Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[KCDAD]

Wow. I bet you could make the Bible say just about anything, playing word games like that!



But my guitar is peace when on fire. Therefore basketball is retroactive under the tree thought.


At least the person you showed the paper to saw a point. They're ahead of me.

A stitch!

 

[YAQUBOS]

As I said someone was taking liberties with the text, inserting words and removing others. The passage that you quoted as Gen 1:2 is part of 1:1 and 1:2 with part of it deleted and the insertion of the trinity and the son neighter of which exist in any English translation that I have saw and I have 10 of them. The bible does indicate that Jesus is the word. It does not say anything about "the trinity" That word is nowhere in the bible. And neighter the bible nor Jesus ever refers to the bible as the word of God only people like you do so.

The Bible clearly says that God created everything by His Word.
And the Bible clearly says that the Word is God.

And you are objecting only to object

And we have seen how Jesus said that the Bible is the written Word of God.

Ok so now you are saying that baptism is not nessacary.

No, I never said this. But make sure you know what is the necessity of baptism. It is not necessary TO BE saved, but it is necessary IN Salvation.

Take the example of a door. You can enter a house if the door is not there, but you can't continue to live there without a door, because the thiefs will steal some things The door is not essential TO ENTER that house, but it is essential if you plan to live IN that house.

And Daivid was a murderer and an adulteror.

And he repented.

I am confused wasn't it you that said baptism was required or am I remembering incorrectly?

Baptism is necessary IN Salvation, not FOR Salvation.

I guess not None of those verses say that anyone shall not be saved. It is your interpretation that they mean this but they do not say this.

Ah, ok... Saying that someone will be in hell forever doesn't mean he is not saved... Well, let's see what it means in YOUR interpretation...

Your first verse uses the word eternal which is incorrect so that one can not be determined to mean what you seem to think it means.

So you want to change the words of the Bible... interesting...

For the record eternal means without begining and without end.

Nop. Eternal can mean without end ( only ) . There are two words for that in many languages, and specially in semitic languages.

The word used means age or ages not eternal.

I guess you have never passed near the Greek language... "aionion" literally means "eternal" in this context. In Greek, it is "kolasin aionion" which means "punishment eternal". If we take your erroneous translation, it will mean "punishment ages"... Interesting translation...

Your problem is that you don't understand that if we use the same root in different words, this doesn't mean that all the words mean what the root means. "aion" means age. But the form "aionion" means eternal.

Also it is not talking about believers nor any who were baptised but those who do right by thier fellow man.

So there are people who will not be saved. I was not talking about the baptized in particular.

Your second verse talks about the lake of fire. Paul tells us that every man shall be tried by fire and they shall gain reward or suffer loss by he himself shall be saved as by fire. The verse does not say they shall not be saved but when interpreted in light of other scripture. It actually shows that they shall be saved.

Paul was not talking about the lake of fire. Paul only talked about the fire of judgment. I don't see where you came up with the word "lake" in the context of Paul. But those who want to contradict God can bring any word anywhere and then accuse others of adding words to the text.

We look at the meaning of the word translated torment and we see that it means to test the purity of Gold or sliver and then we look at Pauls writings and we see that the fire tests the works of the man be they gold and silver or hay and stubble but in either case the man shall be saved.

Ah, torment means test the purity... That's new...

Let's see the context:

"Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." ( Revelation 14:9-11 )

And, no, dear friend, torment doesn't mean test the purity, because God has already declared them impure!

"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." ( Revelation 20:10 )

God is not testing the purity of the devil, my friend, because the devil is not pure.

Your third verse also does not say anyone shall not be saved and I notice that even though the very next verse explains the condemnation you ommitted it. To simplify the condemnation is that they walk in darkness [ignorance] rather than light [truth].

I don't see that in the next verse of the third verse that I quoted. Maybe you can show us.

The coming Judgment is not something that is happening now. Now, they are walking in darkness. Then, they will be judged for continuing in darkness and lie.

Repent and come to the light, before it is too late!

None of those verse say that anyone will not be saved but as I said before there are verses which say everyone shall be saved.

We have seen that those verses and many others that I have not quoted yet say clearly that there is an eternal condemnation of hell to all those who stay in their sins.

Please, don't stay in your sins.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

What does that have to do with anything? First of all in regaurd to hell the bible plainly says that hell will give up the dead. Meaning that hell is not eternal and no one will be there forever yet that doesn;t stop people from saying otherwise. They talk of the lake of fire and use the word hell they know they are being dishonest and apparently do not care. It is difficult to believe a single word that comes from such people who seem to value honesty so little.

The Bible never says that Hell will give up its dead.

And this has much to do with what we are talking about, because you will go to hell if you don't repent like the people of Nineveh.

Secondly, I was refering to an instance where there was no if. It says I will... then he didn't. You apparently would rather change the subject than deal with that fact. Tells a lot.

And who told you that the story of Nineveh doesn't contain an "if"??? Did you read it carefully?

"When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry.
He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity." ( Jonah 3:10-4:2 )

The prophet Jonah knew that God was sending him there to preach repentance so that they may repent. Do you now see the "if"? Jonah knew it from the beginning.

A better question why did God repent?

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" ( Numbers 23:19 )

You prefer to believe YOUR interpretation of the word "repented" in this context, rather than believe what God means by it. God meant by it that He relented concerning the calamity He would bring upon them if they didn't repent. In other words, He accepted their repentance.

It seems that you do not want to face the fact that either God lied when he said he would destory them knowing that he would not, or that he did not foresee that they would repent and be spared or the story is in error. It clearly says that God changed his mind and was sorry for having considered doing evil unto them.

God didn't lie, that's why He relented concerning the calamity He would do. If He didn't act compassionately, He would be lying. He said He would destroy that city because of their sin. If He didn't accept their repentance, then we would know that there was no reason for destroying that city. If sin is the reason, then repenting from sin is the solution. And that's what they did.

And I have already quoted the passage that shows that God foreknew their repentance, and that's why He sent Jonah who also knew it from the beginning.

So in other words God lied to Jonah and had Jonah lie to them. Saying that he would destory them and yet he did not. Jonah was mad at him for this reason because God lied to Jonah and made Jonah look like a fool.

or

There is a problem with the story.

I have already quoted Jonah saying that he knew FROM THE BEGINNING that God would accept their repentance. So you invented that part of Jonah being angry of God because He lied to him... As usual: Inventions...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Satan is making fun of you making things up?

No, he's making fun of the fact that I am FULLY preaching the Word of God...

And.. the word book and scriptures is mentioned in many places outside the bible as well. Bible however is not the same as book and it is not the same as scripture, while it does fall into a similar category in that it is a collection of books believed to be scripture by Christains. One can not interchange these words as they see fit then claim that that is what it actually says. We all know better.

Jesus said that all those books that are today in the Bible are that one Word of God. And we have seen this in detail. I don't need to repeat that long reply again and again.

Since that fact does not exist then I would say nothing.
Yet you say that Jesus said the Bible was the word of God, This bible did not exist at the time. He said no such thing nor anything that could be honestly interpreted to mean such a thing. Your fact is fiction.

Jesus said that the whole Bible is the Word of God. And I have explained how the author of a book can tell you which books will be HIS books even before they are written. Jesus said that the Old Testament books are the Word of God, and they existed in that time. And Jesus said that He's going to write the New Testament books through His disciples, and said that that is the Word of God, too. And God gave us the Canon of Scripture in His Word. All is clear. While you insist on looking in that dark corner where you are.

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The bible was written by men, it was copied, translated and compiled by men. It does not make any claim to be the word of God and it is not.

We have seen how Jesus said that God is the real Author of the Bible. And we have seen that what you just said has nothing to do with the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. We are not discussing whether the whole Bible existed in 300 or 200 B.C. We are discussing whether the whole Bible is the Word of God. And we have seen how much clearly Jesus and His disciples said that the Bible is the Word of God.

No he did not. You take a very liberal interpretation of what Jesus said and say he said something that there is no record of him actually saying at all. You have been told this several times yet you keep repeating it. You even claim to have shown this but not a single post actually shows this.

