The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)

[freelight]

merry go round........

merry go round........

Hi all,

This is becoming slightly entertaining. First of all...why not stick with the essential of my thesis - that being that baptism is not limited only to some form of water immersion. Pure baptism into Christ/God is a spiritual conversion. No point in repeating this if one cannot see it.

My reference to Matt. 28:19 as being possibly an interpolation has to do with the inclusion of 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' - a trinitarian formula which may have been added later into the text - thats another thread/subject though - 1 John 5:7 was also possibly an interpolation inserted by a scribe to support the Trinity doctrine. But....back on subject..............

I have already brought up the 2 conclusions at the end of Mark - and that the earliest version ends at vs. 8. Based on this evidence....it is possible that the endings of the other gospels may have been later additions/insertions.

back on baptism - to relegate baptism and the reference to spiritual baptism to the physical act of water baptism is narrow-minded. As I have shared.......the spiritual reality/conversion/experience is what initially counts as primal and lasting....and then continuing to walk in the Spirit/Love is what avails. You are free however to worship water baptism as the way ones sins are washed away.....you are a free agent. If you feel so strongly that God commands you to be water baptized 'for the remission of sins'...then rejoice in your obedience and be glad. Others know of Gods salvation and forgiveness of sins who are not as stringent as you - and they rejoice in Christ just as well...if not more


peace be with you,


paul

 

[Kevin]

freelight,

First of all...why not stick with the essential of my thesis - that being that baptism is not limited only to some form of water immersion.

I don't recall anybody here saying that baptism is limited to water baptism.

Pure baptism into Christ/God is a spiritual conversion. No point in repeating this if one cannot see it.

Are you saying that being baptized with water in the name of the Lord has nothing to do with one's spirituality?

My reference to Matt. 28:19 as being possibly an interpolation has to do with the inclusion of 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit'

Ok... but there's zero evidence to support this suspicion of yours. I can see where there's been debate over Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7, but I've never heard of any debate over Matt 28: 19.

I have already brought up the 2 conclusions at the end of Mark - and that the earliest version ends at vs. 8. Based on this evidence....it is possible that the endings of the other gospels may have been later additions/insertions.

And I have already refuted this.

back on baptism - to relegate baptism and the reference to spiritual baptism to the physical act of water baptism is narrow-minded.

I haven't seen anybody say that Spirit baptism involves water (at least I haven't). I think you've made an assumption where there shouldn't be one. There is a definite difference. In fact, you can see the two side by side in the conversion of Cornelius. They were baptized by the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44, and they were water baptized in the name of the Lord in verses 47-48.

If you feel so strongly that God commands you to be water baptized 'for the remission of sins'

And I've given evidence to support this in my rebuttal to you.

Others know of Gods salvation and forgiveness of sins who are not as stringent as you

Good for them, but I'm going to stick to the proven conversion method used by the apsotles- baptism in the name of the Lord, which involves water. Christ commanded it, the apsotles practiced it (including Paul), and Paul wrote about it in Romans 6.

In the Great Commision, Christ told MAN to preach and baptize. MAN cannot peform Spirit Baptism. Therefore the baptism that Christ commmanded man to do was water baptism. Don't you think that Paul, when he was speaking of the "ONE" baptism, would be the one that Christ commanded, and the one that Paul himself practiced (Acts 19:5)? I do... it only makes sense.

 

[Freak]

C. Moore, good job defending the truth---these heretics continue to promote dangerous doctrines--like water saves--that I denounce in Jesus Name. As Jesus held righteous anger towards those who profane his name----I do too.

Kevin, JustAChristian, Francisco, and the list goes on....I love you in Christ but I curse those demons that use you in the Mighty Name of Jesus (our prayers are working C.Moore as they hate hearing the truth)!!!!!!

 

[rene]

Here is a bit of information about Mark 16 that I don't believe many know.

Irenaeus in 180 A.D. quoted from Mk. 16:19 in his book Against Heresies. "Also towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says; "So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God."

