What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

you guys are really confusing me.  Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?
basically, yeah...
So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.
when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
IF there is a god he is likely more offended at your denominations attempts to denounce people who largely live god fearing lives filled with piety and faith. I have been to many many denominations and have never once heard denouncements like you are saying towards other faiths; maybe you should keep looking for a true church that doesn't judge in intolerance others who you should look to as brothers. You aren't saving anyone here Larry, just damning yourself.
 
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
I would think that a god that defines himself as perfect would be able to get over an honest mistake by those that in every way humanly possible try to love him.
 
Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.
I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...
Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).
http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...
I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.
so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???
If no one I know believe in baal, then no. Why should it?
Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then... :shrug:
No one I know is worshipping demons and pagan gods Larry. It's really a reach to say a person baptized "in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" worships demons and pagan gods when they profess belief in Christ, serve Christ, and produce good fruit. You are basing your entire opinion of that person on the words that were uttered during their baptism and completely ignoring what that person professes to believes, how they live their life, and the fruit their life produces. THAT is not Biblical.
Matthew 24:24 - For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.Mark 13:22 - for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

II Corinthians 11:14-15 - No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Romans 16:17-19 -Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.

(note: Thus, those who taught differently from the apostles (those who brought the Trinity in and those hwo changed baptism) were not following God, they were following thier own flesh and we should turn away from EVERYTHING they said)

I Timothy 4:1-3 - But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

II Timothy 3:13 -But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

so, there will be decievers in the last days leaving the true doctrines... :shrug: I'm the one that left the false doctrines, you are saying that its ok to stay in them because you don't believe some of the falsehoods...

now, tradition and the question, what was the sin of the pharisees??? Simply put, they neglected the command of God for thier traditions (as the modern church is doing with its baptism):

Mark 7:1-10 - The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,

and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;

And when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the (F)tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"

And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,

BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,

TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'

"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (J)tradition of men."

He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

the trinity was adopted through being decieved by the tradition of men and thier philosophy and is now being kept by a church that is neglecting the commands of God in order to honor its philosophy... both of those are things that we are explicitly taught NOT to do...
Larry, no one believes that the Trinity is polytheistic anymore. NO ONE! It's a dissension and hindrance contrary to the teaching of the apostles that has already been rebuked. No one believes in three Gods anymore. Now take a good look at this verse that you posted:

Romans 16:17-19 -Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

and think, and I mean SERIOUSLY THINK, about what you do to unsuspecting Catholics and others who are baptized.

and also think about what you said here:

so, there will be decievers in the last days leaving the true doctrines...
You're whole point is that the church was decieved 1700 years ago. 1700 years ago was not the last days. We are far more likely to be in the last days now. Are you possibly one of the "decievers in the last days leaving the true doctrines"? Is it possible at all? Or is just impossible that you are possbily decieving others? Seriously think about this.

 
Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.
I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?
Pray.Romans 10, 13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (please don't assume this has any meaning to the other debates going on. I am only suggesting that Faith is your job. God has reached out, your Faith comes next. Faith plugs all holes and allows God to work in your life. Or whatever his name is and in whatever language.)

Paraphrasing someone:

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

We all put faith in something or someone. In whom do you put yours? Men? Scholars? Tacos?

 
you guys are really confusing me. Let me see if I got this.

Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?
basically, yeah...
So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.
when the trinity was adopted they were...now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
They're not referring to Him as if He were a pagan god. Someone else can claim that they words they use are referring to a pagan god, but they themselves are not referring to a pagan god. Again, your whole argument is based on semantics and how one could infer different references than what the person being baptized actually believes. God is above such mundane semantic games and is not offended by the person being baptized.
 
Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.
I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.
Peter disagrees with you, read his speech in Acts 2...
Okay, I reread it. Everyone who accepted this message was baptized. So again I ask, is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism a logical event following salvation? If you ask me should Christians be baptized, I would answer with a resounding yes. However, anything you require for salvation is adding onto Jesus death on the cross. When he said it was finished he meant it.

I am not saying baptism is meaningless or not commanded. I am saying it is different than salvation.

Actually this is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in debating this as because Chumley pointed out this stupid bickering is doing nothing to further the gospel, so I will agree to disagree. No hard feelings.

 
Okay, I reread it. Everyone who accepted this message was baptized. So again I ask, is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism a logical event following salvation?

If you ask me should Christians be baptized, I would answer with a resounding yes. However, anything you require for salvation is adding onto Jesus death on the cross. When he said it was finished he meant it.

I am not saying baptism is meaningless or not commanded. I am saying it is different than salvation.

Actually this is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in debating this as because Chumley pointed out this stupid bickering is doing nothing to further the gospel, so I will agree to disagree. No hard feelings.
And the FBGs all said....AMEN
 
Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.
I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?
Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.
I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...
Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).
http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...
I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.
so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then... :shrug:
Larry, other than your pastor and some religious editorial arguments you have read, where does this notion of what the holy trinity represents come from? Any scholarly works or actual texts backing up research into this topic?If you have already posted this earlier in the thread could you point it out?

And I am talking about scholarly works (religious scholarly works is fine if it is footnoted), not articles or a pastor.
unfortunately, I can't find anything that is "scholarly"... which isn't surprising as, generaly speaking, people who believe as I do aren't very welcome in "scholarly" places off-hand... }=o( I know a guy I know was the first person who wasn't a trinitarian to go to the seminary school he is going to (and he is in his 2nd year there)...
 
when the trinity was adopted they were...

now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
IF there is a god he is likely more offended at your denominations attempts to denounce people who largely live god fearing lives filled with piety and faith. I have been to many many denominations and have never once heard denouncements like you are saying towards other faiths; maybe you should keep looking for a true church that doesn't judge in intolerance others who you should look to as brothers. You aren't saving anyone here Larry, just damning yourself.
you realize that if everyone who claims Christianity and all denominations/faiths are true than Jesus lied, right?He said that many would find damnation, and few would find life... that does suck, but that's what He said...

I'm not intolerant, I'm not hating, I don't hate, if you want to believe that way I won't bang down your church's door or anything, but I will not sit back and not state the truth when given the opportunity...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christianity is unique in that most religions are an attempt of humans to reach out to God, But Christianity is founded upon the belief that God reached out to humans. Unfortunately there is a lot of disagreement about what he said/meant when He reached out.
I never thought about that before....interesting....It still leaves my question floating in the air though. You're obviously an intelligent and well-intentioned person. So how can you say so emphatically that Larry Boy is wrong in his, and his church's, interpretations of things? In the end both of your arguements come back to a central pillar of faith. Larry has faith that his interpretation of baptism is correct. You gotta say "jesus", not "father son and holy spirit" and it is a requirement of salvation. He bases this faith on quotes, letters and stories told, retold and recorded 1500 years ago. Your faith tells you differently. But your faith is also based on quotes, letters and stories from 1500 years ago. I certainly don't know who's quotes & interpretations are correct and neither do you guys. But you are willing to argue/discuss it for 3 days all the while knowing that you can't actually KNOW what you claim you KNOW. You can only BELIEVE it and have faith in that belief. I don't question your beliefs and faith, I applaud them. I'm not suggesting for a MOMENT that you change them or that you even stop discussing them with Larry or anybody else who comes along. It's your faith and your life so it would be silly of me to suggest I know better what you should do with them. But I'd still like to understand it better. Faith, and how you get there. And how you can defend your faith so earnestly and logically when those same logic circuits must be telling you that in the end when you follow the string of any of your arguments no matter how well thought out and footnoted and supported will eventually, at some point, come to a point of faith. An unprovable link in the chain....a hole in the story that can only be explained by faith in the unexplainable. I guess that's where "leap of faith" comes from. You must literally leap that hole to make the connection and continue the belief. Without that leap the threads unravel.

