Religion - I am A?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

if you're talking about contraception, I agree with you. The Catholics are full of crap in that area. But abortion isn't mentioned in the NT either, and Paul's the only one who complains about homosexuality.

No, the bible doesn’t mention abortion, but it does present the fetus as a “baby” in the process of being shaped by God and being able to respond to God’s will and word.

As for the orientation thingy, it is also mentioned by Moses three times (once in Sodom before the Law was given and twice in the Law) and Peter once (in his reference of Sodom in 2Pet).  Paul himself mentions it at least twice (1Cor 6 and Rom 2)…the bible is completely uniform on the subject.

---

1) God is an invisible spirit
2) There is only one God.
3) God is the creator of the universe.
4) God is omnipresent (he fills the universe), therefore he has the ability to be on earth in the body of Jesus Christ while, at the same exact time, be reigning in Heaven
5) Jesus is God “manifested” in the flesh (1Tim 3:16) and is the exact representation of the image of God’s “being” or “person” (Heb 1:3).
6) Jesus Christ is omni-present (Eph 4:10)
7) Jesus Christ is the creator of the universe (Heb 1:10).
8 ) Believers in Jesus receive ONLY one spirit (1Cor 12:11,13; Eph 2:18, 4:4)
9) The identity of the Holy Spirit is simply God’s spirit, they are synonymous, there is absolutely no difference. (Rom 8:9)
10) The identity of the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Jesus Christ, they are synonymous, there is absolutely no difference. (Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6)

well I can't say I disagree with any of those.

That's because my interpretation of scripture, contrary to the opinion of most on this forum, is actually quite moderate.

[Josh/Devilman88]

This is on babies being baptist... (ijohn wrote it)

In Acts 8, we find the story of Philip preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch. Acts 8:36-38 says this: "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch saud, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." (emphasis mine)
 
Romans 6:3-4 says, "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
 
I don't know what your pastor might say at a baptismal service, (I know different preachers that say different things) but our pastor says this: "I now baptize you my brother (or sister, as the case may be) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, buried with Him in the likeness of his death, raised again to the newness of life."
 
Baptism is a outward sign of our inward faith in Christ. By being baptized, we are demonstrating that we are putting our faith in Jesus' death and resurrection to wash away our sin.
 
Obviously, a baby does not understand the concept of sin, and therefore cannot be "saved," per se. (I do believe that children who die before reaching the age of accountability go to Heaven, though.) Baptism of a baby, therefore, cannot be symbolic of their faith in Christ.
 
Also, I'll throw this in extra. Sprinkling, as would be done to baptize a baby would not be symbolic of what Paul said baptism is. Baptism by immersion symbolizes Christ's burial. When's the last time you saw someone buried by having dirt sprinkled on them? It's obviously not done that way. So, baptism, by immersion is an outward symbol of a believer of their faith in Jesus Christ.
 
Also, I think that no discussion of baptism would be complete without this statement. I'm sure you already this, but, baptism does not play any part in the actual event of being saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works lest any man should boast."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Also, I'll throw this in extra. Sprinkling, as would be done to baptize a baby would not be symbolic of what Paul said baptism is. Baptism by immersion symbolizes Christ's burial.

Looks like we agree on something.  In fact, immersion used to be the only method of baptism in the Catholic church until they started baptizing (and drowning) babies.

---

I don't know what your pastor might say at a baptismal service, (I know different preachers that say different things) but our pastor says this: "I now baptize you my brother (or sister, as the case may be) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, buried with Him in the likeness of his death, raised again to the newness of life."

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

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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 whatsoever to wait until after Easter since the Jews didn't give a flip 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.

[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.

[Brambila]

Catholics certainly don't pray to Mary in the way we pray to God. Rather, we ask Mary for prayers-- just like how I ask a fellow Christian for prayers.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[??????????]

Their is no need for infants to be baptised as they do not have any sin. Original sin is one of the biggest frauds the church has ever put forward.

[WalterMitty]

i guess now all of yall understand the crap i have to put up with here in nc.

i wish the fundies would stop pushing their crazy ideas on everyone.

maybe i should move up north.

[Josh/Devilman88]

i guess now all of yall understand the crap i have to put up with here in nc.

i wish the fundies would stop pushing their crazy ideas on everyone.

maybe i should move up north.

Crazy ideas?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Their is no need for infants to be baptised as they do not have any sin. Original sin is one of the biggest frauds the church has ever put forward.

I agree that original sin is a load of crap, however most of us liberal-to-mainline Protestants don't see baptism as the same way fundies and Catholics do, but rather as something more symbolic than anything else.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Their is no need for infants to be baptised as they do not have any sin. Original sin is one of the biggest frauds the church has ever put forward.

I agree that original sin is a load of crap, however most of us liberal-to-mainline Protestants don't see baptism as the same way fundies and Catholics do, but rather as something more symbolic than anything else.

How do you see baptism? I see it as a symbol, showing an inward change. I also believe you don't need to be baptized to go to heaven.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

Oh ok

[Brambila]

They baptized whole families- Men, women, children, and probably infants- in ACts 16. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized. .