Nehemia Gordon

[live_for_Him]

live for Him;9258078:

joshua_b;9253826:

live for Him;9253261:

This is a good start. Immersion baptism is certainly proper, and historically correct in so much as this is how it was normatively practiced in the first century.

I do not know of any verse that speaks of “responsible age”, but I do know of four separate accounts of whole households being baptized ( and there is a whole discussion to be had there about the Greek language, and scriptural support for the notion that those households would have included children of an age you would probably not consider “responsible” and I will gladly discuss that with you at length in another thread). I do not know of any verse that states that baptism must be by immersion to be valid. There are verses that suggest that is how it is done, and plenty of support for the assertion that it must be done with water, but none that state it must be by immersion. If there is please reference it, and then please kindly explain to Paul how his baptism in Acts 9 was not valid because he was standing in the middle of his house (I don’t know of many 1st century middle eastern homes that would have had any sort of water resorvoir).

I’m glad that you understand that immersion was the first century practice.

Yes, whole households were immersed, and there may or may not have been children and these children may or may not have been immersed. The Greek does not specify each way. While it may appear that all of the children must have been immersed, there are Scriptures that show that the Greek word translated “all” does not literally mean “all,” but the majority. Just like in English sometimes we say that everybody was doing something, but it is hyperbolic because it wasn’t exactly everybody, just many or most. One should not force the text to support a position. It shows bias when this is done.

You also show bias in your understanding of Acts 9. You cannot plausibly support the notion that Paul had to have remained in the house when he was immersed. And there are too many possibilities that he could have been immersed, so many possibilities, in fact, that to try to use this against immersion shows great bias.

(Also, while I completely agree with your statement about what Jesus rides is true, I find it offensive, even if it was for and about yourself (and I’m not saying that it is).)

 

[live_for_Him]

live for Him;9258078:

joshua_b;9253826:

live for Him;9253261:

Amen! The Scriptures also teach that as Mediator, He very plainly gave the authority of forgiveness (and retention) to His Apostles in John 20:23.

So, since we agree that we are to confess our sins, the only question is to whom shall we confess? Well, the only Mediator I have has told the Apostles that they have the power to forgive or retain my sins. I can bring you that far, but after that it will digress into a discussion about Apostolic succession and the efficacy of vaild ordination. This too, I will be happy to discuss on another thread to whatever degree of detail you would like.

Jesus taught His followers to pray to the Father. It is obvious that confession is to God.

If we confess our sins directly to God do you really believe that He does not hear or accept?

The authority to forgive sins, is God’s alone. Those with the Holy Spirit have access to knowing whether a person is standing in God’s forgiveness or not. Matthew 18:18-20 are clear enough that this understanding is for Spirit-filled followers, not just the apostles or some supposed succession.

Those who are Spirit-filled have all that is needed–The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They do not need to go through man to be forgiven when God is inside of them and they have direct access to God themselves (Heb. 4:16; cf. Col. 2:9).

 

[joshua_b]

joshua_b;9258184:

live for Him;9258078:

joshua_b;9253826:

I’m glad that you understand that immersion was the first century practice.

Yes, whole households were immersed, and there may or may not have been children and these children may or may not have been immersed. The Greek does not specify each way. While it may appear that all of the children must have been immersed, there are Scriptures that show that the Greek word translated “all” does not literally mean “all,” but the majority. Just like in English sometimes we say that everybody was doing something, but it is hyperbolic because it wasn’t exactly everybody, just many or most. One should not force the text to support a position. It shows bias when this is done.

You also show bias in your understanding of Acts 9. You cannot plausibly support the notion that Paul had to have remained in the house when he was immersed. And there are too many possibilities that he could have been immersed, so many possibilities, in fact, that to try to use this against immersion shows great bias.

(Also, while I completely agree with your statement about what Jesus rides is true, I find it offensive, even if it was for and about yourself (and I’m not saying that it is).)

I feel that it is more a mark of bias and eisegesis to argue that “all” really does not mean “all”. Plus, we are only touching on a few select passages of Scripture. We haven’t even opened up the discussion of the fulfilment of the archetype of baptism as the sign of the New Covenant, thus replacing circumcision as the sign of the Old Covenant, and the historical record of ancient Christianity, much less the many other passages of Scripture speaking specifically to baptism.

