Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[KCDAD]

You just said that we can't say anything that doesn't need interpretation.

For example: The bird's color is yellow.

Please, tell me about the different interpretations of this sentence

Thank you for playing.

1) England: The cute female human is wearing a yellow piece of clothing, or she is jaundiced. Or perhaps only her hair is being referred to. If this particular chap is racist, perhaps she is Japanese.

2) Theater student: In a play where dialogue takes place between a bird and a cat, the cat's lines are highlighted in blue and the bird's color is yellow.

3) General: The bird is all one color and that color is yellow.

4) The bird is mostly yellow.

5) The bird is all brown or gray, and the one color of interest that distinguishes it is yellow.

6) Behavioral Psychologist: The bird's color of preference is yellow. It prefers perches, water dishes, or toys that are colored yellow

7) Gosh... that is only using present usage... I bet there is more meaning to be found if I go back into the etymology of the words.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Since I'm boots-in now anyway...



That's a spurious comparison. A pen is necessary IN writing but not FOR writing? What? Writing and transportation are two entirely different things. Salvation and salvation are... not.

Is Justification and Sanctification the same thing???

By the way, both Justification and Sanctification are the same Salvation.

So I hope you know what you are talking about...

And I find it ironic that you're insisting SS make up his mind, when nobody here's yet worked out what your position on baptism is. (I guess we're all stupid, whereas you have all the answers.) I'm still not sure I have it straight: baptism isn't necessary to *become* saved, but it is necessary to *continue* to be saved? That's what the door/house analogy seems to suggest. (You don't need a door to enter but you do to live there?)

First, tell me what you understand when God says "Salvation" When you understand that, you will understand the part about necessary IN Salvation but not FOR Salvation...

What if you live in a yurt? (See, I can do red herrings, too.)

But we are talking about Salvation, and not about good works or about making ourselves better persons.

That's why I call you to understand what "Salvation" is. Or else you won't understand why it is so important to be in a "house" and not in a "yurt".

But I thought baptism was necessary IN salvation?

Yes. And where is the problem? The Old Testament saints were saved without baptism, because baptism is not necessary FOR Salvation. So they could be saved without being baptized. But when it comes to be made complete, they couldn't be complete without us, because Christ had to die and rise again.

Ah, so you do not mean physical/water baptism. OK, that helps clarify things. Slightly. (You're talking spiritual baptism, then?)

No, I am talking about water baptism. And I am clearly saying that it is not a bath.

But it is necessary to be saved.

No, it is NOT.

How can it not have saving power if it's necessary.

Because it is not necessary FOR Salvation.

(And that's regardless of IN or FOR -- in some way it is necessary, so how can it not have power?)

Can't something be necessary by the necessity that someone else gives to it? You can't say you're a real follower of Jesus Christ and yet refuse to be baptized. All the power of Salvation is in Jesus Christ. He said that you need to be baptized.

(Skipping... I'm not even going to get into the pointless self-referential "God's Word" debate.)

The Bible is the Word of God, not me.

To be continued...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

No, the English word "eternal" comes from latin. Dictionaries exist. They're even available online. Try one. And, while I'm here, they tend to define "eternal" as "without beginning or end" or, possibly, "unending" (which, I believe you mentioned earlier), or "unchanging", or "existing out of time". I assume the last option is what you were going for, which is true, but not for the reason you gave.

First, thank you for telling us again and again that eternal doesn't always mean without beginning and without end, but it also means without end.

Second: It seems that, after the Greek, you will begin to consider to learn some Latin Friend, if you look in any English dictionary, you will find that "eternity" comes from the Latin "aeternus" which is the contrary of "aeviternus".

Aeviternus = temporal age. With "aev(um)" = age, and "ternus" = extended form of -ernus = suffix of temporal adjectives.

Aeternus = contrary of aeviternus = no-time.

See "aeternus" here: http://www.ordotempli.org/latin_dictionary.htm

Unless the period is infinite. See what fun we can have with semantic quibbling?

Eternity is not an infinite TIME. It's NO-time at all.

Which Greek scholars? As they say in wikiland: citation needed.

Learn Greek, and don't boast of knowing better than those who know.

And the plural of cat means... more cats! Wow, how about that. I have an example to counter your example. Huh, I guess proof by example just doesn't work, does it. So unless you want to edit "We have many words" to "ALL our words" this doesn't prove anything. "Can" does not imply "does".

Learn some Greek.

(More skipping)


But nobody is pure, so we're all damned, then.

Yes, and that's why we need SALVATION.

Tangent, but... why does it matter whether or not they have bodies? Seems all a bit convoluted. We die, our souls go to hell, our bodies return to the earth. Then they get reconstructed and ... sent to hell again? Or something. Weird. Well, whatever.

Hades now, then Hell.

Good to see that you're not judging anyone else, like it says not to in the Bible.

Yes. I only know them by their fruits, just as the Bible says.

Wow. Translation: "can't you see that I'm a better person than you because I don't think I'm a better person than you?". Just a hunch, but maybe people wouldn't think you were self-righteous if you didn't act that way.

