kfc posts:

Hmmm....All the others in this discussion are voicing their respective beliefs about Baptism too, but only mine get deleted!!

Here's my response using Scripture.

Christ Himself gave the formula of Christian Baptism and we are spiritually cleansed by calling down the action of the Holy Ghost at our Baptism. This is all Scriptural and for someone who has read Scriputre as much as you should know it.

 KFC posts:

Circumcsion is in the past, but as for Baptism....take it up with Christ for His words plainly say somethiing completely different..."Amen. Amen I say to you, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

And, if as you say, Baptism (by wwater, blood or desire) doesn't save and isn't necessary for salvation...Why did Christ give the universal command and formula to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Read carefully St.Matt. 28:19 and St.John 3:5 or were these just empty words of Christ?

kfc posts:

No one has to twist Scripture to understand that Baptism is one of the means Christ provided for the remission of sins. And this accusation is getting old having you claim that of every one who disagrees with your individualistic theological take on a given subject.

Here's Acts 2:38 straight up..."But Peter said to them: Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST".   And how did Christ teach us to be baptised (born again)?... "of water and the Holy Spirit" did He not?

Add to that St.Paul's teaching... "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." "We are all baptized into one Body." Gal. 3:27; 1Cor. 12:13-27.

 

kfc posts:

Agree and that is what I essentially said in one of my comments you deleted.

 

Lula said Jesus is God.

Whisper2

Well....Jesus Himself said He was and so I'll go with His word and advise you to keep searching for the truth becasue we both can't be right. Also consider this....here is only one truth...and on our respective claims only one of us is in possession of the truth.

And one can't give what one doesn't possess so if I possess the truth then you don't and vice versa.

I guarantee it is quote current.

 

again...we've been over this over and over and over again.  How many times do we go over the same old stuff?  You will not be content until you have drowned us with your words on this subject Lula. 

go back and read Matt 28:19 carefully. 

"Go you therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit." 

notice he's saying baptize them IN THE NAME.   Not the water.  Christ is the emphasis.  Not the water.  What comes first?  Teach, right?  Nowhere here does it say that baptizing saves anyone or washes away any sin.  The emphasis is on teaching and then baptizing in the name of Christ.  One doesn't get baptized to get saved.  One gets saved by coming to Christ.  Baptism is the first act of obedience but it doesn't save.    Baptism means identification. Once we are saved we want to be identified with Christ.    In Corinthians it says this: 

"and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."   1 Cor 10:2

this means the Jews in the wilderness were identified with Moses. FIRST THEY WERE SAVED out of Egypt and then were identified with Moses.    It's the same when we are baptized.  We are identified with Christ.  It doesn't save us.  Christ saves us.  Not baptism. 

we've been over this countless times as well.  Various interpretations have been suggested for the meaning here of what the water is.  You wish it to mean physical water but that contradicts many passages.  Some believe it means physical birth.  When a baby is born it comes with water at the birth.  Some believe it is the Word of God ( I believe this) as in John 15:3.  Some believe it can be for the Holy Spirit.  One truth is clear the new birth is from God thru the Spirit because Christ explains more in v7-8 which you seem to ignore. 

"and you are CLEAN through the word which I have spoken to you."  John 15:3

"Not by works of righteousness (baptism by water is an act) which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us, by the WASHING of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."  Titus 3:5

this is the RCC's favorite verse and the ONLY one they can claim because it's the only one that sort of sounds like in English what you want it to say.  But go to the Greek and you'll see something interesting...,

the preposition "For the" can also mean "because of"  The Greek word is "eis"

so it can be translated in English as "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ BECAUSE OF the remission of sins."    which makes better sense with the whole of scripture.  So you'd rather accept the preposition "for the" instead of "because of" because that supports the RCC theology that water baptism is saving.  It's not. 

