concerning baptism

First off, i was going to start this thread, you beat me to it ;-) .And, some of the scripture you have quoted, i believe 'baptised' means death or death of Christ.I was thinking about this for a while, WHY ARE WE (Charasmatic/Pentacostals..any one 'spirit-filled') preaching TWO baptisms. But, truly baptism by water is a BAPTISM.'Baptism of the Holy Spirit' is a FILLING and RECEIVING(i don't believe those who are 'saved' have the Holy Spirit, but have it ACTIVE in their life), EMPOWERING TO WITNESS AND EDIFY THE BODY (with Gifts FROM ABOVE, NOT BY MAN!), and a true outpouring of Authority.

A point made in the other thread discussing baptism, is that 'baptise' means immerse.So, when you say So you see, all the verses I quoted that were dealing with baptism, were talking about an actual baptism. Both Jesus and John were clearly making a distinction between John's type of baptism and that baptism with which Jesus would baptize.'were talking about an actual baptism', do you mean water or spirit baptism?

Do yourself and everyone else a favor. Everywhere you see the word Baptize or Baptism, substitute immerse or immersion. And then read the text again asking the Holy Spirit to reveal to you what it says. I hope your will find that the text becomes much more clear to you.Shalom,Lahry

Stever writes:I have been thinking about this lately and eventhough I can't back it up by Scripture think that the new beleiver is baptized into Christ's blood. Eventhough the element that we use here is water (on this earth), the actual element in Heaven (in the Spiritual realm) is Christ's blood.The Baptism in the Holy Spirit is nothing more than the overflow, the "outpouring" of the Holy Spirit that already resides within the believer. The purpose for this baptism is only to specifically empower the believer to go about Christ's work of witnessing to the lost.God bless,Stever

Stever,I think the difficulty in expressing it, is in moving between the actual history which is a kind of picture language to us now, and the realm of the Holy Spirit, who makes all Truth real to our hearts, our understanding and gradually to our experience.Overlaid, there is the realm of symbolism, in which bread, wine and water are used both as spiritual terms of reference, and which we partake in the realtime reality of our own lives.Servus,Stever is on to something here, but I know my limitations! There is no way I can begin to explain it, but philologos will be able to make the scriptural connections more clear. It might be interesting for both of you to look at the start of his thread on p4 in this forum, called 'Propitiation and the red heifer'. I suspect it will answer some questions of where to find things in scripture, too.

Stever posted:I have been thinking about this lately and eventhough I can't back it up by Scripture think that the new beleiver is baptized into Christ's blood. Eventhough the element that we use here is water (on this earth), the actual element in Heaven (in the Spiritual realm) is Christ's blood.Servus said:When we begin to believe things about God merely based upon our own ideas, we start to tread on dangerous ground. If one is to know the truth of our faith, it comes only through prayer along with the careful studying of God's Word. If it's not found in there, then it's most likely not the truth. If you seriously believe that this is something that God is speaking to your heart, then I suggest you sit down and study more and look for scriptures to back what you're saying. If you come up with anything I would be delighted to hear what you have to share.Stevers response:There are many verses in the New Testament that refer to the power of Christ's blood. There is one verse in Revelation that perhaps is behind my thoughts and gives some support for them (although not positively clear):Revelation 1:5."And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, AND WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD,"Other verses in the Bible that make me wonder about this are:1 PETER 1:18-1918. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:HEBREWS 13:2020.\tNow the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,HEBREWS 13:1212.\tWherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.HEBREWS 12:2424.\tAnd to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.HEBREWS 9:18-2818. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20. Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26. For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28. So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.COL 1:1414.\tIn whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:ACTS 20:2828.\tTake heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.I could go on and on with other quotes, but maybe you can see the gist of my thoughts on this matter.Do I think this is "Doctrine", something to teach others? Of course not. I was only musing and thought that other Christians might have had the same thoughts, based upon Scripture, found in the Bible, and was hoping to hear from them on this post.God bless,Stever

Here is one I came across when I was wondering how to respond. I think we can all recognise this language.Genesis 4911 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

Philogos said:I would advise you (stever) not to create terms such as 'baptism into Christ's blood'; it can only lead to confusion.Stever's response:Like I said before, I was only musing (thinking) about the possibility. Since we are indeed baptized into His death (Romans 6:3), and since all of the sacrifices since the beginning have consisted of placing the blood on the altar, as well as once a year having the blood placed on the Mercy Seat, which again is a picture of Christ (at the day of Atonement, always celebrated on the 10th of Tishre).......it is really not a stretch to consider being baptized into Christ's precious blood.It is not doctrine that I am talking about here, only thoughts of the supernatural person that we have to deal with--Jesus Christ, the God Man who lives and reigns in his resurrected, glorified body at the right hand of the Father.At the resurrection everything will be clear to us, because now we only see through the glass darkly. I am looking forward to this event!God bless,Stever

RT said:Baptism in water is our submission to the covenant, our circumcision:Stever's reply:Christ said:"4. And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5. For John truly baptized with water; BUT YE SHALL BE BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY GHOST NOT MANY DAYS HENCE."RT, it occurs to me that eventhough you claim to speak in tongues, that you have never been Baptized into the Holy Spirit. If you had been, you would know the difference between being saved and baptized in water, and the baptism that Christ referred to above that empowers the Spirit Filled believer (after this baptism of the SPIRIT) to boldly witness to the lost, & pray for the sick and expect healing. Your posts show no understanding of this reality.God bless,Stever

More thoughts upon the Precious Blood Of Jesus Christ, from God's Word:1 Peter 1:18-25 18. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 19. BUT WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, as of a LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH AND WITHOUT SPOT: 20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 21. Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 22. Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 24. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 25. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.God Bless,Stever

Washed in the Blood? Is their power in the Blood, the power to make your sins white as snow?What about this song? Do you find any back-up for any of it in your own Bible?"you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb? "Not according to the new Bible Per-Versions!Not according to the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Version (NASV), New Living Bible, New Revised Standard Versions (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), The Living Bible (TLB), Today’s English Version, Contemporary English Version (CEV), International Standard Version: (ISV) and the other Per-Versions!Revelation 1:5 clearly reads in the King James Bible:And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD, (KJB) But you are NOT "WASHED IN THE BLOOD" in the New Per-Versions . . .American Standard Version (ASV) reads:and from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and LOOSED US FROM OUR SINS BY HIS BLOOD; Amplified Bible reads:and from Jesus Christ the faithful and trustworthy Witness, the First-born of the dead [first to be brought back to life] and the Prince (Ruler) of the kings of the earth. To Him Who ever loves us, and has once [for all] loosed and freed us from our sins by His own blood. Contemporary English Version (CEV) reads:May kindness and peace be yours from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Jesus was the first to conquer death, and he is the ruler of all earthly kings. Christ loves us, and by his blood he set us free from our sins. Good News for Modern Man reads:and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn Son who was raised from death, who is also the ruler of the kings of the earth. He loves us, and by his death he has FREED US FROM OUR SINS International Standard Version (ISV) reads:and from Jesus Christ, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood; Living Bible (TLB) reads:and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us. New American Standard Version (NASV) reads:and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood New Century Version (NCV) reads:and from Jesus Christ, Jesus is the faithful witness, the first among those raised from the dead. He is the ruler of the kings of the earth. He is the One who loves us, who made us free from our sins with the blood of his death. New International Version (NIV) reads:and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, New Living Bible reads:and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the commander of all the rulers of the world. All praise to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) reads:and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood New Testament in Modern English (J.B. Phillips) reads:and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, firstborn of the dead, and ruler of kings upon earth. To him who loves us and has set us free from our sins through his own blood Revised Standard Version (RSV) reads:and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood Today’s English Version reads:and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first to be raised from death and who is also the ruler of the kings of the world. He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has FREED US FROM OUR SINS The shocking FACT is – NOWHERE in the new Per-Versions do they read "YOU ARE WASHED IN THE BLOOD"!I repeat – NOWHERE do the new Per-Versions read "you are washed in the blood"!What can wash away my sins?Nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can wash away my sins?Nothing . . . According to the new Per-VersionsOh Happy day when Jesus washed my sins away! – NOT according to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV, at al!According to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV and other Per-Versions – Jesus Christ did not wash your sins away!Why don’t we "update" our "archaic", "hard to understand" song books?Have you been to Jesus for the loosing power?Are you freed in the blood of the Lamb?Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?Are you loosed in the blood of the Lamb? What can loose away my sins?Nothing but the blood of JesusIsn’t it irreverent and sacrilegious that these new Per-Version people will "update" the words of God — without "batting an eye" — and yet would not dare even consider "messing with" the song "Are You Washed In the Blood"!Aren’t you glad Brother Elisha Hoffman, the author of "Are You Washed in the Blood", still read and believed the "updated" and "archaic" King James Bible? He might have come out with some silly occultic nonsense like Stephen Curtis Chapman’s "Lord of the Dance", or Carman’s blasphemous "Holy Ghost Hop", et al.Consider the following wonderful, Christ-uplifting hymns that are contrary to the NIV, NASV, NLB, NRSV, RSV ASV, NCV, CEV, and the other "legions" (Mark 5:9) of Per-Versions!Jesus paid it all,All to Him I owe;Sin had left a crimson stain,He WASHED IT WHITE AS SNOW. — Jesus Paid It AllJust as I am, and waiting notTo rid my soul of one dark blot,To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,O Lamb of God, I come, I come. — Just As I Am Happy day, happy day, when Jesus washed my sins away!He taught me how to watch and pray, and live rejoicing every dayHappy day, happy day, when Jesus washed my sins away. — O Happy Day Lord Jesus, for this I most humbly entreat,I wait, blessed Lord, at Thy crucified feet.By faith, for my cleansing, I see Thy blood flow,Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. — White Than Snow Blessèd assurance, Jesus is mine!O what a foretaste of glory divine!Heir of salvation, purchase of God,Born of His Spirit, washed in His blood. — Blessed Assurance There is a BLOOD-WASHED MULTITUDE, a mighty army strong;The Lord of hosts their righteousness, redeeming love their song. — The Blood Washed Throng There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins;. . .The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day;And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away.Washed all my sins away, washed all my sins away;And there have I, though vile as he, washed all my sins away. — There Is A Fountain Filled With BloodI don’t know about you — but thank God (and no thanks to the new Per-Versions) — "I’m Washed in the Blood of the Lamb"!And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (KJB)God bless,Stever

The Blood of the LambIt was the shed blood of the lamb that made the difference between Abel and Cain (Hebrews 11:4) and between the Israelites and the Egyptians (Exodus 12:13). It is the shed blood of the Lamb of God that marks the difference between the Saved and those still in their sins, and that will differentiate between the song of the redeemed and the wailing of those cast into the furnace of fire (Revelations 5:9-10, Matt. 13:49-50).The precious shed blood of Jesus Christ is that which procures every blessing which the Christian enjoys. It is -The Power of our Sanctification. Hebrews 13:12 "Wherefore Jesus, also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered without the gate."The Pledge of our Blessing. Luke 22:20 "This cup is the New Testament in My blood which is shed for you."The Price of our Purchase. Acts 20:28 "The church of God which He hath purchased with His own blood."The Liberty of our Access. Hebrews 10:19 "Having, therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus."The Theme of our Praise. Revelation 5:9 "Unto Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood." The Certainty of our Overcoming. Revelation 12: 11 "And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb."The Ground of our Peace. Colossians 1:20 "Having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself."The Channel of our Forgiveness. Ephesians 1:7 "In whom we have redemption through His blood the forgiveness of sins."The Means of our Cleansing. I John 1:7 "The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin."God bless,Stever

No Blood-No Remission!!Man's greatest need is to be forgiven of his sins. This can only be done through faith in the blood of Jesus."...without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22)."...when I see the blood, I will pass over you..." (Ex. 12:13).By Pastor Ross L. RangeThere are a lot of people today who try to add to the finished work of Jesus Christ. There are those who say that one must be baptized or join the church, or hold out faithful to the end, in order to be saved. There are those who get people to say they believe in Christ and then say that they are saved. There is more to being saved than just a simple profession. There must be a conviction of sin and an acceptance by faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Many people are deceived by Satan into believing that they are saved when they are not really born again. The Bible is clear in the fact that it is only through faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, in His complete and perfect sacrifice, that alone is the way people are saved.Redeemed Through BloodAs the scripture says, "...we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" (Eph. 1:7). To be redeemed means to be bought back. The price has been paid and it is through the blood of Jesus Christ.Peter reminds us of this when he says, "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold... But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:" (1 Peter 1:18-19).Justified by BloodTo be justified means to be declared free. We know the Bible teaches that all are sinners. all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, there is none righteous, no, not one. No one deserves to be saved because of his goodness, but thank God, Jesus Christ died for sinners, shed His precious blood because of His love for us. The scripture says, "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." (Rom. 5:9). the word justified literally means "just as if I had never sinned." The blood of Jesus Christ is what has paid for our sins.Washed in His BloodThere are some who believe that baptism washes away sins. This is not scriptural. The Bible says, "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5). When one hears the Word, the Holy Spirit takes the word and convicts or sin, of righteousness, of judgment and works godly sorrow which brings repentance and faith; faith in the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our sins are washed away in His blood. Made Nigh (Close) by BloodMan is alienated from God, strangers from the covenant of promise, no hope without God in the world! "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ" (Eph. 2:13). Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition and makes the way possible for us to enter into the very presence of God because He has sprinkled His blood on the mercy seat as an atonement for our sins. Therefore, we are made nigh by His blood.Sanctified by BloodThe word sanctify means set apart from our sins, set apart from the world through the blood of Jesus Christ. As Paul says, "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate" (Heb. 13:12). Jesus was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem on that old hill called Calvary in order that we might be set apart from our sins. He shed His own blood on that cross. What can make me whole again, nothing but the blood of Jesus? What can wash away my sins, nothing but the blood of Jesus? We are sanctified by His blood.Peace through BloodMan is at odds with God. We have sinned against Him. We have been alienated from Him, but thank God through the blood of Jesus Christ, we can have peace with Him. Paul says, "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself" (Col. 1:20).Cleansed through BloodGod's children are redeemed through the blood and justified through the blood, washed in His blood, made high by the blood, sanctified by the blood, and have peace through the blood and daily we are cleansed by the blood of Jesus. Whenever we sin, we plead the blood of Jesus. For John says, "If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). In other words, we stay in fellowship with Jesus Christ our Saviour by daily trusting in the cleansing blood. We all sin every day, but "if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (verse 9). This means that the daily walk of the children of God are cleansed by the blood of Jesus.Conscience Purged by BloodWhen one understands the real meaning of being forgiven our sins, and having the Spirit of God living within us as children of God, one will want to live for Jesus. The Holy Spirit puts that desire in our heart and Paul reminds us that it wasn't the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He has obtained eternal redemption for us and says, "how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:14).Just think of it, Christ died for my sins. Jesus shed His precious blood, gave His all that I might be saved from the guilt and penalty and finally from the presence of sin. I owe Him everything I am.Bought with a PriceI do not belong to myself. If you are saved you do not belong to yourself. you are bought by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. This should, and will cause us to want to live for Him. As Paul says, "Ye are not your own? for ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (I Cor. 6:19-20).What can wash away my sins, nothing but the blood of Jesus? What can make me whole again, nothing but the blood of Jesus? So, there is no remission outside the blood of Jesus. You cannot mix blood and water, or blood and church membership, or blood and works, or any other thing, simply through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ do we have remission of our sins. Praise God for salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ! If you have not received Him by faith, why not today?God bless,Stever

