Deacon Jang, a Christian who worked on the border of China and North Korea, has been released from prison after 11 years.

Jang was kidnapped from China in November 2014 and sentenced to 15 years in a North Korean prison. He had been ministering to North Koreans who crossed the border into China and had seen a number of them come to faith in Christ.

Jang had been working in the town of Changbai, alongside fellow Korean-Chinese pastor, Han Chung-Ryeol. Although it is illegal to cross into China without permission, North Koreans often visit border towns to buy goods, or medicine.

Jang had regularly provided hospitality for those doing so and discipled those who came to faith, teaching them how to share the gospel with loved ones when they returned home. Release International’s partner for Korea said, ‘We believe the reason for his kidnapping was to gather information about the North Korean ministry work we were doing with Pastor Han.’ Fifteen months after Deacon Jang’s kidnapping and arrest, Pastor Han was lured from his home in Changbai and stabbed to death.

Give thanks for Deacon Jang’s release and pray for his well-being. And for him and his family, healing and comfort and provision in the days ahead.

rambot said:

I think the assault on the child was the REAL sadness here.

I guess some people have differing priorities.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Context is important here. Many people read verses 1-2 only and they stop there and they build their own doctrine of salvation. Yet, if we are of genuine biblical faith in Jesus Christ, we have been crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin, but as slaves to God and to his righteousness. It isn’t that Jesus just forgives us our sins and now we can go on sinning and his grace covers it all. Yes, we are forgiven our sins, but we must not keep sinning.

Yes, faith in Jesus Christ does not mean that we will never sin again. And if we do sin we have an advocate with God the Father, who is Jesus Christ, so that we are not condemned if we should sin. But we read in 1 John 1:5-10 that if we claim that we are in fellowship (relationship, partnership) with Jesus Christ/God, but while we keep on sinning, i.e. while sin is still our practice, we are liars who do not practice the truth. But if we walk in truth and righteousness (in the Light), Jesus’ blood cleanses us from all sin.

So, it isn’t that once we put our faith and trust in Jesus Christ that we can keep on sinning while God’s grace covers it all. For God has “drawn a line in the sand,” i.e. he has set a limit which we are not to go beyond, or if we do, we will face the consequences. And that becomes even more clear in this passage of Scripture from 1 John 2:3-6. For it says that if we truly know God/Christ (intimately) that we will keep (obey) his commands (New Covenant). And if we don’t obey him (in practice), we don’t know him.

But it appears to me, from what I have seen so far, that few people seem to be teaching this. Many are teaching a salvation from sin that permits the sinner to keep on their sin without consequence, stating that God’s grace now covers it all. And others will mention that we are to die to sin and walk in obedience to our Lord, and to his commands, but they make it more optional, as something that we should do, but not as required for salvation from sin and for eternal life with God, in the power and wisdom of God.

But Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

For by God-gifted faith in Jesus Christ, which is not of our own doing, we are crucified with Christ in death to sin and raised with Christ to walk in newness of life in him, no longer to live as slaves to sin but as slaves to righteousness in walks of obedience to God’s commands. We are no longer to permit sin to reign in our mortal bodies to make us obey its desires. For if sin is what we obey, it results in death. But if obedience to God is what we obey, it results in sanctification, and its end is eternal life with God (see Romans 6:1-23).

Therefore, we cannot just give lip service to our Lord and expect that God is going to let us into his heaven. By God-gifted and God-persuaded faith in Jesus Christ we must die to sin and live to God and to his righteousness in walks of obedience to his commands, in holy living, in the power of God. Sin must no longer be what we practice, but now we are to serve the Lord with our lives. Our lives are to be surrendered to God, in his service, following after him and his ways, by the grace of God, becoming more like Jesus.

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:19-39; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10; Revelation 2:1-29; Revelation 3:1-22]

As the Deer

By Martin J. Nystrom
Based off Psalm 42:1

As the deer panteth for the water
So my soul longeth after You
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

You alone are my strength, my shield
To You alone may my spirit yield
You alone are my heart's desire
And I long to worship You

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

An Advocate with The Father
An Original Work / November 11, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

Vambram said:

Campaign for Accountability is very wrong about their accusation that there is no probable cause.

