Religion - I am A?

[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?

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

"Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins"

[W in 2004]

I am a Southern Baptist.

The most Consv. Christian Group on the Face of Earth

Then how do you explain Al Gore?  I am pretty sure he is a southern Baptist.

I think all of the following are some type of Baptist: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Clinton.  Not all Baptists are conservative.  The American Baptist denomination is especially liberal.  The Rainbow PUSH Coalition is a Baptist organization.  I believe Al Gore is a Methodist.

[W in 2004]

I'm Catholic, but you know, we aren't really Christians, because we worship Mary and statues and have the anti-Christ leading our Church and supposedly aren't biblical.

I am a Protestant, and I believe that some that call themselves Catholics are Christians, just as some who call themselves Protestants are Christians.  

[12th Doctor]

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. .

Bram, the problem is, though I can put up a good arguement, I must admit that I don't read the bible day-in-day-out like Jmf.  I can only present argueements that would be more than enough to convince average people (or even many above average), but I am no theologian and I am no where near one.  I'm confident that a real theologian could probably trump Jmfcst.  That won't prevent me from trying though.

[W in 2004]

Not dunking. Like Jesus was.

You are opposed to infant Baptism then?

Yes 100% baptism is for believers show they have changed in side. Baptism is an outward showing of what happen inside. Therefore infants baptism is wrong.

I think infant baptism by Catholics is similar to infant dedication by Protestants.  I do not believe that just because someone was baptized as an infant or dedicated as an infant they will automatically go to heaven.

[12th Doctor]

Not dunking. Like Jesus was.

You are opposed to infant Baptism then?

Yes 100% baptism is for believers show they have changed in side. Baptism is an outward showing of what happen inside. Therefore infants baptism is wrong.

I think infant baptism by Catholics is similar to infant dedication by Protestants.  I do not believe that just because someone was baptized or dedicated as an infant they will automatically go to heaven.

I'm just focusing on the end of your point.  The problem with these anti-baptists is that they think that baptism is an automatic ticket to Heaven since they believe in "Faith Alone" and being "saved" from a conversion expireince.  As I demostrated, that means nothing.  Paul baptized a number of people in Corinth, but that didn't keep them from screwing up.

[W in 2004]

Your bible is very confusing... i can't understand it at all...

You can't understand plain English?

Yes, but it don't have the ye's and thees and that.. plus I think your bible is wrong, and is not the real bible and just another book.

So, my Bible is wrong because it is not in Old English.  My Bible was translated directly out of the Greek.  Did Paul write in Old English?

Its wrong because it is not the KJV. The only Bible inspired by God. THe KJV was the 1st english version of the bible made.

I think you should listen to this preacher right here....

http://www.baptist-city.com/king_james.htm

Go there and The NIV Bible & The New Age Movement

It talks about all the other version beside the KJV.

ROTFLMAO  I'm sorry Josh, but that is too funny.  Are you asserting that simply because a bible was translated to English, it is right.  If you assert that, then you must be asserting that the texts it was translated out of were wrong.

Go to the link and listen to that guy. Then come back and we can talk some more about this.

No, I won't because that guy is an idiot.  I can tell just by what you have said about him.  Listen, Josh, how can your Bible be more correct than mine when yours was translated out of a version that my Church did away with because it was too errant?

Your Bible is 5 hand, having been taken from one translation after another after another.  The Bible I use is a direct translation from the original Greek and was approved by both Catholic and Protestant translators as being as currect a translation as possible.

Do you think that Paul wrote in English?

I agree with you Supersoulty.  Jesus did not speak in old English.  I think it is fine to read the King James Version or a version that uses modern English.  Neither of the two is wrong.  It is simply a personal preference.

[W in 2004]

Do you have a pic of Satan, the Pope, and a businessman (with a stereotypically "Jewish" nose) selling a fake Catholic Bible in your sig?

The NIV and all other version of the bible is a tool for evil. If you go to that link i posted up there you will understand.