In order to become a child of God, you must: 1. repent of your sins2. believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and that He rose the third day 3. confess the Lord Jesus-----------What exactly happened on that cross almost 2,000 years ago? Jesus shed His blood and that blood paid for the sins of all mankind The Blood of Jesus--What about it? . . . . . . . . . . .When we turn back to the Old Testament of the Bible, we see that after sin entered into the world, God required the blood sacrifice of animals for the atonement of sins. Leviticus 17:11, For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Leviticus 4:3-5 If the priest that is anointed do sin...then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering....he shall... lay his hand upon the bullock's head, and kill the bullock before the LORD. And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood, and bring it to the tabernacle of the congregation... But the blood of the animals still couldn't do the trick. The Israelites were still unfaithful to their God as evidenced by their awhoring after other gods. A better sacrifice was needed. Hebrews 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.God promised His people, the Jewish people, a new covenant about 600 years before the coming of Christ. We will see that this covenant would also require blood. Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.In the Bible, we have the Old Testament (or Hebrew Scriptures) and the New Testament. Both were ushered in by blood. The Old Testament came by the blood of animals. The New Testament by the blood of Jesus Christ. ------Old TestamentExodus 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words. Hebrews 9:18-20 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. ----------New Testament Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. --Jesus ChristThe animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were only a picture of the ultimate sacrifice. When Jesus Christ went to the cross almost 2,000 years ago, He was the ULTIMATE sacrifice. A bloody sacrifice indeed. •\tHis skin was whipped off, •\tHis beard was torn out of his cheeks, •\tHis head pierced with thorns, •\tHis face beaten to a pulp. He was unrecognizable. The Bible says He was more marred than ANY man. •\tHis hands and feet were nailed through with thick spikes, •\tHis side pierced with a spear after He died.The sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, completely abolished the system of animal sacrifice forever. The animal sacrifices of the Old Testament were only a picture, a figure, of the true sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Their blood was only a figure of the true blood that would be shed thousands of years later on a cross outside the city of Jeruselem. The animal sacrifices were... Hebrews 9:9 ...a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience... 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?The blood of animals had to be shed over and over but the blood of Jesus was shed only one time. The Catholic religion does not understand this and contends that the blood is shed over and over again in the mass, but the Bible says something different: Hebrews 10:12, ...after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. Hebrews 7:27 ...this he did once, when he offered up himself. Hebrews 9:28 ...Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many... Hebrews 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. The blood of Jesus is powerful. It is a saving, healing blood. Jesus Saves!!!!!!God bless,Stever

Once we are Baptized into the Holy Ghost we have received the “Overflow” of the Holy Spirit, that empowers the Christian believer. Those of us who have received this Baptism know, that we know, that we know this event has taken place. Our lives are changed, immediately. We are imbued with power from on-high to? To do what? To witness to the Lost! We receive this power and boldness immediately, it does not develop over time. It is an immediate change in who and what we are. It is the “Promise of the Father” as promised by Jesus Christ. As it prophesizes in Joel about this end-time event where the Spirit is poured out UPON all flesh and when will it cease?? When Christ comes again at His Second Coming (read the entire Book of Joel for clarification):” 28. And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29. And also UPON the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I POUR OUT my spirit.” [Joel 2:28-29] With that being said, how do we respond to the skeptic? How do we respond to the intellectual that probably knows his Bible better than anyone? How can we prove to ourselves and others as well that there is a difference between receiving Christ (Salvation- the Indwelling) and The Promise of the Father told to us by Christ Jesus- The Baptism of the Holy Spirit where the Holy Spirit comes UPON the Christian believer?I have been thinking about this for some time, as I have watched this thread develop to an interest in the “Promise of the Father”, to the present point where there is skepticism and misunderstanding--misunderstanding between Physical & Spiritual Baptism; misunderstanding about the time frame of when we beome “saved” and the moment that the Holy Spirit comes to indwell the believer; and the misunderstanding of “The Promise of the Father” where the Holy Spirit comes UPON the believer and empowers the believer to witness. It is my intent to try and solve this confusion by using Scripture, and let God’s Word reveal the answers to us. The Bible defines it’s own terms. We will focus only on God’s Word. As Christ tells us through the lips of Paul “12. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” [Hebrews 4:12-16].Clearly there are 4 parts to every baptism: 1) The Baptizer; 2) the Baptizee; 3) The Element; 4) The PurposeLet’s break down Water Baptism as an example. It takes place after the person becomes a believer in Jesus Christ. It is a “Physical” Baptism and not the “Spiritual” Baptism and takes place usually after we:1.\tRepent of our sins 2.\tBelieve that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins and that He rose the third day 3.\tConfess the Jesus Christ as LORDThe Baptizer: is typically our Pastor.The Baptizee: is/was you and me after we became believersThe Element: is the water.The Purpose: The purpose of this Baptism is several fold. Specifically we are saying to the World, and to God Almighty that we trust Him as our Lord and Savior. That we believe that Jesus Christ lived and died for our sins, and that He was resurrected on the 3rd day and is alive today. With the water being the element, we are placed into this element and as the water passes over us we are saying that if we die, and go down to the grave, underwater, that we also believe that God will bring us out of the grave (water), ALIVE. That God will resurrect us on that day! This Baptism is our statement of faith to the world, that we are now Christians, and believe Jesus Christ is LORD.How does this Baptism, the Baptism of the New Believer in water differ from other Baptism’s found in God’s word? The other two Baptism’s found in the Bible are “Spiritual” Baptism’s. Both Spiritual Baptism’s are received by an Act of Faith, and the Baptizer of each one is different.The New Believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes to live within the heart of the believer. This event consists of:Baptizer: The Holy SpiritBaptizee: You/Me and all believers that come to a saving grace in Jesus ChristElement: That is the hard part, but I believe that it is the Blood of Jesus Christ- but to be fair, the Bible is not 100% SpecificPurpose: To Sanctify the believerThis Baptism (above) has nothing to do with water. It is a Spiritual Baptism that takes place immediately when we receive/believe (invite in) the Gospel and involves an act of Faith on our part. “5. Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) (Ephesians 2:5);Ephesians 2:8-9 tells us the same thing “8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.”We cannot boast about this, because God has given us the faith-we can take no credit.When we ask Christ to come into our life and believe that He would do so, Christ comes into us, through the Holy Spirit and brings our Spirit back to life, and stays there till the redemption at the Rapture. John 14:16-20 tells us “16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you FOREVER; 17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for HE DWELLETH WITH YOU, AND SHALL BE IN YOU. 18. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20. At that day (SALVATION-SPIRIT BAPTISM THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW BIRTH) ye shall know that I am in my Father, and YOU IN ME, AND I IN YOU.” When this Baptism takes place we did not see it, touch it, or feel it, nor experience the “ME” being put into Jesus, but it happened. This is the miracle of Spirit Baptism that is associated with the New Birth, and has nothing to do with Water Baptism. The reason that I believe that the element is Christ’s blood is really quite simple. No man is saved unless he is washed in the blood. This is Salvation, a Spirit Baptism that results in our being placed into the Body of Christ.The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is “The Promise of the Father” as mentioned by Jesus Christ in Acts 1:4-5 “4. And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.4.\tFor John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”How do we know that Jesus is the Baptizer of this baptism? John the Baptist tells us in Luke 3:16 “16. John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: HE (CHRIST) SHALL BAPTIZE YOU WITH THE HOLY GHOST AND WITH FIRE:”Baptizer: Jesus ChristBaptizee: The Christian believer that asks for this BaptismElement: In the Holy Spirit, the “Living Water”Purpose: To receive power to be a witness: Acts 1:8 “8. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”We have two different Spiritual Baptisms with different purposes. One to put us into the body of Christ and another (The Baptism of the Holy Spirit) to give us the power to witness to the lost. One is a Spirit Baptism of Salvation where I was placed into the body of Christ----the purpose. The other, with another purpose, to give me the power to witness. Luke brings this together for us 24:44-4844. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45. THEN OPENED HE THEIR UNDERSTANDING [a miracle, by the power of the Holy Spirit], THAT THEY MIGHT UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES, 46. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47. And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48. And ye are witnesses of these things.Does Christ tell them to go out now, now that they have the indwelling Holy Spirit that has opened up the Scriptures to them, and witness, and to go about His business? No, He tells them to wait in Jerusalem to be endued (clothed) with power from on high!!!! THE PROMISE HERE IS POWER, NOT NEW BIRTH! “49. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.”I hope this has been helpful and I await your comments.God bless,Stever

Philogos writes:“And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” (Rev. 1:5-6, KJVS)The metaphor here is clearly the exodus and the covenant at Sinai. The people of Israel, of course, were never 'washed in blood', but they were 'redeemed by blood' which was struck onto the door posts and lintels. This is a familiar metaphor of the NT that the Church is God's Israel 'blood bought' and 'separated to Him'.Stever's response:The above is only your opinion. We are all saved by His Blood, not just the Jews at the first Passover in Egypt.God bless,Stever

Philogos said:I think we need to say something more about the Blood of Christ before we slip into superstition. The Bible language relating to Christ's blood is a synonym for His death at Calvary. There was nothing magical or mystical about the physical 'blood' of Christ. Those who nailed Him were probably spattered with it and he who pierced Him was probably awash in it. So far as we know none of these were benefited in any way by the 'blood of Christ'.The Blood of Christ is 'bible-shorthand' for Christ's life poured out in death. The consequences of this death are many and far reaching, and stever's list is relevant here, but neither the Blood of Christ nor the Cross of Christ has any intrinsic value; that is, the physical blood and cross even if they had been preserved, as Catholicism used to proclaim, they would have had no power in or of themselves. The phrases are synonyms for the sacrificial gift of the Son of God in the redemption secured at Golgotha.Stever's response:The Importance of Christ's Blood John 6:53-56 I. The Provision of the Blood 1. It was the Plan of the Sovereign (1 Pet 1:18-20) 2. It was Pictured in the Sacrifices (Gen. 3:21, Ex. 12:1-13) 3. It was Provided by the Savior (Heb. 10:12,14) II. The Properties of the Blood 1. It Covers (Rom. 3:25, 1 John 2:2, 4:10) 2. It Cleanses (Rev. 1:5, 1 John 1:7) 3. It Consecrates (Heb. 10:19-20) III. The Preaching of the Blood 1. Preach it for Salvation (1 Pet. 1:2) 2. Preach it for Separation (Rom. 12:1-2, 1 Cor. 6:19-20) 3. Preach it for Service (Phil. 2:5-8) God bless,Stever

Philogos said:but this does not make sense. The Jews were not saved from Egypt by His death. If you had read a little more carefully you would have seen that my reference was not to 'the Jews' but to the Church as the Israel of God. Are you saying that the 'exodus' is not used as a metaphor for the Church?Stever's response:The Jews were saved before the Cross, the same as we are saved after the Cross---By our belief in the Messiah. They believed in the Messiah to come, and we believe in the Messiah that came.The Passover was a "picture" of the final sacrifice. By placing the blood on the door posts and the lentil, they were doing nothing more than proving their faith, by believing God and the instructions He gave them through Moses.They were also creating a picture, stick diagram of the Cross that Christ would be crucified on, with the blood (His blood, eventually) on the sides and the top of the doorway, and the bottom, in the basin!The blood of goats and animals does not save us, only the blood of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, the God Man:Hebrews 9:8-14 8. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: 9. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; 10. Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. 11. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?They, before the Cross are saved by their faith in Him, and we, after the cross are saved by our faith in Him.God bless,Stever