Click to expand...

The fact that the career prosecutor didn't think there was enough evidence to bring a case and Trump had to fire him in order to install a loyalist (Halligan) to bring the case, and the fact no other prosecutor in Halligan's new office was willing to join the indictment of Comey, is already a strong indication there was not probable cause.

There is also the fact that the prosecutor's case, at least from what they have shown, seems to be rather devoid of merit if the information here is correct:

Essentially, the prosecutor's argument is to point to things... that, even if true, don't constitute perjury. Now, maybe they're theoretically sitting on some evidence they haven't mentioned, but if so it's odd that they didn't mention it in a filing that's trying to argue to the judge that there is totally evidence against Comey and that the prosecution shouldn't be dismissed.

Dikaioumenoi said:

I've answered; you're not responding to what I answered. The issue isn't what the name means in isolation. The issue is how the angel explains the name:

"You shall call His name Jesus, for he will save His people from their sins"​

The future indicative σώσει is declarative and effectual. It is not probabilistic, partial, or tentative. Whoever falls under "His people" is guaranteed salvation. You're trying to separate the kind of salvation from its scope, but nothing in the text allows that. The angel's words present a definitive promise.


Again, γὰρ σώσει defines the essence and scope of His salvific mission. The angel's explanation of the name is itself a complete statement of the mission.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

You're not understanding what you're quoting. The plural αὐτῶν refers to the sins of the group, not the people themselves. Notice what you quoted: "The “sins of the people” are considered collectively." (My emphasis)

Click to expand...

I know that got wrong. I was very tired when I replied.

Dikaioumenoi said:

So you're conflating two different elements of the Greek pointed out in what you yourself quoted. The corporate plural is in reference to sins, not to the scope of the saved. The future indicative σώσει guarantees that all individuals encompassed by "His people" are saved, not merely that the group as a collective survives in some abstract sense. The grammar does not allow partial fulfillment here. The corporate plural of the sins only tells us how the sins are counted; it does not redefine the scope of the salvation promised.


As I already argued, what is relevant is how the author himself uses the language in context. And in Matt. 1:21, it is defined by redemptive belonging, not ethnicity.


Again, already answered. You are still making an unwarranted distinction between lexical precedent and authorial redefinition. It does not matter how the specific phrase is used in other contexts; what matters is how it is used here. Even if the phrase historically refers to Israel, that does not determine what Matthews means in context. Matt. 1:21 defines the referent by the nature of the salvation promised. The angel promises redemptive salvation from sin, not national deliverance. You've conceded that much, but that concession eliminates an ethnic reading. Once the salvation is spiritual and effectual, the referent cannot remain merely national. A nation can experience political or covenantal privilege, but it cannot, as a collective entity, be forgiven of sin apart from the individuals who compose it.

In other words, even if you view Matt. 1:21 as a partial disclosure of Jesus' mission, the kind of salvation described necessarily individualizes the referent. A corporate, ethnic category simply cannot receive forgiveness from sin in the sense Matthew uses here. Only those personally redeemed can fulfill that description. Hence, "His people" must refer to the redeemed community, not the Jewish nation as such.

Paul explicitly defines "Israel" not in ethnic but in redemptive terms ("not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel" - Rom. 9:6).

Click to expand...

Well, he does also say "His people" are the ethnic Jews.

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
— Romans 11:1-2

I know you say it doesn't matter but I think it does. We need a very good reason to interpret "His people" in Matthew 1:21 differently. I'm not saying there isn't such a reason, but in that case I need to really know for sure.

Dikaioumenoi said:

Matthew is working from that same covenantal reality: Jesus' "people" are those whom He truly saves from their sins. And since Matt. 1:21 ties that saving mission directly to Jesus' name and incarnational purpose, the redefinition of God's people is already implicit in the angel's announcement.

Click to expand...

Dikaioumenoi said:

"From" does not mean "limited to." John 4:22 speaks of historical origin, not covenantal scope. The Messiah arises from Israel according to promise, yet His saving work immediately transcends that boundary. Matt. 1:21 is describing the effectual scope of salvation itself, not the ethnic channel through which it comes.