Josh, this is sick. If you don't agree with what we believe, fine but don't start putting pictures mocking MY CHURCH LEADER next to the Devil. I ask that anyone that is Catholic or anyone that believes this is distasteful should urge Josh to remove that picture from his signature.

I think the picture is despicable.

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

Like I said, baptising children is meaningless because they have no sin to be washed away. The purpose of baptism is to be a step towards ultimate salvation. "Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins".

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

Original sin?

A myth. Children are not guilty of any sin. Jesus said that children were the closest thing to looking at his fathers kingdom.

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

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. .

Acts 16:34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.

My point is this: the jailer's whole family "believed", so doesn't that exclude infants? Or are you saying that infants are capable of  believing in God?

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

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.

That's fine and all, but my only question is "why" do you believe the KJV was commissioned by God?  What proof is there?  Why are you choosing to build a barrier between yourself and other Christians?  What does it matter if Easter is mentioned in Acts 12:4, what doctrine does it change?  Does it mean that Easter becomes a scripturally sanctioned day which God is commanding all Christians to observe?

And if you believe Acts 12:4 should be translated "Easter", then can you at least give a motive for why Herold would even want to wait until Easter was over before putting Peter on trial in the middle of Judea?

After all, there would be considerable reason why Herold would not[/b] want to place someone on trial in Judea during a Jewish feast, but what does Easter have to do with Judea?

And we know that the writer of Acts had already proven himself to use "Passover" and the ENTIRE feast of unleavened bread interchangably in the book of Luke.  So what argument is there to exclude the writer from doing the very same thing in Acts 12?

---

This is why I can't stand denominationalism - people buy into and defend a losing arguments as if their salvation depended upon it.

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

Bram, the problem is, though I can put up a good arguement, I must admit that I don't read the bible day-in-day-out like Jmf.  I can only present argueements that would be more than enough to convince average people (or even many above average), but I am no theologian and I am no where near one.  I'm confident that a real theologian could probably trump Jmfcst.

That is a depressing post because it means you have missed my entire point: Don't be overwhelmed by the size of the argument or the experience of the person or group that is presenting the argument (remember David and Goliath?).  Instead, take the argument apart piece by piece and examine whether or not the claim of each point is true, and if true, whether or not it is being used correctly and whether or not it is revelent.

---

For example:  

When that Catholic website attempted to use Heb 1:1 to make a like comparison between the OT church and the NT church, it didn't take great knowledge of scripture for me to point out that Heb 1:1 was a contrary comparision and not a like comparision.

And if you think that a "real theologian could probably trump" my counterpoint to the use of Heb 1:1, then by all means, load up the bus and bring-on the theologians!

No amount of theologians can change the plain and simple fact that Heb 1:1 contains a contrary comparison, because that fact is not a matter of knowing scripture.

In fact, most of my scriptural disagreements with Christians on this forum have little to do with depth of knowledge of scripture.  Rather, the arguments come up because I, unlike most Christians on this forum, don't interpret scripture any differently than I do the sports page.   If I am reading the sports page and run across a contrary conjuction, I don't interpret it as if the writer was attempting to make a like comparison.

The question you need to be asking yourself is: How did the contrary comparison in Heb 1:1 go unnoticed to the writers of that website?

After all, what is the difference between...

"In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days, he spoke to us through a son"

and...

"In times past, the Cowboys relied upon mix of unproven backs to carry the ball; in this season, the Cowboys have turned to Eddie George."

...I see no difference (except Eddie George is not a good analogy for Jesus, but you get my point).

[12th Doctor]

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. .

Acts 16:34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.

My point is this: the jailer's whole family "believed", so doesn't that exclude infants? Or are you saying that infants are capable of  believing in God?

Jmf, I don't see your argueement.  The Bible mentions that the jailer had come to believe.  That statement does not exclude his children, it only states that he believed and his family was baptised.  It doesn't even mean all adults in his family came to believe.

More over, as I proved, the faith of others can work for others.  

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

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. .

Acts 16:34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.

My point is this: the jailer's whole family "believed", so doesn't that exclude infants? Or are you saying that infants are capable of  believing in God?

