The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[patman]

OOOOooooppppppppssssssss!

Of course it makes no sense to anyone who has no true knowledge of the subject.
You didn’t give any Truth / Scripture to PROVE ME WRONG. - What’s the matter with all you powerless warriors? – I am the good at this. - People with no power, or weapons except for their own TONGUE has never corrected me. - Try it with the Word of God. - I gave you the Truth, and of course, you deny the Truth. - You have your own made up, or copied form of prophesy, like everybody else.

Paul – 060210

Dude. Are you still in high school?

Jesus' words make perfect sense. It is your sentence and reasoning that doesn't work. You are saying believing in his words is what gets you saved...

Look:

Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"

Lets Argue adds: "Believeth WHAT? --- Believeth what Christ SAID."

So, by your own argument, we only need to believe that Jesus SAID to be baptized, and then we'll be saved.

But Paul, don't you know that even Satan believes what Jesus said? So is Satan saved now that he believes in something Jesus said?

It makes me wonder if you know what salvation is. It isn't just believing in words, my misinformed, misdirected and prideful friend.

 

[patman]

Dude. Are you still in high school?

Jesus' words make perfect sense. It is your sentence and reasoning that doesn't work. You are saying believing in his words is what gets you saved...

Look:

Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"

Lets Argue adds: "Believeth WHAT? --- Believeth what Christ SAID."

So, by your own argument, we only need to believe that Jesus SAID to be baptized, and then we'll be saved.

But Paul, don't you know that even Satan believes what Jesus said? So is Satan saved now that he believes in something Jesus said?

It makes me wonder if you know what salvation is. It isn't just believing in words, my misinformed, misdirected and prideful friend.

 

[Letsargue]

Dude. Are you still in high school?

Jesus' words make perfect sense. It is your sentence and reasoning that doesn't work. You are saying believing in his words is what gets you saved...

Look:

Jesus said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"

Lets Argue adds: "Believeth WHAT? --- Believeth what Christ SAID."

So, by your own argument, we only need to believe that Jesus SAID to be baptized, and then we'll be saved.

But Paul, don't you know that even Satan believes what Jesus said? So is Satan saved now that he believes in something Jesus said?

It makes me wonder if you know what salvation is. It isn't just believing in words, my misinformed, misdirected and prideful friend.

OK!

Faith is the belief that what God and Christ says is the TRUTH and cannot fail.

What did God and Christ say!!? --- 2 Timothy 3:17 KJV – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 THAT THE MAN OF GOD may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works”.

A Part of what Christ and God said, -- IS – Acts 2:38-39 KJV - Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39- FOR THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL”.
I know, none of you can possibly believe that; - much less have FAITH IN THAT WORD!

Paul – 060410

 

[Letsargue]

As expected we have heretics spreading their destructive doctrines on this forum, namely O2bewise. Mr. O2bewise said the following on September 6th: "Salvation can only come by baptism".

This pawn of Satan embraces and promotes a doctrine that will lead many to eternal hell. Salvation is by faith and faith alone. Baptism is not a requirement!

One attains eternal life (salvation) thru simple belief in the person of Jesus. We see this in the words of Jesus when He said: "Everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life" (John 3:15).

Another time when addressing the people of His day, Jesus was asked: "What must we do to do the works God requires?", Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent" (John 6:28-29).

Note no mention of baptism.

Jesus made it clear O2bewise: I AM THE GATE; WHOEVER ENTERS THROUGH ME WILL BE SAVED (John 10:9).

Again no mention of baptism, apparently to o2bewise, Jesus must have misspoken here.

I would urge my fellow believers in the Lord Jesus to come against O2bewise's devilish doctrines. This man degrades our Lord when He speaks against Him by stating baptism is required to be saved. This is in direct opposition to what our Lord said. Jesus said just come unto Him and you will be saved.

Some unbelievers once asked the disciples: "What must I do to be saved?"

They replied: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (Acts 16:31).

Note again no mention of baptism. Just belief in the Lord Jesus.

I think for me and my household we will listen to Jesus then o2bewise and his wicked ways.

Your own given Scriptures:

John 3:15 KJV – “WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM SHOULD NOT PERISH, but have eternal life”. The Devils believe in Christ, are they saved?

