The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[CrossEyed]

So what denomination are you guys?

LB?

Spock?

Just curious.

Grace Brethren.

FGBC or CGBCI?

 

[larry_boy_44]

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?

Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

maybe, but then the question is why didn't he preach that when he came across non-believers... He even preached a different message when he came to "Believers"...Look at when he comes to followers of John in Acts 19, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, they knew he died and rose again, but yet Paul asked them if they'd recieved the Holy Ghost, they said they dind't know it had come yet, and he then baptized them in Jesus' name and they were filled with the Holy Ghost...

that isn't even close to being similar to what was said in Romans...

Where do you see this? Disciple means learner or follower. There's no way we can know what these men believed. Not all disciples were saved. John 6:66 says that many of Jesus' disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. Disciple <> Christian.

you can tell by how Paul talked to them... He didn't ask if they didn't believe, he asked if they'd recieved the Comforter, those who dont' believe don't get filled with the Spirit...

Exactly. And the fact that they didn't have the Holy Spirit shows that they didn't believe because everyone who believes recieves the Spirit. And before you reply, please read Romans 8.

before you reply, please read the entire book of Acts where people didn't recieve the spirit instantly upon belief...If they didn't believe Paul wouldn't have asked them what he did like he did....

Look at Acts 10... The Jews wanted to deny the Gentiles baptism because they didn't believe Gentiles could be converted... What changed thier opinion? The Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit... what does this show? that infilling of the Holy Spirit IS NOT upon belief since the early church usually baptized people before they were filled with the Spirit...

Larry, every once in a while you might try to actually read what the poster is referring to before you reply. And you might want to consider doing a little less teaching and a little more reading. Your understanding of Scripture falls far short of your zeal for Scripture.

really? Why not instead of back-handed insults, you actually try and tell me what I said that shows I don't understand Scripture??all through the Book of Acts (you know, when people were actually filled with the Holy Spirit) people did not recieve the infilling of the Holy Spirit immediately upon belief...

so, please, Cross, educate me...

 

[Koya]

Another thread is LarryBoyed

I'd like to sit in on one of the study classes or sermons in Larry's church. I bet there are a lot of "amens" and "right ons". It would be entertaining.

I wonder if Larry realized how much he pushes many people away from the very thing(s) he holds sacred.

I guess he doesnt care. Must be more important to him to hear himself speak (type) than foster either understanding, or spread his gospel in a way to embrace others and not push them away.

I want to spread the gospel, I am just fully aware of when it is usleess to try and spread it because it won't spread no matter what you do... this is one of those places...

Yet, here you are.

 

[Politician Spock]

its not that a non-believer can get absolutely nothing from it, it is just dangerous when you get your doctrine about the plan of salvation from a letter that was written exclusively to people who were already saved... It is unlikely Paul would tell them, again, how to be saved, when he had already done so...

"Exclusively", "Specifically", etc, etc.... can't you see how your argument is based on assumptions? How are you logically concluding that the word Jesus is specifically needed when it's the authority of Jesus we are baptized under. How are you logically concluding that Pauls letters were written exclusively to people who were already saved when it's applicable to non-believers? Your arguments can't hold water without estabilishing things such as "Exclusively" and "Specifically" which are conclussions that are not logical.

its not that it is completely in-applicable, it is that you need to be careful what level you apply it... saying that the entirety of how one gets saved is in Romans, and not Acts, where there are actually sermons to non-believers is non-sensical... Shouldn't we look to where there is an audience of non-believers and not to where there is an audience of believers for how one gets saved?

The entirety of how one gets saved is no more in Romans than it is in Acts. The entirety of how one gets saved is in the Bible. Saying the entirety of salvation is just in Romans or just in Acts is not only "picking and choosing" but it creates contradictions with other parts of the Bible. Did people in Acts bet baptized immediately after believing? Yes. Does that make it a requirement of salvation? No, because it would contradict other parts of the Bible. Don't pick and choose Larry. Take what occured in Acts and see how it fits with the rest of the Bible so that your interpretation doesn't contradict anything.

 

[CrossEyed]

so, please, Cross, educate me...

I've tried for years, as have others on this board. You are not interested in learning, only in spouting your narrow, legalistic understanding of the Bible. We're telling you these things to try to help you, Larry. But at some point you just have to realize that some people don't want help. I realized that with you a long time ago, but every once in a while I lose my mind and think maybe it will be different. Be assured I won't make that mistake again. Take care.

 

[larry_boy_44]

its not that a non-believer can get absolutely nothing from it, it is just dangerous when you get your doctrine about the plan of salvation from a letter that was written exclusively to people who were already saved... It is unlikely Paul would tell them, again, how to be saved, when he had already done so...

"Exclusively", "Specifically", etc, etc.... can't you see how your argument is based on assumptions? How are you logically concluding that the word Jesus is specifically needed when it's the authority of Jesus we are baptized under. How are you logically concluding that Pauls letters were written exclusively to people who were already saved when it's applicable to non-believers? Your arguments can't hold water without estabilishing things such as "Exclusively" and "Specifically" which are conclussions that are not logical.

its not that it is completely in-applicable, it is that you need to be careful what level you apply it... saying that the entirety of how one gets saved is in Romans, and not Acts, where there are actually sermons to non-believers is non-sensical... Shouldn't we look to where there is an audience of non-believers and not to where there is an audience of believers for how one gets saved?

The entirety of how one gets saved is no more in Romans than it is in Acts. The entirety of how one gets saved is in the Bible. Saying the entirety of salvation is just in Romans or just in Acts is not only "picking and choosing" but it creates contradictions with other parts of the Bible. Did people in Acts bet baptized immediately after believing? Yes. Does that make it a requirement of salvation? No, because it would contradict other parts of the Bible. Don't pick and choose Larry. Take what occured in Acts and see how it fits with the rest of the Bible so that your interpretation doesn't contradict anything.

Spock... it doesn't contradict the rest of the Bible at all... it contradicts the tradition that you have been taught, that's it...Was the sacrifice in the OT a work? No, it was a requirement... Was the Ark a work? No, it was a requirement... same as baptism, it is not a work, it is something we are commanded to do...

Stop listening to the lies you've been taught all your life, Spock, because that is all those things are, lies perpetrated by pagans who infiltrated the church 1700 years ago...

 

[Politician Spock]

So what denomination are you guys?

LB?

Spock?

Just curious.

Grace Brethren.

FGBC or CGBCI?

FGBC

 

[Zalf]

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these.

Real interesting thought from the one who started this thread. Another in a long line of posts youve started trying to talk people out of christianity. Not sure that anti-pious ramblings rank any higher then pious ramblings.First you start a post insinuating that since part of the Bible isnt in the earliest known forms of the Bible that the Bible as a whole must be invalid. Then you post a qoute from the Bible about how the Holy Spirit will come back and remind us of any of Jesus's teachings that we(mankind) miss or screwup, insinuating that since there are still disagreements about those teachings, that the Bible must be invalid. Thats certainly playing it from both sides.According to you, the Bible is invalid if anything is added after the original but it is also invalid if nothing is added after the original. We get it, you think the Bible is invalid. To me, divine inspiration didnt end the first time the Bible was written and hopefully still isnt done. The Bible is many different things to many different people. Its can be either a loosely historically based book of fairy tales or a literal blueprint to salvation or anything inbetween. It can be many different things to the same person depending on where in life that person is at any given time; even when the Bible hasnt changed during that persons life. Man is the variable here, not the Bible.You remain hung up on the Bible as historical literature, and not on the bigger picture. You arent going to disprove faith by arguing the Bibles validity. The Bible remains the most influential piece of literature in the history of man due to the message, not the words. It was that way yesterday, it is that way today, and it will be that way tomorrow.

 

[larry_boy_44]

so, please, Cross, educate me...

I've tried for years, as have others on this board. You are not interested in learning, only in spouting your narrow, legalistic understanding of the Bible. We're telling you these things to try to help you, Larry. But at some point you just have to realize that some people don't want help. I realized that with you a long time ago, but every once in a while I lose my mind and think maybe it will be different. Be assured I won't make that mistake again. Take care.

there isn't even anything else to say to that...

 

[Politician Spock]

its not that a non-believer can get absolutely nothing from it, it is just dangerous when you get your doctrine about the plan of salvation from a letter that was written exclusively to people who were already saved... It is unlikely Paul would tell them, again, how to be saved, when he had already done so...

"Exclusively", "Specifically", etc, etc.... can't you see how your argument is based on assumptions? How are you logically concluding that the word Jesus is specifically needed when it's the authority of Jesus we are baptized under. How are you logically concluding that Pauls letters were written exclusively to people who were already saved when it's applicable to non-believers? Your arguments can't hold water without estabilishing things such as "Exclusively" and "Specifically" which are conclussions that are not logical.

its not that it is completely in-applicable, it is that you need to be careful what level you apply it... saying that the entirety of how one gets saved is in Romans, and not Acts, where there are actually sermons to non-believers is non-sensical... Shouldn't we look to where there is an audience of non-believers and not to where there is an audience of believers for how one gets saved?

The entirety of how one gets saved is no more in Romans than it is in Acts. The entirety of how one gets saved is in the Bible. Saying the entirety of salvation is just in Romans or just in Acts is not only "picking and choosing" but it creates contradictions with other parts of the Bible. Did people in Acts bet baptized immediately after believing? Yes. Does that make it a requirement of salvation? No, because it would contradict other parts of the Bible. Don't pick and choose Larry. Take what occured in Acts and see how it fits with the rest of the Bible so that your interpretation doesn't contradict anything.

Spock... it doesn't contradict the rest of the Bible at all... it contradicts the tradition that you have been taught, that's it...Was the sacrifice in the OT a work? No, it was a requirement... Was the Ark a work? No, it was a requirement... same as baptism, it is not a work, it is something we are commanded to do...

Stop listening to the lies you've been taught all your life, Spock, because that is all those things are, lies perpetrated by pagans who infiltrated the church 1700 years ago...

