Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[YAQUBOS]

You do.

It wasn't me who said that God didn't speak clearly.

uh huh. You really believe this.

I believe God. Is that bad?

Obey first! ... then you will be allowed to believe? Is that the way God works?

No. Living faith is an obedient faith, and not a dead faith of the mind.

Nice to met you, God.

Mocking will not make you wise.

Inane blather.

You still don't want to know what "Name" means, right?

he said just the opposite.

And he also can say that he can fly. But proving what he said is what matters

Solomon?

Solomon was not the Lord.

Caesar?

Caesar was not the Lord.

NEVER! ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE! SHOW US THE VERSE BIBLE LIAR.

""She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet:
"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."" ( Matthew 1:21-23 )

Do you know that Jesus Christ is God with us?

He is called THE Christ. THE annointed one. It is not his name.

OK. Then you begin to understand what "Name" means, right? Because "Almighty God" is also His Name.

We don't "know" a lot of things you "know".

That's because "knowing" is not only "head-knowledge", as I said before.

NOT EVER, NOT ONCE.

Read the Bible and see.

It is a perfect comparison. The Bible is not the word of God any more than Nostradamus' predictions are.

Prove what you just said. You can say whatever you want. You don't pay money for the words that you are writing here, do you?

What a crock of "ain't I special" self aggrandizement! God SAID nothing.

I already showed you how God said that those prophecies are about Jesus, but you said they were written after the fact... But God said it anyway.

What unmitigated pride you must feel. Your boasting is overwhelmingly disgusting.

Yes, how much it is bothering you that I boast in Christ alone.

"so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."" ( 1 Corinthians 1:31 )

You want me to boast like you in opposing the Word of God, and not in the Lord. Excuse me, I can't walk in darkness anymore: Jesus Christ saved me.

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

You can't be in a church before you are baptized.

The Greek word for church means gathering... what are you talking about?

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;45184029]
And what do you think He delivered us from?

Ourselves.

And it was said by the angel BEFORE the fact.

Really? And you know this... how? Because it was written about AFTER the fact?

Joshua was not called Joshua BECAUSE he would deliver his people from sin.

And you know this how? Why does every name in the Bible mean something EXCEPT Joshua's?

While God says

Stop right there... God didn't write that. The author of Matthew's Gospel wrote it AFTER the fact!

Do you now see the word "sins"?

Yeah... how it was added to Jesus' ID AFTER the fact.

So you think He was called Christ because of that anointing? Then do you think He wasn't the Christ before that anointing?

Of course not. How can someone be annointed before he is annointed? Was Saul King before he was annointed? David?

You just keep showing how little you know about your faith... believing all that horse hockey is one thing, but having a little wisdom and understanding is another.

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;45184430It wasn't me who said that God didn't speak clearly.

You say it every time you quote some man from the Bible and say God said it.
YOU are the one that doesn't make sense, not God.

I believe God. Is that bad?

You believe YOU.

No. Living faith is an obedient faith, and not a dead faith of the mind.

Yeah, and what does that have to do with the sputum you preach.

Mocking will not make you wise.

Didn't claim it would. I was just acknowledging that it is YOU who you think is God. You are the one coming up with the unsupportable interpretations of The Bible and claiming your interpretation is God's.

You still don't want to know what "Name" means, right?

Yes, I do. YOU are the one that think name means title.

And he also can say that he can fly. But proving what he said is what matters

Whuuuuuh?

Solomon was not the Lord.

Of course he was... AND The Messiah.

Caesar was not the Lord.

Of course he was... and the King of the Earth.

THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."" ( Matthew 1:21-23 )

Do you know that Jesus Christ is God with us?

No, but if you hum a few bars...

"THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME"... wanna take a wild guess as to what that means?

OK. Then you begin to understand what "Name" means, right? Because "Almighty God" is also His Name.

Really... all those names must have played hell trying to monogram his robes... or his mother calling him to supper when he was just a boy.

That's because "knowing" is not only "head-knowledge", as I said before.

So you are a gnostic with the "secret knowledge"... very heretical of you.

Read the Bible and see.

I have and apparently you haven't... you see it in passages that have absolutely nothing to do with it... because of your "special top secret knowledge". (I suppose you gonna say that is because the Holy Spirit hides it from all but the chosen few...)

Prove what you just said. You can say whatever you want. You don't pay money for the words that you are writing here, do you?

The "word of God" is only mentioned (in The Bible) in the context of people SPEAKING the word of God. NEVER reading or writing it. John refers to the LOGOS or the word or image pre-existing creation... he is not talking about The Bible. Duh... that is a no brainer... for most people.

You show me where the written word is specifically called "The Word of God".

I already showed you how God said ....

Stop right there... there you go again putting man's words in God's mouth.

...that those prophecies are about Jesus, but you said they were written after the fact... But God said it anyway.

Danggit, you did it again.

Yes, how much it is bothering you that I boast in Christ alone.

"so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."" ( 1 Corinthians 1:31 )

You want me to boast like you in opposing the Word of God, and not in the Lord. Excuse me, I can't walk in darkness anymore: Jesus Christ saved me.

I want you to realize that boasting in The Logos is not the same as boasting in The Bible. Somehow you have turned the manifestation of God in Jesus into a leather bound collection of writings about man's search for meaning in the universe.

 

[YAQUBOS]

The Greek word for church means gathering... what are you talking about?

You can't be a member of a Gathering ( ) of Christians until you are baptized. So how were you baptized in a church?

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Ourselves.

What do you mean? So you were a slave of yourself?

Really? And you know this... how? Because it was written about AFTER the fact?

Because God said it, and God doesn't lie.

And you know this how? Why does every name in the Bible mean something EXCEPT Joshua's?

And who said that Joshua's name doesn't mean something? I said it doesn't mean that he saved his people FROM THEIR SINS. If you doubt what I said, you can just quote the Bible saying that he was called Joshua because he saved his people from their sins. If you can't, then please don't waste our times with your imaginations.

Stop right there... God didn't write that. The author of Matthew's Gospel wrote it AFTER the fact!

Yes, the Author of the Gospel according to Matthew ( i.e. God the Holy Spirit ) wrote that through Matthew after the FACT It was a FACT. What was that FACT? Let's read:

"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." ( Matthew 1:21 )

So the FACT is that Jesus saved us from our sins. If that was not a FACT, He wouldn't be called Jesus, because God doesn't lie. God said He would be called JESUS because He would save us from our sins. And that's exactly the FACT that happened. And the Book called the Gospel according to Matthew came to tell us about that FACT.

Yeah... how it was added to Jesus' ID AFTER the fact.

That was said by the angel BEFORE Jesus was born in flesh.

Of course not. How can someone be annointed before he is annointed? Was Saul King before he was annointed? David?

OK. Thank you for telling me how much you are ignorant about the Word of God. Now, after you fell in the trap, let me tell you when Jesus was anointed ( because it was not with oil or perfume that He was anointed ) . Read carefully:

First, you said that it was Mary who anointed Jesus. Let's see WHO anointed Jesus:
"THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED" ( Luke 4:18 )

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel" ( Acts 4:27 )

So here falls your first information: It wasn't Mary who anointed Jesus, but THE LORD GOD.

Second, you said He was anointed with oil and perfume. Well, let's see with what He was anointed BY GOD:
"You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." ( Acts 10:38 )

And here falls your second information: Jesus was not anointed with simple oil or perfume, but with the Holy Spirit.

