What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

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... :thumbdown:
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.
I kind of agree with you, but the Bible disagrees with you... The Bible says that they will give an account and says that they will watch for our souls...it has nothing to do with thier schooling, it has to od with thier calling from God...

 
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... :thumbdown:
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.
I kind of agree with you, but the Bible disagrees with you... The Bible says that they will give an account and says that they will watch for our souls...it has nothing to do with thier schooling, it has to od with thier calling from God...
Reference please....
 
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...
How is his sarcasm and "horrid" attitude towars your belief any different than how you treat Catholics and their belief?The answer is: NONE. Except you believe it's necessary to verbally defame someone else for how they treat you when they treat you no different than how you treat others. Which is not only entirely un-Biblical, it's intentional disobedience. This isn't a sin you did accidently. After I responded that it wasn't necessary assuming you just did it accidently, you reponded that it was necessary even if it was wrong. That by definition is intentional disobedience.

In the same way, the tongue is a small part of the body, yet it can boast of great achievements. A huge forest can be set on fire by a little flame. The tongue is a fire, a world of evil. Placed among the parts of our bodies, the tongue contaminates the whole body and sets on fire the course of life, and is itself set on fire by hell. For all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles, and sea creatures can be or have been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue. It is an uncontrollable evil filled with deadly poison. (James 3:5-8)

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.

 
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...
How is his sarcasm and "horrid" attitude towars your belief any different than how you treat Catholics and their belief?The answer is: NONE. Except you believe it's necessary to verbally defame someone else for how they treat you when they treat you no different than how you treat others. Which is not only entirely un-Biblical, it's intentional disobedience. This isn't a sin you did accidently. After I responded that it wasn't necessary assuming you just did it accidently, you reponded that it was necessary even if it was wrong. That by definition is intentional disobedience.

In the same way, the tongue is a small part of the body, yet it can boast of great achievements. A huge forest can be set on fire by a little flame. The tongue is a fire, a world of evil. Placed among the parts of our bodies, the tongue contaminates the whole body and sets on fire the course of life, and is itself set on fire by hell. For all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles, and sea creatures can be or have been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue. It is an uncontrollable evil filled with deadly poison. (James 3:5-8)
how am I being sarcastic or mean??? I'm telling you HISTORY, this is what happened...I'm not making it up, I'm not just saying stuff, I'm not cracking jokes about it.... I'm stating WHAT HAPPENED and how what happened is not true and those who follow it are not following truth...

there is no sarcasm or mean-ness involved, I mean, honestly, I'd rather not say it, but we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend that history didn't happen...

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)

 
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...
How is his sarcasm and "horrid" attitude towars your belief any different than how you treat Catholics and their belief?The answer is: NONE. Except you believe it's necessary to verbally defame someone else for how they treat you when they treat you no different than how you treat others. Which is not only entirely un-Biblical, it's intentional disobedience. This isn't a sin you did accidently. After I responded that it wasn't necessary assuming you just did it accidently, you reponded that it was necessary even if it was wrong. That by definition is intentional disobedience.

In the same way, the tongue is a small part of the body, yet it can boast of great achievements. A huge forest can be set on fire by a little flame. The tongue is a fire, a world of evil. Placed among the parts of our bodies, the tongue contaminates the whole body and sets on fire the course of life, and is itself set on fire by hell. For all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles, and sea creatures can be or have been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue. It is an uncontrollable evil filled with deadly poison. (James 3:5-8)
how am I being sarcastic or mean??? I'm telling you HISTORY, this is what happened...I'm not making it up, I'm not just saying stuff, I'm not cracking jokes about it.... I'm stating WHAT HAPPENED and how what happened is not true and those who follow it are not following truth...

there is no sarcasm or mean-ness involved, I mean, honestly, I'd rather not say it, but we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend that history didn't happen...
Crosseyed wasn't mean either. All he said was
Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.
I for one was wondering for the past few days how you could keep it up if it wasn't shtick. You've got to be real. It didn't get "mean" until you said this:

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...
Given this above, and your admittance that it was wrong, yet your position that it was necessary, I conclude that you are in willful disobedience of God. I've also concluded that you are dangerous with your passion to preach illogical interpretations of the Bible, that appears to be a passion far more generated by bitterness to Catholics and historical Christians than a passion to get to the truth of Gods word.Congratulations, you've just succesfully been IP banned from fbgbiblestudy.com.

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
 
Hi fightingchick,

Sorry, it's hard to see some posts what with this huge christian pillow fight going on in here.

Your claim is that the word almah is different than the word Parthenos.
That is incorrect. Let me restate something. It doesn't matter to me what the word is. Whether it's virgin, young maiden, old maid, superwoman.. it's all the same. The passage is not prophetic about the expected messiah. Another poster thought I was talking about the word for "virgin", but I was not. I don't care what the translation is. In context, the story has nothing to do with the messiah, much less Jesus.
I have three points that refute your claim that this word was mistranslated into virgin.
again, I never claimed such a thing. But, I'll play along.
One, the word Almah is used 7 times in the old testament (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Psa. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14). In each instance, when read in context, the young maiden that it described is indeed a virgin (sexually pure). Thus, the biblical translation of the word CAN most certainly be virgin.
Yes, it can be referring to a virgin as we know it, so what? The problem is, this isn't the word when the OT writer was referring to a real "Virgin" as we know it. More on that to follow. But for those examples you've posted:Gen 24:43 -- See, I am standing beside this spring; if a maiden comes out to draw water and I say to her, "Please let me drink a little water from your jar,"

This is from the NIV bible. KJV version uses "virgin" instead of maiden.

The strong's word here for the term is 'almah. It is strong's [5959].

This young girl is Rebecca. When Abraham’s servant saw her and later related the story, all he could possibly determine (from her appearance) is that she was a beautiful young female, he obviously could not have known whether or not she was a virgin (never had sex), since he did not know her marital status.

Moreover, if ('almah) had meant "virgin", why wouldn't the writer use the same word when he explicitly refered to Rebecca as (betulah), a virgin, in Genesis 24:16?

Gen 24:16 -- The girl was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever lain with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.

In this verse the word 'Virgin' literally means she who has never slept with a man. Is it 'alma? no.. the word used here is bethuwlah, which means virgin. This is strong's (1330).

I would grant that in each instance you posted the word 'almah is there. It could, or might not, mean "virgin" as we define it.

However, when the author does mean "Virgin" as we define it, another word is used. That word is "bethuwlah" and it means never had sex.

Now, let's go back to Isaiah for a moment. Let me ask you, why would Isaiah use 'almah for his maiden in Isaiah 7:14, but use the word bethuwlah for the word "virgin" in Isaiah 62:5 and in Isaiah 23:4?

Isaiah 62:5 -- For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Isaiah 23:4 -- Be thou ashamed, O Zidon: for the sea hath spoken, even the strength of the sea, saying, I travail not, nor bring forth children, neither do I nourish up young men, nor bring up virgins.

Link to Blueletterbible.com and Strong's 1330

To recap: All those verses you posted uses 'almah for young maiden, or virgin. In each instance, it could mean virgin as we know it, or it could mean simply a young woman.

This is the use in Isaiah 7:14, we can agree. But the same author, Isaiah, when defining his idea of "Virgin" as we know it, he uses bethuwlah and not 'almah.

The best translation in Isaiah 7:14 is "young maiden". She may have or not have been a "virgin". It doesn't matter.

Relying on the King James version is misleading. When in doubt, go back to the Original Hebrew. Isaiah knew what he meant, as did the author of Genesis.

young woman, maiden, virgin = 'almah

virgin (who's never had sex) = bethuwlah

But again, it doesn't matter to me because Isaiah wasn't prophesying about the messiah of Israel. If you keep reading in Isaiah, you'll see how the young son comes into play for King Ahaz.

But more important, let's look again at Isiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”

If the word is "young girl" than what kind of sign is this? Why would a young girl concieving a child be a big deal? Now a virgin - that would be a sign.
Ever wonder why nothing was said about this in the OT? because it wasn't a big deal. This was not a miraculous birth by any virgin girl. See, the "deal" wasn't the birth of the child... the great "sign" was the timeframe. Isaiah is telling King Ahaz that before this child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings that oppose him will be destroyed. That's it. No more no less. And this was fulfilled because the king of Assyria came through and kicked all their butts. The two kings (from northern Israel) that opposed King Ahaz were defeated. Thus, this "prophecy" was fulfilled... 600 years before the birth of Jesus.

It places the correct literal word for us to understand in English.

Thus, the context of the word and its prior usage in the scriptures demand that the word almah be translated into the English word virgin in Isiah .
Demand? come on now. Read the story for yourself, but do so using Hebrew scripture. I would suggest bluebible.orgDon't you think it benefits christian writers to translate this particular word as "virgin"? Unfortunately, the Hebrew word for this type of virgin is something else.

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
Sorry Commish, if you live in a desert area or you have a drought you can't get saved. Tough luck I guess. :shrug:
 
Hi fightingchick,

Sorry, it's hard to see some posts what with this huge christian pillow fight going on in here.

