For those who want to believe and worship like the ancient Church

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by billwald, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    and have not read the Didachttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

    This site has several translations. Note the section on baptism:

    Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
     
  2. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now that is a good one, a Baptist that fasts. Their clergy are so slim and trim. Well, at least there is a way to save on the water bill.
     
  3. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,933
    Likes Received:
    96
    And if all else fails, stick your head in the toilet....hopefully w/o the blue stuff. :laugh:
     
  4. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    :tear:
    Calling oneself a "Christian" does not necessarily mean that one is, in fact "One Who Belongs to Jesus Christ" any more than calling a Yugo a Lexus simply by placing a hood ornament from a Lexus onto the hood of a Yugo.

    I could say to all of you in BB land that I, ktn4eg, am a handsome, muscular and extremely wealthy "macho" man, with a brillant tenor voice, but, in reality, I'm far, far from coming any where near any of those characteristics.

    Why did not this so-called "Christian" supply his readers with any specific Scripture references to support his position(s) on his doctrine?!!?

    Could it possibly be that there just aren't any very specific Scriptures to support his position(s) on his doctrine???

    "Just saying...." :smilewinkgrin::tear::tear:
     
  5. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you all agree it is unknown or immaterial how the Church worshiped in the first 500 years? (content and style of worship)
     
  6. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    What is YOUR, BILLWALD, definition of "the CHURCH"??

    The kind of "Church" JESUS started was founded either:
    a) during Jesus's earthly ministry (If one considers one to be a "Chain-Link"/"Landmarker"),
    b) OR on the "Day of Pentecost" (If one DOES NOT consider oneself to be "a")

    It is fairly well documented in several NT epistles (primary those of the Apostles John & Paul) that different local churches "worshipped" in different places, i.e., the norm tended to be either (if the intended recepients were of an ethnically "Jewish" background in a person's "house" [Their "houses" were structured quite differently in the middle and/or "near" East than those of "the West" {basically west of the Volga River/west of the Alps, as any introductory textbook on the subject of the history of world architecture will most likely tell its readers}]).

    That's why it's sometimes hard for those who've never taken the initiative to study such things as most any reliable introductory book on the manners, customs, way(s) of life of "Biblical Times" to figure out why they "tore open the roof" in order to let the "crippled man" down, or why it wasn't that much of a problem for His orginal audience to grasp the meaning of, e.g., "Let them on the rooftops FLEE..."

    Of course, YOU, BILLWALD, already knew that, didn't you?!!?

    Even in some of the latter writings of the Apostles Paul, Peter, Jude and John, the Holy Spirit moved on them to warn of "departures 'from the faith' (i.e., the kind of 'faith' that Jesus Himself and His Apostles taught

    Of course YOU, BILLWALD, already knew that, didn't you?!!?

    Any person who takes enough initiative to study the background(s) and/or the "inherent bias(-es) of his/her source reference(s) knows that one better find those things out before one takes what one reads at mere face value, such as YOU, BILLWARD have a tendency to do.

    Why don't YOU, BILLWALD take some initiative and study the inherent tendencies of the vast number of contributors of Wikipedia?

    After all, it seems to me that Wikipedia appears to be YOUR (BILLWALD) prime source of information of whatever you deem to be of such importance to the readers of YOUR (BILLWALD's) posts here on BB.

    My (ktn4eg) point can be illustrated thusly:

    Suppose all that an elementary school student in "Central Stalingrad ES" living in the days of the communist-controlled USSR read about the USofA were those written by "approved" authors of the communist-controlled USSR (Which, BTW, usually was the case back in those days.)

    He/She would really get an open and totally honest, 100% unbiased impression of what life was like in the USofA, wouldn't she/he?

    Yeah, right!!!

    My contention is that it is/was not so much that the customs/manners/methods/methodology of NT biblical times have changed (They have, e.g., do YOU, BILLWALD drive a horse-drawn chariot?), but rather that the DOCTRINE of what YOU, BILLWALD, call "the church" compared to what Jesus and/or His Apostles would call "the church" is quite different.

    Instead of giving us link after link of "thus saith Wikipedia," BILLWALD, why don't YOU, BILLWALD, "go straight to THE source" and start giving us a couple of "thus saith THE LORD"?!!!?

    Why not, BILLWALD, why not?!!!?