I hope now you begin to humble yourself, and listen to God.

You just keep showing how little you know about your faith... believing all that horse hockey is one thing, but having a little wisdom and understanding is another.

Yes, we just saw how much you know what God says in His Word, the Bible...

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

You say it every time you quote some man from the Bible and say God said it.
YOU are the one that doesn't make sense, not God.

OK. Now, quote your god, and let's see how he makes sense

You believe YOU.

No, I believe God, and that is bothering you. You want me to believe you and your false god that has never said or done anything.

Yeah, and what does that have to do with the sputum you preach.

You asked me about the relation of faith with obedience, and I answered.

Didn't claim it would. I was just acknowledging that it is YOU who you think is God. You are the one coming up with the unsupportable interpretations of The Bible and claiming your interpretation is God's.

So you WERE mocking. And mocking will not make you look wise.

Yes, I do. YOU are the one that think name means title.

So you really don't want to know what "Name" means.

Of course he was... AND The Messiah.

Simply, Solomon was NOT the Lord

Of course he was... and the King of the Earth.

Caesar may be YOUR god, but he is NOT the Lord your Creator. And still more: Caesar was NOT righteous, so I wonder how you call him "The Lord our Righteousness"... You believe in false lords. Come to the true Lord in repentance.

No, but if you hum a few bars...

Well, Jesus said that He is God with us. Do you believe Him?

"THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME"... wanna take a wild guess as to what that means?

You always like to hide behind uncertainties. Just answer my question: Is Jesus Christ God with us?

Really... all those names must have played hell trying to monogram his robes... or his mother calling him to supper when he was just a boy.

You still insist on NOT understanding what "Name" means. You're free to stay in your ignorance and darkness.

So you are a gnostic with the "secret knowledge"... very heretical of you.

I said the exact opposite. The Bible is not a secret book. Open it and have knowledge.

I have and apparently you haven't...

Yeah, maybe that's why you said that it was Mary who anointed Jesus, and that she anointed Him with oil and perfume... It seems that you were thinking about something else when you were reading the Bible... So, an advice: read it again, but this time read it carefully and humbly.

you see it in passages that have absolutely nothing to do with it... because of your "special top secret knowledge". (I suppose you gonna say that is because the Holy Spirit hides it from all but the chosen few...)

No, it is because Satan has blinded his children:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 )

The "word of God" is only mentioned (in The Bible) in the context of people SPEAKING the word of God.

Jesus mentioned the Scripture saying that it is the Word of God.

NEVER reading or writing it.

Jesus said that what was written ( the SCRIPTure ) is the Word of God.

John refers to the LOGOS or the word or image pre-existing creation...

So Jesus Christ existed before creation. Do you believe this? If yes, then who is He? Almighty God?

he is not talking about The Bible. Duh... that is a no brainer... for most people.

Yes, the Bible is not the incarnated Word of God. It is the WRITTEN Word of God. Know the difference.

You show me where the written word is specifically called "The Word of God".

I already did. Open that long detailed reply that I posted, and read it again.

Stop right there... there you go again putting man's words in God's mouth.

Jesus is not just a human. He is GOD ALMIGHTY. And the Bible is the Word of God.

I want you to realize that boasting in The Logos is not the same as boasting in The Bible. Somehow you have turned the manifestation of God in Jesus into a leather bound collection of writings about man's search for meaning in the universe.

No, don't deny it: My boasting in the Lord alone is really bothering you. But why??

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

You can't be a member of a Gathering ( ) of Christians until you are baptized. So how were you baptized in a church?

YAQUBOS†

How can you even carry on a conversation with anyone when you constantly make the meaning of words as you go?

And your statement is true because... baptism is essential but not necessary... right?

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;45262399What do you mean? So you were a slave of yourself?

I think he's got it! (Deny yourself, die to yourself...)

Because God said it, and God doesn't lie.

God doesn't SAY anything. Sorry. Prophets speak FOR God. That is the whole point.

And who said that Joshua's name doesn't mean something? I said it doesn't mean that he saved his people FROM THEIR SINS. If you doubt what I said, you can just quote the Bible saying that he was called Joshua because he saved his people from their sins. If you can't, then please don't waste our times with your imaginations.

Joshua is Jesus... it is the same name. If you believe that is what Jesus means you have to agree that is what Joshua means.

Yes, the Author of the Gospel according to Matthew ( i.e. God the Holy Spirit ) wrote that through Matthew after the FACT It was a FACT. What was that FACT? Let's read:

"She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins." ( Matthew 1:21 )

So the FACT is that Jesus saved us from our sins. If that was not a FACT, He wouldn't be called Jesus, because God doesn't lie. God said He would be called JESUS because He would save us from our sins. And that's exactly the FACT that happened. And the Book called the Gospel according to Matthew came to tell us about that FACT.

Oh my.

That was said by the angel BEFORE Jesus was born in flesh.

Really? Because someone wrote it 50 years after Jesus died?

OK. Thank you for telling me how much you are ignorant about the Word of God. Now, after you fell in the trap, let me tell you when Jesus was anointed ( because it was not with oil or perfume that He was anointed ) . Read carefully:

First, you said that it was Mary who anointed Jesus. Let's see WHO anointed Jesus:
"THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME, BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR. HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES, AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND, TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED" ( Luke 4:18 )

He is quoting Isaiah who was talking about himself.
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners, [a] 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the LORD
for the display of his splendor.
4 They will rebuild the ancient ruins
and restore the places long devastated;
they will renew the ruined cities
that have been devastated for generations.
5 Aliens will shepherd your flocks;
foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
6 And you will be called priests of the LORD,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast.
7 Instead of their shame
my people will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
they will rejoice in their inheritance;
and so they will inherit a double portion in their land,
and everlasting joy will be theirs.
8 "For I, the LORD, love justice;
I hate robbery and iniquity.
In my faithfulness I will reward them
and make an everlasting covenant with them.
9 Their descendants will be known among the nations
and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
that they are a people the LORD has blessed."
10 I delight greatly in the LORD;
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the soil makes the sprout come up
and a garden causes seeds to grow,
so the Sovereign LORD will make righteousness and praise
spring up before all nations.

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel" ( Acts 4:27 )

So here falls your first information: It wasn't Mary who anointed Jesus, but THE LORD GOD.

Second, you said He was anointed with oil and perfume. Well, let's see with what He was anointed BY GOD:
"You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him." ( Acts 10:38 )

And here falls your second information: Jesus was not anointed with simple oil or perfume, but with the Holy Spirit.

