|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 3:05 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 7:11 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 23, 2013 7:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 12:22 pm
 |
|
|
|
To my dismay, I just watched another one of his videos and found some error. First, to address one error that I previously didn't catch in my excitement (lol): Baptism (both in the Greek "baptismo" and "bapto") has nothing to do with blood or "covering" in the concordance. He's outright contradicting the scriptures which state literal water was involved and which describe people submerging themselves in it. For example,
Quote: Acts 8:36-38 (KJV) 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Concordance entry for "baptizo" and "bapto": http://biblesuite.com/greek/907.htm
baptizo means, "to dip, sink, submerge"
bapto means, "to dip, dye".
But none of that involves blood. It would've made more sense if he said, "dye yourselves with his word/water" because the word is the water in Ephesians 5:25-27. When you dye fabrics, it's totally immersed in water, absorbing the color. You have to immerse yourself in his words, fully absorb those words, letting them color everything you do/are. Where he gets "blood" or "blood baptism" from I don't know, but to deny that baptism involves "water" is a lie.
He deviates from sound doctrine again in another one of his videos titled, "A Study of Demons, Part 1", where he tries to de-supernaturalize the bible: he starts off by saying that "demon" has two Greek words in the bible, diabolos and diamonos; when "diamonos" is translated as "demon", this is referring to one's "self"/ego as it pursues fortunes and worldly things (pride of life, lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, etc...), instead of referring to demons as supernatural entities; while it is true that we're acting like demons when pursuing such things, the bible clearly describes them as supernatural beings not just a state of mind. For instance, Matthew 8:31 translates the Greek "diamones" as demons/devils here, yet the demons are speaking in dialog with Jesus and being driven into animals.
Quote: Matthew 8:31 (KJV) 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
Click to see the Greek: http://interlinearbible.org/matthew/8-31.htm
How can a state of mind, one that pursues fortune, be driven into pigs? how can our desire for wealth/material things be driven into an animal? Those pigs didn't go after gold/silver coins after being possessed, they ran into a lake. The demons/daimones are actual malevolent entities. He contradicts himself however because up until that point in the video, he was relating how "diamonos" are the same things as Genies, Djinn, and Fairies (which are supernatural entities people interacted with, not just a state of lusting after fortunes; though I guess he is implying they're just superstitions); he also listed Guardian angels with those entities (which, again, to him are just superstitions) but scripture doesn't agree with that notion. God does send angels to minister over and protect those who will inherit salvation (Psalm 91:11; Hebrews 1:14). Whether angels/messengers are constantly with us or not, the bible doesn't say. But there's no biblical basis for saying Guardian Angels (or Guardian Messengers) are a superstition, when the very bible is saying he does send angels/ministering spirits to guard our path. He never explicitly said what Guardian Angels even meant from his own interpretation/studies, but I guess to him it just means somebody speaking the truth? That's not biblical (i.e. 2 Kings 6:17, angels as invisible spirits, helping in battle, with fiery chariots; and also when Balaam couldn't see the angel, he blamed his donkey for "misbehaving" when actually the donkey was saving his life from the angel, in Numbers 22).
On a related note, the Holy Spirit is not just the"truth"; it's an actual force. It's what teleported Philip (at least it sounds like it):
Quote: Acts 8:39-40 (NIV) 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.
There one second, gone the next. The Holy Spirit is also "supernatural", not just some riddle-like way to say "the truth". It's a part of God, taking a part in creation (Genesis 1:2). Eliminating "all things supernatural" from the bible is probably why he's going with the "Sons of Seth" theory, not taking into account how other areas of scripture hint the "bene Elohim" weren't human (Job 38:7), even being the reason why Paul told women to wear headcoverings when praying and prophesying in 1 Corinthians 11:10 (it's because of the women's beauty that the angels fell in Genesis 6:2; that beauty is being covered in 1 Corinthians 11:10 as protection to guard against the angels; angels are the ones who deliver messages of prophecy, like Gabriel did to Mary. Gabriel is a supernatural entity). He's ignoring how the "Sons of Seth" theory doesn't explain the giant stature of their offspring while, at the same time, ridiculing the size of the angels as claimed in these texts; their size would explain why their offspring were giants and their physical size has no bearing on whether or not they could mingle their DNA with human women. I mean, we humans do it now through "in vitro fertilization"; people don't even have to marry to have their seed mingle and that's with our material technology. Who knows what spirits are capable of.
sigh~ there's a lot of truth in some areas, but other times he's so off-base or prejudiced, and instead of biblically addressing the verses of competing interpretations, he just dismisses the idea as stupid. Granted, he does utilize the biblical use of the term "stupid", lol. But this isn't a case of people being unwilling to submit to scripture; it's the very scriptures themselves that are leading them into these interpretations.