We have it clearly in this thread. Just open it and read it. No interpretation is needed. The verses say it clearly.

I read you message and I clearly see that he did not say this at all. I also searched 10 different translations and he does not say this in any of them. All you have is your interpretation of what is there and you arrive at your conclusion which is in error.

We can continue this debate until the day of Judgment, but this doesn't mean that the verses are not clear. We all know that the blind says there is no sun in the sky.

YAQUBOS†

 

[Soul Searcher]

The Bible clearly says that God created everything by His Word.
And the Bible clearly says that the Word is God.

More accurately the book of John says this. However you claimed to be quoting Gen 1:2 which does not say what you said it does.

And you are objecting only to object

I object to your misquoting of scripture.

And we have seen how Jesus said that the Bible is the written Word of God.

How long will you persist in this lie? You know as well as I do that Jesus said no such thing. For someone who believe the bible is the word of God you sure take a lot of liberties with its text.

No, I never said this. But make sure you know what is the necessity of baptism. It is not necessary TO BE saved, but it is necessary IN Salvation.

So it is but it isn't. In other words you really don't have a clue do you?

Take the example of a door. You can enter a house if the door is not there, but you can't continue to live there without a door, because the thiefs will steal some things The door is not essential TO ENTER that house, but it is essential if you plan to live IN that house.

Why is a door so essential? A door with no lock allows easy access to thieves does it not? Would not a window work just as well, or a draw bridge? or Gaurd animals, booby traps.. I would imagion that the list of alternatives could grow rather large.

And he repented.

But was he baptised? Did he believe in Jesus?

Baptism is necessary IN Salvation, not FOR Salvation.

If you refer to the baptism by fire then I might agree but that I think is not what you mean so I do not agree. The bath is symbolic only and has no saving power. It is not the door to enter nor the lock to keep out the theives it is a ritual and nothing more.

Ah, ok... Saying that someone will be in hell forever doesn't mean he is not saved... Well, let's see what it means in YOUR interpretation...

The bible does not say that anyone will be in hell forever. It says the opposite.

So you want to change the words of the Bible... interesting...

Chaning words? The English translators have did this. I might add that you butchered Gen 1:2 pretty badly a few posts back as well and that you keep insisting that Jesus said the bible is the word of God even though no where in the text is such a stament made nor even eluded to.

Nop. Eternal can mean without end ( only ) . There are two words for that in many languages, and specially in semitic languages.

Eternal literally means without begining and without end. Of course it is used in language to mean without end as well but it is actually incorrect to do so as we have a different word that conveys that meaning. Yet both words are often used for periods of time that would be very short.

I guess you have never passed near the Greek language... "aionion" literally means "eternal" in this context. In Greek, it is "kolasin aionion" which means "punishment eternal". If we take your erroneous translation, it will mean "punishment ages"... Interesting translation...

As usual you would be wrong in your guess. Aionion comes from Aion which means age, Aionion means ages or of the ages. In the Greek version of the OT which word do you think is used to describe how long Jonah was in the whale? It is true that modern lexicons give a defintion of eternal, without end, forever and so on for aionion but these are based on the way they thought they were used in the bible and theology plays a big part in this as well as the translation of the KJV.
I do not want to go into a big debate on the meaning of the word here but I could give you a link that explains it in great detail if you like.

Your problem is that you don't understand that if we use the same root in different words, this doesn't mean that all the words mean what the root means. "aion" means age. But the form "aionion" means eternal.

Thats like saying that yearly means every 100 years. Look at language it is not just the root word it is a form of the same word just like yearly is a form of year in our language.

So there are people who will not be saved. I was not talking about the baptized in particular.

You then shall not be saved? No verse says that anyone will not be saved. Only poor interpretations yeild this result and those very same interpretations ignore many other verses which plainly say that thier interpretation is wrong.

Paul was not talking about the lake of fire. Paul only talked about the fire of judgment. I don't see where you came up with the word "lake" in the context of Paul. But those who want to contradict God can bring any word anywhere and then accuse others of adding words to the text.

Yes Paul was talkign about the fires of Judgment. He begins by saying that every man shall be judged by what he has done. Ironically Revelation also speaks of judgment, fire, and every man being jduged by what he has done. Revelation is a prophecy and the bible tells us that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and that we must interpret scripture with scripture. There are only two places in the NT where we see where we see this judgment of fire and when we let scripture interpret scripture we can see the meaning.

Ah, torment means test the purity... That's new...

Primary definition of the Greek word used.
basanismos
Thayer Definition:
1) to torture, a testing by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal

And, no, dear friend, torment doesn't mean test the purity, because God has already declared them impure!

Really? See definition above. It does mean just as I have said and this is the same thing Paul is speaking of when he speaks of judgment.

And yes we all all impure and we will all undergo this process some will suffer more than others but all will be saved. This is what the bible actually says.

God is not testing the purity of the devil, my friend, because the devil is not pure.

If he was pure would he need to be tested? Do you believe the devil is some real seperate entity or a spirit that resides in man? A metaphor perhaps? What is the devil in your mind?

I don't see that in the next verse of the third verse that I quoted. Maybe you can show us.

Sorry.. I made a mistake here. For some reason I did not notice that you had quoted Mark 16 [a verse I might add that should not even be in our bibles as it was added after the fact by an unknow copiest] I was thinking of John. Who does explain what the condemnation is.

The coming Judgment is not something that is happening now. Now, they are walking in darkness. Then, they will be judged for continuing in darkness and lie.

How do you know this? Are you saying that hell is empty at the moment? Or that people have been thrown into hell without even being judged? What are you getting at.

Repent and come to the light, before it is too late!

I find this statement rather insulting. You do not know me at all and I will wager that I live a more Godly life than do you based on your lies which I see repeatedly posted here and judgmental attidtudes you show in your posts. Perhaps it is time for you to start digging away at that log in your eye before you blind someone.

We have seen that those verses and many others that I have not quoted yet say clearly that there is an eternal condemnation of hell to all those who stay in their sins.

No they do no. In fact they do not even mention hell. You misinterpret fire as hell. As usual you are wrong.

Please, don't stay in your sins.

Keep your self righteous judgment to yourself dude and worry about your own sins.

 

[Soul Searcher]

The Bible never says that Hell will give up its dead.

Really?
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [KJV]

After hell is empty hell is cast into the lake of fire impiling its destruction. So I do not know what you refer to as the bible nor do I know what you refer to as hell but the bible does say exactly what I said it does.

And this has much to do with what we are talking about, because you will go to hell if you don't repent like the people of Nineveh.

Once again you puff yourself up like you know the status of another man. You know nothing. You openly and repeatedly lie, misquote scripture and insist over and over again that we have all seen something that is simply not there.

And who told you that the story of Nineveh doesn't contain an "if"??? Did you read it carefully?

"When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.
But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry.
He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity." ( Jonah 3:10-4:2 )

I fail to see how you interpret this as you do.

The prophet Jonah knew that God was sending him there to preach repentance so that they may repent. Do you now see the "if"? Jonah knew it from the beginning.

Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

There is no if here. It says shall be done.
Then the King says.

Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

and then
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

"God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" ( Numbers 23:19 )

Hmm yet we have a few instances in the OT where it says that God repented. So it would seem that the author is wrong in at least some cases now wouldn't it? You claim the author is God and that would mean that God has lied to us. I claim it was man you just got it wrong.

You prefer to believe YOUR interpretation of the word "repented" in this context, rather than believe what God means by it. God meant by it that He relented concerning the calamity He would bring upon them if they didn't repent. In other words, He accepted their repentance.

Yet the text saying nothing about I shall do this unless you repent but rather that it shall be done and then it goes on to say that he repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them.

nâcham
BDB Definition:
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted

God didn't lie, that's why He relented concerning the calamity He would do. If He didn't act compassionately, He would be lying. He said He would destroy that city because of their sin. If He didn't accept their repentance, then we would know that there was no reason for destroying that city. If sin is the reason, then repenting from sin is the solution. And that's what they did.

Since God did not write the bible I agree that he did not lie. But the the implications of believing that God wrote the bible and that he forsees the future is that he lied, you can twist it, sugar coat it, change the words but you can not change the truth.

