|
The Lords' Witnesses The Lord said: " Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you." (Matthew 7:7)
euei
|
|
|
|
Fifth Lesson - What Exactly is Baptism? What exactly is Baptism? In Christian churches all over the world they say: I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. This is taken from Jesus' famous last words to his apostles recorded by Matthew: 19 Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit (Matthew 28 NWT). How many times have we heard or read this? Many, many, many times. We have heard it in English from Protestants and in Latin from Catholics. But how many times have we understood what it is saying? Never yet once. Because, as in the case of Matthew 24:36 (The classic mistranslation which has prevented sincere Christians believing that God would tell them when this system ends). The above is an incorrect translation. It was corrupted by Catholic theologians to support their false trinity doctrine which will be proven in a later lesson. Every single existing Greek Manuscript of the bible containing this verse (the Siniaticus, the Alexandrinus, The Vatican B, The Codex Rescriptus the Codex Bezae and all the relevant Papyri) has the Greek word 'eiV' meaning 'into' rather than the Greek word 'en' meaning 'in'. Any Greek Interlinear Bible (Such as Kingdom Interlinear Bible, from the Watchtower or the Greek-English Interlinear of Brown and Comfort), translates verse 19 as below: 19 Having gone your way therefore, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28 KI). baptizonteV autouV
eiV to onoma tou patroV kai tou uiou kai tou agiou
pneumatoV (Matthew
28:19, KI from Wescott & Hort, and Nestle Aland 26th ed.) The Greek preposition for ‘in’ is en,
and it takes the dative tw
onomati. The Greek preposition for
‘into’ is eiV and
it takes the accusative to onoma
The Literal bible (J P Green, www.sovgracepub.com)
also available from this site as a download
translates this verse as: 19 Then, having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy spirit (Matthew 28 - Green's Literal Translation - GLT). May J P Green be blessed for his
unpresumptuous fidelity. Now baptizing someone in the name of Jesus, is very
different from baptizing someone into the name of Jesus. Baptizing in the name
of Jesus is an action done with Jesus' authority. For example the statement, 'in
the name of the President I command you to open this door', is a command made
with the authority of the President. But the statement, I have entered into the
name of the President, means you have either become the first lady or been
adopted into his immediate family. In the former case it is an action with his
authority, in the latter case it is the entry into his family name. So in fact in the latter case of 'into' we are talking about
three different baptisms, into three different family names, whereas, in the
former case of 'in' it could be one baptism with the authority of all three of
the names. In fact this one baptism three name authority interpretation is how
the whole Christian world currently regards this scripture, and all of us
believe that we are baptized in water, in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit, rather like Inspector Clouseau arrests people in the
name of the law. In the case of Clouseau his incompetence was hysterical. In the case of all Christians the incompetence is lamentable and it is unforgivable. For example, we read: 5 He is the one whom God has chosen out of all your tribes, to stand to minister in the name of Jehovah (Deuteronomy 18). 32 And he went on to build the stones into an altar in the name of Jehovah and to make a trench, of about the area sowed with two seah measures of seed, all around the altar (1 Kings 18). So it is
apparent that 'in the name of' has the meaning of ‘in the authority of’ or
'with the authority of', but 'into the name of' has a very narrow meaning,
namely that the candidate ends up wearing that name as a family name. The
candidate takes that name for himself as a kind of spiritual surname. As you
will see in the section on who Jesus is, being baptized
into the name of Jehovah makes you a God to be worshipped. And only Jesus has
achieved this baptism so far. Whereas any one of us can do something with
Jehovah's authority. In fact Paul says: 17
Whatever it is that you do, in word or in work, do everything in the name of
the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through him (Colossians 3). In other words keep his law in all you do. Incidentally this does not mean that when we thank God we should do it through Jesus. It means that whatever we do, we should bear in mind that we are doing it in the name of Jesus, and act accordingly, and acting in this way is thanking God through Jesus. So of course we do baptize people in water in the name of Jesus, just like we do the preaching work in his name, just like we wash our dishes in his name. We make cups of tea in the name of Lord Jesus. But this however is not what Jesus commanded at Matthew 28:19, he was commanding baptisms into 3 different names. Therefore he was commanding 3 different baptisms. This is the point where the light turns on and the veil of negligence is lifted. For being baptized into someone's name is gaining another surname which is getting married spiritually which is entering into a covenant. So now from one tiny word 'into' rather than the mistranslation 'in' we have related baptisms to covenants. A baptism is a cleansing for entrance into a covenant.There is no instance in the bible of the phrase 'in the name of the holy spirit', no one said: I order you in the name of the holy spirit to get up and walk, or suchlike. Only God can do this, because the holy spirit is his wife, and not anybody else's wife. So he alone has authority over her and men do not. No Christian is recorded as doing anything and verbally proclaiming it to be in the name of the holy spirit. In fact both Peter and Paul did do something in the name of the holy spirit (they resurrected a dead man), but neither one of them is recorded as being presumptuous enough to verbalize this. 39 At that Peter rose and went