Yes it does contradict the rest of the Bible Larry. If it didn't you wouldn't be so set on establishing that the other books of the Bible weren't written for non-Christians, or that parts of the Bible were added by pagens. Unless you can establish those things, the words in other parts of the Bible contradict your claim.

 

[Politician Spock]

so, please, Cross, educate me...

I've tried for years, as have others on this board. You are not interested in learning, only in spouting your narrow, legalistic understanding of the Bible. We're telling you these things to try to help you, Larry. But at some point you just have to realize that some people don't want help. I realized that with you a long time ago, but every once in a while I lose my mind and think maybe it will be different. Be assured I won't make that mistake again. Take care.

there isn't even anything else to say to that...

Yet you still came up with a respone. It's amazing, I tell ya.

 

[CrossEyed]

So what denomination are you guys?

LB?

Spock?

Just curious.

Grace Brethren.

FGBC or CGBCI?

FGBC

I figured as much. You didn't sound legalistic enough to be CGBCI. I got saved through a Grace Brethren Church. Unfortunately it was a CGBCI Church and just kept getting more and more legalistic. Thaey're barely keeping the doors open now. Sad to see that happen to thye well-meaning people who used to be there.

 

[larry_boy_44]

its not that a non-believer can get absolutely nothing from it, it is just dangerous when you get your doctrine about the plan of salvation from a letter that was written exclusively to people who were already saved... It is unlikely Paul would tell them, again, how to be saved, when he had already done so...

"Exclusively", "Specifically", etc, etc.... can't you see how your argument is based on assumptions? How are you logically concluding that the word Jesus is specifically needed when it's the authority of Jesus we are baptized under. How are you logically concluding that Pauls letters were written exclusively to people who were already saved when it's applicable to non-believers? Your arguments can't hold water without estabilishing things such as "Exclusively" and "Specifically" which are conclussions that are not logical.

its not that it is completely in-applicable, it is that you need to be careful what level you apply it... saying that the entirety of how one gets saved is in Romans, and not Acts, where there are actually sermons to non-believers is non-sensical... Shouldn't we look to where there is an audience of non-believers and not to where there is an audience of believers for how one gets saved?

The entirety of how one gets saved is no more in Romans than it is in Acts. The entirety of how one gets saved is in the Bible. Saying the entirety of salvation is just in Romans or just in Acts is not only "picking and choosing" but it creates contradictions with other parts of the Bible. Did people in Acts bet baptized immediately after believing? Yes. Does that make it a requirement of salvation? No, because it would contradict other parts of the Bible. Don't pick and choose Larry. Take what occured in Acts and see how it fits with the rest of the Bible so that your interpretation doesn't contradict anything.

Spock... it doesn't contradict the rest of the Bible at all... it contradicts the tradition that you have been taught, that's it...Was the sacrifice in the OT a work? No, it was a requirement... Was the Ark a work? No, it was a requirement... same as baptism, it is not a work, it is something we are commanded to do...

Stop listening to the lies you've been taught all your life, Spock, because that is all those things are, lies perpetrated by pagans who infiltrated the church 1700 years ago...

Yes it does contradict the rest of the Bible Larry. If it didn't you wouldn't be so set on establishing that the other books of the Bible weren't written for non-Christians, or that parts of the Bible were added by pagens. Unless you can establish those things, the words in other parts of the Bible contradict your claim.

Spock...for one, Matthew 28:19 WAS changed, the fact that you ignored my proof of that shows me a lot about what you beleive... same with I John 5:7... same wiht the part of I Corinthians when he says women should be silent and the resurrection account in Mark... I've posted proof of Matthew 28:19 and I John 5:7 in this thread, the other two aren't really a part of this particular conversation, but it is the general scholarly view on those scriptures...

Also, why is it so horrible to even consider that maybe the epistles were nothing more than letters written to one of the churches of the day? Maybe Paul never intended for those letters to be read by anyone other than the people of that church in that city...we don't know, but modern Christians read a lot of things into those letters and tkae a lot of things at face value without even considering whot he audience of the letter was or what was intended by the author of the letter...

so, seriously, explain a few things to me, Spock:

1. Why was baptism preached by everyone in Acts but never mentioned in the Epistles if it was preached as a requirement in Acts?? Where is the disconnect? Did they not mean it when they commanded baptism in Acts or did they forget to mention it in the epistles? Or maybe it wasn't needed to be mentioned in the epistles because the intended audience was already baptized...

2. Why did the church feel the need to change Matthew 28:19 if baptism didn't matter? Also, why are there writings from 1-500 AD that quote that verse with Jesus' saying "in my name"... Where is the disconnect? There is no historical evidence of the early church baptizing in the titles, there is no evidence of the early church believing in a trinity, and the trinity doctrine, to a large degree is based upon Matthew 28:19 (which is not the correct wording and it has been proven/admitted as such)... So... why do you feel so secure in a doctrine that is largely based upon a lie?

3. If there is a trinity (that is never stated in the Scriptures) why state "Here oh Israel the Lord our God is one"?? What is the purpose of statements like that? Why is there only one throne in heaven? Isn't God kinda cruel/mean/evil if He sends His Son to go brutally die rather than go and do it Himself? I mean, I'd never let my son go thru waht Jesus did and I'm only a human, why would God when His love is supposedly greater?

4. If the Spirit is recieved upon belief, why wasn't the crowd on the day of Pentecost filled when they believed what Peter was saying? Rather than be filled with the Spirit they asked Peter what they needed to do to be saved, Peter's answer?? Repent, be baptized in Jesus' name, and you will be filled with the Holy Ghost... But by asking what to do to be saved and to follow Christ, whom they crucified, that means that they believed on Him.

I'm sure there is more, but for now that is fine... if you need the link to the proof about Matthew 28:19, I can get it again, but I already posted it in this thread once...

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

But don't worry about it Larry, because there is no requirement that words be specific during baptism, because it's the authority of Jesus that we are baptized under, not the word used to call Him.

AMEN, brother.

This thread needs more GIGANTIC AMENS.

 

[Politician Spock]

Spock...

for one, Matthew 28:19 WAS changed, the fact that you ignored my proof of that shows me a lot about what you beleive... same with I John 5:7... same wiht the part of I Corinthians when he says women should be silent and the resurrection account in Mark... I've posted proof of Matthew 28:19 and I John 5:7 in this thread, the other two aren't really a part of this particular conversation, but it is the general scholarly view on those scriptures...

I didn't ignore your proof. I said the whole motivation for your proof is because the other parts of the Bible discount your claim so you need to discount the other parts of the Bible to make your argument hold water. I'm not ignoring your proof. You are ignoring that your claim REQUIRES discounting the other parts of the Bible so that you can say the other parts of the Bible don't contradict your claim.

Also, why is it so horrible to even consider that maybe the epistles were nothing more than letters written to one of the churches of the day? Maybe Paul never intended for those letters to be read by anyone other than the people of that church in that city...we don't know, but modern Christians read a lot of things into those letters and tkae a lot of things at face value without even considering whot he audience of the letter was or what was intended by the author of the letter...

It's not horrible to consider it. But you are doing more than just considering it. You are CONCLUDING it, without using any logic in your conclusion.

so, seriously, explain a few things to me, Spock:

1. Why was baptism preached by everyone in Acts but never mentioned in the Epistles if it was preached as a requirement in Acts?? Where is the disconnect?

The disconnect is you making an illogical conclussion that it was a requirement for their salvation. They got baptized in Acts just as every Christian is commanded to get baptized. That doesn't make a logical conclussion that it's a requirement of salvation.

Did they not mean it when they commanded baptism in Acts or did they forget to mention it in the epistles? Or maybe it wasn't needed to be mentioned in the epistles because the intended audience was already baptized...

Christians are commanded to do a lot of things. You are concluding that this one commandment is a REQUIREMENT of salvation. Why? "Because they did it in Acts" is not enough to make a logical conclusion that it's a requirement of salvation.

2. Why did the church feel the need to change Matthew 28:19 if baptism didn't matter? Also, why are there writings from 1-500 AD that quote that verse with Jesus' saying "in my name"... Where is the disconnect? There is no historical evidence of the early church baptizing in the titles, there is no evidence of the early church believing in a trinity, and the trinity doctrine, to a large degree is based upon Matthew 28:19 (which is not the correct wording and it has been proven/admitted as such)... So... why do you feel so secure in a doctrine that is largely based upon a lie?

It's only a lie if you think the name (authority) of Jesus is not the same name (authority) of the Father and the Holy Spirit. If they are the same name (authority) there is no lie. Again, you have to establish in your argument that the Bible contains lies in order for your argument to hold water. And to establish that it is a lie you have to play semantics with the word "name" or else deny that the authority of Jesus is the same as the authority of the Father and Holy Spirit, which would require that they are not the same God, but separate Gods with different authority. It's a really twisted basis for your argument. If "name" does in fact mean authority, how is Jesus's authority any different than the authority of the Father or the Holy Spirit?

3. If there is a trinity (that is never stated in the Scriptures) why state "Here oh Israel the Lord our God is one"?? What is the purpose of statements like that? Why is there only one throne in heaven? Isn't God kinda cruel/mean/evil if He sends His Son to go brutally die rather than go and do it Himself? I mean, I'd never let my son go thru what Jesus did and I'm only a human, why would God when His love is supposedly greater?

There is one God, just like the scriptures state. He exists in three manifestations. We've agreed on this in the past. If you don't like the Catholic definition of the Trinity, then take it up with them. But the Catholic definition trinity argument has nothing to do with you telling people that they're not saved because the wrong words were uttered when they were baptized given one God in three manifestations all with the same authority (name) is consistent with baptizing in Jesus name.

4. If the Spirit is received upon belief, why wasn't the crowd on the day of Pentecost filled when they believed what Peter was saying? Rather than be filled with the Spirit they asked Peter what they needed to do to be saved, Peter's answer?? Repent, be baptized in Jesus' name, and you will be filled with the Holy Ghost... But by asking what to do to be saved and to follow Christ, whom they crucified, that means that they believed on Him.