Also, in regards to the baptism of Saul, it is absolutely plausible if you read thechronology of the text in verses 18 and 19. Immediately the scales fall from his eyes, he rises and is baptized, then takes food to derive strength. Given the mention that he needs to take food, there is certainly an implication that he would not have been strong enough to take a leisurely stroll to the village cistern or the nearest river. Combined with the urgency alluded to in the language, it is absolutely PLAUSIBLE, and the bias is to claim it is not. I was not there, so I will not claim it as undeniable, but to say my synopsis is not plausible is just silly.

 

[joshua_b]

joshua_b;9258216:

live for Him;9258078:

joshua_b;9253826:

Jesus taught His followers to pray to the Father. It is obvious that confession is to God.

If we confess our sins directly to God do you really believe that He does not hear or accept?

The authority to forgive sins, is God’s alone. Those with the Holy Spirit have access to knowing whether a person is standing in God’s forgiveness or not. Matthew 18:18-20 are clear enough that this understanding is for Spirit-filled followers, not just the apostles or some supposed succession.

Those who are Spirit-filled have all that is needed–The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They do not need to go through man to be forgiven when God is inside of them and they have direct access to God themselves (Heb. 4:16; cf. Col. 2:9).

If it is “obvious” that we confess directly to God, then obviously James never got the memo when he wrote in James 5:16 (“Therefore, confess your sins to EACH OTHER” - emphasis mine).

Matt 18:18-20 has nothing to do with the topic of whom to confess to. It is ironic that you state “The authority to fogive sins is God’s alone”. That is EXACTLY what the Pharisees said in Mark 2:7.

 

[live_for_Him]

live for Him;9260594:

joshua_b;9258216:

live for Him;9258078:

If it is “obvious” that we confess directly to God, then obviously James never got the memo when he wrote in James 5:16 (“Therefore, confess your sins to EACH OTHER” - emphasis mine).

Matt 18:18-20 has nothing to do with the topic of whom to confess to. It is ironic that you state “The authority to fogive sins is God’s alone”. That is EXACTLY what the Pharisees said in Mark 2:7.

Confessing sins to each other may be referring to when they sin against each other. If it is not, it proves my point, that a manly mediator is not necessary.

Concerning your statement about the Pharisees. Yes, but the difference is that Jesus is God and man is not.

 

[live_for_Him]

live for Him;9260536:

joshua_b;9258184:

live for Him;9258078:

I feel that it is more a mark of bias and eisegesis to argue that “all” really does not mean “all”. Plus, we are only touching on a few select passages of Scripture. We haven’t even opened up the discussion of the fulfilment of the archetype of baptism as the sign of the New Covenant, thus replacing circumcision as the sign of the Old Covenant, and the historical record of ancient Christianity, much less the many other passages of Scripture speaking specifically to baptism.

Also, in regards to the baptism of Saul, it is absolutely plausible if you read thechronology of the text in verses 18 and 19. Immediately the scales fall from his eyes, he rises and is baptized, then takes food to derive strength. Given the mention that he needs to take food, there is certainly an implication that he would not have been strong enough to take a leisurely stroll to the village cistern or the nearest river. Combined with the urgency alluded to in the language, it is absolutely PLAUSIBLE, and the bias is to claim it is not. I was not there, so I will not claim it as undeniable, but to say my synopsis is not plausible is just silly.

Concerning “all,” you do not understand they hyperbole of the Greek.

Mine is not the silly argument. I have fasted from everything, food and water, for over 12 days and I had still could manage to walk up and down a couple of flights of stairs. And Paul was surely a stronger man than I am. Mine is not the biased and silly argument.

 

[pablope]

Originally Posted by live for Him

Actually, I do not…that is why I asked you…that is why I or any Catholic will say, we need the guidance of the Church.

So do you have an answer or not? Or you do not know? Or you are guessing?

pablope;9247780:

You should seek help in this from Holy Spirit-filled Catholics who are walking in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully you have leaders who are walking in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Well…if i needed your advice, I would have requested for it…

So let me repeat the question…how would I know whether what you are spewing here is from God?

How is one to know? Why should I believe you?