And I have already quoted the passage that shows that God foreknew their repentance, and that's why He sent Jonah who also knew it from the beginning.

You interpret a passage that simply uses the word this as meaning that both God and Jonah new the out come in advance? hmm Why do you suppose Jonah looked for a good seat to watch the destruction and why do you suppose he was angry afterward when the destruction did not come.

I have already quoted Jonah saying that he knew FROM THE BEGINNING that God would accept their repentance. So you invented that part of Jonah being angry of God because He lied to him... As usual: Inventions...

Get this through your head.

God said He would destroy the city in 40 days.
Jonah told them this.
Jonah went up on the hill to watch.
God did not destory the city.
Jonah was very angry that God had not did what he said he would do.

Granted the word lie is not there but in our language when someone says they will do something and then do not do it it is known as telling a lie.

 

[Soul Searcher]

We have it clearly in this thread. Just open it and read it. No interpretation is needed. The verses say it clearly.

Of course they do not say any such thing and you know it.

It is plain that you have no regaurd for truth and you continue to repeat the same lie over and over while judging others and you claim to be preaching the word of God. God does not lie. You do. therefore the conclusion is simple.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Well, yes, actually, because it's spectacularly patronising. But it doesn't actually impinge on our rights, so I guess you can do as you please.

Cool, thanks. But until you can prove to me that you have a monopoly on Truth, I'll keep searching for what that "real God" is. No offense, but I'm not just going to mindlessly follow whatever dogma you insist on.

Just a note: I was not calling you to know any dogma, but to know the real God.

Seriously, you're just being deliberately obtuse now, aren't you? How hard is this to understand? I'll make it as simple as I can:

- we (KCDAD & I) are trying to start with your beliefs (as best we understand them) and logically follow them through
- when we do, we find that God is an extremely nasty entity

Because He judges your sin? Well, yes, He does. If you don't repent, you will go to eternal Hell, whether you call God nasty or sweety.

- we feel that this means *you* are the one that disrespects God, since you are happy to hold beliefs that make God out to be a jerk

God is Holy and Righteous, that's why a sinner like you calls Him a jerk! You don't want to repent. But this doesn't mean that I must lie to you because of that. This is not a game! You are going to hell because of your sins. You need to repent and turn to the real God, instead of continuing to hell on the way of your sins.

If you don't like the true God of the Bible, then you need to repent and begin to know Him.

- we, OTOH, *do* respect God and therefore hold different beliefs; beliefs that are consistent with a great, loving, beautiful and holy God worthy of the name.

What does your holy god say about sin? Something different of what the real God of the Bible says?

Now, you always say that your God is the "God of the Bible". OK, but the problem remains. So either God is a jerk, or your interpretation of the Bible is not perfect, or the Bible is not inerrant. I'm happy with either of the latter two, but, for the record, the first is not an option for me. (Or KCDAD, I expect, but here he must speak for himself.)

You like an interpretation where there is no judgment of sin... Well, I don't interpret the Bible, and I can't tell you a story not clearly mentioned in the Word of God. God says that if you continue in your sins, you will go to eternal hell. And God says that He is ready to accept your repentance. You choose now between life and death.

He changes it in an inhuman way? Didn't you just say that The Lord does not change? (Rhetorical question. Yes, you did. It's quoted above.) So why the qualifier ("in the human way")? Looks like a setup for you to dodge around the upcoming problems. But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Yes, God does not change His mind the way you do. God accepts your change of mind and heart when you repent, and that accepting can be called a change of mind. But this doesn't mean that God changed anything in Him.

OK, God doesn't change. Doesn't change His mind. Are we agreed? Good...

Since you love quoting the Bible so much, mind if I do?

So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

God just said that everything's going to get whacked. But Noah isn't. So either Noah found favor and was therefore spared, meaning God changed the plan, or that was the plan all along was to spare Noah, in which case God made a false statement (in verse 7).

Where did God ever say that He would wipe the RIGHTEOUS also from the face of the earth???

Do you read carefully? Or maybe you just show yourself to be so simple? Don't you see that God is wiping them from the face of the earth because of their sins?

And if sin is the problem, then repentance must be the solution. If you want God to refuse repentance, please tell us from now, before we go any further...

Similarly, He then goes on to tell Noah to build an ark b/c He's "going to put an end to all people". Now... aren't we people? So again what are the options?

- God lied to Noah
- God changed His mind

We are people, the children of Noah. So God really has put an end to all the people, and saved Noah and his family in the Ark. I don't see where is your problem.

As for you now, a child of Noah, you are called to repent, because another Judgment is coming, but this time not with water but with fire. Jesus Christ is today's Ark. Go in.

How is this not a problem? OK, now that's your cue to come up with some lovely ad hoc work-around -- go:

OK. Will you go into the Ark?

Because He's then creating creatures knowing they are destined for eternal torment.

A big NO! God didn't create us knowing that we all WILL go to hell. And the first proof against this is that Adam and Eve, the first humans, are not going to hell.

So I don't know where you came up with that imaginary assumption.

You are quite sure that I am destined for hell, right (b/c I don't respect God and so on and so forth)? So (your) God created me, knowing that my fate was eternal torment.

You are not Adam. You were BORN of a father and a mother, and not CREATED as Adam was ( by the way, do you know the difference between being born and being created? ) . You were created in Adam, but you were born from your parents. You are called to repent and not go to the eternal torment. And nobody's obliging you to go to Hell.

But, again, it seems that you don't want God to accept your repentance...

Now, yes, that's my choice and all, but that's not the point.

Why is it not the point? Do you want the point always to be accusing God? God never said that you will go to hell if you repent. Go ahead, repent and leave your sins.

We're not discussing free will; the point here is that God knew my fate before I was born, right? If not, then something changed, which we've already ruled out ("The Lord does not change").

Yes, God knew what you would choose. Did He then have to kill Adam in whom you were created? Or maybe kill also your parents??

God knew that all the descendants of Adam would be sinners. Well, would it be better if He killed Adam from the first place?

NO, friend! God is Love. He waits patiently that you repent. God knows if you will continue to refuse to repent. But that doesn't mean that He will kill all people because of you, because others want to repent.

So: God made me, knowing I would burn in hell for all eternity.

Again: Please, check your understanding of the difference between being born and being created. You were not created as a single person. You were created as a human in Adam. But you were born as a single person FROM that Adam. If you will burn in hell for all eternity, this doesn't mean that God has to kill all your race ( the human race ) . Plus, killing them will not change anything, but the worse will happen: No one will have the opportunity to repent and go to Heaven, so all will be in hell. And why? Just because MasterOfKrikkit doesn't want to repent??

How is it not obvious to you that any fair-minded person would immediately ask: "then why make me?" What kind of sadistic entity creates something just to torture it?

Ask your parents... Are they sadistic?

And don't say that it's my choice -- that's irrelevant, as I've already established. I felt no pain prior to my birth. No pleasure, either, but that's outweighed by the infinite suffering I will endure due to being created.

Make up your mind, please: prior to your birth, or prior to your creation???

I want you to be very awake with me so that we may understand each other. Are you accusing God of creating mankind, or you are accusing your parents for bringing you to this world??

But I have an option for you that will help you avoid accusing anyone: Just repent, and have a good relationship with God.

If you refuse to repent, you will continue to accuse everyone except yourself.

(Your) God doesn't seem to have thought this through very well. Why not find a way to avoid, or at least mitigate my suffering?

He found: The cross. Didn't you see how much Jesus Christ suffered for all those who will repent and trust Him for their Salvation?

I continue my reply in the next post.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

And if that can't be done, don't make me in the first place! (Unless, you actually believe God is a sadist?)

Why do you accuse God of making you sinful??? God made Adam, and He made you in Adam. You became sinful in Adam. Your parents were children of Adam. They gave birth to you with the same nature that they have. Go accuse your parents for giving birth to you.

But I prefer if you repent and begin to know the real meaning of life, and the real value of your parents.

Well, sure, you can always claim that "God knew this would happen" in any of the stories. But then they don't make a lot of sense. Noah, as discussed above.