How do you make that leap?
Larry has claimed that millions of Catholics (as well as other Christians in other denominations) are not saved because the wrong combination of words was uttered during their baptism. I've been open minded to hear his case for his claim, but his claim is based on the use of logical fallacies. While there's no way to logically prove that he is wrong in his belief, he has failed to use logic properly to support his case to others. It doesn't take faith to sbelieve that Larry is using logical fallacies in his argument. What I believe is faith. What Larry believes is faith. But the belief that Larry has used logical fallicies in his argument is as clear as day... it's not a faith to believe that he has.
I'm not saying they are not saved because the words uttered are wrong. I am saying they are not saved because they are being baptized in the titles of pagan gods and demons, not the one true God of Israel...
Titles are words Larry. That's why we get baptised in God's authority (name), and not in the titles we give God (which have all been translated into English anyway).
http://www.biblestudy.org/maturart/onegod.htmlread that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...
I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.
so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then... :shrug:
Larry, other than your pastor and some religious editorial arguments you have read, where does this notion of what the holy trinity represents come from? Any scholarly works or actual texts backing up research into this topic?If you have already posted this earlier in the thread could you point it out?

And I am talking about scholarly works (religious scholarly works is fine if it is footnoted), not articles or a pastor.
unfortunately, I can't find anything that is "scholarly"... which isn't surprising as, generaly speaking, people who believe as I do aren't very welcome in "scholarly" places off-hand... }=o( I know a guy I know was the first person who wasn't a trinitarian to go to the seminary school he is going to (and he is in his 2nd year there)...
So you believe all of this based on what?
 
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
I would think that a god that defines himself as perfect would be able to get over an honest mistake by those that in every way humanly possible try to love him.
I would think that God would expect us to do as He said, not just accept whatever we feel like doing and thinking...
 
you guys are really confusing me.  Let me see if I got this.Let's start with an easy one.

Spock says the trinity is true.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God

Is that right?

Larry Boy says One God but not a trinity?

Is that right?
basically, yeah...
So Jesus and the Holy spirit are seperate Gods? I'm a little behind hre I just don't want to go back and read the whole thing.
when the trinity was adopted they were...

now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...

we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology.

People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...

The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words?

Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
IF there is a god he is likely more offended at your denominations attempts to denounce people who largely live god fearing lives filled with piety and faith. I have been to many many denominations and have never once heard denouncements like you are saying towards other faiths; maybe you should keep looking for a true church that doesn't judge in intolerance others who you should look to as brothers. You aren't saving anyone here Larry, just damning yourself.
you realize that if everyone who claims Christianity and all denominations/faiths are true than Jesus lied, right?

He said that many would find damnation, and few would find life... that does suck, but that's what He said...

I'm not intolerant, I'm not hating, I don't hate, if you want to believe that way I won't bang down your church's door or anything, but I will not sit back and not state the truth when given the opportunity...
How is what you say the truth and why is your denomination the one true one?

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

read that article, Spock, the trinity that was adopted by the church in the 4th century was adapted to fit Jesus & YHWH and such...
I don't deny that Larry. But no one has been baptized "in the Name of Trinity". You seem to think that everyone that has been baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" has been baptized into the Name of a title that 1700 years ago was polytheistic. If a person is baptized "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and they believe in one God in three manifestations, then they have been baptized in the authority of God and not the 1700 year old title of a definition of God that no one even believes in anymore.
so the fact that we took belief in baal and just changed some wording doesn't bother you at all???
If no one I know believe in baal, then no. Why should it?
Well, I guess you can have fun worshipping your demons and pagan gods then... :shrug:
No one I know is worshipping demons and pagan gods Larry. It's really a reach to say a person baptized "in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" worships demons and pagan gods when they profess belief in Christ, serve Christ, and produce good fruit. You are basing your entire opinion of that person on the words that were uttered during their baptism and completely ignoring what that person professes to believes, how they live their life, and the fruit their life produces. THAT is not Biblical.
Matthew 24:24 - For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.Mark 13:22 - for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect.

II Corinthians 11:14-15 - No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Romans 16:17-19 -Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

For the report of your obedience has reached to all; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good and innocent in what is evil.

(note: Thus, those who taught differently from the apostles (those who brought the Trinity in and those hwo changed baptism) were not following God, they were following thier own flesh and we should turn away from EVERYTHING they said)

I Timothy 4:1-3 - But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

II Timothy 3:13 -But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

so, there will be decievers in the last days leaving the true doctrines... :shrug: I'm the one that left the false doctrines, you are saying that its ok to stay in them because you don't believe some of the falsehoods...

now, tradition and the question, what was the sin of the pharisees??? Simply put, they neglected the command of God for thier traditions (as the modern church is doing with its baptism):

Mark 7:1-10 - The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,

and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.

(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;

And when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the (F)tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"

And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,

BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,

TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'

"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (J)tradition of men."

He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

Colossians 2:8 - See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.

the trinity was adopted through being decieved by the tradition of men and thier philosophy and is now being kept by a church that is neglecting the commands of God in order to honor its philosophy... both of those are things that we are explicitly taught NOT to do...
Larry, no one believes that the Trinity is polytheistic anymore. NO ONE! It's a dissension and hindrance contrary to the teaching of the apostles that has already been rebuked. No one believes in three Gods anymore. Now take a good look at this verse that you posted:

Romans 16:17-19 -Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

and think, and I mean SERIOUSLY THINK, about what you do to unsuspecting Catholics and others who are baptized.

and also think about what you said here:

so, there will be decievers in the last days leaving the true doctrines...
You're whole point is that the church was decieved 1700 years ago. 1700 years ago was not the last days. We are far more likely to be in the last days now. Are you possibly one of the "decievers in the last days leaving the true doctrines"? Is it possible at all? Or is just impossible that you are possbily decieving others? Seriously think about this.
Spock, a few things...one, in order for me to leave the true doctrine, the trinity and baptism in the titles would have to be true and saying simply "God is one no matter how many different ways He shows Himself to us" and baptizing in Jesus' name is false (which is absolutely not true and you know it)

second, Paul himself believed that they were living in the last days 2000 years ago...

third, it doesn't matter what you think about it, you are still referring to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion and not the one true God when you follow the dogma of the trinity...

Does God show Himself to us as a Father as a Son and as a Holy Spirit? Absolutely... the problem is that you are going "this is good enough" about some of the lies that have been told and made up over the last 1700 years rather than go "I am going to do exactly what God told us to do since I now know the truth"...

Stop listening to the traditions and the things men have taught you and realize that God said something very specific...

Let me be blunt:

I've shown you Matthew 28:19 said "My name" originally, you know the original church baptized in Jesus' name...

SO why in the world have you not sucked it up and gotten dunked in the name of Jesus???