John 6:29-30 KJV - Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29- Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that YE BELIEVE ON HIM whom he hath sent”. ------ Does your “believing” leave out Faith? Faith does have works of righteousness, not of the Old Law, but of RIGHTEOUSNESS. Does your believing leave out the Love of Christ? – “If you love me, keep my Commandments”. Just what is you meaning of BELIEVE? - Does it leave out the things Christ said; -- is that believing? – OH, maybe it’s believe that he is? – There’s not a Demon or the Devil or Satan; - they all believe in Christ.; are they saved?

John 10:9 KJV – “I AM THE DOOR: by me IF ANY MAN ENTER IN, he shall be saved”.
The DOOR, If any man ENTER IN, he shall be saved. – I didn’t hear you say how one is to “ENTER IN”! ----- Romans 6:3 KJV – “Know ye not, that so many of us as WERE BAPTIZED INTO JESUS CHRIST were baptized into his death”? -----Do you always just TALK of doing, and not say HOW or WHY? – Why can’t you say some way one gets in through the door, other than Baptism? – You seem to have some mental block against Baptism! - WHY!

Acts 16:31 KJV – “BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, AND THOU SHALT BE SAVED, and thy house”.
If I had fifty sinners, thieves, and lyres IN “MY HOUSE”, they are all saved if I BELIEVE ON JESUS? - I think that means Family, so every one in my family are saved, - even the Atheists?
I think you’re missing something, or maybe you don’t really care what Christ really said about Baptism!

Paul – 070210

 

[patman]

OK!

Faith is the belief that what God and Christ says is the TRUTH and cannot fail.

What did God and Christ say!!? --- 2 Timothy 3:17 KJV – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 THAT THE MAN OF GOD may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works”.

A Part of what Christ and God said, -- IS – Acts 2:38-39 KJV - Repent, and be baptized EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39- FOR THE PROMISE IS UNTO YOU, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL”.
I know, none of you can possibly believe that; - much less have FAITH IN THAT WORD!

Paul – 060410

See, you can't just quote scripture and expect me to believe you are right. Here's why:

Pigs
God said not to eat pork. Do you believe that is the truth? Are you practicing a pork product boycott? God said you shouldn't eat it. He said it is a sin, do you have faith in that rule set by God?

Fashion
God said not to wear clothes with two fabrics weaved together. Do you have faith in that? Do you walk the talk there too? Do you go through the store and make sure your clothes are pure?

Romance
God said not to marry non-isrialies. Do you do a background check on the people you date to make sure they are jews? Did you make sure your wife was a jew? Are you a jew? If not, did you make your jewish wife sin when you married her (because then she married a non-jew)? You do have faith in God's command here?

Saturdays
Saturday, did you sit around and not work, at all, not even in the least bit? Because, as you surely know, Saturday is the sabbath day. God said so, do you believe it? Do you have faith in it? Do you follow it? Or do you think go against it and make Sunday the sabbath day?


There's hundreds of other commands from God that you break, on purpose. Why don't you have faith in those laws but you have faith in the law of baptism?

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law. Do you have faith in that? If Jesus didn't abolish the law, why would you break it by eating pork, wearing blue jeans and nike shoes, being in relationships with non-jews, and being busy on Saturdays?

Jesus said "be baptized," however he also said to follow the entire law of Moses, too. Where is your faith in that statement? I expect to hear you are active in keeping the entire law...

...Are you a hypocrite? When you reply, will you really say to have faith in some of God's words but not others? Why do you force one law on others but forget about the other hundreds of laws? Why do you ignore God's words in the Old Testament, aren't they good enough for your faith?

I believe God said to do all those things. I believe not doing all of those things is a sin and bears punishment. But I also know why I can be a christian and not be bound to the commandments (even baptism, comes from OT laws).

All you know how to do is quote scripture. How useful is it to quote scripture when you don't even follow 90% of God's commands yourself?

You chose not to follow it, too. You should know not to eat unclean things but you do it anyway, and with gentiles (did you baptize yourself after you ate with gentiles?), but you have no plans to stop. You have a reason that you do that, but for whatever reason you think Baptism has to be kept but these other laws do not.

Here's a quote from Jesus:

John 14:15 If you love Me, keep My commandments.

Keep his commandments, letsargue. All of them. If you Love Jesus, Paul, then you better keep those other commandments too. Paul, you can't be under part of the law. You are either saved by grace, or you try to justify yourself by following the commands, and that will not work.

