The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (2 Viewers)

[larry_boy_44]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

 

[matuski]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

 

[matuski]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

 

[Politician Spock]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

 

[CrossEyed]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

 

[Politician Spock]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

 

[larry_boy_44]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

and Strongs really only adds that in because HE HAS THE SAME TRADITION YOU DO!!

 

[The Commish]

wrong, baptizo means to dip and CAUSE A CHANGE in what you are dipping... read the part about the 2nd century recipe... you bapto (dip) it and the baptizo (dip & change) it...

These aren't my words...argue with the 15+ sites that all say the same thing...or maybe they are part of the conspiracy to lie to us about baptism.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

 

[CrossEyed]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

 

[The Commish]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

 

[Politician Spock]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

and Strongs really only adds that in because HE HAS THE SAME TRADITION YOU DO!!

Then why did YOU post from HIS concordence to support YOUR argument about the conspiracy regarding the word baptism?

 

[larry_boy_44]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

 

[larry_boy_44]

wrong, baptizo means to dip and CAUSE A CHANGE in what you are dipping... read the part about the 2nd century recipe... you bapto (dip) it and the baptizo (dip & change) it...

These aren't my words...argue with the 15+ sites that all say the same thing...or maybe they are part of the conspiracy to lie to us about baptism.

read Strongs... look at blueletterbible..."baptizo" means to dip or immerse, or to wash by immersion... not to drown (care to link me to someone saying it means "to drown" exclusively?? Because there are other places that it is used and is translated "to wash" in the New Testament...)

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

There's a lot of Christian brotherly love in this thread.

 

[Politician Spock]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

That was unnecessary.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

and Strongs really only adds that in because HE HAS THE SAME TRADITION YOU DO!!

Then why did YOU post from HIS concordence to support YOUR argument about the conspiracy regarding the word baptism?

because, outside of that one phrase, it completely agrees with what I say...He says all this stuff about how it is about immersion and all of that... then tacks on at the end the phrase you are talking about to make sure no one accuses him of heresy...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

That was unnecessary.

no, it was completely necessary...I really liked how he bumped the "dragon thread" and posted "can we have this added to the FFA info thread so everyone knows how unstable larry_boy is?"

yeah, someone who does that is totally not an #######...

 

[Politician Spock]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

 

[Politician Spock]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

That was unnecessary.

no, it was completely necessary...I really liked how he bumped the "dragon thread" and posted "can we have this added to the FFA info thread so everyone knows how unstable larry_boy is?"

yeah, someone who does that is totally not an #######...

If you think that was necessary then you are being intentionally disobedient to God.

 

[Politician Spock]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

and Strongs really only adds that in because HE HAS THE SAME TRADITION YOU DO!!

Then why did YOU post from HIS concordence to support YOUR argument about the conspiracy regarding the word baptism?

because, outside of that one phrase, it completely agrees with what I say...He says all this stuff about how it is about immersion and all of that... then tacks on at the end the phrase you are talking about to make sure no one accuses him of heresy...

at the bolded part. Doing this with the Bible is pretty much how you support your case as well.

 

[larry_boy_44]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

 

[larry_boy_44]

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

and Strongs really only adds that in because HE HAS THE SAME TRADITION YOU DO!!

Then why did YOU post from HIS concordence to support YOUR argument about the conspiracy regarding the word baptism?

because, outside of that one phrase, it completely agrees with what I say...He says all this stuff about how it is about immersion and all of that... then tacks on at the end the phrase you are talking about to make sure no one accuses him of heresy...

at the bolded part. Doing this with the Bible is pretty much how you support your case as well.

yes, and ignoring all but one phrase of the Bible is how you support your case...

 

[The Commish]

wrong, baptizo means to dip and CAUSE A CHANGE in what you are dipping... read the part about the 2nd century recipe... you bapto (dip) it and the baptizo (dip & change) it...

These aren't my words...argue with the 15+ sites that all say the same thing...or maybe they are part of the conspiracy to lie to us about baptism.

read Strongs... look at blueletterbible..."baptizo" means to dip or immerse, or to wash by immersion... not to drown (care to link me to someone saying it means "to drown" exclusively?? Because there are other places that it is used and is translated "to wash" in the New Testament...)

I didn't say Baptizo meant to drown...I am saying that the word it was derived from did. Just like Baptise is derived from Baptizo, Baptizo is also a derivative. So why stop at Baptizo?? To try and make your point?? Probably...which isn't right. And THAT is what I was trying to point out....you are allowing religion to get in the way of what is important as Spock eluded to previously.

