This case has an interesting parallel. The wicked Jews, hostile and unbelieving despite the fact that they with their own ears heard the teaching and with their own eyes witnessed the miracles of Christ Jesus, nonetheless demanded that he "tell them plainly". But he refused.

I follow the example set by my Lord. I by my teaching repeatedly have testified of my faith in Christ Jesus. If you were of the sheep of the Lord Jesus, you would recognize my teaching to be accurate and faithful. But you do not, because you are not.

%%%

The Scripture declares Christ Jesus to be the firstborn out from the dead. It is the Resurrection which is the spiritual birth. To this very day, Jesus and Jesus alone has been resurrected.

Every other case in which a man has been brought back from the dead has been nothing more than reanimation, also termed resuscitation. All those who have been reanimated subsequently died.

Resurrection is a transformation in which flesh becomes spirit and mortal becomes immortal; reanimation is not.

You have no understanding of the distinction between spirit and flesh. Flesh is mortal and is subject to decomposition; spirit is immortal and is not subject to decomposition.

Lazarus was not resurrected; Lazarus was resuscitated.

When Lazarus died, the spirit of life returned for safekeeping to God the Father. For the purpose of the miracle, the Father imparted the spirit again to Lazarus, animating him. But when Lazarus came forth from the grave he still was flesh, and not spirit.

But Lazarus eventually died again, and today is in the grave, awaiting resurrection.

Those who are resurrected are transformed from flesh to spirit no longer are subject to death: Luke 20:36, Romans 6:9, 1 Corinthians 15:53-54.

(1) You need to read the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians in its entirety and ponder it carefully.

(2) The fact that the body of the resurrected Christ could be seen and felt does not make it a fleshly body. The same body could appear and disappear at will.

(3) Note that "fleshly" or "soulish" -- rather than "physical" -- is the proper Scriptural term in English.

(4) Christ died a fleshly being; he was raised from the dead a spiritual being.

Most "preachers" are salesmen -- or rather, flimflam artists.

But the evangelist and the pastor-teacher are communicators and educators. It is out of love that the man of God exhorts his fellow man to repentance and faith.

And even when the Lord perceives that the people will not give ear, yet he sends the messenger with the message, as a testimony against them.

Your inane demand for a "confession" from myself and others demonstrates, at best, naivety and the failure to understand the concept of confession.

With almost every posting I have made here on SA, I have testified that Christ Jesus has come in the flesh. Meanwhile, the whole lot of you, by denying the declaration of Philippians 2:5-11 and espousing the false doctrine of hypostatic union, have denied that Jesus indeed came in the flesh.

And you seem not to understand that 1 John 4:1-3 has to do with the "cryptic Jew", that is, the Jew who masquerades as a Christian in order to infiltrate the local assembly and scatter his deadly leaven. Such false brethren -- wolves in sheep's clothing -- are seen throughout the book of Acts and in the epistles.

According to the Scripture:

(1) God (that is, the Godhead) is spirit.

(2) The Word (a member of the Godhead, aka God the Son) laid aside the attributes of deity for the purpose of the Incarnation.

(3) The Word (who, being a member of the Godhead, is spirit) became flesh. This necessitated a transformation of nature, from spirit to flesh (flesh being chemical in nature).

(4) Christ (the Word which became flesh) died.

(5) God the Father raised Christ from the dead. The resurrection involves a transformation of nature, from flesh to spirit.

(6) The Father restored to the resurrected Christ the attributes of deity previously laid aside.

(1) The promise of salvation was made to the thief before Jesus died. Moreover, Jesus had the prerogative of granting salvation to whomever he wished.

(2) Don't distort the meaning of I Corinthians 1:1-17; look at the context and think. From every indication, it is apparent that everyone who gladly received the Gospel proclaimed by Paul was baptized, only not by Paul himself.

(3) The issue in baptism is obedience.

(4) Baptism was not required under the Old Covenant.

williams -

(1) II Peter has no legitimate place in the Canon of Scripture.

Thank you. I stand corrected. The phrase which I cited appears in the Westminster Larger Catechism, item 52.

The Westminster Confession, the Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism are closely related, having been produced by the same "Westminster Assembly" which was commissioned by the "Long Parliment" in 1643.

Until you understand the difference between identity and nature, you have no business making further comments here.

You appear to be in a state of almost hopeless confusion.