All this written AFTER the fact by people with a political agenda. What does anointing mean?

by Rabbi Ken Spiro​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]King Saul was a great man who committed one terrible mistake, dooming his reign from the start.[/FONT]
Email this Print this useAjaxDependingOnBrowser('http://www.aish.com/components/print/emailToFriend.asp?Title=Crash+Course+in+Jewish+History+Part+16+%2D+King+Saul&path=/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_16_-_King_Saul.xml&articleNum=1873&teaser=King+Saul+was+a+great+man+who+committed+one+terrible+mistake%2C+dooming+his+reign+from+the+start%2E', 'http://www.aish.com/SSI/articleToPrint.asp?an=1873&PageURL=/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_16_-_King_Saul.xml&torahportion=&teaser=King+Saul+was+a+great+man+who+committed+one+terrible+mistake%2C+dooming+his+reign+from+the+start%2E', '2,1,119,25', '123,1,227,23', 'top', 'navsubbartopprintemail458x16');
In his farewell address to his people, Moses prophesied:

"When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you and inherit it and live in it, and you say, 'Let us appoint over me a king like all the nation around me,' [then] you will appoint over yourself a king whom the Lord your God shall choose. From among your brothers are you to appoint over yourself a king, you may not appoint over yourself a foreigner who is not your bother." (Deut. 17:14-15)​

This time has come to pass now.
The Jewish people have been living for close to four centuries without strong central leadership and they miss it. So they ask the prophet Samuel to appoint a king.
LIKE ALL THE REST
Samuel is not happy over this request but God tells him to go ahead. Still it is clear that God is not happy with it either:

"Listen to the voice of the people according to all that they say to you for they have not rejected you but they have rejected Me from reigning over them." (1 Samuel 8:7)​

Why are Samuel and God displeased, especially since Moses had predicted this turn of events and there is even a Torah commandment to do so?
The answer lies in the way the people asked for a king:

And they the people said [to Samuel] "... Now set up for us a king to judge us like all the nations ..." (1 Samuel, 8:6)​

A Jewish king was not supposed to be a king "like all the nations" had. A Jewish king was supposed to be a model of what an ideal Jew is all about -- a model for the rest of the nation to emulate.
To ask for a king "like all the nations" suggests that the Jews wanted a big strong guy, like the rest of the nations-an all-powerful leader who would make all the decisions so that they could sit back and throw off that heavy burden of responsibility that they've had to deal with on a day-to-day basis. It's much easier in many respects to have someone decide for you, which is why the Talmud says that "a slave is happier being a slave" -- a slave who is well treated will give up his freedom to know that he is being taken care of and decisions are being made for him.
The Jewish monarchy, as described in the Bible, is a unique institution. A Jewish king has real power and tremendous responsibility, but he is not a tyrant or dictator. He is the model for the rest of the nation to emulate: a leader, a scholar, pious, righteous and God-fearing. He is a catalyst that enables the Jewish people to fulfill their national historic mission as a light to the nations.1
"Only he [the king] shall not have too many horses for himself...And he shall not have too many wives... and he shall not greatly increase silver and gold for himself...It shall be that when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself two copies of this Torah...It shall be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life, so that he will learn to fear the lord, his God, to keep all the words of the Torah...so that his heart does not become haughty over his brethren..." (Deut. 17: 16-20)
In the year 884 BCE, 393 years after the Jewish people first entered the Land of Israel, Saul is anointed as the first king by the prophet Samuel in accordance with the wishes of the people.
THE CHOICE
How was Saul chosen king?
The story of Saul's anointing tells us much about the functioning of Jewish society in this time period.
For one thing, there are many prophets around. So many in fact -- the Talmud says that from the time of Moses to the destruction of the First Temple there were over a million prophets 2 -- that the people turn to them for everything. You have a profound question? Ask a prophet. You need advice on marriage? Ask a prophet. You've lost your donkey? Ask a prophet. The Bible itself mentions that prophets were originally called seers (roeh in Hebrew) precisely because their higher spiritual level enabled them to see things that others couldn't, including lost objects. (see 1 Samuel, 9:9)
Indeed this is how Saul and the Prophet Samuel meet. The first seer that Saul encounters while searching for his donkeys happens to be the Judge of Israel and the e greatest prophet of his generation.
It's an odd story. A man goes to the greatest prophet alive and asks, "Where's my donkeys?" The prophet answers, "Don't worry, your donkeys have been found, and by the way, you're king of Israel."
Samuel takes out a flask of oil and pours some on Samuel's head. The oil he uses is comprised of special mixture of afarsimon oil and spices (see Exodus 30:22-28) called "Shemen HaMeshicha" -- anointing oil. (The Hebrew word Meshiach-Messiah, comes from this word moshach-anointed.) This special oil was used by Moses to anoint and consecrate the Tabernacle and its vessels as well as Aaron and his sons as the Priests. From the reign of King Saul until the destruction of the First Temple, it was used by prophets to anoint the Kings of Israel. Just as the Kiddush on Friday night with wine designates the Sabbath as different and special, so too did a prophet's use of this anointing oil designate an object or individual as chosen by God for a special purpose.

So, you want to say that Jesus was anointed by himself with himself... does that make sense to you?

I hope now you begin to humble yourself, and listen to God.

You mean , of course, listen to you, because only you, it seems speak for God.

Yes, we just saw how much you know what God says in His Word, the Bible...

Now show a little humility and accept it.

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;45263031OK. Now, quote your god, and let's see how he makes sense

I can not quote God, nor can any one else. I can speak the word of God, but that is not the same thing.

No, I believe God, and that is bothering you. You want me to believe you and your false god that has never said or done anything.

You believe you. You do not know God. That is clear.

You asked me about the relation of faith with obedience, and I answered.

I paraphrase your response: Faith has nothing to do with thinking or reason... it simply monkey see monkey do.

So you WERE mocking. And mocking will not make you look wise.

Mocking you... yes. It is difficult to respond to you without some mocking involved.

So you really don't want to know what "Name" means.

Yes. You are the one that adds meaning to words.

Simply, Solomon was NOT the Lord

Of course he was. Do you not know what the word Lord means, either?

Caesar may be YOUR god, but he is NOT the Lord your Creator. And still more: Caesar was NOT righteous, so I wonder how you call him "The Lord our Righteousness"... You believe in false lords. Come to the true Lord in repentance.

When did I write that? Put down the mushrooms and smell the coffee.

Well, Jesus said that He is God with us. Do you believe Him?

No he didn't. The author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote that 50 years after Jesus died.

You always like to hide behind uncertainties. Just answer my question: Is Jesus Christ God with us?

Not the way you mean it. You mean that because it is his name then it is true, I have already pointed out that there are hundreds, thousands and probably even millions of Jesuses and Joshuas and their names don't make them anything.

You still insist on NOT understanding what "Name" means. You're free to stay in your ignorance and darkness.

You still insist on NOT understanding what "Name" means. You're free to stay in your ignorance and darkness.

I said the exact opposite. The Bible is not a secret book. Open it and have knowledge.

Yeah, you said read any copy, any translation any Canon... even the ones that say "Thou shall commit adultery".

Yeah, maybe that's why you said that it was Mary who anointed Jesus, and that she anointed Him with oil and perfume... It seems that you were thinking about something else when you were reading the Bible... So, an advice: read it again, but this time read it carefully and humbly.

Read Mark, Matthew, Luke or John... they all have the story of the only anointing Jesus gets. Mary does it and she anoints his feet (and in some interpretations, his hair) and Jesus acknowledges that it is his anointing for burial.

No, it is because Satan has blinded his children:

Who? The serpent or the dragon? The guy from Job or the guy that hung out with Jesus in the desert where Jesus neither ate or drank anything for 40 days...?

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 )

Caesar?

Jesus mentioned the Scripture saying that it is the Word of God.

Not once. There is that fallacy again that you can not and have not shown. Just one quote where he said that would sufficient. (I love how you use the word mention instead of he said it... leaves you a little wiggle room, doesn't it?)

Jesus said that what was written ( the SCRIPTure ) is the Word of God.

No. He mentions one thing in particular that Moses wrote.

So Jesus Christ existed before creation. Do you believe this? If yes, then who is He? Almighty God?