Or, maybe, just maybe there is more to understanding the Bible than quoting passages at a whim... maybe something changed after Jesus spoke those commandments

Maybe that change has to do with grace, and faith apart from the law... and maybe you don't have to worry about being bound to the law.

I wonder if that is in the bible anywhere.

 

[Letsargue]

See, you can't just quote scripture and expect me to believe you are right. Here's why:

Pigs
God said not to eat pork. Do you believe that is the truth? Are you practicing a pork product boycott? God said you shouldn't eat it. He said it is a sin, do you have faith in that rule set by God?

Fashion
God said not to wear clothes with two fabrics weaved together. Do you have faith in that? Do you walk the talk there too? Do you go through the store and make sure your clothes are pure?

Romance
God said not to marry non-isrialies. Do you do a background check on the people you date to make sure they are jews? Did you make sure your wife was a jew? Are you a jew? If not, did you make your jewish wife sin when you married her (because then she married a non-jew)? You do have faith in God's command here?

Saturdays
Saturday, did you sit around and not work, at all, not even in the least bit? Because, as you surely know, Saturday is the sabbath day. God said so, do you believe it? Do you have faith in it? Do you follow it? Or do you think go against it and make Sunday the sabbath day?


There's hundreds of other commands from God that you break, on purpose. Why don't you have faith in those laws but you have faith in the law of baptism?

Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the law. Do you have faith in that? If Jesus didn't abolish the law, why would you break it by eating pork, wearing blue jeans and nike shoes, being in relationships with non-jews, and being busy on Saturdays?

Jesus said "be baptized," however he also said to follow the entire law of Moses, too. Where is your faith in that statement? I expect to hear you are active in keeping the entire law...

...Are you a hypocrite? When you reply, will you really say to have faith in some of God's words but not others? Why do you force one law on others but forget about the other hundreds of laws? Why do you ignore God's words in the Old Testament, aren't they good enough for your faith?

I believe God said to do all those things. I believe not doing all of those things is a sin and bears punishment. But I also know why I can be a christian and not be bound to the commandments (even baptism, comes from OT laws).

All you know how to do is quote scripture. How useful is it to quote scripture when you don't even follow 90% of God's commands yourself?

You chose not to follow it, too. You should know not to eat unclean things but you do it anyway, and with gentiles (did you baptize yourself after you ate with gentiles?), but you have no plans to stop. You have a reason that you do that, but for whatever reason you think Baptism has to be kept but these other laws do not.

Here's a quote from Jesus:

John 14:15 If you love Me, keep My commandments.

Keep his commandments, letsargue. All of them. If you Love Jesus, Paul, then you better keep those other commandments too. Paul, you can't be under part of the law. You are either saved by grace, or you try to justify yourself by following the commands, and that will not work.

Or, maybe, just maybe there is more to understanding the Bible than quoting passages at a whim... maybe something changed after Jesus spoke those commandments

Maybe that change has to do with grace, and faith apart from the law... and maybe you don't have to worry about being bound to the law.

I wonder if that is in the bible anywhere.

Your first "PIG STATEMENT" was far enough for me. You are soo unlearned it sickening.

----- Deuteronomy 12:15 KJV - Whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN MAY EAT THEREOF”. ----- It was the WORSHIP that eating of meat was ordained a certain way. However, in their own homes, God said they could eat whatever the lusted for”. --- But, that doesn’t matter to the fool that already has his doctrine determined without the Truth.

Well done in proving that you are as dumb as the others.

Paul – 080210

 

[patman]

Your first "PIG STATEMENT" was far enough for me. You are soo unlearned it sickening.

----- Deuteronomy 12:15 KJV - Whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee: THE UNCLEAN AND THE CLEAN MAY EAT THEREOF”. ----- It was the WORSHIP that eating of meat was ordained a certain way. However, in their own homes, God said they could eat whatever the lusted for”. --- But, that doesn’t matter to the fool that already has his doctrine determined without the Truth.

Well done in proving that you are as dumb as the others.

Paul – 080210

:rotfl:

The words "clean and unclean" refers to people, not meat, Paul. People who were unclean could eat whatever (kosher) meat they wanted when they were home. (Did you think unclean meat can eat unclean meat when it is cooked? :chuckle: )

Wow.

Furthermore, did you really think all the regulations of unclean meats could be undone by a single verse? In your post you rebuke me for being "unlearned," but you don't even bother to read what is in front of your face! You left off the part of the verse where God gives examples of meats they could eat, the roebuck and hart, which are "clean" meats. He didn't mention pigs there, did he?