    ---ktn4eg, BA, Clarksville (TN) Baptist College (1976); MA, Austin Peay State Univ. (Clarksville, TN) (1981); (also 21+ SHrs toward an AAS in Applied Science [Avionic Systems Technology], Comunity College of the USAF; plus additional studies at Faith BC Bible Institute (Sellersville, PA) & Liberty Univ. (Lynchburg, VA); retired (E-6) USAF, TN ANG (22+ yrs of service); retired (Electronic Technician) from BellSouth/ATT (17 yrs)

    Born the first time, May, 1946; BORN THE SECOND TIME, April, 1966
     
  7. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am no fan of St. Paul. I think "Acts" is the last authentic NT text and everything later should be considered commentary to the NT.


    The Greek word translated "church" means public meeting and don't apply any mystical meaning to the word, "church."

    Personally, I don't think that Jesus ever intended to start a new religion but for his disciples to reform rabbinic Judaism from the inside. I think that was also the intent of the Jerusalem Church as detailed in Acts.

    I think it is not happenstance that Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed roughly 40 years after the ministry of Jesus. 40 is the number of testing.

    After the Destruction Paul's gentiles took control of the "Jesus" sect of Judaism, whatever you want to call it, and have been in control ever since.

    The Didache is possibly the first "statement of faith" ever written by a Christian congregation and should be the starting point of Christian practice and deviations should be considered spurious.

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache


    The Didache ( /ˈdɪdəkiː/; Koine Greek: Διδαχή) or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Didachē means "Teaching"[1]) is a brief early Christian treatise, dated by most scholars to the late first or early 2nd century.[2] But J.A.T. Robinson argues that it is first generation, dating it c.40-60.[3] The first line of this treatise is "Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the Twelve Apostles"[4]

    The text, parts of which constitute the oldest surviving written catechism, has three main sections dealing with Christian ethics, rituals such as baptism and Eucharist, and Church organization. It is considered the first example of the genre of the Church Orders.

    The work was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[5] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others,[6] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church "broader canon" includes the Didascalia, a work which draws on the Didache.

    Lost for centuries, a Greek manuscript of the Didache was rediscovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia in the Codex Hierosolymitanus. A Latin version of the first five chapters was discovered in 1900 by J. Schlecht.[7] The Didache is considered part of the category of second-generation Christian writings known as the Apostolic Fathers
     
  8. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    There YOU, BILLWALD, go again---citing your 110%+ "infallible," 110%+ "inerrant" "HOLY" Wikipedia!!!!

    For ONCE, JUST ONCE, WILL YOU, BILLWALD, give us poor, totally ignorant, BB readers, some VERY RELEVANT, VERY SPECIFIC Bible REFERENCES ("Book, Chapter and Verse for YOUR, BILLWALD, very valid and sound biblically based and centered beliefs!!!!!!

    Personally, I, ktn4eg, for one, could really care less about who YOU, BILLWALD:
    a) Consider or do not consider to be a "fan."
    b) Think about Jesus, unless YOU, BILLWALD, can supply us with SPECIFIC BIBLE REFERENCES!
    MOREOVER, YOU, BILLWALD, have FAILED to give VERY SPECIFIC BIBLICAL BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE CITATIONS TO SUPPORT YOUR (BILLWALD) DEFINITION OF "church"!!!!! (WHY NOT, Billwald, WHY NOT?!!?


    BTW, BILLWALD,
    a) "don't" DOES NOT AGREE with its antecedent in standard English verb tense(s) , "church."
    b) "gentiles" is a PROPER noun, and, according to standard English capitalization rules, REQUIRES that its first letter ("g") BE CAPITALIZED!

    Of course, YOU, BILLWALD already knew that though, didn't YOU, BILLWALD?!!?


    Yes, YOU, BILLWALD, are, by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the US of A, entitled to YOUR, BILLWALD('s) opinion(s), but when it comes to sound, scriptural doctrine(s) it is NOT YOUR (BILLWALD['s]) opinion(s) about things that will matter that much. Rather, BILLWALD, it will be what JESUS CHRIST'S "OPINION('S)" ARE OF YOU, BILLWALD.

    "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" ---Hebrews 9:27 (KJV)

    (And there, my BB friend(s), IS A BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE CITATION FROM GOD'S HOLY, INERRANT, INFALLIBLE WORD [NOT from Wikipedia]!!!!!!)

    Of course, YOU, BILLWALD, already knew that, didn't YOU, BILLWALD?!!?

    ---ktn4eg (I already cited my educational, occupational, military, and important [to me anyway] spiritual and/or personal facts and/or achievements in my previous post above, so I won't "bore you" by repeating them again.)
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Webster's Seventh Collegiate does not capitalize gentile. Neither does www.dictionary.com

    The Bible is your only source of information?
     