NO. The Bible is clear that Jesus was conceived and born 2000 years ago. The Logos... now that is something different.

Yes, the Bible is not the incarnated Word of God. It is the WRITTEN Word of God. Know the difference.

oy.

I already did. Open that long detailed reply that I posted, and read it again.

Nope. You may think you did, but if it were true, it wouldn't take a long convoluted post... would it? The truth is simple.

Jesus is not just a human. He is GOD ALMIGHTY. And the Bible is the Word of God.

If you say a lie enough times, it may become the truth: Goebbels... or was it Goering?

No, don't deny it: My boasting in the Lord alone is really bothering you. But why??

Because you are not the lord of anything except your own machinations.

 

[YAQUBOS]

How can you even carry on a conversation with anyone when you constantly make the meaning of words as you go?

I took the meaning that YOU gave, and asked you the question. If you don't have an answer, it is not enough to accuse ME of inventing meanings.

And your statement is true because... baptism is essential but not necessary... right?

Baptism is not essential nor necessary for Salvation. But it is both essential and necessary IN Salvation.

Be saved, and you will practically know what I am saying.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

I think he's got it! (Deny yourself, die to yourself...)

Great! So Christ actually saves from our SELVES, the old sinful SELF. So He saves from sin.

God doesn't SAY anything. Sorry. Prophets speak FOR God. That is the whole point.

Prophets spoke the Word of God. God said it.

Joshua is Jesus... it is the same name. If you believe that is what Jesus means you have to agree that is what Joshua means.

Yes, Joshua means YHWH-Savior. And Jesus was called by that Name, because He would save us from our sins, as God said it clearly. Joshua in the Old Testament was called with that name for another reason. In both cases, God saved His people. In the case of Jesus, God saved His people FROM THEIR SINS. It is mentioned clearly in the Bible.

Really? Because someone wrote it 50 years after Jesus died?

Because God said it in His Word, the Bible.

He is quoting Isaiah who was talking about himself.
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners, [a] 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor
and the day of vengeance of our God,
to comfort all who mourn,
3 and provide for those who grieve in Zion—
to bestow on them a crown of beauty
instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness
instead of mourning,
and a garment of praise
instead of a spirit of despair.
They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the LORD
for the display of his splendor.
4 They will rebuild the ancient ruins
and restore the places long devastated;
they will renew the ruined cities
that have been devastated for generations.
5 Aliens will shepherd your flocks;
foreigners will work your fields and vineyards.
6 And you will be called priests of the LORD,
you will be named ministers of our God.
You will feed on the wealth of nations,
and in their riches you will boast.
7 Instead of their shame
my people will receive a double portion,
and instead of disgrace
they will rejoice in their inheritance;
and so they will inherit a double portion in their land,
and everlasting joy will be theirs.
8 "For I, the LORD, love justice;
I hate robbery and iniquity.
In my faithfulness I will reward them
and make an everlasting covenant with them.
9 Their descendants will be known among the nations
and their offspring among the peoples.
All who see them will acknowledge
that they are a people the LORD has blessed."
10 I delight greatly in the LORD;
my soul rejoices in my God.
For he has clothed me with garments of salvation
and arrayed me in a robe of righteousness,
as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest,
and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the soil makes the sprout come up
and a garden causes seeds to grow,
so the Sovereign LORD will make righteousness and praise
spring up before all nations.

Who told you that Isaiah was talking about himself? Jesus said that this was about Him. Do you know better than Jesus??

All this written AFTER the fact by people with a political agenda. What does anointing mean?

The Apostles of Jesus Christ had a political agenda?

Anyway, the Apostles taught us that Jesus was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit. You said He was anointed by Mary with oil and perfume. I prefer the "agenda" of Christ's Apostles instead of your UNknown agenda.

So, you want to say that Jesus was anointed by himself with himself... does that make sense to you?

No, Jesus was anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son.

You mean , of course, listen to you, because only you, it seems speak for God.

No, I have quoted the Bible, and we have seen that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. I then called you to listen to what God says in His Word.

Now show a little humility and accept it.

Yes, indeed... You say Jesus was called "Christ" because Mary anointed Him with oil and perfume, while the Bible says that He is the Christ because GOD anointed Him with THE HOLY SPIRIT... And this shows that you do NOT know what God says in His Word, the Bible. I admit this...

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;45397217]
Prophets spoke the Word of God. God said it.

No, the prophets said it.

Yes, Joshua means YHWH-Savior. And Jesus was called by that Name, because He would save us from our sins, as God said it clearly. Joshua in the Old Testament was called with that name for another reason. In both cases, God saved His people. In the case of Jesus, God saved His people FROM THEIR SINS. It is mentioned clearly in the Bible.

Joshua doesn't mean YHWH. YHWY means I am that I am.

Because God said it in His Word, the Bible.

whatever.

Who told you that Isaiah was talking about himself? Jesus said that this was about Him. Do you know better than Jesus??

Isaiah said he was talking about himself.

The Apostles of Jesus Christ had a political agenda?

The Apostles (that is disciples) didn't write anything. Why would they? They wer convinced the end was near. They were too busy preaching. It was after 50 years that people who were followers of the Apostles began to write down their teachings... and yes, yes had an agenda.

Anyway, the Apostles taught us that Jesus was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit. You said He was anointed by Mary with oil and perfume. I prefer the "agenda" of Christ's Apostles instead of your UNknown agenda.

Whatyou prefer is really irrelevant, don't you thnk?

No, Jesus was anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son, and the Holy Spirit is not the Son.

I thought they were all ONE. Monotheism, remember?

No, I have quoted the Bible, and we have seen that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. I then called you to listen to what God says in His Word.

How did God anoint himself with himself? Isn't that rather disturbing to the idea of ONE God?

Yes, indeed... You say Jesus was called "Christ" because Mary anointed Him with oil and perfume, while the Bible says that He is the Christ because GOD anointed Him with THE HOLY SPIRIT... And this shows that you do NOT know what God says in His Word, the Bible. I admit this...

That is not even close to what I wrote... but go ahead and twist my words anyway that works for oyu.

 

[YAQUBOS]

I can not quote God, nor can any one else. I can speak the word of God, but that is not the same thing.

So your god is a silent god... And I know why.

I paraphrase your response: Faith has nothing to do with thinking or reason... it simply monkey see monkey do.

No, living faith is true wisdom.

Of course he was. Do you not know what the word Lord means, either?

I didn't say Solomon was not a lord. I said Solomon is not THE Lord. Solomon is NOT YHWH. And he is surely not the Lord OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

But you prefer to have humans as your lords instead of God alone.

No he didn't. The author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote that 50 years after Jesus died.

The WHOLE Bible says that Jesus is God with us. The Bible teaches that Jesus is God incarnated. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in the real Jesus, but you believe in a certain "Jesus" of your imagination.

Not the way you mean it. You mean that because it is his name then it is true, I have already pointed out that there are hundreds, thousands and probably even millions of Jesuses and Joshuas and their names don't make them anything.

But is Jesus God with us? That's the essential for me, because I am baptized in THAT Name, not in a certain human name like Joshua. Answer me clearly: Is Jesus God with us?

Yeah, you said read any copy, any translation any Canon... even the ones that say "Thou shall commit adultery".

No, I didn't say this. I said read the BIBLE in those copies. The Bible never says commit adultery!!!