Philogos said:“Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56, KJVS)Stever’s response:What the above refers to is the Sacrifices of Leviticus, as well as His final sacrifice where He was offering Himself. The only Sacrifice that the sinner gave, that provided him flesh to eat, was the Peace Offering.These were the following sacrifices in the Old Testament, the Old Covenant:Sin offering---mandatory—for my sin nature.Trespass Offering—mandatory- for my specific sin, both known and unknownBurnt Offering-Voluntary (Sweet Savor)Meal Offering-VoluntaryPeace Offering- Voluntary (a. Thank; b. Vow; c. Freewill)The first two offerings (Sacrifices) were mandatory if you were a Jewish believer. The other 3 were all voluntary.The Jewish Sacrificial system was wide open. Then, like today, some only do what is required while others, who want a closer walk with God, are willing to go all of the way. The deeper that you went into the system, the more time and money it cost to go there. The only way to ever eat the sacrifice was to go all of the way, for a deeper walk. Also, drinking the blood of the covenant partner in the blood covenant ritual always involved sharing a glass of wine together, not actual blood. If the Jews hearing these words from Christ knew the Jewish Sacrificial system, set up by God Almighty at Mt. Sinai, they would have known what Christ was talking about. He himself was the sacrifice!:S= SINT= TRESPASSName of Nature of\tOffers\t\tPriests \t\tGod’s \t\tPriest \t\tOffers\tScriptureOffering\t Offering\tWork\t\tWork\t\tPortion\t\tPortion\t\tPortion\t\t\tXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXMandatory\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWork of Christ\t\t\t\t\t\tWork of Christ\tSIN \t Fine Flour\t\tLay on\t\tPuts blood\t\tFat of \t\tIf Blood\t\t NONE\tLev 4:5-13\tBull, Lamb\thands to\t\ton the Altar\tthe inner taken\ttaken into \t\t \t\t6:24-30\tGoat, Dove\tbecome \t\t\t\t\tparts, kidneys\tTabernacle,\tOr Pigeon\t\tone with\t\t\t\t\t& liver (within-\tflesh burned\t\t\t\tKills \t\t\t\t\t\tWithout) t\t\toutside the camp.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOtherwise flesh\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWas the Priests\tTRES-\t Ram\t\tLay on\t Puts blood\t\t Fat of \t\tREMAINDER\tNONE\t Lev 5:14-19PASS\t\t\t\thands to \tOn the the \t\tinner\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t6:1-7; 7:1-10\t\t\t\tbecome\t\tAltar\t\t\tparts, kidneys\t\t\t\tone with,\t\t\t\t\t& liver\t\t\t\tkills\t\t\t\tMandatory\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWork of Christ\t\t\t\t\t\tWork of ChristXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxVoluntary\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPerson of Christ\t\t\t\t\t\tPerson of ChristBurnt\tBull, Lamb\tLay on hands \tPuts Blood\t\tBURN ALL \tSKIN\t\tNONE\tLev 1, 6:8-13(Sweet\tGoat, dove\t\tto become \t\tOn the altar\tON THE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t8:18-28Savor)\t\t\t\tone with,\t\t\t\t\tALTAR\t\t\t\tKills animalMEAL\tFine flour\t\tBrings it to\tOffers hand-\tHANDFUL\tREMAINDER\tNONE\tLEV 2, 6:14-23\tOil, salt &\t\tthe Priest\t\tful by Fire\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPEACE\tBull, Lamb\tLay on hands\tPuts Blood\t\tFat of the\t\tWAVE\t\tSKIN +\tLev 3, 7:11-36\tGoat-no Bird\tto become \t\tOn the Altar\tinner parts,\t\tBREAST\t\tREMAINDER**\t\t\t\tOne with,\t\t\t\t\tkidneys & \t\t&\t\t\t\t\tLev 22:18-30\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tKills animal\t\t\t\tliver\t\t\tHEAVE\t\t\t\tALL SACRIFICES\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSHOULDER\t\t\tSALTED\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(CREATING\t\t\tLev 2:13; Ezek 43:24\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tA CROSS)\t\t\t\tMark 9:5\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHAD TO BE\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tEATEN BY\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3RD DAY.God bless,SteverP.S, This looked great in the post from my computer, but I guess your server does not keep the spacing between letters. I have this entire diagram (The Sacrifices of Leviticus) in Excel format if anyone is interested.

Philogos said:Each of these editors has had a different philosophy and anyone with a copy of the Interlinear Greek NT based on Stephens (created by Thomas Newberry) will have an brief introduction to some of these. Strictly speaking the 'Received Text' is that produced by Elzevir in 1624 which used the phrase in the preface. (the KJV, by definition, was not based on the 'Received Text' which was created later!?! Funny old world we live in!!) The text in question is Rev. 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, Of the above editors for this verse, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford (margin), Wescott and Hort, Nestle-Aland do not have the word 'washed' but have the word 'loosed' instead; why?The Greek word for 'washed' here is 'lousanti' (louO) while the Greek word for 'loosed' would be 'lusanti' (luO); a difference of a single letter. This would give us 'who loosed us from our sins in (by) his blood'. I reject the conspiracy theory of textual criticism. An error has taken place here in the copying, but in which direction? Is there any other verse of scripture which has this image of 'washing in blood'? No. In the OT the blood of the sacrifice was sprinkled and by that process the efficacy of the sacrifice was applied to the sprinkled ones. This OT pattern would link in well with a family of Greek words which is very important in NT doctrine. They are words linked to 'luO' which means to release. lusis, meaning to loose or divorce.lutron, the ransom pricelutroO, to ransom or redeemlutrOsis, redemptionlutrOtes, a redeemerantilutron, the redemption priceyou will see the idea by now. a price is paid to secure the release. This is actually a much more biblical concept than that of being 'washed in blood'. The price is the life poured out in the death of the cross. In fact, it fits much better with the context too;Stever’s response:I have such difficulty with your defense of Westcott and Hort, and the rest of their ilk. My Interlinear Greek English New Testament –3rd Edition by Jay P. Green, Sr. that relies on the Textus Receptus only DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR "SLANT" ON WHAT THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS ACTUALLY SAYS, IT REFUTES WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED (AGAIN).Literal Translation of Rev 1:5“even from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him loving us and WASHING US FROM OUR SINS BY HIS BLOOD,”A word for word translation from this same work, Rev 1:5“and from Jesus Christ, the witness faithful, the First-born out of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth. To the (One) loving us, AND WASHED (3068) US (2248) FROM THE SINS OF US IN THE BLOOD OF HIM”King James Translation:5. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SIN IN HIS OWN BLOOD,We are indeed washed by His Blood from our sins! I definitely feel that this is also the element that the Baptism of Salvation (the indwelling)takes place in.God bless,SteverP.S.Strong's Number: 3068 Transliterated: louo Phonetic: loo'-o Text: a primary verb; to BATHE (THE WHOLE PERSON; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): --wash.Strong's Number: 2248 Transliterated: hemas Phonetic: hay-mas' Text: accusative case plural of 1473; us: --our, US, we.

Philogos said:I think we need to say something more about the Blood of Christ before we slip into superstition. Stever's response: Sounds like the work of Bishop Westcott himself, methink!!!God bless,Stever

TO: PHILOGOSFROM: STEVERAgain, I am in total disagreement that you even consider the works of Westcott and Hort. If I wanted to know about a major figure in history, I would not only read what they themselves put into print, I would also read what others both inside and outside of their sphere of influence had to say about them. And finally I would look at the fruit that their lives had brought forth. I have previously posted the comments of major players that knew both men (Westcott & Hort), as well as their own letters and notes to each other and other people, as well as a book written by the son of one of these men. I was challenged on that information, and when I posted the footnotes that backed up the information, I never heard one word from you.Everything that I posted about these two men is enough for most people to walk away from them and their work and have nothing to do with either. By looking at the fruit of these two men, I see nothing but disaster. Now, when Christians read their Bible, they are all reading different versions, all spawned by Westcott and Hort, with different meanings. Their "fruit" has been confusion. Just go into any Church on a Sunday Morning and when the Pastor asks the congretation to read alound a specific verse, or group of verses, they are all reading something different. Their fruit has been the tower of babel.Now, in regards to your illustration about washed and loosed I find it to be in error. Scriveners translation of Rev 1:5 & Stephens translation both have used the Greek word LOUSANTI (Washed) [not LUO, BUT LOU) that consists of:Scrivener1:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati autouCompare that to StephensStephens Textus ReceptusRev 1:51:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati autouStrong's Number: 3068 Transliterated: LOUO Phonetic: loo'-o Text: a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): --wash.Strong's Number: 3089 Transliterated: LUO Phonetic: loo'-o Text: a primary verb; to "loosen" (literally or figuratively): --break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off. Compare 4486.This is an analysis that goes into Burgon's analysis of the text, that supports the King James position:From Jesus Christ --- who has washed us from our sins in His own blood."Some of the modern translations follow the Critical Texts, Mde, Aleph, A, C, the Old Latin h and z; the Syrian Philoxenian and Harklean; the Armenian; Tyconius, Primasius, Cassiodorus, and Andrew's “a” commentary, and read, “having loosed or freed,” “lusanti,” the aorist active participle of “luo,” to loose, to release. However, though the Critical Texts read, “loosed us out of,” (“ek”), the majority of texts read, “washed us from,” (“apo”). Hodges and Farstad follow the A.V. and T.R., “washed,” “lousanti,” which occurs in the uncials P, 046, 94, and 1006; MOST MINUSCULES, i.e. Mac; the Old Latin, dem, div, gig, haf, and t; the Vulgate; the COPTIC BOHAIRIC, the Ethiopian; the bav and c commentaries of ANDREW OF CAESAREA, WHO DIED 614 A.D.(Arethas, Mb, and Andrew c, read “elousen;” the third person singular first aorist active indicative of “louo,” “to bathe.”)“Washed us,” “lousanti,” is the aorist active participle of “louo;” “to bathe and wash the whole body,” (see Jn.13v10. Tit.3v5.); as distinct from “nipto,” washing part of the body. See Jn.13v5,6,8., all the apostles, except Judas, were bathed and clean, and needed only to wash their feet, if they were defiled from their contact with an evil world. The aorist participle points to the point of time when we received the double blessing of justification, and release from guilt, through faith in Jesus, and the cleansing power of His precious redeeming blood. 1Pet.1v18,19. Rev.12v11. The Greek “en,” means “in,” in the phrase “in His blood,” “en toi haimati;” “washed in Thy blood,” makes much better sense than, “loosed in Thy blood.” This reading is confirmed by the fact that in Rev.5v9. and 7v14., saints are definitely said to wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb.On page b-29 of "unholy hands on the bible," a compilation of burgon's works, the following comment is made on rev.1v5. In favour of the authorised version reading “washed.” “the beautiful expression which has found its way into so many tender passages relating to christian devotion, 'who has washed us from our sins in his own blood' has been replaced in many critical editions by 'who has loosed us from our sins by his blood.' in early times a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincial retention of aeolian or dorian pronunciations, wrote from unconscious bias 'u' for 'ou', thereby transcribing 'lusanti' instead of the correct 'lousanti', unless he were not a greek scholar enough to understand the difference. And he was followed by others, especially those who, whether from their own prejudices or due to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but in any case under the influence of a slavish literalism, hesitated about a passage in which they did not rise to the precious meaning really conveyed in it. So we find the three uncials which are nearest the point of corruption adopt it, and they are followed by nine cursives, the harkleian syriac, and the armenian versions. On the other side are two uncials b/2 of the eighth century and p of the ninth, and the vulgate, bohairic, ethiopic versions - and what is most important, all the other cursives.” End of quote.God bless,Stever