Where is the "to be saved" part? The verse:Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

(Act 2:38)

immediately follows:

Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

(Act 2:37)

"what shall we do" in the Greek is "tis poieo". Strong's concodence shows these translations:

tis- Probably emphatic of G5100; an interrogitive pronoun, who, which or what (in direct or indirect questions): - every man, how (much), + no (-ne, thing), what (manner, thing), where ([-by, -fore, -of, -unto, -with, -withal]), whether, which, who (-m, -se), why.

poieō - Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct): - abide, + agree, appoint, X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue, deal, + without any delay, (would) do (-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make, X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield.

Is the "to be saved" part another illogical conclusion on your part like the "specifically" and "exclusively" assumptions you made earlier?

I'm sure there is more, but for now that is fine... if you need the link to the proof about Matthew 28:19, I can get it again, but I already posted it in this thread once...

I don't need link to proof because they whole point is you need to prove that the rest of the Bible is wrong in some way or another to not contradict your claim. And in all honestly, history has shown you have no intent of listening to any of this, and will come back with arguments that you've already presented before that many other people have already retorted as wrong. It's that circular logic combined with your other logical fallacies that just keeps perpetuating your same arguments over, and over, and over again. I've really listened to your arguments Larry, and I tried to determine if you were right, but there are just far too many illogical conclusions, assumptions, and circular logic in your arguments to be accepted as true. On top of it, you make is crystal clear that you don't listen to the people you are debating with given all the straw-man arguments you throw out. I hate to say it, but it really is a waste of my time to explain it all out to you given you have deaf ears. Good luck to you. I'm finished discussing this with you.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

its not that a non-believer can get absolutely nothing from it, it is just dangerous when you get your doctrine about the plan of salvation from a letter that was written exclusively to people who were already saved... It is unlikely Paul would tell them, again, how to be saved, when he had already done so...

"Exclusively", "Specifically", etc, etc.... can't you see how your argument is based on assumptions? How are you logically concluding that the word Jesus is specifically needed when it's the authority of Jesus we are baptized under. How are you logically concluding that Pauls letters were written exclusively to people who were already saved when it's applicable to non-believers? Your arguments can't hold water without estabilishing things such as "Exclusively" and "Specifically" which are conclussions that are not logical.

its not that it is completely in-applicable, it is that you need to be careful what level you apply it... saying that the entirety of how one gets saved is in Romans, and not Acts, where there are actually sermons to non-believers is non-sensical... Shouldn't we look to where there is an audience of non-believers and not to where there is an audience of believers for how one gets saved?

The entirety of how one gets saved is no more in Romans than it is in Acts. The entirety of how one gets saved is in the Bible. Saying the entirety of salvation is just in Romans or just in Acts is not only "picking and choosing" but it creates contradictions with other parts of the Bible. Did people in Acts bet baptized immediately after believing? Yes. Does that make it a requirement of salvation? No, because it would contradict other parts of the Bible. Don't pick and choose Larry. Take what occured in Acts and see how it fits with the rest of the Bible so that your interpretation doesn't contradict anything.

Spock... it doesn't contradict the rest of the Bible at all... it contradicts the tradition that you have been taught, that's it...Was the sacrifice in the OT a work? No, it was a requirement... Was the Ark a work? No, it was a requirement... same as baptism, it is not a work, it is something we are commanded to do...

Stop listening to the lies you've been taught all your life, Spock, because that is all those things are, lies perpetrated by pagans who infiltrated the church 1700 years ago...

There you go passing judgment again.

 

[BowieMercs]

So what denomination are you guys?

LB?

Spock?

Just curious.

Grace Brethren.

FGBC or CGBCI?

GCFI220, 221... whatever it takes.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I didn't ignore your proof. I said the whole motivation for your proof is because the other parts of the Bible discount your claim so you need to discount the other parts of the Bible to make your argument hold water. I'm not ignoring your proof. You are ignoring that your claim REQUIRES discounting the other parts of the Bible so that you can say the other parts of the Bible don't contradict your claim.

so, we shouldn't look to history to find what the Bible really said and what was relaly meant? Because Matthew 28:19 really doesn't jive with the Book of Acts or historical accounts of the early church at all...

It's not horrible to consider it. But you are doing more than just considering it. You are CONCLUDING it, without using any logic in your conclusion.

but you are doing the same thing in the opposite direction, what's the difference?

The disconnect is you making an illogical conclussion that it was a requirement for their salvation. They got baptized in Acts just as every Christian is commanded to get baptized. That doesn't make a logical conclussion that it's a requirement of salvation.

and you are assuming that we, as Christians, aren't required to obey God's commandments... Nice to know that I don't even have to listen to God to get to heaven...

Christians are commanded to do a lot of things. You are concluding that this one commandment is a REQUIREMENT of salvation. Why? "Because they did it in Acts" is not enough to make a logical conclusion that it's a requirement of salvation.

here's the problem with this argument: What other commandments have I said were not required??

It's only a lie if you think the name (authority) of Jesus is not the same name (authority) of the Father and the Holy Spirit. If they are the same name (authority) there is no lie. Again, you have to establish in your argument that the Bible contains lies in order for your argument to hold water. And to establish that it is a lie you have to play semantics with the word "name" or else deny that the authority of Jesus is the same as the authority of the Father and Holy Spirit, which would require that they are not the same God, but separate Gods with different authority. It's a really twisted basis for your argument. If "name" does in fact mean authority, how is Jesus's authority any different than the authority of the Father or the Holy Spirit?

its proven to be a lie because they had to edit the Scriptures to get people to agree with what they were saying... Don't you get what it means that htey changed Matthew 28:19 like that???It isn't that I see the Father & Holy Spirit seperately, its that Nicea and everything done by the catholics for at least 1000 years after was done for power and control and not for God... They EDITED THE BIBLE TO SUPPORT THIER LIES, Spock... do you not understand that? You are preaching and following doctrine that someone had to change God's Word in order to convince people that it was true...that doesn't bother you in the least??? It isn't that the title's don't refer to Jesus (although that kills the Trinity thing), it is that it is not at all, in any way shape or form, what was commanded of us...

There is one God, just like the scriptures state. He exists in three manifestations. We've agreed on this in the past. If you don't like the Catholic definition of the Trinity, then take it up with them. But the Catholic definition trinity argument has nothing to do with you telling people that they're not saved because the wrong words were uttered when they were baptized given one God in three manifestations all with the same authority (name) is consistent with baptizing in Jesus name.

the problem with the Trinity is not what people believe today, but that the doctrine was heretical and polythiestic at its inception... Sure, we've moved away from that now, but we havne't moved away from the other changes made to support the polythiestic heresy of the 4th-14th or so centuries....

Where is the "to be saved" part? The verse:Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.(Act 2:38)immediately follows:Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?(Act 2:37)"what shall we do" in the Greek is "tis poieo". Strong's concodence shows these translations:tis- Probably emphatic of G5100; an interrogitive pronoun, who, which or what (in direct or indirect questions): - every man, how (much), + no (-ne, thing), what (manner, thing), where ([-by, -fore, -of, -unto, -with, -withal]), whether, which, who (-m, -se), why.poieō - Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct): - abide, + agree, appoint, X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue, deal, + without any delay, (would) do (-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make, X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield.Is the "to be saved" part another illogical conclusion on your part like the "specifically" and "exclusively" assumptions you made earlier?

I would say that "remission of sins" would be equivalent to salvation...besides, the men believed (they asked what they should do) and Peter told them that in the future they would be filled with the Holy Ghost along with a command to repent and be baptized...

I don't need link to proof because they whole point is you need to prove that the rest of the Bible is wrong in some way or another to not contradict your claim. And in all honestly, history has shown you have no intent of listening to any of this, and will come back with arguments that you've already presented before that many other people have already retorted as wrong. It's that circular logic combined with your other logical fallacies that just keeps perpetuating your same arguments over, and over, and over again. I've really listened to your arguments Larry, and I tried to determine if you were right, but there are just far too many illogical conclusions, assumptions, and circular logic in your arguments to be accepted as true. On top of it, you make is crystal clear that you don't listen to the people you are debating with given all the straw-man arguments you throw out. I hate to say it, but it really is a waste of my time to explain it all out to you given you have deaf ears. Good luck to you. I'm finished discussing this with you.

Spock... I do listen to people (not Cross, but pretty much everyone else I do listen to) and my thoughts on things have changed a lot in the last year or two, they really have...However, I just don't see any other way to read Matthew 28:19 & the book of Acts but to see baptism (along with repentance, belief, & other things) as being a requirement of salvation...

 

[Charlie Steiner]

What am I getting myself into?

However, I just don't see any other way to read Matthew 28:19 & the book of Acts but to see baptism (along with repentance, belief, & other things) as being a requirement of salvation...

Forgive me if I'm going over well-traveled ground as this is the first I've gotten into this particular topic, but what seems to be missing for Larry_Boy is context. I was going to attempt to give my understanding of baptism, but this article from the Christian Research Institue sums it up faster and better than I can. The relevant part of that article, IMHO, is:

Acts 10 states that some Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved) before they were baptized. This is significant, for the Holy Spirit is the seal of the believer’s salvation (Eph. 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22; Rom. 8:9). Furthermore, Jesus saved the thief on the cross without water baptism (Luke 23:39f). It would seem therefore that baptism is not essential for salvation.

It is important to recognize that baptism is an outward sign of the inward conversion experience. It identifies us with Christ’s death and with his resurrection (Rom. 6:1-6,11; Col. 2:11,12). At baptism, the believer symbolically dies to the “old man” to become a “brand new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). As a sacrament (like Holy Communion), baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it does establish the Christian as a member of God’s visible church.

I'll now...

 

[larry_boy_44]

What am I getting myself into?

However, I just don't see any other way to read Matthew 28:19 & the book of Acts but to see baptism (along with repentance, belief, & other things) as being a requirement of salvation...

Forgive me if I'm going over well-traveled ground as this is the first I've gotten into this particular topic, but what seems to be missing for Larry_Boy is context. I was going to attempt to give my understanding of baptism, but this article from the Christian Research Institue sums it up faster and better than I can. The relevant part of that article, IMHO, is:

Acts 10 states that some Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved) before they were baptized. This is significant, for the Holy Spirit is the seal of the believer’s salvation (Eph. 4:30; 2 Cor. 1:22; Rom. 8:9). Furthermore, Jesus saved the thief on the cross without water baptism (Luke 23:39f). It would seem therefore that baptism is not essential for salvation.