Your interpretation divorces the "nature" of the salvation from its object, which the text itself does not permit. You're splitting the angel's statement into two unrelated halves, as if the angel were saying, "Jesus will bring a kind of salvation from sins, but I'm not specifying for whom." That's not a reading of what's there in the text. You're looking for a way to make the text read how you want it to.

Grammatically, there are two ideas joined in a single purpose clause: σώσει τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν. The object ("His people") and the nature ("from their sins") are bound together by the same verb (σώσει). You can't separate what kind of salvation it is from who actually receives it. The act of saving defines both simultaneously: the redemptive efficacy and the identity of the people for whom it is effective. If the salvation described is effectual and redemptive ("He will save," not "He will offer salvation"), then "His people" must be those who actually experience that redemption. To reduce it to a general announcement to ethnic Israel ignores both the verbal aspect and the theological intent. The mission defines the people; the people do not define the mission.


No, it doesn't. That's pure conjecture, not argument. As I've already pointed out, literary audience and referential scope are entirely distinct categories. The fact that Matthew's readership was Jewish in no way proves that every instance of "His people" must denote national Israel. In fact, as I already argued, the opposite is more plausible. It is precisely because the audience is Jewish that Matthew labors to dismantle ethnic exclusivism and to redefine covenant membership around Christ. That gives him every reason to immediately recast the term "His people" in redemptive, not national, terms.

Click to expand...

I have tried my best with grammer and ChatGPT. I can see it's not working very well. I will however see if I can find someone who is an expert in the Greek language to ask about Matthew 1:21.

The question is not only about grammer, but if the nation of Israel is a linguistically, plausable interpretation of "His people" in Matt 1:21. If it isn't I'll take my hat off and admit you were right all along.

YouTube Channel Video Devo
Login to view embedded media
“Do We Give Our All?
Mark 12:41-44 NIV
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Recently, for our family devotion time, we read this passage about the widow giving all that she had. I have read this story numerous times in the past and am reminded of how powerful of a message it is showing us that giving our all in life is so important. I’m reminded of how crucial it is for us to truly give our all in every single thing we do in life. So often it’s easy for us to just give minimal in our efforts to various commitments.

I think about the religious leaders and other rich people who felt a sense of pride for throwing large amounts into the offering. I’m sure they had a puffed up ego feeling all good about their so-called generosity. However, the widow is amazing not only because she gave the least amount, but also that she gave everything she had and ended up giving more than them!

This makes me consider how often I honestly put in 100% effort into the things I do each day and how much I commit to my relationship with God, my family, church and friendships that I have. When I consider the widow, I often wonder how God wants me to give more in certain situations.

Guess who else gave their all? There’s many other examples in Scripture, but the best example every is Jesus Christ Himself. He literally gave it all. Just like the hymn, “Jesus Paid It All”. No one in history could ever give what Jesus did. Jesus gave His life to give us life.

I think we all need to start asking ourselves each day, “Do we give our all in our relationship with God, in our family, in our church, and other relationships?” In our commitments, where are we failing to give our all? Others are busting their tails often to help us and to provide for their families, so we definitely need to make sure we are giving our best effort in everything we do.

Like the widow, do we find ourselves giving our all and being as humble as possible or do we just give a little and feel prideful for at least giving something? We need to ditch the pride and take a good lesson from not only the widow, but Jesus Himself.

Michie said:

Testimonies are planting seeds. There is nothing wrong with writing and selling a book. A worker is worth their wages. It takes money to reach a wide audience, etc. You make a very good point about his celebrity opening people up to reading his testimony.

Click to expand...

Thank you, and I agree about a worker being worthy of their wages.

Democrat Adelita Grijalva to be sworn in 7 weeks after winning House election​

Democrat Adelita Grijalva will be sworn in as a member of Congress on Wednesday when the House returns, seven weeks after she won a special election in Arizona.

House Speaker Mike Johnson will administer the oath of office to Grijalva at 4 p.m. Wednesday before the lower chamber holds votes on a funding bill to reopen the government, according to the speaker's office.

FaithT said:

You’re welcome! How many stitches?

Click to expand...

I don’t know. I did not count them. It was a big Z shaped incision that went up into her hairline to the corner of her right eye and across the cheek. There were a lot for sure.