  10. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since you asked

    http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/fg06.htm

    The origin and meaning of the word ‘church’


    What does the word “church” actually mean, and where does it come from? That should be a question of interest, for all true believers. This essay contains a study of the etymology on the word “church”, its origin and meaning, and how it came to appear in bible-translations.

    The first passage where the 1769 edition of king James’ bible has the word “church”, is verse 18 in chapter 16 of the book of Matthew:

    Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (KJV-1769)

    Many connect the word “church” intimately with Matthew 16:18, and think that Jesus spoke about the formation of a religious organisation, a “church”. But often, things are not what they seem to be, or what they are commonly thought to be. This essay proceeds to explain what the “word” church in actual fact points to. Matthew 16:18 and the “true church” dogma are discussed a bit later in this essay.

    The word “church” comes from an old Greek phrase which meant “the Lord’s house”, but then, it is important to find out who used that Greek term, and especially, which “lord” they used it as a reference to. Below, it will be explained in more detail that the word “church” is not a translation of the NT Greek noun ekklêsia, and that it is not connected to the saints or to New Testament times but refers to something altogether different, something that arose later when the saints were no longer on the scene.

    (A note: This essay contains some translation-related notes. If you have been subjected to dogmas which claim that some particular bible-version is “without error”, make sure to read the article gs03.htm.)

    It is worth noting that a number of bible-translations do not use the word “church”. For instance Tyndale in his 1525 translation used it only twice, in both cases as a reference to buildings that were used for idol worship:

    Acts 14:13 Then Iupiters Preste which dwelt before their cite brought oxe and garlondes vnto the churche porche and wolde have done sacrifise with the people. (TYN)

    Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hyther these me[n] whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet despisers of youre goddes. (TYN)

    Again, the Tyndale translation (1525) used the word “church” only in these two passages, both of which refer to idol temples. He had good reasons for not using the word “church” in connection with the saints. When it comes to the Greek word ekklêsia, Tyndale rendered it as “congregation” (using the spelling congregacion).

    In the same way, a number of later translations do not contain the word “church” but render ekklêsia as “assembly” or “congregation”. That is what this essay is about; it will be explained what the origin of the noun church is and what it really points to and is a name for.

    In order to better understand this matter, it is good to know that for instance the men who produced king James’ new bible-edition were under specific orders that the word “church” was to be used – in other words, they were forbidden to translate the old Greek noun ekklêsia in a proper way. (The reasons king James had for demanding the use of certain words in the new bible-edition which he ordered, were of political nature. The article gs03.htm has more this.)

    A side-note: Closely related to the concept “church”, there are such words and concepts as “doctrine”, “dogma”, “creed” and “tenet”. The essay fs08.htm sorts out the meaning of those words. The essay fa04.htm takes a closer look at the word “worship” and such concepts as “church services” and “going to church”.

    The etymology of the word ‘church’ – its origin and meaning, and how it came to appear in bible-translations.

    The word “church” began to come into use in the English language in the Middle Ages, some time before the 12th century. The 1395 Wycliffe translation used the word “church” (chirche). But, the 1525 Tyndale version did not use it. Tyndale translated ekklêsia properly, as “congregacion”. Well, as was mentioned earlier, he used even the word “church” (churche) – two times, in Acts 14:13 and 19:37 which both refer to buildings connected to idol-worship.

    The roots of the word “church” are as follows. It comes via the Middle English chirche, from the Old English cirice. It is said that cirice in its turn came from the first word in the old Greek phrase kuriakê oikia which meant “the Lord’s house”. Thus, again, the etymology and evolution of the word “church” is as follows:

    Old Greek kuriakê [oikia] (“lord’s [house]”) → Old English cirice → Middle English chirche → “church”

    That might sound fine at first glance, but let us analyse the phrase kuriakê oikia in more depth, in order to see what and whom it in actual fact pointed to.

    Some writers have said that the Greek phrase kuriakê oikia “has been in consistent use since the 300s”. That could be, but then one must ask this question: The religious organisation that the Roman emperor Constantine de facto founded in the 300s, and of which the phrase kuriakê oikia then was used – which kurios (“lord”) did it really serve? Here, it is important to know that all the way to his death, Constantine remained a servant of the lord Mithras (Mithra) the sun-god, and that he forced people to worship Mithras. One of Constantine’s last acts was to uphold the rights of the priests of Mithras. (And yes, in those days Mithras-worship was given a new “make-up”, so that people were caused to think that it was connected to Jesus and the Bible.)