The answer is simple: You are neglecting the true commands of God for the traditions that you have been given by men...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
when the trinity was adopted they were...

now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
They're not referring to Him as if He were a pagan god. Someone else can claim that they words they use are referring to a pagan god, but they themselves are not referring to a pagan god. Again, your whole argument is based on semantics and how one could infer different references than what the person being baptized actually believes. God is above such mundane semantic games and is not offended by the person being baptized.
Spock, how simple was His command? Its not like it was a difficult thing to do... "baptizing them in my name" how hard is that???If we can't even follow a command that simple, how can we think that we are truely following Him completely?

You say that God is above such semantics, but what if He isn't?? Are you willing to bet your salvation that traditions that were taken from pagans 1700 years ago are acceptable to God????

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.
I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.
Peter disagrees with you, read his speech in Acts 2...
Okay, I reread it. Everyone who accepted this message was baptized. So again I ask, is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism a logical event following salvation? If you ask me should Christians be baptized, I would answer with a resounding yes. However, anything you require for salvation is adding onto Jesus death on the cross. When he said it was finished he meant it.

I am not saying baptism is meaningless or not commanded. I am saying it is different than salvation.

Actually this is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in debating this as because Chumley pointed out this stupid bickering is doing nothing to further the gospel, so I will agree to disagree. No hard feelings.
they wern't just baptized, though, KIA, they were COMMANDED to be baptized by Peter... They wanted to be converted, to be saved, and asked what to do and Peter told them to repent and be baptized...He didn't say "you are saved, but now, as a logical progression of your faith, you should repetn and then be baptized in Jesus' name", no, HE COMMANDED THEM TO DO IT!! He demanded it of them...

If you have not followed this command, this doctrinal demand from God, then you are not saved, you are not following God, you are not walking the path that He set before you...

His blood might have been spilled, but it cannot be applied to the mercy seat of your temple until you are washed...

 
shucks. I came in thinking LB44 might be entertaining.

Instead, the same old stuff by him.

 
Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.
I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.
Peter disagrees with you, read his speech in Acts 2...
Okay, I reread it. Everyone who accepted this message was baptized. So again I ask, is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism a logical event following salvation? If you ask me should Christians be baptized, I would answer with a resounding yes. However, anything you require for salvation is adding onto Jesus death on the cross. When he said it was finished he meant it.

I am not saying baptism is meaningless or not commanded. I am saying it is different than salvation.

Actually this is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in debating this as because Chumley pointed out this stupid bickering is doing nothing to further the gospel, so I will agree to disagree. No hard feelings.
they wern't just baptized, though, KIA, they were COMMANDED to be baptized by Peter... They wanted to be converted, to be saved, and asked what to do and Peter told them to repent and be baptized...He didn't say "you are saved, but now, as a logical progression of your faith, you should repetn and then be baptized in Jesus' name", no, HE COMMANDED THEM TO DO IT!! He demanded it of them...

If you have not followed this command, this doctrinal demand from God, then you are not saved, you are not following God, you are not walking the path that He set before you...

His blood might have been spilled, but it cannot be applied to the mercy seat of your temple until you are washed...
Okay. Meanwhile anyone else who is reading this and are considering faith, please at a minimum realize that Christ died for you. Whatever else you do, that is the important part. All the rest of this stuff you can work out as you try to figure out your faith.
 
when the trinity was adopted they were...

now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
IF there is a god he is likely more offended at your denominations attempts to denounce people who largely live god fearing lives filled with piety and faith. I have been to many many denominations and have never once heard denouncements like you are saying towards other faiths; maybe you should keep looking for a true church that doesn't judge in intolerance others who you should look to as brothers. You aren't saving anyone here Larry, just damning yourself.
you realize that if everyone who claims Christianity and all denominations/faiths are true than Jesus lied, right?He said that many would find damnation, and few would find life... that does suck, but that's what He said...

I'm not intolerant, I'm not hating, I don't hate, if you want to believe that way I won't bang down your church's door or anything, but I will not sit back and not state the truth when given the opportunity...
How is what you say the truth and why is your denomination the one true one?
because it is actually what the Bible says... when you are preaching doctrine that are against what the book that you claim you get your doctrine from says you have a problem...the problem is the modern church doesn't care what God says, they just want to feel better about themselves, not lose themselves, not really follow Him or anyone else... They want things to be done how they want it to be done... and God is not going to accept the excuse of they thought it was good enough, because He expects obedience from us...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.
I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.
Peter disagrees with you, read his speech in Acts 2...
Okay, I reread it. Everyone who accepted this message was baptized. So again I ask, is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism a logical event following salvation? If you ask me should Christians be baptized, I would answer with a resounding yes. However, anything you require for salvation is adding onto Jesus death on the cross. When he said it was finished he meant it.

I am not saying baptism is meaningless or not commanded. I am saying it is different than salvation.

Actually this is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in debating this as because Chumley pointed out this stupid bickering is doing nothing to further the gospel, so I will agree to disagree. No hard feelings.
they wern't just baptized, though, KIA, they were COMMANDED to be baptized by Peter... They wanted to be converted, to be saved, and asked what to do and Peter told them to repent and be baptized...He didn't say "you are saved, but now, as a logical progression of your faith, you should repetn and then be baptized in Jesus' name", no, HE COMMANDED THEM TO DO IT!! He demanded it of them...

If you have not followed this command, this doctrinal demand from God, then you are not saved, you are not following God, you are not walking the path that He set before you...

His blood might have been spilled, but it cannot be applied to the mercy seat of your temple until you are washed...
Okay. Meanwhile anyone else who is reading this and are considering faith, please at a minimum realize that Christ died for you. Whatever else you do, that is the important part. All the rest of this stuff you can work out as you try to figure out your faith.
yes, just remember that and ignore everything else, because Mr. Know-It-All wants you to go to hell with him as he isn't obeying God's commands either...good job, KIA, good job... :thumbdown:

seriously, how in the world do people convince themselves that they can just ignore what God says like this?? It make no sense to me... "Yeah, God said that, but what I'm doing is good enough, so I don't need to listen to Him"... WHAT?!?!

who are we that we can just ignore what he commands of us??? Where do we get off thinking we are that smart or that good or worthy of anything except damnation?

I find it amusing that you say nothing we do saves us, yet at the same time state that belief in Jesus dying and faith in him saves us... WHAT??? which is it? Does nothing we do save us, or does our faith save us?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me be blunt:

I've shown you Matthew 28:19 said "My name" originally, you know the original church baptized in Jesus' name...

SO why in the world have you not sucked it up and gotten dunked in the name of Jesus???

The answer is simple: You are neglecting the true commands of God for the traditions that you have been given by men...
How do you know the commands you believe to be true are actually true? If Matthew 28:19 was changed, is it not possible that other verses have been changed as well? I know that discovering that a part of the bible had been changed would make me more hesitant to believe that the rest of the book is the literal word of God, but it seems to have no effect on you.
 
Pray.

Romans 10, 13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (please don't assume this has any meaning to the other debates going on.  I am only suggesting that Faith is your job.  God has reached out, your Faith comes next.  Faith plugs all holes and allows God to work in your life.  Or whatever his name is and in whatever language.)