It is important to recognize that baptism is an outward sign of the inward conversion experience. It identifies us with Christ’s death and with his resurrection (Rom. 6:1-6,11; Col. 2:11,12). At baptism, the believer symbolically dies to the “old man” to become a “brand new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17). As a sacrament (like Holy Communion), baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it does establish the Christian as a member of God’s visible church.

I'll now...

I understand what you are saying, and I don't think that baptism itself as an act is any more than a sign of conversion, read: it is God's grace that saves...HOWEVER, at the same time Peter did say that baptism was for remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and Jesus commanded them to baptize converts (Matthew 28:19) and they commanded all those they converted to be baptized...

Thus, I see no reason for modern Christians to put up such a big fuss about being baptized in Jesus' name other than the simple fact that they are un-willing to let go of thier man-made traditions...

I just think that it shows a lack of desire to truely follow God and His commands that modern Christians refuse to consider this as something they should do (since you don't find many Chrisitans who will say things like "No one should be baptized"...)

 

[Charlie Steiner]

I understand what you are saying, and I don't think that baptism itself as an act is any more than a sign of conversion, read: it is God's grace that saves...

HOWEVER, at the same time Peter did say that baptism was for remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and Jesus commanded them to baptize converts (Matthew 28:19) and they commanded all those they converted to be baptized...

Thus, I see no reason for modern Christians to put up such a big fuss about being baptized in Jesus' name other than the simple fact that they are un-willing to let go of thier man-made traditions...

I just think that it shows a lack of desire to truely follow God and His commands that modern Christians refuse to consider this as something they should do (since you don't find many Chrisitans who will say things like "No one should be baptized"...)

So then is your "issue" with the "altering" of scripture that instead of it saying only baptize in Jesus' name, it was changed to say "the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" in order to push a theocratic agenda? I'm still not clear on exactly what the problem is, since I went and read the passage in question and don't see that even if that change was made, it doesn't really make a difference whichever way you read it, as the implication does not change. The authority still resides with the divine and not with man. To me, that's more of a 'you say tom-a-to, I say tom-ah-to' type argument, certainly not worth all this , especially between believers...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I understand what you are saying, and I don't think that baptism itself as an act is any more than a sign of conversion, read: it is God's grace that saves...

HOWEVER, at the same time Peter did say that baptism was for remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and Jesus commanded them to baptize converts (Matthew 28:19) and they commanded all those they converted to be baptized...

Thus, I see no reason for modern Christians to put up such a big fuss about being baptized in Jesus' name other than the simple fact that they are un-willing to let go of thier man-made traditions...

I just think that it shows a lack of desire to truely follow God and His commands that modern Christians refuse to consider this as something they should do (since you don't find many Chrisitans who will say things like "No one should be baptized"...)

So then is your "issue" with the "altering" of scripture that instead of it saying only baptize in Jesus' name, it was changed to say "the Father, Son and Holy Ghost" in order to push a theocratic agenda? I'm still not clear on exactly what the problem is, since I went and read the passage in question and don't see that even if that change was made, it doesn't really make a difference whichever way you read it, as the implication does not change. The authority still resides with the divine and not with man. To me, that's more of a 'you say tom-a-to, I say tom-ah-to' type argument, certainly not worth all this , especially between believers...

the trinity was taken from pagan beliefs, and they altered that scripture and I John 5:7 in order to try and support thier false pagan doctrines...The problem I have is a few different things...

1. Plain and simply, God commanded it and we have no excuse not to obey... Is it possible we will get to heaven without it? Sure, but why risk it? Is it really that hard to get yourself dunked in some water in Jesus' name like the Bible said to do it?

2. The trinity is false, pagan doctrine... or was when it was started, and it is about time that the modern church realized this and throws off traditions based upon this doctrine and really seeks out God...

it isn't "you say tom-a-to, I say tom-ah-to" thing because of the pagan roots of hte trinity and because they altered completely what the Word of God said... Jesus told them specifically to do something, and they did it, and 500-1000 years later the church at that time altered scriptures to what they changed thier doctrine to in order to control people... They didn't follow Jesus, or God, they followed a false Christ and will be damned for thier transgressions, which includes (but is not limited to) changing the word of god and incorperating pagan beliefs about god and diety into Christian doctrine...

They did exactly what the Jews did (they kept falling and worshipping foriegn idols) the only difference between what the Christians did and what the Jews kept doing is the Christians changed the name of htier pagan idol to "Jesus" to match the God they claimed to desire to serve, but never actually served...

 

[Charlie Steiner]

the trinity was taken from pagan beliefs, and they altered that scripture and I John 5:7 in order to try and support thier false pagan doctrines...

The problem I have is a few different things...

1. Plain and simply, God commanded it and we have no excuse not to obey... Is it possible we will get to heaven without it? Sure, but why risk it? Is it really that hard to get yourself dunked in some water in Jesus' name like the Bible said to do it?

2. The trinity is false, pagan doctrine... or was when it was started, and it is about time that the modern church realized this and throws off traditions based upon this doctrine and really seeks out God...

it isn't "you say tom-a-to, I say tom-ah-to" thing because of the pagan roots of hte trinity and because they altered completely what the Word of God said... Jesus told them specifically to do something, and they did it, and 500-1000 years later the church at that time altered scriptures to what they changed thier doctrine to in order to control people... They didn't follow Jesus, or God, they followed a false Christ and will be damned for thier transgressions, which includes (but is not limited to) changing the word of god and incorperating pagan beliefs about god and diety into Christian doctrine...

They did exactly what the Jews did (they kept falling and worshipping foriegn idols) the only difference between what the Christians did and what the Jews kept doing is the Christians changed the name of htier pagan idol to "Jesus" to match the God they claimed to desire to serve, but never actually served...

Again, back to a more knowledgeable source, and again it's the Christian Researh Institute. The gist of this article is:

The first plank of the Trinitarian platform is that there is only one God. The Bible could not be more explicit on this point, which it states explicitly about two dozen times. In Isaiah 44:8 God says that even He does not know of any other gods!

Jesus often spoke of God as His Father, and the apostles frequently spoke of "God the Father." But the New Testament also insists that Jesus is God. For example, Thomas acknowledged Jesus as, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and both Peter and Paul spoke of Jesus as "our God and Savior" (2 Pet. 1:1; ###. 2:13). Yet the New Testament also makes the distinction between the Father and the Son as two very different persons. In fact they tell us that they love one another, speak to each other, and seek to glorify each other (e.g., John 17: 1-26).

The Old Testament refers often to the Holy Spirit as God at work in the world, without distinction from the Father. But Jesus in John 14 to 16 explained that this Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father at Christ's request. The Holy Spirit would teach and guide the disciples, not speaking on His own initiative, but speaking on Christ's behalf and glorifying Christ. Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed by Christ to be a third person distinct from the Father and distinct from the Son.

In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely and totally biblical, and it is essential that all Christians give assent to this doctrine.

Sorry for the delay in responding.You still haven't answered what denomination you are. As for me, I was brought up Lutheran but was born again 10 years after I quit going. I attended a United Methodist church for almost 10 years before moving to a non-denominational church begun by a former member of the UM church I attended. They seem to want to become a mega-church a la Willow Creek, but that's an entirely different thread...

 

[larry_boy_44]

the trinity was taken from pagan beliefs, and they altered that scripture and I John 5:7 in order to try and support thier false pagan doctrines...

The problem I have is a few different things...

1. Plain and simply, God commanded it and we have no excuse not to obey... Is it possible we will get to heaven without it? Sure, but why risk it? Is it really that hard to get yourself dunked in some water in Jesus' name like the Bible said to do it?

2. The trinity is false, pagan doctrine... or was when it was started, and it is about time that the modern church realized this and throws off traditions based upon this doctrine and really seeks out God...

it isn't "you say tom-a-to, I say tom-ah-to" thing because of the pagan roots of hte trinity and because they altered completely what the Word of God said... Jesus told them specifically to do something, and they did it, and 500-1000 years later the church at that time altered scriptures to what they changed thier doctrine to in order to control people... They didn't follow Jesus, or God, they followed a false Christ and will be damned for thier transgressions, which includes (but is not limited to) changing the word of god and incorperating pagan beliefs about god and diety into Christian doctrine...

They did exactly what the Jews did (they kept falling and worshipping foriegn idols) the only difference between what the Christians did and what the Jews kept doing is the Christians changed the name of htier pagan idol to "Jesus" to match the God they claimed to desire to serve, but never actually served...

Again, back to a more knowledgeable source, and again it's the Christian Researh Institute. The gist of this article is:

The first plank of the Trinitarian platform is that there is only one God. The Bible could not be more explicit on this point, which it states explicitly about two dozen times. In Isaiah 44:8 God says that even He does not know of any other gods!

Jesus often spoke of God as His Father, and the apostles frequently spoke of "God the Father." But the New Testament also insists that Jesus is God. For example, Thomas acknowledged Jesus as, "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and both Peter and Paul spoke of Jesus as "our God and Savior" (2 Pet. 1:1; ###. 2:13). Yet the New Testament also makes the distinction between the Father and the Son as two very different persons. In fact they tell us that they love one another, speak to each other, and seek to glorify each other (e.g., John 17: 1-26).

The Old Testament refers often to the Holy Spirit as God at work in the world, without distinction from the Father. But Jesus in John 14 to 16 explained that this Holy Spirit would be sent by the Father at Christ's request. The Holy Spirit would teach and guide the disciples, not speaking on His own initiative, but speaking on Christ's behalf and glorifying Christ. Thus, the Holy Spirit is revealed by Christ to be a third person distinct from the Father and distinct from the Son.

In short, the doctrine of the Trinity is completely and totally biblical, and it is essential that all Christians give assent to this doctrine.