To: PhilogosFrom: SteverWho exactly were Westcott & Hort? We all know about their "work", that created the NIV. What were they really like? What did their characters consist of? The following is from the book "Which Version is the Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones:AN ASSESSMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT - THEIR CHARACTERSThe naturalistic critics say that Erasmus could not have been providentially guided in the editing of the Textus Receptus because he was a humanist and a Roman Catholic. They purport that Westcott and Hort were epoch making scholars directly guided by God'sprovidence to restore the New Testament, having completed their assignment in 1881. However, if we compare the character of Erasmus to those of Westcott and Hort, we shall see that such a declaration is vacuous and specious. It thus becomes necessary to draw a contrast between the lives of Messers B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort with Erasmus in order to evaluate these charges and claims of the critics as well as to grasp the full impact of this exposé.Westcott, an Anglican Bishop and professor at Cambridge University, and Hort - also an ordained Anglican priest and professor at Cambridge - came to participate on the 1881 Revision Committee of the King James Bible under the guise of being Protestant scholars. Actually, they were very Roman Catholic in doctrine, belief, and practice. Both conservative and liberal branches of Christendom hold Westcott and Hort in high esteem as if God had greatly used these men to reestablish and restore the text of the Bible. However, it is most difficult to believe that God would use two men to perform such a task who did not believe that the Bible was the verbal Word of God.Westcott and Hort maintained that they had raised New Testament textual criticism to the level of an exact science. Thus when they concluded that the Traditional Text was late and a composite reading resulting from combining older text-types, they affirmed that this should be regarded as the true explanation with the same degree of reliance as one would esteem a Newtonian theorem. Indeed, they asserted that their work had been so scientifically and carefully executed that there could never be more than one change per thousand words. Nevertheless, today most liberal (or lost) modern scholars say that they no longer agree completely with the Westcott-Hort theory. Kurt Aland, a foremost leader of the modern school, is representative when he admits to this in saying "We still live in the world of Westcott and Hort with our conception of different recensions and text-types although this conception has lost its raison d' être, or, it needs at least to be newly and convincingly demonstrated. For the increase of the documentary evidence and the entirely new areas of research which wereopened to us on the discovery of the papyri, mean the end of Westcott and Hort's conception."Still, these same liberals always begin their own investigations with the acceptance of most of the basic W-H tenants. Sadly, most conservative scholars have accepted the W-H theory of textual history - largely because most Christian scholars fear scholastic and intellectual ridicule. To stand against the tide carries with it the stigma of appearing uninformed and non-progressive, resulting in the loss of credibility and status among one's peers. The man of God should never allow his faith to be intimidated by so-called "scholarship" - for God promised to preserve His Word.From published letters written by Westcott and Hort, either to each other or to family members, the following has been gleaned. On one occasion, Mr. Westcott was near a monastery and, upon going into the chapel, found a pieta. In writing from France to his fiancee in 1847 concerning the event he wrote: "Had I been alone, I could have knelt there for hours." As he was not alone, he had to refrain for to have so done would have revealed just how Roman his beliefs actually were. On November 17, 1865 he wrote to Archbishop Benson remarking, "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness." He stated that the fall o fman was an allegory covering a long succession of evolutions. He rejected Genesis 1-3 as a literal history and also denied the fall of man. Westcott felt all women should be named "Mary" so that his wife Sarah, at his request, added "Mary" to her name and he ever so addressed her. Does that sound like a Protestant?With regard to spiritual authority in general and especially the Bible's being the final authority, Mr. Hort said: "Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue." On October 17, 1865 Hort wrote "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and 'Jesus-worship' have very much in common in their causes and their results". Hort praised his "prayer boxes" which he carried about with him. These contained statues (idols) to which he prayed. Confessing in a 26 October, 1867 letter to Dr. Lightfoot that he was a staunch sacerdotalist, Hort wrote to Westcott regarding the Protestant's teaching of the "priesthood of the believer" as being a "crazy horror"! He believed neither in a literal Garden of Eden nor that Adam's fall differed in any degree from that of any of his descendents. In a March 4, 1890 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on Old Testament Criticism, Westcott gave his "amen" to Hort's last sentiment by penning: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history - I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did."Although not wishing to be under the dominion of the Pope, in writing to Rev. John Ellerton on July 6, 1848, Hort said: "the pure Romanish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the evangelical view. ... We dare not for sake the sacraments or God will forsake us." In a December 14, 1846 letter to his father, Hort wrote " ... Methodism ... is worse than popery ...being more insidious", and in an 1864 correspondence to Bishop Westcott he stated his conviction that "Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary". Indeed, Hort wrote Westcott (December 4, 1861) of preferring Greek philosophy and "it's precious truth" to the Christian revelation in which he said he found "... nothing, and should be very much astonished and perplexed to find anything".Both W&H came under the influence of J.H. Newman, an Anglican Bishop who returned to the Roman church and was made Cardinal.Newman held a doctrine of angelology in which he taught the gnostic view that there were many intermediates between God and His creation. Westcott and Hort also fell under the spell of Coleridge and Maurice, two Unitarians who were pantheistic and metaphysical, holding low estimates of "inspiration of Scripture". Coleridge said "Reason was the divine logos."Frederick Maurice was the son of a Unitarian minister and a brilliant student of Oxford and Cambridge. Having become a clergyman in the Church of England, he was dismissed as principal of King's College, London, on charges of heresy. Maurice had a commanding influence on many of the leaders of his day, especially Dr. Hort who wrote of him November 8, 1871: "... Mr. Maurice has been a dear friend of mine for twenty-three years, and I have been deeply influenced by his books". Westcott also admitted he owed much to the writings of Maurice, and Hort's son wrote of his father: "In undergraduate days, if not before, he came under the spell of Coleridge".Thus we have two Anglican priests whose stated beliefs were strongly Roman. Both accepted Darwin's theory of evolution. Writing to Rev. John Ellerton, April 3, 1860, Hort declared: "But the book that has engaged me most is Darwin. ... it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. ... My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable."Denying that the death of Christ Jesus made the once for all vicarious atonement for the sinner, W&H choose instead to emphasize atonement through the incarnation rather than through the crucifixion. This view was an attempt to exalt Mary's position as, of course, she was prominent at the conception and birth of Jesus. Such posture upholds the Roman Catholic Mass. So their view was that of atonement through Jesus' conception and birth father than his shed blood!Further, Westcott doubted the Biblical account of miracles. Writing in his diary, August 11, 1847, Bishop Westcott penned "I never read an account of a miracle but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it."Indeed, Westcott and Hort did not even believe the original autographs of the Scriptures were God inspired! Writing in their"Introduction", they impiously stated "Little is gained by speculating as to the precise point at which such corruptions came in.They may be due to the original writer, or to his amanuensis if he wrote from dictation, or they may be due to one of the earliest transcribers." (emphasis author's)WESTCOTT AND HORT'S INVOLVEMENT IN SPIRITISMWestcott and Hort belonged to what Westcott's son referred to as "The Ghostly Guild." Westcott took a leading role in this society and its proceedings, the purpose of which was the investigation of ghosts and other supernatural appearances. They believed that such things existed. Concerning this society, Hort wrote to Rev. John Ellerton on December 29, 1851 "Westcott,Gorham, C.B. Scott, Benson, Bradshaw, Lauard, etc., and I have started a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective disillusions."Such is spiritism and is absolutely forbidden by Scripture.Westcott's son wrote of his father's communing with "saints" especially at a great cathedral at Petersburg where "there was much company." On that same page he wrote that his father said, in speaking of the chapel at Auckland Castle, it was "full" and that he was "not alone" in the darkness. He was, of course, communing with demonic spirits supposing that they were ghosts (the souls of men who had lived formerly). However, the Word of God clearly teaches that "familiar spirits" are demons impersonating people. They are not the spirits and/or souls of people who have lived previously.Both of these men denied the deity of Christ Jesus and they denied the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Moreover, Hort spent the last eight years of his life working with Westcott in translating the Books of Wisdom and Maccabees, two uninspired writings.In closing, Stever says:I contend that the King James Bible is the only Bible to read and study. All of the thees and thous were archaic 200 years ago. Did people discontinue to use it? NO. It was used until about 1950 in this country. The decline of this Country (America) parallels the decline in use of the King James Bible.God bless,Stever

Philogos said:Jay P Green based his interlinear on a text 'reconstructed by F H A Scrivener in 1894' (see introductory notes on page xii of Green's 3rd edition) Scrivener is my favourite editor, but do you understand what Scrivener was doing in his edition of 1894? He set out to 'construct' the text from which the KJV was translated. It is hardly surprising that his Greek text of 1894 supports the KJV when that is what he had set out to do. If you read the introductory notes you will discover that there are more than 250 differences between Scrivener's reconstructed text and that of the Stephen's text. (technically the phrase 'Received Text' was not used of Stephen's text but of that of Elzivir.) Green specifically draws attention to occasions when Scrivener has a version which is 'without any MSS support at all'.Philogos further said:I do not 'support' Westcott and Hort but neither do I believe them to be the Machiavellian conspirators portrayed by the KJV-only tribe. If you are ever able to get hold of the exegetical commentaries of Westcott you will find a man who exalted Christ and His work and who displays an intense personal loyalty to Orthodox faith. Stever’s reply to the above:I contend that you do indeed support Westcott and Hort. Your mention above about 250 differences between Scrivener and Stephens translations. That specific statement then infers that the Louo (Washed) and Luo (Loosed) are a part of those differences. That is not the truth in this instance. The differences between the 2 translations are very minor, and do not relate to doctrine.Below I have quoted both translations of Rev1:5-- Please note that both versions (Scrivener & Stephens) use the same word LOUSANTI, not LUSANTI!!!!! IN REVELATION 1:5Stephens Textus ReceptusRev 1:51:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati autou 1:6 kai epoihsen hmav basileiv kai iereiv tw yew kai patri autou autw h doxa kai to kratov eiv touv aiwnav twn aiwnwn amhnScrivener1:5 kai apo ihsou cristou o martuv o pistov o prwtotokov ek twn nekrwn kai o arcwn twn basilewn thv ghv tw agaphsanti hmav kai LOUSANTI hmav apo twn amartiwn hmwn en tw aimati autou1:6 kai epoihsen hmav basileiv kai iereiv tw yew kai patri autou autw h doxa kai to kratov eiv touv aiwnav twn aiwnwn amhnLOUSANTI/ LOUO=. However, though the Critical Texts (Modern Versions, spawned by Westcott & Hort) read, “loosed us out of,” (“ek”), THE MAJORITY TEXTS (TEXTUS RECEPTUS) READ, “WASHED US FROM,” (“apo” Hodges and Farstad follow the A.V. and T.R., “washed,” “lousanti,” which occurs in the uncials P, 046, 94, and 1006; most minuscules, i.e. Mac; the Old Latin, dem, div, gig, haf, and t; the Vulgate; the Coptic Bohairic, the Ethiopian; the bav and c commentaries of Andrew of Caesarea, who died 614 A.D. (Arethas, Mb, and Andrew c, read “elousen;” the third person singular first aorist active indicative of “louo,” “TO BATHE.”)“Washed us,” “lousanti,” is the aorist active participle of “louo;” “to bathe and wash the whole body,” (see Jn.13v10. Tit.3v5.); as distinct from “nipto,” washing part of the body. See Jn.13v5,6,8., all the apostles, except Judas, were bathed and clean, and needed only to wash their feet, if they were defiled from their contact with an evil world. The aorist participle points to the point of time when we received the double blessing of justification, and release from guilt, through faith in Jesus, and the cleansing power of His precious redeeming blood. 1Pet.1v18,19. Rev.12v11. The Greek “en,” means “in,” in the phrase “in His blood,” “en toi haimati;” “washed in Thy blood,” makes much better sense than, “loosed in Thy blood.” This reading is confirmed by the fact that in Rev.5v9. and 7v14., saints are definitely said to wash their robes white in the blood of the Lamb.LUSANTI/ LUO = Some of the modern translations follow the Critical Texts, Mde, Aleph, A, C, the Old Latin h and z; the Syrian Philoxenian and Harklean; the Armenian; Tyconius, Primasius, Cassiodorus, and Andrew's “a” commentary, and read, “having loosed or freed,” “lusanti,” the aorist active participle of “luo,” to loose, to release. Strong's Number: 3068 Transliterated: louo Phonetic: loo'-o Text: a primary verb; to bathe (the whole person; whereas 3538 means to wet a part only, and 4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): --wash.Strong's Number: 3089 Transliterated: luo Phonetic: loo'-o Text: a primary verb; to "loosen" (literally or figuratively): --break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off. Compare 4486.If it walks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, and has feathers, and looks like a Duck, then, it is indeed a Duck.God bless,Stever

'..a society for the investigation of ghosts and all supernatural appearances and effects, being all disposed to believe that such things really exist, and ought to be discriminated from hoaxes and mere subjective disillusions."Such is spiritism and is absolutely forbidden by Scripture.Stever, you may not care to follow up this line of investigation (that is, why there may have been interest in these things by Christians) but, though it may have been misguided, they were no way the first. Joseph Glanvill, a founding member of the Royal Society (1650) was a delightful Anglican priest, who was thoroughly convinced of the gospel, well-grounded in the New Testament and of keen mind. He also got side tracked by this subject, except he interviewed witches. Why? Because he recognised that 'SADDUCEEISM' denied any resurrection - central to the Christian faith and Biblical record. In the 'new' atmosphere of scientifica sceptica, against classical education and some Greek philosophy which suggested there was nothing after death, he wanted to show there is indeed eternal life in Christ. Maybe this was not the motivation of those you quote but I thought you may be interested in one rationale.

Point taken and I do agree. :-)I am never quite sure what to say to those thinking of themselves as Christians, who are used to 'seeing' a family member long dead, appear in certain circumstances, especially if an older family member was comfortable about it. How does one break into this sort of history with a word in season, when this is disclosed?