Deut 12, when read as a whole chapter, shows how God wants all people to rejoice before him in their towns. They do this by keeping his commandments (including the ones about unclean meat) and eating before him. But when God tells people that they can eat before him, he has to clarify how to do it and who can participate.

Why bother to mention clean and unclean people?

There is a difference in how someone eats before God at home and eats before God at "church."

God forbids unclean people from eat sacrificed meats (If anyone who is unclean eats any meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off from his people. (Leviticus 7:20)).

With that rule in place, if God didn't clarify that unclean people could eat meat before him at home, then an unclean person would be afraid to eat meat outside of "church."

God wants everyone to know it is ok to eat meats at home, even if the person is unclean. This is what Deut 12:15 is saying: Clean, unclean, whomever, can freely eat clean meats like dear outside of worship without fear of being cut off. However, the verse isn't a green light to eat unclean foods. Not at all!

Unclean foods are unclean no matter who or where you are. That is why God said to eat "according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you." God didn't bless unclean foods. Again, that is why God clarifies what kinds of meats they may eat when he names two examples of "clean" animals. (Otherwise he would have named an unclean animal as an example).

Blind Guide

You are confused! And you take your confusion out on someone who isn't confused in the form of name calling and rebuke.

If you continued to read the last post, you may have learned a valuable lesson on what some call "proof texting."

You are very bad about taking one verse out of the bible and thinking it proves your point, when there are hundreds of other verses to consider.

This Deuteronomy 12:15 verse would be the perfect example for you, but you completely missed the point of that verse.

Maybe if you read two chapters later, you would have understood there is more going on, and would have been clued in that pork is really forbidden, always.

Deut 14:3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
...
Deut 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

You tried to argue that you can eat an unclean meat as long as it wasn't in worship, but didn't you know if anyone touches an unclean animal and then eats any of the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off? (Leviticus 7:21)

Paul, if someone ate an unclean meat, such as pork, at home and then tried to worship later by eating of the sacrifice, he would be cut off! This contradicts your already flawed understanding of Deut 12:15. Yes, one could be "baptized" to be cleansed. However, the fact that they need to be cleansed shows that God doesn't want people to eat these foods, ever because they make people ceremonially unclean.

Paul, your understanding of scripture comes in flashes... you read a verse here and there and don't bother to get the context around it. This causes you to misunderstand the meaning of the verse. But you also fail to comprehend the verses you proof text. Do you really think Deut 14 doesn't tie into Deut 12?

Now, go back and re-read my last post without dismissing it after one paragraph . You may learn something. You, of all people I have encountered on TOL, are in need of the lessons it offers.

The same way you are confused about unclean meats you are confused about baptism.

 

[Letsargue]

:rotfl:

The words "clean and unclean" refers to people, not meat, Paul. People who were unclean could eat whatever (kosher) meat they wanted when they were home. (Did you think unclean meat can eat unclean meat when it is cooked? :chuckle: )

Wow.

Furthermore, did you really think all the regulations of unclean meats could be undone by a single verse? In your post you rebuke me for being "unlearned," but you don't even bother to read what is in front of your face! You left off the part of the verse where God gives examples of meats they could eat, the roebuck and hart, which are "clean" meats. He didn't mention pigs there, did he?

Deut 12, when read as a whole chapter, shows how God wants all people to rejoice before him in their towns. They do this by keeping his commandments (including the ones about unclean meat) and eating before him. But when God tells people that they can eat before him, he has to clarify how to do it and who can participate.

Why bother to mention clean and unclean people?

There is a difference in how someone eats before God at home and eats before God at "church."

God forbids unclean people from eat sacrificed meats (If anyone who is unclean eats any meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off from his people. (Leviticus 7:20)).

With that rule in place, if God didn't clarify that unclean people could eat meat before him at home, then an unclean person would be afraid to eat meat outside of "church."

God wants everyone to know it is ok to eat meats at home, even if the person is unclean. This is what Deut 12:15 is saying: Clean, unclean, whomever, can freely eat clean meats like dear outside of worship without fear of being cut off. However, the verse isn't a green light to eat unclean foods. Not at all!

Unclean foods are unclean no matter who or where you are. That is why God said to eat "according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you." God didn't bless unclean foods. Again, that is why God clarifies what kinds of meats they may eat when he names two examples of "clean" animals. (Otherwise he would have named an unclean animal as an example).