 Look at all the examples in scripture (especially in Acts) where they accepted the Lord first, repented and then were baptized after. Their sins were forgiven FIRST and then they were baptized.  Look at Simeon in Acts 8 who got baptized with all the rest and was not saved and was not repentant.  He got baptized tho.  Meant nothing.   Look at the mafia who were all RC and all got dunked and went to the RCC every week while they murdered and pillaged during the week.  What's up with that?  Means nothing.  You put WAY too much emphasis on water baptism. 

again...*SIGH* Paul is not talking "physical" baptism.  He's talking about that baptism you put up earlier by John "Holy Spirit and fire." 

well not that I saw...you said baptism washes away our sins and I stand by the fact that baptism doesn't wash away our sins.  The blood of Christ does.  Otherwise he died for naught. 

and here I'm in complete agreement with Lula.  Jesus is God and that's the whole point of the whole bible.  The most important question of all the ages is "who do you say that I am?" 

see. there you go...you're saying again we are cleansed by our baptism after agreeing that it's the blood that cleanses.  So which is it Lula? 

show me this formula you speak of.  Those scriptures you gave don't show this.  Like Whisper said Christ wasn't sinful.  Why did he get baptized if it's needed for spiritual cleansing?  It's not scriptural.  It's false teaching Lula.  Christ was identifiying himself with the Father and the HS.  He did so at the start of his ministry like we should be at the start of our ministries....not at birth. 

I meant the religious  rite of circumcision is in the past as when that's what it took to be admitted into full participation in Israel.

 

I meant the religious  rite of circumcision is in the past as when that's what it took to be admitted into full participation in Israel.

 

It's both...we are cleansed of our sins and that can only happen because of Christ's atoning Blood in His sacrifice on the Cross.

That's right --in the name of the Blessed Trinity..that's the formula or the words said during the rite of Baptism...Just as Scripture evidences the Blessed Trinity at Christ's Baptism in the River Jordan, the Blessed Trinity is called down and its HIS action by the gift of supernatural grace that is poured on the soul of  the person as he/she is either having water poured on his head or immersed in water.

But re-read your comments....you are the one making all the hub-bub about the water...water is what is called for in St.John 3:5-6. There are other types of Baptism that are just as effacious...by Blood (maryrdom) or by Desire..that is if a person wants to become a Christian but can't get baptized for one reason or another. God Who is All merciful always gave and always will give everyone in the world the means of attaining the grace necessary for the entrance into the kingdom of Heaven.

think of it this way KFC....We aren't born Christians and how we become Christians is where you and I disagree...you believe you repent call upon the name of Jesus as your personal Savior and you are reborn...saved!

I believe there is but one supernatural birth as there is but one natural birth. Rebirth is to take on a a new, spiritual nature --in short becoming a Christian...how? By our Baptism in Christ, just as He in His Gospel said to do. Persons reborn by water and the Holy SPirit pass from a state of nature to a state of grace.

Just as birth makes a person the child of his father and thus his heir, in the natural world, so does rebirth by Baptism make him an adopted son of God the heavenly Father, and heir to His kingdom.

Now, regeneration is something else and comes from doing penance which means a spiritual renewal returning from spiritual death to spiritual life. It's something that takes place in throughout our lifetime and what all the preachers in the Gospels have exhorted us to do throughout the Christian ages.    

 

 

 

I remember when KFC first had this article up.  I read over the first two pages when it was new article back then.  I can't remember if I responded to it or not.  Reading this last page its kind of amusing because I believe that this discussion has been going on since the first page until now.

For the whole Baptism thought. There is baptism in Judaism.  It was called Mikvah.  Currently there in Christianity, there is a theology that has been running wild called Replacement Theology/Superseccessionism.  This was one of the earliest heresies and was stamped out when Marcion tried to bring it yet it continually comes back.

We can see and know from many scriptural sources that Paul valued his Jewish heritage. When writing of the Torah, Paul used the metaphor of an olive tree, symbolizing the Jewish people and their way of faithfully serving G-D, as providing nourishment for an engrafted branch, the non-Jews who had come to faith in G-D through Jesus the Messiah. This means that the root nourishes the branch. It certainly does not render Judaism invalid, and is therefore not "replacement theology,"the theology that Christianity has superceded Judaism, making it invalid. This 'replacement theology'--a now-discredited idea that dominated church teaching through the centuries and spawned anti-Semitism.

This is the root of the agrument. Most Christians feel that Judaism was a works based faith stems from this misconception as well.