Tatian's Diatessaron, which is a harmony of the four Gospels written around 175 A.D. contains Mk. 16:9-20.

This shows that the passage existed at least 200 years before either Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus.

(Codex Sinaiticus) 375 A.D. A complete N.T (with the exception of Mark 16:9-20). This was found by Tischendorf at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai and is now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. The story is that Tischendorf (a Bible archeologist) was exploring in the Mt. Sinai region and took refuge in St. Catherine's Monastery one night to get out of the rain. There he observed a monk starting a fire with pieces of parchment from a box. On closer inspection he found in the box a bound copy of the N.T. It looked very old to him and he asked if he could look at it. He spent all night reading it by candle light.

(Codex Vaticanus). 350 A.D. missing Revelation, Heb 11:14 to the end of Heb and 1 & 2 Timothy. It has been in the Vatican library since 1481.

(Codex Alexandrinus) 425 A.D. Lacks Mt 1:1 - 25:6, 2 chapters from John and 8 chapters in II Corinthians. Found in Alexandria Egypt. It was a gift to Charles I, king of England, in 1627 and in 1757 it was presented to the Royal Library and now is in the British Museum.

(Ephraemi Rescriptus) 450 A.D. Originally it contained the entire N.T. but now about half of each book is missing. It contains 145 of 238 pages of the N.T. It came to Italy from the East in the 16th century. It came to France with Catherine de' Medici and now is in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. A monk by the name of St. Ephraem needed something to write his sermons on. He had an old manuscript of the N.T. on vellum. He scraped the letters off the pages and wrote his sermons over the original. It was not until the invention of the x-ray machine that the original writing underneath could be clearly read.

(Codex Bezae) 475- 550 A.D. This is a parallel manuscript. It is written in two languages: Greek and Latin. Currently it is in the University of Cambridge library. Theodore Beza was a French scholar associated with John Calvin while working on the Geneva Bible. From 1565 to 1604 A.D. Beza published nine editions of the Greek New Testament, all of which were based on the text of Stephanus. During this time he had in his possession this manuscript. He made very little use of it, being ignorant of its age and value. It contains the Gospels and the book Acts.

33 (a minuscule) 9th century. It is sometimes referred to as "the queen of the cursives" because by examining the text it is obvious to textual critics that it was copied from a very early manuscript. It is very close to Codex Vaticanus.

7. (Codex Washingtonensis) 450 A.D. Is in the Smithsonian. Contains portions of the Gospels.

There are many other important manuscripts in Greek that contain various parts of the N.T.

Also found are manuscripts of the N.T. translated into other languages. These are known as versions. There earliest were in Latin. There are 8000 of these in Latin and 1000 in other languages.

Also important are the writings of early Church fathers where they quote from Scripture.

In 1520 an English scholar named Erasmus collected all the manuscripts he could find (8 late date Miniscules) and compiled what became known (after a revision by Stephanus based on additional manuscripts) as the Textus Receptus. It was translated into English and became the source for the King James Bible.

Through the centuries scholars have repeated Erasmus' work with more manuscripts available. Two scholars from Cambridge, Westcott & Hort, spent 26 years studying all the manuscripts and produced the Westcott and Hort Greek text in 1881. This was the source text for the Revised Version, and others.

The argument that Mk 16:17 is not in the original Greek comes from the fact that it is missing from manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

It IS in manuscripts Codex Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Codex Washingtonensis, and Codex Bezae. Also in 33 (a minuscule) as well as many others. In all over 600 Greek MSS contain the passage. In fact of the over 600 Greek manuscripts that contain the 16th chapter of Mark only 3 do not have vv 9-20. In fact of the over 600 Greek manuscripts that contain the 16th chapter of Mark only 3 do not have vv 9-20.

Conclusion

There is very strong evidence both internal and external that the last 12 verses of Mark 16 were in the original Greek and, therefore, are inspired.