I wouldn't recommend his videos to baby believers. They might not catch the inconsistencies so easily and may get ensared in ideas that are not 100% biblical. He is relying on extrabiblical ideas in some cases, to the point of even accepting these extrabiblical ideas despite scripture stating the opposite (baptism not involving water, demons not being supernatural spirits just superstitions and a lust of fortune, etc...). A shame really because there's a lot of nuggets of truth mixed in there.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:36 pm
|
|
|
 |
Yup, definitely not for baby believers. : P
The idiom is not found in the bible (and arguably he's not using it as just an idiom either; @49:37-45 he says baptism absolutely does not mean to immerse in water which is a lie; yet, when he reads from his special edition book, he admits baptism did involve water, so he contradicts himself; not only that, but he admits "baptism" is a word which describes dyeing fabrics, and dyeing fabrics uses water not blood; either way you cut it, anglicized word or not, it has nothing to do with blood, but water, not sprinkling [because that's not how you dye clothes] but through immersion); when coupled with statements like "no water, no immersion", that could mislead people from ever discovering the spiritual "water" which scripture talks about (immersing yourself in the word).
To deny water is to do the believer a disservice, not a favor, when it comes to their understanding of "baptism" (which BTW does involve choice); you choose to repent, leave that old community behind, affiliate with Jesus, and be washed by his words (the proselyte baptism he describes around 1:00:00-1:01:57 which he doesn't agree with just because of the circumcision bit confused but then, after describing the proselyte baptism, he continues to deny that it involves choice and water; around the 1:02:19 mark, he has Acts 10:47-48 displayed which says Cornelius was already baptized in spirit; his lack of a water baptism didn't impede him from getting saved. Mentioned: Water and the Holy Spirit. Not the blood of an atonement sacrifice as the baptism).
Then, @1:07:47-56, he says "baptizo" cannot mean to submerse or to dip; but has Mark 1:9 displayed; what is Jesus doing in the Jordan River if not to immerse himself in it? He doesn't see how that extrabiblical text he holds in his hands contradicts what he just read in the bible. He's putting those Greek scholars on a pedestal instead of God's word (and technically, that's not even the case; the Greek Scholars are not contradicting the bible when they say "dyeing" is the true definition of the word "baptismo"/"bapto"; how does that negate that the process involves water? Dyeing fabrics does involve water).
We do immerse ourselves in the water, but more importantly, in a spiritual sense, we immerse ourselves in the water of the word. The word dyes us to bear its color. We look like the word. Also, the baptism of Ephesians 4:5 is a reference to baptism like it says—not a reference to atonement (blood sprinkling which covers our sins; atonement doesn't dye us with anything; the blood of the atonement sacrifice doesn't physically touch us, the sinners, though it does touch the priest and the altar (Leviticus 4 goes into detail of where the blood is applied), but it's not applied onto us; just like Jesus' death "touches" our hearts (the altar/ark), but his blood is not physically applied to us, the sinner).
Second, "dying to self" doesn't involve your own blood so that can't be martyrdom (which does involve your own blood). An additional problem with that is: not every believer gets martyred in a literal sense, nor will we all strive against sin/self to the point of shedding blood (Hebrews 12:4).
Hebrews 12:4 (KJV)
4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
The link to martyrdom is a bit forced just to fit it under the phrase "blood baptism" (a term which does not appear in the bible at all, and has nothing to do with baptism the way he's explaining it, but atonement). So that can't be the one "true" or spiritual baptism (which involves the water of the word and the Holy Spirit, not blood).