 

[larry_boy_44]

wrong, baptizo means to dip and CAUSE A CHANGE in what you are dipping... read the part about the 2nd century recipe... you bapto (dip) it and the baptizo (dip & change) it...

These aren't my words...argue with the 15+ sites that all say the same thing...or maybe they are part of the conspiracy to lie to us about baptism.

read Strongs... look at blueletterbible..."baptizo" means to dip or immerse, or to wash by immersion... not to drown (care to link me to someone saying it means "to drown" exclusively?? Because there are other places that it is used and is translated "to wash" in the New Testament...)

I didn't say Baptizo meant to drown...I am saying that the word it was derived from did. Just like Baptise is derived from Baptizo, Baptizo is also a derivative. So why stop at Baptizo?? To try and make your point?? Probably...which isn't right. And THAT is what I was trying to point out....you are allowing religion to get in the way of what is important as Spock eluded to previously.

Commish - how am I causing religion to get in the way of what is important? All I am saying is that we need to follow what Jesus told us to do...

You are the one saying that we don't need to follow God's commands because of your tradition...

aren't you the one letting religion (read: tradition) get in the way?

 

[ren hoek]

This thread is proof that religion sucks.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

That was unnecessary.

no, it was completely necessary...I really liked how he bumped the "dragon thread" and posted "can we have this added to the FFA info thread so everyone knows how unstable larry_boy is?"

yeah, someone who does that is totally not an #######...

If you think that was necessary then you are being intentionally disobedient to God.

I never said it as right...it was necessary because I've almost posted it 10+ times today... all he's doing is making sarcastic remarks... He looked up a 2-year old thread to make one of them... I'd say it was deserved (whether it was a proper thing to do, well, it wasn't right, that's for sure...)

 

[The Commish]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

I am still waiting on the scripture that is used as the guideline for acceptable baptism and not acceptable...TIA

 

[larry_boy_44]

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me?

That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

I am still waiting on the scripture that is used as the guideline for acceptable baptism and not acceptable...TIA

how's this, when you were baptized, did what happened to you do what is done when you use the Greek word "baptizo"??? If not, you were not baptized...

 

[Politician Spock]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

The most important thing is our relationship with God. When we make symbolic action more important than our relationship with God we become like the Pharisees. In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. (Luk 12:1)

 

[CrossEyed]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

That was unnecessary.

no, it was completely necessary...I really liked how he bumped the "dragon thread" and posted "can we have this added to the FFA info thread so everyone knows how unstable larry_boy is?"

yeah, someone who does that is totally not an #######...

Check your facts, son, it wasn't me who bumped the dragon thread.

 

[CrossEyed]

This thread is proof that religion legalism sucks.

Fixed.

 

[larry_boy_44]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

The most important thing is our relationship with God. When we make symbolic action more important than our relationship with God we become like the Pharisees. In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trod one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. (Luk 12:1)

yes, relationship with God is the most important thing...But God gave us steps that we need to take to enter into that relationship with Him.... Not because they do anything themselves, but because those are the rules he set up...

Remember all that stuff about confounding the wise??? Baptism is part of that... It doesn't make sense because it really does nothing, but yet God still commanded it to be done...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Is this Larry-boy for real or is this schtick?

Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.

of course you'd think no one could stay a pastor and be as big an ####### as you for as long as you have, but, here you are...

That was unnecessary.

no, it was completely necessary...I really liked how he bumped the "dragon thread" and posted "can we have this added to the FFA info thread so everyone knows how unstable larry_boy is?"

yeah, someone who does that is totally not an #######...

Check your facts, son, it wasn't me who bumped the dragon thread.

maybe not, but you sure did make sure to pile on there, didn't you? (#######)

 

[larry_boy_44]

This thread is proof that religion legalism sucks.

Fixed.

at least I'll never get behind a pulpit and lie to people who trust thier souls to me...

 

[Politician Spock]

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

and Strongs really only adds that in because HE HAS THE SAME TRADITION YOU DO!!

Then why did YOU post from HIS concordence to support YOUR argument about the conspiracy regarding the word baptism?

because, outside of that one phrase, it completely agrees with what I say...He says all this stuff about how it is about immersion and all of that... then tacks on at the end the phrase you are talking about to make sure no one accuses him of heresy...

at the bolded part. Doing this with the Bible is pretty much how you support your case as well.

yes, and ignoring all but one phrase of the Bible is how you support your case...

The entire Bible supports my case. You require conspiracy theories and 1700 year old pagen beliefs that no one believes any more to support yours, as well as picking and choosing what from Strong's concordence is acceptable and what is not. I didn't think it was possible but you've dug yourself even deeper. I figured eventually you hit low enough that it would sink in and you'd see where you were missing it. But you've proven you'll stop at nothing to avoid have to admit you may be wrong, even to the point of insulting pastors.