Read Mark, Matthew, Luke or John... they all have the story of the only anointing Jesus gets. Mary does it and she anoints his feet (and in some interpretations, his hair) and Jesus acknowledges that it is his anointing for burial.

Yes, but what does this have to do with the reason of Him being called "Christ". Those same Books that you mentioned clearly say that Jesus was called Christ because He was anointed by GOD with the HOLY SPIRIT.

Who? The serpent or the dragon? The guy from Job or the guy that hung out with Jesus in the desert where Jesus neither ate or drank anything for 40 days...?

Satan.

Caesar?

Once again, you show that you are not reading the Bible. You asked this question when I quoted the following passage:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 )

Well, Caesar is not mentioned as the "god of this world" in the Bible. Let's see who is the "god of this world ( the worldly system of sin ) " according to the Bible:

"We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." ( 1 John 5:19 )

"and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one" ( Matthew 13:38 )

Let's see who is this "evil one" whose sons are the "tares" :

"You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." ( John 8:44 )

They are the children of the evil one, the devil.

Not once. There is that fallacy again that you can not and have not shown. Just one quote where he said that would sufficient. (I love how you use the word mention instead of he said it... leaves you a little wiggle room, doesn't it?)

Jesus said it clearly. And I have quoted Him in a detailed reply.

No. He mentions one thing in particular that Moses wrote.

And He says that what Moses wrote in Scripture is what God said.

NO. The Bible is clear that Jesus was conceived and born 2000 years ago. The Logos... now that is something different.

The Bible says that Jesus is God Almighty. Jesus said that He is God Almighty. And you say He is not...

oy.

May the Lord bless you richly!

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

No, the prophets said it.

God said it through His prophets.

Joshua doesn't mean YHWH. YHWY means I am that I am.

Yehoshua or YHWH Shua. Jehovah Savior. Are you really ignorant of this?

Isaiah said he was talking about himself.

Where did he say that?

The Apostles (that is disciples) didn't write anything. Why would they?

Here you throw a nonsense again without proving it. Actually, the Apostles wrote the New Testament Books.

They wer convinced the end was near. They were too busy preaching.

So busy preaching that they even preached by writing, right?

It was after 50 years that people who were followers of the Apostles began to write down their teachings... and yes, yes had an agenda.

Wow, is that the dream you had last night?

Whatyou prefer is really irrelevant, don't you thnk?

Well, what we prefer is very relevant, because it shows whom we trust: God or you?

I thought they were all ONE. Monotheism, remember?

No, they WERE not, they ARE one God. I don't see why you make this comment, as I never said that they are not one. But the fact is that THEY are one: The Father AND the Son AND the Holy Spirit are one God.

Now, the incarnated God, Jesus Christ, was anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit.

How did God anoint himself with himself? Isn't that rather disturbing to the idea of ONE God?

First of all, if you don't understand HOW, this doesn't mean that the Bible didn't say it. And as the Bible said that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit, then you are wrong when you say that He was called the Christ because Mary anointed Him with oil and perfume.

I never said that God anointed Himself with Himself. I quoted the Bible saying that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit. The Father anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit.

This is not disturbing to the truth of the ONE God, because the ONE God is Trinity.

That is not even close to what I wrote... but go ahead and twist my words anyway that works for oyu.

OK, I won't. Now tell me why Jesus was called the Christ? With what and by whom was He anointed?

YAQUBOS†

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Checking in... picking self off floor and wiping away tears of laughter...

For some reason I'm seeing the posts out of order -- some of the replies appear before the post they're replying to. Weird. But more worrying is the fact that it doesn't detract much from the coherence of some of the arguments...

Yehoshua or YHWH Shua. Jehovah Savior. Are you really ignorant of this?

Uuuuhhhh... so despite the fact that the name YHWH was too holy to write or utter (so that it was replaced in the texts by more acceptable titles like "Lord Almighty"), the human leader Joshua (of "brass band + Jericho = massive smitage" fame) was given the name "YHWH Savior" by his human parents. Right. Sure. That wouldn't have been considered, say, massively blasphemous or anything.

Ooooor... maybe the name Joshua, being *derived* from "YHWH Savior" was a perfectly normal, common Hebrew name taken to mean "the Lord [YHWH] saves" (or variant thereof -- "YHWH is the savior" etc etc). It was given to a kid who later sacked Jericho; it was given to a kid who later was executed for sedition and was claimed to have risen from the dead as proof of his messianic identity; it was probably also given to a kid who died penniless and obscure after tending goats all his life; and to a kid who turned into a despised tax collector; and .... So, which one was the Christ? All of them?

Seriously, how can you base an argument on what title and/or name someone bestows on you? Do you crib your arguments from The Life of Brian or something? (Brian: "I'm not the Messiah!", Follower: "I say you are, Lord, and I should know: I've followed a few")

Here you throw a nonsense again without proving it. Actually, the Apostles wrote the New Testament Books.

Shiny shiny mirror you have there, Yaqubos. Perhaps you'd like to prove that nonsense you're throwing? I mean, I know there are still some scholars who believe that, but I think both of them got their "degrees" from Liberty University's Theological Indoctrination School of Fundie Brainwashing.

Wow, is that the dream you had last night?

What, that the gospels were written at least 50 years after the events they described? Or that the writers had an agenda? Oh wait, never mind -- either way that's what the standard scholarship shows. In the latter case, it's just plain obvious. Of course they had an agenda. At very least, it was to make Christianity palatable to a world that viewed them with suspicion.

Well, what we prefer is very relevant, because it shows whom we trust: God or you?

Or God or you? Or God or Bob down the road. Or you or the Dalai Lama. Or KCDAD or Kermit the smegging Frog. Please stop with the false dichotomies already. How can you not see that all your arguments go both ways? Get this through your skull: you do not have a monopoly on God. You do not have a monopoly on Truth.

Every time you say that you are preaching the Word of God, you are just wasting perfectly good air, because you have no actual proof of that, and KCDAD and I (and Kermit the Frog, for that matter) can make exactly the same claim.

Watch: God told me that only those who paint their arses purple on a Thursday will go to Heaven. Everyone else will have sausages shoved up their noses for eternity. There. See how easy it is to claim any nonsense? And please understand that you can't disprove that statement. Go ahead, quote the Bible. I'll just claim that you're interpreting it wrong. Or that your Bible is the work of Satan and I in fact have the only true Bible. Say that I'm talking gibberish. I'll just claim that that's because you refuse to accept the truth which is foolishness to the unrighteous, but wisdom to those who are willing to listen to the Word of God (which, of course, I'm preaching).

Please please please understand that this is as good as -- and often equivalent to -- the argument you are making: essentially "I am right because God said so".

If your arguments have any validity (which they should since, no doubt, they are God's arguments) then they should stand on their own merit without having to resort to "God said so". Every time you do that, I see an admission that you don't have an argument that can stand scrutiny.

Now tell me why Jesus was called the Christ?

Because people thought he was the Messiah. So what? If I call you the Boston Strangler, does that make it so? What if everyone does?

And, while we're at it, can you show me video footage of Jesus being called the Christ, or calling himself that, at the time? And, no, the gospels don't count. That's precisely what KCDAD's trying to get you to see: they were written later. Even if they were written by Jesus' direct followers, shortly after his resurrection, it was still after everything had happened. After they had worked out what was going on. The understanding of Jesus' Messianic role wasn't understood until after the resurrection, so the gospel writers must have been writing from that perspective. Knowing how the story ends colors your recollection of events.