Your claim is that the word almah is different than the word Parthenos.
That is incorrect. Let me restate something. It doesn't matter to me what the word is. Whether it's virgin, young maiden, old maid, superwoman.. it's all the same. The passage is not prophetic about the expected messiah. Another poster thought I was talking about the word for "virgin", but I was not. I don't care what the translation is. In context, the story has nothing to do with the messiah, much less Jesus.
I have three points that refute your claim that this word was mistranslated into virgin. 
again, I never claimed such a thing. But, I'll play along.
One, the word Almah is used 7 times in the old testament (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Psa. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3; 6:8; Isa. 7:14).  In each instance, when read in context, the young maiden that it described is indeed a virgin (sexually pure). Thus, the biblical translation of the word CAN most certainly be virgin.
Yes, it can be referring to a virgin as we know it, so what? The problem is, this isn't the word when the OT writer was referring to a real "Virgin" as we know it. More on that to follow. But for those examples you've posted:Gen 24:43 -- See, I am standing beside this spring; if a maiden comes out to draw water and I say to her, "Please let me drink a little water from your jar,"

This is from the NIV bible. KJV version uses "virgin" instead of maiden.

The strong's word here for the term is 'almah. It is strong's [5959].

This young girl is Rebecca. When Abraham’s servant saw her and later related the story, all he could possibly determine (from her appearance) is that she was a beautiful young female, he obviously could not have known whether or not she was a virgin (never had sex), since he did not know her marital status.

Moreover, if ('almah) had meant "virgin", why wouldn't the writer use the same word when he explicitly refered to Rebecca as (betulah), a virgin, in Genesis 24:16?

Gen 24:16 -- The girl was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had ever lain with her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.

In this verse the word 'Virgin' literally means she who has never slept with a man. Is it 'alma? no.. the word used here is bethuwlah, which means virgin. This is strong's (1330).

I would grant that in each instance you posted the word 'almah is there. It could, or might not, mean "virgin" as we define it.

However, when the author does mean "Virgin" as we define it, another word is used. That word is "bethuwlah" and it means never had sex.

Now, let's go back to Isaiah for a moment. Let me ask you, why would Isaiah use 'almah for his maiden in Isaiah 7:14, but use the word bethuwlah for the word "virgin" in Isaiah 62:5 and in Isaiah 23:4?

Isaiah 62:5 -- For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee.

Isaiah 23:4 -- Be thou ashamed, O Zidon: for the sea hath spoken, even the strength of the sea, saying, I travail not, nor bring forth children, neither do I nourish up young men, nor bring up virgins.

Link to Blueletterbible.com and Strong's 1330

To recap: All those verses you posted uses 'almah for young maiden, or virgin. In each instance, it could mean virgin as we know it, or it could mean simply a young woman.

This is the use in Isaiah 7:14, we can agree. But the same author, Isaiah, when defining his idea of "Virgin" as we know it, he uses bethuwlah and not 'almah.

The best translation in Isaiah 7:14 is "young maiden". She may have or not have been a "virgin". It doesn't matter.

Relying on the King James version is misleading. When in doubt, go back to the Original Hebrew. Isaiah knew what he meant, as did the author of Genesis.

young woman, maiden, virgin = 'almah

virgin (who's never had sex) = bethuwlah

But again, it doesn't matter to me because Isaiah wasn't prophesying about the messiah of Israel. If you keep reading in Isaiah, you'll see how the young son comes into play for King Ahaz.

But more important, let's look again at Isiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”

If the word is "young girl" than what kind of sign is this?  Why would a young girl concieving a child be a big deal?  Now a virgin - that would be a sign. 
Ever wonder why nothing was said about this in the OT? because it wasn't a big deal. This was not a miraculous birth by any virgin girl. See, the "deal" wasn't the birth of the child... the great "sign" was the timeframe. Isaiah is telling King Ahaz that before this child is old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings that oppose him will be destroyed. That's it. No more no less. And this was fulfilled because the king of Assyria came through and kicked all their butts. The two kings (from northern Israel) that opposed King Ahaz were defeated. Thus, this "prophecy" was fulfilled... 600 years before the birth of Jesus.

It places the correct literal word for us to understand in English.

Thus, the context of the word and its prior usage in the scriptures demand that the word almah be translated into the English word virgin in Isiah .
Demand? come on now. Read the story for yourself, but do so using Hebrew scripture. I would suggest bluebible.orgDon't you think it benefits christian writers to translate this particular word as "virgin"? Unfortunately, the Hebrew word for this type of virgin is something else.
Jayrok, I was the original poster that thought you had an issue with the translation. Looks like you don't. Sorry for the confusion. I don't have an issue with the translation either. Instead it appears you have an issue with Isaiah 7 being considered as a Messianic prophecy. Well like all Messianic passages that are only taken "in context" of the respective chapter, it merely speaks to an event or issue from that time. The symbolism only becomes apparent when combined with the New Testament fulfillment. It sounds like you think the gospel authors simply cherry picked some of this stuff to embellish the life of Jesus. Is that the case? I understand where you are coming from there, although I disagree.

 
The prophecy of Isaiah has been debated for years. There are two christian responses to your point about Ahez:

1. Dual prophecy. Just like other parts of the bible, there is foreshadowing and parallels in the OT/NT.

2. Ahaz actually refused to ask for a sign from the Lord. So God gave a sign anyway, not to a King, but to a nation. The fulfilment you discuss - I am assuming you mean 8:3-4 - is about Ahaz's wife, who was not an Amlah and did not name her son Immanual. It was Mahershalalhashbaz. Then in 5, there is an "also" meaning a different thought, before coming back to Immanual. 5-10 is about Judgement. Then skip to 9:6 an we are still talking about a child yet to be born, with all the God-like names, etc.

You can quote your scholars and I can quote mine. But the point of Christianity is the testimony of the NT writers. They are the first witnesses. I believe in the historical validity of their testimony (and translation).

What is wrong with the NT writers benefiting from their translation. They are making the argument for Christ, right? They are delivering the good news - the savior is born - just as Jesus told them to do.

They delivered the good news of Jesus and the book has been passed on. I read the KJV. I read it becuase of my faith? I read it because I trust its bloodline (A 10-week course on that one).

Seriously, why do you read the Hebrew Scriptures? If there is nothing significant to them, other than Ahaz getting what he wants, then why read it?

 
Basically, I believe that there is a Supreme God who created the universe. I don't think human life is a random event.
Sorry I missed this one dwashington.ok. I won't argue with that. There may indeed be a supreme being out there somewhere. I don't know.

Obviously you have studied Scriptures, religions, archaelogoy much more in depth than I have, as is demonstrated by your superior breadth of knowledge of Biblical history and context, but at some point you just couldn't make that leap.
I was an evangelical christian for over 20 years. I made the leap at a young age and trusted that this supreme being you mentioned was the one in the bible. While I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that a supreme being exists, I don't believe he/she is the one described in the Bible. Maybe this being is hand's off? See: Deism.

Because I believe in one Supreme God who is Lord of us all, I also believe in the powers of evil who are going to do everything in their power to make us deny God exists and instead fall into idol worship (i.e. placing all of our faith in human intellect).
I don't believe in Satan or a fallen angel who was so influencial that he convinced 1/3 of the angels to fall with him. It doesn't make sense. Satan is made out to be the dumbest character in the bible. He lived with God and knew that God was all powerful.. yet he still rebelled against him thinking he was better. Sin began in heaven. Satan must've had free will since he chose to leave God. Maybe he was created with sin. He had feelings and with free will, there must have been two things (one right one wrong) to choose from in all decisions. God created the devil and he knew what God was.. yet he still rebelled. What made God think humans would do any better?

Maybe the Devil knew something we don't.. or he was just an idiot.. or maybe it is all just a story.

And just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that there aren't others who made that leap (maybe not on the first jump) and have placed their faith in God's Word.
of course. Nothing wrong with that either.
You make a lot of strong arguments against Jesus being the Son, and against the Scriptures being God's Word, but have you made any suggestions/comments to an alternative?
alternative for what?
Do you realize how many people are barely holding on in life solely because of the faith that they have in God?

I dunno..I don't understand your motives.
Of course I understand many people have faith in God. If that faith keeps them going, great. I'd bet that any faith that they might have in a stuffed animal would result in them feeling the very same way they do now. There are many Muslims and people of any number of other faiths that are clinging to life with only their faith that keeps them going.

My motives? I enjoy talking the bible.

Would you keep your faith in God as the supreme creator if it turned out that he/she really isn't the God who is described in the Bible?

 
Jayrok, I was the original poster that thought you had an issue with the translation. Looks like you don't. Sorry for the confusion. I don't have an issue with the translation either.