On Monday, Trump welcomed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa to the White House despite his past ties to terrorism. The Syrian leader had links to Al-Qaeda under the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Golani, and he battled U.S. forces in Iraq before entering the war in Syria.

At one point, al-Sharaa had a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head and was eventually imprisoned by U.S. forces in Syria for several years.

Loomer blamed the meeting between him and Trump on "the people who work for President Trump."

"Sometimes I feel like some of the people who work for President Trump deliberately go out of their way to sabotage him," the Trump insider wrote Tuesday on X. "Who said: let's invite the ISIS terrorist to the White House for a photo op in the Oval the day before Veterans Day? How many US soldiers did Julani kill?"

The Blaze’s Pipe-Bomb Bombshell Appears to Bomb​

The right-wing outlet claimed to solve the Jan. 6th pipe-bomb mystery​

EARLY SATURDAY MORNING, the Blaze published the most hyped investigation from a right-wing media outlet in recent memory—an exposé on what it claimed was the likely identity of the January 6th pipe bomber.

In the Blaze’s telling, a female former Capitol Police officer who joined the CIA shortly after January 6th was “a forensic match” for the individual caught on camera footage the night before. The article, which included the woman’s name and several pictures of her, purported to be buttressed by “gait analysis” comparing the ex-officer to videos of the bomber.

The article’s claims ... were quickly picked up by leading Republicans, including Trump appointee Kari Lake and several Republican members of Congress. Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), the chair of the House’s new January 6th subcommittee ... Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Rep. Anna Paulina Luna declared on X that “a capitol police officer placed a pipe bomb at the RNC on J6,” adding that the Blaze story was proof that Republicans would “all be in the gulag” if not for Trump.

Two days later, it seems like that excitement may have been more than a little overcooked. Rather than matching the Blaze’s reporting, rival January 6th reporters on the right are casting doubt on its conclusion.

In a sign of how things are going, Luna has quietly deleted her post about the woman’s identity.

When Trump took office again, MAGA expected answers. But, frustratingly for the right, the installation of Trump diehards like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino as the leaders of the FBI hasn’t turned up any more information.

After landmark lawsuits resulted in rulings against InfoWars and Fox News over conspiracy theories, putting them on the hook for massive amounts in damages, right-wing pundits have tended to go after more vaporous groups like the “cabal” or even just an unnamed “they,” the better to avoid the prospect of a similarly damaging libel suit. The fact that Baker had named and published photos of a specific person gave the impression that he might actually have the goods.

Now it gives the impression of an imminent damaging libel suit.

As Democrats dominated statewide races in Virginia, one of the most high-profile school districts in the state and country elected a conservative school board candidate critical of the district's bathroom policies, the second election in a row that a seat in a blue district has been flipped.

Unofficial results compiled by the Virginia Public Access Project show Amy Riccardi winning 51.47% of the vote in the race for a seat on the Loudoun County Public Schools Board of Education representing the Sterling District.

Riccardi has defeated Democrat-endorsed incumbent Arben Istrefi, who captured 47.7% of the vote. Loudoun County Public Schools is a school district located in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., that has drawn national headlines in recent years amid debate over its policies related to trans-identifying students.

Continued below.

Yttrium said:

Are you saying that Biden't corrupt pardons justify Trump's corrupt pardons?

I disagree.

Click to expand...

I don't think they justify them. However, it does annoy me when people talk about how awful Trump's corrupt pardons are if they didn't raise similar complaints against Biden's.

Every time a President offers corrupt pardons I hope it will finally incentivize people to get rid of, or at least restrict, the pardon power, but despite it being something both Democrats and Republicans complain about, there doesn't seem to have been much legislative movement in that direction.

More evidence that Israelis are more concerned about any leaking which shows Israel in a bad light and much less concerned about the abuse of prisoners.

A leaked IDF video showing alleged detainee abuse has Israel reeling, but not in the way you might think | Roy Schwartz

However, the criticism in the Israeli journalist’s post was not aimed directly at Tomer-Yerushalmi. His main target was Channel 12’s legal analyst, Guy Peleg, who aired the leaked footage. Just last week, it was reported that Channel 12 News had assigned a security detail to Peleg, due to concerns that there might be attempts to harm him. Not long afterwards, Amichai Eliyahu, the heritage minister, posted about Peleg on his X account: “My heart is broken … In prison, he will be safe.” Last weekend even saw fans of Peleg’s favourite football club hold a banner in the stadium, informing him he is unwelcome there.