Paraphrasing someone:

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

We all put faith in something or someone.  In whom do you put yours?  Men? Scholars? Tacos?
Thank you for the reply. And thank you to (I think it was) Chumley who suggested that my posts were not merely fishing but honest questions of faith. They are honest questions and I'm looking for honest answers and I appreciate all that I have received so far.I've got some big things going on in my life right now, things that require big answers to big questions. I've commented to friends more then once recently that I've felt like these questions and challenges were too big for me. I've felt not so much like I CAN'T answer the questions so much as I don't even know HOW to answer them. I feel small compared to challenges before me. As I've made these comments to some I've gotten replies like "have faith" and "pray". I usually write off such platitudes as carrying no more weight then "have a nice day". But I'm honestly looking at faith and the faithful with a bit of envy right now because I honestly believe that faith and prayer would probably serve me well right now and I'm a bit saddened by the fact that I lack them.

Of course this causes conflict with other beliefs and tenents I try to live my life by. The fact of the matter is that I have a problem with "religion" and "the church" and the intolerance they represent. It bothers me that one group of people can so casually label another group of people as wrong when they know damn well that their definition of right and wrong is based on faith and not fact. I'm one of those people that says things like "the Catholic church is responsible for more death then any other institution in human history" at parties because it's pithy. I apologize for saying that here...I don't say it to anger or offend, I'm merely trying to illustrate the situation I now find myself in, and it is this: I shun the church & religion in general. I despise the "legalese" of verse & doctrine. I HATE the fanatical and how they have changed my son's world. Yet I desire faith and -just sometimes- envy the faithful.

How many sins did I just cop to btw?

EDIT TO ADD that I never answered fightingchick's question about what I put faith in. In a nutshell - myself & my fellow man. I believe in inherent human goodness (I've never met an evil child). I don't believe we all stay good. Economics, race, geography, intellect, upbringing and -above all else- CHOICE determines whether we stay good, go bad or go somewhere in between. But I believe in myself and my friends to do good by me and my family until I'm proven wrong.

Is that faith? I don't know...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Spock, a few things...

one, in order for me to leave the true doctrine, the trinity and baptism in the titles would have to be true and saying simply "God is one no matter how many different ways He shows Himself to us" and baptizing in Jesus' name is false (which is absolutely not true and you know it)
In order for you to leave the true doctrine, the 1700 year old definition of the title "Trinity" does not have to be true. No one believes it any more, and probably hasn't for over a thousand years. The fact is this whole Pentacostal argument is an incredibly recent phenomena when you look at the 2000 year history of the church.
second, Paul himself believed that they were living in the last days 2000 years ago...
And I believe we are today. Who is more likely to be right? Was the church 1700 years ago in the last days or not. Does the verse you applied to them really apply to them if they weren't in the last days?
third, it doesn't matter what you think about it, you are still referring to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion and not the one true God when you follow the dogma of the trinity...
No one who is getting baptized today is referring to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion. You are inferring from their words a reference to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion. You as a bystanderd can infer a lot of things from someone else words. What really matter is what the person being baptized is referring to, and they are referring to the one true God who exists in three manifestations.
Does God show Himself to us as a Father as a Son and as a Holy Spirit? Absolutely... the problem is that you are going "this is good enough" about some of the lies that have been told and made up over the last 1700 years rather than go "I am going to do exactly what God told us to do since I now know the truth"...
Then like I've said countless times, say it in Greek if doing it exactly is so important.
Stop listening to the traditions and the things men have taught you and realize that God said something very specific...
God is very specific, but you said above one can refer to Him with different names. BUT God will damn someone to hell for referring to Him as "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". If other references to God are acceptable, where is the specific instruction from God that this phrase is not acceptable. Seriously, you whole position on this appears to be bitterness towards what the church did 1700 years ago, and as such YOU won't accept those words so you believe God won't either.

Let me be blunt:

I've shown you Matthew 28:19 said "My name" originally, you know the original church baptized in Jesus' name...

SO why in the world have you not sucked it up and gotten dunked in the name of Jesus???

The answer is simple: You are neglecting the true commands of God for the traditions that you have been given by men...
I have already been baptized in the Name of Jesus. The "Name" of Jesus is no different than the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just because someone is bitter towards the actions of the church 1700 years ago is no reason for me to worry that I'm not baptized under the authority of the one true God.
 
Let me be blunt:

I've shown you Matthew 28:19 said "My name" originally, you know the original church baptized in Jesus' name...

SO why in the world have you not sucked it up and gotten dunked in the name of Jesus???

The answer is simple: You are neglecting the true commands of God for the traditions that you have been given by men...
How do you know the commands you believe to be true are actually true? If Matthew 28:19 was changed, is it not possible that other verses have been changed as well? I know that discovering that a part of the bible had been changed would make me more hesitant to believe that the rest of the book is the literal word of God, but it seems to have no effect on you.
Jesus talks to Lawrence.
 
Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.
I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.
Peter disagrees with you, read his speech in Acts 2...
Okay, I reread it. Everyone who accepted this message was baptized. So again I ask, is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism a logical event following salvation? If you ask me should Christians be baptized, I would answer with a resounding yes. However, anything you require for salvation is adding onto Jesus death on the cross. When he said it was finished he meant it.

I am not saying baptism is meaningless or not commanded. I am saying it is different than salvation.

Actually this is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in debating this as because Chumley pointed out this stupid bickering is doing nothing to further the gospel, so I will agree to disagree. No hard feelings.
they wern't just baptized, though, KIA, they were COMMANDED to be baptized by Peter... They wanted to be converted, to be saved, and asked what to do and Peter told them to repent and be baptized...He didn't say "you are saved, but now, as a logical progression of your faith, you should repetn and then be baptized in Jesus' name", no, HE COMMANDED THEM TO DO IT!! He demanded it of them...

If you have not followed this command, this doctrinal demand from God, then you are not saved, you are not following God, you are not walking the path that He set before you...

His blood might have been spilled, but it cannot be applied to the mercy seat of your temple until you are washed...
Okay. Meanwhile anyone else who is reading this and are considering faith, please at a minimum realize that Christ died for you. Whatever else you do, that is the important part. All the rest of this stuff you can work out as you try to figure out your faith.
yes, just remember that and ignore everything else, because Mr. Know-It-All wants you to go to hell with him as he isn't obeying God's commands either...good job, KIA, good job... :thumbdown:

seriously, how in the world do people convince themselves that they can just ignore what God says like this?? It make no sense to me... "Yeah, God said that, but what I'm doing is good enough, so I don't need to listen to Him"... WHAT?!?!

who are we that we can just ignore what he commands of us??? Where do we get off thinking we are that smart or that good or worthy of anything except damnation?

I find it amusing that you say nothing we do saves us, yet at the same time state that belief in Jesus dying and faith in him saves us... WHAT??? which is it? Does nothing we do save us, or does our faith save us?
Larry you have crossed over from being well meaning to vile. I am not going to argue points with you as it has proven fruitless. I should have followed CrossEyed's lead a long time ago.Yay! I now going to hell according to the church of larry. Never mind the fact that I have accepted Christ and been baptized. Unfortunately that wasn't good enough because it doesn' meet larry's standards. Good job, larry!

I am not condemning your faith, larry. I am sure the folks in your church are all great people and have assurance of salvation. Its a shame the rest of us Christians get to go to hell because we don't adhere to your church and your religion. I am increasingly aware that whatever church you go to has decided that you will be the only ones in heaven. Have a good day!

 
when the trinity was adopted they were...

now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
They're not referring to Him as if He were a pagan god. Someone else can claim that they words they use are referring to a pagan god, but they themselves are not referring to a pagan god. Again, your whole argument is based on semantics and how one could infer different references than what the person being baptized actually believes. God is above such mundane semantic games and is not offended by the person being baptized.
Spock, how simple was His command? Its not like it was a difficult thing to do... "baptizing them in my name" how hard is that???If we can't even follow a command that simple, how can we think that we are truely following Him completely?