Now with onto the assurance question.   I think Believers need to be careful because Paul does continuously write of how we are in a race. When you're in a race you don't want to get catch up thinking about winning until the race is over.  You want to stay focused on the goal.  An example of this is Moses.  Moses' spoke angrily at a rock that brought forth living water when the Israelities were wondering in the desert.  Now why was G-D grieved at Moses'? It wasn't just the fact that Moses didn't listen to G-D, he did in a way.  G-D was grieved because that was the Rock that brought forth living water (which symbolizes the Messiah).  What does this have to do with Assurance and running the race.  Moses temporarily got his eyes off the goal due to the fact that the people were being neonates YET this did not discredit him from the race.  For we know that Moses has gloriously finished the race.

 

To answer your first question:

Isaiah 59:2 'Because your iniquities are coming between you and your G-D; and your sins have hidden HIS face from you, from hearing.'
ECCLESIASTES 7:20 "For there is no just man upon the earth, that does good, and sins not."
Ezekiel 18:4 ".....the Soul that sins it shall die."
Isaiah 64:6 "For we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruation cloth. And we all fade as a leaf, and like the wind our iniquities take us away. "
Leviticus 17:11 " For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to atone for your souls; for it is the blood which makes atonement for the soul. "
Isaiah 53:10 "Yet,the L-RD was pleased to crush Him, to make Him sick, so that If He should put His soul as a guilt offering, He shall see His seed; He shall prolong His days; and the will of the L-RD shall prosper in His hand."
 
G-D desires HIS creation.  If you look at Hosea and Gomer.  Hosea represents G-D and HIS creation is represented by Gomer. Hosea chased down Gomer even after she broke the marriage covenant. He brought her off the slave block not so that she could become a slave once again BUT to restore that which was broken and lost.
Now, Hosea didn't have to purchase Gomer back for she was already married.  Yet HE needed to do it and to do it himself.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second question.

As for your third question:

Let's take a look at Ex. 3:1-17  Let's look at record of the appearance of 'מלאךיהוה 'the angel of the L-RD of which it appears in Exodus 3.  In 3:2 Moses said "and the angel of the L-RD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked and behold the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed."
It is apparent to all that this fire was not an ordinary fire but was a manifestation of supernatural power and glory.  Being attracted by this unusual phenomenon, Moses turned aside to investigate the same.  As he approached the bush, אלהים "G-D called to him out of the midst of the bush," to which Moses responded "Here I am" He who is called the "angel of the L-RD" in verse 2 is called יהוה "the L-RD" and אלהים "G-D" in verse 4.  Having instructed MOses to remove his sandels, this angel of the L-RD said to Moses, "I am the G-D of your father, the G-D of Abraham, the G-D of Isaac, and the G-D of Jacob."  The continuity of thought demands that one understands that the angel of the L-RD is the G-D of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Continuing this conversation according to verse 13 MOses asked the L-RD or Angel of the L-RD if the children of Israel should ask concerning who commissioned him and what is G-D's name, what reply should he make to them? To the first question G-D said to tell them 'I AM that I AM."

Giving him further instructions as to what he should say, G-D said, according to verse 15 that Moses should tell them, " ויאמר  עוד  אלהים  אל  משׁה  כה  תאמר  אל בני  ישׂראל  יהוה  אלהי  אבתיכם אלהי  אברהם  אלהי  יצחק  ואלהי  יעקב  שׁלחני אליכם  זה  שׁמי  לעלם וזה  זכרי  לדר  דר׃"" The L-RD, the G-D of your father, the G-D of
Abraham, the G-D of Isaac, and the G-D of Jacob, has sent ME to you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations."  With all of this data in hand there can be no doubt in the mind of any that this appearance of the angel in the bush amid the supernatural flames was an appearance of one of the Divine Personalities who claimed that HE is the one whom Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped.

Now I could list more but I have some things to do.  Also to your question about reliablity of the NT. I will answer later.

Be Blessed!

You really don't know a lot about Judaism and Israel, do you?

 

An interesting post Peoples Party but not an answer to the question that I asked.  The second question is pretty straightforward and I don't understand why you seem to be confused about it.  The question is where is mans own sacrifice for his own sin?  God did not commit original sin, man did..............why should God pay for it?  God demands of us payment for every sin we commit........except this one called original sin which was simply putting self before God.  And God's going to forgive the breaking of the first commandment, which is "thou shalt have no God's before me" which is fact putting self before God.  I sincerely doubt it.  However I could be wrong and if you or anyone else can show me differently I'm willing to listen.  But don't give me information that is not directly related to the question.  Show me where God told anyone at all that he would and was going to take human form and die for mankinds first and most fatal sin. 

