|
Post by watchman on May 10, 2009 14:49:31 GMT -5
Acts 8 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I didn't want to bring this up, but did you know that Acts 8:37 is not found in many ancient manuscripts? teresa Yeah you probably shouldn't have brought it up.The old ''it doesn't line up with my beliefs, the bible must have been tampered with''
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 10, 2009 14:51:56 GMT -5
That will be true if Scriptures actually taught the Virgin Mary had sexual relation, yet all the Scriptures given by you and others who believe such a thing doesn't show clearly that they did, as I proved in my recent thread about Matthew 1:25 and the "Brothers and Sisters of Christ". It takes plain ignorance of Scriptures, usages of words in Ancient Judaism, and Ancient Christianity to believe such a thing. However my above post was not about that, but Philip statement to the eunuch that he had to believe before he could be baptized which needs just as much or more refusal to see truth, to not understand that. That's already been dealt with. In Scriptures adults had to make a Profession of Faith before entering in the Baptismal Font. In the Old Testament, God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children (Joshua 5:2-7). This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation. They would circumcised there Infants in order for them to enter into the Old Covenant (Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3) without there knowledge or awareness. However, in Col 2:11-12, Holy Baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. The parents of Christian Infants make this profession for Infants just like in the OT. "Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”(Mt. 19:14) I guess agree to disagree on this issue. In IC.XC, Ramon #1 i know just assuredly that my mother and father had relations that Joseph and Mary did and you nor cepha will ever cause me to believe otherwise. #2 Anyone of any age that does not believe first, their baptism is meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 10, 2009 14:57:53 GMT -5
LOL,
No, that has nothing to do with it. I didn't want to bring it up because the KJV has that verse, but the oldest manuscripts don't. It just brings up the issue with translations, manuscripts, etc.
Some Bibles don't have that verse at all. I mean, what do you do? Is that verse supposed to be in the Bible or not? What about many other verses that are not in ancient manuscripts? Do you really on the ancient manuscripts or your modern translation?
I think it's important that we don't pick at just one verse for doctrine, but look at the overall picture of the Bible, and of course, the Church and the Church Fathers.
teresa
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 10, 2009 15:08:45 GMT -5
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luke 2:48
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 10, 2009 20:21:07 GMT -5
LOL, No, that has nothing to do with it. I didn't want to bring it up because the KJV has that verse, but the oldest manuscripts don't. It just brings up the issue with translations, manuscripts, etc. Some Bibles don't have that verse at all. I mean, what do you do? Is that verse supposed to be in the Bible or not? What about many other verses that are not in ancient manuscripts? Do you really on the ancient manuscripts or your modern translation? I think it's important that we don't pick at just one verse for doctrine, but look at the overall picture of the Bible, and of course, the Church and the Church Fathers. teresa The over all teaching of scripture is that belief comes before baptism.
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 11, 2009 8:55:23 GMT -5
#1 i know just assuredly that my mother and father had relations that Joseph and Mary did and you nor cepha will ever cause me to believe otherwise. Then it is true what you said: When you been indoctrinated, it is hard to accept the truth. You been told all your life that Mary and Joseph had sexual relation, and no matter what people tell you or what Scriptures said (or don't say), you will not accept the truth. It is better learn than to unlearn. Having a discussion with you is impossible because your mind is made up, and the truth is hard is swallow. Every time discussion are being started, eventually you will say "You will never change my mind". I see that as a cheap cop out because you can't refute what has been said. I only pray that God will enlighten you and bring you to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of the East. In IC.XC, Ramon
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 11, 2009 10:16:17 GMT -5
#1 i know just assuredly that my mother and father had relations that Joseph and Mary did and you nor cepha will ever cause me to believe otherwise. Then it is true what you said: When you been indoctrinated, it is hard to accept the truth. It is true the sad thing is you think so high of yourself, when you are the one indoctrinated. I believe Mary and Joseph had relation because you cannot read the gospels without realizing this truth not because of indoctrination. As for you, you have to change the meaning of until, sons, daughters ect.... to ignore the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 12:17:55 GMT -5
That takes personal interpretation on you behalf. Pure conjecture and automatic assumption. No it take willful, purposeful, blindness for you not to see the obvious. The only thing that is "obvious" is that The Bible never states that The Virgin Mary ever had sexual relations and that it never states that Mary had children. Show me one scripture that states that, then you prove your case.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 12:19:02 GMT -5
No, it takes ignorance of Scriptures and Greek to assume the word "until" means a change in the future, whereas the Bible use the word in a different manner, unless you believe Christ will only be with us "until the end of age" has Jesus said in the Gospel of Mathew. It is very dangerous to imput moder usage of words in ancient Scriptures. I detailed this more fully in my my recent thread about Matt 1:25. In the immortal words of Keanu Reeves..."Whoah!"