You say that God is above such semantics, but what if He isn't?? Are you willing to bet your salvation that traditions that were taken from pagans 1700 years ago are acceptable to God????
His command is easy. That's why all Christians do it. There are many passages in the NT that explain how we are to know who is a Christian and who isn't. And not one of the them tells us to check what words were uttered when they were baptized. If the words uttered during a baptism are so important to one's Christianity because of what the church did 1700 years ago, then these verses in the Bible written 1900+ years ago that tell us how to recognize other Christians are WRONG. Because even though someone may meet all the criteria of the versus in the Bible, we can't know if they are a Christian unless we find out what words were used when they were baptized. You're position that people baptized with the wrong words renders these other parts of the Bible as false.
 
Pray.

Romans 10, 13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (please don't assume this has any meaning to the other debates going on.  I am only suggesting that Faith is your job.  God has reached out, your Faith comes next.  Faith plugs all holes and allows God to work in your life.  Or whatever his name is and in whatever language.)

Paraphrasing someone:

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

We all put faith in something or someone.  In whom do you put yours?  Men? Scholars? Tacos?
Thank you for the reply. And thank you to (I think it was) Chumley who suggested that my posts were not merely fishing but honest questions of faith. They are honest questions and I'm looking for honest answers and I appreciate all that I have received so far.I've got some big things going on in my life right now, things that require big answers to big questions. I've commented to friends more then once recently that I've felt like these questions and challenges were too big for me. I've felt not so much like I CAN'T answer the questions so much as I don't even know HOW to answer them. I feel small compared to challenges before me. As I've made these comments to some I've gotten replies like "have faith" and "pray". I usually write off such platitudes as carrying no more weight then "have a nice day". But I'm honestly looking at faith and the faithful with a bit of envy right now because I honestly believe that faith and prayer would probably serve me well right now and I'm a bit saddened by the fact that I lack them.

Of course this causes conflict with other beliefs and tenents I try to live my life by. The fact of the matter is that I have a problem with "religion" and "the church" and the intolerance they represent. It bothers me that one group of people can so casually label another group of people as wrong when they know damn well that their definition of right and wrong is based on faith and not fact. I'm one of those people that says things like "the Catholic church is responsible for more death then any other institution in human history" at parties because it's pithy. I apologize for saying that here...I don't say it to anger or offend, I'm merely trying to illustrate the situation I now find myself in, and it is this: I shun the church & religion in general. I despise the "legalese" of verse & doctrine. I HATE the fanatical and how they have changed my son's world. Yet I desire faith and -just sometimes- envy the faithful.

How many sins did I just cop to btw?
My apologies, seahawk for getting involved in this "debate" with larry.You want my honest assesment of faith? It is a series of things you learn as you begin assessing your spirituality. It will be influenced by the church you attend, but ultimately the end goal should be to have a "relationship" with God.

These stupid arguments are counterproductive but let me tell you that I have travelled a very long and winding road to arrive at the faith I have today. Again I am sorry for this trainwreck and while I am not a great theologian I would be happy to take the time to answer questions if you want to PM me. I am certainly not an authority, but maybe the things I have learned or have experienced could be of benefit to you as I have been at points in my life agnostic, Catholic and evangelical.

 
because it is actually what the Bible says... when you are preaching doctrine that are against what the book that you claim you get your doctrine from says you have a problem...

the problem is the modern church doesn't care what God says, they just want to feel better about themselves, not lose themselves, not really follow Him or anyone else... They want things to be done how they want it to be done... and God is not going to accept the excuse of they thought it was good enough, because He expects obedience from us...
And with that, larry_boy has gone all the way over the edge. Until you conduct an exhaustive survey of all Christian churches/denominations/sects in the United States, you cannot support what you just said. You are taking a PERIPHERAL, SECONDARY ISSUE in the world of Christianity and drawing a line in the sand. As the first apostles were instructed in Acts and the epistles, I am shaking the dust off my shoes and leaving this thread, probably also as well as future theological discussions with you. Congratulations on having Christiantity completely right while the rest of us continue to wallow in our ignorance. I appreciate your concern for my soul, but I'm afraid I'm just too stubborn to jump to your side of the fence right now. I'll leave you with two of my favorite passages from the Bible:

The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow. Wisdom Is Meaningless

I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted. I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief. (Ecclesiastes 1)
Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10)
:bye:
 
Spock, a few things...

one, in order for me to leave the true doctrine, the trinity and baptism in the titles would have to be true and saying simply "God is one no matter how many different ways He shows Himself to us" and baptizing in Jesus' name is false (which is absolutely not true and you know it)
In order for you to leave the true doctrine, the 1700 year old definition of the title "Trinity" does not have to be true. No one believes it any more, and probably hasn't for over a thousand years. The fact is this whole Pentacostal argument is an incredibly recent phenomena when you look at the 2000 year history of the church.
second, Paul himself believed that they were living in the last days 2000 years ago...
And I believe we are today. Who is more likely to be right? Was the church 1700 years ago in the last days or not. Does the verse you applied to them really apply to them if they weren't in the last days?
third, it doesn't matter what you think about it, you are still referring to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion and not the one true God when you follow the dogma of the trinity...
No one who is getting baptized today is referring to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion. You are inferring from their words a reference to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion. You as a bystanderd can infer a lot of things from someone else words. What really matter is what the person being baptized is referring to, and they are referring to the one true God who exists in three manifestations.
Does God show Himself to us as a Father as a Son and as a Holy Spirit? Absolutely... the problem is that you are going "this is good enough" about some of the lies that have been told and made up over the last 1700 years rather than go "I am going to do exactly what God told us to do since I now know the truth"...
Then like I've said countless times, say it in Greek if doing it exactly is so important.
Stop listening to the traditions and the things men have taught you and realize that God said something very specific...
God is very specific, but you said above one can refer to Him with different names. BUT God will damn someone to hell for referring to Him as "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". If other references to God are acceptable, where is the specific instruction from God that this phrase is not acceptable. Seriously, you whole position on this appears to be bitterness towards what the church did 1700 years ago, and as such YOU won't accept those words so you believe God won't either.

Let me be blunt:

I've shown you Matthew 28:19 said "My name" originally, you know the original church baptized in Jesus' name...

SO why in the world have you not sucked it up and gotten dunked in the name of Jesus???

The answer is simple: You are neglecting the true commands of God for the traditions that you have been given by men...
I have already been baptized in the Name of Jesus. The "Name" of Jesus is no different than the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just because someone is bitter towards the actions of the church 1700 years ago is no reason for me to worry that I'm not baptized under the authority of the one true God.
Acts 4:20 - there is no other name given under heaven by which we might be saved....Stop neglecting God's commands for your tradition...

 
Uh fellows.  Might I point out that through all this arguing over doctrinal differences you guys missed something. 

A few posts ago Seahawk asked a question and it was a legitimate question.  I don't know Seahawk or what he believes but consider for a moment that he is truly interested in understanding Faith possibly Salvation.  You guys are so blinded by your disagreements that you are passing on an opportunity to share your faith with someone. 