Yes, already discussed above. We have seen that the story doesn't make sense if God didn't know and plan everything. If He didn't we would also see Noah the righteous perishing.

With Sodom, why does God put Abraham through that "what if there are X holy ones?" routine? Why not just say "Look, mate, the city's a ****hole, and I'm going to fry it; there aren't even 10 righteous people in the whole place"? Seems all a bit melodramatic to go through the whole bargaining thing.

Was Abraham a robot?

Do you accept it if someone doesn't respect your search for the truth and suddenly stops your questions and tells you like the god of Islam: This is what you MUST do and END of the matter. Don't ask me questions.

Abraham was a righteous man walking before the Lord. God wanted to answer his questions, and we have seen that there were not even 10 righteous people in Sodom and Gomorrah. Not even 10 people wanted to repent.

The problem isn't that God clearly changed His mind about something, but rather: either God changed His mind OR ... something else unpleasant. Why does He "harden Pharaoh's heart" since the result is mass slaughter of innocent Egyptians?

No, the result is the salvation of the children of Israel. The death of those "innocent" Egyptians was not the fault of God, but of the Pharaoh who refused to repent.

By the way: By "innocent", do you mean "without any sin"?...

As I said, the result is the salvation of the children of Israel. But I have noticed in you that you prefer if the children of Israel also die, and all people die, instead of you repenting....

Again, either He's making it up as he goes along (which we've ruled out), or He's going along with this grand play knowing that Bad Stuff is going to happen in Act IV.

What are you talking about??...

Again, this is all utterly irrelevant (although, admittedly, I used the word "fallible" loosely). The problem isn't that God created us *able* to sin, but that God created us able to sin and *knowing that we would*.

What do you mean by "able to sin"?? And I wonder where you read me saying that.

God created us FREE. We could choose whatever we want. We chose to sin, and that's not the fault of God.

God knew how we would use our freedom. But this doesn't mean that He had to create robots, and that this would be better. He created us free. We chose to sin. And He provided the way of Salvation from sin.

All what you need to do is to repent.

This is a pretty simple argument, so let me make it one last time to be clear:

- God is omniscient, right?
- So God knows our fate (nothing to do with free will here, just knowledge of our future actions)
- Under some set of circumstances (not being baptized or not sacrificing two doves on a Thursday, or whatever), those that sin are condemned to eternal punishment, right?

Wrong, because all humans are sinners, and all those who do not leave their sins will go to eternal hell, whether they are baptized or not, or whether they have sacrificed two doves or not.

- Again, God has foreknowledge of who will suffer that fate

- But God creates those creatures and lets them suffer infinitely anyway.

God didn't create any creature with sin. God is not responsible of anyone's sin. And He will not make all humans perish for other people's sin and refusal to repent.

See why that doesn't make God look too good?

I see how much that makes God look very Good, because He provided the way of Salvation ALTHOUGH our sin was not HIS fault.

Even as an ignorant mortal I can see the design flaw.

That's because you are an ignorant mortal, dead in your sins. Sin makes you so blind. You don't want to repent of your sins.

So why wouldn't a perfect God spot it and correct it? Oh, right, He would! Conclusion: that scenario above isn't quite right. So take your pick as to which you choose:

- God is a jerk
- God is limited
- God can change His mind
- God won't punish us infinitely

Fifth option: God is Holy, Righteous and Savior; He is not limited; He doesn't change His mind which is: All sinners deserve hell, so all sinners need to repent.

And before you give your standard reaction about disrespecting God, remember: I'm using your theology and logic, and those are the options we get.

I have not a personal theology. I believe what the Bible says.

And we have seen how you misrepresent what the Bible says, because you don't understand it in the right manner. You want God to punish everyone without accepting their repentance.

Have done, thanks.

Apparently not:
Probably because I'm not a True Scotsman, right?

And since you're so keen on reading the Bible carefully (and with no interpretation, either!), how about Jonah 4:2-4?

"I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live." 4 But the LORD replied, "Have you any right to be angry?"

So, reading carefully, Jonah says God "relents from sending calamity" (ie changes His mind).

I have already talked about that in a previous reply.

God chastises Jonah but does not say that He doesn't relent. So, God allowed an uncorrected misstatement about Him into the Bible. Or He does relent.

And who said that God doesn't relent? Isn't He the compassionate God, full of lovingkindness? Do you want Him to refuse the repentance of those who repent?

Wow. I bet you could make the Bible say just about anything, playing word games like that!

We have previously seen that we can't. Till now you all couldn't make God say that He doesn't accept repentance. Try to do it, and you will fail.

I thought you might say that. So now who's not reading carefully? Did you miss the bit about preventing the disease in the first place...?

So when were Adam & Eve baptized? Biblical citation, please.

1. Preventing the disease means creating non-free creatures. God wouldn't do such a bad thing.

2. Adam and Eve didn't need to be baptized, because baptism is not essential for Salvation. But they received baptism as a part of their Salvation, when they were made perfect with us.

Why? No finite amount of joy can make up for infinite suffering. Non-existence implies neither suffering nor joy. Therefore non-existence is better than infinite suffering. If that's my fate, then non-existence is better than existence.

Joy is better than non-joy. Life is better than non-life.

But as you refuse to repent, then all is better for you...

I continue in the next post.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

But my guitar is peace when on fire. Therefore basketball is retroactive under the tree thought.

See? I can string words together, too.

At least the person you showed the paper to saw a point. They're ahead of me.

You didn't understand, hun?... Nice...

If KCDAD only sees the little black point, this doesn't mean that the paper is black.

Then why does anyone end up in hell? Either no-one does, or some do. Can't have it both ways. If anyone goes to hell, then... see above.

All sinners who do not repent go to hell.

Er, what now? Again, seems like your analogy is making our point for us. Your idea of God handed humanity the biggest, sharpest knife there is. Doesn't seem like a wise God, by your own analogy.

Please, show me God giving any kid a knife. And I insist on each word in the previous sentence: GOD - kid - knife.

Again, irrelevant, but since you ask: no, I want Him, being an infinite and perfect being, to come up with a better system to start with. Why have this bizarre setup where someone has to die to satisfy God's justice, but that person can be God and then everyone can just say some magic words and take a bath, and that's good enough? Why can't an almighty God just say "ok, you know what, just say 3 Hail Marys, have someone kick you in the groin, and we'll call it good". Or better yet: "I forgive you". It amounts to the same thing in the end, except nobody has to be killed. Or perhaps God could actually require some serious penance -- seems fair to me: you commit the crime, you do the time, then you're good to go. But infinite suffering because I was, eg, born in Thailand and the idea that taking a magic bath would save me seemed so absurd that I didn't do it...? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Actually, the system that you think God is using now is not true. The problem is that you insist that this is how God does things.

Sin leads you to hell. God doesn't want any system that doesn't solve this problem of sin. You need to be without any sin in order to enter Heaven.

If you want a system with sin, then hell is the best system for you.

Um, nope, sorry I missed that bit. It could be, but I didn't see explicit proof that it was the bath that did the magic. Just that this was a ritual sign that would indicate my true repentance.

And who said that the bath does any magic thing? Roman Catholics?

I never said that baptism is essential FOR Salvation.

OK, but why can't there be another sign? Like standing on a street corner and handing out business cards that say "I really repented"? Or better yet, helping the homeless and hungry, perhaps. Why the magic dunking or nothing?

And who said that good works are not a good sign of Salvation.

But what's the difference between a sinner who does a good work, and a saved person?

I look through the red words... but I don't see the word "all". Strange. What I see is reference that one group of people did more baptisms than another group.

Don't you see that making disciples means baptizing them?

Now, again, which of us insists on reading the Bible carefully?

So Judas I. was baptized? So then why does baptism matter? You've just said that TRUE discipleship (whatever that might mean -- continuing in My word, I guess, whatever that might mean) is the essential part. Let me quote that again: "the essential is to become a TRUE disciple". Not baptism, then. Oops.

Yes. Baptism is NOT essential FOR Salvation. Baptism is essential IN Salvation.

I have been repeating this since the beginning...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

More accurately the book of John says this. However you claimed to be quoting Gen 1:2 which does not say what you said it does.