 

[pablope]

Is that the only method of confession? Where are the methods of confession stated in the Bible?

Those who are Spirit-filled have all that is needed–The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. They do not need to go through man to be forgiven when God is inside of them and they have direct access to God themselves (Heb. 4:16; cf. Col. 2:9).

But God says this in Job 42…7 After the Lord had said these things to Job , he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has. 8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.

So let me ask…why does God tell Eliphaz to go through Job to be forgiven? Why did God not just forgive them directly?

 

[live_for_Him]

9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.

So let me ask…why does God tell Eliphaz to go through Job to be forgiven? Why did God not just forgive them directly?

Either Job was a priest and everyone had to come to him for forgiveness of sins, or this is teaching that if someone sins against a brother and they don’t go and ask forgiveness from the brother and reconcile, then God may not forgive them.

 

[joshua_b]

joshua_b;9260662:

live for Him;9260536:

joshua_b;9258184:

Concerning “all,” you do not understand they hyperbole of the Greek.

If your position is that what is obviously and plainly stated in Scripture is not REALLY what it says, then you have just negated your own position as stated in post 32.

Now you are basically saying that since I am not educated in ancient Greek and all its linguistic nuances, I do not properly understand what is very simply stated. So, by your own words and logic, the teachings of Jesus in Scripture are not sufficient. In addition to the bible,at the very least, I also need to be either fully educated in ancient Greek studies, or I must rely on an external teaching authority to be able to understand them properly.

 

[pablope]

pablope;9260900:

Actuall…here is Job 42…v7…states the offense of Eliphaz and his friends…7 After the Lord had said these things to Job , he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.

And Job is not a priest…but a righteous man that was attacked by the devil…but continued in his righteousness despite that.

But which actually is your answer to the question I asked…which I repeat here…So let me ask…why does God tell Eliphaz to go through Job to be forgiven? Why did God not just forgive them directly?

Sorry but you gave like three different suppositions.

And you missed this question too:

You said…Jesus taught His followers to pray to the Father. It is obvious that confession is to God…If we confess our sins directly to God do you really believe that He does not hear or accept?

I asked…Is that the only method of confession? Where are the methods of confession stated in the Bible?

 

[joshua_b]

Sorry pablope…looks like your quote box got confused my friend.

 

[live_for_Him]

live for Him;9260865:

joshua_b;9260662:

live for Him;9260536:

If your position is that what is obviously and plainly stated in Scripture is not REALLY what it says, then you have just negated your own position as stated in post 32.

Now you are basically saying that since I am not educated in ancient Greek and all its linguistic nuances, I do not properly understand what is very simply stated. So, by your own words and logic, the teachings of Jesus in Scripture are not sufficient. In addition to the bible,at the very least, I also need to be either fully educated in ancient Greek studies, or I must rely on an external teaching authority to be able to understand them properly.

Appearances can be deceiving. I have not just negated my own position, you just don’t understand it very well and want to hang me.

I stand by my words and the TRUTH, that Jesus is all that we need for salvation.

It is also true that in order to understand His words, one must study and not believe everything that man or their church tells them. And Jesus’ words are written in ancient Greek filled with ancient Jewish thought and idiom. If one believes that translations are accurate enough to form systematic theology and legal code from, they are greatly misunderstanding. The English translations that I am aware of have been heavily affected by Reformation theology and this is not good. In order to find the truth, people must be looking to the earliest Church, before ANY denominations began. Modern denominationalism has its roots, I believe, in Nicaea.

There is greater truth behind translations than in translation.

There are great misunderstandings concerning the Scriptures because people do not understand how highly idiomatic the Scriptures in the original languages are and because they are reading translations, they read right over the idiom and don’t even realize it.

It is certainly true that words such as “all” do not always mean absolutely everyone.

I will give you an example of where one Scripture APPEARS to say one thing and would be completely misunderstood by most if it were not for another Scripture.

John 3:22 says that Jesus was immersing. This would appear to most, I believe, that Jesus Himself was actually immersing people. But then there is John 4:2, that says that it was not Jesus immersing but His disciples. If it were not for John 4:2, we would not know that it was not Jesus immersing, but His disciples. One must be open to the realization that we do not have all of the explaining verses such as John 4:2.

