And the Jehovah Witness’s cite Shem Tob as a support for their heresies. Dear Lord, there really is nothing new under the sun.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Meat The Trinity Baptism Versus Truth
- Thread starter OttoM
- Start date
I would say that the deeper folks go into questioning the veracity of NT and Paul, they wind up either in a pseudo JW position or rejecting NT altogether in search of Hebrew purity (denial of Christ).
This is just my anecdotal observation, and not implying that anyone here is advocating that.
That being said, I do feel that there is a strong case to be made for a binitarian position (topic for another day).
And, I’m also conflicted. Does one even need to confess the deity of Christ to obtain salvation? I’m not so certain that it’s an essential doctrine for reconciliation to God, but is a byproduct of “studying to show thyself approved”.
If a person is rejecting the deity of Jesus Christ, that person is believing in a different Jesus for his or her salvation. But Jesus said He Himself is the only One through whom there is access to the Father. It is a slippery slope one steps onto when he or she begins rejecting the truth concerning Jesus Christ, and the speed of descent to destruction will only accelerate if the person continues down that path. Shalom
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
What is more common than denying that Christ is the only one that we must go through to get to the Father, is conflating Christ to something that he is not.
I was reading in Matthew today and began laughing at the absurdity of the belief that Jesus is the same entity as his Father. Where I was reading in Matthew was where it was talking about the temptation of Christ. He was actually tempted to bow down to Satan so that he could gain the inheritance that his Father had promised him but by bowing, he would not have to suffer by way of the crucifixion. So, he was tempted by Satan.
God the father would never be tempted by Satan. He pre-existed everyone else. He has the power to kill Satan at anytime he wants. Christ is living according to the will of his Father and thus has to abide by the rules his Father has created for him.
If the Son is actually the Father, then neither one is greater than the other. If they are the same entity, you at most could say that "He" is choosing to be in a different form at the moment but you could never diminish his power and authority based on his current manifestation.
The Son repeatedly refers the Father as greater than him and WAS tempted of Satan.
So, is the Son of God our God? Yes! His father put him in that position and we are to worship him.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
1Co 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.
We belong to the Son and the Son belongs to the Father.......
I’m not advocating for rejection of the deity of Jesus.
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!”
A child or new believer, or dying convict before execution doesn’t need to understand the hypostatic Union or incarnation, or trinity to call on the name of the Lord. One just needs to call on his name and have faith in him.
Sanctification and discipleship for understanding comes after. If a full understanding of all the idiosyncrasies of doctrine is needed for salvation, then Grace means nothing.
Confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord is the first requirement for salvation.
“
Is this confessing him as Lord (YHWH) with full understanding of his deity?
If he’s deity, then why does God need to raise him? Why can’t he raise himself? And how does an eternal God die?
I’m not an easy believism kind of guy, but asking someone to reconcile all the intricacies of the faith before taking the journey of faith is asking a lot.
What’s the dividing line? I’m not sure.
“…if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”
Is this confessing him as Lord (YHWH) with full understanding of his deity?
If he’s deity, then why does God need to raise him? Why can’t he raise himself? And how does an eternal God die?
I’m not an easy believism kind of guy, but asking someone to reconcile all the intricacies of the faith before taking the journey of faith is asking a lot.
What’s the dividing line? I’m not sure.
He chose is a good answer:
Philippians 2:5
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
When the Father in Heaven says:
Zechariah 12:10
“And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me (YHVH), the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
When has anyone pierced the Father in Heaven? "The Father and I are one." So when the Son rules over the Earth as King - it would be "The Father and I are one" ruling - therefore - YHVH will rule over the House of Jacob and all the earth.
John 4:24
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth
1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.
1 John 4:12
12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
There is an "Angel of YHVH" that the saints of old spoke to. The Scripture goes on to say that they saw "YHVH." Probably referring to the Son:
John 8:56
Your father Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad. The people said, “You aren’t even fifty years old. How can you say you have seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM (YAH).
Proverbs 30:4
Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know!
Scripture is clear elsewhere - imo - that they were being baptized into the name of the Son alone.Here you go, the oldest copy of a Hebrew version of Matthew originated in the 14th century from an anti-Christian rabbi who actively argued against Jesus being the Messiah. It’s called the Shem Tob version. It appears to be the one @OttoM is referencing and has no obvious basis in an earlier Hebrew text.
This is a completely untrustworthy text. Here’s the Wikipedia link for anyone wanting to read the basics of it.
Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Was Yahoshua (Jesus) the Messiah filled with the Holy Spirit? Is he and the Father one? Under that interpretation - this makes sense - especially for our age:
Matthew 28:19
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
The reason I disagree with this synopsis is that Christ is the mediator between God and man. There are SO many references that confirm that.
I see all the interactions between God and man as Christ and man. Not that Christ "is" his Father but that when Moses spoke to God, he was speaking to the mediator, Christ.
Also, again, just to pick one more example, when in Revelations, God the Father is sitting on the throne, he has the book in his hands that no one is worthy to open. God the Father, book in his hand, no one worthy to open it...... Then enters the Lamb of God, one who is worthy to open the book. He takes the book from his Father and begins to open it......
