"Wrong. It's a proven fact from the experiences of others."

It's only proven fact to others who have proven it through their own experience of adding the two numbers together for themselves.  But if indeed you do think that it is simply a matter of telling another, perhaps you'd care to explain why a teacher makes a student do the addition for themeslves? After all the teacher already told them that adding to two numbers together equals four.

"We, in the New and Eternal Covenant of Grace in the Blood of Christ, "make way for the Lord God" in our heart,mind,body and soul by Baptism which is being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. "

Says who?  Where did you read in scripture, OT or NT, this?  Are you refuting what John the Baptist said?  If so why didn't Jesus?   I still think that you are assuming a great deal Lulapilgrim, but I'm willing to learn.  Quote me scripture that says this.  Not the apostles nor even Paul, but Jesus, because Jesus is the final authority. 

"It's no assumption on my part.  It's worthy of noting that the Christian rite of Baptism that Jesus commanded in St.Matthew 28:19 has Jesus saying the word "baptize"."

Did not John say that Jesus would baptize with the holy spirit and fire?  Yes he did.  Why on earth would you think that Jesus would instruct the apostles to baptize in any other way than that which he himself baptized in?  He didn't say to his apostles "baptize in the way of John", but in the manner of which Jesus himself taught.  They were after all his apostles, Lulapilgrim, not Johns. 

I don't have "again" in my version.  It's the water and the Holy Spirit that is the topic here.  You are asumming he's meaning water baptism when water can mean "word" or can mean human birth or can mean Holy Spirit but that would be redundant I guess.  Water baptism doesn't fit because of so many other scriptures including Eph 2:8-9 which says there is no works that help get us into heaven.  When we baptize ourselves or have someone do it it becomes a work because we are doing something. 

Many people believe he's talking physical birth water because of the content of the conversation.  So how do you know this means 'water baptism"  when it does not say that?  It doesn't say you must be baptized.  It says you must be born again.  During all this putting this scripture down again and again and again, you totally every single time totally leave out v 6-7-8 which is part of the whole thing.  No wonder you can't understand it.  You stop at v5 not looking at the WHOLE counsel of Jesus.  He's saying don't look at the physical (don't look at the natural water).  It's all about the Spirit of God. 

First things first.  Where does it say that Peter baptized thousands? 

".....The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47.   Nothing to do with man, but all to do with God. 

Notice first things first in v41:

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized."  Same as Lydia.   Notice what came first?  Word.  Then notice this in v42...

"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers."  All things that a church should be doing but notice how important the teaching was in all this.  Teaching is critical.  That's why it keeps saying "invoking his name"  "calling upon his name"  "baptize in the name"  etc.  The common denominator is the name of Christ.  First and foremost.  That's why I believe in John 3:5 the water stands for the Word.  So one cannot be born again without the word of God and without the Holy Spirit's indwelling.  Both are witnesses to your salvation.    

Baptism is a ceremony.  It's an earthly physical example of what's happened to us inside. That's why Christ was so against these traditions of men who are more concerned about the externals than the internals.

 It's the first act of obedience AFTER we've already been saved.  It's the calling upon his name that saves NOT water baptism. 

Because of this type of argument from you Paul would have written to you personally and said:

"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius."  1 Cor 1:14. 

That seems to be a very strange thing to say if you believe Salvation washes away sins.  Paul did not believe this nor do I.  If it were as you say, he would be bragging about all the baptisms he did. 

He goes on to say:  "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.  For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE but to preach the gospel;

It's not the baptism that's important...it's the cleansing of the water which is the WORD.  It's the Word that cleanses, not the water.  It's Jesus who cleanses, not the baptismal pool.  It's the gospel.  Go out into the world to baptize is not the main thing.  It's the making of disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that's important.  Geeeesh Lula. 

Paul is clearly refuting baptismal regeneration.  THis has to be the strongest case AGAINST what you are saying in the whole of the bible. 

He who has ears to hear will hear.   

kfc posts:

The 70th week of Daniel has already been fulfilled. For that matter, all of the OT prophecies have been fulfilled by the First Advent of Christ, His life, Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension. Although some may have dual fullillment just as the promises to Abraham and his seed have dual fulfillment. By dual fulfilment, I mean fulfilled in the OT for national Isreal (not modern state of Isreal) and fulfilled in the NT for the Chruch.

In answer to your last question, becasue Scripture itself supports that Christ as King of kings is already reigning over His spiritual kingdom, the Church, from Heaven. How  long is He going to reign before His Second Coming to earth at the end of the world when He judges all mankind? Trhat's the 1,000 year reign, a 'long time'...We know the 1,000 year reign of Christ is symbolic period of time because only GOd knows when Christ's will come again. 

The 1,000 years began at the First Coming of Christ and will transpire until the Second Coming and then once all mankind has been judged, the eternal state will be ushered in.

In my view, the way you and others are visioning the 1,000 year future reign of Christ over the physical nation of Isreal is bonkers! Your interpretation of Scripture depends on the eschatological view that is adopted going into the reading.

Wake up! Christ is reigning now. It's time  to acknowledge Him as our Lord God and King, to repent of your sins, be baptized and become children of God.

Tell me something Lulapligrim if you would.  When you go to confession and the priest gives you seven hail Mary's to say, why are you saying them, what is their purpose?

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?    You wake up.  Does it look like he's reigning now?  If this is it, this is a pretty dismal view of the physical reign of Christ.  This is so wrong and so unbiblical it's like you're disregarding 2/3 of scripture to come up with this statement.  You have to get rid of Rev 21, Zechariah 14, Psalm 2, Ezekiel 40-48, and a whole bunch more out of the minor prophets. 