Instead it appears you have an issue with Isaiah 7 being considered as a Messianic prophecy. Well like all Messianic passages that are only taken "in context" of the respective chapter, it merely speaks to an event or issue from that time. The symbolism only becomes apparent when combined with the New Testament fulfillment. It sounds like you think the gospel authors simply cherry picked some of this stuff to embellish the life of Jesus. Is that the case? I understand where you are coming from there, although I disagree.
Ah.. yes. Yeah, I think the author of Matthew, who was writing to a Jewish audience, wanted to show his Jesus was the real deal by fulfilling as many (of what he deemed) prophecies as possible. I think he found Isaiah's comments useful. He does this in other verses too though.

Paul never mentions virgin births in his letters and warns against depending on myths like this and on genealogies:

1 Timothy 1:3-4 -- 3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith.

and in Titus:

Titus 3:9 -- But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless

It looks like the church there was trying to see if Jesus was really from the line of David, where he really came from, etc.. Paul says not to worry with that stuff it only leads to controversy.

In Galatians, Paul simply says that Jesus was "born of a woman". No virgin birth is mentioned at all.

The author of Matthew wanted to prove a point however. He was looking for miracles to associate with Jesus.

 
The prophecy of Isaiah has been debated for years.  There are two christian responses to your point about Ahez:

1. Dual prophecy.  Just like other parts of the bible, there is foreshadowing and parallels in the OT/NT.

2. Ahaz actually refused to ask for a sign from the Lord. So God gave a sign anyway, not to a King, but to a nation.  The fulfilment you discuss - I am assuming you mean 8:3-4 - is about Ahaz's wife, who was not an Amlah and did not name her son Immanual.  It was Mahershalalhashbaz. Then in 5, there is an "also" meaning a different thought, before coming back to Immanual. 5-10 is about Judgement.  Then skip to 9:6 an we are still talking about a child yet to be born, with all the God-like names, etc.

You can quote your scholars and I can quote mine.  But the point of Christianity is the testimony of the NT writers.  They are the first witnesses.  I believe in the historical validity of their testimony (and translation).

What is wrong with the NT writers benefiting from their translation.  They are making the argument for Christ, right?  They are delivering the good news - the savior is born - just as Jesus told them to do. 

They delivered the good news of Jesus and the book has been passed on.  I read the KJV.  I read it becuase of my faith?  I read it because I trust its bloodline (A 10-week course on that one). 

Seriously, why do you read the Hebrew Scriptures?  If there is nothing significant to them, other than Ahaz getting what he wants, then why read it?
Dual prophecy. Don't you see that as a copout? Quote scholars? You don't have to quote anyone. Go read it and research it for yourself, fchick. All the tools are available for your own research.

I enjoy the King James bible. I have a couple of them myself.

There are interesting articles on the KJV bible you might find... interesting.

Why do I like the Hebrew scriptures? They are original. Just like the NT is Greek. If you really want to know what a passage says, it is safer to find out what was originally written. Wouldn't you agree?

Translations are fine.. but you have opportunity for corruption, especially over time. The Hebrew scriptures are significant! They tell a terrific story of a unique body of people in our history.

By the way, Ahaz didn't really get what he bargained for. He was a terrible king in Judah. He was stubborn and didn't find much favor in God. But, he was king of God's chosen people, so Isaiah basically said "Dammit, you will receive help eve if you don't want it... and here's a sign from God verifying it".

Ahaz's son was better. But the line turned wicked again later.

Even the tool, The king of Assyria, that God used to destroy the Kings of Northern Israel, got his come-up-n's a little later in the chapter... for being a little too big for his britches. God punished him too in the story.

edit to add:

What is wrong with the NT writers benefiting from their translation. They are making the argument for Christ, right?
well, if the translation is incorrect.. moreso if it was intentionally translated incorrect, they are making the argument for Christ with wrongful pretences. Is that still ok? I guess it is if you are trying to persuade readers he is supernatural... but if it isn't true, then what?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
How is his sarcasm and "horrid" attitude towars your belief any different than how you treat Catholics and their belief?The answer is: NONE. Except you believe it's necessary to verbally defame someone else for how they treat you when they treat you no different than how you treat others. Which is not only entirely un-Biblical, it's intentional disobedience. This isn't a sin you did accidently. After I responded that it wasn't necessary assuming you just did it accidently, you reponded that it was necessary even if it was wrong. That by definition is intentional disobedience.

In the same way, the tongue is a small part of the body, yet it can boast of great achievements. A huge forest can be set on fire by a little flame. The tongue is a fire, a world of evil. Placed among the parts of our bodies, the tongue contaminates the whole body and sets on fire the course of life, and is itself set on fire by hell. For all kinds of animals, birds, reptiles, and sea creatures can be or have been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue. It is an uncontrollable evil filled with deadly poison. (James 3:5-8)
how am I being sarcastic or mean??? I'm telling you HISTORY, this is what happened...I'm not making it up, I'm not just saying stuff, I'm not cracking jokes about it.... I'm stating WHAT HAPPENED and how what happened is not true and those who follow it are not following truth...

there is no sarcasm or mean-ness involved, I mean, honestly, I'd rather not say it, but we can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend that history didn't happen...
Crosseyed wasn't mean either. All he said was
Has to be real. Nobody would be able to keep up such an absurd shtick this long.
I for one was wondering for the past few days how you could keep it up if it wasn't shtick. You've got to be real. It didn't get "mean" until you said this:

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...
Given this above, and your admittance that it was wrong, yet your position that it was necessary, I conclude that you are in willful disobedience of God. I've also concluded that you are dangerous with your passion to preach illogical interpretations of the Bible, that appears to be a passion far more generated by bitterness to Catholics and historical Christians than a passion to get to the truth of Gods word.Congratulations, you've just succesfully been IP banned from fbgbiblestudy.com.
yes, because that was the ONLY thing Cross has ever said to me... it wasn't even the only thing he said that day, I almost said what I did there 5 other times TODAY!!! and thought better of it...but, hey, IP ban me, its not like you care what God's Word said (and its not like anyone actually used that site)

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
Sorry Commish, if you live in a desert area or you have a drought you can't get saved. Tough luck I guess. :shrug:
yes. and if you live on a desert island and can't possibly believe on Jesus' death for salvation you are damned, too...or if you live in someplace missionaries haven't been to yet, you are damned then, too... all those poeple... because God can't possibly make exceptions in places where following what He said is not possible... nope, never....

too bad those people never even had a chance just 'cuz they were born in the wrong place, that kinda sucks...

 
Speaking in tongues, as practiced by modern charismatic churches, isn't proof of anything.

The only way it would be proof of anything is if they were doing it like what happened at Pentecost.  Wonder why they don't do it that way?
wait, you mean like where everyone hears it in thier native language??? You realize that happened only once, right?Every other time it happened no one understood it (and Paul even encouraged the churches to speak in tongues PRIVATELY, so obviously us understanding it isn't hte point)
How could you possibly know that Pentecost was the only time it happened that way, or that every other time no one understood it?The answer is you can't possibly know that.

 
Speaking in tongues, as practiced by modern charismatic churches, isn't proof of anything.

The only way it would be proof of anything is if they were doing it like what happened at Pentecost.  Wonder why they don't do it that way?
wait, you mean like where everyone hears it in thier native language??? You realize that happened only once, right?Every other time it happened no one understood it (and Paul even encouraged the churches to speak in tongues PRIVATELY, so obviously us understanding it isn't hte point)
How could you possibly know that Pentecost was the only time it happened that way, or that every other time no one understood it?The answer is you can't possibly know that.
How can you possibly know that every other time it happened that everyone understood it?And I know not everytime does everyone understand, becaue Paul writes to one of the churches and says "I pray you speak in tongues daily" or something of that nature and was referring ot the people's personal prayer time, not any public showing of God's power or anything like that...

if you are suppose to pray in tongues privately, it isn't always meant to be understood...

 
Speaking in tongues, as practiced by modern charismatic churches, isn't proof of anything.

The only way it would be proof of anything is if they were doing it like what happened at Pentecost.  Wonder why they don't do it that way?
wait, you mean like where everyone hears it in thier native language??? You realize that happened only once, right?Every other time it happened no one understood it (and Paul even encouraged the churches to speak in tongues PRIVATELY, so obviously us understanding it isn't hte point)
How could you possibly know that Pentecost was the only time it happened that way, or that every other time no one understood it?The answer is you can't possibly know that.
How can you possibly know that every other time it happened that everyone understood it?And I know not everytime does everyone understand, becaue Paul writes to one of the churches and says "I pray you speak in tongues daily" or something of that nature and was referring ot the people's personal prayer time, not any public showing of God's power or anything like that...

if you are suppose to pray in tongues privately, it isn't always meant to be understood...
I never claimed that "every other time it happened that everyone understood it?"That is your words. You on the other hand definitively stated that tongues like at Pentecost never happened any other time. I am simply asking how you could possibly know that.

You also claimed that every other time tongues were spoken, no one understood. Again, how could you know this?

 
Speaking in tongues, as practiced by modern charismatic churches, isn't proof of anything.