I am not better than you. We all are sinners. The whole difference is in Jesus Christ, not in me.

Y'know, I prefer Cato's "and furthermore Carthage must burn". If you're going to end everything with a predictable tag-line, at least make it badass.

May the Lord bless you richly!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

I honestly don't know why I'm bothering, but...

Because you are hearing the FULL Word of God, and you can't stop contradicting it...

Huh. So the book of Revelation is not actually a vision of the future, but has actually already happened? OK, that's an interpretation I haven't heard before. Care to expand on that a bit? I'm interested.

I didn't say this. I said it PROVES the FUTURE judgment that someone was opposing.

Could be, could be... Or maybe that he has already repented and is sick of you judging him when that's not your place. (Obviously, I'm skipping the other utterly unimaginable alternative of you being wrong.)

Already repented? And what is he now doing? Continuing in sin, because he has already repented so he doesn't need to repent?

Oh, zing. Wow, SS, how will you ever recover from that?

Yes, how, soul searcher?

"It's like "goldy" and "bronzey" only it's made of iron..." And here I've been giving *you* the benefit of the doubt on that front, given your spectacular ability to miss the point and do semantic tapdances.

What are you talking about??

But the semantics still trips you up. God can't have "turned from what He would do" because He knew they would repent and, therefore, that He wouldn't do it. So He was never going to do it. See how delicate the semantics get? And then:

Human language. The Bible is written in human language.

So then how do you know that we will go to hell? Perhaps we're just being told that to lead us to repentance. Until it happens, we can't be sure, just like Ninevah.

EXACTLY!!! Finally, you got it!! So repent, and don't go to hell FOR SURE.

More irony. How many times have you quoted a piece of scripture and argued over the meaning of a word (when challenged)... Did SS say that was the only interpretation of the word? No, he just said that was a possible meaning, and backed it up. Based on that, he gave an interpretation of the passage. (Oh, but I forget that you have the perfect interpretation...)

No human, and no dictionary has the right to interpret the Bible. Only the Bible interprets the Bible.

Knowing this, how much more is it bad to make ONE optional meaning of a word to be the meaning of that word in the Bible and in ANY context!!

I can't speak for SS, but plenty of people believe that there is a perfect God. Perfect would mean unable to lie. It's a simple enough belief, no more unreasonable than believing that a book of bronze-age stories in the inerrant Word of God.

(And then more Jonah stuff that's been done to death.

You still didn't tell me how you knew that God is perfect and so "unable" to lie.

Have a nice time.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

OK, one more. I swear I can quit any time I want, really... *shivers from withdrawal symptoms*

In those words? Of course not. But that's where some of us find ourselves when trying to follow through with traditional doctrine. Which is, of course, why we choose to consider other possibilities.

OK. So traditional Christian Faith is not THAT.

Why shouldn't he? Where's the proof? I say that God says "you must put rabbit droppings down your shirt at 3:30 on a Thursday", and I know that's true because it says so in the Book of Wilted Turnips, chapter 42, and that's God's Word (it says so in chapter 54). Now, prove me wrong.

You already did it. You proved yourself wrong. Please, quote a real book of God

Or, another example: "I always tell the truth". Prove me wrong. I must be telling the truth because I always tell the truth.

God says that you don't. And He says that I also don't tell the truth. God says that we are humans, and that all humans are sinners.

KCDAD & SS: do you find this as offensive as I do? Just curious? Maybe I'm overly sensitive.

(Next post)

No, that was only for KCDAD who was talking about something that has nothing to do with what I said.

Sure. Just don't get upset when someone else does the same thing.

I am not upset when someone quotes exatly the part that is necessary to tell about an exact point. I wanted to quote what the Holy Spirit was doing in Creation, so I quoted the exact part. I didn't build on that part any argument about the Trinity. But soul searcher who was not following me very well, thought I was proving something with that part of the verse. And he also made the mistake of not noticing that I always quote the Bible in red. So he thought that I meant the other blue parts also were part of that verse.

Yeah. That's the problem, right there. You think you possess the Truth already, so you refuse to keep looking.

Do you know about which matter we are talking? It's about NOT proving the Trinity with a part of a verse. That's the matter that ends here, as I explained what was the problem with the person who objected.

If God is Truth then God has nothing to fear from questions. So why do you?

And who told you I am afraid of questions? But the problem is in those who do not want GOD's answer, but human answers.

OK, I'm done for a while...

No, you still need to report about me because you're a strong person who can report... and cannot answer a Christian about your alternative dreams...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

My mind has not altered. It is baptism is not required. I have stated as much several times already and you know this. I do not believe in twisting words as you have done saying it is but it isn't. As for your pen question the answer is also no. It is not nessacary to write one can use a pencil for instance. As for transportation have you lost your mind or what? This has nothing to do with anything.

Baptism is not required for what? For a good summer trip??

A door is convient but not mandatory.

Try it, as I already told you.

There is no problem because baptism is not a requirement.

Not a requirement for what? If you mean for Salvation, then I agree with you. And the Bible is clear about that.