With what and by whom was He anointed?

Interesting question, but ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He was "anointed" (in a sense) by his followers, who declared him to be the Christ. The key point is that the records we have were written later and present a picture of the mythologized (in the correct, technical sense of the word) Jesus. They are, therefore, a statement of faith, not history. Hence, they prove nothing beyond what the writers believed to be true. So who cares that a gospel says angel X said Y to person Z?* Unless the writer was there at the time and wrote done Y, all we have is a theological testament of the writer, and, furthermore, one created after the fact.

All this, of course, is predicated on certain beliefs about the nature of scripture. Beliefs that you will reject outright. That's fine, but don't claim you can disprove them, because you can't. And quoting more scripture in an attempt to do so just goes to prove that you can't grasp the concept of begging the question.

You can't be a member of a Gathering ( ) of Christians until you are baptized. So how were you baptized in a church?

Classic Yaqubos. Really, someone should be collating these for posterity. Apart from being spectacular hair-splitting, this is just poor logic. If you want to split frog hair seven ways (and apparently you do), note that he said "in" a church, not "as part of". You can be in the midst of a gathering of Christians whether you yourself are one or not; there's no requirement to be a member already. Hence, KCDAD is quite correct, by your own logic (and I use the word painfully loosely), that he was "in" a gathering of Christians who baptized him (and which he then, presumably, joined afterwards). No contradiction there.

But more importantly, this claim contradicts your whole stance on baptism being necessary IN but not FOR salvation. You said earlier that, although you don't have to be baptized to be saved, if you have been truly saved, you'll then be baptized. That implies you are already a Christian (or, at least, can be) before being baptized. But you've just said you can't be! For the love of pointy puce potatoes, Yaqubos, which is it?! You really are just making it up as you go along, aren't you? [Aaaand cue the semantic tapdance...:]


*Well, actually, plenty of us care, of course. But not for the reasons you are using these verses.

 

[YAQUBOS]

Uuuuhhhh... so despite the fact that the name YHWH was too holy to write or utter (so that it was replaced in the texts by more acceptable titles like "Lord Almighty"), the human leader Joshua (of "brass band + Jericho = massive smitage" fame) was given the name "YHWH Savior" by his human parents. Right. Sure. That wouldn't have been considered, say, massively blasphemous or anything.

Not at all Those who considered it blasphemous to call the Name of the Lord came later and were not encouraged by God.

Ooooor... maybe the name Joshua, being *derived* from "YHWH Savior" was a perfectly normal, common Hebrew name taken to mean "the Lord [YHWH] saves" (or variant thereof -- "YHWH is the savior" etc etc). It was given to a kid who later sacked Jericho; it was given to a kid who later was executed for sedition and was claimed to have risen from the dead as proof of his messianic identity; it was probably also given to a kid who died penniless and obscure after tending goats all his life; and to a kid who turned into a despised tax collector; and .... So, which one was the Christ? All of them?

I don't have anything to do with the ones who are not mentioned in the Bible. Their parents may think whatever they want while calling them.

As for the Bible, it doesn't say that Joshua saved his people from sin. The one who saved His people from sin is Jesus Christ, and He was called Jesus because He saved His people from sin, as the Bible clearly says.

Seriously, how can you base an argument on what title and/or name someone bestows on you? Do you crib your arguments from The Life of Brian or something? (Brian: "I'm not the Messiah!", Follower: "I say you are, Lord, and I should know: I've followed a few")

I said it many times: I am not following arguments intelligently made. I follow the Word of God and I preach it:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, "This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased"--
and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts." ( 2 Peter 1:16-19 )

Pay attention to what God says in His Word, not to what human cleverly devised tales say.

Shiny shiny mirror you have there, Yaqubos. Perhaps you'd like to prove that nonsense you're throwing? I mean, I know there are still some scholars who believe that, but I think both of them got their "degrees" from Liberty University's Theological Indoctrination School of Fundie Brainwashing.

Read the Bible and you will know.
Read the cleverly devised tales and you will not know anymore.

What, that the gospels were written at least 50 years after the events they described? Or that the writers had an agenda? Oh wait, never mind -- either way that's what the standard scholarship shows. In the latter case, it's just plain obvious. Of course they had an agenda. At very least, it was to make Christianity palatable to a world that viewed them with suspicion.

Wow, what a dream...

Well, the Bible disagrees with you. And as the Bible is the Word of God, so I prefer to listen to it rather than you...

Or God or you? Or God or Bob down the road. Or you or the Dalai Lama. Or KCDAD or Kermit the smegging Frog. Please stop with the false dichotomies already. How can you not see that all your arguments go both ways? Get this through your skull: you do not have a monopoly on God. You do not have a monopoly on Truth.

No, I don't. The Bible, and not me, is the Word of God, the truth.

Every time you say that you are preaching the Word of God, you are just wasting perfectly good air, because you have no actual proof of that, and KCDAD and I (and Kermit the Frog, for that matter) can make exactly the same claim.

To make a claim is one thing, and to make Jesus agree with your claim is another thing.

Jesus said that the Bible is the Word of God. When you preach what the Bible says, you preach the Word of God.

Watch: God told me that only those who paint their arses purple on a Thursday will go to Heaven. Everyone else will have sausages shoved up their noses for eternity. There. See how easy it is to claim any nonsense?

Yes, it is easy. Now to the difficult part: Quote the Word of God about what you just said

And please understand that you can't disprove that statement. Go ahead, quote the Bible. I'll just claim that you're interpreting it wrong. Or that your Bible is the work of Satan and I in fact have the only true Bible. Say that I'm talking gibberish.

You really need to read the Bible. You don't know what you are talking about. The Word of God is much more powerful than these human speculations.

I'll just claim that that's because you refuse to accept the truth which is foolishness to the unrighteous, but wisdom to those who are willing to listen to the Word of God (which, of course, I'm preaching).

You can't claim anything that you cannot prove from the Bible. And, interestingly, you just used a truth from the Bible to prove your point...

Please please please understand that this is as good as -- and often equivalent to -- the argument you are making: essentially "I am right because God said so".

My argument is not that at all. I am always saying that I am NOT right, because God is right.

Read carefully.

If your arguments have any validity (which they should since, no doubt, they are God's arguments) then they should stand on their own merit without having to resort to "God said so".

On the contrary: If they are God's arguments, then what makes them valid is that they are said by God.

Every time you do that, I see an admission that you don't have an argument that can stand scrutiny.

No, I don't. But God has the truth that can stand any attack of your poor human fallible mind.

Because people thought he was the Messiah.

And why is the Messiah the Messiah. What does "Messiah" mean?

So what? If I call you the Boston Strangler, does that make it so? What if everyone does?

Unless GOD calls me... God doesn't do mistakes like you.

And, while we're at it, can you show me video footage of Jesus being called the Christ, or calling himself that, at the time? And, no, the gospels don't count.

The Word of God counts.

And historical documents say that He was called Christ.

That's precisely what KCDAD's trying to get you to see: they were written later.

Author: God who doesn't do mistakes.

Even if they were written by Jesus' direct followers, shortly after his resurrection, it was still after everything had happened.

Yes, everything had in fact HAPPENED.

By the way, the Old Testament was written before that "everything" happened.

After they had worked out what was going on.

Make up your mind: "happened"? Or "worked out"?

The understanding of Jesus' Messianic role wasn't understood until after the resurrection, so the gospel writers must have been writing from that perspective.