    The point here is that the phrase kuriakê oikia, “lord’s house”, which “has been in consistent use since the 300s”, actually refers to the house of the lord Mithras – Sol Mithras Deus Invictus. In other words: Mithras the sun-god was the lord (kurios, whence the phrase kuriakê oikia) whom emperor Constantine and his religious organisation caused people to serve, under the pretence that it all was “Christianity”. And then, Mithras is just another name for the “sun-god” who was also known as Baal. (A note: The word baal meant “lord”.)

    Those who know a bit more about the true meaning of certain religious symbols, would find and recognise many Mithras-related symbols in an average “house of the lord” that has been built during the past few centuries.

    (There are some notes on the emperor Constantine, under the heading “Constantine” on the index-page kc3.htm.)

    More on Matthew 16:18.

    The Catholics have built a dogma around Matthew 16:18, claiming that that verse supposedly refers to the Catholic Church. Later, non-Catholics have copied that “true church” dogma, and applied it to their own churches. But, that dogma is not true, neither in its Catholic versions nor in its non-Catholic copies.

    As was explained above, the word “church” is not a translation of the word ekklêsia which we find in the Greek text of the New Testament. The word “church” has a totally different origin. But, let us nevertheless consider the use of the word ekklêsia in the New Testament, and in Matthew 16:18 in particular.

    In the Greek text of the book of Acts, the Epistles and the book of Revelation, the noun ekklêsia is often used of the saints’ fellowships, but when it comes to Matthew 16:18, it is clear that ekklêsia is to be understood in its literal meaning “assembly”. It is also clear that the immortal assembly which Jesus said he would form (the one against which the gates of Hadês would not prevail), does not consist of mortals, but of Jesus and saints who have been made into immortal beings. (Well, it could be that that assembly includes even other immortals.)

    The story begins in Matthew 16:13. The subject is neither a “church” nor Peter the apostle. The subject is Jesus himself, the question being, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” and also, “But who do you say that I am?”

    Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” 14 They said, “Some say John the Baptizer, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 I also tell you that you are Peter, x and on this rock y I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades z will not prevail against it.

    x 16:18 Peter’s name, Petros in Greek, is the word for a specific rock or stone.
    y 16:18 Greek, petra, a rock mass or bedrock.
    z 16:18 or, Hell
     
  11. Zenas

    Zenas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    I can answer this one. At the time this was written, most scripture had not yet been written. There was nothing to quote from.
     
  12. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    OK, BILLWALD, I appreciate your own, well-researched definition of what God's Word means what it uses the word "church" in the various English Bible versions that one can find with relatively little effort.

    OTOH, YOU, BILLWALD, have again studiously avoided/evaded my other questions I requested of YOU, BILLWALD, namely YOUR (BILLWALD) failure to produce ANY VERY DEFINITE, VERY SPECIFIC BIBLICAL (i.e., SPECIFIC BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE), TO JUSTIFY YOUR (BILLWALD) APPARENT VIEWPOINT THAT EITHER "SPRINKLING" AND/OR "POURING" WAS/(or at least SHOULD BE THE "NORM" WHEN REFERRING TO THE MODE OF THIS N.T. ORDINANCE THAT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY PRACTICED BY THE KIND OF "CHURCH" THAT JESUS CHRIST FOUNDED!!!!!!

    STOP AVOIDING/EVADING/"BEATING-AROUND-THE-BUSH" BILLWALD!!!

    THOUSANDS OF TRULY BORN-AGAIN, "BLOOD-BOUGHT" CHILDREN OF GOD LOST THEIR LIVES, THE LIVES OF THEIR SPOUSES, AND THE LIVES OF THEIR (SOMETIMES "infant-aged") CHILDREN, NOT TO MENTION THE DESTRUCTION OF MUCH OF THEIR "worldy goods" (e.g., HOUSE AND/OR OTHER "PROPERTY") BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO ACCEPT any other MODE OF BAPTISM EXCEPT IMMERSION!!!

    Knowing that, BILLWALD, I'd say that the PROPER, BIBLICAL, SCRIPTUAL MODE OF THIS BIBLICAL ORDINANCE IS not A SUBJECT THAT ANY REALLY TRULY BORN-AGAIN, "BLOOD BOUGHT" CHILD OF GOD can merely "brush aside as 'insignificant,'" DON'T YOU, BILLWALD?!!?