Also problematic, God never stated he's baptizing us with blood (he says, water, holy spirit, and fire [Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16]—not blood, contrary to what Jim Brown says @39:40) We're born again by the water/word (1 Pt 1:23), incompatible with what's stated @41:10-15 "born-again by blood"—that's not true. The bible credits the water/word as for what makes us born-again; while the scapegoat's blood is what atones for us (we don't bathe in the scapegoat's blood or get stained by it). Scripture distinguishes between the two. Jim Brown's phrase,"blood baptism" does not; it links baptism + atonement as being one in the same. Another distinguishing feature between the terms: atonement involves the death of a sacrifice / a scapegoat, not your own death; death to self is involved with baptism (what he terms the "proselyte baptism").
For this reason, it's safest to use the terms the way the bible uses them. There's no need to invent such an idiom as "blood baptism" to describe atonement; the bible already has words to describe the process. Unlike baptism, which involves dyes [and thus immersion in water], the blood for atonement is sprinkled [emphasis on blood being sprinkled]. They [sprinkling and immersing] are two totally different things; ergo, baptism and atonement are two totally different things, though both are needed to be sanctified. Not only are the fluids different, but so is the method of applying them; if he wants to talk about atonement (which does involve sprinkling), the bible uses these:
"propitiation" (Greek: hilasmos) or "covered" (Greek: epikalupto), not the Greek bapto or baptismo in any of those verses.
Quote: Romans 3:25 (KJV) 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 1 John 2:2 (KJV) 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. http://biblesuite.com/greek/2434.htm
Quote: Romans 4:7 (KJV) 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 1 Peter 4:8 (KJV) 8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1943.htm
Quote: Leviticus 4:17-20 (KJV) 17 And the priest shall dip his finger in some of the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, even before the vail. 18 And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 19 And he shall take all his fat from him, and burn it upon the altar. 20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.
I don't want to quibble over words, just accurately categorize things the way the bible does it. Baptism involves immersion/dyeing fabrics in water (baptismo), our own image dies, we take the image of another; atonement (hilasmos/epikalupto) involves blood sprinkling and blood covering our sins, not our own death, but the death of a scapegoat.
Also false: the "rituals" were not the ordinances nailed to the cross (@59:31-40); the "handwriting of ordinances" is referring to the written curses that came along with the jealousy offering (Numbers 5:23). Plus, Paul continued with the Nazirite Vow ritual (Acts 21:20-26) to prove he wasn't teaching against Moses; that's long after Jesus was nailed to the cross, died, resurrected and ascended, and thus under the new covenant (Paul was chosen as apostle after Jesus ascended to beginwith). Paul continued with the Feast Days too (Acts 20:16); he did not consider it as a ritual that had been nailed to the cross. The rituals themselves don't save, but they weren't nailed to the cross either. The new covenant's sign of "being under covenant with God" is our love for each other (John 13:35), not physical circumcision (which he agrees with). But that doesn't mean you can't carry out a ritual (if you're relying on it to save you, sure, but otherwise, you can do it, like Paul).
That said, moving on to what doesn't have any apparent issues: his links between consecration—holiness—sanctification—fire, which describe the process of our outward man (after the inward man gets saved), does adhere to scripture. It is a slow process and I think a lot of Christians outright rebel against this (because it is a fire, not pleasurable, and thus not something your outer man wants to do). This is actually a point baby believers could benefit from listening to. His description of the tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, how it relates to our bodies and our heart, was on point too. A lot of what he says is sound.
But, of the bible studies linked to in this thread so far, he deviates on this:
blurring the relation between baptism and atonement,
harshly oversimplifying the supernatural elements of God's word (angels, demons, and the Holy Spirit),
failed to identify what ordinance was nailed to the cross.
circumcision, the two turtle doves, etc.. are not man-made traditions/rituals (comparable to the Pharisaical washing of the hands; the hand washing ritual is not part of torah, but circumcision was, as was the two turtle doves sacrifice). Jesus was saying that what YHWH deemed "clean meat", continues to be clean, despite whether or not you partake in the hand washing ritual (a ritual which originated from man anyway, not YHWH's law).
I may be missing something since he goes on many tangents, touching many subjects and doctrinal statements. This is where personal accountability and being Berean for yourself comes into play. Let's just say, I don't think I'll be recommending his videos to anyone, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