Isn't the Book of John part of the Bible??

Plus, Genesis 1 clearly says that God created everything by His Word. He said, and it was.

I object to your misquoting of scripture.

Actually, you object to my quoting the Scripture...

How long will you persist in this lie? You know as well as I do that Jesus said no such thing. For someone who believe the bible is the word of God you sure take a lot of liberties with its text.

When someone accuses me of lie, I prefer to continue to tell the truth instead of telling him: "No, I don't lie".

So in this case also, as you accuse me of lying, I will tell you: Thank you, but the verses are more than clear.

So it is but it isn't. In other words you really don't have a clue do you?

It is necessary IN Salvation, but it is NOT necessary FOR Salvation.

Is pen necessary? Answer: It is necessary to write, but it is not necessary for transportation. I don't think you will now tell me: Is it now necessary or not? Make up your mind!

Why is a door so essential? A door with no lock allows easy access to thieves does it not? Would not a window work just as well, or a draw bridge? or Gaurd animals, booby traps.. I would imagion that the list of alternatives could grow rather large.

I was talking about the entrance of your house. I don't think you prefer to put a window there.
And I didn't mean a door without a lock.

Try to live in a house without a door, and you will see why that door is so essential.

But was he baptised? Did he believe in Jesus?

He believed in the coming Christ, but he was not baptized. And I don't see where the problem is.

If you refer to the baptism by fire then I might agree but that I think is not what you mean so I do not agree. The bath is symbolic only and has no saving power. It is not the door to enter nor the lock to keep out the theives it is a ritual and nothing more.

I never said that baptism is a bath.
And I never said that baptism has a saving power.
I clearly mentioned that baptism is not the door to enter ( Jesus Christ is the door ) .
But baptism is the door that seals your house of faith.

Try to live in a house without a door like that.

The bible does not say that anyone will be in hell forever. It says the opposite.

We have seen that it says.

Chaning words? The English translators have did this. I might add that you butchered Gen 1:2 pretty badly a few posts back as well and that you keep insisting that Jesus said the bible is the word of God even though no where in the text is such a stament made nor even eluded to.

Jesus clearly said that the Bible is the Word of God.
And Genesis 1 clearly says that God created everything by His Word.

Eternal literally means without begining and without end. Of course it is used in language to mean without end as well but it is actually incorrect to do so as we have a different word that conveys that meaning. Yet both words are often used for periods of time that would be very short.

No, the English word "eternal" comes from "e-terna" which means "no-time". That might be no-time past or no-time future.

So you are in error when you say that eternity means a period of TIME that would be SHORT. Eternity is NO-time.

As usual you would be wrong in your guess. Aionion comes from Aion which means age, Aionion means ages or of the ages.

I already told you what your error is: You think that all words that have the same root have the same meaning of the root.

In the Greek version of the OT which word do you think is used to describe how long Jonah was in the whale? It is true that modern lexicons give a defintion of eternal, without end, forever and so on for aionion but these are based on the way they thought they were used in the bible and theology plays a big part in this as well as the translation of the KJV.

aionion means eternal.

You are wasting your time. You think you know better than the Greek scholars...

I do not want to go into a big debate on the meaning of the word here but I could give you a link that explains it in great detail if you like.

A link to people who do not know Greek?

Thats like saying that yearly means every 100 years. Look at language it is not just the root word it is a form of the same word just like yearly is a form of year in our language.

Yes. I am from a people speaking an indo-european language like the Greek. We have many words that receive a new meaning by just transforming them to plural. Example: The plural of power means Army

You then shall not be saved? No verse says that anyone will not be saved. Only poor interpretations yeild this result and those very same interpretations ignore many other verses which plainly say that thier interpretation is wrong.

We have seen clearly how the Bible says that many will not be saved.

"And He was passing through from one city and village to another, teaching, and proceeding on His way to Jerusalem.
And someone said to Him, "Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?" And He said to them,
"Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.'
"Then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets';
and He will say, 'I tell you, I do not know where you are from; DEPART FROM ME, ALL YOU EVILDOERS.'
"In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out." ( Luke 13:22-28 )

Jesus is very clear here. Many will not find the narrow gate of Salvation.

Yes Paul was talkign about the fires of Judgment. He begins by saying that every man shall be judged by what he has done. Ironically Revelation also speaks of judgment, fire, and every man being jduged by what he has done. Revelation is a prophecy and the bible tells us that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and that we must interpret scripture with scripture. There are only two places in the NT where we see where we see this judgment of fire and when we let scripture interpret scripture we can see the meaning.

OK. We have understood that fire is a symbol of judgment. But what about the lake of fire?

Primary definition of the Greek word used.
basanismos
Thayer Definition:
1) to torture, a testing by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal

The purity of gold? Is Satan gold for you?

Anyway, the full definition:

1. to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal
2. to question by applying torture
3. to torture
4. to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment
5. to be harassed, distressed
   1. of those who at sea are struggling with a head wind

I hope you didn't mean to quote only the definition that you liked...

The first definition cannot be used for Satan and his children. Cf. the next definitions

Really? See definition above. It does mean just as I have said and this is the same thing Paul is speaking of when he speaks of judgment.

Yes, see the FULL definition above...

And yes we all all impure and we will all undergo this process some will suffer more than others but all will be saved. This is what the bible actually says.

If you enter the narrow gate, you will suffer in repentance, but you will be saved. But if you don't enter by the narrow gate, you will suffer forever in hell.

If he was pure would he need to be tested?

Yes, we test the purity of gold by fire.

"so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ" ( 1 Peter 1:7 )

When a creature is not pure, God does not test him; He JUDGES him with eternal hell.

Do you believe the devil is some real seperate entity or a spirit that resides in man? A metaphor perhaps? What is the devil in your mind?

A fallen angel.

Sorry.. I made a mistake here. For some reason I did not notice that you had quoted Mark 16 [a verse I might add that should not even be in our bibles as it was added after the fact by an unknow copiest] I was thinking of John. Who does explain what the condemnation is.

Mark 16:16 is part of the Bible, and if you have any problem with that, you can go discuss it in its place.

As for John's passage that you are mentioning, I prefer to comment when you quote it.

How do you know this? Are you saying that hell is empty at the moment? Or that people have been thrown into hell without even being judged? What are you getting at.

The Bible is clear about the COMING Day of Judgment.

And, no dear friend, no one is thrown in hell without judgment. And Jesus clearly says that whoever doesn't believe in Him is ALREADY judged.

The dead today do not have bodies. Souls are in hell. But they wait for their bodies in which they will be judged with the eternal judgment.

I find this statement rather insulting. You do not know me at all and I will wager that I live a more Godly life than do you based on your lies which I see repeatedly posted here and judgmental attidtudes you show in your posts. Perhaps it is time for you to start digging away at that log in your eye before you blind someone.

So you must repent of your self-righteousness as you think you live a godly life and do not need to repent.

The problem with many people is that they don't know that ALL humans need to repent, whether they are Christians or pagan, whether they think they are good or bad.

No they do no. In fact they do not even mention hell. You misinterpret fire as hell. As usual you are wrong.

We have seen that hell is the lake of fire.

Keep your self righteous judgment to yourself dude and worry about your own sins.

I am a big sinner and I repented. I live in repentance. I don't have anything good in me to boast of, so how can I be self-righteous? I trust in Christ who is all in all.

And I call you to repent now before it's too late. Sin leads to eternal hell.

YAQUBOS†

 

[Soul Searcher]

Isn't the Book of John part of the Bible??

Of course but you were claiming to quote Gen 1:2 not John and even John does not say what you actually wrote.

Plus, Genesis 1 clearly says that God created everything by His Word. He said, and it was.

As of verse 3 yes it does say and God said let there be light. What you seem to be missing is that you supposedly quote Gen 1:2 yet your quote was more nothing like Gen 1:2 It rolled in some of John, some of Gen and stuck in the Trinity from somewhere.

Actually, you object to my quoting the Scripture...

Is that what you call it when you butcher it as you have done?

 

[KCDAD]

Of course they do not say any such thing and you know it.