The Bible says to stay away from people like you, so I'm going to obey. Take care, and I'll pray for you. Seriously!

 

[CrossEyed]

This thread is proof that religion legalism sucks.

Fixed.

at least I'll never get behind a pulpit and lie to people who trust thier souls to me...

I pray that you never get behind a pulpit. You are a dangerous man, LB.

 

[The Commish]

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me?

That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

I am still waiting on the scripture that is used as the guideline for acceptable baptism and not acceptable...TIA

how's this, when you were baptized, did what happened to you do what is done when you use the Greek word "baptizo"??? If not, you were not baptized...

Based on what? If there is right and wrong ways to do things, the Bible differintiates. The Bible doesn't do that when it comes to Baptism. The word in my Bible is "baptized" not "pabtizo", so why would I care what the greek meaning is? I don't speak or interpret words in Greek. We can play word origins all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the crux of your argument is riddled in religion and that you have completely lost the symbolism of what baptism is all about. A general rule of thumb for you Larry....if you are going to argue a point based on some technicality of word translation.....that technicality better hold true throughout the document you are discussing....if it doesn't, then you are just scratching and clawing to hold on to what you believe. I am willing to bet that if we take the Bible word for word and translate it as you have done this word for baptism, you would have a completely different view of what has been written.

 

[ScottNorwood]

This thread is proof that religion legalism sucks.

Fixed.

at least I'll never get behind a pulpit and lie to people who trust thier souls to me...

I pray that you never get behind a pulpit. You are a dangerous man, LB.

dangerous?

 

[The Commish]

This thread is proof that religion legalism sucks.

Fixed.

at least I'll never get behind a pulpit and lie to people who trust thier souls to me...

BACK THE TRUCK UP!!!! Why would anyone intrust their souls to any other human?? What does this mean?? Those who trust their souls to someone else (including Pastors....no offense Cross) are clearly lost and in major need of help.

 

[larry_boy_44]

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

Stay with me here Larry. You just went off on one of your assumptions again. Let's see if I can get you back to the point you're missing. As Strong's concordence says from YOUR POST:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism.

You responded to me pointing this sentence out that for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done... Are you not then assuming that everyone must be dunked based on 1000 years of tradition given Strongs (WHICH YOU POSTED) says it's not about the water?

and Strongs really only adds that in because HE HAS THE SAME TRADITION YOU DO!!

Then why did YOU post from HIS concordence to support YOUR argument about the conspiracy regarding the word baptism?

because, outside of that one phrase, it completely agrees with what I say...He says all this stuff about how it is about immersion and all of that... then tacks on at the end the phrase you are talking about to make sure no one accuses him of heresy...

at the bolded part. Doing this with the Bible is pretty much how you support your case as well.

yes, and ignoring all but one phrase of the Bible is how you support your case...

The entire Bible supports my case. You require conspiracy theories and 1700 year old pagen beliefs that no one believes any more to support yours, as well as picking and choosing what from Strong's concordence is acceptable and what is not. I didn't think it was possible but you've dug yourself even deeper. I figured eventually you hit low enough that it would sink in and you'd see where you were missing it. But you've proven you'll stop at nothing to avoid have to admit you may be wrong, even to the point of insulting pastors.

The Bible says to stay away from people like you, so I'm going to obey. Take care, and I'll pray for you. Seriously!

sorry, Cross deserves it, the fact that he is a minister shows that his organization is a joke... Seriously... teh attitude that he has is horrid and not cool on any level, and I'm sick and tired of the constant sarcasm from him, anytime I stop ignoring him and try and talk to the guy he does this, and I'm done...The problem is that I'm not mising it, Spock... I understand that our relationship with God is most important, I do... I really do get that... and I agree, it is the most important thing...

The main difference between what I think about what we need to do and what you think we need to do is that you claim that we don't have to do anything (but then say we have to believe (& repent) both actions), and I just come out and say that God did put things that we need to do (think of it as "jobs" not "works", because they don't do anything, so they aren't works, they aren't good deeds or anything like that at all)

the fact of the matter is, Spock, that it isn't a conspiracy theory, you can go find it at any scholarly place that isn't Christian-based (because they are going to be, to a large degree, stuck in dogma and, like you, unwilling to admit it)...