Philologos said:"Burgon, of course, was an embarassment even to his friends with his outrageous statements."Stever's response:The typical response by someone who tars the messenger, to silence the truth of the message.In your zeal to defend Westcott & Hort, you have defamed a great man by labeling him (Dean Burgon) "an embarassment".Your characterization of Dean Burgeon as an embarassment is only true if you were in the shoes of Westcott & Hort, or someone trying to defend them:QUESTION: Who was Dean Burgon? ANSWER: He was an outstanding 19th century Bible scholar. EXPLANATION: John William Burgon (1813-1888) was a man of tremendous intellect and ranks among men such a Lancelot Andrews (1555-1626) and Robert Dick Wilson (1856-1930) in scholarship. He became the Dean of Chichester and has since been known as "Dean" Burgon. Dr. Burgon was contemporary with Westcott and Hort. He was an advocate of the Textus Receptus and was the nemesis of Westcott and Hort's feeble arguments against it. He believed, unlike Westcott and Hort, in basing all conclusions on the solid foundation of facts rather than the sand of theory. He would leave no stone unturned in his quest for truth and no blow undelivered in his defense of it. His serious scholarship, quick wit and acid tongue drove Westcott and Hort and all other Alexandrian scholars from the field of battle. His arguments against the Alexandrian text and in favor of the last 12 verses of Mark and other questioned portions have proven to be as unanswerable by modem scholarship as they were to his contemporaries. Today his name is as synonymous with the defense of the King James Bible as the names of Hills, Fuller and Ruckman. He is not only known as a champion of the Authorized Bible, but his works are an example of what honest, objective and thorough scholarship can produce. John Burgon catalogued more than 86,000 citations of the New Testament in the writings of the early church fathers who lived before A.D.325. Thus we observe that there is so much more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament text than any other comparable writings in the ancient world." (Ref: M1)Dean John Burgon Gave Specific Suggestions as to Both "How" and "When" He Would Make a Major Revision of the Textus Receptus 1. Dean Burgon Believed As an "INDISPENSABLE CONDITION" of Success in "Textual Criticism" That a Man "for Many Years Past" Has Given "the Whole of His Time" and Has "Freely Sacrificed Health, Ease, Relaxation, Even Necessary Rest" 27 2. Dean Burgon Insisted on the "Scientific Method Being Used, Not Westcott and Hort's "Unscientific Method," for-Textual Criticism Work Entailing Many "Long Summer Days" With Very Little "to Show" for All the Time Spent 28 3. Dean Burgon Held to a "Method" on a "Supposed Doubtful Reading" Which Involved the "Combined Verdict" of "Manuscripts, Versions," and "Fathers" as "Decisive 28 4. Dean Burgon Considered That a "Carefully Considered Revision" of the "Received Text" Would Only be Possible "After Many Years" After "Gradual Accessions" of Certain Knowledge" 29 5. Dean Burgon's Basis For Any Revision of the Textus Receptus Was a Careful Scrutiny of "Copies," "Versions," "Fathers," and "Lectionaries" 29 6. Dean Burgon Stressed "External Evidence" as the "Only Safe Guide" and Our "Best" Guide to Any Revision of the Textus Receptus, Saying That "Every Part of That "External Evidence" Must Be Examined Carefully 31 7. Dean Burgon Cautions Against Those Who Would "Reject" the "Commonly Received Text" Without Having the "Evidence" From "All" Sources Clearly Understood 31 8. Dean Burgon Favored the Holding to and to "Letting Alone" the Received Text Whenever "the Evidence" Is About "Evenly Balanced" Because That "Text" Rests On Infinitely Better Manuscript Evidence" Than "Any Ancient Work" 32 9. Dean Burgon Cautioned That the Would-Be Textual Critic Should "Begrudge No Amount of Labour" Even to Ascertain "the truth" About "One Single Controverted Word of Scripture" 32 10. Dean Burgon Analyzed the "Exactly Eight" of the "English Revision" Committee who Would Have Been Capable of Making a Major Revision of the "Textus Receptus" if Specific Requisites Were Insured 32 11. Dean Burgon Boldly Stated That Any "Authoritative Revision of the Greek Text" Must Precede Any "Future Revision of the English" Text of the New Testament, and "For Such an Undertaking" the "Time Has Not Yet Come 34 12. Dean Burgon Laid Down Even More Specific Things That Had to Precede the Major Revision of the "Textus Receptus" and Prepare the Revisers for This Tedious Task 34 a. Dean Burgon Said That Although There Are "More Manuscripts" Then Available For Study, "Who Knows How to Use Them?" 34 b. Dean Burgon Pointed Out That the "Ancient Versions"Are of No USE Unless Men Come Forward To "Tell Us What They All Contain" 35 c. Dean Burgon Lamented the Fact That, Though "The Fathers" Have Been "Better Edited" Yet They Have Not Been Satisfactorily "Indexed" 35 d. Dean Burgon Decried the Fact That the "Fundamental Principles of the Science of Textual Criticism" Were "Not Yet Comprehended" and Called For a "Generation of Students" Who Would Give Themselves Up to This Neglected Branch of Sacred Science 36 e. Dean Burgon's Other Prerequisites for Sound Textual Criticism 36 (1) We Need at Least "500 More Copies" of the New Testament "Diligently Collated" 36 (2) We Need At Least "100" "Ancient Lectionaries" "Very Exactly Collated" 36 (3) We Need the "Most Important Ancient Versions" To Be "Edited Afresh"and Let Their "Languages" Be "Really Mastered by Englishmen" 37 (4) We Need, "Above All," the Church "Fathers" to Yield "Their Precious Secrets" by "Ransacking" Them, "Indexing" Them , And "Diligently Inspecting" Them 37 f. Dean Burgon's Conclusion As to the Importance of These Four Preceding Suggestions 37 g. Dean Burgon Also Suggested That "Unpublished Works of the Ancient Greek Fathers" Should Be "Printed" 37 13. Dean Burgon Maintained That "For the First Time," "the Science of Textual Criticism" Must Be Pro- secuted "in a Scholarlike Manner" 38 14. Dean Burgon Wished to See God's "Highly Complex Pro- vision" For the "Effectual Conservation" of His "Crowning Master-Piece"--the Written Word-- "Duly Considered" 38 15. Dean Burgon Laid Down the Only "Trustworthy Method" in "Ascertaining the Truth of Scripture 39 16. Dean Burgon Affirmed That a Trustworthy "Textual Critic" Must Have a "Clear Head" and a "Calm, Dispassionate Judgment" 39 17. Dean Burgon Stated Clearly That There Could Be "No Compromise" Between the "New German System" Used by Westcott and Hort and the "Old English School of Textual Criticism" Adopted by Dean Burgon and Others Because They Are "Antagonistic Throughout" 39 18. Dean Burgon Laid Down His Method As One of "Humility" and "Self-Renouncing Labour" While Inspecting "the Best Copies, Fathers, Versions" 40 19. Dean Burgon Set Forth Three "Test Places" to Test Out His Sound Methods Versus Westcott and Hort's Fallacious and Unsound Methods: (1) "the Last Twelve Verses of Mark" (2) "the Angelic Hymn" of Luke 2:14; and (3) 1 Timothy 3.17" 40 12. Dean Burgon Laid Down Even More Specific Things That Had to Precede the Major Revision of the "Textus Receptus" and Prepare the Revisers for ThisTe- dious Task. Since there are so very many details under this caption, we will break it down by separate headings. a. Dean Burgon Said That Although There Are "More Manuscripts" Then Available For Study, "Who Knows How to Use Them?" Dean Burgon wrote: True, that we enjoy access to--suppose from 1000 to 2000--more manuscripts than were available when the Textus Re- ceptus was formed. But nineteen-twentieths of these docu- ments for any use which has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were obtained.--true, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to light since the year1628, but who knows how to use them? [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, op. cit. , p. 124.] Dean Burgon pointed out what is perfectly clear to all thinking people, that is, even though there are thousands of manuscripts now available (as there were then available in Dean Burgon's day) what value are there if few (if any) either know how to use them or else refuse to use them, (like the Westcott and Hort devotees refuse to use the thousands of Textus Receptus manuscripts)? b. Dean Burgon Pointed Out That the "Ancient Versions"Are of No Use Unless Men Come Forward To "Tell Us What They All Contain." Dean Burgon wrote: True, that we have made acquaintance with certain ancient versions about which little or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,--(with the solitary exception of the Rev. Solomon Caesar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,--who, by the way is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)--what living Englishman is able to tell us what they all contain? A smattering acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt--the Gothic, Aethiopic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian versions,--is of no manner of avail. In no department, probably, is "a little learning" more sure to prove "a dangerous thing." [Dean Bur- gon, Revision Revised, pp. 124-25.] Again, what value are the discovery of many "ancient versions" of the New Testament into other languages unless there are people who are thoroughly trained and skilled in those languages who are able to "tell us what they all contain." c. Dean Burgon Lamented the Fact That, Though "The Fathers" Have Been "Better Edited" Yet They Have Not Been Satisfactorily "Indexed." Dean Burgon wrote: True, lastly, that the Fathers have been better edited within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, which of the Fathers has been satisfactorily indexed? [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125] Here, Dean Burgon was calling for a "satisfactory index" of all the Fathers with Scriptural quotations all organized so that the textual critic might use it for research on exactly which text these Fathers had before them as they quoted, referred to, or used from memory. Dean Burgon's own index to the Scriptural quotations of the Church Fathers in various colors is an excellent step toward the fulfillment of this requirement. Perhaps it should be published and made available for scholars of the text of Scripture. Presently it is in the British Museum, unused, for the most part, and unavailable to the many who should have immediate and convenient access to it for work on various verses of the Bible. Dr. Jack Moorman, a Baptist missionary in England, as well as a member of our Dean Burgon Society Executive Committee, visited the British Museum and told me that because of the color-coding used by Dean Burgon, the indexes could not satisfactorily be published unless they were photographed in full color which would be very expensive. In addition to this, permission might not be granted by the British Museum for the project. It would also be difficult if not impossible to come up with the exact editions of the Church Fathers to which Dean Burgon was referring. d. Dean Burgon Decried the Fact That the "Fundamental Principles of the Science of Textual Crit- icism" Were "Not Yet Comprehended" and Called For a "Generation of Students" Who Would Give Themselves Up to This Neglected Branch of Sacred Science. He wrote: The fundamental principles of the science of textual criticism are not yet apprehended. . . . let a generation of students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of Sacred science. [Dean Burgon, Revision Revised, p. 125.] Dean Burgon here showed the need for students of these "fundamental principles" of "the science of textual criticism" such as Dean Burgon himself held to. Where are these students today? Where is one generation of them? Where are those men who have "given themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of Sacred science"? I could go on and on about this, but this will suffice for now.God bless,Stever

Stever said:I contend that the King James Bible is the only Bible to read and study. All of the thees and thous were archaic 200 years ago. Did people discontinue to use it? NO. It was used until about 1950 in this country. The decline of this Country (America) parallels the decline in use of the King James Bible.-------------------------------------------------Philologos responded:This last statement is just nonsense. The decline in British morals through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries also paralled the use of the King James version. Our weather has also been more erratic!------------------------Stever's response: Can you read what I said? I said in America, not Great Britain. England is another story all together. Liberalism rules over there, and much of it started with Westcott and Hort and the Revision Committee that created the NIV in the late 1800's. You guys over there were way ahead of us. However, today, with all of the newer Bible Versions (thanks to your friends- Westcott & Hort---as well as human greed that is behind the publication of the newer copywrited versions) that we have to deal with over here, we are right on your heels! WHAT YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO ACCEPT THE WESTCOTT AND HORT THEORY.You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ often corrupt Bible manuscripts. You have to believe that people who deny the Deity of Christ never corrupt Bible manuscripts. You have to believe that people who died to get the gospel to the world couldn’t be trusted with the Bible.You have to believe that their killers could be trusted.You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God.You have to believe that the Roman Catholics and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God.God bless,Stever

The In-Dwelling versus the Baptism of the Holy Spirit--- Continued.Ezekiel 36:25-27 is a prophecy of the New Covenant and states that the Holy Spirit will come WITHIN believers of this Covenant. 25. Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put WITHIN you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27. And I will put my spirit WITHIN you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. WITHINHebrew word: BrqTransliterated Word: qerebFound 4 times in Ezekiel: 11:19; 22:27; 36:26; 36:27Definition:midst, among, inner part, middle a.\tinward part 1.\tphysical sense 2.\tas seat of thought and emotion 3.\tas faculty of thought and emotion b.\tin the midst, among, from among (of a number of persons) c.\tentrails (of sacrificial animals)This is the Spiritual Baptism that Christ gave to his disciples when?- after he was glorified, but before his ascension:John 20:2222.\tAnd when he had said this, he BREATHED on them, and saith unto them, RECEIVE YE THE HOLY GHOST:Breathed in the Greek:Strong's Number: 1720 Transliterated: emphusao Phonetic: em-foo-sah'-o Text: from 1722 and phusao (to puff) [compare 5453]; to blow at or on: --breathe on.Receive(Greek)Strong's Number: 2983 Transliterated: lambano Phonetic: lam-ban'-o Text: a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; TO TAKE (in very many applications, literally and figuratively [properly objective or active, TO GET HOLD OF; whereas 1209 is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while 138 is more violent, to seize or remove]): --accept, + be amazed, assay, attain, bring, X when I call, catch, come on (X unto), + forget, have, HOLD, OBTAIN, RECEIVE (X after), take (away, up).Please note, Christ has already been glorified when He gives them the Holy Spirit to receive (Strongs 2983) [to Take, to get hold of, to hold, to have, to obtain, to receive]Now, compare the above to the “Promise of the Father” (Baptism of the Holy Spirit):Acts 1:4-54. And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.8. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come UPON (epi) you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.Upon----Greek EpiStrong's Number: 1909 Transliterated: epi Phonetic: ep-ee' Text: a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], i.e. OVER, UPON, etc.; of rest (with the det.) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, UPON, etc.: --about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-])fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).This word “epi” (upon) is in the Greek Aortic Verb Tense denoting continuous action or filling UPON.1.\tA form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation.This word upon (epi) in the Greek Aortic tense means a continuous, non-ending “upon” of the Holy Spirit, that happens with this baptism.Again, we have two baptisms. The first baptism, prophesized in Ezekiel, is the baptism when the Holy Ghost comes in to us- the “indwelling. The Promise of the Father is the next baptism, received at Pentecost, and consists of the Holy Spirit “coming UPON”. This is the difference between the two. EPI IS THE WORD THAT DIFFERENTIATES THE TWO. We receive the first baptism (Spiritual) when we come to belief in Jesus Christ. This is a Spiritual Baptism that we do not touch, see, or feel but we are indeed baptized into the body of Christ. At the Baptism of the Holy Spirit we are empowered to be a witness.If we continue to confuse the two we are the ones that suffer. Are we living the victorious walk of a Spirit Filled believer, with the gifts of the spirit, and the power to witness OR, are we just getting by, still locked away in the upper room, without the power to come out and face the Sanhedrin and turn the world upside down? God bless,Stever

Dorcas said: Joseph Glanvill, a founding member of the Royal Society (1650) was a delightful Anglican priest, who was thoroughly convinced of the gospel, well-grounded in the New Testament and of keen mind. He also got side tracked by this subject, except he interviewed witches. Why? Because he recognised that 'SADDUCEEISM' denied any resurrection - central to the Christian faith and Biblical record. In the 'new' atmosphere of scientifica sceptica, against classical education and some Greek philosophy which suggested there was nothing after death, he wanted to show there is indeed eternal life in Christ.Stever's response:Christ's resurrection should have been all of the proof that he needed, if he was walking with the Lord.I think that the "occult" should be avoided at all costs. I was raised in it, and eventhough I am not afraid of it, and have overcome it by the blood of the Lamb, Jesus Christ---I still avoid it.God bless,Stever

Christ's resurrection should have been all of the proof that he needed, if he was walking with the Lord.I believe he was. Precisely because it was obvious to him that Christ was raised from the dead, he wanted to ensure his generation were not seduced away from believing this central truth.