You've got to be kidding.  Then why did both Paul and Jesus say that Satan was the prince of this world????  He's the one ruling.  Not God...not yet.  Not until the fulness of the Gentiles is complete.  Why did Peter say that Satan was like a roaring lion seeking whom to devour if Christ is reigning?  Before Christ reigns, Satan is deposed.  Hasn't happend yet. 

I'm glad you said "in my view."  Your view is amillennialism.  This view teaches that there will be no 1,000 year reign at all and that the NT church inherits all the spiritual promises and prophesices of the OT Israel (Leauki are you listening?)  In this view Isaiah's beautiful prophecy of the bear and the cow lying together and the lion eating straw like the ox Isa 11:7 simply doesn't mean what it says at all.  However, if the 11th chapter of Isaiah cannot be taken literally, what proof do you have that the 53rd chapter should not likewise be symbolized away? 

I am a premill believer or a futuristic believer believing this HAS NOT happened yet.  Theologians who held "my view" during the very first three centuries AD are

1.  Clement of Rome 40-100

2.  Ignatius 50-115

3.  Polycarp 70-167

4.  Justin Martyr 100-168

5.  Irenaeus 140-202

6.  Tertullian 150-200

7.  Cyprian 200-258

8.  Commodianus 250-

BUT beginning in the 4th century the RCC began to grow and premillennialism began to dry out for Rome viewed herself as God's instrument to usher in the promised kingdom of glory.  THEY TOOK HIS PLACE!  

No it hasn't.  Because if it had we wouldn't be discussing all this.  Besides the last part of that 70th week is this:

"to bring in everlasting righteousness and to seal up the vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy."  Dan 924b. 

Hasn't happened yet.  I don't think you understand the 70th week of Daniel. 

I am listening.

Why exactly can the Romans come to Israel, kill one of our rabbis, and then announce that from now on the Romans are the owners of everything G-d gave to Israel?

LULA POSTS:

KFC POSTS:

In a nutshell, after the disciples recieve the Holy Spiirt at Pentecost, St.Peter preaches Christ  to the Jews and a great multitude from all over the known world at that time. Those that heard the words of St.Peter were converted and asked what they should do...Peter answered: repent and be baptized for the remission of sins ......That day 3,000 souls entered the fledgling Christian Church.  

Here are the verses in Acts 2...

1 And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they (the Apostles and disciples )were all together in one place: 

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.

5 Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue.

8 And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,

11 Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. 

 14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and with your ears receive my words.

 22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you also know:

31 Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified.

37 Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?

38 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.

41 They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

in a nutshell huh? 

Some nutshell. 

You still didn't answer my question.  Where does it say that PETER baptized thousands. 

Answer:  It does not. 

You did not prove your statement. 

V14 and your highlighted does NOT say that Peter baptized only that Peter preached.  no question.  But that's not what I asked you. 

My question again is where does it say that Peter baptized (not preached to)  thousands? 

lula posts:

kfc posts:

You are thinking in the physical KFC. Since when is there a physical reign of Christ? There is no such thing and never, ever will be.

When we apeak of the Church, you keep saying it's not about physical buildings and I agree 100%. The Church is the spiritual kingdom Of Christ.  As Scripture states, "the Church is the pillar and ground of Truith."  Did you catch that? Who is Truth, KFC? Christ is. The Church is the pillar and ground of Christ.  

 Christ ascended into Heaven and is presently reigning over us, His spiritual Body, His spiritual kingdom, the Chruch of which by Baptism I am a member and child of GOd. The Chruch is in her own Exodus through this valley of tears to the promised land , Eternal New Jerusalem in Heaven.

kfc posts:

God is very much still in charge and always will be. Christ isn't reigning over the world for the world, in large, has rejected Him. Satan is the prince of the world prowling around for the ruin of souls...and when he is let loose will be the end  of the physical world. Then comes Judgment and Heaven or Hell. No physical reign of Christ.

Christ is presently reigning over His spiritual kingdom, the Chruch, which is in the world but not of it.

Reaad the post again, and especially verses 38 and 41 which I highlighted in blue to make it easier.

Unlike you...I don't apply Daniels's prophecy to end-time fantasy.

well not exactly.  He's ruling in the hearts and minds of those that are his.  So while we do have Christ in our hearts and minds thru the indwelling of the Holy Spirit it's not the same as his "coming again" to rule physically which is going to happen soon hopefully.  We see that in Rev 19 when he comes again.  What do you think that is referring to?  Remember... He's on the white horse with the sword (his word)  coming from his mouth. 

Yes, here I am.  The physical reign of Christ is what the whole of scripture is ALL about.  The Holy Spirit is just the promise of what is to come.  It's the seal given to the believers as a deposit or ernest of a future coming.  We are going to reign with him in a physical sense.  He's going to be with us physically just like he was in the first coming.  You're being taught there is NO physical reign of Christ?  Really?  I didn't know that. 

Do you know anything about the Davidic Covenant?  If so, what is it? 

nope.  Not there.  You made a claim that Peter baptized thousands.  v38 and 41 do not say that Peter baptized these thousands only that Peter urged them to be baptized.  NOT the same thing.  While we're at it.  Can you show me anywhere where we see Mary being baptized?  Peter?  John?  Andrew?  Any of the disciples?  I mean if it's so important to one's salvation you would think that would be a very important thing to record wouldn't you? 

P.S.  Notice how the word of God had to be received FIRST!   Have you noticed in all the recordings in Acts where it says they recieved the word first and then were baptized or they repented first and were baptized?  How does that work with infants? 

A teacher isn't really necessary to learn that 2 +2= 4.