Ironic isn't it.
I don't know if irony is the word, but all I am trying to do is strip away the legalism from what larry is trying to put out there. It is this legalism that is the flaw of virtually every church I have ever attended. The gospel is pretty straightforward (pardon my paraphrasing) -1. all have sinned (none are righteous, no matter how nice they are by human standards);

2. the wages of sin is death (separation from God - he detests sin)

3. while we were sinners, Christ died for us (he took on all sins for all time when he died on the cross)

4. believe in the lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved (he performed the atonement all we have to do is accept it)

5. salvation is a gift of grace from God, not works of men lest anyone should boast

6. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life

One action is required - to accept God's gift of salvation.

Unfortunately, man has created a list of rules to add to this simple plan which confuses the masses and makes this simple plan appear anything but simple.

I am sick of legal hoops that must be jumped through. I have nothing against any religion and could not care less how someone worships so long as they here the simple gospel and have the opportunity to decide whether or not they can agree with it. All the rest is unimportant. My argument with larry is for simplification of what constitutes salvation. I posit that it is quite simple, he thinks it is not so simple. My apologies to any confusion that i am condemning larry's beliefs, I am just trying to simplify the message.
Peter disagrees with you, read his speech in Acts 2...
Okay, I reread it. Everyone who accepted this message was baptized. So again I ask, is baptism necessary for salvation or is baptism a logical event following salvation? If you ask me should Christians be baptized, I would answer with a resounding yes. However, anything you require for salvation is adding onto Jesus death on the cross. When he said it was finished he meant it.

I am not saying baptism is meaningless or not commanded. I am saying it is different than salvation.

Actually this is a rhetorical question. I am not interested in debating this as because Chumley pointed out this stupid bickering is doing nothing to further the gospel, so I will agree to disagree. No hard feelings.
they wern't just baptized, though, KIA, they were COMMANDED to be baptized by Peter... They wanted to be converted, to be saved, and asked what to do and Peter told them to repent and be baptized...He didn't say "you are saved, but now, as a logical progression of your faith, you should repetn and then be baptized in Jesus' name", no, HE COMMANDED THEM TO DO IT!! He demanded it of them...

If you have not followed this command, this doctrinal demand from God, then you are not saved, you are not following God, you are not walking the path that He set before you...

His blood might have been spilled, but it cannot be applied to the mercy seat of your temple until you are washed...
Okay. Meanwhile anyone else who is reading this and are considering faith, please at a minimum realize that Christ died for you. Whatever else you do, that is the important part. All the rest of this stuff you can work out as you try to figure out your faith.
yes, just remember that and ignore everything else, because Mr. Know-It-All wants you to go to hell with him as he isn't obeying God's commands either...good job, KIA, good job... :thumbdown:

seriously, how in the world do people convince themselves that they can just ignore what God says like this?? It make no sense to me... "Yeah, God said that, but what I'm doing is good enough, so I don't need to listen to Him"... WHAT?!?!

who are we that we can just ignore what he commands of us??? Where do we get off thinking we are that smart or that good or worthy of anything except damnation?

I find it amusing that you say nothing we do saves us, yet at the same time state that belief in Jesus dying and faith in him saves us... WHAT??? which is it? Does nothing we do save us, or does our faith save us?
Larry you have crossed over from being well meaning to vile. I am not going to argue points with you as it has proven fruitless. I should have followed CrossEyed's lead a long time ago.Yay! I now going to hell according to the church of larry. Never mind the fact that I have accepted Christ and been baptized. Unfortunately that wasn't good enough because it doesn' meet larry's standards. Good job, larry!

I am not condemning your faith, larry. I am sure the folks in your church are all great people and have assurance of salvation. Its a shame the rest of us Christians get to go to hell because we don't adhere to your church and your religion. I am increasingly aware that whatever church you go to has decided that you will be the only ones in heaven. Have a good day!
I didn't decide it, KIA, God said it in His Word that you claim to follow but don't...
 
when the trinity was adopted they were...

now, they are less seperate than they were, but the problem is that we are still using pagan terminology and pagan ideas, even thought its been so long since we adopted them that we don't even realize it...
If people are no longer believing in three Gods, then they've already realized it. Regardless of whether or not pagans "own" terminology, it's a surperflous argument given we are baptized into God's authority and not terminology.
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
They're not referring to Him as if He were a pagan god. Someone else can claim that they words they use are referring to a pagan god, but they themselves are not referring to a pagan god. Again, your whole argument is based on semantics and how one could infer different references than what the person being baptized actually believes. God is above such mundane semantic games and is not offended by the person being baptized.
Spock, how simple was His command? Its not like it was a difficult thing to do... "baptizing them in my name" how hard is that???If we can't even follow a command that simple, how can we think that we are truely following Him completely?

You say that God is above such semantics, but what if He isn't?? Are you willing to bet your salvation that traditions that were taken from pagans 1700 years ago are acceptable to God????
His command is easy. That's why all Christians do it. There are many passages in the NT that explain how we are to know who is a Christian and who isn't. And not one of the them tells us to check what words were uttered when they were baptized. If the words uttered during a baptism are so important to one's Christianity because of what the church did 1700 years ago, then these verses in the Bible written 1900+ years ago that tell us how to recognize other Christians are WRONG. Because even though someone may meet all the criteria of the versus in the Bible, we can't know if they are a Christian unless we find out what words were used when they were baptized. You're position that people baptized with the wrong words renders these other parts of the Bible as false.
no, see, all the people those other verses were said to were baptized in Jesus name already... There was no argument or disagreement at that time...I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, Spock, but those letters we call the New TEstament are only a portion of the writings from those men, we will never have all of thier writings, and sometimes we need to have common sense about things, but there are direct commands that we see and distortions that we view in history of thier doctrine that we need to break completely away from, and you are absolutely refusing to do so... why?

 
because it is actually what the Bible says... when you are preaching doctrine that are against what the book that you claim you get your doctrine from says you have a problem...

the problem is the modern church doesn't care what God says, they just want to feel better about themselves, not lose themselves, not really follow Him or anyone else... They want things to be done how they want it to be done... and God is not going to accept the excuse of they thought it was good enough, because He expects obedience from us...
And with that, larry_boy has gone all the way over the edge. Until you conduct an exhaustive survey of all Christian churches/denominations/sects in the United States, you cannot support what you just said. You are taking a PERIPHERAL, SECONDARY ISSUE in the world of Christianity and drawing a line in the sand. As the first apostles were instructed in Acts and the epistles, I am shaking the dust off my shoes and leaving this thread, probably also as well as future theological discussions with you. Congratulations on having Christiantity completely right while the rest of us continue to wallow in our ignorance. I appreciate your concern for my soul, but I'm afraid I'm just too stubborn to jump to your side of the fence right now. I'll leave you with two of my favorite passages from the Bible:

The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

"Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? Generations come and generations go, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north; round and round it goes, ever returning on its course. All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, "Look! This is something new"? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. There is no remembrance of men of old, and even those who are yet to come will not be remembered by those who follow. Wisdom Is Meaningless

I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted. I thought to myself, "Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge." Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief. (Ecclesiastes 1)
Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun— all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. (Ecclesiastes 9:7-10)
:bye:
leave if that's what you want to do... but hopefully you decide to read this and maybe answer it...who decided it is a secondary issue? Isn't something that all converts were commanded to do immediately upon conversion something that is a little more than secondary? I mean, seriously, people asked how to be converted of the apostles and EVERY TIME they were told to be baptized...