Click to expand...

If Peleg is harmed then the heritage minister will be guilty of incitement.

This comes as no surprise. In Israeli society, there is a prevailing notion that soldiers should be bulletproof – “even sacred”, as Haaretz journalist Tom Levinson told me. “It feels as if they should be able to do whatever they want, and there shouldn’t be any repercussions.” This applies to accusations of war crimes in the Gaza Strip as well as to actions outside the territory.

Click to expand...

Michie said:

Are Tattoos, Even Works Of Art Placed On Human Skin, Immoral? – Mike Pantile on Facebook

(Very short video. Less than 5 minutes.)

What do you think? Do you think tattoos need to be decommissioned? Do they have any sort of powers spiritually?

Click to expand...

Oh, I hope not. I have several, though they all are Christian themed, if that makes a difference.

> mideast peace deal
> in the middle of a plague (covid)
> being called the messiah
> doesn't care about the desire of women (I remember twenty years ago being sheltered and thinking it meant an 18+ guy, not the being friends with Epstein and Ehud Barak)
> family Jesuit ties because of course
> CONSTANTLY blasphemously compared to Jesus Christ on s level even Obama wasn't
> art of the deal / "makes craft prosper in his hand"

No I don't follow "Krav Maga."

I honestly think he's the guy in Revelation. I was actually working on collecting the data on it- which was very overwhelming and constituted multiple years of research- before I realized the talmud teaches the age of consent should be three and (except for the kids) I don't care if they get torched. ****

If I were in Israel, I'd get out.

****I don't claim to be a good person.

I detest the term because it's hypocritical.

The issue of "the oppressed" that most matters to me is child abuse: it's affected people I know personally, and they're NEVER the same after it. Several transitioned or committed suicide. The best outcome has been broken relationships and lifelong depression. Most substance-abuse. Some have ODed.

Sjws want perverts teaching in public schools. The Klan hanged them. I don't leftists can recover from actual hate-groups caring more about the marginalized than they do.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has reportedly warned that Latin Kings street gang leaders issued a “shoot on sight” order targeting agents involved in immigration enforcement operations after officers faced gunfire and had bricks thrown at them in a Chicago neighborhood.

Officers and agents are advised “to maintain heightened situational awareness and exercise extreme caution when conducting enforcement activities,” according to an internal memo cited by NewsNation on Monday.

Last month, the DHS announced the arrest of Juan Espinoza Martinez, a criminal illegal alien and Latin Kings gang member accused of placing a bounty on the Commander at Large of the U.S. Border Patrol, Chief Gregory Bovino.

The agency says it obtained “credible intelligence” that Mexican criminal networks are working with Chicago street gangs and groups like Antifa “to monitor, harass, and assassinate federal agents.”

A screenshot shared by the DHS of a Snapchat conversation that HSI Chicago received showed a user named “Juan” offering $2,000 for information, “cuando lo agarren,” which translates to “when they catch him.” The message, which Martinez allegedly sent, also included a photo of Bovino.

Continued below.

This was a thing?

The ONLY thing that helped me as an aspie declutter was Marie Kondo's book, "The Life-changing magic of tidying up."

Lukaris said:

I said that I struggle with the same stuff you do in my thoughts. Don’t let this hinder you from doing whatever good you can do for others. I don’t try to justify myself with works but I know the Lord wants to see something from us ( Matthew 25:31-46).

A personal example of what I mean is that recently, I had lustful thoughts. The next day I heard an appeal from a local food bank and didn’t let my sin hinder me from donating ( Matthew 6:1-4). It doesn’t keep me from praying for myself and others ( 1 Timothy 2:1-6) ( Matthew 6:9-13) or for evangelism ( Matthew 9:36-38).


I think of the Lord speaking about the Pharisee and publican in Luke 18:9-14. The Pharisee does good works but he flushes a lot of it down the drain with his pride & unintended idolatry. The Lord tells us the repentant publican is justified. As always, I find the golden rule ( Matthew 7:1-12) as my coping mechanism.