Footnotes

1Manners and Customs of the Bible, James Freeman, p. 341
2See John Darby's translation of the New Testament, 3rd rev. ed. introductory notes, p. 3
3A Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, George Salmon. p. 142
4Handbook to the Textural Criticism of the New Testament, Frederic G. Kenyon, p. 66
5A Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament, p 147
6Ibid., pp 147, 148
7 There is some debate on whether or not some of the fragments found in the Dead Sea scrolls are from parts of the New Testament or not. The fragments are quite, well, fragmentary! In an article about the Dead Sea scrolls published in 1972 by the Evangelical Foundation, 1716 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa titled "Why All the Fuss" there is an explanation of the work by Dr. O'Callaghan whereby he concludes that some of the fragments come from I Timothy (1 fragment), Mark (4 fragments), James (1 fragment), Romans (1 fragment), Acts (1 fragment) and II Peter (1 fragment). Some regard his conclusions as tenuous, others find them convincing. I personally find them fairly convincing, however, I am not an archeologist nor a serious student of ancient texts.

 

[Kevin]

Let me know when you can back what you say with scripture Freak.

 

[rene]

"Let me know when you can back what you say with scripture Freak."

He only picks out portions while turning a blind eye to portions that show his claims to be false.

You know, it is that very type of approach that really opened my eyes - just not in the way that such are trying for. I left after being within such a belief system when I finally started reading the bible on my own. I was floored by the many verses that never were address - ignored.

So, there is hope for those that follow such an approach to the gospel. There are people that DO leave the pick and choose method and instead turn to the bible as a whole.

 

[Kevin]

Rene,

I sincerely hope that anybody who uses the pick and choose method would take the entire counsel of God into consideration.

Your words are encouraging that it can indeed happen. I respect you very much for deciding to take the whole counsel of God into consideration. Praise be to God. Amen.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by rene
"Let me know when you can back what you say with scripture Freak."

Rene---the Scriptures speak of righteousness coming through faith in Jesus not from water.

This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Do you believe this?

 

[rene]

Ah, Freak, those are NOT my words. I did QUOTE THEM - but not mine.

As to your comments - none has said that is not so. What has been repeatedly pointed out that to overlook and ignore scriptures that also address baptism is a pick and choose theology. Such an approach to scripture lacks maturity and wisdom.

Because you follow such a theology - the pick and choose - I believe is why you can't answer the many points placed to you found within the bible that makes your claims more than questionable. Such does and would expose.

That you can't see it - or actually refuse to see it since you won't address the many points found within scripture that refute your claims - is a product of such a theological choice as you seem to have made.

Not shocked by it. I know that you can overcome it just as I did when I left a very similar belief as what you have. God can and will show - but you have to be willing to look and ask. I am praying that you allow God to do such a work within you. It will open your eyes to the FULL GOSPEL vs the pick and choose that you have been following.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by rene
It will open your eyes to the FULL GOSPEL vs the pick and choose that you have been following.

Ha! You have been deceived my friend. Jesus is the full gospel and I have HIM. I don't boast of water but of Jesus. Will you do the same?

 

[rene]

"Ha! You have deceived my friend. Jesus is the full gospel and I have HIM. I don't boast of water but of Jesus. Will you do the same?"

I believe the very words of Jesus found in Matt 28 about baptism. Your the one that doesn't.

May God open your heart and mind to His truth and His wisdom.

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

Were not boasting about anything. We are simply defending what Christ included in the requirements for salvation. You're faith 'only' doctrine is false.

I can disprove your faith "only" theory by the fact that repentance is seperate from faith, yet it is necesssary for salvation. That right there shows that faith only is a lie. Faith saves, but you don't understand what kind of faith saves. :down:

It's quite obvious your doctrine is of man.... you have the hardest time directly answering questions. If you had the truth, it should be hard to do it... yet you have a reputation for your inability to do this. You just pop in and out of threads from time to time, repeat the same things, and don't answer questions.

I'm glad I don't have to pick and choose certain verses and build an entire doctrine out of them while ignoring many other scriptures that have to do with salvation.