Strong talks for over a paragraph how baptizo means to immerse, and stick on at the end that it is about a sacrament to appease people, and you ignore the whole thinga nd stick to that one thing...

what I am saying is shown throughout every verse in the Bible...

its in the Tabernacle and the sacrificial system of the OT... its shown when John baptizes people (emmerses them as a cleansing, he cleaned them through emmersion, exactly what "baptizo" means)... it IS symbolic, it is symbolic of the cleansing of our sins... The only problem is that God required it and cleans us when we obey and are baptized...

 

[larry_boy_44]

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me?

That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

I am still waiting on the scripture that is used as the guideline for acceptable baptism and not acceptable...TIA

how's this, when you were baptized, did what happened to you do what is done when you use the Greek word "baptizo"??? If not, you were not baptized...

Based on what? If there is right and wrong ways to do things, the Bible differintiates. The Bible doesn't do that when it comes to Baptism. The word in my Bible is "baptized" not "pabtizo", so why would I care what the greek meaning is? I don't speak or interpret words in Greek. We can play word origins all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the crux of your argument is riddled in religion and that you have completely lost the symbolism of what baptism is all about. A general rule of thumb for you Larry....if you are going to argue a point based on some technicality of word translation.....that technicality better hold true throughout the document you are discussing....if it doesn't, then you are just scratching and clawing to hold on to what you believe. I am willing to bet that if we take the Bible word for word and translate it as you have done this word for baptism, you would have a completely different view of what has been written.

the Bible doesn't tell you how to do it because "baptizo" wasn't a sacrament until it stopped being dunking... then they made it a sacrament so they could claim that htey don't have to dunk the person...if I tell you to go play football, do I really need to tell you to get a football? Do I need to tell you not to go get a baseball bat???

and feel free to go through the whole Bible, I did to a large degree, and every time (outside of a few where it is "wash") it is translated "baptize" and transliterated to hide the real meaning...

they don't want you to know you are being lied to, Commish, if you ever found out they'd lose thier power...

 

[larry_boy_44]

This thread is proof that religion legalism sucks.

Fixed.

at least I'll never get behind a pulpit and lie to people who trust thier souls to me...

BACK THE TRUCK UP!!!! Why would anyone intrust their souls to any other human?? What does this mean?? Those who trust their souls to someone else (including Pastors....no offense Cross) are clearly lost and in major need of help.

Pastors watch for you souls, they are the under-shephard, there is definately a responsibility the pastor has for the soul of his saints (and the saints trust the pastor to tell them the truth about God and how to get to heaven, even though ultimately it is on them)...make sense?

 

[rolyaTy]

Contrary to popular belief, religious bickering makes the world go round. Keep up the good work fella's.

 

[The Commish]

Wow....Now I really don't know what you believe LB....are we still in agreement that the act of baptism doesn't free a person of their sin?

 

[Seehawk]

This thread is proof that religious legalism sucks.

Fixed.

REALLY fixed.Unfortunately many of us on the outside looking in increasingly can't see a difference between religion, legalism & intolerance....something this thread illustrates quite well.

whole thing is rather disheartening really.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Wow....Now I really don't know what you believe LB....are we still in agreement that the act of baptism doesn't free a person of their sin?

The act of baptism in and of itself does not free you from your sin... God applies His grace and gives you the remission by applying his blood to your dirty self cleaning you at the point you are baptized...does that make sense?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me?

That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

yes, if the people who "converted" to you lied to you, you are not saved...

THIS IS THE MOST UNBIBLICAL THING YOU'VE POSTED YET!!!!

if Mormon's converted you, would you be saved still?

It completely depends on what I believe, not what people who spoke to me beleive. You are now trying to associate one's salvation to other people, and that is completely un-Biblical!!!

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...

If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.

Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?

Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

I am still waiting on the scripture that is used as the guideline for acceptable baptism and not acceptable...TIA

how's this, when you were baptized, did what happened to you do what is done when you use the Greek word "baptizo"??? If not, you were not baptized...

Based on what? If there is right and wrong ways to do things, the Bible differintiates. The Bible doesn't do that when it comes to Baptism. The word in my Bible is "baptized" not "pabtizo", so why would I care what the greek meaning is? I don't speak or interpret words in Greek. We can play word origins all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the crux of your argument is riddled in religion and that you have completely lost the symbolism of what baptism is all about.

A general rule of thumb for you Larry....if you are going to argue a point based on some technicality of word translation.....that technicality better hold true throughout the document you are discussing....if it doesn't, then you are just scratching and clawing to hold on to what you believe. I am willing to bet that if we take the Bible word for word and translate it as you have done this word for baptism, you would have a completely different view of what has been written.

the Bible doesn't tell you how to do it because "baptizo" wasn't a sacrament until it stopped being dunking... then they made it a sacrament so they could claim that htey don't have to dunk the person...

if I tell you to go play football, do I really need to tell you to get a football? Do I need to tell you not to go get a baseball bat???

and feel free to go through the whole Bible, I did to a large degree, and every time (outside of a few where it is "wash") it is translated "baptize" and transliterated to hide the real meaning...

they don't want you to know you are being lied to, Commish, if you ever found out they'd lose thier power...