Sorry for the delay in responding.You still haven't answered what denomination you are. As for me, I was brought up Lutheran but was born again 10 years after I quit going. I attended a United Methodist church for almost 10 years before moving to a non-denominational church begun by a former member of the UM church I attended. They seem to want to become a mega-church a la Willow Creek, but that's an entirely different thread...

Apostolic-Pentecostal... and, unfortunately, the "Christian Research Institute" has a claim in proving the Trintiy as correct, so they aren't an un-biased source...

 

[Charlie Steiner]

Apostolic-Pentecostal... and, unfortunately, the "Christian Research Institute" has a claim in proving the Trintiy as correct, so they aren't an un-biased source...

Ah. I see. Which part of the scriptures they use to support their claim the Trinity is biblical are biased?As for the 1John 5:7 "issue", how did "adding" that verse alter the meaning of the rest of that passage? Actually, the rest of that section would seem to support the idea of the Trinity: 1John 5:10-11 says "Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." Support of this comes from Matthew 3:16, As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Add the passage from John 14 where he talks about sending the Holy Spirit and there's your recipe for the Trinity. It may not be specifically spelled out in one book, chapter and verse, but taken together it becomes clear.

I'm sorry if this is :honda: but it boils down to this: there are passages in the Bible which point to Jesus = the Father and the Father = the Spirit. In the interest of brevity I'll trust that you know they exist. Therefore, it's logical and reasonable to say Jesus = the Father = the Spirit. All come from the Father and it's in these 'manifestations'--for lack of a better word--God is revealed to us. If you don't believe in the 'triune' God, what is Jesus, God's 'junior partner'? I believe the only way Jesus' death and resurrection can be my salvation is by believing Jesus was God incarnate while he was here. No man has ever been or will ever be perfect and therefore could ever serve as a worthy sacrifice in another man's stead. The only way it works is if Jesus Christ was divine in nature, and since the only source of divinity is God, Jesus must be God incarnate.

And considering you're an Apostolic-Pentecostal I'm guessing the Spirit gets a lot of credit in your circles, yet you're denying its divinity by denying the Trinity. I may be wrong on this point, but I doubt it right now.

Finally, as a sidenote, in light of your beliefs, you may want to change your avatar and/or username, as I'm sure Larry Boy's creators probably believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which you so passionately don't believe in...

 

[Seehawk]

This might swing things a bit off-topic, or focus them on-topic depending on what you think the topic actually is....

I also think there's a better then average chance I'm going to regret this but here goes;

I'm basically an atheist. Possibly agnostic. I honestly don't know the difference. My lack of faith has been caused in part, I believe, by the presence of organized religion rather then the absense of spiritually.

What I'm getting at (in a round about way) is that in it's most basic form isn't a belief in God, his word, sin and salvation a matter of faith? It's a belief right? It's not a thing that can pointed to, it can't possibly be "proven". Even the most sacred documents are here-say. The bible is considered the word of God but it isn't really is it? I don't think anybody actually believes God himself sat down and wrote the bible. At best it's a dictation of his words (and even court reporters make mistakes) and at worst it's stories past from one to another or recollections of things past. Everything -EVERYTHING- ever written about God and his teachings is 2nd hand. It's been filtered through at LEAST one fallible being and in most cases many, many more.

I bring this up not to question anybody's faith (though I know it appears that way) but because recent things in my life have caused me to examine my own spirituality and faith and has left me wondering how some people -like many of you on this thread- can make that leap of faith and how many others -like myself- do not.

Without trying to be accusatory, Larry_Boy, how can you say -so definatively- what the word of God is when you didn't hear it? The best you can do is take the word of what you consider reliable sources who wrote down the word of God and go from there. You can't possibly know -for sure- what the word of God is. What his commands were or who is following them correctly. Nobody can, right? It's faith. Faith in your church, or your book, or your fellow man or whatever you choose to have faith in but in the end it IS faith. How does somebody dedicate their life to something so nebulous? I mean...jeez....what if you're wrong? How can man in is infinate fallability rely on the writings and teachings of other infinately fallable men and decree what the commands of God are? Where do we get the stones to think we know anything about God?

Again, I know this comes off as challenging, and in some way I guess it is. But I don't mean it like "you're wrong, defend it". I used to think faith was a weakness and the religious the weak. I don't believe that anymore. I belief faith can be a strength and the faithful strong but I don't know how you do it. I consider myself intelligent & logical and I see no logic in faith.....yet I see logic in the faithful. I can't reconcile those things in my head. I don't get it. Anybody care to take a crack at me?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Again, I know this comes off as challenging, and in some way I guess it is. But I don't mean it like "you're wrong, defend it". I used to think faith was a weakness and the religious the weak. I don't believe that anymore. I belief faith can be a strength and the faithful strong but I don't know how you do it. I consider myself intelligent & logical and I see no logic in faith.....yet I see logic in the faithful. I can't reconcile those things in my head. I don't get it. Anybody care to take a crack at me?

Ever love a woman where every bit of your intellect is telling you that this is one big mistake yet no matter how logical you are your heart doesn't let you get away?

 

[Politician Spock]

What I'm getting at (in a round about way) is that in it's most basic form isn't a belief in God, his word, sin and salvation a matter of faith?

Yes. Faith was a huge issue that Jesus had with his disciples. Just looking in the book of Matthew alone produces these versus:Mat 6:30 "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!

Mat 8:10 Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.

Mat 8:26 He *said to them, "Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm.

Mat 9:2 And they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "Take courage, son; your sins are forgiven."

Mat 9:22 But Jesus turning and seeing her said, "Daughter, take courage; your faith has made you well." At once the woman was made well.

Mat 9:29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, "It shall be done to you according to your faith."

Mat 14:31 Immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and took hold of him, and *said to him, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?"

Mat 15:28 Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once.

Mat 16:8 But Jesus, aware of this, said, "You men of little faith, why do you discuss among yourselves that you have no bread?

Mat 17:20 And He *said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Mat 21:21 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen.

I consider myself intelligent & logical and I see no logic in faith.....yet I see logic in the faithful. I can't reconcile those things in my head. I don't get it. Anybody care to take a crack at me?

The use of logic does not always produce a clear cut answer for one to believe. Any belief that can not be proven is faith. An atheist actually uses faith, because an atheist believes that God does not exist, and that can not be proven. If they didn't have faith that God does not exist they would be an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe that God exists, nor do they believe that he doesn't exist. They don't believe either way because logically neither one can be proven.

 

[Gatorman]

The fact that someone translated young girl to virgin to start this whole shebang aint on the radar screen here?

 

[Jayrok]

2. Luke likely did not write Luke as whoever travelled with Paul would likely have been dead when Luke was written...

3. Paul's gospel wasn't the only thing that was completely different from Judaism... Peter's was, too... They cahnged it and made something new, its just that the only one who gave up the old way they did things (initially) was Paul, everyone else held on to the past...

So Luke didn't write Luke? And you actually believe Peter wrote Peter? He was probably dead by the time 'Peter' was penned.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to. However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation. He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity. I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm. There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation. If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

 

[Jayrok]

Hello Zalf,

Well, please allow me to retort...

Real interesting thought from the one who started this thread. Another in a long line of posts youve started trying to talk people out of christianity.

The thread's original post had nothing to do with trying to talk anyone out of anything. It was simply an interview from an author promoting his book. A book that I happen to find interesting. The banter back and forth bubbled to the surface when some of our favorite players got involved. You know who they are.

First you start a post insinuating that since part of the Bible isnt in the earliest known forms of the Bible that the Bible as a whole must be invalid.

hmm.. here's what I posted: I posted the author and his book, a little background on him, and then posted just one story in his book that he discusses... then I add: According to the book, this story was not in the original gospel manuscripts.. our oldest manuscripts of the bible do not have this story. It was likely a later addition by a scribe or church leader in later centuries. Sounds like an interesting book.

hmm.. nope. I can't find the words where I said the entire bible must be invalid because this story wasn't in the original texts. I just find it interesting. You should too.

Then you post a qoute from the Bible about how the Holy Spirit will come back and remind us of any of Jesus's teachings that we(mankind) miss or screwup, insinuating that since there are still disagreements about those teachings, that the Bible must be invalid. Thats certainly playing it from both sides.

I'm not insinuating that the bible is necessarily invalid because these people can't agree. I'm simply asking the question of since Jesus said something would happen, where is the evidence that it happened? I like to quote the bible, as I don't hate the bible at all. I find it fascinating. Don't dislike me because I know what it contains.

According to you, the Bible is invalid if anything is added after the original but it is also invalid if nothing is added after the original.

nonsense. The bible is valid for many things. Is it inspired by God? I don't think so. But it is truly a treasure and the most important set of literature in the history of mankind. The most influencial I would add. If by Invalid, you mean I don't think it is the infallible word of God, then yes. It is not infallible by any means.

To me, divine inspiration didnt end the first time the Bible was written and hopefully still isnt done.

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness. Maybe you should post some of your beliefs based on scripture (and whatever they let you talk about from the Watch Tower police). I wonder how the mainstream christian contingent here would reply to your world view.

The Bible is many different things to many different people. Its can be either a loosely historically based book of fairy tales or a literal blueprint to salvation or anything inbetween. It can be many different things to the same person depending on where in life that person is at any given time; even when the Bible hasnt changed during that persons life. Man is the variable here, not the Bible.

no argument here. The bible means different things to different people. To me, the bible is not a collection of fairy tales. It is not 100% historical either. It is a collection of books, writings, poetry, etc about a group of people. I believe many of the stories are made up, but most of them are based on true events. The people, places and many events in the bible are historical, no question. However, I believe those stories were exaggerated (sometimes greatly) for effect to make a point.. usually politically, as writing of the time this was common practice. I don't believe anything supernatural occured in truth, but it always occured in the tales. The Old Testament is an epic journey of the nation of Israel. I believe it was written, written over, interpolated, corrected by later authors, patched together based on what was happening to the Jewish nation around Judah.. I believe the NT writers were living in a time of religious superstition and were influenced by other religions of the era who had god-men messiahs walking around performing miracles. This was apparently common around the first century CE.