Jmf, I don't see your argueement.  The Bible mentions that the jailer had come to believe.  That statement does not exclude his children, it only states that he believed and his family was baptised.  It doesn't even mean all adults in his family came to believe.

What could be unclear about "he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family."?

Is it not saying that he and his whole family believed?

[Nation]

Jmfcst, if I was baptised as an infant, would you say that it would be wise, at some point, to become baptised again, now that I am fully conscious and aware of the existance of God, etc?

[12th Doctor]

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. .

Acts 16:34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family.

My point is this: the jailer's whole family "believed", so doesn't that exclude infants? Or are you saying that infants are capable of  believing in God?

Jmf, I don't see your argueement.  The Bible mentions that the jailer had come to believe.  That statement does not exclude his children, it only states that he believed and his family was baptised.  It doesn't even mean all adults in his family came to believe.

What could be unclear about "he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family."?

Is it not saying that he and his whole family believed?

I'm sorry, I messed that up.  Tired.  I'll just stick with my original point that it doesn't exclude children.  It merely says that they came to believe.  If it had been intended to exclude infants would it not have said so?  Now, I threw other evidence out as well.  There is no evidence that directly contradicts Infant Baptism.  None.  You might be able to take a couple of bits and wiegh them to your favor, but nothing comes out and says so.  Combine that with the fact that infant baptism was part of the early Church, and all evidence woudl appear to back Infant Baptism.

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

Jmfcst, if I was baptised as an infant, would you say that it would be wise, at some point, to become baptised again, now that I am fully conscious and aware of the existance of God, etc?

I can't point to any scripture that says God doesn't honor the baptism you underwent while you were an infant.  I sincerely hope he does.  All I can do is point out what an individual's desire to be baptized says about that person: "[It is the] response of a good conscience toward God (1Pet 3:12)".

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

I'll just stick with my original point that it doesn't exclude children.  It merely says that they came to believe.

My point was that his ENTIRE FAMILY believed, so how could it have included infants?

Or is there another interpretation to "he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family."

---

If it had been intended to exclude infants would it not have said so?

And if it had been intended to exclude the need for me to do 50 push-up's before being baptized, would it not have said so?

I don't base my religous actions on what the bible doesn't say, rather I base them on what the scripture requires of me.  And I am especially not going to worry about any infant's salvation when Jesus himself said "The Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these"....notice that Jesus added no qualifier whatsoever to that statement!!!

---

There is no evidence that directly contradicts Infant Baptism.  None.  You might be able to take a couple of bits and wiegh them to your favor, but nothing comes out and says so.

And there is no evidence which could directly contradict a denominational claim that "Children must repent and turn to God."  And there is no evidence to directly contradict a denomination which forces its members to wear blue clothing every 3rd Thursday of the month.

There is no evidence to directly contradict many legalistic behaviors except to point out the role of FAITH.  That's why when the NT confronts any form of legalism, it simply points to the purpose of faith....which is exactly what a believer's baptism is all about.

Gal 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

You simply can't remove "faith" from baptism and have it mean the same thing.

---

Combine that with the fact that infant baptism was part of the early Church

And it is also a "fact" that almost every church mentioned in the NT had heretics among its leadership during the lives of the Apostles, and the Apostles continually faught to repair the damage.  So why should I be influenced by what took place after the deaths of the Apostles?  Am I to believe that the church somehow cleaned itself up after the deaths of the Apostles, as if the NT warnings about corruption of the gospel coming from within the church are no longer applicable?

---

all evidence woudl appear to back Infant Baptism.

I guess you mean except for the fact that the argument for Infant Baptism uses the wrong OT precendent, ignores Jesus' nonconditional claim that the kingdom of God belongs to children, paints God as a god who would send innocent infants to hell for all eternity, and paints the scripture as lacking fundamental salvational instruction and examples in regard to infants....Such a view is not only legalistic, it is also ignorant of the bible's view of children.

But, yeah, if you ignore all of that stuff, "all" evidence does support infant baptism.

[12th Doctor]

I'll just stick with my original point that it doesn't exclude children.  It merely says that they came to believe.