I don't see that as secondary...

I don't see the basin of water in the tabernacle as secondary, it was vitally important and the high priest, if not washed properly and in an exactly right manner at the basin, would STILL BE KILLED in the holy of holies when he went in there...

If you are not washed right at our form of the basin of water (baptism) in the EXACTLY RIGHT manner you will die, too, only our death is eternal death in hell...

 
Spock, a few things...

one, in order for me to leave the true doctrine, the trinity and baptism in the titles would have to be true and saying simply "God is one no matter how many different ways He shows Himself to us" and baptizing in Jesus' name is false (which is absolutely not true and you know it)
In order for you to leave the true doctrine, the 1700 year old definition of the title "Trinity" does not have to be true. No one believes it any more, and probably hasn't for over a thousand years. The fact is this whole Pentacostal argument is an incredibly recent phenomena when you look at the 2000 year history of the church.
second, Paul himself believed that they were living in the last days 2000 years ago...
And I believe we are today. Who is more likely to be right? Was the church 1700 years ago in the last days or not. Does the verse you applied to them really apply to them if they weren't in the last days?
third, it doesn't matter what you think about it, you are still referring to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion and not the one true God when you follow the dogma of the trinity...
No one who is getting baptized today is referring to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion. You are inferring from their words a reference to a group of gods in an ancient pagan religion. You as a bystanderd can infer a lot of things from someone else words. What really matter is what the person being baptized is referring to, and they are referring to the one true God who exists in three manifestations.
Does God show Himself to us as a Father as a Son and as a Holy Spirit? Absolutely... the problem is that you are going "this is good enough" about some of the lies that have been told and made up over the last 1700 years rather than go "I am going to do exactly what God told us to do since I now know the truth"...
Then like I've said countless times, say it in Greek if doing it exactly is so important.
Stop listening to the traditions and the things men have taught you and realize that God said something very specific...
God is very specific, but you said above one can refer to Him with different names. BUT God will damn someone to hell for referring to Him as "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". If other references to God are acceptable, where is the specific instruction from God that this phrase is not acceptable. Seriously, you whole position on this appears to be bitterness towards what the church did 1700 years ago, and as such YOU won't accept those words so you believe God won't either.

Let me be blunt:

I've shown you Matthew 28:19 said "My name" originally, you know the original church baptized in Jesus' name...

SO why in the world have you not sucked it up and gotten dunked in the name of Jesus???

The answer is simple: You are neglecting the true commands of God for the traditions that you have been given by men...
I have already been baptized in the Name of Jesus. The "Name" of Jesus is no different than the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Just because someone is bitter towards the actions of the church 1700 years ago is no reason for me to worry that I'm not baptized under the authority of the one true God.
Acts 4:20 - there is no other name given under heaven by which we might be saved....Stop neglecting God's commands for your tradition...
That is NOT what Acts 4:20 says. Acts 4:20 says:For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Act 4:20)

That's good advice. But you probably meant Acts 4:12.

And again, "name" has been translated from a word in the Greek that means authority. The authority of Jesus is no different than the authority of the Father or the Holy Spirit.

 
I'm out for a while... I'm getting too "involved" in this and saying things in ways that are really bad....

I'll come back later tonight and try to answer some stuff in a manner that isn't like that...

I'm sorry to anyone I've offended/hurt by what I said... I don't mean stuff like that... its just... sometimes "passion" gets the best of me and in the heat of a moment of a discussion I say things in ways that are not cool... and I really am sorry...

 
the problem is that we are still using the pagan terminology adopted by the church...

we are washed by the blood of the lamb, made clean through his sacrifice, that is why we are baptized in Jesus' name...

the terminology is important because as long as you use the same terms that the pagans used, you are being baptized in to Baal and not Jesus...
The terminology is not important because we are being baptized into God's authorty and not terminology. People have interpreted the use of the word "name" to mean something other than "authority" because "name" is more commonly used to identify terminology of people and enteties. Thus this whole "you're using the wrong words" argument gets legs.
no, see, 'cuz if you went "you are baptized in the name of hte Messiah & the Christ" referring to Jesus I probably wouldn't say anything...The reason I say something is because when you say "the father, and the son, and the holy spirit" you are really referring to the pagan gods the church adopted 1700 years ago and not Christ...
So it's okay to refer to God with other words, but not use those exact words? Do you think God is really that offended by millions of Catholics today who believe in one God in three manifestations that he would banish them to hell because the words that were uttered during their baptism can refer to a 1700 year old polytheistic definition that NO ONE believes in today?
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
They're not referring to Him as if He were a pagan god. Someone else can claim that they words they use are referring to a pagan god, but they themselves are not referring to a pagan god. Again, your whole argument is based on semantics and how one could infer different references than what the person being baptized actually believes. God is above such mundane semantic games and is not offended by the person being baptized.
Spock, how simple was His command? Its not like it was a difficult thing to do... "baptizing them in my name" how hard is that???If we can't even follow a command that simple, how can we think that we are truely following Him completely?

You say that God is above such semantics, but what if He isn't?? Are you willing to bet your salvation that traditions that were taken from pagans 1700 years ago are acceptable to God????
His command is easy. That's why all Christians do it. There are many passages in the NT that explain how we are to know who is a Christian and who isn't. And not one of the them tells us to check what words were uttered when they were baptized. If the words uttered during a baptism are so important to one's Christianity because of what the church did 1700 years ago, then these verses in the Bible written 1900+ years ago that tell us how to recognize other Christians are WRONG. Because even though someone may meet all the criteria of the versus in the Bible, we can't know if they are a Christian unless we find out what words were used when they were baptized. You're position that people baptized with the wrong words renders these other parts of the Bible as false.
no, see, all the people those other verses were said to were baptized in Jesus name already... There was no argument or disagreement at that time...
They weren't said to were baptized. That's another assumption on your part.
I hate to have to be the one to break this to you, Spock, but those letters we call the New TEstament are only a portion of the writings from those men, we will never have all of thier writings, and sometimes we need to have common sense about things, but there are direct commands that we see and distortions that we view in history of thier doctrine that we need to break completely away from, and you are absolutely refusing to do so... why?
Common sense doesn't work properly with logical fallacies. There are commands we are given, but there is no logical conclusion that salvation resides on sucessful execution of those commands, especially when the logic being used to make that case requires referring to a 1700 year old defenition that no one believes in anymore for a 3rd party like Larry to infer that the person who has obeyed the commandment to be baptized was referring to pagan gods when they were baptized.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pray.

Romans 10, 13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (please don't assume this has any meaning to the other debates going on.  I am only suggesting that Faith is your job.  God has reached out, your Faith comes next.  Faith plugs all holes and allows God to work in your life.  Or whatever his name is and in whatever language.)

Paraphrasing someone:

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

We all put faith in something or someone.  In whom do you put yours?  Men? Scholars? Tacos?
Thank you for the reply. And thank you to (I think it was) Chumley who suggested that my posts were not merely fishing but honest questions of faith. They are honest questions and I'm looking for honest answers and I appreciate all that I have received so far.I've got some big things going on in my life right now, things that require big answers to big questions. I've commented to friends more then once recently that I've felt like these questions and challenges were too big for me. I've felt not so much like I CAN'T answer the questions so much as I don't even know HOW to answer them. I feel small compared to challenges before me. As I've made these comments to some I've gotten replies like "have faith" and "pray". I usually write off such platitudes as carrying no more weight then "have a nice day". But I'm honestly looking at faith and the faithful with a bit of envy right now because I honestly believe that faith and prayer would probably serve me well right now and I'm a bit saddened by the fact that I lack them.