Now for one very clear example of where “all” clearly cannot mean “all.” There are several examples from the Scriptures, but a very clear on is from Paul when he taught (more than once) that “all things are lawful” (1 Cor. 10:23). This is clearly an example.

The words and teachings of Jesus are all that is needed for salvation. A translation can certainly help in understanding them, but for a fuller understanding you need grammatico-historical exegesis.

 

[live_for_Him]

joshua_b;9258184:

live for Him;9258078:

joshua_b;9253826:

I’m glad that you understand that immersion was the first century practice.

Yes, whole households were immersed, and there may or may not have been children and these children may or may not have been immersed. The Greek does not specify each way. While it may appear that all of the children must have been immersed, there are Scriptures that show that the Greek word translated “all” does not literally mean “all,” but the majority. Just like in English sometimes we say that everybody was doing something, but it is hyperbolic because it wasn’t exactly everybody, just many or most. One should not force the text to support a position. It shows bias when this is done.

You also show bias in your understanding of Acts 9. You cannot plausibly support the notion that Paul had to have remained in the house when he was immersed. And there are too many possibilities that he could have been immersed, so many possibilities, in fact, that to try to use this against immersion shows great bias.

(Also, while I completely agree with your statement about what Jesus rides is true, I find it offensive, even if it was for and about yourself (and I’m not saying that it is).)

It appears that a fuller truth on the issue of infant immersion comes not from the Catholic Church, but from studies of Jewish history.

While there may not have been infants in every household, there is still the issue of whether or not infants were immersed and it appears that the Jewish practice of infant immersion has roots that go back way before Christ.

justinmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/01/jewish-roots-of-infant-baptism.html

So it would appear that at the time of Jesus and the early Church, that infants were being immersed.

 

[joshua_b]

joshua_b;9263525:

live for Him;9260865:

joshua_b;9260662:

Appearances can be deceiving. I have not just negated my own position, you just don’t understand it very well and want to hang me.

I stand by my words and the TRUTH, that Jesus is all that we need for salvation.

.

Jesus is not only all that we need for salvation, He is the only way we can achieve it. I don’t know any Christian in the world of any denomination who disagrees with this.

 

[joshua_b]

live for Him;9260536:

joshua_b;9258184:

live for Him;9258078:

It appears that a fuller truth on the issue of infant immersion comes not from the Catholic Church, but from studies of Jewish history.

While there may not have been infants in every household, there is still the issue of whether or not infants were immersed and it appears that the Jewish practice of infant immersion has roots that go back way before Christ.

justinmartyr.blogspot.com/2009/01/jewish-roots-of-infant-baptism.html

So it would appear that at the time of Jesus and the early Church, that infants were being immersed.
Im really not even sure what your ultimate point is here. What is the “fuller truth” that you feel I am missing?

 

[MorningSong51]

I am having difficulty in a debate with a follower of this guy’s teachings. It seems as though this may be the beginning of a new heresy (can I coin “Gordonism”?) that sort of crosses Judaising with Arianism.

Basically, he is a translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls who believes that Jesus instructed us to follow the Jewish Law. The only real description I could find online was this: “If you have any doubts about whether Jesus instructed us to follow what the Pharisees or Rabbis of Modern Judaism say, be sure to read his book The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus.”

He claims to be a Karaite Jew, but has been rebuffed by that community here: torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Matt23.3Gordon.pdf

Does anyone else have any information on this individual’s teachings?

Thursday, August 2, 2007 | return to: news & features

A conversion for the ages: Local Karaite Jews welcome 1st converts since 1465
by dan pine, staff writer

 

[ApostleSean]

A conversion for the ages: Local Karaite Jews welcome 1st converts since 1465
by dan pine, staff writer

Seems like he’s taking people who don’t really know their faith but identify with Scripture and through false teaching, leading them to Judaism. Interesting.

 

[MorningSong51]

Seems like he’s taking people who don’t really know their faith but identify with Scripture and through false teaching, leading them to Judaism. Interesting.