I believe the NT writers borrowed bits and pieces of the OT scriptures to craft the hero of their stories. I'm not a Christ myther. I believe Jesus lived and even taught on earth. I believe he was an Essene who led a cult of followers teaching them reformed Judaism. I believe someone named Paul had a vision (which was also commonplace in the first century) that changed his life and I believe it was Paul who originated Christianity as we know it today. I believe Paul's Jesus was a spiritual being, not a physical person. But that's a long story.

The Bible is awesome. I enjoy reading it. And I agree with you that man is the culprit here, not the scriptures. My point is that man wrote the bible and man is errant and infallible.

Maybe Jesus should have wrote the bible himself..

You remain hung up on the Bible as historical literature, and not on the bigger picture. You arent going to disprove faith by arguing the Bibles validity. The Bible remains the most influential piece of literature in the history of man due to the message, not the words. It was that way yesterday, it is that way today, and it will be that way tomorrow.

I'm not trying to disprove your faith, Zalf. Faith is a strong bond. That doesn't mean I can't interject some things that question why you might believe something. I look at the bible for what it is, a work of man. If you choose to look at it as the ultimate pathway to some eternal life that you are obsessed with once your life here on earth is done... good for you.

And if you want to discuss some of the things in the bible that convinced you that your faith is the true faith among all the others, then that would be fun too.

 

[Jayrok]

The fact that someone translated young girl to virgin to start this whole shebang aint on the radar screen here?

You will find that these guys likely won't want to discuss this issue, Gatorman. Matthew mistakenly takes a piece out of Isaiah chapter 7 to back his idea that Jesus was prophesied to be born of a virgin. Why? because many of the god-men in first century literature were born of a virgin. But a cursory reading of Isaiah 7 and the surrounding chapters will reveal that the child Isaiah is referring to has nothing to do with Jesus.. the passage isn't even messianic in nature. When Isaiah is kept in context, this becomes obvious. Then again, Matthew often picks bits of OT scripture to bolster his story. His use of Hosea 11:1 is another example.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Apostolic-Pentecostal... and, unfortunately, the "Christian Research Institute" has a claim in proving the Trintiy as correct, so they aren't an un-biased source...

Ah. I see. Which part of the scriptures they use to support their claim the Trinity is biblical are biased?As for the 1John 5:7 "issue", how did "adding" that verse alter the meaning of the rest of that passage? Actually, the rest of that section would seem to support the idea of the Trinity: 1John 5:10-11 says "Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. 11And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." Support of this comes from Matthew 3:16, As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Add the passage from John 14 where he talks about sending the Holy Spirit and there's your recipe for the Trinity. It may not be specifically spelled out in one book, chapter and verse, but taken together it becomes clear.

I'm sorry if this is :honda: but it boils down to this: there are passages in the Bible which point to Jesus = the Father and the Father = the Spirit. In the interest of brevity I'll trust that you know they exist. Therefore, it's logical and reasonable to say Jesus = the Father = the Spirit. All come from the Father and it's in these 'manifestations'--for lack of a better word--God is revealed to us. If you don't believe in the 'triune' God, what is Jesus, God's 'junior partner'? I believe the only way Jesus' death and resurrection can be my salvation is by believing Jesus was God incarnate while he was here. No man has ever been or will ever be perfect and therefore could ever serve as a worthy sacrifice in another man's stead. The only way it works is if Jesus Christ was divine in nature, and since the only source of divinity is God, Jesus must be God incarnate.

And considering you're an Apostolic-Pentecostal I'm guessing the Spirit gets a lot of credit in your circles, yet you're denying its divinity by denying the Trinity. I may be wrong on this point, but I doubt it right now.

Finally, as a sidenote, in light of your beliefs, you may want to change your avatar and/or username, as I'm sure Larry Boy's creators probably believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, which you so passionately don't believe in...

I agree, the Father is the Son is the Spirit... we don't deny that the Spirit is divinity, we say that God the Father came to earth as Jesus (His Son) and died for our sins and now fills us with His HOly Spirit...it is all 100% God, no seperation at all...

Jesus is 100% God, the Creator of the Universe, who came down to His creation robed in flesh and died for our sins...

Does that make sense?

Plus, the fact is that when the trinity was first entered into doctrine, it was very, VERY monothiestic, it isn't anymore, but it was 1600 years ago...

 

[larry_boy_44]

2. Luke likely did not write Luke as whoever travelled with Paul would likely have been dead when Luke was written...

3. Paul's gospel wasn't the only thing that was completely different from Judaism... Peter's was, too... They cahnged it and made something new, its just that the only one who gave up the old way they did things (initially) was Paul, everyone else held on to the past...

So Luke didn't write Luke? And you actually believe Peter wrote Peter? He was probably dead by the time 'Peter' was penned.

I don't know off-hand when Peter was written, I do know that Luke is thougth to have been writte at ~ 100 AD and hte person that travelled with PAul is not likely to ahve been alive then...I realize if Peter was written then that Simon Peter likely didn't write that book that is attributed to him, either...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to. However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation. He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity. I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm. There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation. If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

but isn't Peter saying it is for remission of sins saying it is about salvation?Plus, isn't the attitude that most Christians take ("It doesn't matter") showing that they really aren't saved simply because of thier attitude about something as simple as going and getting dunked in Jesus' name as we are commanded??? I mean, you can argue its a heart thing, but I would say that the people who argue against Jesus' name baptism in this thread (and others), well, quite frankly they are showing that thier hearts are not in the right place due to thier attitudes about doing a simple little command that God made...

 

[Jayrok]

2. Luke likely did not write Luke as whoever travelled with Paul would likely have been dead when Luke was written...

3. Paul's gospel wasn't the only thing that was completely different from Judaism... Peter's was, too... They cahnged it and made something new, its just that the only one who gave up the old way they did things (initially) was Paul, everyone else held on to the past...

So Luke didn't write Luke? And you actually believe Peter wrote Peter? He was probably dead by the time 'Peter' was penned.

I don't know off-hand when Peter was written, I do know that Luke is thougth to have been writte at ~ 100 AD and hte person that travelled with PAul is not likely to ahve been alive then...I realize if Peter was written then that Simon Peter likely didn't write that book that is attributed to him, either...

Early Christian Writings - First Peteraccording to some, 1 Peter was written between 80-100 CE. We'll probably never know for sure. 2 Peter between 100-160 CE. That's a large window.

I doubt Simon Peter wrote anything as he was likely illiterate. But that doesn't mean he couldn't have dictated to a scribe or companion. If that is true, it would seem that these books would have surfaced much earlier. But who knows?

 

[Charlie Steiner]

I agree, the Father is the Son is the Spirit... we don't deny that the Spirit is divinity, we say that God the Father came to earth as Jesus (His Son) and died for our sins and now fills us with His HOly Spirit...

it is all 100% God, no seperation at all...

Jesus is 100% God, the Creator of the Universe, who came down to His creation robed in flesh and died for our sins...

Does that make sense?

Plus, the fact is that when the trinity was first entered into doctrine, it was very, VERY monothiestic, it isn't anymore, but it was 1600 years ago...

I was jumping on the part you were discusing w/Spock about the concept of the Trinity vs. the "Catholic definition" of the Trinity....

If there is a trinity (that is never stated in the Scriptures) why state "Here oh Israel the Lord our God is one"?? What is the purpose of statements like that? Why is there only one throne in heaven? Isn't God kinda cruel/mean/evil if He sends His Son to go brutally die rather than go and do it Himself? I mean, I'd never let my son go thru waht Jesus did and I'm only a human, why would God when His love is supposedly greater?

Sorry that I seemed to have glossed over that part. But if you could, please elaborate on this "Catholic definition" and how it doesn't gibe with the 'orthodox' Christian defintion. As far as I can tell, 'mainstream' Christianity believes Jesus = God = Holy Spirit, so I really don't know what you mean that the trinity isn't monotheistic anymore...BTW, I believe it's "Hear, O Israel", not "Here oh Israel"...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I agree, the Father is the Son is the Spirit... we don't deny that the Spirit is divinity, we say that God the Father came to earth as Jesus (His Son) and died for our sins and now fills us with His HOly Spirit...

it is all 100% God, no seperation at all...

Jesus is 100% God, the Creator of the Universe, who came down to His creation robed in flesh and died for our sins...

Does that make sense?

Plus, the fact is that when the trinity was first entered into doctrine, it was very, VERY monothiestic, it isn't anymore, but it was 1600 years ago...

I was jumping on the part you were discusing w/Spock about the concept of the Trinity vs. the "Catholic definition" of the Trinity....

If there is a trinity (that is never stated in the Scriptures) why state "Here oh Israel the Lord our God is one"?? What is the purpose of statements like that? Why is there only one throne in heaven? Isn't God kinda cruel/mean/evil if He sends His Son to go brutally die rather than go and do it Himself? I mean, I'd never let my son go thru waht Jesus did and I'm only a human, why would God when His love is supposedly greater?

Sorry that I seemed to have glossed over that part. But if you could, please elaborate on this "Catholic definition" and how it doesn't gibe with the 'orthodox' Christian defintion. As far as I can tell, 'mainstream' Christianity believes Jesus = God = Holy Spirit, so I really don't know what you mean that the trinity isn't monotheistic anymore...BTW, I believe it's "Hear, O Israel", not "Here oh Israel"...

lol, the difference between those is simply writing styles and the era it was written in.. I think...the "orthodox" (modern) Christian definition is basically what I believe, I just don't call it a trinity....

some articles to read:

http://www.revelations.org.za/WrongTrinity.htm

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

from the Wikipedia site:

Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by some sects, are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist.

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized."

While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and this association was attributed to Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles speaks of believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). Some take this as not indicating a formula, but as corresponding in meaning rather to the phrases "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3) and "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) - compare "baptized ... into John's baptism" (Acts 19:3), "baptized in the name of Paul" (1 Corinthians 1:13), "baptized into Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2).

In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus himself is often interpreted as a manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16–17, RSV).