Blind Guide

You are confused! And you take your confusion out on someone who isn't confused in the form of name calling and rebuke.

If you continued to read the last post, you may have learned a valuable lesson on what some call "proof texting."

You are very bad about taking one verse out of the bible and thinking it proves your point, when there are hundreds of other verses to consider.

This Deuteronomy 12:15 verse would be the perfect example for you, but you completely missed the point of that verse.

Maybe if you read two chapters later, you would have understood there is more going on, and would have been clued in that pork is really forbidden, always.

Deut 14:3 Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing.
...
Deut 14:8 And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.

You tried to argue that you can eat an unclean meat as long as it wasn't in worship, but didn't you know if anyone touches an unclean animal and then eats any of the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off? (Leviticus 7:21)

Paul, if someone ate an unclean meat, such as pork, at home and then tried to worship later by eating of the sacrifice, he would be cut off! This contradicts your already flawed understanding of Deut 12:15. Yes, one could be "baptized" to be cleansed. However, the fact that they need to be cleansed shows that God doesn't want people to eat these foods, ever because they make people ceremonially unclean.

Paul, your understanding of scripture comes in flashes... you read a verse here and there and don't bother to get the context around it. This causes you to misunderstand the meaning of the verse. But you also fail to comprehend the verses you proof text. Do you really think Deut 14 doesn't tie into Deut 12?

Now, go back and re-read my last post without dismissing it after one paragraph . You may learn something. You, of all people I have encountered on TOL, are in need of the lessons it offers.

The same way you are confused about unclean meats you are confused about baptism.

Well OK! -- You're the wise one.

Paul -- 080310

 

[patman]

Well OK! -- You're the wise one.

Paul -- 080310

I'm still hoping that you show some wisdom, "Letsargue." It's not like we have to fight to get our points across. If we care about each other, we try to teach each other, hopefully with kind words -when possible- and patience. It isn't that I was hurt by your rude remarks in the last post, but it is a little disappointing that one christian would call another christian, who is also a student of the word, such things. I am not saying we need to backdown from an argument, but you should remember God saved us both and if you have information I need you should be willing to love and share it humbly with that person.

Why? Because I have studied the word too, and I find that it teaches that baptism isn't needed to become a Christian who is saved by grace. I am going to go around teaching that to whomever will hear, and you are about to let that stand by ending the discussion. If you are right about baptism, but give up the burden to teach me otherwise because you are too proud or too impatient, then shame on you.

 

[Letsargue]

I'm still hoping that you show some wisdom, "Letsargue." It's not like we have to fight to get our points across. If we care about each other, we try to teach each other, hopefully with kind words -when possible- and patience. It isn't that I was hurt by your rude remarks in the last post, but it is a little disappointing that one christian would call another christian, who is also a student of the word, such things. I am not saying we need to backdown from an argument, but you should remember God saved us both and if you have information I need you should be willing to love and share it humbly with that person.

Why? Because I have studied the word too, and I find that it teaches that baptism isn't needed to become a Christian who is saved by grace. I am going to go around teaching that to whomever will hear, and you are about to let that stand by ending the discussion. If you are right about baptism, but give up the burden to teach me otherwise because you are too proud or too impatient, then shame on you.

If youi're not willing to take what God said, in spite of what ever you have believed, the shame is yours not mine.

There is no where that it says we cannot eat anything we want to in our own homes; if it is not the Worship. We worship in spirit, however, we are not in the spirit when working the garden or washing the car, or watching NCIS on the tube. -- That's what the following means, John 10:9 KJV -

Paul -- 080410

 

[patman]

If youi're not willing to take what God said, in spite of what ever you have believed, the shame is yours not mine.

There is no where that it says we cannot eat anything we want to in our own homes; if it is not the Worship. We worship in spirit, however, we are not in the spirit when working the garden or washing the car, or watching NCIS on the tube. -- That's what the following means, John 10:9 KJV -

Paul -- 080410

I take what God said according to his word, not according to Letsargue. If you see that I am in error, you have to show me how. I just posted an excellent rebuttal and you don't seem to be able or willing to break it down. There is way more in the last post than just how to eat meat, and you still refuse to discus it.

If this (not answering, name calling, diversion) is how you witness, then I don't want to hear it anymore. I am done with asking you to participate in a discussion on a discussion forum.