"They" being the satanic, pagan worshipping papist that sit in Rome all day polishing their cloven hooves, sharpening their pitchforks. and deviously fiddling with their pointed beards. Just thought I would clarify.

 

[The Commish]

This thread is proof that religion legalism sucks.

Fixed.

at least I'll never get behind a pulpit and lie to people who trust thier souls to me...

BACK THE TRUCK UP!!!! Why would anyone intrust their souls to any other human?? What does this mean?? Those who trust their souls to someone else (including Pastors....no offense Cross) are clearly lost and in major need of help.

Pastors watch for you souls, they are the under-shephard, there is definately a responsibility the pastor has for the soul of his saints (and the saints trust the pastor to tell them the truth about God and how to get to heaven, even though ultimately it is on them)...make sense?

They are teachers.....plain and simple. Religion tends to make them more important than the average person. This is meant with no disrespect to any of the ministers/pastors on this board, but they aren't any more qualified to watch our souls than we are. They are here to teach and answer questions. Yes, they go to school and learn more than the average person, but they have to find their own way. Personally, I don't really care what my pastor things of my relationship with God because his opinion doesn't matter. He doesn't know my relationship with God like I do.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Spock - I am assuming that if a Mormon converts you, you believe Mormon doctrine...

If a Catholic converts you, and you become a Lutheran, the Catholic didn't really convert you to what they believe...

When I say "if the person converted to you lied to you, you aren't saved" I am saying that if you were converted to false doctrine and didn't actually get saved how we are to be saved, you are not saved...

If you are converted to a church that preaches there are 3 gods, are you saved? No, you believe there are three gods...

same thing here..

Every doctrine is false Larry!!! No doctrine is 100% correct. That means we've all been lied to in one way or another by those who converted us. Using your logic, no one is saved.

Thank God that Jesus saves and not fallible doctrine!!!

depends... what is the most important stuff?

Well, if we go by what the original church did upon conversion, they told people to repent and be baptized...

now, I realize that is very difficult for you because you ahve been taught differently all of your life... and I get that... I dealt with that some (although I was 11 when I started at the church I go to now), my parents deal with it, etc...

the point is that just because a lot of people believe it doesn't mean it is true... baptizing in the titles is no where in the Bible and is 100% based upon false doctrine...

sprinkling baptism is ONLY DONE because the Catholic church wanted to baptize infants...

things that can be traced back to false doctrine should not be done, period...

I am still waiting on the scripture that is used as the guideline for acceptable baptism and not acceptable...TIA

how's this, when you were baptized, did what happened to you do what is done when you use the Greek word "baptizo"??? If not, you were not baptized...

Based on what? If there is right and wrong ways to do things, the Bible differintiates. The Bible doesn't do that when it comes to Baptism. The word in my Bible is "baptized" not "pabtizo", so why would I care what the greek meaning is? I don't speak or interpret words in Greek. We can play word origins all you want but it doesn't change the fact that the crux of your argument is riddled in religion and that you have completely lost the symbolism of what baptism is all about.

A general rule of thumb for you Larry....if you are going to argue a point based on some technicality of word translation.....that technicality better hold true throughout the document you are discussing....if it doesn't, then you are just scratching and clawing to hold on to what you believe. I am willing to bet that if we take the Bible word for word and translate it as you have done this word for baptism, you would have a completely different view of what has been written.

the Bible doesn't tell you how to do it because "baptizo" wasn't a sacrament until it stopped being dunking... then they made it a sacrament so they could claim that htey don't have to dunk the person...

if I tell you to go play football, do I really need to tell you to get a football? Do I need to tell you not to go get a baseball bat???

and feel free to go through the whole Bible, I did to a large degree, and every time (outside of a few where it is "wash") it is translated "baptize" and transliterated to hide the real meaning...

they don't want you to know you are being lied to, Commish, if you ever found out they'd lose thier power...

"They" being the satanic, pagan worshipping papist that sit in Rome all day polishing their cloven hooves, sharpening their pitchforks. and deviously fiddling with their pointed beards. Just thought I would clarify.



I don't think everyone is that knowing about the lies that are told, I do think some genuinly believe what they are saying...

but if you are following a false Christ, it doesn't matter how genuine it is, the real Christ isn't going to accept you...