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 12:21:21 GMT -5
#1 i know just assuredly that my mother and father had relations that Joseph and Mary did and you nor cepha will ever cause me to believe otherwise. Proof? (not that your parents did it, but that Joseph and Mary had relations) Ok.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 12:23:31 GMT -5
LOL, No, that has nothing to do with it. I didn't want to bring it up because the KJV has that verse, but the oldest manuscripts don't. It just brings up the issue with translations, manuscripts, etc. Some Bibles don't have that verse at all. I mean, what do you do? Is that verse supposed to be in the Bible or not? What about many other verses that are not in ancient manuscripts? Do you really on the ancient manuscripts or your modern translation? I think it's important that we don't pick at just one verse for doctrine, but look at the overall picture of the Bible, and of course, the Church and the Church Fathers. teresa Or, we can just go to The Pillar of Truth..."The Church". It cannot be manipulated by mankind because it is guided by The Holy Spirit. It's the "safe" bet.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 12:24:32 GMT -5
LOL, No, that has nothing to do with it. I didn't want to bring it up because the KJV has that verse, but the oldest manuscripts don't. It just brings up the issue with translations, manuscripts, etc. Some Bibles don't have that verse at all. I mean, what do you do? Is that verse supposed to be in the Bible or not? What about many other verses that are not in ancient manuscripts? Do you really on the ancient manuscripts or your modern translation? I think it's important that we don't pick at just one verse for doctrine, but look at the overall picture of the Bible, and of course, the Church and the Church Fathers. teresa The over all teaching of scripture is that belief comes before baptism. Is it mandatory? Can you provide a scripture that states it is mandatory? (not that it happened, that a person believed first, but that belief is mandatory)
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 12:29:23 GMT -5
It is true the sad thing is you think so high of yourself, when you are the one indoctrinated. I believe Mary and Joseph had relation because you cannot read the gospels without realizing this truth not because of indoctrination. As for you, you have to change the meaning of until, sons, daughters ect.... to ignore the obvious. See what you wrote there? You "believe" that Mary and Joseph had relations. But you never posted a scripture that stated they did. And, the word "until" means "before". That was proven with The Dictionary. That's all it means. It means nothing else. To suggest that it means something "not" found in The Dictionary is to create your own definition of the word in order to justify a belief that doesn't exist in scripture. But again, The Bible never states that Mary and Joseph had relations. Nor, that Mary had other children. It's just "not" in scripture. To believe that is to believe something that is unbiblical. Which is fine by me...I wouldn't dare tell you how to believe in your religion personally. To each his/her own I always say. However, what I can say without a doubt is that your belief is not supported by scripture.
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 12, 2009 12:37:40 GMT -5
The over all teaching of scripture is that belief comes before baptism. Is it mandatory? Can you provide a scripture that states it is mandatory? (not that it happened, that a person believed first, but that belief is mandatory) Yes Mark 16:16, now look at this verse closely it says to be saved you must believe and be baptized, but if you do not believe you are damned. There this tells me that belief without baptism is sometimes accepted on rare occasion (such as the thief on the cross) but baptism without believe is never an option. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 13:10:59 GMT -5
LOL, No, that has nothing to do with it. I didn't want to bring it up because the KJV has that verse, but the oldest manuscripts don't. It just brings up the issue with translations, manuscripts, etc. Some Bibles don't have that verse at all. I mean, what do you do? Is that verse supposed to be in the Bible or not? What about many other verses that are not in ancient manuscripts? Do you really on the ancient manuscripts or your modern translation? I think it's important that we don't pick at just one verse for doctrine, but look at the overall picture of the Bible, and of course, the Church and the Church Fathers. teresa Anybody who visits www.Bible.cc will see how many different versions/translations there are. Enough to really twist up the understanding of anybody reading it.
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 13:14:17 GMT -5
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. That verse states that a person who believes and baptized is saved. It also states that a person that does not believe is not saved. But, it doesn't state that a person has to believe in order to be baptized. And, no where in The Bible does it say " baptism without belief is useless". That is not in scripture (if it is, could you show it to me?).
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 12, 2009 13:17:39 GMT -5
Is it mandatory? Can you provide a scripture that states it is mandatory? (not that it happened, that a person believed first, but that belief is mandatory) Yes Mark 16:16, now look at this verse closely it says to be saved you must believe and be baptized, but if you do not believe you are damned. There this tells me that belief without baptism is sometimes accepted on rare occasion (such as the thief on the cross) but baptism without believe is never an option. Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.By the way, unbelieving spouses are saved by their believing spouse. So, since The Bible states two things, neither is absolute. 1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.That means, that they are saved for God would not deny any holy person (including unbelieving children) heaven.
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 12, 2009 20:36:57 GMT -5
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. That verse states that a person who believes and baptized is saved. It also states that a person that does not believe is not saved. But, it doesn't state that a person has to believe in order to be baptized. And, no where in The Bible does it say " baptism without belief is useless". That is not in scripture (if it is, could you show it to me?). If someone who does not believe gets baptized then they are still going to hell, so as I have stated all along, it may not be forbidden, but it is useless. Tell me what is the use if you are an unbeliever still on your way to Hell to be baptized?
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 13, 2009 9:12:33 GMT -5
If someone who does not believe gets baptized then they are still going to hell, Why? If babies and non-believers who marry believers that die without getting baptized don't go to hell, why would someone who gets baptized be less able to go to heaven? Depends...you could be an unbeliever married to a believer and still go to heaven, so as useless as it may seem, it will still doesn't hurt the non-believer. And...whether your baptized or not, if you and an unbeliever, you will still go to heaven as long as you are married to a believer and according to you, even un-believing infants will still go to heaven. Right?
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 13, 2009 12:29:11 GMT -5
If someone who does not believe gets baptized then they are still going to hell, Why? If babies and non-believers who marry believers that die without getting baptized don't go to hell, why would someone who gets baptized be less able to go to heaven? Depends...you could be an unbeliever married to a believer and still go to heaven, so as useless as it may seem, it will still doesn't hurt the non-believer. And...whether your baptized or not, if you and an unbeliever, you will still go to heaven as long as you are married to a believer and according to you, even un-believing infants will still go to heaven. Right? I tried to ignore this because it is just hmmm, stupid to believe, but you keep bringing it up. No one is going to Heaven on the shirt tails of their spouse. If you get saved and your spouse refuses to accept Christ they go to Hell, not to heaven because you are a Christian.
|
|