 

[Letsargue]

I take what God said according to his word, not according to Letsargue. If you see that I am in error, you have to show me how. I just posted an excellent rebuttal and you don't seem to be able or willing to break it down. There is way more in the last post than just how to eat meat, and you still refuse to discus it.

If this (not answering, name calling, diversion) is how you witness, then I don't want to hear it anymore. I am done with asking you to participate in a discussion on a discussion forum.

You can talk about what GOD DID NOT SAY all day, but I showed you what God did say, and you denyed it.

It doesn't matter what God didn't say. - However, that's what some of you guys teach, to support your false doctrines.

Use the Book, then dispute or argue what I say. -- Until then, as far as I'm concerned, I don't care what God didn't say that you say.

Paul -- 089510

 

[Letsargue]

I'm still hoping that you show some wisdom, "Letsargue.

Why? Because I have studied the word too, and I find that it teaches that baptism isn't needed to become a Christian who is saved by grace. I am going to go around teaching that to whomever will hear, and you are about to let that stand by ending the discussion. If you are right about baptism, but give up the burden to teach me otherwise because you are too proud or too impatient, then shame on you.

You HAVE "NOT" FOUUND that baptism is not needed to become a Christian, THAT IS NOT IN THE WORD OF GOD ANYWHERE. god did not say that. However GOD DID SAY: ----- Acts 2:38 KJV - “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. ----- That’s what Christ said through Peter. God said that, and none of you guys accept what GOD says there. -- It says what it says, and you MUST DENY IT because that is not your doctrine; it is the DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. -- Take it or leave it, and let me guess which you’ll do!

Paul – 080510

 

[patman]

You can talk about what GOD DID NOT SAY all day, but I showed you what God did say, and you denyed it.

It doesn't matter what God didn't say. - However, that's what some of you guys teach, to support your false doctrines.

Use the Book, then dispute or argue what I say. -- Until then, as far as I'm concerned, I don't care what God didn't say that you say.

Paul -- 089510

I need to make sure this is very clear. Read very carefully, because you don't seem to do that.

Under the law, baptism is required to be saved. If you are under the law, you must be baptized, or else you risk losing your salvation if not gaining it at all.

Get that? (by the way, you also have to not eat unclean foods at all times and be circumcised, to name a few other regulations)

However, if you become a Christian, you are no longer under the law? You do NOT become a Christian by following the law.

Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

How do we escape the law and come to salvation?

Romans 10:9,10
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Then you will be dead to the law

Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

This isn't made up. I have consistently quoted scripture and countered what little feedback you have provided in the last few posts.

 

[Letsargue]

I need to make sure this is very clear. Read very carefully, because you don't seem to do that.

Under the law, baptism is required to be saved. If you are under the law, you must be baptized, or else you risk losing your salvation if not gaining it at all.

Get that? (by the way, you also have to not eat unclean foods at all times and be circumcised, to name a few other regulations)

However, if you become a Christian, you are no longer under the law? You do NOT become a Christian by following the law.

Galatians 5:4
You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.

How do we escape the law and come to salvation?

Romans 10:9,10
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Then you will be dead to the law

Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

This isn't made up. I have consistently quoted scripture and countered what little feedback you have provided in the last few posts.

You and all your so called “Christian” brothers throw out all the Scriptures in order to support your own doctrines that are not written anywhere in the Word of God.

There was NO BAPTISM in or under the Old Law, any where or at any time.

John the Baptist changed the “Old Law” to the Law of Baptism of Repentance. The Law of Baptism of repentance only lasted from the baptism of John until Pentecost when Peter preached the baptism of Jesus Christ; The New Law of Faith. – The Law of Baptism of repentance only lasted through Jesus’ ministry and until Pentecost.

As none of you know or can know; is that John the Baptist became the “TRUE” High Priest of God upon the death of his father, who was at the time the “TRUE” High Priest. ---- Becoming the High Priest, - the High Priest (changed the Law), and that’s what John did. - He changed the Old Law of the blood sacrifice of animals for repentance, to the BAPTISM of repentance. -- When John died, the True High Priest hood went to John’s nearest kin, Jesus Christ. – As John the Baptist was of the tribe of Levi, so was Jesus Christ a Levite after the manner of Aaron through Jesus’ mother who also was of the daughters of Aaron. ----- You didn’t miss all that in your study of God, did you? --- WELL! - Most of you did as well as the rest of the story of the creation of the New Heaven and the New Earth. --- That’s why you are there, and I’m here.