Philologos said:But the only prepositions that can properly be used with the Greek word baptizo are 'eis' and 'en'. If you understand that to baptise means to immerse you should understand that we can never create a sentence which says 'baptised upon'. It just would not make sense. If you are going to use the metaphor of 'baptise' the next preposition has to be 'eis' or 'en'.The Ezekiel passage has the creative metaphor of 'new birth' at its heart rather than the destructive metaphor of 'baptism'. They are different ways of looking at the same thing.Stever's response:I have been trying to communicate this to you since my first post on this thread --that we do not have to be immeresed into somehthing to be baptized into it, as far as the NEW TESTAMENT IS CONCERNED. This is a common misconception in the Christian body--please pay attention to what it says in regards to New Testament Baptism:Eastons Bible DictionaryBaptism:Old TestamentTo put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not only in the New Testament, but also in the LXX. Version of the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and baptisms required by the MOSAIC LAW. These were effected by immersion, and by affusion and SPRINKLING; and the same word, "WASHINGS" (Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21) or "BAPTISMS," designates them all.New TestamentIn the New Testament THERE CANNOT BE FOUND A SINGLE WELL-AUTHENTICATED INSTANCE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE WORD WHERE IT NECESSARILY MEANS IMMERSION. Moreover, none of the instances of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38-41; 8:26-39; 9:17, 18; 22:12-16; 10:44-48; 16:32-34) favours the idea that it was by dipping the person baptized, or by immersion, while in some of them such a mode was highly improbable.Today, we are in the Spirit, in the New Testament. We walk after the Spirit, not after the flesh, as they did in the Old Testament!The Promise of the Father:Acts 1:5…………………………….. but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence……………8. But ye shall RECEIVE POWER, after that the Holy Ghost is come UPON (epi) you: and YE SHALL BE WITNESSES UNTO ME both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and UNTO THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH.Upon----Greek EpiStrong's Number: 1909 Transliterated: epi Phonetic: ep-ee' Text: a primary preposition; properly, meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.), as a relation of distribution [with the genitive case], i.e. OVER, UPON, etc.; of rest (with the det.) at, on, etc.; of direction (with the accusative case) towards, UPON, etc.: --about (the times), above, after, against, among, as long as (touching), at, beside, X have charge of, (be-, [where-])fore, in (a place, as much as, the time of, -to), (because) of, (up-)on (behalf of), over, (by, for) the space of, through(-out), (un-)to(-ward), with. In compounds it retains essentially the same import, at, upon, etc. (literally or figuratively).This word “epi” (upon) is in the Greek Aortic Verb Tense denoting continuous action or filling UPON.1. A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation.This word upon (epi) in the Greek Aortic tense means a continuous, non-ending “upon” of the Holy Spirit, that happens with this baptism.This is the description that I am referring to. The Holy Spirit came upon (epi) them:3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat UPON (EPI) each of them. 4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.Is this so hard for you to understand Philologos? Are you telling me that you have received this type of Baptism yourself? Do you witness to the lost, do you operate in the “gifts of the Spirit”? How about the word of knowledge? Is that a weapon in your arsenal?This same identical baptism occurred with Cornelius as well:Acts 1044. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost FELL ON all them which heard the word. 45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, The Christian body is confused. The Baptism referred to above, the Promise of the Father is a baptism –A SPIRITUAL BAPTISM THAT EMPOWERS THE BELIEVER. It has nothing to do with water. Just like the Potter (God) who works the clay. Does he just use one hand to mold the clay to his liking? No, He uses two. One on the inside, and one on the outside. That outside hand is missing in Christian believers who have not received the "Promise of the Father".Eastons Bible DictionaryBaptism:Old TestamentTo put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used. The word has a wide latitude of meaning, not only in the New Testament, but also in the LXX. Version of the Old Testament, where it is used of the ablutions and baptisms required by the MOSAIC LAW. These were effected by immersion, and by affusion and SPRINKLING; and the same word, "WASHINGS" (Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21) or "BAPTISMS," designates them all.New TestamentIn the New Testament THERE CANNOT BE FOUND A SINGLE WELL-AUTHENTICATED INSTANCE OF THE OCCURRENCE OF THE WORD WHERE IT NECESSARILY MEANS IMMERSION. Moreover, none of the instances of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles (2:38-41; 8:26-39; 9:17, 18; 22:12-16; 10:44-48; 16:32-34) favours the idea that it was by dipping the person baptized, or by immersion, while in some of them such a mode was highly improbable.The Baptism that I am talking about is Spiritual in nature and involves the Holy Spirit coming UPON the believer, that is the Promise of the Father revealed to us by Jesus Christ. The way that I can maybe describe it is more like the overflow, the filling of the Holy Spirit that already resides in our hearts. This experience (Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the Promise of the Father) is the experience described by Christ when He said: " 37. In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, OUT OF HIS BELLY SHALL FLOW RIVERS OF LIVING WATER."Have you been baptized by this Baptism, Philologos, the “Promise of the Father? I think not. God Bless,Stever

dorcas wrote:

Christ's resurrection should have been all of the proof that he needed, if he was walking with the Lord.I believe he was. Precisely because it was obvious to him that Christ was raised from the dead, he wanted to ensure his generation were not seduced away from believing this central truth.

Stever said: Liberalism rules over there, and much of it started with Westcott and Hort and the Revision Committee that created the NIV in the late 1800's. philologos wrote:This is also nonsence. Westcott and Hort were the consequences of liberalism not the cause of it.Stever's response:So now you admit that these two English champions of yours are liberal???? You are also saying that the culture they lived in was responsible for their sin? Interesting.Stever

To Philologos:Thank you for the Greek lesson and the definition of Baptism from Barnes Dictionary and Easton's Dictionary.My question to you, Philogos, is: Do you think that being immersed/dipped in water (baptised in water) is not only necessary, but essential in the process of being saved, in the process of the indwelling when the Holy Spirit enters the heart of the believer?God bless,Stever

Can we sum up the past two pages please? Alot of it went over my head.

To Philogos:If baptism is essential, but not necessary, why did Paul thank God that he had only baptized 2 people and the household of Stephanus only-in total?1 Cor 1:12-18“12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”Also, if Water Baptism was so important, why then did Christ Baptize no man himself?John 4:1-2“1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,2.\t(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)”Was Christ talking about water baptism, or Spirit Baptism when he commanded:“And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt. 28:18-20)Would appreciate your response.God Bless,Stever

Stever,If you do not understand this question, please post back to me. Can you see that you've reversed what philologos said? Here are his words followed by yours.Necessary, yes. Essential to salvation, no.If baptism is essential, but not necessaryI'm guessing this was an accident, but if so, with a simple statement, has it happened before, that you read something written and flip it over unconsciously?Incidentally, the answer to your first question is in the v15 which you quote. One might think Paul was copying Jesus, not giving cause for division (unnecessarily) by baptising followers Himself.

Dear Dorcas:Paul is the Apostle to the Gentile Church. I will post my question in another way. My concern is what does the term "baptism" really mean. If Christ gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and Paul thanks God that he hardly baptized in water anyone, then MAYBE Christ was referring to something other than WATER BAPTISM?Also, the Word does not tell us that Paul specifically delegated others to perform water baptism to early Church beleivers in any of the Churches he established. If it was necessary, but not essential (as Philologos says) then why is it not even mentioned? Since it was commanded by Christ why didn't Paul address it (water baptism)?Also, Philologos has posted that it is essential, but not necessary to be water baptized (those are his words, and no one elses). Christ gave the command that his disciples were to witness and baptize. In Mark he clearly states that only those that are baptized will be saved, THUS ELEVATING THE ESSENTIAL TO A NECESSITY, when he says:" 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.IS CHRIST REFERRING TO WATER BAPTISM, OR SPIRITUAL BAPTISM?????I am not turning anything around. I have asked a question that you have not elected to answer either.If water baptism is essential but not necessary, then why did Christ NEVER WATER BAPTIZE ANYONE? WHY DID CHRIST COMMAND HIS DISCIPLES TO BAPTIZE?If Christ's baptism is one that involves the Holy Ghost and fire, then perhaps we should be involved with this baptism, and not water baptism? WE ARE HIS DISCIPLES, HIS CHURCH, THAT ARE COMMANDED TO WITNESS AND BAPTIZE---BUT WHAT BAPTISM IS CHRIST REFERRING TO? SURELY NOT THE BAPTISM OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, NOT THE SAME TYPE OF WASHING AND PURIFICATION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE LAVER AND THE SEA OF GLASS, THAT THE PRIESTS PARTICIPATED IN?Matt 3:1111. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:I surely hope that you can understand what I am trying to say, and have been trying to say it for the last 30 days on this thread.Also, if you elect to respond to this post, please address every point I have raised here, as that would be helpful in putting this thing to rest.Thank You & God bless,Stever

Stever,I thank you for your comprehensive reply, which I believe I understand. I had not intended to intervene in this thread when philologos has been trying to communicate from so much greater a wealth of scriptural insight. However, first I must point out again, that he did not say that water baptism was essential. He said it was necessary but NOT essential. Is this a meaningful statement?I'd be grateful if you would go back and look at the way you worded your question to him on this, to which he began his reply 'straightforward question, straightforward answer' and see that you have systematically retained your order of words in your reply to him and to me, even though I had pointed out you have switched 'essential' and 'necessary'. I am not commenting on his or your order of words with regard to their meaning. Merely, I am pointing out that you have misquoted him twice now, despite my drawing it to your attention. I hope this is a point you will address and correct in your next post. If Christ gave the command to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and Paul thanks God that he hardly baptized in water anyone, then MAYBE Christ was referring to something other than water baptism?My response to this may be up for revision by philologos or anyone else, but, it seems obvious to me, that the only Person who can baptise in the Holy Spirit, is God - the Father and the Son. I'm not sure if you separate new birth and the baptism in the Spirit but I'd have a hard time with that if you do. Therefore, I'd quote John 1:13 and 3:5, to implicate the will of God and His giving of His Spirit as being something man cannot do.But, baptism in water is something which Jesus commanded the disciples to do and it is clear that there will always be disciples of Jesus Christ to perform this function with new believers. That Paul didn't do much baptising, may be do to with the amount of time he spent in jail, travelling, writing and preaching, rather than an inability or disinclination to be the person to immerse new believers in water. To be fair, the disciples were all doing it before they had been baptised in the Spirit, so it was not something which has to be done by someone who is born again (Spirit-filled-immersed). The importance is the believer's obedience. Also, there were 3000 converts on the day of Pentecost. By the time Paul came on the scene, there must have been many people other than the disciples baptising in water. It is not a special ministry - a gift of the Spirit. It is a simple act of compliance with a command of Christ.What John the Baptist said, was before he had even baptised Jesus in water. Straight after he baptised Jesus in water, Jesus disciples starting baptising in water also. So both John's and Jesus's disciples are baptising for repentance, at the same time, in water, in the name of the one they follow. This is something to do with who the person being baptised is believing, but, since both are preaching the same message at this point, does it matter? The baptisers and the believers-unto-repentance are doing what God told them to.In a short time, John the Baptist is dead. Now only Jesus disciples are baptising in water. Fast forward.Now, at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is available to believers for the first time and the disciples had no control over the day He arrived. What was important, it seems, is that they were doing what the Lord had told them to do and He was ready to send the Spirit to their obedient hearts. I don't see how you can suggest that the baptism 'in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit' can be Holy Spirit baptism, when it is manifestly clear that the obedience which Christ required from John the Baptist, was that of baptism in water.In case it's not absolutely clear, I do see that believers should be baptised in the Holy Spirit, but, I believe this to be of God's grace and according to His choice of timing alone.Lastly, this very imperfect response is not intended to create any more confusion, Stever. I don't know how much you've discussed the baptism in the Holy Spirit with philologos, but my take is a combination of reading a KJV and personal experience. Most particularly with regard to the Holy Spirit, the New Testament delights in describing a variety of happenings which leave us far short of a rigid external formula. Praise God. If there is a pattern, it is based in the relationship between the believer and the Lord.

DORCAS SAID:I thank you for your comprehensive reply, which I believe I understand. I had not intended to intervene in this thread when philologos has been trying to communicate from so much greater a wealth of scriptural insight. However, first I must point out again, that he did not say that water baptism was essential. He said it was necessary but NOT essential. Is this a meaningful statement?XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSTEVER’S REPLY: I THOUGHT MY POST WAS VERY CLEAR WHEN I QUOTED MARK 16:15-16, WHICH STATES THAT IS IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY, BUT ESSENTIAL TO BE BAPTIZED TO BE SAVED!Philologos is incorrect and my post specifically said that Christ is the one who said it was ESSENTIAL AND NECESSARY. THE VERSE I USED TO BACK THAT UP WAS MARK 16:15-16:“15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.16. He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.I WILL STOP AT THIS POINT IN ORDER FOR YOU TO REPLY TO THIS POINT. THEN, ONCE YOU DO THAT, I WILL RESPOND TO EACH OF YOUR OTHER POINTS. IT IS NO USE POSTING THINGS OVER AND OVER IF THE PERSON WE ARE POSTING TO MISSES A KEY ELEMENT OF OUR POST.GOD BLESS,STEVER

Stever, In Mark 16, the choice is between believing and not believing. If a person does not believe, no one will expect them to be baptised.Once a person is a believer, they are asked to be baptised.Is it necessary to be baptised, before being counted as a believer? No.

philologos wrote:

Also, Philologos has posted that it is essential, but not necessary to be water baptized (those are his words, and no one elses).What I said, and it is there for all to see who will read it wasStraightforward question, straightforward answer. It is necessary but not essential. This is the exact opposite of what I said. Please retract your comments.

dorcas wrote:Stever, In Mark 16, the choice is between believing and not believing. If a person does not believe, no one will expect them to be baptised.Once a person is a believer, they are asked to be baptised.Is it necessary to be baptised, before being counted as a believer? No.*********************Stever's response:God's word tells me/us the following:Mark 16:1616. He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned.Please note, that Christ does not say that it is essential but not necessary. Those are the words of Philologos, not my Lord Jesus Christ. Christ words tell me that those that believe and are baptized SHALL BE SAVED.Now, for the million dollar question, what Baptism was Christ talking about? Was it the water baptism practiced by John the Baptist, and his own Disciples before his death and resurrection--all still in the Old Testament? The baptism in water that was nothing more than a picture, a type of his own Baptism that took place to fulfill all righteousness? All of the "purifications" that the Priests were involved in at the laver (washing their hands and feet)- first at Tabernacle and later at the Temple. Also, Solomon established water purifications at the Temple by instituting the "Sea of Glass" for the Priests. ALL OF THESE WERE FULFILLED BY CHRIST AT HIS OWN WATER BAPTISM.OR, WAS IT THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER THAT CHRIST TALKS ABOUT--the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that empowers the believer.If we read and study about the Gentile Church in the New Testament, we find the focus is on the Promise of the Father- the Baptism in the Holy Spirit that is accomplished by the laying on of hands from another brother or sister in the Lord that has already received this baptism.What does this Baptism do? It provides POWER, the one thing that is missing in much of the Church today. Look at the Churches of England. Effete, and empty. Many, many of them are either empty or almost empty. And so many of them have been sold to Muslims who have created Mosques out of them.Go to China, to Africa. That is where you will see the harvest, that is where you will see power, & that is where you will see miracles- the sick are healed, the blind can see, and the dead are being resurrected.What goes on in our Churches? We have Greek Scholars, Bible Scholars, & Textural Critics and what is the reward? No Power. Empty Churches because the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is not on the agenda. Actually in most of our Churches The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is either not known about or purposefully placed in the trash can.God bless,Stever

many of them have been sold to Muslims who have created Mosques out of them.Where, please?