It is a ritual and nothing more. Didn't you say that you don't interpret scripture. What would you call your take on baptism? I see it as a poor interpretation.

The Bible interprets the Bible. I already quoted the passages about baptism many times. They never say that baptism is a bath. And they clearly say that baptism is a necessary part of Salvation.

For the last time no he did not. He did not mention the bible at all. The bible did not even exist. You are intentionally being dishonest and everyone knows it.

The Old Testament already existed. And Jesus clearly talked about the Scripture of the Old Testament and said that it is what God says. Then He promised to give us the New Testament books, and He said that this also will be the Word of the Spirit.

And, N.B.: You don't know what "everybody" knows.

You missed the point competely I see. Not surprising really. What I was referring to is the way it is used in common language forever is more commonly used but occasionaly eternity is used.

Great. So where is the problem?

Example I was in the checkout line forever or it was like an eternity that I had to wait. Likely either of these would actually be talking about a period of several minutes and we understand it as such.

"like" an eternity...

Well, the Bible says that hell is eternal, and not like eternal...

No I do not think this, I did not tell you I think this. You are making it up and you are wrong. Yet a word does not take on a infite meaning when it is a form of a finite period.

Who told you this? Anyway, I have already explained this in detail previously.

No it does not. Aidios does but that is not the word they used.

It does, and I already explained this in detail. Just go learn some Greek. It will help you...

I know better than people who have allowed thier beliefs in an eternal hell to taint thier perception.

You are now judging the intents of those scholars. How do you know they did that? Is it because you don't want to believe in an eternal hell?

I offered a link to explain the meaning of the word in detail. I take it that you are not interested?

I told you already what I am interested in. I don't need the imaginations of people who would invent anything in order to contradict the Word of God.

What? Powers=Army

Yes. Surprised?? Well, as you can see, you are ignorant of some indo-european languages.

No we have not. Not a single verse say that anyone will not be saved. Not to mention that even if there was a verse that says so or even a hundred it would only prove that there is a contradiction because it does say that all will be saved.

The Bible never says that all will be saved. On the contrary, the Bible clearly says that all those who do not repent and believe the Gospel will be lost forever.

Few there be that find it yes. You interpret this to mean that many will not be saved but you don't interpret do you? So how do you interpret and not interpret? You talk in circles and say little of meaning.

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." ( Matthew 7:13-14 )

Do you see now how the Bible interprets the Bible?

Fire is a sign of God, of repentance, of purification, of light and warmth of life. Brimstone is or was thought of as a purifing agent and God himself is said to be a consuming fire. J.T.B. said that he who comes after me will baptise you with fire [lake of fire?] and the holy spirit.

J.T.B.?

Anyway, you need to quote the Bible about all the meanings you gave to the fire.

Yes, God is a consuming fire. Open the passage that says that, and you will see that the passage is talking about JUDGMENT.

But you still didn't quote any passage about the lake of fire.

To summarize the bible says that we shall be salted with fire, baptised with fire, tried by fire and saved by fire and that God is a consuming fire.

Saved by fire?

One could rightfully say that it is God who will baptise us, salt us, try us and save us.

Yes. And where is your problem now? Why don't you accept that Salvation?

The gold is good things. I would not expect you to understand.

Is Satan gold?

I quoted the primary, the one that fits the scripture.

And who told you it does? Did you read the context? And did you let the Bible interpret that context?

You think not? So you think that you are better than those who you think of as Satans children? What about Peter are you better than him as well?

Peter was not a child of Satan.

Did Satan obey God in the story of Job? Did Peter do well or was he unsavable?

Yes, Satan obeyed God in the story of Job.

Peter was saved because he didn't do well and admitted it. If someone does well, then he doesn't need to be saved.

To be continued...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

All creatures contain both good and evil, wheat and tares, gold and stubble.

God says that we are sinners, and that none of us does good.

Every last one of them. The bible goes on to say that all things shall be made new, that there shall be no more suffering [would be a lie if there was eternal suffering] no more death [would be a lie if there was eternal death] no more tears [would be a lie if there was eternal weeping]

Yes, all things will be made new. Open the context and see about what it is talking.

Yes, there shall be no more suffering. But for whom? Open the context and see.

Yes, no more death and no more tears. But for whom? Open the context and see.

That God will give freely of the waters of life to any who is athrist.

Those who do not repent declare that they are not thirsty and that they don't want the water of life.

That every creature on earth, under the earth and in heaven shall praise him.

Yes. And how does that rule out hell??

Every knee shall bend and every tongue shall swear.

Yes, you want it or not, you must finally admit that Jesus is LORD! But not everyone who calls Him Lord will be saved.

Every man shall be tried by fire and every man will gain reward and/or suffer loss but every man will be saved as by fire. This is what the bible says.

Open the context and see about whom it is talking.

Yes I am fully aware of the variants of the definition but when we let scripture interpret scripture or as you say let God interpret scripture we are pointed to the 1st definition which shows it to be a good and constructive thing which is exactly what one would expect from a God who cares about his creation and wants to save them.

Let the Scripture interpret the Scripture, and we will see. But till now you told us about your speculations without even quoting the contexts.