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.
Christ is not his Father but they are in perfect unity.
Because baptism is for remission of sins, and the sins are not held against children until they reach the Biblical age of accountability....which is 20 years old.
Look at when the children of Israel murmured against YHWH in Caanan land. Those people 20 years and older had to die in the wilderness, but the children who were under 20 years He did not hold the sin against them.
If Jesus is Lord than what is the Father? Obviously no one understands the intricacies of Christoology. It’s impossible but there has to be some kind of acknowledgment of Christ’s lordship. And it’s not hard until we make it hard. God can do anything and one of the things He does is interact with us in different, incredibly intricate ways in different situations? Why isn’t really important and how is unknowable.
You inserted a heretical text designed to undermine the Christian faith into our forum. You don’t get to keep talking like you’re a teacher with a valid point. You just demonstrated an extreme level of negligence and gullibility at best.
You need to acknowledge your error and humble yourself. Clearly you don’t have the discernment you think you have, and that’s offering you an extreme amount of charity.
No, your point is not a good one. No, your proof texts don’t show what you claim they do, and no, I won’t dignify this deceptive, destructive idea until you admit the fault and show you’ve gained some wisdom.
That would be an assumption.
If Yah was specific about how and when to circumcise, why didn’t He include baptism?
Did babies receive the baptism of the Holy Ghost?
Baptism was and is for believers.
And circumcision was commanded for Jewish male babies. Leviticus 12:2-3 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
Acts 2:38
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Peter didn’t say in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. But instead the Son’s name alone.
If that passage in Matthew is correct, then one of the two possibilities:
1. The apostles interpreted that as using just his name, or were told privately. He spoke many times in parables. Quick example - “If you don’t eat the flesh of the Son of Man you have no life.” You have an entire religion that believes this is the Eucharist ritual. Others know that he is referring to “Man shall not eat bread but every word that comes from the mouth of YAH.” He is the Word made flesh. He’s talking about being sanctified by the truth - the word is truth.
2. The apostles disobeyed. (Least likely imo)
Or the verse in Matthew was slightly altered. Everything still points to the Son - for he is the way, the truth, and the life. The Word made flesh and the bread of life.
Last edited:
I read this whole thread but seem to be missing something.
If I got lost other readers might too.
My husband and I on another forum were once told that an idea "Being taken from the Bible did not make it Biblical" but these same people would not give us their definition of what then made an idea in the Bible "Biblical". It was a Yuku board called Biblical Christianity.
It seems to be a pet theology to TRM that there are no errors in translations.
Since I thought you believed the translations don't have errors, how did you decide that a text he quoted was heretical....and which text please are you claiming IS heresy?
Again, I read the thread, what idea ihere is destructive?
If I got lost other readers might too.
My husband and I on another forum were once told that an idea "Being taken from the Bible did not make it Biblical" but these same people would not give us their definition of what then made an idea in the Bible "Biblical". It was a Yuku board called Biblical Christianity.
Nope. Condemn the Shem Tob abomination or be quiet. You are not qualified to interpret scripture until you prove you can identify what is scripture.
It took me two minutes to find the truth about Shem Tob. It wasn’t even being concealed.
I have no skin in the game with Shem Tob’s Hebrew Matthew. I have read it. It’s 99.99% the same as the Matthew Gospel we have in our own Bibles. Main difference is the names are replaced with their Hebrew counterparts. So if your claim is true - the author was some type of anti-Christ figure - wouldn’t he had removed certain passages in the gospel of Matthew? I don’t know much about the history, so I can’t condemn something I don’t know much about. I’ll remain neutral - similar to the apocryphal - which at one point was in the KJV.
The Apostles may very well of interpreted “In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as using his name. Because that’s what the book of Acts shows us. They used his name. The Master spoke many times in parables.
Quick example - “If you don’t eat the flesh of the Son of Man you have no life.”
You have an entire religion that believes this is the Eucharist ritual. You have Catholics that go to mass every day, because they believe that if they don’t partake in the Eucharist ritual - they have no life. So he spoke in parables, because it’s a way of revealing truth to the humble and meek.
Isaiah 66:2
Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?” declares YHVH. “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word.
Others know that he is referring to “Man shall not eat bread but every word that comes from the mouth of YHVH.” The Son is the Word made flesh. He’s talking about being sanctified by the truth - the word is truth (John 17:17). New wine being poured into new wine skins.
Quick example - “If you don’t eat the flesh of the Son of Man you have no life.”
You have an entire religion that believes this is the Eucharist ritual. You have Catholics that go to mass every day, because they believe that if they don’t partake in the Eucharist ritual - they have no life. So he spoke in parables, because it’s a way of revealing truth to the humble and meek.
Isaiah 66:2
Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?” declares YHVH. “These are the ones I look on with favor: those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word.
Others know that he is referring to “Man shall not eat bread but every word that comes from the mouth of YHVH.” The Son is the Word made flesh. He’s talking about being sanctified by the truth - the word is truth (John 17:17). New wine being poured into new wine skins.
Last edited: