Lula...what does the above have to do with the subject matter?  I thought I was the junkyard dog with a bone but you sure got me beat! 

 We are talking about the fact that God has given us his assurance of salvation for all eternity.    Let's go back to the subject matter at hand. 

Leauki posts #530

Agree or not, believe it or not, the human race is a unit, summed up with Adam as its first parent head and therefore, it is not the sin of Adam but the necessary effect of that sin which is depravation of original justice that was transmitted to all mankind.

The dogma of OS is taught by St. Paul in Romans 5:12-21.

kfc posts:

Again, in order to effectively address your topic and assertions, one must address sin and sin is also original sin. Leauki has his own ideas and commented...one comment lead to another and then he made this false statement which evidently would have gone unchallanged had I not commented.

Stating the facts is not a "false statement", even if they contradict your beliefs.

We have had this before.

The people of Israel have been without Temple three times in their histpory. If being without Temple means that they are no longer a "priestly kingdom", they would have been non-priestly immediately that day on the Sinai.

I don't think you get this "eternal" thing when it comes to G-d. 2000 years without the Temple mean NOTHING. In fact, 10,000 years without the Temple mean nothing. The Temple will be rebuilt, eventually. That's my belief. But that its absence changes anything is not a fact. The people of Israel had a pact with G-d with or without a Temple.

"A mere ceremony"?  Who said that?  I only read and said that it was a ritual and like all rituals of all faiths in all nations, it was designed to totally focus one's attention on the task at hand, because without total attention the ritual is meaningless.  However, the fact is Lulapilgrim, the RCC baptises infants, who have no focus or attention due to their age.  Baptism has in effect for the most part, become nothing more than a ceremony, designed more to satisfy the wants and desires of the parents of the infant more than to give the infant a chance to save it's own soul which is the purpose of baptism to begin with.  Catholisism has become quite frankly an empty series of ceremonies for all but the very few.  Don't think that it pleasures me any to say this either, because it doesn't.  There is no specific person to blame for this, but there's enough blame to go around.  The RCC knows the truth and should tell it, because the people are drifting away from the faith with all this "pie in the sky" talk, if you are good you'll go to heaven after you die.  Heaven is not something that one comes to after death, but something that must come while one still lives.  It is life, not death!!  Once we cross that threshold called "death" it is too late!  How many would flock to the church that tells the truth, how many would strive to acheive a place with Jesus if they knew that it was not something that was promised in death, but in life, in the here and now? 

Most of the apostles dropped the ball, plain and simple.  They became "men" forgetting the most important lessons that Jesus taught them by ceding to the agenda of "men" which is self importance and self concern.  They saw that they could become leaders of many and the temptation to become so important, to become so unique and special as being the one that sat at the feet of the master and was given the plain unvarnished truth, was too much to resist.  Don't get me wrong, it didn't necessarily make them bad men, just men.

When Jesus told Peter that he must return to Rome because if he didn't he (Jesus) would have to return and die once more, he wasn't speaking of Peter returning to be martyred but to return in life after his martydom and correct all that had gone wrong, much of which he was complicit in causing.  Peter will return again and sit on the "throne" of the HRCC.  He will correct all that was undone.  It has been predicted by one of the HRCC's own priests, Peter will be the last and final pope.

Oh, come on! You are just explaining your Catholic religion and views to us as if they were facts. They are not. They are YOUR views and belief, not fact.

When I tell you what circumcision means in Judaism I am as correct as you are when you tell us what baptism means in Catholicism. But that's it. I don't tell you what baptism has to mean to Catholics, so please don't pretend that you have the rigth and power to tell me what circumcision has to mean to me.

St.John the Baptist administered Jewish and not Christian Baptism and the difference between them was recognized by St.John himself who exalted the Baptism of Christ to a comparatively infinite state.

Yes, Jesus is God who had no sin.  Jesus is the Incarnate God. Jesus, the man, being a Jew, was obedient to the ceremonial requirements of the Old Dispensation which His Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in 46AD declared no longer to be binding. So the process by which St.John baptised is no more binding upon Christians than circumcision or the Jewish process of consecrating its priests.

Now, this is NOT to say that St.John's baptism had no significance for it certainly has. It was the Baptismal bridge from the Old Dispensation to the New Dispensation and that's why Christ was baptized before His public ministry.

Remember this was inferred in St.John the Baptist's call upon the people to "prepare the way of the Lord" through the baptism of Penance, as the "kingdom of God", the reign of Christ in His Chruch and in their individual souls, was "at hand". The discarding of the baptism of penance for the Baptism of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world was done by St.John himself. It was becasue the transition period was at hand that St.John reminded the people, "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."  

Here I must disagree Lulapilgrim.  Jesus is not God.  There is nothing supernatural about anything, including the "miracles" of Jesus.  It is simply natural law in operation, and natural law is God.  The hebrews knew this, nowhere in the OT do they call anything "supernatural", they rightly call it what it is.....................the works of God.  Nor do they attribute any "miracles" performed through any man by God to that man declaring him a God.  They do render unto God that which is Gods.  The gentiles are a superstitious lot and this is why Jesus forbad his apostles to go unto the gentiles.  They were not of understanding yet obviously.

Wow!  What bible are you reading anyhow?  This is just so wrong in all sorts of ways.  Every single one of them were killed for their faith.  A man of self importance (as you keep speaking about) would not be dying for another.  These men died for the church and the cause of Christ.  Again...what book are you reading?   You ARE NOT getting this from scripture.  You are being tutored somewhere along the way to come up with such statements.  Can I ask what you're reading? 

 To be honest...I'd be very afraid of making such comments against God's annointed. 