Nonsense. The bible says no such thing.

We have seen what it says.

More nonsense. No creature is pure, not one, all creatures are tested every single one of them and there is no such place as eternal hell. You are wrong in every facet.

We have seen what the Bible says about eternal hell.

I guess now you are going to tell me that his name was Lucifer and he was a perfect angel of light.. or in other words more nonsense that does not appear in the bible.

Who told you this? If you are ignorant about that, you can just ask.

Mark 16:16 is part of bibles. I would guess most of them not sure about all of them but it is not part of the oldest manuscripts which means that it was added later by most likely a different person. The fact that it is there now only shows that those who compiled the bible picked the wrong copy.

Who told you this?

Anyway, go discuss this in its place. I already told you that we can't discuss it here.

So don't comment then.

So I conclude that you were not talking about any specific passage of John?

Yes it clearly speaks of a coming judgment of that there is no doubt.

Good. Thank you.

No he did not. You are changing words again aren't you.

No, I am not. I quoted Him saying that.

The bible says that he who does not believe is condemned already. Yet that does not mean what you seem to think that it means, in fact it is not even close to what you seem to think. That same person who does not believe today may believe tomorrow. Then what? Your logic is not logical and does not follow the bible.

I was not talking about a person who doesn't believe TODAY. I was talking about a person who does not believe in the Son of God. That person is ALREADY judged.

So they are in hell but they have not yet been judged, but yet hell is eternal, yet hell shall give up the dead and they shall be judged and then thrown into hell which no longer exists and tortured forever for no apparent purpose other than to fulfill your dogma or satisfy some unquenchable anger from a God of love?

Nonsense.

We have already seen that hell will not give up the dead. That's Hades.

And I don't need to explain the same thing again and again, because you are not reading carefully.

You are without a doubt the most annoying and arrogant person I have ran into yet. I do not go around judging everybody like you seem to be doing. Take your own advice and stop trying to pick splinters until you can see.

The Bible says that you will go to eternal hell if you don't repent. That has nothing to do with what you think about me.

The problem is with many "so called" Christains that preach for others to repent is that they do not even know what it means.

The Bible is clear about that.

We? hell is tossed into the lake of fire according to the bible. Hell is never referred to as the lake of fire anywhere in the bible. They are clearly not the same thing and you are incorrect as usual.

Nop. We have seen that you are talking about Hades.

You seem to think that you can see others hearts and know that others have or have not repented.

No, I can't. But the Bible says that ALL people EVERYWHERE should repent.

You keep reapeating your repent or burn message and you have no clue what you are talking about.

I will quote you, but in this context: "You seem to think that you can see others' hearts and know that others have no clue what they are talking about."

...

If you want my opinion you need to repent of your actions right here on this forum. You do not seem fit to judge others and frankly none of us like it.

Amen! I don't want to judge anyone, because judgment is not mine, but God's.

And what is my sin mr knowitall but don't know anything?

No matter what the sin: do you sin? If you say yes, then repent and receive the forgiveness and the Salvation of God. If not, then hear what God says:

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" ( Romans 3:23 )

"If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." ( 1 John 1:8-9 )

So if you think that you don't sin, hear that God is saying that all humans sin. So confess your sins to God and receive His forgiveness and Salvation.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

"God repented means God turned from what He would do."

So I repent if I don't do what I say I am going to do? I thought that was was being dishonest, untrustworthy and a liar... I am supposed to be like God, right?

No. I gave a more detailed explanation. But you are not so much honest to quote it here. God repented means He accepted the repentance of the person who repents. The Bible uses human language to explain what happened when humans repented.

Anyway, I have repeated this many times.

YAQUBOS†

 

[Soul Searcher]

Thank you for playing.

1) England: The cute female human is wearing a yellow piece of clothing, or she is jaundiced. Or perhaps only her hair is being referred to. If this particular chap is racist, perhaps she is Japanese.

2) Theater student: In a play where dialogue takes place between a bird and a cat, the cat's lines are highlighted in blue and the bird's color is yellow.

3) General: The bird is all one color and that color is yellow.

4) The bird is mostly yellow.

5) The bird is all brown or gray, and the one color of interest that distinguishes it is yellow.

6) Behavioral Psychologist: The bird's color of preference is yellow. It prefers perches, water dishes, or toys that are colored yellow

7) Gosh... that is only using present usage... I bet there is more meaning to be found if I go back into the etymology of the words.

Could also be that the bird is a chicken [coward]

 

[YAQUBOS]

Well as usual you are wrong. I have never said that there is no future judgment. Where do you get this from? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

OK. Great! I won't oppose you in this. I am very happy that you believe in the future Judgment.

Actually the word hell comes from a word that is more similar in meaning to the words sheol and hades and nothing at all like Gehenna. In case you didn't know [I will assume you do not] Hel is where we get hell and Hel is both the goddess of the underworld and the place of the underworld just like Hades is the god of the underworld as well as the underworld. Ironically hel is a frigid place not hot at all hence the phrase cold as hell. Hades became known as the unseen because he [the god hades] rarely ventured forth above ground and was thus unseen. Sheol referred to a hidden place of the dead of shadow, Hell also meant to cover or conceal. Therefore all three words had a meaning of somehow conceled from sight and most accurately could be considered grave or tomb or the hidden place of spirits.