Of course this causes conflict with other beliefs and tenents I try to live my life by. The fact of the matter is that I have a problem with "religion" and "the church" and the intolerance they represent. It bothers me that one group of people can so casually label another group of people as wrong when they know damn well that their definition of right and wrong is based on faith and not fact. I'm one of those people that says things like "the Catholic church is responsible for more death then any other institution in human history" at parties because it's pithy. I apologize for saying that here...I don't say it to anger or offend, I'm merely trying to illustrate the situation I now find myself in, and it is this: I shun the church & religion in general. I despise the "legalese" of verse & doctrine. I HATE the fanatical and how they have changed my son's world. Yet I desire faith and -just sometimes- envy the faithful.

How many sins did I just cop to btw?

EDIT TO ADD that I never answered fightingchick's question about what I put faith in. In a nutshell - myself & my fellow man. I believe in inherent human goodness (I've never met an evil child). I don't believe we all stay good. Economics, race, geography, intellect, upbringing and -above all else- CHOICE determines whether we stay good, go bad or go somewhere in between. But I believe in myself and my friends to do good by me and my family until I'm proven wrong.

Is that faith? I don't know...
Seahawk, Don't let the actions of people push you away from the message of Christ. We all sin and fall short of the glory of God. The answers of faith and pray seem hollow but maybe that is because that’s what we hear so much. We hear it but never do it. I don't question LB's motives or Spock's. But you can see how as people we get caught up in our own petty argument and get sidetracked. Those questions you asked should have stopped the debate in its tracks and as Christians we should have been explaining the Message of the Gospel to you. (If you are inclined to listen). This thread is a prime example of why people are turned off by organized religion. Please don't make the mistake of equating man’s inability to follows Gods perfect plan with an imperfect plan from God. If man were perfect we wouldn't have needed Jesus to make a way for salvation.

Look around the world do you really want to put your faith in man and his goodness?

Regardless of what any one believes about works or Baptism. Salvation starts with Jesus. Give prayer an honest chance. Talk to a Christian friend and really read the bible and try and understand what it is saying. Talk to a pastor at your local church. You are looking for answers do yourself a favor and find them. Feel free to PM me to if you like although I’m not even sure I can get a PM. Not sure how that works.

 
Pray.

Romans 10, 13 "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." (please don't assume this has any meaning to the other debates going on.  I am only suggesting that Faith is your job.  God has reached out, your Faith comes next.  Faith plugs all holes and allows God to work in your life.  Or whatever his name is and in whatever language.)

Paraphrasing someone:

Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.

We all put faith in something or someone.  In whom do you put yours?  Men? Scholars? Tacos?
Thank you for the reply. And thank you to (I think it was) Chumley who suggested that my posts were not merely fishing but honest questions of faith. They are honest questions and I'm looking for honest answers and I appreciate all that I have received so far.I've got some big things going on in my life right now, things that require big answers to big questions. I've commented to friends more then once recently that I've felt like these questions and challenges were too big for me. I've felt not so much like I CAN'T answer the questions so much as I don't even know HOW to answer them. I feel small compared to challenges before me. As I've made these comments to some I've gotten replies like "have faith" and "pray". I usually write off such platitudes as carrying no more weight then "have a nice day". But I'm honestly looking at faith and the faithful with a bit of envy right now because I honestly believe that faith and prayer would probably serve me well right now and I'm a bit saddened by the fact that I lack them.

Of course this causes conflict with other beliefs and tenents I try to live my life by. The fact of the matter is that I have a problem with "religion" and "the church" and the intolerance they represent. It bothers me that one group of people can so casually label another group of people as wrong when they know damn well that their definition of right and wrong is based on faith and not fact. I'm one of those people that says things like "the Catholic church is responsible for more death then any other institution in human history" at parties because it's pithy. I apologize for saying that here...I don't say it to anger or offend, I'm merely trying to illustrate the situation I now find myself in, and it is this: I shun the church & religion in general. I despise the "legalese" of verse & doctrine. I HATE the fanatical and how they have changed my son's world. Yet I desire faith and -just sometimes- envy the faithful.

How many sins did I just cop to btw?
My apologies, seahawk for getting involved in this "debate" with larry.You want my honest assesment of faith? It is a series of things you learn as you begin assessing your spirituality. It will be influenced by the church you attend, but ultimately the end goal should be to have a "relationship" with God.

These stupid arguments are counterproductive but let me tell you that I have travelled a very long and winding road to arrive at the faith I have today. Again I am sorry for this trainwreck and while I am not a great theologian I would be happy to take the time to answer questions if you want to PM me. I am certainly not an authority, but maybe the things I have learned or have experienced could be of benefit to you as I have been at points in my life agnostic, Catholic and evangelical.
Neat, I go in this order: Catholic, atheist, Catholic, agnositc and now born again christian. (My grandmother was a good Catholic too.)Seriously, that does demonstrate the common problem of mankind - the search for the meaning of life. We all do. Even the admitted Baal worshiper.

I, like Seahawk, had faith in myself for most of my life. Then, I realized that I wasn't as smart as I thought I was. I couldn't solve any of the problems in my life, especailly with the methods I choose to sovle them: sit there and worry. And particularly the ones I created - which were most of them.

To follow up on a key point in this posting in general. Where are you learning about Faith and God? From the bible? Or from the numerous and plentiful scholarly works that "prove" the bible isn't true? Or from Larry?

I would reccommend a King James version of the bible. Start with Matthew and then read the first couple of letters from Paul (you can see the ones that are quoted and misquoted in here). You could do that in a night. While reading, pray. If your prayer is authentic, God knows, and that's how you know you are reading (in reality, hearing) the Word of God.

Two stints of Catholicism and I never read the bible until I realized it was just God and I. And back to my Grandma - she was a Catholic and walked in the front door of Heaven. I KNOW this.

 
After reading many of the Christian bashing posts at this forum, I was beginning to think there weren’t but a few of us here. Good to know there are more than I thought.

 
After reading many of the Christian bashing posts at this forum, I was beginning to think there weren’t but a few of us here. Good to know there are more than I thought.
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Bashing Christians seldom has anyhing to do with religious (or at least spiritual) beliefs!
 
After reading many of the Christian bashing posts at this forum, I was beginning to think there weren’t but a few of us here. Good to know there are more than I thought.
Strength in numbers, the christian mantra. :X

 
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.
You must be pretty old or an absolute genius to know why Matthew wrote what he wrote. And it's pretty amazing that people for centuries have failed to give Isaiah 7 even a cursory reading. So you mean if we actually just sat down and read Isaiah we wouldn't have all these false ideas?
 
yes, Spock, God is offended at those millions of people referring to Him as if He were a pagan god...
I would think that a god that defines himself as perfect would be able to get over an honest mistake by those that in every way humanly possible try to love him.
I would think that God would expect us to do as He said, not just accept whatever we feel like doing and thinking...
why?Being told what to do is for those simple minded folks who have to be told what to do in order to do the right thing.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top