    SO GO RIGHT AHEAD, BILLWALD, I'M WAITING FOR SOME VERY CLEAR-CUT, "NO-DOUBT-ABOUT-IT," VERY SPECIFIC BIBLICAL REFERENCES THAT OBVIOUSLY SUPPORT YOUR (BILLWALD) POSITION ON WHAT GOD'S WORD "COMES-RIGHT-OUT-IN-"BLACK-AND-WHITE"-AND-TELLS-ITS-READERS" (BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE!!) TO DEFEND YOUR (BILLWALD) POSITION ON THIS DOCTRINE (NO, "Well, I [BILLWALD] believe it's...."; NO "THUS SAITH WIKIPEDIA," [or other man-orginated document{s} for that matter either]!!! [AFTER ALL "I {ktn4eg} am 'not a "fan" of Wikipedia when it comes to most serious matters of true, Bible-based matters of doctrine!!])

    I'M WAITING, BILLWALD, I'M WAITING!!!

    (Of course, by now, YOU [BILLWALD] probably ALREADY KNEW THAT, DIDN'T YOU [BILLWALD]?!!?)
     
  13. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have questions, please list them.


    Please don't ask me to give Bible verses. Don't you know the Bible better than I do?
     
  14. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let's see now.

    The Apostle John died c. A.D. 90 - 100, last time I checked, there was the:

    1) Gospel according to John (as in John 3:16),

    2) The Epistles of First, Second, and Third John, and

    3) The Book of Revelation, whose 'earthly' writer was John

    Yep, Zenas, you're right, "most scripture had not yet been written"!!!!!

    Yeah, right!!!!

    Like, what more do you want???

    Unless, of course, you don't believe that even the writings of, say, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul, and Peter (all of which DIED BEFORE John!!!!) are not "scripture"!!!!
     
    #14 ktn4eg, Oct 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 3, 2012
  15. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    I never made the claim that YOU, BILLWALD, assert that I "know the Bible better that I (BILLWALD) do," AND YOU (BILLWALD) know THAT I NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM!!!!!!

    YOU (BILLWALD) POSTED THE THINGS THAT YOU (BILLWALD) ASSERTED / INFERRED / IMPLIED WERE, IN FACT, biblical DOCTRINES, not ME (ktn4eg)!!!!!

    STOP BEING SO INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!!! STOP BEING SO EVASIVE!!!! STOP "BEATING-AROUND-THE-BUSH" BILLWALD!!!!!

    IF WHAT YOU (BILLWALD) POSTED AS WHAT YOU (BILLWALD) CLAIM TO BE biblical DOCTRINES, THEN YOU (BILLWALD) OUGHT TO, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE ABLE TO SHOW US POOR, IGNORANT, "DON'T-HAVE-A CLUE" PEOPLE HERE IN BB LAND, VERY SPECIFIC BIBLE (i.e., BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE) CITATIONS TO prove, beyond the shadow of any doubt THAT THESE DOCTRINE(S) ARE "TRUE BIBLICAL DOCTRINES"!!!!!

    THE "BALL IS IN YOUR (BILLWALD'S) COURT," not MINE (ktn4eg)!!!!

    I'M (ktn4eg) WAITING, BILLWALD, I'M (ktn4eg) WAITING!!!!!

    Have a nice, Holy-Spirit filled day!!!!!
     
  16. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bumping this thread so as to give billwald "just a little more time" to come up with, I'm sure, a plethora of Bible references for the doctines that billwald apparently KNOWS are there---some where in the Holy, inerrant, infallible, and immutable Word of God.

    Wonder what's taking billwald so long??!!?? :tonofbricks:
     
  17. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    In plain English, this passage closes God's canon. All following sacred writing MUST be commentary or non-conflicting new information. Jesus never taught anything that conflicted with Torah.

    If you want to convince me with material written after Jesus' death you first must convince me that it (your interpretation) doesn't conflict with Torah.

    Deuteronomy 13
    New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
    Worshiping Other Gods

    13 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the Lord your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the Lord your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

    6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

    12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. 17 None of those condemned things shall be found in your hands, so that the Lord will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, 18 because you obey the Lord your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.
     
  18. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    ..... and your New Testament references that very clearly/very specifcally come-right-out "in-black-and-white"-and-tell-us that other modes than immersion for the NT ordinance of believers' baptism are.....??????

    THAT'S what I have all these many times have asked YOU, BILLWALD, to supply us with!!!!!!