The only way it would be proof of anything is if they were doing it like what happened at Pentecost.  Wonder why they don't do it that way?
wait, you mean like where everyone hears it in thier native language??? You realize that happened only once, right?Every other time it happened no one understood it (and Paul even encouraged the churches to speak in tongues PRIVATELY, so obviously us understanding it isn't hte point)
How could you possibly know that Pentecost was the only time it happened that way, or that every other time no one understood it?The answer is you can't possibly know that.
How can you possibly know that every other time it happened that everyone understood it?And I know not everytime does everyone understand, becaue Paul writes to one of the churches and says "I pray you speak in tongues daily" or something of that nature and was referring ot the people's personal prayer time, not any public showing of God's power or anything like that...

if you are suppose to pray in tongues privately, it isn't always meant to be understood...
I never claimed that "every other time it happened that everyone understood it?"That is your words. You on the other hand definitively stated that tongues like at Pentecost never happened any other time. I am simply asking how you could possibly know that.

You also claimed that every other time tongues were spoken, no one understood. Again, how could you know this?
I can't know about EVERY SINGLE TIME (and actually knwoa few times that some people understood)...and, as far as I know, everyone in the area understood in thier native language only once, I doubt that kind of miracle goes un-recognized by people that were there...

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
Sorry Commish, if you live in a desert area or you have a drought you can't get saved. Tough luck I guess. :shrug:
yes. and if you live on a desert island and can't possibly believe on Jesus' death for salvation you are damned, too...or if you live in someplace missionaries haven't been to yet, you are damned then, too... all those poeple... because God can't possibly make exceptions in places where following what He said is not possible... nope, never....

too bad those people never even had a chance just 'cuz they were born in the wrong place, that kinda sucks...
In all seriousness, I really hope that God puts someone or something in your life to teach you about His grace. Because living with your ideas about God and what it takes for salvation is going to lead to a very long and frustrating life for you. I feel bad for you LB, I really do. But it's clear to me and just about everyone else here that you have no desire to learn from anyone else. So this will be the last time I address you directly. It's just not worth my time anymore.
 
Speaking in tongues, as practiced by modern charismatic churches, isn't proof of anything.

The only way it would be proof of anything is if they were doing it like what happened at Pentecost.  Wonder why they don't do it that way?
wait, you mean like where everyone hears it in thier native language??? You realize that happened only once, right?Every other time it happened no one understood it (and Paul even encouraged the churches to speak in tongues PRIVATELY, so obviously us understanding it isn't hte point)
How could you possibly know that Pentecost was the only time it happened that way, or that every other time no one understood it?The answer is you can't possibly know that.
How can you possibly know that every other time it happened that everyone understood it?And I know not everytime does everyone understand, becaue Paul writes to one of the churches and says "I pray you speak in tongues daily" or something of that nature and was referring ot the people's personal prayer time, not any public showing of God's power or anything like that...

if you are suppose to pray in tongues privately, it isn't always meant to be understood...
I never claimed that "every other time it happened that everyone understood it?"That is your words. You on the other hand definitively stated that tongues like at Pentecost never happened any other time. I am simply asking how you could possibly know that.

You also claimed that every other time tongues were spoken, no one understood. Again, how could you know this?
I can't know about EVERY SINGLE TIME (and actually knwoa few times that some people understood)...and, as far as I know, everyone in the area understood in thier native language only once, I doubt that kind of miracle goes un-recognized by people that were there...
Okay, so you were clearly wrong to make the categorical statements that you made.Now, what was the purpose of the miracles worked by Jesus and the early church?

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
Sorry Commish, if you live in a desert area or you have a drought you can't get saved. Tough luck I guess. :shrug:
yes. and if you live on a desert island and can't possibly believe on Jesus' death for salvation you are damned, too...or if you live in someplace missionaries haven't been to yet, you are damned then, too... all those poeple... because God can't possibly make exceptions in places where following what He said is not possible... nope, never....

too bad those people never even had a chance just 'cuz they were born in the wrong place, that kinda sucks...
In all seriousness, I really hope that God puts someone or something in your life to teach you about His grace. Because living with your ideas about God and what it takes for salvation is going to lead to a very long and frustrating life for you. I feel bad for you LB, I really do. But it's clear to me and just about everyone else here that you have no desire to learn from anyone else. So this will be the last time I address you directly. It's just not worth my time anymore.
1. haven't you said that like 10 times already?2. could you please, at minimum, also refrain from the insults you decide to lob every once in a while my way, or responding to random posts of mine in sarcastic ways, if you aren't willing to try and have a civil discussion, pretend my posts don't exist, ok? Thanks...

3. I understand His grace... what you need to understand is His wrath... (which I also have some of an understanding of)...

You know, the wrath the sent the Flood and killed everything but 8 people and animals on a boat...

the wrath that sent fire down upon Soddom and Gommorah for thier sin...

the wrath that killed a couple dozen children because they made fun of a prophet...

the wrath that is going to send all those who do not follow HIs commands to hell...

yeah, that wrath... because it is real, and He meant what He told us to do...

 
Speaking in tongues, as practiced by modern charismatic churches, isn't proof of anything.

The only way it would be proof of anything is if they were doing it like what happened at Pentecost.  Wonder why they don't do it that way?
wait, you mean like where everyone hears it in thier native language??? You realize that happened only once, right?Every other time it happened no one understood it (and Paul even encouraged the churches to speak in tongues PRIVATELY, so obviously us understanding it isn't hte point)
How could you possibly know that Pentecost was the only time it happened that way, or that every other time no one understood it?The answer is you can't possibly know that.
How can you possibly know that every other time it happened that everyone understood it?And I know not everytime does everyone understand, becaue Paul writes to one of the churches and says "I pray you speak in tongues daily" or something of that nature and was referring ot the people's personal prayer time, not any public showing of God's power or anything like that...

if you are suppose to pray in tongues privately, it isn't always meant to be understood...
I never claimed that "every other time it happened that everyone understood it?"That is your words. You on the other hand definitively stated that tongues like at Pentecost never happened any other time. I am simply asking how you could possibly know that.

You also claimed that every other time tongues were spoken, no one understood. Again, how could you know this?
I can't know about EVERY SINGLE TIME (and actually knwoa few times that some people understood)...and, as far as I know, everyone in the area understood in thier native language only once, I doubt that kind of miracle goes un-recognized by people that were there...
Okay, so you were clearly wrong to make the categorical statements that you made.Now, what was the purpose of the miracles worked by Jesus and the early church?
the same as the miracles that happen in the modern church...(signs and proof that God is real... a way to reel people in and get them to listen to what you ahve to say...)

 
  what you need to understand is His wrath... (which I also have some of an understanding of)...

You know, the wrath the sent the Flood and killed everything but 8 people and animals on a boat...

the wrath that sent fire down upon Soddom and Gommorah for thier sin...

the wrath that killed a couple dozen children because they made fun of a prophet...

the wrath that is going to send all those who do not follow HIs commands to hell...

yeah, that wrath... because it is real, and He meant what He told us to do...
Have you ever met anyone from the Taliban? Your heroes are a little different but your schtick is nearly identical.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  what you need to understand is His wrath... (which I also have some of an understanding of)...

You know, the wrath the sent the Flood and killed everything but 8 people and animals on a boat...

the wrath that sent fire down upon Soddom and Gommorah for thier sin...

the wrath that killed a couple dozen children because they made fun of a prophet...

the wrath that is going to send all those who do not follow HIs commands to hell...

yeah, that wrath... because it is real, and He meant what He told us to do...
Have you ever met anyone from the Taliban? Your heroes are a little different but your schtick is nearly identical.
I'm not saying to kill people, nor am I saying we should kill people....but to pretend like God didn't ever show wrath towards man is to ignore a large part of hte Bible...

the things the Taliban do are not ok... If punishment is necessary God will do it Himself, not have us blow ourselves up in public marketplaces...

 
The prophecy of Isaiah has been debated for years.  There are two christian responses to your point about Ahez:

1. Dual prophecy.  Just like other parts of the bible, there is foreshadowing and parallels in the OT/NT.

2. Ahaz actually refused to ask for a sign from the Lord. So God gave a sign anyway, not to a King, but to a nation.  The fulfilment you discuss - I am assuming you mean 8:3-4 - is about Ahaz's wife, who was not an Amlah and did not name her son Immanual.  It was Mahershalalhashbaz. Then in 5, there is an "also" meaning a different thought, before coming back to Immanual. 5-10 is about Judgement.  Then skip to 9:6 an we are still talking about a child yet to be born, with all the God-like names, etc.

You can quote your scholars and I can quote mine.  But the point of Christianity is the testimony of the NT writers.  They are the first witnesses.  I believe in the historical validity of their testimony (and translation).

What is wrong with the NT writers benefiting from their translation.  They are making the argument for Christ, right?  They are delivering the good news - the savior is born - just as Jesus told them to do. 

They delivered the good news of Jesus and the book has been passed on.  I read the KJV.  I read it becuase of my faith?  I read it because I trust its bloodline (A 10-week course on that one). 

Seriously, why do you read the Hebrew Scriptures?  If there is nothing significant to them, other than Ahaz getting what he wants, then why read it?
Dual prophecy. Don't you see that as a copout? Quote scholars? You don't have to quote anyone. Go read it and research it for yourself, fchick. All the tools are available for your own research.