It is plain that you have no regaurd for truth and you continue to repeat the same lie over and over while judging others and you claim to be preaching the word of God. God does not lie. You do. therefore the conclusion is simple.

See SS, this is why I think he is a Poe. He is intentionally lying and distorting traditional Christian beliefs to make Christians look ridiculous.
Essential in but not for...
Jesus said...
God said...
The Bible says that the Bible is written by God...
The universe was created by the Word of God which is the Bible so the Bible created itself...
baptism is a door but it isn't the door...
the plural of power means Army...
an age means eternity... you know, like the bronze age or the age of reason... or the dark ages... eternal ages.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Really?
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. [KJV]

First, I want to remind you that you were opposing the fact that there is a FUTURE judgment. I hope this verse that YOU quoted helps you be convinced.

The version you used - and clearly mentioned the version this time - gives a wrong translation of the Greek word "hades". Hades is not exactly gehenna ( hell, the lake of fire ) . As I told you before, the souls of the wicked are in hell now, and that's hades. They are waiting for their bodies, and then hades will deliver them up to be judged to eternal hell ( gehenna ) .

So the Bible NEVER says that hell will give up its dead.

After hell is empty hell is cast into the lake of fire impiling its destruction. So I do not know what you refer to as the bible nor do I know what you refer to as hell but the bible does say exactly what I said it does.

"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." ( Revelation 20:14 )

I don't see where hell is thrown in the lake of fire. The lake of fire itself is hell, where physical death and the dwelling of souls in hades find their place for all eternity.

"And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." ( Revelation 20:15 )

"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." ( Revelation 21:8 )

So I don't see how you imagine that hell will be empty.

Once again you puff yourself up like you know the status of another man. You know nothing. You openly and repeatedly lie, misquote scripture and insist over and over again that we have all seen something that is simply not there.

All sinners need to repent. And all humans are sinners.

As you feel bad when I tell you that you need to repent, this shows that you didn't repent yet.

I fail to see how you interpret this as you do.

Why are you always failing?

That passage clearly says that Jonah knew that God would forgive them if they repent, because He is a Compassionate and Gracious God. That's His nature. And that's why He sent Jonah to Nineveh, and Jonah knew it since he was in his hometown.

If you don't see this in that text, then I wonder if you know English.

Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

There is no if here. It says shall be done.
Then the King says.

Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

and then
Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

And I have explained this in detail. God accepted their repentance.

Hmm yet we have a few instances in the OT where it says that God repented. So it would seem that the author is wrong in at least some cases now wouldn't it? You claim the author is God and that would mean that God has lied to us. I claim it was man you just got it wrong.

The Bible is written by God through men in the language of men. God repented means God turned from what He would do. Did He change anything? No. He accepted their repentance that didn't surprise Him.

The Bible uses many words about God that are expressed in a human way, because no words other than human words can communicate to us meanings. For example, the Bible talks about the eyes of God, although God does not have eyes like us. In that case, "eyes" mean that God sees.

Yet the text saying nothing about I shall do this unless you repent but rather that it shall be done and then it goes on to say that he repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto them.

And why does the text say that? Did you even think about that? Did you think why God sent Jonah to tell them that? Was it not to lead them to repentance?

nâcham
BDB Definition:
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted

1) ...

as usual, no complete quote.

Since God did not write the bible I agree that he did not lie. But the the implications of believing that God wrote the bible and that he forsees the future is that he lied, you can twist it, sugar coat it, change the words but you can not change the truth.

Where did He lie? Didn't He tell Jonah to go preach to the people of Nineveh??

By the way: How did you know that God didn't lie? Who told you that?

You interpret a passage that simply uses the word this as meaning that both God and Jonah new the out come in advance? hmm Why do you suppose Jonah looked for a good seat to watch the destruction and why do you suppose he was angry afterward when the destruction did not come.

Friend, Jonah clearly said that he knew God would forgive them when they repent. What are you now inventing?

Why don't you like to accept what God clearly says in His Word? Is it because you are not humble?

Get this through your head.

God said He would destroy the city in 40 days.
Jonah told them this.
Jonah went up on the hill to watch.
God did not destory the city.
Jonah was very angry that God had not did what he said he would do.

Granted the word lie is not there but in our language when someone says they will do something and then do not do it it is known as telling a lie.

Jonah knew that God would forgive them. He said it clearly. I think even if he comes and tells you this you won't believe him!

Friend, Jonah even fled to Tarshish because he didn't want the people of Nineveh to repent and be saved. He knew God would forgive them as they repent, so he wanted to avoid that.

After all this, I don't see where you came up with the idea that Jonah didn't know it and so God lied to him!!

After all, the blind cannot see the sun.

YAQUBOS†

 

[Soul Searcher]

Need I remind you that this is what you quoted as Genesis 1:2

God is a Trinity. The Father created the heavens and the earth by His Word ( the Son ) and "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." ( Genesis 1:2 )

This is what is actually written.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Is doesn't take much to see that what you have written barely resembles what is actually there.

You have both removed from and added to the verse in question and yes I do object to that especially when you are not honest enough to admit that you have done so. Now perhaps you only meant part of that to be a quote but that is unclear from your statement. I do know that the word Trinity does no occur in the bible though and the way you strung the sentence together is at best buchery not quoting.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Of course but you were claiming to quote Gen 1:2 not John and even John does not say what you actually wrote.

And didn't you say that I am giving MY interpretation of Genesis 1??? I proved to you that it is not my interpretation, but the interpretation of God to His Word. I quoted the Bible explaining the Bible.

And you now invent a new lie saying that even John doesn't say that God created everything by His Word who is God... I don't think that I even need to answer that. Many people even know John 1 by heart, and they know that it says that God created everything by His Word who is God...

As of verse 3 yes it does say and God said let there be light. What you seem to be missing is that you supposedly quote Gen 1:2 yet your quote was more nothing like Gen 1:2 It rolled in some of John, some of Gen and stuck in the Trinity from somewhere.

I quoted Genesis 1:2 ONLY about the Spirit of God. If I would quote it about the Trinity, I would quote more verses. And when you objected that Genesis 1:2 doesn't say anything about the Trinity, without understanding that I didn't quote it about the Trinity, I had to show you how Genesis 1 does talk about the Trinity, and we saw God's interpretation: John 1.

Is that what you call it when you butcher it as you have done?

I am quoting the Word of God. And, don't worry, I respect that Word, and want you to listen to it and obey it before it's late.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

See SS, this is why I think he is a Poe. He is intentionally lying and distorting traditional Christian beliefs to make Christians look ridiculous.

Does the traditional Christian faith say that the Bible is lying??

Essential in but not for...

Yes. The Bible is clear how baptism is essential. If you want to object, then you can talk to its Author.

Jesus said...
God said...
The Bible says that the Bible is written by God...

Do you doubt these?

The universe was created by the Word of God which is the Bible so the Bible created itself...

I never said this. The Bible is the WRITTEN Word of God. Do you even know that the Bible was not yet written when God created everything???

baptism is a door but it isn't the door...

Baptism is not the door of Salvation. Jesus clearly said He is the door.

Baptism is the door in the example that I gave. And in the example that I gave, we are talking about the house of faith.

Wake up very well, and follow us.

the plural of power means Army...

Yes, that is true in the indo-european language about which I was talking.

Are you following us?

an age means eternity...

Never!

you know, like the bronze age or the age of reason... or the dark ages... eternal ages.

Aionion means eternity, dear friend. I know you are confused, because you don't know Greek. But don't blame me. It is your friends who wanted to study some Greek, so I had to tell them.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Need I remind you that this is what you quoted as Genesis 1:2

Yes, I said: "God is a Trinity. The Father created the heavens and the earth by His Word ( the Son ) and "the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." ( Genesis 1:2 )"

So what was wrong in that? At that time, I didn't quote a passage talking about God creating everything by His Word. I only mentioned the two Persons of the Trinity without quoting any passage. Then I quoted a passage talking about the Spirit of God to mention the third Person of the Trinity.

So I don't see where exactly is your problem.

This is what is actually written.