"This is the Faith of our baptism", the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 was changed (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm), what I find interesting is so many places and so many times that the trinity is confirmed in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but if Matthew 28:19 is a lie, what does that tell us about the trinity? Shouldn't it tell us something about it? Should we maybe reconsider our belief in a triune God?the trinity was adopted by the church through platonian (neoplatonian) philosophy... but we are suppose to be fleeing traditions and philosophy of men, so, again, shouldn't we be wary of any thought that is adopted from influences that are philosophies of men???

 

[Charlie Steiner]

lol, the difference between those is simply writing styles and the era it was written in.. I think...

the "orthodox" (modern) Christian definition is basically what I believe, I just don't call it a trinity....

some articles to read:

http://www.revelations.org.za/WrongTrinity.htm

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

from the Wikipedia site:

Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by some sects, are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist.

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized."

While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and this association was attributed to Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles speaks of believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). Some take this as not indicating a formula, but as corresponding in meaning rather to the phrases "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3) and "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) - compare "baptized ... into John's baptism" (Acts 19:3), "baptized in the name of Paul" (1 Corinthians 1:13), "baptized into Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2).

In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus himself is often interpreted as a manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16–17, RSV).

"This is the Faith of our baptism", the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 was changed (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm), what I find interesting is so many places and so many times that the trinity is confirmed in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but if Matthew 28:19 is a lie, what does that tell us about the trinity? Shouldn't it tell us something about it? Should we maybe reconsider our belief in a triune God?the trinity was adopted by the church through platonian (neoplatonian) philosophy... but we are suppose to be fleeing traditions and philosophy of men, so, again, shouldn't we be wary of any thought that is adopted from influences that are philosophies of men???

From what I "discern" about Matthew 28:19, it seems to me the 'change' is purely cosmetic, and I would think that to one who believes Jesus = God = The Holy Spirit, the two statements "baptize in my (Jesus) name" and "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" would carry the same meaning. It may be an editorial addition, but how is it a "lie"?

 

[larry_boy_44]

lol, the difference between those is simply writing styles and the era it was written in.. I think...

the "orthodox" (modern) Christian definition is basically what I believe, I just don't call it a trinity....

some articles to read:

http://www.revelations.org.za/WrongTrinity.htm

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

from the Wikipedia site:

Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by some sects, are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist.

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized."

While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and this association was attributed to Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles speaks of believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). Some take this as not indicating a formula, but as corresponding in meaning rather to the phrases "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3) and "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) - compare "baptized ... into John's baptism" (Acts 19:3), "baptized in the name of Paul" (1 Corinthians 1:13), "baptized into Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2).

In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus himself is often interpreted as a manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16–17, RSV).

"This is the Faith of our baptism", the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 was changed (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm), what I find interesting is so many places and so many times that the trinity is confirmed in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but if Matthew 28:19 is a lie, what does that tell us about the trinity? Shouldn't it tell us something about it? Should we maybe reconsider our belief in a triune God?the trinity was adopted by the church through platonian (neoplatonian) philosophy... but we are suppose to be fleeing traditions and philosophy of men, so, again, shouldn't we be wary of any thought that is adopted from influences that are philosophies of men???

From what I "discern" about Matthew 28:19, it seems to me the 'change' is purely cosmetic, and I would think that to one who believes Jesus = God = The Holy Spirit, the two statements "baptize in my (Jesus) name" and "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" would carry the same meaning. It may be an editorial addition, but how is it a "lie"?

is it really though??? Have you ever heard of the "Shield of the Trinity" or the "Scutum Fedei"??? Basically it is this:The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father

HOWEVER, they all are God completely...

THUS, according to the doctrine of the trinity, baptizing in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost is NOT baptizing in Jesus' name whether you are arguing Jesus is the Son or not...

According to the Trinity Jesus is NOT the Father, however both are equally (and fully) God...

The Trinity was made up by Tertullian in the last 2nd Century, more than 150 years after Jesus died... It was spread by a number of people who followed neoplatonian philosophy that converted to Christianity and they ended up taking control of the church (probably because they were "smarter"), thus they decided what stayed, what went, and what became dogma, and they chose to include the Trinity...

NOWHERE is there evidence that the early church believed in a trinity, nor did they ever baptize in the titles, so why the change? What happened that changed things? Why didn't the church just stick with Jesus' name baptism???

Simple, the church changed the baptismal formula because simply baptizing in Jesus' name didn't fit with the neoplatonian model of the godhead, so they changed it to fit thier new pagan belief about God...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to.  However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation.  He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity.  I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm.  There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation.  If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

but isn't Peter saying it is for remission of sins saying it is about salvation?Plus, isn't the attitude that most Christians take ("It doesn't matter") showing that they really aren't saved simply because of thier attitude about something as simple as going and getting dunked in Jesus' name as we are commanded??? I mean, you can argue its a heart thing, but I would say that the people who argue against Jesus' name baptism in this thread (and others), well, quite frankly they are showing that thier hearts are not in the right place due to thier attitudes about doing a simple little command that God made...

Larry, I was baptized because I felt it was important. I have never equated my baptism with my salvation, though. My salvation occurred on the cross at Calvary not in a horse tank. My baptism was my outward and public profession that I wanted to be held accountable as a professed believer in the salvation I acquired through Jesus death on the cross. Nothing more. I didn't get "more saved" by being baptised. As a matter of fact it was several months after I placed my trust in Christ that I even considered baptism.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Here is the deal, larry is right that we "should" be baptized because Jesus commanded us to.  However this obedience has nothing to do with salvation.  He has somehow confused salvation with obedience and this has become part of a "tradition" that he seems to detest abotu other branches of Christianity.  I agree with Cross in that this gets into a very legalistic realm.  There are scores of things we should do because we are commanded to do them or because we do so out of reverence for our God...but this has nothing to do with salvation.  If anything you could tie it into reward, but reward <> salvation.

but isn't Peter saying it is for remission of sins saying it is about salvation?Plus, isn't the attitude that most Christians take ("It doesn't matter") showing that they really aren't saved simply because of thier attitude about something as simple as going and getting dunked in Jesus' name as we are commanded??? I mean, you can argue its a heart thing, but I would say that the people who argue against Jesus' name baptism in this thread (and others), well, quite frankly they are showing that thier hearts are not in the right place due to thier attitudes about doing a simple little command that God made...

Larry, I was baptized because I felt it was important. I have never equated my baptism with my salvation, though. My salvation occurred on the cross at Calvary not in a horse tank. My baptism was my outward and public profession that I wanted to be held accountable as a professed believer in the salvation I acquired through Jesus death on the cross. Nothing more. I didn't get "more saved" by being baptised. As a matter of fact it was several months after I placed my trust in Christ that I even considered baptism.

but is that because your church didn't preach it or because God didn't require it??I think a big thing we are mixing up here is God's requirements and what our personal churches' preach... What God requires is plainly stated in the Bible, but our churches are not garunteed to be preaching that...

Just because your local church doesn't preach baptism is required doesn't mean it isn't, you really need to seek God and read His word... because in His word it is commanded of us and it is said to be for the remission of sin... without baptism, you are still under the penalty of your sin...

 

[Politician Spock]

lol, the difference between those is simply writing styles and the era it was written in.. I think...

the "orthodox" (modern) Christian definition is basically what I believe, I just don't call it a trinity....

some articles to read:

http://www.revelations.org.za/WrongTrinity.htm

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

from the Wikipedia site:

Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by some sects, are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist.

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized."

While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and this association was attributed to Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles speaks of believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). Some take this as not indicating a formula, but as corresponding in meaning rather to the phrases "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3) and "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) - compare "baptized ... into John's baptism" (Acts 19:3), "baptized in the name of Paul" (1 Corinthians 1:13), "baptized into Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2).

In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus himself is often interpreted as a manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16–17, RSV).

"This is the Faith of our baptism", the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 was changed (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm), what I find interesting is so many places and so many times that the trinity is confirmed in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but if Matthew 28:19 is a lie, what does that tell us about the trinity? Shouldn't it tell us something about it? Should we maybe reconsider our belief in a triune God?the trinity was adopted by the church through platonian (neoplatonian) philosophy... but we are suppose to be fleeing traditions and philosophy of men, so, again, shouldn't we be wary of any thought that is adopted from influences that are philosophies of men???

From what I "discern" about Matthew 28:19, it seems to me the 'change' is purely cosmetic, and I would think that to one who believes Jesus = God = The Holy Spirit, the two statements "baptize in my (Jesus) name" and "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" would carry the same meaning. It may be an editorial addition, but how is it a "lie"?

is it really though??? Have you ever heard of the "Shield of the Trinity" or the "Scutum Fedei"??? Basically it is this:The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father

HOWEVER, they all are God completely...

THUS, according to the doctrine of the trinity, baptizing in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost is NOT baptizing in Jesus' name whether you are arguing Jesus is the Son or not...

FALSE!

The only way your statement can be true is if the authority (name) of Jesus is not the same as the authority (name) of the Father or the authority (name) of the Holy Spirit. All being God completely they all have the same authority (name), even when "The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father".

I can't believe I've replied again to you in this thread, but it's this one false conclusion you are making (among many other false conclusions) that is the entire foundation for your argument.

 

[larry_boy_44]

lol, the difference between those is simply writing styles and the era it was written in.. I think...

the "orthodox" (modern) Christian definition is basically what I believe, I just don't call it a trinity....

some articles to read:

http://www.revelations.org.za/WrongTrinity.htm

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

from the Wikipedia site:

Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by some sects, are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist.

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized."

While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and this association was attributed to Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles speaks of believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). Some take this as not indicating a formula, but as corresponding in meaning rather to the phrases "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3) and "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) - compare "baptized ... into John's baptism" (Acts 19:3), "baptized in the name of Paul" (1 Corinthians 1:13), "baptized into Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2).

In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus himself is often interpreted as a manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16–17, RSV).