Gehenna on the other hand was a real physical place and translating this as hell is actually a very poor translation but that is beside the point. You have been telling us again and again that the Bible is the Word of God. Now you say that the Bible is in error because it literally says that Hell shall give up its dead. Then you go on to say that Gehenna is the lake of fire. There is no lake in Gehhena of scripture it was a garbage dump and now it is a park and quite lovely.

First, the Bible is not the words of those gods you mentioned. So off topic.

Second, Gehenna is that eternal place where humans will be if they don't repent. Jesus clearly said that it is the eternal Judgment of fire.

I didn't ask you for some philosophical explanations about hell. I only want to see what GOD says about that.

By the way: the Bible NEVER says that hell will give up the dead. We have seen that a wrong translation says that.

So I guess now the looming question is what is "THE BIBLE" the KJV is the most widely recogizned version and you say it is wrong so what is the bible in your view and what makes you think that it is the right one?

The KJV is a very good English translation of the Bible. But this doesn't mean that those who translated it were perfect creatures. So they did a mistake about the translation of the word hades. Correct it and continue

Yes.. because apparently you picked a different version of the bible. Yet the bible does say what I said it did. I can not help it if you deny that the bible is the bible.

Hades is thrown in the lake of fire. Good to hear that. And that's what I am saying all the time.

Whatever you call "hades" in your translation, the result is the same: Gehenna is not thrown in the lake of fire, because the lake of fire is Gehenna.

The lake of fire is never referred to as hell in any bible that I have ever saw. Yet it is almost always referred to as hell by the blind turn or burn crowd who do not understand scripture such as yourself.

Who told you it is not?

What makes you think I feel bad?

OK. So you don't feel bad. Please, repent and don't go to hell.

You have no such power. I feel insulted that you keep presuming to know me when you do not. You keep insinuating that everyone here is an unrepentant sinner. No it does not make me feel bad. It makes me angry and I would suggest that you stop doing it.

What do you mean by an "unrepentant sinner"? Does someone repent in the past then continue in sin?

I fail to see your interpretation because I refuse to lie to myself. I see that the bible actually says one thing and I see you say that it clearly says something else that it does not actually say at all. I guess I was being kind to say I fail to see how you arrive at that interpretation. It actually seems like you are just to proud to admit when you are wrong.

OK. You fail because you are trying to see MY interpretation. But I am not giving any interpretation of my own.

So that's why you fail to see my interpretation.

To be continued...

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

No. I gave a more detailed explanation. But you are not so much honest to quote it here. God repented means He accepted the repentance of the person who repents. The Bible uses human language to explain what happened when humans repented.

Anyway, I have repeated this many times.

YAQUBOS†

So in your mind "God Repented" really means "man repented"? God always accepts man 's repentance... right? So when ever it says God did something it really means that man did it and God allowed it... right?

"God created the heavens and the earth" means man created it and God said ok? God so loved the world he gave his only son, means man so loved the world that God (I mean man) gave his only son? This is very confusing... can you be consistent about anything you believe?

How come you get to decide when the Bible doesn't mean what it means?

 

[KCDAD]

Could also be that the bird is a chicken [coward]

Good one... missed the colloquial use of the word that way.

 

[YAQUBOS]

No it doesn't.. Let me give you a clue here..

If a sentence says I will forgive them if they do this.
Then it clearly says I will forgive them if they do this.
If the sentence says I will destroy them in 40 days
It does not clearly say that I will forgive them if they do this. It does clearly say that I will destory them in 40 days.

Yes, that sentence clearly says that He would destroy them in 40 days.
And the context clearly says that Jonah knew that God would forgive them when they repent.

Do you mind it if I want the context to explain that single sentence?

Apparently a lot better than you do.

God changed his mind.

Yes, God accepted their repentance, because that's His Nature that does not change: SAVIOR GOD.

So when you call us to repent you mean that we should turn from what we would provided they repent to us? Or are you just making it up as usual?

No, you are not God. You need to repent and turn to God.

I think the story wasn't thought out real well to be honest.

That's God's Word. You need humility to like it.

He said to tell them in 40 days the city would be destroyed. It wasn't. Do you have another definition?

He didn't say He wouldn't accept their repentance.

He said He would destroy that city, and we saw in the context what was the reason for that judgment: SIN.

If sin is the cause, then repentance is the solution.

So I don't see where God lied.

God didn't write it

OK. But who told you that God doesn't lie?

No he did not say any such thing. Funny how you claim not to interpret scripture yet you change it quite a lot and claim that it clearly says things that it does not say.

We have seen how it clearly says that.

Apparently we have a huge difference in the understanding of what clear means. For example to me a clear stream would be one where one can easily see through the water all the way to the bottom. Yours seems to be one that is brown with mud and the bottom totally hidden.

No, that's not my definition of clear. But do you know how sin and lack of humility make everything clear to be hidden?

