Baptist performed the "baptism of repentance", it was for this, not as a sign of having repented. The sign school of thought when it comes to baptism is a modern development that began during the reformation. The Bible does not put sign and baptism together in the same sentence or in the same thought.
 
Last edited:
All three statements are false.


Jesus Christ did come from God Himself. He is a direct creation of God.
And so is everyone else. "All things are of God." 2 Cor 5:18, so your theology is reduced to one grand deception.

No they can't. Humans come from procreation. Men and women have sex.
Biological miracles doesn't make anyone or anything the son of God.

You can't tell the difference between flesh and spirit. A miracle in the sense of something that happens unexpectedly on earth is solely limited to the physical event. By your reckoning, only the conception of Jesus is miraculous. Otherwise he was just a created man, as you say, with a spirit given by God in the same way as every other man (Gen 2:7, Eccl. 12:7).

Now the reason that the true Jesus is different, is because the spirit given by the Holy Spirit to Jesus came down from heaven.

The "miraculous element" is definitely not inconsequential. If it had not happened, Jesus would not have existed.
That is miracle of biology, not anything else.

This is false too. Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.
Your Jesus isn't a begotten son of God but a human being created by parthenogenesis, which has been observed in other species. What is created by biological parthenogenesis isn't a "son of God."

No, it's absolutely true. You, despite your good vocabulary and scholarly wannabe writing style, do not understand what it means.
I understand that it means that the Holy Spirit imparted the "kenosified" (i.e. emptied) Logos, previously resident in heaven in glory alongside the Father, as the Spirit of baby Jesus conceived by a miracle of biological parthenogenesis.

No, it is not an academic point. Jesus was not the biological son of Joseph. And it is not "as if" Jesus was biologically descended from Joseph. The male chromosomes came from God.
You haven't got the faintest idea what chromosomes were used, so don't pretend to know. In any case, Jesus must have born a physical resemblance to Joseph, as he was credited by the Jews as being Jesus's father. So we can be sure he had no racially inharmonius male DNA for a start, and so very likely he was given Joseph's DNA.

Then in that case, Cerinthus was correct.
History records that Cerinthus was condemned by the apostle John as an arch heretic. As you are also.

Find me a single ancient Christian besides Cerinthus and his Jewish followers and the Ebionites who credited what you credit. What do you find so attractive about Jewish heresy? Jews had a history of rebelling against God, and as Paul and Acts record, Jewish heretics abounded in those days.

They were true words.


All false accusations.


That's false too.

You have a good day, cjab.
 
Back
Top