Click to expand...

correct me if I'm wrong. Is it right to say I am only going to defeat this sin if God wills it? And if I can only be given freedom from this sin if God wills it should i then be beating myself up so much when I fall into it?

bling said:

New Christians may not tap into everything that is available to them to help them experience the transformation:

I do not know of any Christian group, who believe the water itself saves you, since all believe it is God who saves and God is not limited by water.

Water baptism is not a “requirement” for salvation, since God does the saving, but is something Christians get to do to help them and others.

I know that I needed everything God could provide to assure me of my conversion, both outwardly and mentally. God wants you to physically feel the experience of what is going on Spiritually.

You would like to add to your conversion a definite time place and physical experience, which God has provided for you.

Adult believers water immersion is to be a physical outward representation of what had or is happening spiritually in the person being baptized. It is mainly to help the individual being baptized to better grasp what is going on, but it can “witness” to others observing the baptism. It has the elements of going down under the water (burying the old man), placing your dependence in another; the person baptizing you (surrendering your life to God), being washed (having your sins washed away), rising out of the water (rising from the old dead body), and stepping forth out onto the earth (a new person). The person is walking out into the hugs of his new family. It is also a sign of your humility, since it is a humbling act anyone can simple allow someone to do to them (so not a work) and since humility has been shown in the accept of charity (God’s free gift of undeserving forgiveness) it should just support and add to the memory of that acceptance. To refuse Christian water baptism when it is readily available might mean you are not ready to handle other responsibility like having the indwelling Holy Spirit and you are hurting yourself.

Christian Baptism replaced John’s Baptism and not circumcision, since circumcision went on at the same time as John’s baptism and it is not in the Bible where, Jewish Christians cease circumcising their boy children after baptism became available. Circumcision was a physical visible daily reminder to all Jewish boys and men that they were a Jew. The indwelling Holy Spirit is our literal daily reminder that we are Christians. The indwelling Holy Spirit replaced circumcision and is for both men and women.
Peter, Paul and all the rest would have agreed that: “water” does not save you, only Deity (God/Christ/Holy Spirit). God does not need you to “do” anything for Him to save you, but as Christians, we have the wonderful privilege and honor to add to our Spiritual salvation, a physical remembrance by physically going through a death burial and resurrection: washing away, reliance on others, rising to a new life in the arms of fellow Christians and witnessing to other what Christ went through in remembrance. Baptism is for us, because it helps us, and some of us will need that additional help, so God wants all of us to add this physical remembrance and witness.

Look at the context of 1 Cor: 16-17, 1 Cor. 1: 10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Yet tell me this: If Paul did not believe in water baptism, why did he specific give exceptions as being exceptions to his baptizing of Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?

Paul is addressing one of the many issues the Corinthian Church was having, which was division among them partly created by them being baptized by different Church leaders or disciples of those church leaders. Paul personally limited baptizing people for the same reason Christ did not baptize anyone.

Paul is not bring judgement down on being baptized, but their division and using who baptized them in dividing up.

Why would baptism not be a benefit to you?

Click to expand...

And you say that I BAPTIZED THE household of Stephan's as for the rest , I. don't know if I had BAPTIZED any

other, PLEASEEEEEE. Notice that the Greek word WATER // HYDOR is not USED in verse 16. so check the Greek TEXT !!
And check ACTS 1:5. where the Greek WATER. //. HYDOR changes to BAPTISM go HOLY SPIRIT. and it happened

AT PENTECOST. !!

And how will you EXPLAIN Gal 6:15. and would like your REPLY !!
dan p

Larniavc said:

A thought is not a behaviour. It might seem complicated but it is really not.

Click to expand...

What's the difference between the atoms in my brain and the atoms in my arm and fist? Aren't they all "behaving"?

Larniavc said:

To continue your previous example: you can be arrested for the behaviour of punching someone but not for thinking about punching them.

Click to expand...

Correct, but you can be charged for what you're thinking, or what you believe, in association with an act of the body.

prodromos said:

Do you dispute that figures of speech are common in every language?

Click to expand...

No, I don't. Why do you ask?