The only thing any of you can do with what I just wrote is blaspheme it. You certainly cannot prove it wrong with the Scriptures. That’s why you won’t even try; you’ll just blaspheme whatever you find in a dark heart. OOOHHH, you may say I’m wrong, and quote some more Scriptures that have not to say about what I said, but you’ll quote something and say S-E-E!

Paul – 082110

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yahshua in, Hebrew in, issue no - immersed life, immersed life not. english translate bad.

 

[patman]

You and all your so called “Christian” brothers throw out all the Scriptures in order to support your own doctrines that are not written anywhere in the Word of God.

There was NO BAPTISM in or under the Old Law, any where or at any time.

John the Baptist changed the “Old Law” to the Law of Baptism of Repentance. The Law of Baptism of repentance only lasted from the baptism of John until Pentecost when Peter preached the baptism of Jesus Christ; The New Law of Faith. – The Law of Baptism of repentance only lasted through Jesus’ ministry and until Pentecost.

As none of you know or can know; is that John the Baptist became the “TRUE” High Priest of God upon the death of his father, who was at the time the “TRUE” High Priest. ---- Becoming the High Priest, - the High Priest (changed the Law), and that’s what John did. - He changed the Old Law of the blood sacrifice of animals for repentance, to the BAPTISM of repentance. -- When John died, the True High Priest hood went to John’s nearest kin, Jesus Christ. – As John the Baptist was of the tribe of Levi, so was Jesus Christ a Levite after the manner of Aaron through Jesus’ mother who also was of the daughters of Aaron. ----- You didn’t miss all that in your study of God, did you? --- WELL! - Most of you did as well as the rest of the story of the creation of the New Heaven and the New Earth. --- That’s why you are there, and I’m here.

The only thing any of you can do with what I just wrote is blaspheme it. You certainly cannot prove it wrong with the Scriptures. That’s why you won’t even try; you’ll just blaspheme whatever you find in a dark heart. OOOHHH, you may say I’m wrong, and quote some more Scriptures that have not to say about what I said, but you’ll quote something and say S-E-E!

Paul – 082110

It is really sad to see brothers disown brothers when doctrinal issues are debated. Doesn't that bother you? If you were right, I would hope that you would at least be somber about it and realize "Oh man, this guy is going to Hell because he is ignorant," and that thought would give you pause.

I believe Paul was right. Nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. Even if someone has bad theology, Jesus still loves us. He is still able to save a sinner, even if that sin is blaspheme. Even if that sin is not being baptized, God is able to show grace and deliver whoever humbly calls on him for the forgiveness of sin.

You can condemn me with the biggest smile on your face all day long. But I still call on Jesus as my Lord, God as my Father. His spirit lives in me, I don't care what you think you know. You seem to think you know so much about me, but all you have are these words on a screen and your own tunnel vision of God's word.

I say tunnel vision, because you seem to take issue with me taking the same book, pointing to a passage that supports my theology. You'll ignore it because it challenges your theology, and you'll crucify me for bring it up before I even have a chance to.

God's law never changed. Parts of the law are no longer necessary to practice, such as the need for sacrifices, that requirement for a sacrifice is still valid, yet that requirement is fulfilled by Jesus. Baptism was in the old law, needed to make someone clean for many different reasons. The reason why you can't open the OT and find the word "Baptize" there is because it is a greek word. If you researched Immersion, you may finally see what I am talking about here.

 

[Letsargue]

It is really sad to see brothers disown brothers when doctrinal issues are debated. Doesn't that bother you? If you were right, I would hope that you would at least be somber about it and realize "Oh man, this guy is going to Hell because he is ignorant," and that thought would give you pause.

I believe Paul was right. Nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. Even if someone has bad theology, Jesus still loves us. He is still able to save a sinner, even if that sin is blaspheme. Even if that sin is not being baptized, God is able to show grace and deliver whoever humbly calls on him for the forgiveness of sin.

You can condemn me with the biggest smile on your face all day long. But I still call on Jesus as my Lord, God as my Father. His spirit lives in me, I don't care what you think you know. You seem to think you know so much about me, but all you have are these words on a screen and your own tunnel vision of God's word.