"This is the Faith of our baptism", the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 was changed (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm), what I find interesting is so many places and so many times that the trinity is confirmed in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but if Matthew 28:19 is a lie, what does that tell us about the trinity? Shouldn't it tell us something about it? Should we maybe reconsider our belief in a triune God?the trinity was adopted by the church through platonian (neoplatonian) philosophy... but we are suppose to be fleeing traditions and philosophy of men, so, again, shouldn't we be wary of any thought that is adopted from influences that are philosophies of men???

From what I "discern" about Matthew 28:19, it seems to me the 'change' is purely cosmetic, and I would think that to one who believes Jesus = God = The Holy Spirit, the two statements "baptize in my (Jesus) name" and "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" would carry the same meaning. It may be an editorial addition, but how is it a "lie"?

is it really though??? Have you ever heard of the "Shield of the Trinity" or the "Scutum Fedei"??? Basically it is this:The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father

HOWEVER, they all are God completely...

THUS, according to the doctrine of the trinity, baptizing in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost is NOT baptizing in Jesus' name whether you are arguing Jesus is the Son or not...

FALSE!

The only way your statement can be true is if the authority (name) of Jesus is not the same as the authority (name) of the Father or the authority (name) of the Holy Spirit. All being God completely they all have the same authority (name), even when "The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father".

I can't believe I've replied again to you in this thread, but it's this one false conclusion you are making (among many other false conclusions) that is the entire foundation for your argument.

Spock, either the Son is the Father or is not the Father, cannot be both...the problem is that you are ignoring the entire basis for what I am saying and that is, basically, that the whole foundation for baptism in the titles is based upon heresy that was brought into the church, the problem is that you refuse to read anything I post that says that and keep posting this over and over...

the fact of the matter is that baptizing in the titles is giving power to a heresy that is and will continue to bring people to hell until it is stopped...

 

[Politician Spock]

lol, the difference between those is simply writing styles and the era it was written in.. I think...

the "orthodox" (modern) Christian definition is basically what I believe, I just don't call it a trinity....

some articles to read:

http://www.revelations.org.za/WrongTrinity.htm

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

from the Wikipedia site:

Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by some sects, are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist.

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized."

While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and this association was attributed to Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles speaks of believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). Some take this as not indicating a formula, but as corresponding in meaning rather to the phrases "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3) and "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) - compare "baptized ... into John's baptism" (Acts 19:3), "baptized in the name of Paul" (1 Corinthians 1:13), "baptized into Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2).

In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus himself is often interpreted as a manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16–17, RSV).

"This is the Faith of our baptism", the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 was changed (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm), what I find interesting is so many places and so many times that the trinity is confirmed in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but if Matthew 28:19 is a lie, what does that tell us about the trinity? Shouldn't it tell us something about it? Should we maybe reconsider our belief in a triune God?the trinity was adopted by the church through platonian (neoplatonian) philosophy... but we are suppose to be fleeing traditions and philosophy of men, so, again, shouldn't we be wary of any thought that is adopted from influences that are philosophies of men???

From what I "discern" about Matthew 28:19, it seems to me the 'change' is purely cosmetic, and I would think that to one who believes Jesus = God = The Holy Spirit, the two statements "baptize in my (Jesus) name" and "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" would carry the same meaning. It may be an editorial addition, but how is it a "lie"?

is it really though??? Have you ever heard of the "Shield of the Trinity" or the "Scutum Fedei"??? Basically it is this:The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father

HOWEVER, they all are God completely...

THUS, according to the doctrine of the trinity, baptizing in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost is NOT baptizing in Jesus' name whether you are arguing Jesus is the Son or not...

FALSE!

The only way your statement can be true is if the authority (name) of Jesus is not the same as the authority (name) of the Father or the authority (name) of the Holy Spirit. All being God completely they all have the same authority (name), even when "The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father".

I can't believe I've replied again to you in this thread, but it's this one false conclusion you are making (among many other false conclusions) that is the entire foundation for your argument.

Spock, either the Son is the Father or is not the Father, cannot be both...

YOU are the only one who claims the Son is the Father. The Shield of the Trinity says:* "The Father is God"

* "The Son is God"

* "The Holy Spirit is God"

* "God is the Father"

* "God is the Son"

* "God is the Holy Spirit"

* "The Father is not the Son"

* "The Son is not the Father"

* "The Father is not the Holy Spirit"

* "The Holy Spirit is not the Father"

* "The Son is not the Holy Spirit"

* "The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

the problem is that you are ignoring the entire basis for what I am saying and that is, basically, that the whole foundation for baptism in the titles is based upon heresy that was brought into the church, the problem is that you refuse to read anything I post that says that and keep posting this over and over...

the fact of the matter is that baptizing in the titles is giving power to a heresy that is and will continue to bring people to hell until it is stopped...

YOU are the one baptizing in titles!!! Because if you honestly believe that you are baptizing in authority (and not a title), then the authority of Jesus can not be the same authority of the Father or the Holy Spirit for your argument to hold water.

 

[larry_boy_44]

lol, the difference between those is simply writing styles and the era it was written in.. I think...

the "orthodox" (modern) Christian definition is basically what I believe, I just don't call it a trinity....

some articles to read:

http://www.revelations.org.za/WrongTrinity.htm

http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

from the Wikipedia site:

Many Christians begin to learn about the Trinity through knowledge of Baptism. This is also a starting point for others in comprehending why the doctrine matters to so many Christians, even though the doctrine itself teaches that the being of God is beyond complete comprehension. The Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, which are often used as brief summations of Christian faith by some sects, are structured around profession of the Trinity, and are solemnly professed by converts to Christianity when they receive baptism, and in the Church's liturgy, particularly when celebrating the Eucharist.

Baptism itself is generally conferred with the Trinitarian formula, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19); and Basil the Great (330–379) declared: "We are bound to be baptized in the terms we have received, and to profess faith in the terms in which we have been baptized."

While the penultimate verse of St Matthew's Gospel indicates that baptism was associated with this Trinitarian formula from the earliest decades of the Church's existence ("baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit") and this association was attributed to Jesus himself, the Acts of the Apostles speaks of believers being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" (2:38, 10:48) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (8:16, 19:5). Some take this as not indicating a formula, but as corresponding in meaning rather to the phrases "baptized into Christ Jesus" (Romans 6:3) and "baptized into Christ" (Galatians 3:27) - compare "baptized ... into John's baptism" (Acts 19:3), "baptized in the name of Paul" (1 Corinthians 1:13), "baptized into Moses" (1 Corinthians 10:2).

In the synoptic Gospels the baptism of Jesus himself is often interpreted as a manifestation of all three Persons of the Trinity: "And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16–17, RSV).

"This is the Faith of our baptism", the First Council of Constantinople declared (382), "that teaches us to believe in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. According to this Faith there is one Godhead, Power, and Being of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Matthew 28:19 was changed (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm), what I find interesting is so many places and so many times that the trinity is confirmed in baptism and in Matthew 28:19, but if Matthew 28:19 is a lie, what does that tell us about the trinity? Shouldn't it tell us something about it? Should we maybe reconsider our belief in a triune God?the trinity was adopted by the church through platonian (neoplatonian) philosophy... but we are suppose to be fleeing traditions and philosophy of men, so, again, shouldn't we be wary of any thought that is adopted from influences that are philosophies of men???

From what I "discern" about Matthew 28:19, it seems to me the 'change' is purely cosmetic, and I would think that to one who believes Jesus = God = The Holy Spirit, the two statements "baptize in my (Jesus) name" and "baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" would carry the same meaning. It may be an editorial addition, but how is it a "lie"?

is it really though??? Have you ever heard of the "Shield of the Trinity" or the "Scutum Fedei"??? Basically it is this:The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father

HOWEVER, they all are God completely...

THUS, according to the doctrine of the trinity, baptizing in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy ghost is NOT baptizing in Jesus' name whether you are arguing Jesus is the Son or not...

FALSE!

The only way your statement can be true is if the authority (name) of Jesus is not the same as the authority (name) of the Father or the authority (name) of the Holy Spirit. All being God completely they all have the same authority (name), even when "The Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost is not the Father".

I can't believe I've replied again to you in this thread, but it's this one false conclusion you are making (among many other false conclusions) that is the entire foundation for your argument.

Spock, either the Son is the Father or is not the Father, cannot be both...

YOU are the only one who claims the Son is the Father. The Shield of the Trinity says:* "The Father is God"

* "The Son is God"

* "The Holy Spirit is God"

* "God is the Father"

* "God is the Son"

* "God is the Holy Spirit"

* "The Father is not the Son"

* "The Son is not the Father"

* "The Father is not the Holy Spirit"

* "The Holy Spirit is not the Father"

* "The Son is not the Holy Spirit"

* "The Holy Spirit is not the Son"

the problem is that you are ignoring the entire basis for what I am saying and that is, basically, that the whole foundation for baptism in the titles is based upon heresy that was brought into the church, the problem is that you refuse to read anything I post that says that and keep posting this over and over...

the fact of the matter is that baptizing in the titles is giving power to a heresy that is and will continue to bring people to hell until it is stopped...

YOU are the one baptizing in titles!!! Because if you honestly believe that you are baptizing in authority (and not a title), then the authority of Jesus can not be the same authority of the Father or the Holy Spirit for your argument to hold water.

are you not reading what I am saying?The whole reason the trinity was adopted was because the church of the late second cnetury and later started adopting neoplatonian philosophy as its basis on its thoughts about God...

The basis for the Trinity is not taken out of the Bible, but taken out of this style of philosophy.

The biggest problem with the Trinity is simply that Jesus IS the Father IS the Holy Spirit. There is one God, and it doesn't matter how you try and justify it, if the Father is not the Son, you believe in multiple gods, Spock...

If the Father is not the Son either the Trinity is a lie or "Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one" is a lie... both cannot be true...

 

[Mr. Chumley]

Day 3 and you guys are still going at it. I hate to be captian obvious here but its a draw. You're not changing each others mind. Let's find something we can all agree on like Dan Marino being the best qb ever.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I thought the dog would get tired of chasing his tail.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Day 3 and you guys are still going at it. I hate to be captian obvious here but its a draw. You're not changing each others mind. Let's find something we can all agree on like Dan Marino being the best qb ever.

Brett Favre = best QB ever