Stever,I have no idea how you have arrived at your conclusions, when the practising church all over the world continues to baptise new believers in water, finding no difficulty with the procedure.If we read and study about the Gentile Church in the New Testament, we find the focus is on the Promise of the Father- the Baptism in the Holy Spirit Neither is the baptism in the Spirit is non-essential. Why are you bent on an either-or choice? If it was important to stop baptising in water, it would be clearly stated in the New Testament and not left to the guesswork you imply, simply because it is no longer the focal point of the narrative.

Okay, i have a few things to say. Please take your time reading this. Focus on the end above everything please.dorcas wrote:What John the Baptist said, was before he had even baptised Jesus in water. Straight after he baptised Jesus in water, Jesus disciples starting baptising in water also. So both John's and Jesus's disciples are baptising for repentance, at the same time, in water, in the name of the one they follow. This was something that helped me understand that 'baptism hasn't gone away' as another states.Philologos wrote:As Nasher pointed out earlier in this thread (I think) This could never have been a commission for the apostles to 'baptize' people in the Holy Spirit; that is Christ's unique prerogative and one which He would never delegate. This has to be water baptism.That, helped also. Christ would never delegate such a thing. Praise God for that insight.Stever wrote:Now, for the million dollar question, what Baptism was Christ talking about? Was it the water baptism practiced by John the Baptist, and his own Disciples before his death and resurrection--all still in the Old Testament? The baptism in water that was nothing more than a picture, a type of his own Baptism that took place to fulfill all righteousness? All of the "purifications" that the Priests were involved in at the laver (washing their hands and feet)- first at Tabernacle and later at the Temple. Also, Solomon established water purifications at the Temple by instituting the "Sea of Glass" for the Priests. ALL OF THESE WERE FULFILLED BY CHRIST AT HIS OWN WATER BAPTISM.OR, WAS IT THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER THAT CHRIST TALKS ABOUT--the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that empowers the believer.Now, I'm not bashing you personally but throughout the book of Acts. The disciples baptised people. After someone made a commitment to God they said 'oh, there is water, what refrains me from being baptised'. And they said WATER. Alot of things are 'forshadowed' from the OT to now, but keep in mind. Without us knowing it, we DO what the OT has commanded. (Priests eating the bread and wine,Priests offering up sacrifices to the Lord (prayer and petitions...etc). Even though many things from the OT have been 'completed' some are still ongoing. (which im learning more about)***Please pay attention here***Servus wrote:As I have watched this discussion progress I have become rather disgusted at the display we have seen here.I Agree with this statement. During the past 2 pages (some of 7, all of 8 and all of 9, thats 2 full pages :-P), i have sensed anger and strife. I know some things were 'misunderstood', but there is like (maybe, maybe not) unforgiveness. Saying 'oh sorry, my mistake, but this is what was meant'.I encourage and ask that everyone just maybe refrains for like 3 days or something to 'claim the storm'. Ask each other for forgiveness and lets move on with discussing things to help us learn what the Lord has been saying.

TO: Yeshua, Philologos, and Dorcas, and other interested postersRe: The Promise of the Father- The Baptism of the Holy Spirit UPON the believerThe point that I have been trying to make, for over one month now, is that "The Promise of the Father"- the Baptism of the Holy Spirit upon the believer--- IS NOT TAKING PLACE IN THE WESTERN CHURCH. This Baptism IS DESCRIBED IN ACTS 19 WHEN PAUL WENT TO EPHESUS AND ASKS SOME DISCIPLES IF THEY HAD RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT and ends as follows:" 6. And when Paul had LAID HIS HANDS UPON THEM, THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM, AND THEY SPAKE WITH TONGUES, AND PROPHESIZED. 7. And all the men were about twelve. 8. And he went into the synagogue, and SPOKE BOLDLY for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God."Water baptism does not automatically bring this about. We have to ask God for this baptism. Gods word tells me that there is only one Baptism (Ephesians 4:4-5 " 4. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism,) AND THAT WE ARE ALL BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH (Romans 6:3 "3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?). This Baptism is a supernatural one that takes place at the moment we believe that Jesus Christ is LORD and has nothing to do with water. The person that becomes a believer does not need to seal this supernatural baptism with water. Water Baptism is merely an outward witness that the person being baptized belongs to Christ AND THE HOLY SPIRIT IS ALREADY RESIDENT IN HIS HEART. It does not bring about the "Promise of the Father" as told to us by Christ. THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER: " 4. And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence........... 6. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7. 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. 8. But ye shall receive power, after that the HOLY GHOST IS COME UPON YOU: and ye shall be WITNESSES unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."That is what all of this has been about. Since there is only "one Baptism", and the Holy Spirit is already in residence in the heart of the believer, then the Promise of the Father is nothing more than the overflow of the Holy Spirit who now is able to come UPON THE BELIEVER AND PROVIDE POWER TO THE BELIEVER TO WITNESS.For many years I wanted a closer walk with God and a more personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Then, one night (the night of June 4, 1999) a Brother in the Lord led me and my wife into this baptism, the "Promise of the Father" and my life has changed. Paul tells us about it "" 6. And when PAUL LAID HIS HANDS UPON THEM, THE HOLY GHOST CAME ON THEM; and they SPOKE WITH TONGUES, AND PROPHESIED.This baptism, the "Promise of the Father" is what I have been trying to introduce here. The HOSTILITY of some believers has been an eye opener, to say the least.I have been water baptized twice. That baptism was nothing more than a memorial, and outward witness, a statement to the world that I belong to Jesus Christ. There is no supernatural power in water baptism. Water is a "picture" a "type" of the Holy Spirit that was established by God. All of "washings" in water that the Priest experienced for over 1500 years that took place at the laver in Tabernacle and the Temple were nothing more than a picture of Christs baptism at the Jordan River. Christ's water baptism was a fullfillment of this picture [to "fulfill all righteousness- Matt 3:15], of this type of "sanctification" that only pointed to him. Similarily, just like the brass serpent that Moses raised in the wilderness. Those that beleived God looked up to the brass serpent (representing the Messiah on the Cross, with the sin of mankind upon him) and God healed them. The brass serpent itself had nothing to do with their salvation, but their belief in God did. Later, Hezekiah had to destroy the brass serpent because the Israelites were worshipping it. My pupose on this thread of baptism has been to focus on the Promise of the father, that happens when:1. we ask God for this Promise2. Others, that have already received this baptism, lay hands on us and lead us into this baptism, that provides power to the believer to witness to the lost, to speak in tongues, and to have a closer walk with the LORD.God bless,SteverP.S. I encourage Water Baptism for new beleivers, but I also educate them that it does not automatically provide them with the "Promise of the Father".

dorcas wrote:

many of them have been sold to Muslims who have created Mosques out of them.Where, please?

philologos wrote:

Go to China, to Africa. That is where you will see the harvest, that is where you will see power, & that is where you will see miracles- the sick are healed, the blind can see, and the dead are being resurrected....and the believers are being baptised in water in obedience to Christ's command.

Stever posted:Actually in most of our Churches The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is either not known about or purposefully placed in the trash can.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxPhilologos responded:Well, it certainly is not the case in the church that I am part of. These generalisations are unhelpful and untrue.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response:I continue to have great difficulty with your posts. You have testified on this thread that the church that you attend believes in the gifts of the spirit. Your description on several posts indicate that people that attend your Church speak in tongues (at least that is the assumption that I have made). Therefore, you must attend or pastor a Charismatic Church. Is that correct?If so, why don't you understand what I am posting? RT had the same difficulty, yet he has testified on this thread that he speaks in tongues "all of the time". When I asked him for specifics about his "Promise of the Father Baptism he had no recollection of when it even happened!How are believers that want this baptism, this "Promise of the Father" led into this baptism at your Church? I personally know several people who asked for this baptism while in deep prayer and received it, all on their own. Most people are not that fortunate. I have found that the majority who have this baptism are led into it by other Spirit Filled believers that have already received the "Promise of the Father". The description of how Paul led others into this baptism is found in Acts 19:6 " 6. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."These are the signs that follow the believer that has received the "Promise of the Father":17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.Acts 8:14-19 describes how this "Promise of the Father", this baptism in which the Holy Spirit comes upon the believer when hands are layed upon beleivers who have already been baptized into the name of Jesus: 14. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19. Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.I Would appreciate an honest response, to the best of your ability.God bless,Stever

Stever,Thanks for the information on mosques in the UK and the spread of Isalm. It is important to remember the crucial difference between Christianity and Islam (not that there cannot be converts to the latter) but, that no-one can be born a Christian (as a baby). And, Christ said few find the narrow path. There are over 10000 parishes in England. The other thing to remember is that many of the newer Christian groups who meet, choose to do so in a hall or school. A decline in the burden of up-keeping church buildings is not necessarily a bad thing for the Church, if it frees up money for proper giving.I personally know several people who asked for this baptism while in deep prayer and received it, all on their own.If the 'promise of the Father' is preached at the same time as the initial call to faith there is no reason why those who are ready should not be given the Holy Spirit in baptism as part of the process of coming to Christ, but, it is the Father who gives, whether someone lays hands on the believer or not. This is how I see it, anyway.

Stever said:I personally know several people who asked for this baptism while in deep prayer and received it, all on their own.Dorcas said:If the 'promise of the Father' is preached at the same time as the initial call to faith there is no reason why those who are ready should not be given the Holy Spirit in baptism as part of the process of coming to Christ, but, it is the Father who gives, whether someone lays hands on the believer or not. This is how I see it, anyway.Stever's response:I totally agree with you, 100%. Some people are ready, and God knows their hearts. I know of a Las Vegas Show girl who baptised herself in her own bath tub and came out speaking in tongues, and filled with the Holy Spirit.She was ready and God knew her heart!God bless,Stever

Philologos said:steverWhy are you so insistent upon making this an either/or issue? You do not need to dilute the testimony of water baptism in order to maximize its testimony to Spirit baptism. The two are so plainly set out as separate experiences in the Acts that this is impossible to deny.Stever's response:My question to you sir, is why can't you get out of the water? I have stated many, many times over the past month that my focus on this forum on Baptism is NOT water baptism, but THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER. Please, forget all about water baptism, and provide your views upon the "Promise of the Father, the Baptism in which the Holy Spirit comes upon the believer that provides POWER to witness.I am not "diluting" any testimony, I am merely trying to clarify that my focus is on another batptism. Since you attend or pastor a Charismatic Church, you should have something intersting and helpful to testify about THE PROMISE OF THE FATHER AND ABOUT THE POWER THAT IT HAS GENERATED IN YOUR CHURCH. THE POWER TO WITNESS, THE POWER TO LAY HANDS ON THE SICK AND PRAY FOR THEM, AND EXPECT THEIR RECOVERY, THE POWER TO SPEAK IN UNKNOWN TONGUES.Please, sir, forget the water. You have been the only poster, other than RT, that can't get out of the water on this thread.God bless,Stever

Dear Philologos:I have to conclude that all you want to do is argue on this thread in response to whatever I post, going all the way back to your first response to my first post of over 1 month ago.This is not a good witness, and I really will not participate in it. You have never addressed the "Promise of the Father" in any of your posts, you have never shared with us the effects that this baptism has had within your Church, and you have never addressed the change in your own life that this Baptism has created in your own life.All you want to do is argue. From now on, Sir, you will have to argue with yourself. God bless,Stever