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Ok. It says that. So what? Do I need to quote all that to speak about the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters? Can't I quote a part of the verse???

Is doesn't take much to see that what you have written barely resembles what is actually there.

You have both removed from and added to the verse in question and yes I do object to that especially when you are not honest enough to admit that you have done so. Now perhaps you only meant part of that to be a quote but that is unclear from your statement. I do know that the word Trinity does no occur in the bible though and the way you strung the sentence together is at best buchery not quoting.

And who obliges me to give biblical passages each time? You? I only gave a passage about the Holy Spirit. And when you objected about the Trinity, I gave you the other passages that talk about the Trinity.

And I still don't see why you are beating the air.

The Bible is clear about the Trinity. So the first argument was wrong that said something like: How could God talk to angels in creation when angels were not there?

God was talking to the Son and the Holy Spirit.

End of the matter

YAQUBOS†

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Just a note: I was not calling you to know any dogma, but to know the real God.

OK, let's get a few basics out of the way first.

You keep going on about "the real God" and "the God of the Bible". That's great. But. The Bible is a written work. All written works must be interpreted. You read words, you try to understand what they mean, you then decipher the meaning of the text. I don't care if the text says "the cat sat on the mat" or something about God, hell, salvation and baptism, it is still necessary to interpret it. And that means two people can interpret it differently. You can argue that your interpretation is correct, but that's the whole point of a discussion like this: demonstrating the correctness of your interpretation via logical argument. Therefore making blanket assertions about "the God of the Bible" are pointless and offensive. Everyone in this discussion is trying to understand Who the God of the Bible is. Your language implies that you and you alone know that, ergo you have a monopoly on Truth. If you believe that, fine: go away and leave the rest of us alone to discuss the matter with the humility to realize that nobody is perfect in understanding. (Oh, and check out those 7 deadly sins -- I think you'll find pride in there somewhere.)

I am getting mightily sick of your attitude. Do you or do you not possess the humility to believe that someone else might have useful input to a discussion? If not, have the guts to say so, so that I can ignore you from now on. If so, how about demonstrating it? The other participants in this discussion raise interesting points and bring something new to me. I appreciate their input. So far, you have brought nothing but logical fallacies, non-sequiturs, red herrings, and semantic quicksand, not to mention self-righteousness, threats of hell, and accusations. Which brings me to:

Because He judges your sin? Well, yes, He does. If you don't repent, you will go to eternal Hell, whether you call God nasty or sweety.

God is Holy and Righteous, that's why a sinner like you calls Him a jerk! You don't want to repent. But this doesn't mean that I must lie to you because of that. This is not a game! You are going to hell because of your sins. You need to repent and turn to the real God, instead of continuing to hell on the way of your sins.

If you don't like the true God of the Bible, then you need to repent and begin to know Him.

Yaqubos, consider this your official cease and desist. You will stop (1) threatening me with hell, (2) bearing false witness against me (being contrary to one of those 10 command thingies, IIRC), (3) questioning my salvation or the sincerity of my beliefs. Apart from being repugnant behavior, they are also violations of the CF conditions of use. I have been patient so far and will not report you unless you continue to act in this way.

What does your holy god say about sin? Something different of what the real God of the Bible says?

You like an interpretation where there is no judgment of sin...

From now on, I intend to name your logical fallacies (if I can remember to). Let's start with a strawman, shall we. I do not believe this, nor have ever said so. If you honestly believe that's my position then you are guilty of a false dichotomy. There can be judgment without eternal punishment. Soul Searcher has made this point.

Well, I don't interpret the Bible

That's a straight-out falsehood. Everyone interprets everything they read. How else do they understand it?

God says that if you continue in your sins, you will go to eternal hell. And God says that He is ready to accept your repentance. You choose now between life and death.

I'm just going to cut all these. We've covered this. Seriously, stop it.

Yes, God does not change His mind the way you do. God accepts your change of mind and heart when you repent, and that accepting can be called a change of mind. But this doesn't mean that God changed anything in Him.

You're equivocating. Is it a change of mind or not? The point that is being made relating to this is that either God knows a priori what will happen, or God does not know until it happens. The latter denies omniscience. Therefore, I think we all agree that we have to go with option 1.

Where did God ever say that He would wipe the RIGHTEOUS also from the face of the earth???

Wow. I can just reach into the bag of logical fallacies and pick one at random for this one. But let's go with red herring. The Bible verse I quoted said "I will wipe mankind". Doesn't say anything about who's righteous or not. "I will wipe mankind", no qualifiers. So now who's not doing any interpreting, hmm? Or is God lying? Or perhaps just equivocating? I'd expect more precise language from a perfect deity, actually.

Do you read carefully? Or maybe you just show yourself to be so simple? Don't you see that God is wiping them from the face of the earth because of their sins?

Yes, I did read carefully; it's you who's adding to the text (which, I thought was a sin, but I digress). Oh, then there's an ad hominim. And another red herring. Yes, sin => flood. But that doesn't avoid the fact that God said "I will wipe mankind... from the face of the earth".

And if sin is the problem, then repentance must be the solution. If you want God to refuse repentance, please tell us from now, before we go any further...

I have no problem with this.

We are people, the children of Noah. So God really has put an end to all the people, and saved Noah and his family in the Ark. I don't see where is your problem.

You don't? Did you *read* what you just wrote? "God put an end to all the people" and "we are people"... so... we don't actually exist? But, bizarre as this statement of yours is, it's still a red herring. To say it again: God said "I will wipe mankind from the face of the earth" but clearly didn't. If we insist on God's omnipotence, the remaining options are: (1) God lied, (2) "I will wipe...etc" means something other than I think it does, (3) the Bible isn't word-for-word inerrant, but, rather, written by flawed humans. (There may be other options, and I'm willing to hear them, but Occam's Razor makes me think these are the most likely.) (1) is objectionable to me, and obviously I can't work out how to reconcile (2), so ... (3) it is. I don't see why that freaks so many people out.

A big NO! God didn't create us knowing that we all WILL go to hell. And the first proof against this is that Adam and Eve, the first humans, are not going to hell.

So I don't know where you came up with that imaginary assumption.

I didn't, you did. That's why I'm calling strawman on that one. I said God knew *some* of us would go to hell. Again, if God is omniscient then He knew even before creating mankind that some of us would end up in hell ("choose to go to hell" if you like). The argument that I and others have been trying to make is that a loving God wouldn't go through with this plan (even given that people are choosing their fate), assuming that hell = infinite torment. Or, at very least, would make it a lot less ambiguous as to how to avoid that fate. In case you hadn't noticed, a large number of people are headed for hell, in your view, including many who consider themselves Christians. In fact, as far as I can tell, everyone but you is destined for hell. So it really can't be *that* obvious, now, can it? Conclusion: God created humanity in the full knowledge that many well-meaning people will make the wrong choice and end up suffering eternally. That's ... not just. It's wrong. If you disagree, then I don't see we can go much further. This is axiomatic for me: what I've just described cannot be the action of a loving God.

You are not Adam. You were BORN of a father and a mother, and not CREATED as Adam was ( by the way, do you know the difference between being born and being created? ) . You were created in Adam, but you were born from your parents. You are called to repent and not go to the eternal torment. And nobody's obliging you to go to Hell.

Oh look, another red herring. Seriously, man, open a fish market.

Of course I know that I was born, not created ex nihilo. But I was born to mortal parents, who were born of mortal parents, and so on back to Adam (well, let's go with that and not confuse the matter with extra debates). So I am still a created being, not part of the Godhead. Please. Stop bringing up irrelevances. The fact remains that I exist because God created humanity and I will go to hell (in your view of the universe). Or if not me, then someone else -- it doesn't matter. So the above argument remains intact.

Yes, God knew what you would choose. Did He then have to kill Adam in whom you were created? Or maybe kill also your parents??

Good, finally a straight answer: God did know my choice a priori. Aaaand then, a total strawman. If the fish market folds, go into farm supplies. Why does God have to kill anyone? An omnipotent God can't prevent my birth without killing? Or, given that I'm not alone in my journey to hell, why create humanity in the first place?

