All I can say is they have really outdone themselves on this one it was over the top crazy unbelievable!
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 05-16-10 WT Study (LIVE UP DEDICATION)
by blondie 14 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
booby
BluesBrother has a great point. In the same paragraph, par 1, they say "it was after they had been baptized with holy spirit." and then "they would have been baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit". So which was it, with holy spirit or in the name of the holy spirit, because in par 2 they say there is a difference. "is there any difference between being baptized with holy spirit and being baptized in the name of the holy spirit? Yes." Also if, as they suggest anointed would be "with holy spirit" does this mean all today are not of that class since they also say this "But what of water baptism in the name of the holy spirit, something that regularly occurs at assemblies and conventions of Jehovah's people in our day?"
So I wonder is this just to spiritually deep for me or is it just all bullshite.
-
sherah
It's BS.
-
wokeup
In Paragraph 1 after citing Acts 2:22,36,41 in reference to the 3,000 it says 'they would have'been baptised in water in the name of the Father, the Son and holy spirit'.
2 problems with this statement. First, they intentually omit verse 38 where Peter explicitly states they baptised in the name of JESUS.
Second, they omit caps on Holy Spirit.
There is no account in the bible where the disciples baptised in the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit.
There are only 1 of four options here:
Matthew 28:19 is spurious.
The disciples understood that command to mean to baptise in Jesus name only.
They disobeyed Jesus.
The bible writers under inspiration 'forgot' to include that small detail.
Paragraph 2 infers the 3,000 baptised were not annointed like the 120, by comparing the 3,000 baptised to those baptised at their conventions and assemblies 'in the name of' strongly suggest they are insinuating there were 'other sheep' being baptised soon after Jesus death. If the watchtower writers indeed are trying to introduce this concept it most likely due to them wanting to reduce the number of annointed in Jesus' day to prop up there literal 'little flock' numbers.
Paragraph 3, the first sentence. There is no explicit NT teaching to support this view. Otherwise, the watchtower would plaster them all over their literature. This is simply injecting preconcieved ideas into the text. Also, Witnesses clearly do not baptise in the name of the Father, the Son and holy spirit'. The 2 baptism questions testify to that.
-
agonus
"So I wonder is this just to spiritually deep for me or is it just all bullshite."
We'll compromise... it's spiritually in deep bullshit