Philologos said:The church of which I am part has no doctrinal constitution but most of the folk who belong would be close to my understanding in these things. As for myself my moment of being 'baptized in the Spirit' brought me from death to life and seated me in the heavenly places in Christ. Those who hear me would probably think that I preach on this topic more than any other.I can't think what you want me to say about the 'promise of the Father'. It is the promise of the Father, given to the Son, poured out upon His people.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxStever's response:This is your entire testimony about how the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Promise of the Father) has impacted your life? Specifically you stated: "As for myself my moment of being 'baptized in the Spirit' brought me from death to life and seated me in the heavenly places in Christ."xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxWhat you have stated above, Philologos, applies to every Christian who believes in Jesus Christ. Every Christian, once he Believes, receives a supernatural baptism and is brought from life to death. Every Christian is seated in heavenly places with Christ. This is not only not specific, but has nothing to do with "the promise of the Father", where the believer receives power, and his life is transformed!Finally you conclude with: I can't think what you want me to say about the 'promise of the Father'. It is the promise of the Father, given to the Son, poured out upon His people.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxPhilologos, this "Promise of the Father is only "Poured Out" on those who specifically ask for it, who specifically want it. If the "Promise of the Father", the Spirit Baptism was really part of your life, you would have no trouble giving an answer, giving your testimony. xxxxxxxxxStever continues:My testimony to this Baptism, the Promise of the Father is as follows:Upon receiving this baptism, that another believer that was spirit filled led me into by the laying on of hands, has made a dramatic change in my life. When I was led into this Baptism I immediately started speaking in tongues. Also, I became bold in proclaming the Gospel, to people that the Holy Spirit sent my way, some people that I knew, and others that are total strangers. This continues to this day. My prayer life is now personal and powerful and constant. My praise to the Lord is also constant, never ceasing. I have become an intercessor in praying for the needs of others, as well as my own family. The Bible came alive to me, was quickened, immediately after this Spirit Baptism. The Holy Spirit has also provided me with Spiritual discernment. When did my life change from being a casual Christian to becoming a Christian with the power to witness to anyone, as well as all of the other blessings mentioned above? When did my life change from being a meek Christian to a bold Christian? On June 4, 1999 at the home of friends in Garden Grove, California.That is my testimony, so help me God.God bless,SteverP.S. I give this testimony to encourage other believers that want a closer, personal walk with the Lord to reach out, and ask God for this Speicial blessing. If you do not automatically receive it after praying for it, then find other Spirit filled Christians that actually walk the walk (not just talk the talk) of this Baptism, and ask them to "lead you into" this Baptism by the laying on of hands. The Charismatic body is full of people who speak in tongues, but are not actually Spirit filled. Anyone can babble words that have no meaning, thus deceiving others. Bible verses that give understanding about the "Promise of the Father"- the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that comes UPON the believer and empowers the believer to live and walk a more victorius Christian life:Acts 1:4-54. And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. 5. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.Acts 2:1-41. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.Acts 19:4-64. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6. AND WHEN PAUL LAID HIS HANDS UPON THEM, THE HOLY GHOST CAME UPON THEM; AND THEY SKOKE WITH TONGUES, AND PROPHESIED.Acts 8:14-1714. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16. (For as yet HE WAS FALLEN UPON NONE OF THEM: ONLY THEY WERE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS.) 17. THEN LAID THEY THEIR HANDS ON THEM, AND THEY BELIEVED.AND THEY RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.These are the signs that follow the Spirit Filled Believer (the believer should not follow the signs, but the signs should follow the Spirit Filled Beliver that has received the Promise of the Father)Mark 16:15-2015. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

This is a true story of God's saving grace and healing power. In April, 2003 we prepaid for a trip to Hawaii. Actually I had wanted to go to Tahiti for many years, and that was my plan, but all of a sudden I felt the need to return to the Big Island-to stay in a Condominium in Kona. We had previously been to Hawaii in 1994, and visited 3 Islands (Oahu, Maui, & Hawaii). We really like Hawaii (the Big Island) because of the slower pace and friendliness of the people there. As we were getting close to our departure date, my assistant fractured her hip and required surgery. I am an Insurance Broker and rely heavily on my assistant. With her out of commission I really did not want to leave. However, the trip was paid for and we had to go. Before leaving we prayed that God would use us in any way that HE saw fit, and that he would manage my business while we were away. We left on June 16th from LAX and arrived in Oahu 5 hours later. From there we took an inter-island plane to Hawaii. A personal college friend of mine (Gary) lives on the big island, with his wife and family. We have kept in touch all of these years since graduating in 1974. He is also in the insurance business as well. We had not received a Christmas card from Gary and Laverne, but since we have been so busy we never followed up to find out why. On Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday I called Gary's home- the answering machine was off, so I assumed that they might be on vacation. I tried again on Thursday evening and the answering machine was working so I left a message. Friday evening at 5:50 I received a call on my cell phone from Gary, telling me that he had been in the hospital (Straub Clinic & Hospital) in Oahu since 11/24/2002. He fell into a coma on that date and was airlifted from Hilo to Oahu (Honolulu). He came out of the coma in mid January, 2003. He said that he had not felt well in the prior year before the coma. He had 2 MRI's and one CAT scan to find out why he could not tolerate spicy or oily foods. They found nothing. The day that he went into the coma he had just finished eating lunch. When he came out of the coma in mid January, they felt that he had a bad gall bladder, that had affected his pancreas. In February they operated on him, with the intent of removing the gallbladder and cleaning up the pancreas. Once they got inside they were horrified to find the pancreas was in a state called necroticizing pancreatitis. They could not touch the gall bladder and operated on the pancreas. He has had over 20 surgeries on his pancreas. We immediately changed our travel plans (because we paid the extra $100 to do so) and Pleasant Hawaiian had us on a plane headed for Honolulu the next morning at 10:30 A.M. They put us up in the Marriott Hotel in Honolulu for the last night of our stay. We immediately took a cab to the hospital and visited with Gary, Laverne, and his youngest daughter Lariel for the entire day and into the late evening. I brought my Bible with me, and after visiting and talking for several hours, asked Gary if he would like to hear some healing scriptures from the Bible. He said yes and I went over many, many of these healing promise scriptures. He then decided that he wanted to have a Bible in his room. We looked all over but the Gideon's Bible that had been there previously was gone. I decided that I would send him one as soon as we got home and Gary was glad about that. As we were getting ready to leave, Gary asked me about our plans for Sunday, our last day. I said that since we did not have a car, we would just get up, get ready and be to the airport by 12:00 noon. Gary suggested that we come over to visit him, that Laverne would pick us up at 9:30 A.M. and we could spend time with him before we left, and that Laverne would take us to the airport. We said great, we will see you then. Laverne took us back to our hotel and we got to bed about 11:30. My wife, Tanis could not sleep. The Holy Spirit was convicting her heart that we had to witness to Gary the next day. Finally, after agreeing to do so she got 4 hours sleep. We were ready to leave at 9:30 and Laverne was there waiting to pick us up, with all of our luggage. After arriving at the Hospital, I asked Gary if he would like to hear about the blessings that we have in Jesus Christ. He said sure, and I read the first chapter of Ephesians to him, with lots of explanation. After reading that I was planning on going to Romans 10:9-11 and lead him in the sinners prayer. My wife, Tanis, with the prompting of the Holy Spirit, asked him- Gary, would you like to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, to rule and reign in your life? Gary said that he would, and then my wife led him into the sinners prayer and he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. At this point in time, Gary had 2 IV's and 3 drainage tubes (one for the pancreas, the gall bladder, and the stomach). He received insulin 3-5 times per day. When we got home to Huntington Beach I got on to the internet and found the phone number for the local Calvary Chapel Church in Honolulu and called the assistant pastor. I related to him the story of Gary's salvation, and asked if the Church could come alongside Gary and Disciple him, as well as to offer the family support. He said absolutely, yes, that he would bring it up to the brothers, that they would pray about it, and send someone over. Later that day, Monday, June 23rd they sent two men to Disciple Gary. The following Saturday, Laverne, Gary's wife was led to the Lord. Gary just explained to me the other night that he was raised as a Mormon and Laverne was raised as a Buddhist. However, he considered himself to be a "Jack" Mormon" and she considered herself to be a "Jack" Buddhist". Within one week of Gary's conversion, he was walking 2 miles a day around the hospital, with all of his IV's and bags. Gary was released from the Straub Clinic & Hospital on August 5th. He was actually ready to be released on August 1st, but they could not get an inter-island flight home to Hilo. He is totally off all I.V.'s, and off all insulin. He still had the drainage tubes for his pancreas, gall bladder and stomach in place. Gary called his Doctor of August 1st to tell him that he was being released into the Doctors care. The Doctors first question was how much insulin that Gary was now using. Gary responded- NONE- The Dr. said that was impossible, because of the necroticizing pancreatitis. Gary said, "all that I can tell you is that I am totally off of the insulin, and therefore my own body must be manufacturing that insulin". After arriving home on Tuesday, Aug. 5th, Gary set up an appointment to see his Dr. on Thursday, August 7th. The Dr wanted to take a CAT scan to be sure of Gary's condition. The CAT scan was performed Friday, August 8th and the Dr. could not believe his eyes. He expected to see a dwarfed pancreas, because of the necroticization (I guess), but actually saw a perfect, full-sized pancreas, that is not diseased.They now want to remove the drainage tube to the pancreas. Gary is continuing to get better. He has been tube fed since 11/24/02 when he went into the coma. Just before they released him from the hospital, they tried to feed him broth, jello and water by mouth. However, after one week, they realized that his stomach has a fistula in it, due to all of the surgeries that he has had. The CAT Scan showed that the stomach was slowly healing. Before this latest scan was performed by the Dr. in Hilo, the Doctors at Straub Clinic and Hospital had determined that in 6 months time they would be able to go in and remove the gallbladder. It now appears that this timetable is being moved up, due to the power of prayer and God's supernatural power to do anything. Gary is on every major prayer list that we are aware of. We are continuing to pray for him daily. We are praying that God will touch him and totally restore all of the organs and tissue in his body. That God would continue to pour out his blessings on Gary and Laverne and that he would continue to quicken His Word to them. We are also praying for Gary's two daughters, that God would soften their hearts and open their eyes, and draw them to Him. Gary is a testimony to the healing power and saving grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Doctors and the nurses at Straub Hospital cannot believe what happened. His Doctor in Hilo also cannot believe that he is not only still alive, but actually getting well. Please, continue to pray for his healing. Sincerely,Steve Goltra9/8/2003UPDATE ON GARY: HE HAS NOW STARTED TAKING LIQUIDS AND JELLO, BY MOUTH, FOR THE PAST WEEK WITH NO PROBLEMS OR LEAKAGE. THE FISTULA IN HIS STOMACH APPEARS TO BE HEALED. HALLELUJAH!!!!!PLEASE, PRAY FOR GARY'S CONTINUED HEALING.10/6/2003UPDATE ON GARY: HE IS NOW EATING FOOD!!!! YESTERDAY HE HAD CHICKEN, RICE, SALAD, VEGETABLES & A BANANA! HE SAID THAT HE HAD TROUBLE OPENING HIS MOUTH WIDE ENOUGH TO GET THE BANANA INTO IT. DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE HASN'T EATEN SOLID FOOD SINCE 11/24/2002 HIS MOUTH NEEDS TO BE STRETCHED OUT! THE DOCTORS ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT TAKING OUT THE GALLBLADDER SOON, INSTEAD OF WAITING 6 MONTHS, AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED!1/23/2004Gary had surgery to remove his gallbladder on 1/16/04 at Straub Clinic and Hospital in Oahu. He had recovered enough to finally have the organ that created the whole problem removed from his body! The Surgeon was worried that the previous surgeries (20 of them) had altered the location of the gallbladder. We prayed that God would supernaturally re-arrange everything, so the surgery would go smoothly and that God would anoint and direct the hands of the Surgeon, and would provide Gary with a speedy recovery. Surgery started at 10:00 A.M. and ended at 12:30 P.M. They were able to find the gallbladder easily. In taking it out, they had to cut the front ½. They cleaned out the bladder stones. The largest stone, the size of a walnut, was lodged at the duct, keeping all of the other stones trapped (over 20 of them). The remainder of the gallbladder were removed by cauterization. All of the ducts were also cauterized. He went to recovery and we talked to him about 5:30 our time. The Doctors were very pleased with the surgery and told him that they expect him to recover 100%! What a miracle this is. The Dr.'s have a name for Gary- The Miracle Man. He told them that the miracle man was Jesus, He is the one that performed the healing.Gary is recovering very rapidly. The remaining tube (his stomach tube) will be removed, once he is ready to go home to Hilo, probably next week. This entire story is a testimony of the love and power and saving grace of Jesus Christ!2/22/2004 UpdateGary had a procedure to remove the stone in his kidney. A shunt was placed in the kidney to keep the stone where it is for now. He will come back to the Hospital as an outpatient tomorrow to have one last Cat Scan, before going home to Hilo, hopefully tomorrow afternoon.7/31/2004Gary is doing so much better. He is walking 2-4 miles a day now. He has also started working part time. He is updating the accounting system of his Doctor. His program was DOS based, so Gary is helping in the transition between the old and the new system, as well as assisting the person responsible for the data entry into the new system. Gary also is servicing his existing insurance clients. He is only working 3-4 hours a day, but he says that he is feeling stronger and stronger as time goes on. Gary asks for everyone's continued prayers for God's continued blessing in his life.5/5/2005Gary continues to improve. He is working now, 2-3 days a week. He still continues to walk 3-5 miles daily and continues to improve. He prays daily and when I call him, always asks for prayer- for him and his wife, and for salvation for his family.GOD BLESS,STEVER

Dear RobertW:1 Peter 3:15 tells us that every man is commanded to give an answer, to give his testimony15.\tBut sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:I asked Philologos for an answer, for his testimony of how the “Promise of the Father”, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that comes UPON the believer, has changed his life.His testimony, his answer, was a non-answer that did not even come close to the subject matter of the “Promise of the Father” and it’s impact on his life, personally. His answer was vague, and only addressed the blessings that we all have in Christ Jesus when we are saved. Further, all of his responses, all of his testimony had nothing to do with the “Promise of the Father”, the Spirit Baptism that takes place when the believer is led into the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. The Baptism that provides power to the believer.This is what actually happens to the believer that receives this special anointing, this special “Promise of the Father”:Mark 16:16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.This is how this special anointing, this Promise of the Father where the Holy Spirit comes upon the believer, usually happens- BY THE LAYING ON OF HANDS, AFTER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST:Acts 8:15. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:Acts 8: “16. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. 18. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19. Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.Acts 9:16.\tAnd Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.Philolologos, based upon his testimony and his responses to my posts over the past 30 days has no personal understanding of how this baptism takes place. If you check the thread, he came against me on every post that he replied to me. If he was Spirit filled, he would be able to give a witness, to give his testimony, to give an answer to how this “Promise of the Father” has changed his life. If you check out what he said----- he said nothing about this and tried to kill the thread. Why did he do that? The Promise of the Father is available for all believers. All you have to do is want this, and ask God for it. God bless,Stever

It is fine with me to let this drop. My purpose in bringing this subject forward was to witness to others about the "Promise of the Father", the Baptism of the Holy Spirit that comes upon the believer, and how to receive this baptism.I feel that all those who have followed this thread for the past month or more can now understand how easy it is to receive this special blessing that empowers the believer to witness without fear and to have a more personal, dynamic walk with the Lord.God bless,Stever