I'll take your word for it since I am not blind and can see.

"And Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, so that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."
Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, "We are not blind too, are we?"
Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." ( John 9:39-41 )

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

Yes, God accepted their repentance, because that's His Nature that does not change: SAVIOR GOD.

Sorry Hans, you lose, but thanks for playing!

Jonah 3: 9,10

God repented of the evil He said He would do. That is a lie and it is an admission of the nature of God's threat...evil.

Liar and manipulator God.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Sin is not a specific behavior is the attitude of rebellion... ok

Who said that the rebellion is only an attitude? It shows itself in behavior.

But God is not responsible of that attitude and behavior.

Where do attitudes come from?

From your will.

Mature? How could Adam be considered mature... what was he... 3 or 4 days old?

I am not comparing the physical maturity of your son to the physical maturity of Adam. I am saying Adam had free and intelligent will. He was not like a baby who cannot decide.

Where did the rebellion come from? Where did the attitude or idea to rebel come from?

Adam decided that by his free will. Nobody forced him to have that attitude. A free creature.

Cute. Feel free to substitute fruit wherever you see apple, if it makes you more comfortable. APPLE APPLE APPLE

This shows how much you are serious...

We inherited our attitude of rebelliousness? So it is genetic... that is, it is in our make up... who made us?

God made Adam without sin. Adam sinned, and we are born of him. We have his nature.

Repent for what? Inheriting bad genes and attitudes? How is that our fault? Do you repent for being born with freckles or curly hair?

Then stop doing the sins of that nature If you can't, then repent and receive God's forgiveness and total Salvation.

That is good to know.


" If an Omnipotent God wants to stop your birth and the birth of many others, He would have to stop humanity. But He is a loving God. He created us to LIVE. And, although you don't know it, but life is GOOD."

If God created us to live, what is with stillborn babies? Are they going to hell? Are they human? How are they the result of our rebellious attitude?

Stillborn babies cannot repent. I asked you why, but you didn't answer me yet. When you answer me, then I will tell you the rest of the story.

I hear you, and I actually agree with you. The problem is, you have no idea why you are right... but the thing is, it is because sin is our invention.. God doesn't even recognize sin. We invented the whole concept.

Jesus said that you need to repent from your sins. Jesus didn't lie about the fact that you are responsible of all your sins, and so need to repent.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Thank you for playing.

1) England: The cute female human is wearing a yellow piece of clothing, or she is jaundiced. Or perhaps only her hair is being referred to. If this particular chap is racist, perhaps she is Japanese.

2) Theater student: In a play where dialogue takes place between a bird and a cat, the cat's lines are highlighted in blue and the bird's color is yellow.

3) General: The bird is all one color and that color is yellow.

4) The bird is mostly yellow.

5) The bird is all brown or gray, and the one color of interest that distinguishes it is yellow.

6) Behavioral Psychologist: The bird's color of preference is yellow. It prefers perches, water dishes, or toys that are colored yellow

7) Gosh... that is only using present usage... I bet there is more meaning to be found if I go back into the etymology of the words.

I see You didn't read the interpreting sentence. And you forgot that these sentences are in contexts.

So you played wrong

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

So in your mind "God Repented" really means "man repented"? God always accepts man 's repentance... right? So when ever it says God did something it really means that man did it and God allowed it... right?

"God created the heavens and the earth" means man created it and God said ok? God so loved the world he gave his only son, means man so loved the world that God (I mean man) gave his only son? This is very confusing... can you be consistent about anything you believe?

How come you get to decide when the Bible doesn't mean what it means?

Very simple: A little humility to admit that you canNOT understand it; then to ask GOD to tell you what He meant. So you then use the Bible to interpret the Bible, and you respect the context.

That simple.

YAQUBOS†

 

[Soul Searcher]

Baptism is not required for what? For a good summer trip??

Not required period.

Try it, as I already told you.

I guess you have never stayed in a tent. Guess what, they have no door, Americans Indians lived in tee pees for a very long time, no doors, no locks, they got by just fine.

Not a requirement for what? If you mean for Salvation, then I agree with you. And the Bible is clear about that.

Let it go.. you keep saying it is and it ain't. It is not required. It is a ritual there is nothing more to say.

The Bible interprets the Bible. I already quoted the passages about baptism many times. They never say that baptism is a bath. And they clearly say that baptism is a necessary part of Salvation.

I did not say it was a bath I said it was a ritual. Ritual does not = bath. Is your understanding that poor or are you just being intentionally difficult?

The Old Testament already existed. And Jesus clearly talked about the Scripture of the Old Testament and said that it is what God says. Then He promised to give us the New Testament books, and He said that this also will be the Word of the Spirit.

Yes the OT or at least the books that make it up did exist and yes he did quote from some of them. That however is not what you constantly claim. You have said over and over that Jesus said the bible is the word of God. He did not say this and you know it as well as I do.

And, N.B.: You don't know what "everybody" knows.

I think anyone here who can read knows it perfectly well you have repeatedly said that somethings says x when it actually says y.

Great. So where is the problem?

Apparently in your understanding.