 

[Kevin]

Rene,

Since people are having a hard time realizing that you are quoting somebody else, you should try using the UUB Code to do it. Here's an example of how to do this:

Let's say I want to quote: This is a quote

This is what I would type: [ q u o t e ] This is a quote [ / q u o t e ]


Don't use spaces as seen above... I had to use them, otherwise, it would just quote it and you wouldn't see how I did it. Just a tip.

The end result would look like this:

This is a quote

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Kevin
Freak,

It's quite obvious your doctrine is of man....

Another lie from our Resident Water Heretic

God's Word tells us:

This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Righteousness comes through faith in Christ not in H20.

 

[Kevin]

And yes, Freak, I was the one who said to let me know when you can back your doctrine with scripture. In response to:

This is why "it was credited to him as righteousness." The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

I believe this. Now let me ask... do you believe that a person who *only* believes and does not keep the commandments of Christ be justified?

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

Do you believe repentance is necessary for salvation?

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Kevin

I believe this.

Are you telling me righteousness comes through faith and faith alone?

Now let me ask... do you believe that a person who *only* believes and does not keep the commandments of Christ be justified?

Re-read that Scripture again.

 

[Kevin]

Freak,

Are you telling me righteousness comes through faith and faith alone?

Absolutely NOT. See how easy it is for me to answer you? And of course I can back it with scritpture:

James 2:24
24) You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

I know it's not in your pick and choose verses, but like it or not, it IS a Biblical scripture.

Where's my answer about whether or not repentence is necessary for salvation? It's really not a hard question. Your lack of answer only proves what I said to you a few posts back. Keep proving me right.

Now let me ask... do you believe that a person who *only* believes and does not keep the commandments of Christ be justified?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Re-read that Scripture again.

You are responding just as I spoke of in my post to you... you can't answer the question. Answer it. If you have the truth, this is easy. Again, do you believe that a person who *only* believes and does not keep the commandments of Christ is justified?

 

[rene]

Freak - you didn't reply to my question. Will repeat it again for you.

You wrote:

"Ha! You have deceived my friend. Jesus is the full gospel and I have HIM. I don't boast of water but of Jesus. Will you do the same?"

I believe the very words of Jesus found in Matt 28 about baptism. Your the one that doesn't.

Mat 28:18 Jesus came to them and said: I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth!
Mat 28:19 Go to the people of all nations and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Mat 28:20 and teach them to do everything I have told you. I will be with you always, even until the end of the world.

No boasting - at least not on mine and those that seem to be in agreement with supporting what is within the scripture. I have seen some tho that did greatly remind me of what I saw within scripture, Matthew 7:14-20

Mat 7:14 But the gate to life is very narrow. The road that leads there is so hard to follow that only a few people find it.
Mat 7:15 Watch out for false prophets! They dress up like sheep, but inside they are wolves who have come to attack you.
Mat 7:16 You can tell what they are by what they do. No one picks grapes or figs from thornbushes.
Mat 7:17 A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree produces bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that produces bad fruit will be chopped down and burned.
Mat 7:20 You can tell who the false prophets are by their deeds.
Mat 7:21 Not everyone who calls me their Lord will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only the ones who obey my Father in heaven will get in.
Mat 7:22 On the day of judgment many will call me their Lord. They will say, "We preached in your name, and in your name we forced out demons and worked many miracles."
Mat 7:23 But I will tell them, "I will have nothing to do with you! Get out of my sight, you evil people!"
Mat 7:24 Anyone who hears and obeys these teachings of mine is like a wise person who built a house on solid rock.
Mat 7:25 Rain poured down, rivers flooded, and winds beat against that house. But it did not fall, because it was built on solid rock.
Mat 7:26 Anyone who hears my teachings and doesn't obey them is like a foolish person who built a house on sand.

Those that pick and choose scripture and ignore others is building on sand and not the solid rock. May God open your heart and mind to His truth and His wisdom, acceptance of His words which are shared with us within scripture.

 

[Kevin]

Nice quoting, Rene.