Oh, what a dream...

Anyway, the Bible says that the followers of Jesus Christ believed that He is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that Jesus Christ said it is true:

"He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." ( Matthew 16:15-17 )

Ah, so it seems it is not something worked out by flesh and blood...

Knowing how the story ends colors your recollection of events.

Ah, yes, that's your dream... OK.

Interesting question, but ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He was "anointed" (in a sense) by his followers, who declared him to be the Christ.

The Bible says He was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit.

I believe the Bible rather than you.

The key point is that the records we have were written later and present a picture of the mythologized (in the correct, technical sense of the word) Jesus. They are, therefore, a statement of faith, not history. Hence, they prove nothing beyond what the writers believed to be true.

The Old Testament was written before the birth of Jesus Christ. It clearly says with what and by whom the Christ would be anointed...

I don't believe how much you are ignorant about what the Bible says... Please, read the Bible.

So who cares that a gospel says angel X said Y to person Z?* Unless the writer was there at the time and wrote done Y, all we have is a theological testament of the writer, and, furthermore, one created after the fact.

You are talking about this dream very much...

All this, of course, is predicated on certain beliefs about the nature of scripture. Beliefs that you will reject outright. That's fine, but don't claim you can disprove them, because you can't. And quoting more scripture in an attempt to do so just goes to prove that you can't grasp the concept of begging the question.

I know how much the Word of God is powerful.

Classic Yaqubos.

What an honor! Once I have a thread entitled by my name, and now I also have a style called by my name...

Really, someone should be collating these for posterity. Apart from being spectacular hair-splitting, this is just poor logic. If you want to split frog hair seven ways (and apparently you do), note that he said "in" a church, not "as part of". You can be in the midst of a gathering of Christians whether you yourself are one or not; there's no requirement to be a member already. Hence, KCDAD is quite correct, by your own logic (and I use the word painfully loosely), that he was "in" a gathering of Christians who baptized him (and which he then, presumably, joined afterwards). No contradiction there.

And who was talking about a contradiction? We were discussing how I am baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. I asked how he could be baptized in a church, because I wanted to clarify to him the truth of the Holy Spirit. Do you mind that? That question was not addressed to you, so don't worry.

But more importantly, this claim contradicts your whole stance on baptism being necessary IN but not FOR salvation. You said earlier that, although you don't have to be baptized to be saved, if you have been truly saved, you'll then be baptized. That implies you are already a Christian (or, at least, can be) before being baptized.

Yes, MAY be a Christian. But not all "may be"s are really part of the Church of Christ.

But you've just said you can't be!

Where did I say that? I said you can't be part of the visible Church until you are baptized.

Anyway, it seems you didn't follow the idea that I was following with KCDAD. Make sure you do that before you talk about it.

For the love of pointy puce potatoes, Yaqubos, which is it?! You really are just making it up as you go along, aren't you? [Aaaand cue the semantic tapdance...:]

I am telling you what the Bible teaches about baptism. Do you mind it?

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

YAQUBOS;45515115

as the Bible clearly says.



the Word of God and I preach it:


to what God says in His Word

the Bible is the Word of God,


The Bible, and not me, is the Word of God, the truth.


Jesus said that the Bible is the Word of God. When you preach what the Bible says, you preach the Word of God.

Quote the Word of God


The Word of God is

(You can't claim anything that you cannot prove from the Bible. And, interestingly, you just used a truth from the Bible to prove your point... )

God is right.


On the contrary: If they are God's arguments, then what makes them valid is that they are said by God.

Mighty BIG if, there.

God has the truth


God doesn't do mistakes

Like animals created before man... I mean afterwards because i already created man and he needs a companion?

The Word of God




Author: God who doesn't do mistakes.

Like creating man and then having to make different covenants because the the first one didn't work? To create the Garden of Eden and then kick man out because God's creation didn't live up to God's expectations?

the Bible says



The Bible says

I believe the Bible

Please, read the Bible.



the Word of God is

You seem to keep saying this as if you have some secret knowledge about The Bible. We have shown to you over and over again that your claims about Word of God and The Bible being the same are just plain FALSE. Although you can' t seem to understand this, it is certainly clear to ANYONE who is a Christian that Jesus is the The Word of God referred to by John, and when the prophets talk about the word of God, they are talking about what they are saying... not all the narrative stuff surrounding their messages. It is the message! Angels (messengers) brings God's word to man. Angels are not 6 winged creatures of another planet... they are human beings like Isaiah, Elijah Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa and Gandhi.
God's word is not anything other the words of truth we need to hear to survive on this planet as a species... MANKIND can not live by bread alone but by the word of God.

What an honor! Once I have a thread entitled by my name, and now I also have a style called by my name...

I am not surprised you see self glory in all this.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Do you also want to teach God how to speak??

No, there should be no need. That's my point.

It's your problem if you don't understand God.

Yes, and my problem is that I'll go to hell for all eternity (according to you, at least) for something I couldn't do, but not for lack of honest and good intent. That's unjust. I might as well beat my dog for not being able to read Dostoevsky.

If I kicked you in the head every time you did something I didn't want, you would certainly -- and totally justifiably -- call me cruel, capricious, sadistic -- all sorts of epithets -- if I didn't, at very least, make it completely clear what I wanted first. So why do you hold me to a higher standard than God? Is your God incapable of being clear? If so, your God is not powerful. If not, why hasn't He been clearer? To leave so much to interpretation is ingenuous at best. And since God surely can't be ingenuous, that means God is unjust.

Now, before you fail once again to grasp simple logic, let me be clear: I do not actually believe God is unclear or unjust. This is argument by reductio ad absurdum -- the above conclusion is absurd (God being unjust or impotent), so the logical inference is that the assumption -- that the Bible is the literal and inerrant Word of God -- is fallacious. If instead I assume that the Bible is the work of Man trying to understand God, the problem disappears. Ergo, it makes more sense to believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired work of Man, rather than the dictated Word of God.

The passages are more than clear.

Then why don't all Christians agree on them? (Let me guess: you have a No True Scotsman fallacy ready to go here, don't you?) We soon get back to the same problem as with hell, salvation, etc. God really doesn't seem to have thought the plan through very well if so many honest and well-intentioned people are so easily capable of getting it wrong and suffering the infinitely unpalatable consequences.

God wants you to listen to HIM, and not to some passages or sentences that He says. People don't understand God, because they don't develope a personal relationship with Him through His Word.

Wow, nicely done: contradicting yourself in the space of two sentences. Sentence 1: I should listen to God directly, not rely on the Bible. This, naturally, raises the question: how do I get to know God so I can listen to Him? Which you've thoughtfully answered in sentence 2: by reading the Bible. Oh great, thanks, that really helps!

They want to listen to God just as a "by the way". God doesn't want that. God wants you to listen to Him carefully. He is not giving you only a scientific information or CNN news in the Bible. He is SPEAKING. He is TALKING to you. Learn to listen.

Again you assume much too much, and create another false dichotomy. I am perfectly capable of listening. That is not disproven by my coming to a different conclusion to you. (Well, unless, you are actually God, of course. You certainly act that way even though you claim to deny it.)

And who said that God doesn't want those who do not want to obey Him to stay in confusion as long as they don't want to listen to Him and live?

Not who, what: the logical conclusion of the assumption that God's Word is crystal clear and available to everyone, plus the simple observation that not everyone comes to the same conclusions about God. Ergo, some must be wrong, ergo an omniscient omnipotent God must have allowed that situation to occur.