    WHY, BILLWALD, WILL YOU (BILLWALD) not SUPPLY US WITH ANY VERY SPECIFIC, CLEAR-CUT, "NO-DOUBT-ABOUT-IT," NEW TESTAMENT REFERENCES (BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE) FOR YOUR APPARENT VIEW THAT ANY OTHER MODE THAN THAT OF IMMERSION FOR THE N.T. ORDINANCE OF BELIEVERS' BAPTISM WAS THE OBVIOUS "NORM" OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF N.T. CHURCHES??????

    AGAIN (phew!), WHY DON'T YOU (BILLWALD) SIMPLY COME OUT AND comply WITH MY REQUESTS?

    I'M STILL, STILL WAITING FOR YOU (BILLWALD) TO SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE THE N.T. INDICATES WHAT APPARENTLY IS YOUR VIEW ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT PRACTICE!!!!!!

    THE PROVERBIAL "ball" IS S - T - I - L - L I - N your (billwald's) C - O - U - R - T!!!!!
     
  19. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bumping this thread A - G - A - I - N, AND FOR THE SAME REASON(S) AS I STATED IN THE PREVIOUS POST!!!!

    C - O - M - E O - N, B - I - L - L - W - A - L - D!!!!!!!!

    I (ktn4eg) H - A - V - E G - I - V - E - N Y - O - U (B - I - L - L - W - A - L - D) plenty O - F T - I - M - E!!!!!

    Since you (billwald) have posted in other threads, it would seem (IMHO anyway) that you (billwald) are merely I - G - N - O - R - I - N - G my many requests that you (billwald) supply here in this thread A - N - Y clear-cut, very specific Bible reference (Book, Chapter, and Verse) that tell the reader (right there in black and white) that the norm for any NT local church---when it comes to the very important aspect of the proper mode for the NT ordinance of baptism---that any other mode than immersion was either practiced and/or accepted by that particular NT local church!!!

    Your (billwald's) OP implied that some how the mode of sprinkling was used. Since you (billwald) made absolutely no comment and/or disclaimer to the effect that you (billwald) are in (at least to some degree) disagreement with the author(s) of your source document (which, BTW, is NOT a part of what the vast majority of evangelical orthodox advocates would accept as a part of the inspired, inerrant, and complete NT canon [i.e., the 27 books {Matthew through Revelation}] that comprise the NT canon, but rather an uninspired manmade commentary which, therefore, is subject to error just like any other man-originated [and, therefore, uninspired in the sense that it cannot, in all honesty, claim to be an integral part of NT "Holy Writ" such as the 27 books of the recognized NT {Matthew through Revelation} have been tried, tested and proven to meet the high criteria of being completely without error with regard to their original {thus HS-inspired} Greek autographs.

    So, billwald, the proverbial onus of proof extracted NOT from some uninspired, man-made source, but from a very clear-cut "Thus saith the Lord" (via ANY specific NT textual reference!!) still remains with you (billwald), N - O - T me (ktn4eg) (or anyone else here in BB land for that matter!!) to produce A - N - Y very specific reference that clearly states that the NT pattern with regard to the mode of the NT ordinance of baptism!!!

    If you cannot produce such an undisputed NT textual passage that shows, beyond the shadow of doubt, that any other mode for the NT ordinance of baptism than that of immersion was the accepted norm, then IMHO, you (billwald) owe it to the readers of this BB thread to, at the very least, admit that, in reality, there simply does not exist within the realm of NT texual "holy writ" (Matthew through to Revelation) any such "proof positive" that any other mode than immersion was actually practiced by any NT church when it came to this NT ordinance.

    "Not exactly 'Rocket Science' to me."

    IOW, either there is specific NT textual evidence for (in your [Billwald's] case) for using, say sprinkling and/or pouring and/or some other kind of mode than immersion for the NT ordinance of baptism, or there isn't!!!!!!!

    So ...... Billwald, show us right from the NT where it clearly states that it is completely acceptable to employ other modes for the NO save that of immersion for the NT ordinance!!!

    Then---and ONLY then---will I (ktn4eg) stop asking you (billwald) to "move on."

    You can ignore this request that I've made of you (billwald), but, if you so choose to continue to do so as you (billwald) have up to now, then I shall know, by default, how you (billwald) stand with regard to this very important (important enough that, down through many years, people were willing [and some actually did!] to sacrifice their very own lives to contend that immersion was/is the ONLY LEGITIMATE mode for the NT ordinance of baptism!!) aspect of the NT ordinance of baptism!!
     
  20. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Neither does the Bible authorize musical instruments or any music except the Psalms in worship. You are making the same sort of argument as those who argue against musical instruments in worship.
     

Share This Page

Loading...