“You want it both ways. You want them to be followers of John, yet not knowing about Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost baptism that John taught and prophesied about.”
I want it the way it’s written, as they themselves say “we’ve not so much as even heard that there is a Holy Ghost.” So, they must not have heard him teach on the subject, since John says:
Mat_3:11 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:
“Well, the apostles certainly knew how to follow through with that command, rather than simply repeat words. They knew the NAME (singular).”
You’re actually correct in a way, since by “be ye baptized in the name of Jesus,” which is understood as “converting to the Christian religion,” as that is what Baptism signifies, implies being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as that is the baptismal formula established by Christ Himself.
Mat_28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
And so it has always been practiced:
Didache (40AD-120AD) (Translation by Dr. Lightfoot)
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
“Jesus Christ is the administrator of Holy Ghost baptism. He said it would be sent in his NAME.”
You seem to say this as if it proves that the Holy Ghost is Jesus Christ. However, to be sent “in His name” only means “by His request, intercession, etc.” You admit this yourself, because you wrote “Jesus Christ is the administrator of the Holy Ghost baptism,” though obviously you mean it in an entirely different sense.
“If you want to continue the Godhead debate, we can resume that back where there are still the 7 or so questions at the end of about 5 posts that you still haven’t answered:”
The reverse is true. The only thing you have going for you is persistence in repeating your arguments again and again, while ignoring everything else others say to you. You’re more than welcome to try it again here, but I affirm my right to ignore repetitions of previously refuted arguments.
“He said you don’t know where it comes from or where it’s going. But you WILL hear the sound (provided you aren’t deaf). That sounds pretty certain to me.”
The word “will” and the emphasis on sound doesn’t actually exist in that scripture, so I don’t know how it can sound “certain’ to you when all you’re doing is wresting one word out of a sentence and putting it into a new one. And, for a 4th time, you didn’t answer any of my original objections to this to begin with, nor any of my new objections. Nor did you even attempt to refute the reasonable interpretation already given, though you keep capitalizing words and trying to build a theology around a single word. And then you don’t even explain how, in your universe, the “sound” is tongues, instead of, for example, praise, or prayer, or prophecy, or preaching the Gospel, which are all “sounds,” unless you use telepathy.
Since I don’t think you’re going to come up with anything new on this one, I will ignore any further comments on this matter unless something new or interesting comes up on your end.
“Peter didn’t deny an appearance of drunken behavior.”
He denied that they were drunk, and the only evidence of “drunken behavior’ was speaking in a foreign language by those who likely didn’t understand, or didn’t appreciate what they heard. No other behavior of shaking, convulsing, or an inability to stand on their own, is described. Nor did anyone who for sure understood the languages accuse them of drunkenness.
If Peter was shaking around and unable to stand, “drunk’ in the Spirit, as you would assume, he certainly could not claim that he wasn’t drunk at all. Just not drunk on wine. You also would expect this behavior to be mentioned, and justified, since it is so incredibly embarrassing to behold.
“From your testimony about that madhouse church you attended,”
I never claimed it was a madhouse. And since your only complaint about the video was the loudness of the drums, it seems you’re madhouse was worse than mine. Tongues were actually not focused on in my church at all, though they were a part of it. It was mostly in incredibly vague visions. It was in other churches where tongues had more of an emphasis, which I also witnessed, and not at all different from your average Oneness Pentecostal meeting as seen on YouTube. I would say they are identical, actually. Same loud music, same chubby lady convulsing on stage, etc.
““I can only conclude..” that Peter was testifying of the infilling of the Holy Ghost. Signs that were coming from elsewhere (rushing mighty wind, cloven tongues of fire) were just that: signs that something was going to happen. They were not the infilling of the Holy Ghost. THAT is the promise of the Father.”
Indeed, the promise of Jesus Christ is the infilling of the Holy Ghost, and not any particular sign or wonder that historically came along with it, such as tongues, and prophecy, and cloven tongues of fire.
1Co_12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
“So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:”
Except that you’ve already judged every human being that has not convulsed like a Oneness Pentecostal and spouted gibberish as not having the Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of your religion that unless one has spoken in gibberish, then they do not possess the Holy Spirit.
Unless you really do have something new or interesting to say, this will be my last reply to these repetitive posts of yours.
**If Peter was shaking around and unable to stand, “drunk’ in the Spirit, as you would assume**
Have you ever been drunk? you don’t have to be unable to stand. Peter said that they weren’t “drunk as ye SUPPOSE seeing it is the third hour of the day”. You’re treating those observers as idiots that don’t know what SEEMED to be drunken behavior. But, that condescension appears to be an addiction.
**The only thing you have going for you is persistence in repeating your arguments again and again, while ignoring everything else others say to you. You’re more than welcome to try it again here, but I affirm my right to ignore repetitions of previously refuted arguments.**
Spin, dodge, “I affirm my right to ignore..”. If you had specifically answered my 7 questions on the Godhead, I would have no argument there. You throw your opinions up pretty fast it seems. So why are those too hard?
**I never claimed it was a madhouse. And since your only complaint about the video was the loudness of the drums, it seems you’re madhouse was worse than mine. Tongues were actually not focused on in my church at all, though they were a part of it. It was mostly in incredibly vague visions. It was in other churches where tongues had more of an emphasis, which I also witnessed, and not at all different from your average Oneness Pentecostal meeting as seen on YouTube. I would say they are identical, actually. Same loud music, same chubby lady convulsing on stage, etc.**
I don’t make a habit of tearing apart church assemblies I have never personally attended. You were dissing your old assembly, so I condensed your description to a madhouse. You do seem to have a disdain for those that are overweight. Classy. (I’m almost 59, and am right where I’ve been most of my life; 6’ 1”, 180 lbs. I been blessed with good health, some aren’t, and some can’t help that, for example, a thyroid that has thown their system out of whack).
I said: **“So, you’ve got their room numbers in heaven already. I judge no man. Here’s a question for you:”**
Which you didn’t answer. Here it is again: Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins: It it fom heaven or of men?
You won’t answer it. Just like the Godhead questions; if you can’t answer them, you just claim you did, and make condescending remarks. (I even asked by freepmail if you would just answer the question about John 17:1-3 where Jesus is praying to the Father and calling him “the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”).
**Unless you really do have something new or interesting to say, this will be my last reply to these repetitive posts of yours.**
That as good of a repetitive dodge as any of your others.
Obey Acts 2:38 and you can lay claim to Romans 6:17.