On the contrary, He clearly says that those who do not follow Him will walk in DARKNESS.

Yes, but you believe that of many people who DO want to follow. That, if it were true, would be grossly unjust.

It is not up to fallible humans to interpret. Only God can interpret His Word. So listen to Him humbly.

OK, I did. He said, and I quote, "Yaqubos has got it all wrong". Now what?

Don't you see that your stance is utterly unhelpful? It requires third-party information that can't be bilaterally verified. We end up with "I say God says X", "But I say God says Y". The result is a "discussion" that's puerile even by playground standards: "is too/is not/is too/is not/..."

Yes, and the "Name" is not just a word. That's why you see the prophets giving the Messiah many names, and all those names ( titles ) are the same Name.

Would you like some dressing to go on your word salad?

As much as I can glean any meaning from that bit of convoluted verbiage, all you've produced is a complete cop-out: any "prophet" can give the Messiah any "name" he likes, they're all "the same Name". Using your argument, I might as well say:

Gertrude 7:23 says that the Messiah will be called Martin. Martin means warlike. Jesus said that he came to bring a sword. Whoa, Gertrude was bang on the money! Amazing! Jesus is indeed Martin.

Doesn't make for much of a test, does it? Any "prophet" can give the Messiah any name at all.

Thank you for admitting that they cannot be applied to anyone else.

Thank you for showing how utterly intellectually and/or morally bankrupt you are. It is quite clear that I said no such thing. I said that those titles were applied to Jesus, not that they had to be.

Try to apply them to anyone else, and let's see.

KCDAD has already tried to show you that this can be done. But when he did, you completely got the wrong end of the stick and accused him of worshiping humans and all sorts of other nonsense. Which makes me wonder: are you being ingenuous or disingenuous? I can't actually tell, but I'm worried that it might be the latter.

Who told you so? The Bible clearly says that Jesus was called Emmanuel.

Why should I believe you -- you're the Boston Strangler, remember?

No, He was called Christ What do you say? Is He called Jesus or Christ?

You really don't know what "Name" means...

You really love these semantic hair-splitting arguments, don't you? What's the point of it? His name was Jesus. He was given the title of the Christ by his followers (after the fact). So what? Oh, and ditto for Emmanuel and all the rest of them. So what?

Jesus said He is Emmanuel, the Prince of Peace, Almighty God.

As they say in wiki-land: citation needed.

As long as the "prophecies" of Nostradamus are not the Word of God, so I don't see any comparison.

You wouldn't, would you. OK, let's try again:

The Bible is a written text. The prophecies of Nostradamus is a written text. The Quran is a written text. One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish is a written text. I can claim that any of them is the Word of God. Or Allah. Or Thor. Or Kermit the Frog. There is no proof of that claim. However, IF I can show that OFTFRFBF predicts, say, Al Gore winning the Nobel Prize, I might have a case that its author has knowledge beyond the human realm. Maybe it is even the Word of God/Allah/Thor/Kermit/whomever. However, I can't point to some other part of OFTFRFBF as proof that it did make that prediction correctly. Nor can I point to the bit about riding on Mr Gump's Whump; no matter how much interpretation I put on it, Al Gore is not called Mr Gump, even if an opponent of his once mocked his lugubrious manner by referring to him as Forrest Gump. See? You can always twist the words around to make a case for just about anything. But anyone with a brain in their head would laugh and say something like "OFTFRFBF is just a children's story, you dolt, and the name Mr Gump was chosen to rhyme with bump -- there is no way on earth it refers to Al Gore's Nobel Prize."

The important point (which you'll probably try to overlook and focus instead on the minutiae of the example) is that you can find "prophecies" in just about anything if you're willing to do enough interpreting.

Furthermore, you can do extremely well prophecy-wise with enough poetry, allusion, generality, etc. The Messiah would be called "God is with us". Uh, yeah, probably. Seeing as the Messiah is, by definition, the anointed of God, that's not really going out much on a limb there. Same deal with Nostradamus. All that "the empire of the eagle will burn under the light of the sun" type of waffle -- it could mean anything and be applied to anyone. A lot of nations used the eagle as an emblem in some way, so it's a safe bet; the sun is a common mythological symbol. Plenty of astrologers have gone over the charts of Hitler, Elvis, the day Lady Di died, etc etc. Amazingly they find that Hitler's chart shows the potential for being a prick. But where are the astrologers that can predict Di's death, specifically, before it happens? Name one instance where someone interpreted Nostradamus prior to the event. Well, guess what? There's no contemporary record of someone making specific predictions about Jesus as a child (or before). In fact, there's no contemporary record about him at all. Only ones written after the fact. None of the ones written prior are specific enough to be unambiguous.

God said that this prophecy is about Jesus Christ. Now, if you want to object to that, I wish you be more practical and show us to whom these prophecies apply other than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. OK? Go ahead.

Oh that's too easy: the coming Messiah. Prove me wrong. Go ahead.

If I get really bored one day, and can be bothered wasting my time, I may pick a random historical character and see what I can do with it. But what's the point? You won't accept what I write anyway, so it would only be an exercise in self-amusement.

On the contrary. I always insist on the fact that NO human can interpret the Bible, and believe me, I am a human.

Glad you clarified.

I only accept the interpretation of GOD ALONE. God said that those prophecies are about Jesus Christ.

When did God say this? To whom? Were there witnesses? A record? Otherwise, it's just your word about God's word. Not exactly a compelling argument. I mean, you should hear the story I heard about my brother's coworker's hairdresser's sister...

You can criticize me as much as you want, and I like it. But you can't criticize the Word of God.

Then show it to me and prove that it's the Word of God. You can't so this is just more wasted breath.

God is your Creator, and you need to humble yourself before Him.

As do you. And why bother telling something I already know? The simple fact that you cannot distinguish between an argument against you and an argument against God shows exactly who most needs to humble themselves.

The Bible is not words of humans that we are trying to see if they are logical. The Bible is the Word of God. And God may tell you things that your little brain cannot get, and that you need to accept by faith because they are the truth that you cannot discover by yourself as a fallen human.

So then why do you say that we can't just read the Bible? Why do we have to listen to God's interpretation? If the Bible is the actual Word of God (to Man), it should be crystal clear. It should be able to speak to all people in all places at all times without human interference or corruption. That hasn't happened, so...

And I don't say that I should be able to understand everything. But I should not have to accept that which is illogical. If God is logical, then God is not illogical and logic can therefore at least test some claims about God. If God is not logical, well, then we have many other problems to deal with.

Yes, that would be nice for you who are not being able to bear my uncompromising preaching of the Word of God. I know how much the Word of God is POWERFUL.

Once again conflating yourself and God, I see. I agree that the Word of God is powerful (POWERFUL, even). Your arguments are not. Claiming that they are because you insist on conflating yourself with God is just hubris of the highest degree. What we "are not able to bear" is your insufferable arrogance, not your unanswerable wisdom.

 

[KCDAD]

Quote:
I only accept the interpretation of GOD ALONE. God said that those prophecies are about Jesus Christ.

When did God say this? To whom? Were there witnesses? A record? Otherwise, it's just your word about God's word.

Is there a source from God OUTSIDE of The Bible that claims this about The Bible? Or is this merely " Martha says that Martha never lies" so Martha is telling the truth?