"like" an eternity...

Which is one way that it is used it is also used without the like qualifier to denote a similar thing but not often nowadays forever is used instead.

Well, the Bible says that hell is eternal, and not like eternal...

No it does not say that hell is eternal. SO me a verse where it actually says "Hell is eternal" Funny when I search the bible I find no match to the phrase hell is eternal, I find no match to eternal hell either. Conclusion the bible does not say this.

Who told you this? Anyway, I have already explained this in detail previously.

You explained in detail how a word which refers to a finite period of time becomes infinite when converted to an adjective form of the word. Hmm must have been in invisible script because it certianly wasn't visible.

It does, and I already explained this in detail. Just go learn some Greek. It will help you...

As I said Aidios does mean eternal but that is not the word they used. That in itself is very telling. Please spare me your remarks about learning Greek. You have no idea what I have learned and when I offered to give detailed explaination you have turned it down based on your predrawn conclusion that you already know the truth.

You are now judging the intents of those scholars. How do you know they did that? Is it because you don't want to believe in an eternal hell?

It has nothing to do with what I want. It has to do with the truth. There is no eternal hell and some people believe in eternal hell and they allow that belief to affect there perception which becomes tainted as a result.

I told you already what I am interested in. I don't need the imaginations of people who would invent anything in order to contradict the Word of God.

So I will take that as a confirmation that you are not interested in any information that contradicts your opinion as to what the bible is trying to tell you.

Yes. Surprised?? Well, as you can see, you are ignorant of some indo-european languages.

I do not speak many languages so I have no idea what kind of wierd concepts may exist in some of them. That however has nothing to do with Greek or English but some other un-named language. For all I know you made it up yourself.

That said powers could refer to armies in our language though that would not be high on the list of definitions and would be a poor choice of words if one were referring to armies.

The Bible never says that all will be saved. On the contrary, the Bible clearly says that all those who do not repent and believe the Gospel will be lost forever.

Really.. ? I started to type up a bunch of scripture from memory but then I figure why bother as you will likely deny them anyway. So here are just a few pointers from a page titeld 100 reasons to believe followed by the link to the full page.

1) Eph 1:11...........God works ALL after counsel of His will

2) Jn 8:29..............Jesus ALWAYS does which pleases His Father

3) I Tim 2:4..........God will have ALL to be saved

4) I Jn 4:14...........Jesus sent to be the Saviour of the world

5) Jn 4:34.............Jesus to do the will of God who sent Him

6) Jn 12:47...........Jesus came to save ALL

7) I Tim 2:6..........Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL
http://lighthouselibrary.com/read.php?sel=3233&searchfor=|100 reasons|&type=ARTICLE&what=keyword

Do you see now how the Bible interprets the Bible?

I know that you can interpret the bible with the bible. I do not believe that you are doing it correctly though. Your example which I have snipped for space is bolding certian words. Basically it is saying that many will enter into the gate of destruction, You seem to think this means that they can not be saved. Yet later on we see again in the writings of Paul where he speaks of turning someone over to satan for the destruction of the flesh so the spirit can be saved. So if we use the bible to interpret the bible we do not come away with destruction meaning one can not or will not be saved but we see that in at least one instance the reason for destruction is so the spirit can be saved.

J.T.B.?

John the baptist.

Anyway, you need to quote the Bible about all the meanings you gave to the fire.

Why? I though you were an expert on the bible? Are you saying that you are not familiar with these verses?

Yes, God is a consuming fire. Open the passage that says that, and you will see that the passage is talking about JUDGMENT.

Which is what I was talking about We are judged by fire [God]

But you still didn't quote any passage about the lake of fire.

Is it required that I quote passages about the lake of fire? I have given references to what the bible says. An expert such as you should know what I am referring to.

Saved by fire?

Is God a consuming fire? Does God save us? Read 1 Cor 3 [paraphrased from memory] the work of every man [that means all of us] shall be tried by fire, be it silver and gold or hay and stubble he will gain reward or suffer loss but he himself shall be saved as by fire.

Note EVERY MAN shall be tired and saved. Fire of course is not meant to be taken literally.

Yes. And where is your problem now? Why don't you accept that Salvation?

Why do you ask such a stupid question. Who says I do not accept salvation? I didn't say that, I didn't hint at it either. I think you just like to try and get under peoples skin. Perhaps it makes you feel good if you can make them angry enough to err and have need to repent?

To be clear what I reject is your opinion.

Is Satan gold?

I see you did not answer the question. It would have answered yours if you understood it. To obey is good, gold means good. Satan did obey in at least some instance in the story of Job which means that there is at least a sliver of gold even in satan.

And who told you it does? Did you read the context? And did you let the Bible interpret that context?

What makes you think I need someone to tell me? I am capable of forming conclusions of my own you know. And yes I did let scripture interpret scripture and explained it to you already yet you do not see.

Peter was not a child of Satan.

Jesus referred to Peter as satan.

Yes, Satan obeyed God in the story of Job.

So satan did well in this case and in judgment God will remember this will he not?

Peter was saved because he didn't do well and admitted it. If someone does well, then he doesn't need to be saved.

