Chit-Chat


Reply to topic

Search

Happy 500 anniversary!

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

It was a sad face. (At any rate, that's the one I do for sad. For frown or confused, I use the colon for eyes : and the slant bar for the frown /)

I did not say those things. I would greatly appreciate not having words attributed to me that I have not said.

It keeps the conversation clear, and understandable, with the focus on the discussion itself and its ideas.

It is an understood rule of internet forum debate and discussion to keep the discussion to the topic, whatever it may be, and not let it veer onto the people having the discussion. (That always devolves....just like these posts, which are between the two of us and not directly related to the main topic everyone's discussing.)

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

My point is Christ is clear. The text is clear.






^^^

The text is clear to others who find a different interpretation both in the English words themselves, as well as the Greek from which it is translated. In past history, it has been so clear that many were willing to be burned, hanged, etc. for their belief.

It is one of the most major dividing lines in Christendom.

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

When were Paul's sins washed away?

On the road to Damascus (as we are often told) or three days later when he was told...

‘Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’ Acts 22:16


I also want to address this question:

Quote: "So when the jailer went home with Paul and Silas and his entire family was baptized, and knowing that families in those days were all of your kin brothers, of your father and all of their families and all of their servants, you are reading into the text when you claim that no child was there. They had no birth control. There is no clear text that says children weren't baptized."

I think the passage is clear that all who were baptized in this instance also believed which infants and small children are incapable of.

"And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately ***he was baptized, he and all his household***. And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, ***having believed in God with his whole household***." Acts 16:33-34

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

Quote: “(By the way, there can be NO DOUBT that Jesus was saved PRIOR TO his baptism by John. :) Baptism did not save Jesus. Nor does it save us. We are baptized for the same reason, as an outward sign to others.)”

I would *not* say that Jesus was “saved” prior to His baptism. Jesus was never “saved” because He was never lost. Jesus never needed to be saved. Being sinless, He was never lost in the first place. Also, the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was baptized as an “outward sign to others” as you state. Jesus was baptized, as He told John at the time, to “fulfill all righteousness” Matt. 3:15

You contend, “We are baptized for the same reason, as an outward sign to others.” Can you please give a Scriptural reference that says that we are baptized for the reason of “an outward sign to others”?

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

! Peter 3:20-21: Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, ***eight souls were saved by water***. The like figure whereunto even ***baptism doth also now save us*** (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Quote: “In point of fact, the water didn't save”

On the contrary, that is just the point Peter is making. We think of the ark saving Noah, but in this context of Peter’s argument, the water did save. The water of the flood literally washed away the sinfulness of the world. This is the point being made here.

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

^^^
Quote: “Some misunderstand the word "for" which has created the controversy regarding baptismal regeneration. It does not mean "be baptized in order to get forgiveness" but "be baptized because your sins are forgiven and you're showing forth that which has happened." It takes the meaning "because of" or "as a result of."
---------------------------------------------------------------
I can prove from the Scriptures that what you contend here is not true.

The “for” in this passage above is the same Greek term “for” in the passage below:

Jesus said: “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:28

So would you say that the blood of Jesus was poured out because your sins are forgiven already? Of course not! The meaning is clear in both passages.

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

I think I'll rely on Greek scholars for my understanding of the words, since they have spent years studying the language and how to interpret passages. :) That language is not my forte. Yet. Maybe ever. :)

re: Happy 500 anniversary!

Mamma Anna those are appropriate verses that you have shared.

Speaking of the Greek.

The Greek is clear.

When Christ says "this is my Body"

The word "is" in English can mean many things, but in Greek, the word "Is" here and in every other location in the Bible, means


"This is nothing but this"

So Christ is saying clearly in real life and in the very first Greek text carefully worded by the Holy Spirit

"This is nothing but my body"


"This is nothing but my blood."

123456789

Reply to topic

Search


Return to Chit-Chat