I say tunnel vision, because you seem to take issue with me taking the same book, pointing to a passage that supports my theology. You'll ignore it because it challenges your theology, and you'll crucify me for bring it up before I even have a chance to.

God's law never changed. Parts of the law are no longer necessary to practice, such as the need for sacrifices, that requirement for a sacrifice is still valid, yet that requirement is fulfilled by Jesus. Baptism was in the old law, needed to make someone clean for many different reasons. The reason why you can't open the OT and find the word "Baptize" there is because it is a greek word. If you researched Immersion, you may finally see what I am talking about here.

Research has already been done by more inspired men than you.
In all that you said there, there is not ONE WORD of God that you used to prove me wrong.

God is the teacher, and you can’t quote him and prove me wrong with all the help you can muster.

God is the teacher, and you WILL LEARN along with all your brothers.

Paul – 092210

 

[Letsargue]

It is really sad to see brothers disown brothers when doctrinal issues are debated. Doesn't that bother you? If you were right, I would hope that you would at least be somber about it and realize "Oh man, this guy is going to Hell because he is ignorant," and that thought would give you pause.

I believe Paul was right. Nothing can separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus. Even if someone has bad theology, Jesus still loves us. He is still able to save a sinner, even if that sin is blaspheme. Even if that sin is not being baptized, God is able to show grace and deliver whoever humbly calls on him for the forgiveness of sin.

You can condemn me with the biggest smile on your face all day long. But I still call on Jesus as my Lord, God as my Father. His spirit lives in me, I don't care what you think you know. You seem to think you know so much about me, but all you have are these words on a screen and your own tunnel vision of God's word.

I say tunnel vision, because you seem to take issue with me taking the same book, pointing to a passage that supports my theology. You'll ignore it because it challenges your theology, and you'll crucify me for bring it up before I even have a chance to.

God's law never changed. Parts of the law are no longer necessary to practice, such as the need for sacrifices, that requirement for a sacrifice is still valid, yet that requirement is fulfilled by Jesus. Baptism was in the old law, needed to make someone clean for many different reasons. The reason why you can't open the OT and find the word "Baptize" there is because it is a greek word. If you researched Immersion, you may finally see what I am talking about here.

You said a lot there. - Do you want to see if you can back YOUR Christ up with the TRUE Sword of God? – You can get all the help you think you need from the other prophets of you Christ here on TOL. - COME ON!

You said that -- “God’s Law never changed”. Wrong! – With the change of the High Priest, by necessity is the change of the LAW. – Hebrews 7:12 KJV -- John become the true High Priest after his father died. - John’s father was the true High Priest of GOD. --- John changed the LAW to the Baptism of Repentants.

You said that - “Baptism was in the old Law!”. Wrong! – “John’s Baptism” was the only baptism in the old Law. - The Baptism of John made the way for the “Baptism of Jesus Christ” in the New Law of FAITH, and of Christ. - Christ became our New High Priest, and he again changed the Law to the "New Covenant" / "Mark 16:15-16 KJV" – That’s the “NEW COVENANT”. That was started on Pentecost shortly after Jesus commanded it. – Acts 2:38 KJV –

You and you friends can’t believe any of that, but none of you can disprove it either, and that means that it disproves all your other Covenants.

Paul – 092910

 

[Lassie1865]

Before we can intelligently discuss what various the NT books say, it is necessary to understand the current state of ancient manuscripts. Anyone read Bruce Metzger, Philip Comfort, David Barrat, and Brad Erhman? Our current English translations are not presently substantially based upon the oldest manuscripts, despite their claims to the contrary. Now that we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, we can study those for the best understanding of the Tanakh. Also, many of Paul's epistles are written by someone other than Paul at a much later date. 2 Peter seems to have been written by someone other than Peter at a much later date also; therefore one cannot say that "Peter approved of Paul's writings as 'Scripture'." There is an English translation being made right now in England by Stephen Walch based upon the oldest extant manuscripts; you can read it at: thewaytoyahuwah
There is a word-for-word analysis of the Greek of Galatians called: questioningpaul by Craig Winn. What did Yahushua say was properly the Word of Yahuwah? Yahushua said: "If you want to understand Me, scrutinize the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms." Of whom did Yahushua warn Peter who would arrive as a "wolf in sheep's clothing" and lead Peter "to a place/position he would not want to go?" Another suggestion: study the Scriptures from the beginning, from Genesis forward; then you will be able to evaluate the NT with greater perspective.