I enjoy the King James bible. I have a couple of them myself.

There are interesting articles on the KJV bible you might find... interesting.

Why do I like the Hebrew scriptures? They are original. Just like the NT is Greek. If you really want to know what a passage says, it is safer to find out what was originally written. Wouldn't you agree?

Translations are fine.. but you have opportunity for corruption, especially over time. The Hebrew scriptures are significant! They tell a terrific story of a unique body of people in our history.

By the way, Ahaz didn't really get what he bargained for. He was a terrible king in Judah. He was stubborn and didn't find much favor in God. But, he was king of God's chosen people, so Isaiah basically said "Dammit, you will receive help eve if you don't want it... and here's a sign from God verifying it".

Ahaz's son was better. But the line turned wicked again later.

Even the tool, The king of Assyria, that God used to destroy the Kings of Northern Israel, got his come-up-n's a little later in the chapter... for being a little too big for his britches. God punished him too in the story.

edit to add:

What is wrong with the NT writers benefiting from their translation. They are making the argument for Christ, right?
well, if the translation is incorrect.. moreso if it was intentionally translated incorrect, they are making the argument for Christ with wrongful pretences. Is that still ok? I guess it is if you are trying to persuade readers he is supernatural... but if it isn't true, then what?
By the way, Christian pillow fight was funny..... Although you might enjoy it, I'm embarrassed. I hope Seahawk finds some other way than this website to meet God.Anyway, I don't see a dual prophecy as a cop-out. I think the OT/NT are an integrated whole, and as such, the parallels between the OT heroes (Job, David, etc) and the whole nation Israel to Christ and his church are very striking.

Which then leads to your whole point? Did the NT writers do this on purpose?

I say, yes, sort of. But I don't see the problem. I agree that it would be a HUGE problem for Christianity if Matthew intentionally shaded his testimony to make it more convincing. But I find that argument quite duplicitous.

Is in not simpler to suggest that those that were closest to Jesus (God on earth) knew how to interpret/translate the OT? The NT writers gave meaning to the OT texts that weren't easily apparent before based on their knowledge of the life and message of Jesus. Further, they give meaning to the texts 2000 years later when time and translation issues can arise. Isn't it likely that our understanding of Hebrew language today is different than theirs - at the time and place?

Your dismissing the NT writers (their prophecy fulfillment claims) because you don't believe them. That's ok. I do. But I hear you saying, liars (my word) on top of it. I'm not offended, but still, can't you just call them ignorant/crazy/blind instead? Why do they have to have bad intentions in their mistranslations?

Given your strong perception abilities, I am sure that you picked up the obvious flaw in the second paragraph up. If I argue that the NT writers could translate Hebrew to Greek better than you can understand Hebrew in today's English, then why am I not reading the Greek?

For the same reason I don't read Hebrew. I understand English. To me, it is natural. Even if I learned to read Hebrew/Greek, I would still "hear" in English. God talks to me in English.

You and I agree on two things very strongly. One, read the whole text. Two, read it for yourself. I brought up the scholar issue, because this is how I usually hear these arguments. "Dr. Smoopypants says the bible was corrupted", etc.. Then, the Christian scholars have to rebut. And off we go..

My comment about scholars was supposed to be dismissive of them as well. I noticed that you were well-versed in many books that make dismissive claims about the bible, so I assumed that you were one of those people that actually never read the bible, only its criticisms. I see now that you have come to your beliefs through a high-powered knowledge of the bible. I apologize for my misunderstanding of the underpinnings of your beliefs.

I see that your positions are not through ignorance, but through intellectual study. Impressive.

Where we clearly disagree is that I should read the texts in Hebrew or read articles on the KJV. Because of your background, I am sure you can figure our why I trust the KJV. It's pure English. It has not changed in 400+ years. It was translated by believers (fewer scholars). And most importantly, it has a literal bloodline. People have died to put that book in my hand. That is significant in my opinion.

(Please, brothers in Christ, let's not argue about versions of the bible. If you hear God in your prayerful study of the NIV or Catholic bible, I have no quarrel. Amen.)

But a man has to draw a line somewhere. What is the bottom line? What is the rock, which drives my understanding of everything else? Where is my foundation in which I choose to live my life? Who is my authority?

For me, it is the KJV bible. I am not ignorant of what some claim are its faults. I am not ignorant of the Hebrew texts. I am not ignorant of the "logical" problems of God/Satan/Resurrection, etc.

So then, you ask, do I choose not to subject myself to questions and doubts about my most fundamental beliefs? Do I really choose to close my fertile mind? Indeed, I do. So I can open my heart to Christ.

Two last questions for Jayrock. You believe in God (or supreme being), but not Satan. Do you find it odd that a Christian claims, you have to believe in God in order to meet him, but you don't have to believe in Satan to have him dwell in you? Two, Do you ever fear that Satan simply found your weakness - your intellectual prowess?

 
Hey Jayrock, what exactly about dual (or I guess multiple would probably be a better way to put it) prophecy is unreasonable that would make you say it's a cop out?

 
fightingchick said:
By the way, Christian pillow fight was funny.....  Although you might enjoy it, I'm embarrassed.  I hope Seahawk finds some other way than this website to meet God.First off, fchick. Kudos to you for a well thought out, eloquent post. I find your thoughts sincere and appreciate your tone. christian are like any other humans... they are prideful and will argue to defend that which they believe. As for Seahawk, the bible says seek and you shall find. If the God of the bible is true, and Seahawk is sincerely seeking him.. he will find him. If he follows logic and sticks to reason, he may not find the same God you found. I do believe there is a leap that must be made into faith for the christian God. If you try to reason him out, you may find yourself frustrated.

Anyway, I don't see a dual prophecy as a cop-out.  I think the OT/NT are an integrated whole, and as such, the parallels between the OT heroes (Job, David, etc) and the whole nation Israel to Christ and his church are very striking.cop-out may have been too strong a word. It's difficult to put into writing how I feel about certain things. I'll come back to it.
Code:
[b]Which then leads to your whole point? Did the NT writers do this on purpose[/b]?
The NT writers often referred to OT scripture to feed to the main character or events. It is almost Universally accepted among scholarship that Mark was written first. Matthew and Luke used Mark's work to write their own version of the story.I do not believe it was Mark's intention have his book read as real history. I believe he was writing a story in the tradition of the class of authors present in the first century AD and before. Greek philosophy and works such as Homer's famous epics were the classics of the day. There weren't many educated authors walking around during the days of Jesus. The entire region was Hellenized and those that did get training received this training in the tradition of Greek philosophy. It was normal during the day to select a Heroic epic, and contstruct a new story based on these greek classics. I believe Mark did this and his Hero was Jesus. He had the theme of writing on his side, and his hero had many people to compare to. There are parallels with Homer's classic Epics (Illiad and Odyssey) and also several comparisons with Jesus to Elijah and Elisha.

The author of Mark had many things to choose from to make the story. Some of the things Jesus did had already been done in stories of the OT, with heroes like Elijah and Elisha.

The end of Mark's original story had the women go into the Tomb and be told Jesus wasn't there. They were so afraid they ran out, fled, and told no one.

This was the conclusion of the Original Mark. This is another reason why we have conflicting resurrection accounts in Matthew and John. They didn't have Mark to lean on. So their stories differ. The church (or someone) comes along later and adds the ending we have today, onto the ending of Mark. I presume this is done to go more along with how the women are described in the other gospels.

Did the NT writers pick bits of the OT on purpose? sure. What Mark (and likely Q) didn't provide they needed to pull elsewhere.

There was no flight into Egypt for Joseph and Mary.

There was no slaughter of the innocents at the hands of King Herod. Josephus was the premiere historian of the day. He was a Jewish military leader and writer when he was captured by the Romans in the Jewish/Roman war. He became employed by the romans and wrote his famous "Antiquities" during the first century. He often had terrible things to say about King Herod, who was viewed by the Romans as a puppet king in Judea. Course he never mentions Herod ordering the destruction of all the babies in Bethlehem and all the coasts thereof. He would have loved to write something evil that Herod did.

The only reason Matthew does it is to slip in a prophecy he thought might apply. So yeah, to an extent, Matthew script-mined stuff from the old Testament to bolster his story.

Is in not simpler to suggest that those that were closest to Jesus (God on earth) knew how to interpret/translate the OT?Just by reading the gospels, you can quickly see that those who surrounded Jesus weren't very smart on the scriptures. Jesus even said as much. They were fishermen. None of them could read or write I'd bet. Why would they? Fishermen weren't normally sent to schools.Jesus himself called them on more than one occasion about them not understanding what he was talking about. Take Luke 18:31-34 --

31Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33On the third day he will rise again."

34The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

Those around Jesus didn't even know what he was talking about. These people did not know Hebrew scriptures except for what they might have heard spoken in synogogues growing up.

So how could those around him interpret OT Scripture?