Of course you just made that up didin't you?

 

[YAQUBOS]

Sorry Hans, you lose, but thanks for playing!

Jonah 3: 9,10

God repented of the evil He said He would do. That is a lie and it is an admission of the nature of God's threat...evil.

Liar and manipulator God.

Yes, God didn't bring on them condemnation, because they repented. God does not lie. The Bible says that God accepts your repentance.

So the judgment of hell is coming on you. If you repent, you will be saved of that.

God is a SAVIOR and Righteous God.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Not required period.

Required: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" ( Matthew 28:19 )

I guess you have never stayed in a tent. Guess what, they have no door, Americans Indians lived in tee pees for a very long time, no doors, no locks, they got by just fine.

And they all sleep?

Let it go.. you keep saying it is and it ain't. It is not required. It is a ritual there is nothing more to say.

If you believe in Jesus Christ, then you need to be baptized. You can't avoid that.

I did not say it was a bath I said it was a ritual. Ritual does not = bath. Is your understanding that poor or are you just being intentionally difficult?

OK. Remember it very well: You said baptism is NOT a bath. So I believe I won't see you writing "bath" in the coming replies...

Yes the OT or at least the books that make it up did exist and yes he did quote from some of them. That however is not what you constantly claim. You have said over and over that Jesus said the bible is the word of God. He did not say this and you know it as well as I do.

We have seen how Jesus said that the Bible is the Word of God.

I think anyone here who can read knows it perfectly well you have repeatedly said that somethings says x when it actually says y.

So you don't know what everybody else knows. POINT.

Apparently in your understanding.

Which is one way that it is used it is also used without the like qualifier to denote a similar thing but not often nowadays forever is used instead.

The Bible uses it for eternal.

No it does not say that hell is eternal. SO me a verse where it actually says "Hell is eternal" Funny when I search the bible I find no match to the phrase hell is eternal, I find no match to eternal hell either. Conclusion the bible does not say this.

The Bible says it. And Jesus said it clearly. But you just know how to play on words. What if the Bible says that people who will go to hell will be tormented there forever? Does this mean that, as it is not said "hell is eternal", then hell is not eternal?

You explained in detail how a word which refers to a finite period of time becomes infinite when converted to an adjective form of the word. Hmm must have been in invisible script because it certianly wasn't visible.

Be serious.

As I said Aidios does mean eternal but that is not the word they used. That in itself is very telling. Please spare me your remarks about learning Greek. You have no idea what I have learned and when I offered to give detailed explaination you have turned it down based on your predrawn conclusion that you already know the truth.

Did you ever know that many words can be used to mean the same thing? For example: The English words "eternal" and "forever"

It has nothing to do with what I want. It has to do with the truth. There is no eternal hell and some people believe in eternal hell and they allow that belief to affect there perception which becomes tainted as a result.

Yes, it has to do with the truth. There is an eternal hell, and some people do not believe in eternal hell and they allow that belief to affect their perception which becomes tainted as a result.

So I will take that as a confirmation that you are not interested in any information that contradicts your opinion as to what the bible is trying to tell you.

No, that's not right. I refuse human interpretations, specially those interpretations that are tainted as a result of a belief that there is not an eternal hell.

I do not speak many languages so I have no idea what kind of wierd concepts may exist in some of them. That however has nothing to do with Greek or English but some other un-named language. For all I know you made it up yourself.

That said powers could refer to armies in our language though that would not be high on the list of definitions and would be a poor choice of words if one were referring to armies.

Good. So you admit that you are ignorant about some indo-european languages. What if Greek is one of them?

Really.. ? I started to type up a bunch of scripture from memory but then I figure why bother as you will likely deny them anyway. So here are just a few pointers from a page titeld 100 reasons to believe followed by the link to the full page.

1) Eph 1:11...........God works ALL after counsel of His will

How does this prove that all humans will be saved? His Will is that only those who are in Christ Jesus will be saved.

2) Jn 8:29..............Jesus ALWAYS does which pleases His Father

Yes. He hates sin and saves the sinner who admits his sinfulness.

3) I Tim 2:4..........God will have ALL to be saved

No, that verse doesn't say that. We read that God wants all people to come to repentance. But we don't read that He forces them to do that.

4) I Jn 4:14...........Jesus sent to be the Saviour of the world

Yes. And He doesn't force anyone to accept Him as his personal Savior.

5) Jn 4:34.............Jesus to do the will of God who sent Him

Yes, and the Bible is clear about the fact that God's Will is to save those who put their trust in Jesus Christ and that all those who refuse Him be lost forever.

6) Jn 12:47...........Jesus came to save ALL

Yes, but ALL didn't receive Him. So many refused His Salvation.

7) I Tim 2:6..........Jesus gave Himself a ransom for ALL

Yes, and many refused that Ransom.

http://lighthouselibrary.com/read.php?sel=3233&searchfor=|100 reasons|&type=ARTICLE&what=keyword

You see what kind of references you give? This is the kind of links you wanted to give me about the Greek.

To be continued...

YAQUBOS†