Hi ApostleSean;

Interesting about the Karaites and one that I have had to read up on - origins, there is a history that in someway intertwined with our family’s heritage:

KARAIMS: ORIGIN AND HISTORY

Ethnogenesis(Chapter I)

1. THE NAME
   
   There were many attempts to solve the Karaim “enigma,” to explain their origin by means of their name itself. It must, however, be stated from the very beginning that this does not explain the matter completely. This name, in Karaim language Karay, in plural Karaylar, in Arabic Kara’im in European languages Karaim (Russian and Polish), Caraime (French), etc., is derived, as is at present agreed by almost all the investigators, from the Hebrew stem kara “to read.” This form in Hebrew karai and in plural Karai’m means literally “reading” that is to say acknowledging only the authority of Reading of the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament." Both the substance of the Karaim religion which actually does not acknowledge any other authority but the Holy Scripture, and - on the other hand - the meaning of the stem kara’ as in the Islamic loanword from the Arabic term Koran in the meaning "reading, lecture, Holy Scripture of the Muslims (1), seems to point out to such an etymology.
   
   This explanation leads us only to the statement that the name of Karaim determines the Karaim religion which acknowledges only the authority of reading (see Chapter 11, Religion), and does not tell us anything about the ethnical origin of Karaims.
   
   A similar traditional explanation of the name Karaim is proposed by L. Nemoy in his latest work Karaite Anthology: “The most natural rendering of it is “champions of Scripture” - who do not recognize the postbiblical oral tradition - from the Hebrew kara, “to read,” specifically, “to read and study Scripture” (Hebrew kara). Another explanation derives the term from the alternate meaning of kara, “to call, to invite”; hence Karaites would signify “callers, missionaries,” similar to the Shiite “callers” (Arabic da’i, pl. du’at), who exhorted Moslems to join their movement. A third interpretation connects the name with the Arabic karra’ (pl. karra’un), “expert reader in Scripture,” alluding to the Karaite preoccupation with biblical exegesis. All these derivations, however, are more or less conjectural and have no documentary evidence to support them.” (2)

turkiye.net/sota/karhist.htm

 

[MorningSong51]

Hi ApostleSean;

Interesting about the Karaites and one that I have had to read up on - origins, there is a history that in someway intertwined with our family’s heritage:

KARAIMS: ORIGIN AND HISTORY

Ethnogenesis(Chapter I)

1. THE NAME
   
   There were many attempts to solve the Karaim “enigma,” to explain their origin by means of their name itself. It must, however, be stated from the very beginning that this does not explain the matter completely. This name, in Karaim language Karay, in plural Karaylar, in Arabic Kara’im in European languages Karaim (Russian and Polish), Caraime (French), etc., is derived, as is at present agreed by almost all the investigators, from the Hebrew stem kara “to read.” This form in Hebrew karai and in plural Karai’m means literally “reading” that is to say acknowledging only the authority of Reading of the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament." Both the substance of the Karaim religion which actually does not acknowledge any other authority but the Holy Scripture, and - on the other hand - the meaning of the stem kara’ as in the Islamic loanword from the Arabic term Koran in the meaning "reading, lecture, Holy Scripture of the Muslims (1), seems to point out to such an etymology.
   
   This explanation leads us only to the statement that the name of Karaim determines the Karaim religion which acknowledges only the authority of reading (see Chapter 11, Religion), and does not tell us anything about the ethnical origin of Karaims.
   
   A similar traditional explanation of the name Karaim is proposed by L. Nemoy in his latest work Karaite Anthology: “The most natural rendering of it is “champions of Scripture” - who do not recognize the postbiblical oral tradition - from the Hebrew kara, “to read,” specifically, “to read and study Scripture” (Hebrew kara). Another explanation derives the term from the alternate meaning of kara, “to call, to invite”; hence Karaites would signify “callers, missionaries,” similar to the Shiite “callers” (Arabic da’i, pl. du’at), who exhorted Moslems to join their movement. A third interpretation connects the name with the Arabic karra’ (pl. karra’un), “expert reader in Scripture,” alluding to the Karaite preoccupation with biblical exegesis. All these derivations, however, are more or less conjectural and have no documentary evidence to support them.” (2)

turkiye.net/sota/karhist.htm

for additional information:

Karaites of Crimea: History and Present-Day Situation in Community
29.05.2011
eajc.org/page34/news24063.html