But I actually have a question for Jesus on this verse, where it says on the third day the son of man will rise again. Where in the OT does it say the messiah will die, then be resurrected on the third day?

Also, remember these were Hellenized Jews. The priests and synagogue keepers likely knew Hebrew scripture in the original language. But many of the other Jews might not have even been able to read Hebrew. The Hebrew bible was translated by Greek-speaking Jews in the first couple of centuries BCE. Any scripture that the gospel writers used was probably taken from this copy of the Hebrew scriptures. This is known as the LXX, or better known as the Septuagint.

Isn't it likely that our understanding of Hebrew language today is different than theirs - at the time and place?could be. I doubt the NT writers knew or spoke Hebrew. They wrote in Greek.
Code:
[b]Your dismissing the NT writers (their prophecy fulfillment claims) because you don't believe them.  That's ok.  I do.  But I hear you saying, liars (my word) on top of it.  I'm not offended, but still, can't you just call them ignorant/crazy/blind instead?  Why do they have to have bad intentions in their mistranslations[/b]?
ok, I retract calling anyone liar, if I did. I want to follow up this in a new post. I'll address it to you.
Code:
[b]If I argue that the NT writers could translate Hebrew to Greek better than you can understand Hebrew in today's English, then why am I not reading the Greek[/b]?
I don't know. Can you read Greek? But the NT writers didn't have to translate Hebrew to Greek. It was already done for them via the LXX. It's a jewish translation of the Hebrew bible to Greek well before the NT writers were born.
Code:
[b]For the same reason I don't read Hebrew.  I understand English.  To me, it is natural. Even if I learned to read Hebrew/Greek, I would still "hear" in English.  God talks to me in English[/b].
I understand.
Code:
[b]You and I agree on two things very strongly.  One, read the whole text. Two, read it for yourself.  I brought up the scholar issue, because this is how I usually hear these arguments.  "Dr. Smoopypants says the bible was corrupted", etc..  Then, the Christian scholars have to rebut. And off we go[/b]..
Yeah. I've read lots of arguments from both sides of an issue. Sometimes one side is more compelling than the other. And it goes both ways.
Code:
My comment about scholars was supposed to be dismissive of them as well.  I noticed that you were well-versed in many books that make dismissive claims about the bible, so I assumed that you were one of those people that actually never read the bible, only its criticisms. I see now that you have come to your beliefs through a high-powered knowledge of the bible.  I apologize for my misunderstanding of the underpinnings of your beliefs[/b].
no worries. I was a christian for a long time. It was when I began studying the bible in earnest that I began to have questions about it. Ironic that. I once was happy in what I was learning in sunday school and living under the umbrella of my brand of faith.
Code:
[b]I see that your positions are not through ignorance, but through intellectual study. Impressive[/b].
Thank you. That's a nice thing to say. Be assured that I won't just babble about because I read something on some website like "SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com"Most of the trivial discrepancies, like these types of skeptics find, don't bother me.

Who cares how many women were at the tomb and if it was still dark or not. Those aren't contradictions. Those are just different perspectives and aren't important. There are deeper issues than that to call into question.

Where we clearly disagree is that I should read the texts in Hebrew or read articles on the KJV.  Because of your background, I am sure you can figure our why I trust the KJV.  It's pure English. It has not changed in 400+ years.  It was translated by believers (fewer scholars).  And most importantly, it has a literal bloodline.  People have died to put that book in my hand.  That is significant in my opinion.The fact that it was translated by believers doesn't bother you at all? I'd rather it be translated by a disinterested party. I grew up in a KJV only household. My father still only uses this version and probably wouldn't even let another translation into his house.

(Please, brothers in Christ, let's not argue about versions of the bible.  If you hear God in your prayerful study of the NIV or Catholic bible, I have no quarrel.  Amen.) ;) maybe a good idea. We don't want to open that can of worms.
Code:
[b]But a man has to draw a line somewhere. What is the bottom line? What is the rock, which drives my understanding of everything else?  Where is my foundation in which I choose to live my life? Who is my authority?For me, it is the KJV bible.   I am not ignorant of what some claim are its faults.  I am not ignorant of the Hebrew texts.  I am not ignorant of the "logical" problems of God/Satan/Resurrection, etc[/b].  
cool.
Code:
[b]So then, you ask, do I choose not to subject myself to questions and doubts about my most fundamental beliefs?  Do I really choose to close my fertile mind?  Indeed, I do. So I can open my heart to Christ[/b].
Like I said at the beginning... to open your heart to Christ means you sometimes have to close your mind. Nothing wrong with holding onto beliefs. I commend you for it. My wife does the same. She doesn't want to know any of the details, she believes Jesus is real and he lives within her. And that's ok with her, the rest is just smoke and mirrors. She believes Jesus is there.

Two last questions for Jayrock.  You believe in God (or supreme being), but not Satan. Do you find it odd that a Christian claims, you have to believe in God in order to meet him, but you don't have to believe in Satan to have him dwell in you?  Two, Do you ever fear that Satan simply found your weakness - your intellectual prowess?1. I said I believe there is a possibility of a supreme God. I don't know. I'm more agnostic about that. Satan is a fictional character created to balance a story of good vs evil.

Would it interest you to know that the early OT writers didn't believe in any place called "hell" or a Satan that was the devil? Satan, in the OT, was just another one of God's servants. He was the accuser. He did nothing that didn't have the blessing of God first. We see Satan in "Job" and when he accuses Joshua. I do not believe the serpent in the garden was satan, BTW. Satan, somehow evolved over time through the bible.

The concept of the great stuggle between good and evil first entered Judaism during their exile. The persian religion of "Zoroastrianism" had a profound influence on the exilic writers. King Cyrus, who conquered babylon and later returned the Jews to Jerusalem practiced this religion.

Judaism and Christianity both were greatly influenced by this religion. You can google it to find out a great deal. Post exilic Jews were transformed. The idea of Hell, eternal punishment, lakes of fire, demons, etc.. came from Zoroastrianism.

2. Did Satan find my weakness? Why would satan care about me? he isn't omnipresent like God. Seems there are bigger fish to fry than me.

I find the concept of Satan as Devil to be incoherent. If you believe in original sin, then everyone is destined to hell and eternal punishment simply for being born. Satan doesn't have to do anything to influence them. Jesus said no one could pluck his believers out of his hand... so satan would know he couldn't take a christian away from Jesus. So what's he to do?

Satan is depicted in the NT to be somewhat a moron, IMO. If the Hebrew scriptures truly did point to Jesus as the final lamb of sacrifice for all mankind, then Satan knew this, right? Surely the lord of darkness understood the scriptures, right? If the OT tells of Jesus dying on a cross, etc... why is Satan wasting his time tempting Jesus in the Desert... Why wouldn't he just persuade one of the Jewish authorities to have Jesus stabbed in his sleep? or something.

If he knew Jesus was special, why didn't he tell King Herod that the child went to Egypt, and he could wait for him in Nazareth? There were any number of ways satan could have prevented Jesus from making it to the cross. I know, I know... God's plan.

The thing with satan and demons, etc.. I don't understand the demon possession thing. Why would Satan possess someone, when all that would do is show that he does really exist? I can't see satan wanting to prove he exists.. it might turn folks to God if they really saw or felt satan. If he remains silent, they have a better chance of staying away from God. Yet the NT is littered with demon possessions and open exorcisms. The whole thing is silly.

Sorry for the length, thanks for the discussion.

Not sure what is wrong with the quotes here. I put what you said in code.

sorry.. :bag:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote posted by fightingchick:

Your dismissing the NT writers (their prophecy fulfillment claims) because you don't believe them.  That's ok.  I do.  But I hear you saying, liars (my word) on top of it.  I'm not offended, but still, can't you just call them ignorant/crazy/blind instead?
NT writers Ignorant/blind? As I mentioned before, I believe Mark was simply telling a story. I don't think the author of Mark necessarily knew the Hebrew scriptures very well. For instance, let's look at Mark 2:23-26:23One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. 24The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

25He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

As the story goes, Jesus and his men were walking through grainfields and picking some of the grain heads on the sabbath.. which was unlawful to do.

When he was questioned on it, Jesus said "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

He was speaking of the time David fled for his life from King Saul. This story Jesus is referring to is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6.

There are two things wrong with this story, bolded above.

1. Abiather was not the high priest when David came to get food. The high priest was Ahimelech. He was Abiather's father, but Abiather was a boy during this time and not the high priest.

2. David was alone. There were no men or companions with him.

If you read the story in 1 samuel, David fled from Saul, who was plotting to kill him. Saul's son helped David escape. David lied to Ahimelech about the men with him. He told him they were waiting for him in a secret place. He also lied about his purpose there. He told the priest he was on a mission for King Saul. David was hungry and needed food. He made up the other companions so he could get as much food as possible for his journey.

So what's the big deal? Well, if the story in Mark is true, then Jesus either lied about David's adventure, or he was mistaken about what David's adventure with the priest and the bread.

Jesus can't lie, right? But how could Jesus not know the real story of this part of David's story? He is God and David was one after his own heart.