In my previous posts I noted that the death of Jesus both dissolved the Old Covenant and instituted the New.

The thief lived and died under the Old, so Acts 2:38 does not apply to him.

You argue, "Baptism is an ordinance given to believers so that they publically identify with Jesus Christ as His follower."

Who taught you such nonsense? It is not found in the Scripture.

The Scripture says of baptism, that it is for the remission of sin, Acts 2:38.

The Word -- which is a member of the Godhead -- became flesh, laying aside the attributes of deity to do so. The verb is GINOMAI, which means to become. This is a transformation; but the transformation changed only the nature, not the identity.

The Word did not cloak himself in flesh; the Word did not alloy himself with flesh; the Word did not bond himself to flesh. Rather, the Word became a mortal, fleshly creature.

After dying as a man, Jesus was resurrected by God the Father, who then restored to Jesus the attributes of deity (KJV "glory") which he previously laid aside.

The resurrection is a transformation whereby mortal flesh becomes immortal spirit.

In the article which you endorse, Bremmer asserts that support for kenotic theology is based only on a single misinterpreted passage of Scripture. But the assertion of Bremmer is a lie and a misrepresentation.

The fact that the pre-incarnate Word laid aside the attributes of deity for the purpose of the incarnation is established not only by Philippians 2:5-11, but also by Hebrews 2:9, John 1:14, and John 17:5, not to mention every passage of the Scripture which declares that Christ died.

The Spirit of God does not teach contrary to the Word of God.

You, like Williams, need to obtain a dictionary and learn to use it.

You obviously do not understand the concept of "attribute" as it is applicable to Philippians 2:5-11.

Have you never read Philippians 2:5-11, in which Paul declares that the Word which became flesh laid aside the attributes of deity for the purpose of the Incarnation?

Or Hebrews 2:9, which declares that the Word became flesh that he might be subject to death?

If, according to the Westminster Confession, Jesus rose from the dead of his own power, then Jesus did not die. And if Jesus did not die, there is no atonement for sin and no salvation, and the Incarnation was a sham.

If you love truth, you must admit that the Westminster Confession is flawed -- fatally. If the Confession is in error on this most fundamental of all matters, how shall it be trusted regarding any other matter?

You are clutching at a straw and should be ashamed of your contempt of the Scripture.

It is not legitimate to set aside Acts 3:15, 4:10, 13:30; Romans 7:4, 10:9; I Corinthians 15:15; Galatians 1:1; Colossians 2:12; and I Peter 1:21, in order to interpret John 10:18 as a declaration of self-resurrection. The meaning of these passages is plain and clear and cannot be disputed.

In John 10:18, EXOUSIA means authority or authorization, in the sense of a promise or agreement; Jesus here declares his complete confidence in the ability and the promise of the Father to resurrect him from the dead.

Add to the list Hebrews 13:20-21 - Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep...

To which I reply:

Would the death angel have spared a household which refused to apply blood to the door posts and lintel, Exodus 12:21-23 ?

Would Naaman the leper have been cleansed, had he refused to wash in the river Jordan, II Kings 5:1-14 ?

Did the Lord forgive the disobedience of Saul recorded in the 13th and the 15th chapters of I Samuel? After all, in both cases, the intent of Saul appears to have been noble.

To cite but one example, the Westminster Confession asserts of Christ, that "he rose again from the dead the third day by his own power".

But this assertion of the Westminster Confession is a lie of the greatest magnitude -- a false assertion which directly is contradicted by at least eight passages of New Covenant scripture.

Christ Jesus did not rise from the dead of his own power; to argue that he did so is to make a mockery of his death, for (as even the Reformers themselves vigorously assert) the dead cannot do anything.

The Scripture declares plainly and repeatedly that Christ was raised from the dead by God the Father.

Acts 3:15; 4:10; 13:30; Romans 7:4; 10:9; I Corinthians 15:15; Galatians 1:1; Colossians 2:12; I Peter 1:21.

Regarding Acts 3:19, 13:38, 16:31, etc., the Bible is not a complete transcript -- it doesn't record every word which was spoken.

Without question, (1) baptism for the remission of sin is commanded, (2) in the apostolic era, converts saw baptism as a matter of extreme urgency, and (3) there is evidence to indicate that everyone in every local assembly had been baptized (an example being the Corinthians). Not many matters addressed by the Scripture are established by such an abundance of evidence.