with them. And when he arrived, they led him up into the upper chamber; and all
the widows presented themselves to him weeping and exhibiting many inner
garments and outer garments that Dorcas used to make while she was with them. 9 Seated at the window, a
certain young man named Eutychus fell into a deep sleep while Paul kept talking
on, and, collapsing in sleep, he fell down from the third story and was picked
up dead. These resurrections were performed by the holy spirit, with the authority of God through the prayers of Peter and Paul. Neither of the two said to God's wife: Resurrect this one for me love! They begged Jesus in prayer who then asked his father's wife, the holy spirit, to resurrect. For completeness we now consider all the other 7 (4 then 3 below) references in the bible to baptism in or into or upon the name of somebody or something, are as follows (The Greek preposition for ‘upon’ is epi and it takes the dative tw onomati): baptisqhtw ekastoV
umwn en tw onomati Ihsou Cristou baptisqhtw
ekastoV umwn epi tw onomati Ihsou Cristou de bebaptismenoi
uphrcon eiV to onoma tou kuriou Ihsou prosetaxen de autouV
en tw onomati Ihsou Cristou baptisqhnai akousanteV de
ebaptisqhsan eiV to onoma tou kuriou Ihsou The reader will notice that there is a discrepancy between the oldest Greek text which reads: In the name of Jesus Christ, and the newer texts which read: Upon the name of Jesus Christ. The two reading mean more or less the same thing however. In Acts 2 and Acts 8, the proselytes and the Samaritans respectively were baptized in water, not in spirit, so they were not baptized into the name of Jesus, which is a spirit baptism, but they were baptized with his authority in water - actually into the name of John the baptist, the father of the water baptism of the first church. The context of the last one above in Acts 19 is: 2 And he said to
them: Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers? They said to him:
Why we have never heard whether there is a holy spirit. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) provides a fascinating insight into the trinity inspired mistranslation of in and into. It evidently needs a little more revision. it actually says: 2 And he said to
them: Did you receive the holy spirit when you believed? And they said: No, we
have never even heard that there is a holy spirit. So the RSV correctly translates the first two incidences of the Greek word (eiV) as 'into' in circumstances which have little doctrinal significance to simple Christian belief, but then mistranslate the third incidence as 'in', in the phrase 'baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus which has great doctrinal significance to simple Christian belief. The Ephesians in Acts 19 were not actually baptized by Paul into the name of Jesus, because Paul was not a new covenant saint. Paul merely conferred the gifts of the spirit upon them by laying his hands on them. They were baptized into his name by the angels as soon as they heard about Jesus, and so were able to put faith in him. One cannot be baptized into the name of Jesus without putting faith in him 17 For Christ dispatched me, not to go baptizing, but to go on declaring the good news (1 Corinthians 1). Now there is a scripture which looks like it is contradicting this, namely: 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under (upo) heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved (Acts 4). This scripture appears to be saying, that there is only one name into which we can ever be baptized. But the situation is more complex than that. Everlasting salvation is all dependant on Jesus' ransom sacrifice. He saves us all everlastingly, being the mediator of the angelic ransom covenant (ARC) which is the master covenant for angelic life between God and mankind which we will demonstrate for you in a later lesson. Jesus is the father of all who are saved. Because if you are saved temporarily by the master covenants into the new system, but then, through sin, you die, you end up not saved. We all end up either baptized into his name or dead. But he is not the only name into which we can be baptized, because the angelic ransom covenant has many subcovenants. And so do the other master covenants. For example, the sons of Israel who left Egypt were baptized into the name of Moses: kai panteV eiV ton
Mwushn ebaptisanto en th nefelh kai en th qalassh kai panteV eiV ton
Mwushn ebaptisqhsan en th nefelh kai en th qalassh Paul mentions a baptism into his name with sarcasm... 13 The Christ exists divided.