But of course there is another alternative. The author of Mark, who penned this as Jesus saying these things... simply got it wrong.

This author probably didn't read Hebrew... or he was apparently so superficially knowledgeable in this Old Testament story of David's flight that he thought the men whom David had fabricated were real and had also eaten the bread.

What about the other NT writers? More evidence that Matthew and Luke used Mark's story to write theres... They got it wrong too.

Matthew 12:3-4: He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?

Luke 6:3-4: Jesus answering them said, "Have you not even read this, what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he went into the house of God, took and ate the showbread, and also gave some to those with him, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat?

John omitts the story altogether.

So three inspired writers made the same mistake and gave companions to David when none were with him. Furthermore, they had the omniscient Jesus, through whom the world was created, saying that companions were with David, whereas the context of 1 Samuel 20 and 21 make it clear that David was alone on his flight and fabricated companions in order to get help from the priest, Ahimelech. If the author of Mark ever read this story, he must have read it so superficially that he didn't understand that David had merely made up a contingent of men waiting in an appointed place so that his lie about a secret mission would seem credible to the priest.

Matthew and Luke, in using Mark as their source, repeated the mistake.

So, were they ignorant, blind? They were telling a story as best they could. Sometimes when they consulted the Hebrew scriptures... they put their foots in their mouths. These writers were men.

Men make mistakes. But does the Holy Spirit? I would hope not.. so a logical explanation is that these men really weren't inspired by any Holy Spirit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are two things wrong with this story, bolded above. 1. Abiather was not the high priest when David came to get food. The high priest was Ahimelech. He was Abiather's father, but Abiather was a boy during this time and not the high priest. 2. David was alone. There were no men or companions with him. If you read the story in 1 samuel, David fled from Saul, who was plotting to kill him. Saul's son helped David escape. David lied to Ahimelech about the men with him. He told him they were waiting for him in a secret place. He also lied about his purpose there. He told the priest he was on a mission for King Saul. David was hungry and needed food. He made up the other companions so he could get as much food as possible for his journey.
I have read the story in depth; I cannot find evidence for your claim that David was simply hungry and wanted extra bread. I agree that David was lying about his mission, but why was he lying about his men? His presentation to Ahimelech that he was alone may have been the lie, then he was forced to fess up when he realized he needed more food. He was not alone in the previous chapter and he was not alone in the next chapter. In fact, his numbers grow. The fact that three NT writers then confirm that the normal read of the paragraph is that he is not alone only bolsters that case – I would never assume they just made a mistake. As far as Ahimelech goes, I agree that David first went to his house, but later in the chapter, Abiathar escapes and flees with David after Saul has his entire family killed. It was Abiathar than stayed with David from that point forward. So, again, I don’t see a problem as referring to these days as “the days of Abiathar” (as quoted in the KJV).Is this odd? Sure. It would have been just easier to say nothing about the “times” or about the companions. But where you see mistake, I see meaning. This is from 1 Samual 2:22Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 23And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 24Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the LORD's people to transgress. 25If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the LORD would slay them. 31Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house. 32And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever. 33And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. 34And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them. 35And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever. To me, there is a lot going on here. The man of God that came to Eli with this prophecy was predicting what would happen to Ahimelech’s house for the sins of Eli’s sons. There shall not be an old man in thine house (Ahimlech). “I will raise me up a faithful priest… and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.” This has dual meaning (in addition to what it might be saying about Samuel). Abiathar will walk with David and Jesus will walk with his church.Jesus was bringing this to the attention of the priests of his day. He said, and it was recorded, Abiathar on purpose.
 
The fact that it was translated by believers doesn't bother you at all? I'd rather it be translated by a disinterested party.
I had to laugh when I read this, since what I am going to say next either means you are naïve or I am paranoid:“There is no such thing as a disinterested party” – Fchik.. This may become my quote….Honestly, a DIS interested party doesn’t pay attention enough to get it right. A police officer in a traffic accident is a disinterested party. How often are the facts right? However, if they are honest, the parties in the accident DID actually see it the way they report it. “if they are honest” is my point. So yeah, I believe in the inherent honesty of believers. The NT writers didn’t make mistakes in the way you see them. The accurately recorded the good news of Jesus as they heard it. If you find a “mistake,” I find meaning. And the KJV translators were true believers. They needed to translate the good news into English. They used the accurate words. I think there is more than enough evidence of this.
 
I do not believe it was Mark's intention have his book read as real history.
I quote this as just one sample. Doesn’t this speak to the issue of Faith? I think you believe that my “faith” gets in the way of my rational thought. I clearly disagree. I believe we both have to have a little “faith.” We approach the bible differently. If you believe that Mark’s intention was to write a story, nothing in his “story” is going to convince you of the Good News of Jesus.You interpret the bible with your “belief” that Mark wrote a story.I interpret the bible with my “faith” that Mark was delivering the Good News of Jesus.I make no more leaps than you.
 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...
Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you. :shrug:
 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...
Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you. :shrug:
you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...

 
Men make mistakes. But does the Holy Spirit? I would hope not.. so a logical explanation is that these men really weren't inspired by any Holy Spirit
By the way, don’t apologize for the length of the posts. So much good stuff in here, since we ditched the pillowfight (man, I’m still laughing about that one). I just had to choose a few to scope down my thoughts. Feel free to bring something else back up if I missed it… On this quote here, I didn’t really want to get into this one, because I am not sure I know what I am talking about on this point - That is the inspired/inerrant debate. But I couldn’t let it go. There is no question about where my loyalty is – the KJV bible and its inherent Truth. Does that mean that God penned it, through the Holy Spirit, through a human author? Is that the point of the bible? I don’t think so. If God wanted to do that, he could have done it a lot more efficiently, it seems. I just think it is simpler than that:God created people. Occasionally, he talks to them. He has them write some stuff down. He comes down here and shows us a couple things. He gives us signs and miracles, and prophets and saviors and holy men and woman, and a conscience, and on and on. He can’t make us do anything – because he chooses not to. A forced relationship is not a meaningful one. But he has plenty of leads for us to come to him. When we do, he gives us a manual – a bible, if you will, in our language. One that WE can read, one that WE can hear, one that WE can share. He tells us that many will try to discredit it and take it out of our hands. Don’t let them do it…When I read the bible, that is how I hear it. Human beings are spreading the Truth about the greatness of God, and that activity is directed by God. I just don’t think you should parse that too specifically. The bible doesn’t. In the bible, God communicates in everyway possible – literally, historically, allegorically, through burning bushes, through prophets, through his Son, through himself, poetically, through letter writers, through kings, through murders and adulterers, figuratively, symbolically. It a simple message, spread in every way possible to reach all people. I think that people who find contradictions either ignore or have not yet found the way they bible speaks to them. The bible is presented as Truth. It is up to you to accept or reject it.
 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...
Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you. :shrug:
you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...
There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...
Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you. :shrug:
you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...
There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.
When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?

 
Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?
Oh, you mean humans?Please Larry... your beliefs re: the Bible, on religion in general, on God, are no more legitimate or "correct" than anyone elses. Stop acting as if you know the truth, without any question, and everyone else is wrong. That is the very hubris at the heart of why religion becomes so devisive and such a negative force in our lives.
 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...
Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you. :shrug:
you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...
There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.
When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?
Then this is documented some place....show me. It's pretty simple. Just a warning though...you are treading on the conspiracy theorist line here. I am not sure what Dogma you are speaking of as I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and the only thing that I have to go on is the Bible. With that said, I am STILL WAITING on the scripture in the Bible that says the right and wrong way to observe Baptism. This is the FOURTH time I have asked. I will take that scripture or the pages erased (per your insinuation) that prove what you are talking about. I have not found any documents given forth by the Holy Catholic Church that would support your argument...that's what I have a problem with.
 
Basically, I believe that there is a Supreme God who created the universe. I don't think human life is a random event.
Sorry I missed this one dwashington.ok. I won't argue with that. There may indeed be a supreme being out there somewhere. I don't know.

Obviously you have studied Scriptures, religions, archaelogoy much more in depth than I have, as is demonstrated by your superior breadth of knowledge of Biblical history and context, but at some point you just couldn't make that leap.
I was an evangelical christian for over 20 years. I made the leap at a young age and trusted that this supreme being you mentioned was the one in the bible. While I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that a supreme being exists, I don't believe he/she is the one described in the Bible. Maybe this being is hand's off? See: Deism.

Because I believe in one Supreme God who is Lord of us all, I also believe in the powers of evil who are going to do everything in their power to make us deny God exists and instead fall into idol worship (i.e. placing all of our faith in human intellect).
I don't believe in Satan or a fallen angel who was so influencial that he convinced 1/3 of the angels to fall with him. It doesn't make sense. Satan is made out to be the dumbest character in the bible. He lived with God and knew that God was all powerful.. yet he still rebelled against him thinking he was better. Sin began in heaven. Satan must've had free will since he chose to leave God. Maybe he was created with sin. He had feelings and with free will, there must have been two things (one right one wrong) to choose from in all decisions. God created the devil and he knew what God was.. yet he still rebelled. What made God think humans would do any better?