Personally KFC, I think Lulapilgrim has a point.  Everyone else is voicing their opinions on the subject to try to prevent her from doing the same thing is well........unfair and wrong.  You may not like what she has to say, but when you forbid her to speak and erase her posts because they don't agree with yours, it seems to others that you fear what she has to say.  It also seems to put forth the message that this is not a lively conversation between people but more like yourself trying to convert others to your understanding and beliefs.  I can't believe that you would do such a thing however.  Nor do I think that you have anything to fear from her opinion or beliefs.  If you are not secure in what you are saying and Lulapilgrim's thoughts, beliefs and opinions rattle you so much that you must erase them and try to censor her, why should I or anyone else be secure in what you are saying?

The way I saw it everyone else was voicing their opinions and labeled them as beliefs whereas Lula voiced her opinions and insisted that they are obvious facts that we just have to accept.

I think KFC erased what she perceived were repetitive statements that didn't add to the discussion. What's the point of being told three times that X is a fact, even though we all disagree about X and have different beliefs about what X is.

Some things really are facts, for example what the meaning if circumcision is in Judaism is a fact. (The belief is that this meaning has relevance.)

And some things are simple untrue, for example what Lula claims about circumcision in Judaism. (She believes that the ritual is irrelevant now. That's fine, that's a belief. But it remains fact that Judaism thinks it is relevant. And she cannot deny that because it's true.)

And some things are beliefs.

I think we all make that distinction, except Lula.

 

Even when we state "belief" we are most generally insistant that it is fact.  If we didn't this lively and interesting discussion would not take place in the first place.  But does it really matter that Lulapilgrim states that it is fact?  Why does it matter if she says it's fact or not, other than the obvious reason of "she doesn't agree with me, and I can't force her to see it my way"?  Why can't one simply ignore that she uses the word "fact".................it's just a word and it really doesn't change what anyone else thinks or knows does it?  It's not always necessary or even beneficial to us if another does see things our way, if another doesn't bend to our point of view, or change their behaviour at our insistence.  This insistence that we place on others is what started problems of all sorts through out all history.  I am assuming that you are jewish, and as such does not the history of your own people teach you this?  The romans tried to insist that your people see and do things their way did they not?  And did your people not rebel and stubbornly insist that they were going to do things their way?  Do you really think that others won't do the same?

I try not to do that.

I'll readily admit that my opinion that G-d exists and that Israel are His people is belief and not proven fact.

I'll also readily admit that my beliefs do not affect reality and that it is possible for you to believe something else and even that it is possible that G-d wanted you to believe in something else because you are not a Jew.

 

It changes the dynamics. It is clear that she is not here to discuss and learn but to remind us that we all follow the wrong faith and should follow hers. I don't care if you follow my faith or another. The Christians here want you and me to follow their faith, but there are two ways to act on that: one is to be an example, the other is to "correct" those who are wrong. The latter doesn't help.

Please do try to allow for the odd paragraph in your comments and perhaps fewer "..........".

 

It's very considerate of you, and I truly mean that.  It would be more considerate however if you didn't insist that everyone do as you do.   Which does remind me to apologize to you for the manner in which I post that seems to bother you.  For your sake I will try to control my natural way of speaking when a post is directed to you. 

"It changes the dynamics. It is clear that she is not here to discuss and learn but to remind us that we all follow the wrong faith and should follow hers. I don't care if you follow my faith or another. The Christians here want you and me to follow their faith, but there are two ways to act on that: one is to be an example, the other is to "correct" those who are wrong. The latter doesn't help.

Who's dynamics?  Conversation like people, evolve.  I don't think that anyone controls the dynamics in a conversation, nor should they even try.  When one does the conversation dies.  What a pity, death by control.

So Lulapilgrim isn't here to learn.  So what?  I am, and I also want to hear Lulapilgrims views and beliefs even if her intention is to convert me.  No one can do to me that which I don't allow them to do.  I also don't care that she insists that her beliefs are facts, and it's the only way and the only truth.  How does her insistence hurt or harm me?  It doesn't. I get the feeling that this is a matter of neither one being able to bend the other to acknowledge their point of view as being right.  If it is, this is an ego matter, and one that I am simply not interested in, and can fully ignore.