Paul was not impaled for you, was he? Or were you baptized into the name
of Paul? In the literal meaning, no people were baptized into Paul's name in this account. But in the greater meaning people were baptized into Paul's name for Paul actually mediated a covenant. The point here is that Paul used words showing that baptism is into a name. Jesus becomes our eternal father, rather than Adam. Jesus regains what Adam lost, for us: 6 For there has been a child born to us; there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9) The Mighty God, Jesus, is a Prince to the King who is the almighty God Jehovah. Jehovah is king (to be) of the kingdom of God, as one can easily infer from the kingdom's name. Jesus is a prince who became a King in 1914Tishri at the end of the Gentile Times. He rules over the sons of the ICC for 93˝ years in this (Satan's) system which ended on 2008Nisan14 as you will see in the seventh lesson. Then he will eventually sit on his father's throne ruling as King, throughout the 1,000 year Kingdom of God. His eternal fathering is effected through the ARC which is referred to by Paul in the literal meaning when he says: 5 For there is one God, and
one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus, So people are baptized into the name of the mediator of a covenant, becoming sons of this mediator as regards their spiritual life, their angelic life, their everlasting life, their second life. And this process, baptism, is a cleansing for entrance into the covenant mediated by the mediator whose name one is baptized into. The Disgrace of the Christian Churches and the Lies and Corruption of AthanasiusIt is the trinity doctrine, that has denied mankind any knowledge of the relationship between baptisms and covenants disclosed above. One does not need to be a Greek Scholar to see that the Greek word 'eiV' in Matthew 28:19 should be translated as 'into'. It is truly a disgrace that this nonsense doctrine has fooled us all for 1,700 years. Here is the definition of the 3rd century logical con trick which has blinded Christianity... The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. This is a false doctrine adopted by the council of churches at Nicaea in 325 AD. The Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm, says regarding it's 'proof' that the 'trinity' is correct: II. PROOF OF DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURE A.
New Testament The evidence from the Gospels culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20. It is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists that Christ only made the great truth known to the Twelve step by step. First He taught them to recognize in Himself the Eternal Son of God. When His ministry was drawing to a close, He promised that the Father would send another Divine Person, the Holy Spirit, in His place. Finally after His resurrection, He revealed the doctrine in explicit terms, bidding them go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:18). The force of this passage is decisive. That "the Father" and "the Son" are distinct Persons follows from the terms themselves, which are mutually exclusive. The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and ... and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures. The phrase "in the name" (eis to onoma) affirms alike the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. So the Catholic 'proof' relies on Matthew 28:19 meaning: baptizing them in the name of... But it does not mean this. What we find very distasteful is that the Catholics even quote the Greek scripture: (eis to onoma) yet still mistranslate it as "in the name", when it says "into the name". So please beloved reader, pick up a Greek Dictionary, ask your favorite Greek Scholar. Keep on seeking and ye shall find. A Shorter Greek Lexicon by Liddell and Scott is the famous one, but the Analytical Lexicon of the New Testament by William Mounce is better for New Testament Greek in our opinion. You will find that 'eis', meaning 'into' takes the accusative case and 'en' meaning 'in' takes the dative case and 'onoma' is in the accusative case. That really is the end of the trinity, not that it even had a beginning because it is defined in such a way as to be non-existent. You will see how inane this whole concept is as you progress through these pages. You will also note that there is absolutely no mention of the trinity throughout the entire bible except the italicized sections that have been added to the scriptures by those who espouse it! May we draw the readers attention to the last
sentence in the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia above, which reveals that
the mistranslation of Matthew 28:19 (sic) supports 'the Godhead of persons and
their unity of nature'. This is Catholic theobabble dreamt up in support of the
trinity doctrine. A doctrine which condemns mankind to be ignorant idolaters of
a non existent contrivance of crafty theologians, who have succeeded in playing
God with the vast majority of 'Christians' for 1,700 years, by using this
cunning diversion. This will be exposed in much more detail in a later
lesson. |
|
|
|
