Religion - I am A?

[ijohn57s]

Independent Baptist

[ijohn57s]

I know different preachers that say different things

(Might as well open up this can of worms also!)….We say, “I baptize you in the name of Jesus Christ.”
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No one specific statement is the only correct one. That's what our pastor says. It comes from Romans 6:4. That's all I was saying.

[ijohn57s]

Below you will find links defending the King James Version of the Bible. They answer questions about “mistranslations” and “errors.”

http://jesus-is-lord.com/best.htm
http://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefns.htm
http://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefen.htm This is an online book.
http://av1611.org/kjv/easter.html About Easter in the KJV
http://av1611.org/kjv/kjvpubs.html Links on the subject
http://av1611.org/kjv/fight.html
http://av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html
http://biblebelievers.com/DNorris_oneword1.html
http://biblebelievers.com/Branson_KJV1.html
http://biblebelievers.com/KJV1.htm
http://biblebelievers.com/Hyles1.html

[ijohn57s]

No one specific statement is the only correct one.

I don't believe that to be the case.  Although I don't feel it is a salvational issue, I do believe there are multiple reasons why "Jesus" is the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

You're right that it's not a salvational issue. The importance of baptism is that it is an outward expression of faith. I think whatever is said should reflect that, but, I don't believe that it matters exactly what is said.

[ijohn57s]

www.jesus-is-lord.com is the site Josh took that disgusting image from, which is classified by man internet filters as a hate site. today at work I actually tested the filter and found out that that site is in fact blocked and classified as hate speech.

I know that is has been classified as such. She states that it has been deemed "hate speech" by some. But, some people call opinions that they don't agree with as "hate speech." One example would be the prolific use of the name "homophobe."

[ijohn57s]

Below you will find links defending the King James Version of the Bible. They answer questions about “mistranslations” and “errors.”

Look, those web sites are basically claiming that we should believe as an article of faith that God commissioned the KJV and placed his holy stamp upon it....as if they are even offended that someone would dare to question the accuracy of the KJV.

We are instructed by God's own word to "Test everything" (1Thes 5:21), so why should we take the accuracy of the KJV as a "given", why not view the accuracy of the KJV with a grain of salt?

That's exactly what I'm asking you to do. I have provided these links to present our side of the issue to whoever is willing to read them. Ultimately, I will answer to God for the decisions that I make on the issue, and you will answer to him for yours. You don't have to agree with me. I don't have to agree with you. God gives us all free choice. It's our decision as to what we do with it.

[ijohn57s]

That's exactly what I'm asking you to do. I have provided these links to present our side of the issue to whoever is willing to read them. Ultimately, I will answer to God for the decisions that I make on the issue, and you will answer to him for yours. You don't have to agree with me. I don't have to agree with you. God gives us all free choice. It's our decision as to what we do with it.

OK, without me having to thumb through all the sites you listed, can you please explain the "Easter" interpretation of Acts 12:4 and the Trinity passage in 1John 5:7 no one ever heard of before the 16th century?

OK. Two links. One for Easter and one for I John 5:7.

Easter-- http://av1611.org/kjv/easter.html
I John 5:7-- http://jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

They'll explain it better than I could myself.

[ijohn57s]

OK. Two links. One for Easter and one for I John 5:7.

Easter-- http://av1611.org/kjv/easter.html
I John 5:7-- http://jesus-is-lord.com/1john57.htm

They'll explain it better than I could myself.

Well, let's just look at Easter in Acts 12:4.  Here is the website argument of the Passover occuring prior to the days of unleavened bread: "Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. "

So, when the scripture reads "3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Easter (same word as Passover). "....the website assumes that Passover is a separate feast from the days of unleavened bread so that the day being referenced in 12:4 must be Easter and not the Passover since the Passover occurs prior to the days of unleavened bread.

Here is the error that the website makes:  Even though they are correct that Passover comes before the 7 days of unleaven bread, they fail to realize that the Passover is part of the feast of unleaven bread, in fact it is the event that kicks off the days of unleaven bread.  Which is why the Passover supper includes unleavened bread.

The relationship between the Passover and the days of unleavened bread are analogous to the kick-off of the Super Bowl in relation to the game itself.

So, Acts 12:3-4 could easily read:  "Herod saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Super Bowl. 4After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Kick-Off. "

The website is trying to make us believe the kick-off is referring to next week's Pro-Bowl instead of the kick-off of the Super Bowl.  But the ProBowl isn't even in the context of the story, not to mention that Harod would have no reason what soever to wait until after Easter since the Jews didn't care about Easter and considered it a pagan holiday!!!

---

The fact that the bible considers the Passover as part of the days of unleavened bread is easily provable:

Mark 14:1 “Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him.”

So, if the Passover is not part of the feast of unleavened bread, then the Passover and the Feast can’t BOTH be “two days away.”

---

And just to add the final nails in coffin proving that the Passover is considered part of the Feast of Unleavened Bread:

Luke 2:41
Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover.

Luke 22:1
Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching,

Luke 22:7
Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed.

Yes it is true that the Passover is part of the feast of unleavened bread. But the passover was at the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread. In Exodus 12, we find the the event of the Passover took place during the first night of the feast. So, therefore, it could be during the the feast and after the passover.

Also, the article does agree with you that Easter in Acts 12:4 is not the Passover.

[ijohn57s]

Also, the article does agree with you that Easter in Acts 12:4 is not the Passover.

The article does NOT agree with me since I do believe Acts 12:4 is indeed referring to the Passover, not Easter.

---

Yes it is true that the Passover is part of the feast of unleavened bread. But the passover was at the beginning of the feast of unleavened bread. In Exodus 12, we find the the event of the Passover took place during the first night of the feast. So, therefore, it could be during the the feast and after the passover.

You don't translate the exact same word 26 times the exact same way and then translate it differently the 27th time just because "it could be".  Don't you think there were separate Greek words for Passover and Easter?

Luke 2:41 & 22:1,7 make it clear that the term Passover was loosely synonymous with the entire Feast of Unleavened Bread.  And the same writer that wrote the book of Luke also wrote the book of Acts, so it is no surprise that he continued to loosely refer to the Feast as the Passover....there is ZERO justification for changing the translation in Acts 12:4.

Again, Herod was waiting to put Peter on trial after Passover because doing so on Passover would have ruffled the feathers of the Jews.  There would have been absolutely no purpose in waiting until after "Easter" because the Jews didn't care about Easter.

The KJV version is clearly wrong on Acts 12:4, so stop holding it up as if it the translation itself was commissioned by God.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I misread what you wrote. But as for the translation, I stand by it. I do believe it was commissioned by God and that He led the translators to translate it as Easter in this one instance.

You don't have to agree with me. I don't want to force you to agree with me. I don't think I'm going to convince you. I know you won't convince me. How about this: let's just agree to disaree. I'm don't hold anything personal over disagreements.

[ijohn57s]

kind of a way of inducting your kids into the faith. that's why we do it on infants. But of course they can decide later when they're older.

If the child has no understanding of sin or of the faith, what is the point?