Maybe the Devil knew something we don't.. or he was just an idiot.. or maybe it is all just a story.

And just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean that there aren't others who made that leap (maybe not on the first jump) and have placed their faith in God's Word.
of course. Nothing wrong with that either.
You make a lot of strong arguments against Jesus being the Son, and against the Scriptures being God's Word, but have you made any suggestions/comments to an alternative?
alternative for what?
Do you realize how many people are barely holding on in life solely because of the faith that they have in God?

I dunno..I don't understand your motives.
Of course I understand many people have faith in God. If that faith keeps them going, great. I'd bet that any faith that they might have in a stuffed animal would result in them feeling the very same way they do now. There are many Muslims and people of any number of other faiths that are clinging to life with only their faith that keeps them going.

My motives? I enjoy talking the bible.

Would you keep your faith in God as the supreme creator if it turned out that he/she really isn't the God who is described in the Bible?
Oh okay..I have a better understanding of where you're coming from now. You're kinda like a modern day Thomas Paine eh? It's all good Jayrok, I enjoy talking Bible too, I've actually learned a lot from this forum and I finished Misquoting Jesus this weekend and it was pretty interesting.

But despite all of the 'changes' that were made to the New Testament via error or direct intention, I still think it's the key to the gateway of understanding God's plan for man.

I picked it up as an Agnostic, but once I read all of it, and what it's instructing mankind to do, I was convicted. On top of that, there's been too many miracles in my life (directly and indirectly) for me to think that this is all a random excursion.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist and I'm not smart enough to try and live my life completely off my own understanding. So thus, I lean on the Bible for my lamp and my hope.

Of course, I know a lot of people laugh at Christians (i.e. the pillowfight going on in here), but at the same time, if whatever you're doing is bringing you peace and fulfillment and allowing you to sleep good at night, then I guess that's where you should be.

So do you believe the Old Testament to be God inspired or do you think the entire Bible is a collection of stories, kinda like the Iliad or Odyssey?

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...
Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you. :shrug:
you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...
There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.
When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?
Then this is documented some place....show me. It's pretty simple. Just a warning though...you are treading on the conspiracy theorist line here. I am not sure what Dogma you are speaking of as I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and the only thing that I have to go on is the Bible. With that said, I am STILL WAITING on the scripture in the Bible that says the right and wrong way to observe Baptism. This is the FOURTH time I have asked. I will take that scripture or the pages erased (per your insinuation) that prove what you are talking about. I have not found any documents given forth by the Holy Catholic Church that would support your argument...that's what I have a problem with.
the Bible tells us what is the right and wrong baptism in a few ways...1. The word used had nothign to do with a sacrament of the same name and was simply saying, in thier language, "dunk them in Jesus' name"

2. The Apostles state that htere is only "one baptism" and that's it... ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism")

3. historically, Biblically, and in any other way that we can ever find, baptism was ALWAYS done by emersion in Jesus name until well after Jesus' death (read: 500+ years)

there ARE conspiracy theories... I've documented that Matthew 28:19 was edited to "prove" the new wording the Catholics adopted centuries after Jesus' death... they cahnged it from emersion to sprinkling at about the same time, that is history...

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html

both those sites talk about baptism and/or Matthew 28:19 and it being edited...

the part of the Bible that was "erased" that shows us how to baptize correctly is the actual word used by Jesus & Peter & Paul. See, the church made a "sacrament" that used the exact same word as its name, thus the meaning of the word was eliminated, it no longer menat that, now it meant a "sacrament".

The only problem is that the sacrament is not what was done by the original church, and we all know that...

And as far as dogma goes, whether you like it or not you are following dogma when you sprinkle at baptism or baptize in the titles, because both fo those beliefs originated as Catholic dogma before they edited them into the Bible...

 
I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?
Don't you think it's dangerous to behave like the Pharisees?
yes, Spock, your phariseutical behavior where you forget about God in favor of tradition is bad...
I want to :lmao: , but this is just sad. You do realize that the self rigtheousness of the Pharisees was based on their assumption that following the strict letter of the law as much as possible put one in good standing with God, yes? And that Jesus many times said that the Pharisees, who's behavior followed the law strictly, have missed the boat?

Do the Pharisees sound more like a Christian who believes God will save all those who believe in Him, or a Christian who believes God will save only those who have followed His commands strictly?

 
I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?
Don't you think it's dangerous to behave like the Pharisees?
yes, Spock, your phariseutical behavior where you forget about God in favor of tradition is bad...
I want to :lmao: , but this is just sad. You do realize that the self rigtheousness of the Pharisees was based on their assumption that following the strict letter of the law as much as possible put one in good standing with God, yes? And that Jesus many times said that the Pharisees, who's behavior followed the law strictly, have missed the boat?

Do the Pharisees sound more like a Christian who believes God will save all those who believe in Him, or a Christian who believes God will save only those who have followed His commands strictly?
You realize you are wrong, right?Jesus didn't get on the Pharisees because they followed the Law, following the Law is GOOD... Heck, I'd say any Chrisitan who decided to, themselves, follow the entire law would be doing a good thing today...

The Pharisees were bad because they ADDED to the law, because they added thier own interpretations and traditions on top of the law and followed those. They were more worried about looking righteous to the people rather than doing right before God...

I don't say we should be emersed at baptism so people can see me get dunked and be wet, I say it because God commanded it, what I am doing is NOTHING like what the pharisees did...

You, however, are sticking to your own later interpretation of the command and tradition that is related to the command rather than obeying God's actual command itself. That, my friend, is exactly what Jesus told the pharisees they were wrong for doing...

 
Just some very minor research here on the actual word as used throughout the Bible...I am interested on your thoughts here LB:

Reference #1:

Daniel 4:23 in the Septuagint, it says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Refrence #2:

Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

Reference #3:

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

There are others....but the main thing I wanted to illustrate was your argument based on technicalities....like I said before, it better be able to be applied throughout the scripture if you want anyone to begin to believe what you are saying is valid.

I REALLY would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Daniel would be a Hebrew word, not a Greek one... about Hebrews, The Greek used "baptizing" 'cuz it can mean washing, too...

also, did you look in the Greek and see that those used "baptizo" or did you go by when the English says "baptized"?? Because they aren't the same... sometimes "baptismo" and "bapto" are translated to "baptized" in English...

Also, history tells us the early church emmersed all people who were baptized and that it wasn't changed until ~ the 10th century....

So, with that being true, why did they change it? (I've asked this a few times, never really gotten an asnwer)...

what do you think? What was the purpose for changing it? Is changing it making it a different baptism? (remember, Acts says "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism"...)
My personal belief is that they understood it was the act and not the technical functions behind it that were important. Another completely feasible reason would be that it was adapted to environments that wouldn't allow complete submerssion. There are places in this world that water is so sparce that a full submerssion just isn't feasible. Do you think God would tell people this is what you are suppose to do and how you are suppose to do it, and then not provide them with a means to do so? I don't.
the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...
Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you. :shrug:
you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...
There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.
When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?
Then this is documented some place....show me. It's pretty simple. Just a warning though...you are treading on the conspiracy theorist line here. I am not sure what Dogma you are speaking of as I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and the only thing that I have to go on is the Bible. With that said, I am STILL WAITING on the scripture in the Bible that says the right and wrong way to observe Baptism. This is the FOURTH time I have asked. I will take that scripture or the pages erased (per your insinuation) that prove what you are talking about. I have not found any documents given forth by the Holy Catholic Church that would support your argument...that's what I have a problem with.
the Bible tells us what is the right and wrong baptism in a few ways...1. The word used had nothign to do with a sacrament of the same name and was simply saying, in thier language, "dunk them in Jesus' name"

2. The Apostles state that htere is only "one baptism" and that's it... ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism")

3. historically, Biblically, and in any other way that we can ever find, baptism was ALWAYS done by emersion in Jesus name until well after Jesus' death (read: 500+ years)

there ARE conspiracy theories... I've documented that Matthew 28:19 was edited to "prove" the new wording the Catholics adopted centuries after Jesus' death... they cahnged it from emersion to sprinkling at about the same time, that is history...

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html

both those sites talk about baptism and/or Matthew 28:19 and it being edited...

the part of the Bible that was "erased" that shows us how to baptize correctly is the actual word used by Jesus & Peter & Paul. See, the church made a "sacrament" that used the exact same word as its name, thus the meaning of the word was eliminated, it no longer menat that, now it meant a "sacrament".

The only problem is that the sacrament is not what was done by the original church, and we all know that...

And as far as dogma goes, whether you like it or not you are following dogma when you sprinkle at baptism or baptize in the titles, because both fo those beliefs originated as Catholic dogma before they edited them into the Bible...
I'll say it one more time.....I don't see anything in the Holy Catholic Church that would indicate you are correct. What part of that don't you understand? If you are correct, and I am not saying you are wrong, there would be evidence in the Holy Catholic Church doctrine, right? Show it to me.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top