My point was that his ENTIRE FAMILY believed, so how could it have included infants?

Or is there another interpretation to "he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God--he and his whole family."

---

If it had been intended to exclude infants would it not have said so?

And if it had been intended to exclude the need for me to do 50 push-up's before being baptized, would it not have said so?

I don't base my religous actions on what the bible doesn't say, rather I base them on what the scripture requires of me.  And I am especially not going to worry about any infant's salvation when Jesus himself said "The Kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these"....notice that Jesus added no qualifier whatsoever to that statement!!!

---

There is no evidence that directly contradicts Infant Baptism.  None.  You might be able to take a couple of bits and wiegh them to your favor, but nothing comes out and says so.

And there is no evidence which could directly contradict a denominational claim that "Children must repent and turn to God."  And there is no evidence to directly contradict a denomination which forces its members to wear blue clothing every 3rd Thursday of the month.

There is no evidence to directly contradict many legalistic behaviors except to point out the role of FAITH.  That's why when the NT confronts any form of legalism, it simply points to the purpose of faith....which is exactly what a believer's baptism is all about.

Gal 3:26-27 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

You simply can't remove "faith" from baptism and have it mean the same thing.

---

Combine that with the fact that infant baptism was part of the early Church

And it is also a "fact" that almost every church mentioned in the NT had heretics among its leadership during the lives of the Apostles, and the Apostles continually faught to repair the damage.  So why should I be influenced by what took place after the deaths of the Apostles?  Am I to believe that the church somehow cleaned itself up after the deaths of the Apostles, as if the NT warnings about corruption of the gospel coming from within the church are no longer applicable?

---

all evidence woudl appear to back Infant Baptism.

I guess you mean except for the fact that the argument for Infant Baptism uses the wrong OT precendent, ignores Jesus' nonconditional claim that children belong to the kingdom of God, paints God as a god who would send innocent infants to hell for all eternity, and paints the scripture as lacking fundamental salvational instruction and examples in regard to infants....Such a view is not only legalistic, it is also ignorant of the bible's view of children.

But, yeah, if you ignore all of that stuff, "all" evidence does support infant baptism.

I'll deal with this tomorrow, but I, nor the Church, ever said that an unbaptised Infant was going to Hell.  There is a fundamental lack of understanding here in that you believe that Baptism is some sort of magical end all, and once you are baptised, you are in forever.  That is simply not the case.  Baptism is an enterance, a begining, not an end.  One must reaffirm their faith throughout their life.  No one has a moment in which they are "saved".  Baptism is rather, just a begining of a long journey, an enterence into the Church.  Following your logic, why do you then claim that one must believe in Christ to be saved later on in life?  At what age does it magically occure that I must suddenly believe in Christ or be condemed to Hell?  15?  20?  25?  35?  45?  70?  

I have made the argueement before that just because certain people don't believe in Christ doesn't mean they won't go to Heaven.  You have said that one must believe in Christ.  So, at what age does this occure that one must believe in Christ?  If that age is 18 and I am a Hindu who dies at 19 do I go to Hell even if I have lived a good life?  Do children who are to become Hindu or Muslim enjoy the same protection as those born to Christain families.  Where do you draw the line?

The problem with the whole issue (and I knew this from the begining) is that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the very meaning of baptism.  As I have said, baptism should not be for adults alone, it should be for little ones, to strt their faith journey as members of the Church.  This faith is reaffirmed through-out life (most notably in my Chruch at Confirmation), no one moment or Conversion expierience makes one "saved".  Life is, rather, a journey of faith.  The Bible defends this veiw and not your one time conversion expierience view.

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

I'll deal with this tomorrow, but I, nor the Church, ever said that an unbaptised Infant was going to Hell.  

OK, what then is the purpose of infant baptism?

---

There is a fundamental lack of understanding here in that you believe that Baptism is some sort of magical end all, and once you are baptised, you are in forever.  Baptism is an enterance, a begining, not an end.