Lula...you pushed me enough so that I had to delete three of your responses.  Mainly because you are doggedly pushing RCC baptism beliefs which I keep asking you not to do.   While I don't mind the subject matter taking twists and turns here and there I keep asking you not to proselytize your RCC here and you keep insisting on bringing up the RCC incorrect view of Christian baptism or the Eucharist as fact on almost every blog I do on religion. 

Baptism, like circumcision does not save anyone.  Water baptism does not wash away sins.  The blood of Christ washes away our sins.  Not baptism. It's NOT about us.  It's ALL about HIM.   You are incorrectly applying scripture from a RCC viewpoint ignoring many other scriptures that refute it. 

"And From Jesus Christ....Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in HIS OWN BLOOD.  Rev 1:5

"These are they which came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  Rev 7:14

Baptism DOES NOT wash away sins.  You have to twist scripture to make it say that. Calling on the name of the Lord is what washes away our sins.  Not the act of water baptism.   That's why John said "he will baptise with spirit and with fire."  That's the real deal.  Not water baptism.   Read them again.  This time do it praying in the spirit instead of reading RCC commentaries.   Your focus is all wrong.  It's not on Christ, it's on the RCC's teachings. 

We've been thru this so many times that's why I get so frustrated because I know I've given you those verses above on this before. You keep insisting on the same things and I keep refuting it with scripture.   You just don't have ears to hear right now because the RCC is teaching something totally different than what the bible is teaching. 

What makes you think that I say what I say because I've read it somewhere? 

You may be afraid but I am not.  Peter had a great deal of self importance, before and after Jesus's death.  Dying for one's faith doesn't mean that one no longer posess self importance.  No one walks the path without falling off every now and again, not even the apostles.

Am I saying that the apostles did this thing deliberately?  No I didn't, for in truth they thought that they were doing a good thing.  Bringing all into the fold of Jesus.  But just as Jesus reserved certain teachings for his apostles, (not because they were special or unique, but because they were ready to hear what he had to say), the apostles should have reserved certain teachings for those of the world that were ready for them.  The gentiles were not.  They were still superstitious attributing the operation of natural law to the supernatural, which must have been caused by various and different Gods.  Heck they even made men who they felt were more special than ordinary men of their own time into Gods.  In their superstitious reasoning they must have been Gods, or born of Gods because they could do what others could not.  We do tend to make too much of others who can do what we can not. 

You are correct in what you are telling Lulapilgrim, KFC, but the blood of another doesn't wash them away either.  The only thing that washes away sins is forgiveness and penitence.  Forgiveness from those we offend and cause harm to befall as well as from God, and penitence to make correct that which we have caused to go wrong.

So the above scripture is incorrect?  Can't we be saying the same thing?  Only God washes away sins correct?  Our repentance doesn't wash away our sins tho.  All sin is an affront to God.  Every sin we commit is against Him.    God's forgiveness does save us when he accepts our repentance.  Our repentance brings us to Christ who then washes away our wrongs.  But he does so with the blood of His cross.  It's the blood of the cross that washes us, it's not  of us. 

Remember in the OT the sacrificial atonement of sins?  How was that done?  By the blood of bulls and goats right?  It says in Lev 17:11

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.  " 

So God had it set right from the getgo that it was blood that had to be shed for the remission of sins.  In other words, the blood in the OT covered the sins of the people.  That's why the Priest would sprinkle the blood over the heads of the people.  No blood, no atonement. 

Now while the Jews had to continually do this on a yearly or more frequently basis, Christ came and did it once and for all.  Our sins are not only covered but are now taken away for good.  We have to go thru the cross to be cleaned and on our way to eternity.  By doing so we can't help but get his blood on us and it's that blood that cleanses us and makes us clean enough to be in the presence of God. 

I think about those in Moses' day putting blood around their doorposts.  Those with the blood applied God passed over and they lived.  Those who did not, perished.  Christ said he was the door.  So picture a cross in a door frame.  In order to go thru the door, we pass under the cross and the blood of his crown of thorns (representing the earth) falls upon us. 

Well the proof is on you.  Show me where Peter had a great deal of self importance AFTER the denial that you've already brought up and I answered.  Remember also the Holy Spirit was not given until after Christ's ascension and you don't seem to be taking that into account.  But I do agree with your last sentence.  They were human afterall but I see nothing of what you're saying in scripture at all. 

you answer me with a question?  Your question does not answer my question. 

Is that it?  You don't think the Gentiles were ready?  Says who?  You?  That can't be true because they did accept the word with joy.   Who are "those of the world" that you speak of.  There were only Jews and Gentiles.  That was it.  Who are you speaking about?   Then why did Christ say this before he left them?

"Go you therefore and teach ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 

"But you shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and all Judaea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." 

They were doing exactly what they were supposed to do.  Goes all the way to Abraham when he was told that ALL nations of the world would be blessed because of his descendant.  Even Jesus turned from his own (the Jews) and left the temple to their own destruction just before he died because of the rejection. 

Perhaps we are saying the same thing KFC, we shall see. 

Tell me, what do you believe the "holy ghost" is?  What is your definition?

Why do you think that God would die for mankind?  Where is the sacrifice by men in God dying for them?  Why would God take a human form? 

To answer your question..............I thought I did.  There is not a book.  So now answer my question, why did you think ther was?

No this information is not found in the "holy scripture", but remember that the "holy scripture" is what the church had decided it to be.  Many other testaments were considered and decided against based on their decision of what was the truth and what wasn't.  (As if they were there to experience the events themselves to know, but no mind).  So the NT is a compendium of what men decided it shoud be unlike the jews who kept their torah complete and unaltered.  They haven't disappeared, although the church would like to think so.  The church will deny their existance but even in the church records that deny their existance they are alluded to. 

have to go for now, I will address your other concerns when I return.