God knew that all the descendants of Adam would be sinners. Well, would it be better if He killed Adam from the first place?

Strawman. Not kill. Just not create. We wouldn't have lost anything -- we would never have existed. Or come up with a different system, such as finite punishment and refinement that purifies us of sin and allows us to become worthy of God's presence? Or... any other of an infinite set of possibilities, for that matter.

NO, friend! God is Love. He waits patiently that you repent. God knows if you will continue to refuse to repent. But that doesn't mean that He will kill all people because of you, because others want to repent.

Seriously. Stop it. Not kill. And no more proselytizing, either. I mean it.

If God is Love, then why not find a way to allow *everyone* to achieve perfection. And not just by having one shot at saying the right magic words, based on vague and ambiguous references in a set of ancient texts belonging to one group of Bronze Age nomads.

(Some tedious repeated fallacies snipped....)

Ask your parents... Are they sadistic?

You know nothing about my parents or my relationship with them. Do not speak about what you don't know. And to answer your question: if they believed what you believe, then, yes, I'd say they should not have had me, unless they were sadists.

(And more snipping...)

He found: The cross. Didn't you see how much Jesus Christ suffered for all those who will repent and trust Him for their Salvation?

And those who don't perform this one, specific act end up with infinite suffering. Why? Please explain the logic of this. Why is this better than, say, allowing everyone to continue to perfect themselves post mortem? Thus, true effort is required, and we still suffer the consequences of our sins, as we have to struggle with our sinful natures, separated from God in the spiritual realm; God's justice is satisfied, and all can eventually be purified and achieve the perfection in which we were originally created. Please explain to me why this is worse than God having to crucify Himself at a specific point in human history, with everyone coming after required to genuinely profess a belief in this system and taking a magic bath to prove it.

I continue my reply in the next post.

Ditto. If I can be bothered, since I suspect I'm wasting my time. KCDAD and SS seem to be interested in bouncing around ideas and searching for the Truth. You don't. You think you've found it already and seem to have no purpose here except to browbeat heretics (ie everyone else). I hope I'm wrong.

 

[YAQUBOS]

OK, let's get a few basics out of the way first.

You keep going on about "the real God" and "the God of the Bible". That's great. But. The Bible is a written work. All written works must be interpreted. You read words, you try to understand what they mean, you then decipher the meaning of the text. I don't care if the text says "the cat sat on the mat" or something about God, hell, salvation and baptism, it is still necessary to interpret it. And that means two people can interpret it differently. You can argue that your interpretation is correct, but that's the whole point of a discussion like this: demonstrating the correctness of your interpretation via logical argument. Therefore making blanket assertions about "the God of the Bible" are pointless and offensive. Everyone in this discussion is trying to understand Who the God of the Bible is. Your language implies that you and you alone know that, ergo you have a monopoly on Truth. If you believe that, fine: go away and leave the rest of us alone to discuss the matter with the humility to realize that nobody is perfect in understanding. (Oh, and check out those 7 deadly sins -- I think you'll find pride in there somewhere.)

Yes, pride is a sin. So you must not be so proud as to think that you, a human, can interpret the Word of God. No human can interpret the Word of God. When God says something, only God can interpret what He meant. So the Bible interprets the Bible. No need to speculate about any text. No need to invent ideas while reading a text. Humility says: Let's see what GOD says about His Text.

And that's what I am doing. I don't think I can interpret what God is telling me. I just ask Him, and find the answer in the Bible. And if you noticed, I always quote the Word of God, and the Word of God is clear. Passages interpret each other.

I am getting mightily sick of your attitude. Do you or do you not possess the humility to believe that someone else might have useful input to a discussion? If not, have the guts to say so, so that I can ignore you from now on. If so, how about demonstrating it? The other participants in this discussion raise interesting points and bring something new to me. I appreciate their input. So far, you have brought nothing but logical fallacies, non-sequiturs, red herrings, and semantic quicksand, not to mention self-righteousness, threats of hell, and accusations. Which brings me to:

You don't like the attitude of Christians who do not want to preach THEIR words, but the full Word of God...

Yaqubos, consider this your official cease and desist. You will stop (1) threatening me with hell,

1) I never threatened YOU personally with hell. I don't know you personally. I am only calling you to repentance, and saying that if you don't repent you will go to hell. If I were in your place, I would thank you for reminding me of the importance of repentance in which I now walk.

(2) bearing false witness against me (being contrary to one of those 10 command thingies, IIRC),

You can't bear any witness against someone whom you don't know. I only call your words in your replies to witness against you.

(3) questioning my salvation or the sincerity of my beliefs. Apart from being repugnant behavior, they are also violations of the CF conditions of use. I have been patient so far and will not report you unless you continue to act in this way.

The Bible calls us to test ourselves to see whether we are in the Faith:

"Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you--unless indeed you fail the test?" ( 2 Corinthians 13:5 )

I am not doing anything more than reminding you of this verse.

By the way: I never doubted the sincerity of your beliefs, specially you. But it is not enough to be sincere in order to be saved.

Now, if you want to threaten me of reporting, I would like to remind you who I am: I am a disciple of Jesus Christ. Lions of Nero cannot stop me of declaring the truth. The most that you can do is to ban me from these forums, which is the web equivalent of capital punishment. But that doesn't stop my witnessing. And I hope there are moderators who understand this, because I am not violating any forum rules. Even those rules are subject to each person's interpretation.

So, go ahead, dear Saul, and report. I am ready. I am not afraid of humans like you. Jesus Christ is with me.

From now on, I intend to name your logical fallacies (if I can remember to). Let's start with a strawman, shall we. I do not believe this, nor have ever said so. If you honestly believe that's my position then you are guilty of a false dichotomy. There can be judgment without eternal punishment. Soul Searcher has made this point.

And who said that this punishment is something God has put to see His creatures suffer and thus enjoy it???

If you die in your sins, you go before God's Judgment in your sins. Your nature is sinful. How can that sinful nature enter Heaven, that holy place where no sin can enter? And what amount of punishment can change that nature of sinfulness? No amount!

I will agree with you that the punishment is not eternal, if you just tell me after how much time a sinner ceases to be a sinner and thus is able to enter Heaven. Just try to answer this, and you will understand how much a limited punishment is against any spiritual logic that hates sin and knows how much it is bad.

That's a straight-out falsehood. Everyone interprets everything they read. How else do they understand it?

They may ask someone else to interpret it for them, and then they accept his interpretation.

In my case, I accept the interpretation of God. Do you mind it? I can't boast of being able to interpret the Word of God. Unlike you, I don't have the pride to say I can. I only accept how God interprets His Word. So the Bible interprets the Bible.

I'm just going to cut all these. We've covered this. Seriously, stop it.

Why? Does it bother you that I am telling you the truth of God's Word?

You're equivocating. Is it a change of mind or not? The point that is being made relating to this is that either God knows a priori what will happen, or God does not know until it happens. The latter denies omniscience. Therefore, I think we all agree that we have to go with option 1.

Yes, God knows everything in advance. By the way, there is no "in advance" for God, because there is no past, present and future for God.

And yes, that is a change of mind from a human perspective, and not a divine perspective. Again, "perspective" is not exact for God, because God doesn't stand in a certain place and look to things.

So the Bible is written in a human language in order to be understood by humans. And I have already explained this, giving the example of God's "eyes".

Wow. I can just reach into the bag of logical fallacies and pick one at random for this one. But let's go with red herring. The Bible verse I quoted said "

I will wipe mankind". Doesn't say anything about who's righteous or not. "I will wipe mankind", no qualifiers. So now who's not doing any interpreting, hmm? Or is God lying? Or perhaps just equivocating? I'd expect more precise language from a perfect deity, actually.

Yes, I did read carefully; it's you who's adding to the text (which, I thought was a sin, but I digress). Oh, then there's an ad hominim. And another red herring. Yes, sin => flood. But that doesn't avoid the fact that God said "I will wipe mankind... from the face of the earth".

Is that the only expression in the text? Don't we have a context? What does the context say about the sin of humans? Why would God wipe them from the face of the earth? Just to pass some time or to show how much He is powerful??

I continue in the next reply.

YAQUBOS†