When have you ever read anything from me that even remotely comes close to what you’re claiming I believe?  (looks like I made the same mistake for assuming you thought infants would go to hell if not baptised)

---

One must reaffirm their faith throughout their life.  No one has a moment in which they are "saved".  Baptism is rather, just a begining of a long journey

I don’t believe in “once saved always saved”, but I most certainly believe in “a moment” of salvation – I just believe a person can leave a position of salvation and become unsaved.

For instance:  I received the Holy Spirit one night in Oct 1992 and if I would have died later on that night, I would have been saved.  But I also could have woken up the next morning and hardened my heart against God and walked away from my secure position in Christ (much like the Prodigal Son).  If I would have died why still separated from a secure position, then I would have been lost.  Likewise, if I had returned to a secure position in Christ (just like the Prodigal Son returned), then I would be safe once again.

---

[Baptism] is an enterence into the Church.

I define the true “church” as believers across denominations (including Catholics) who have received the Holy Spirit.  And the instant they receive the Holy Spirit, they become a member of the true church.  Sometimes that is BEFORE they are baptized (Acts 10:44-48), and sometimes it is during the laying on of hands AFTER baptism (Acts 19:5-6)…..I believe the timing of the receiving of the Holy Spirit varies greatly from person to person and can basically happen any time a person's faith allows it.

---

Following your logic, why do you then claim that one must believe in Christ to be saved later on in life?  At what age does it magically occure that I must suddenly believe in Christ or be condemed to Hell?  15?  20?  25?  35?  45?  70?  

I don’t know what the age of accountability is, but I would guess it varies from person to person depending on their rate of mental maturity, and in some cases (as in the mentally retarded) never occurs.

---

I have made the argueement before that just because certain people don't believe in Christ doesn't mean they won't go to Heaven.  You have said that one must believe in Christ.  So, at what age does this occure that one must believe in Christ?  If that age is 18 and I am a Hindu who dies at 19 do I go to Hell even if I have lived a good life?  Do children who are to become Hindu or Muslim enjoy the same protection as those born to Christain families.  Where do you draw the line?

I believe infants are saved regardless of the religion of their parents.  But I believe that once the age of accountability is reached, only believers in Christ are saved, just as Christ himself stated: "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son (John 3:18)"

---

The problem with the whole issue (and I knew this from the begining) is that you and I don't see eye-to-eye on the very meaning of baptism.

From my viewpoint, baptism in the Catholic church has replaced the receiving of the Holy Spirit.  In my faith, water baptism and receipt of the Holy Spirit are two totally separate occurrences (though I don’t exclude the possibility of receiving the Holy Spirit during the actual moment of baptism)

---

As I have said, baptism should not be for adults alone, it should be for little ones, to strt their faith journey as members of the Church.

How does one jump-start the faith of an infant?  Are you actually saying that an infant attains partial faith upon their baptism?

I try to jumpstart my kid’s faith by teaching them about Jesus from a very early age in order to engrain the word of God into them.  My oldest child asked, without any prodding (in fact, we even put her off for a while to make sure she was doing it for the right motives), to be baptized when she was seven.  And even though she is now nine, she has yet to receive the Holy Spirit.   But it is the prayer of my wife and I that our daughter will one day open herself up to Jesus and receive, through faith, the promised Holy Spirit.

---

This faith is reaffirmed through-out life (most notably in my Chruch at Confirmation), no one moment or Conversion expierience makes one "saved".  Life is, rather, a journey of faith.  The Bible defends this veiw and not your one time conversion expierience view.

Again, that’s not even close to what I believe.  

Also, I don't believe a person's faith is "confirmed" just because they attend classes and receive a certificate.   Believers in Christ have NEVER needed the church's approval (prime example is the Apostle Paul), nor does approval of a person by the Church mean anything (prime examples are Judas and those numbered among the church leadership who would later distort the Gospel)....God knows who belongs to him and who doesn't.

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

JMF,

Infant baptism is ridiculous because "original sin" is a hoax. Babys have committed no sins and have no reason to be baptised. "Repent and BE baptised for the forgiveness of sins".

[Giant Saguaro]

Methodist, but I'm leaning non-denomination Christian these days.