1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured What Did jesus mean" Upon This Rock, I Will Build my Church?"

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, Jun 25, 2012.

  1. 33ad

    33ad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    We are all following some tradition and looking through no one comes to the bible blindly the Ethiopian unich needed Phillips help who was directly sent by the apostles. The Ethiopian couldn't figure out Jesus by the bible alone

    Acts 8:30-31
    New International Version (NIV)
    30*Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

    31*“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.









    Traditions are all fine IF doctrine was determined by traditions instead of Scripture. However, that is not the case with Bible believers (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 1 Pet. 1:19-21).

    Analogies are all fine IF they harmonize with the actual scriptural facts. But these analogies do not harmonize with the Biblical or grammatical data as my previous post demonstrates. It does not harmonize with Matthew's account or Peter's account of their use of "petra."
     
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    That is simply not true. Indeed the difference between us is the difference between exegesis and eisgesis in our approach to Scriptures. A Biblical exegete is one who reads out of the Biblical text what the contextual factors demand that God wrote in. An Eisgete reads into the Biblical text his own traditions and ideas which requires IGNORING the Biblical immediate and overall context.

    You are claiming to be a follower of the latter not the former.
     
  3. 33ad

    33ad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    "the bibliciist"

    Tell me about your back ground what lenses are looking through probably grew up in a baptist church or grew up in the catholic church and is angry at it

    I grew up in a non believing home were my parents
    minumally went tk church in a community that was mostly recent Jewish immigrants in New York. My father was one of 4 people as his company of 100 who were not be Jewish. I may even be Jewish from my grandfathers side because there was such a lack of faith during there immigration from eastern Europe.

    God gave me a physicall sign he existed at 19 and have my
    Life to Christ at. 32 know I'm 36 and have attededned over. 25 different churches learning.

    I know one thing if were a physically unified Christian body instead of just spiritually we could stop abortion, world hunger and we would have such a greater chance of converting souls.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    There is not Biblical evidence there. It is only opinion and speculation that one says that Babylon "was a code word for the roman empire and Rome by early Christians and Jews". The Bible doesn't say that. You don't have any hard evidence here. You have no evidence at all. And certainly no Biblical evidence as you claim to have.

    He says he was writing from Babylon, period. Case closed. I happen to believe the Scriptures at this point, with no hard evidence to believe that Peter was ever in Rome, except for the tradition that he was sent there at the very end of his life to die. That is the only possible time that he could have been in Rome. Even a chronology given by the Bible itself tells us otherwise.
     
  5. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    4
    I'm not sure where you came up with the notion that I theorized that Jesus was a transvestite.

    The use of the feminine gender in Koine Greek nouns does not neccessarily mean that the object to which they refer is, therefore, feminine.
     
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Born a sinner, loved sin, never sought God or salvation but God sought me and convicted me of my sin and saved me in spite of myself. Changed my heart and changed my life, my desires and gave me a thirst for God's Word at the ripe young age of 13.

    I had sat at the furtherest pew in the back by the door for quickest escape as a kid. My father had to pay me a quarter to get me to memorize a verse of scripture. When I was a kid, a quarter would buy a 16 oz RC cola, the largest candy bar (three muskateer or big hunk) and twinkies - all for a quarter - so you can see my motive for memorizing scripture. I memorized chapters until my dad had to reduce it from a quarter a verse to a dime a verse but I became rich as a kid.

    However, due to that manipulation I knew more scripture than the teenage kids in Sunday school and everyone wanted me on their team when we had sword drills or bible knowledge games. I was placed in the upper grade class because of my efficiency with scriptures but still sat at the back door in order to get out of church as fast as possible as a kid.

    One Sunday morning I was sitting in my normal pew by the back door minding my own business ready to escape to play when something began to happen on the inside of me that I had no control over whatsoever. I did not like it because for the first time in my life I began to see myself not as 13 year old but as a great sinner before God. I was like a bowl of jello inside, squimish and shuttering over my lost condition and sure condemnation in hell and yet all that was going on during the church service known to no one but myself and it was a terrible feeling. Sin had become a heavy cumberson burden weighing my heart down that I could not bear the weight upon my conscience and heart and I could find no escape but coming to Christ in faith to relieve me of my burden. Later that Sunday night I confessed to my father what had occurred inside me that Sunday morning and he started asking me questions and when I responded there was a liberty and freeness I had never felt before and a joy that overwhelmed me. I knew I was a sinner condemned justly and I had been fully convicted over my sinfulness as a being (who I was by nature) and I knew that faith in Christ had freed me from that horrible experience and turned the jello bowl of uncomfort within me to peace and joy unspeakable and full of glory.

    From that point forward, no one had to pay me dimes to memorize scripture and I never sat in the back pew waiting for church to get over. I thirsted for the scriptures with a thirst that has never been quenched from that day to this day and the Word of God has been my only source of truth.

    However, it was not until some years later at the age of 21 that God taught me how to study the Bible. I was working at a plywood plant on the green chain and I had 15 minute breaks every two hours. I packed a small New Testament in my pocket and on those breaks I read from Matthew to Revelation over and over again. However, when I got home, I would attempt to recall the major subject of each chapter in a book and then the major subject of each book and write it down. When I went back through a book again, I would then subdivide each chapter into its natural divisions by developmental sequence and change of topics. When I went back again I would break down each section into its developmental transition points and subjects. After doing this several times I literally knew where every single verse fit within its immediate and overall context. That is how God taught me the Scriptures and that is why I chose the term "The Biblicist" as my handle.
     
    #26 The Biblicist, Jun 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2012
  7. 33ad

    33ad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice story bibliciist

    Sounds like you have lived your life in the baptist small town bubble USA

    2.3 billion trinity baptized Christians in the world all with a different story

    I like the st Thomas apostolic church of India founded in 52 ad no western contact until 1550
    No new testament just the Torah and instructions on who to read the Torah as a christian for over 1500 years

    Or the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
    Still keeps all 613 Jewish laws because they like to
     
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    There is only ONE WAY to heaven - Mt. 7:13-14/Jn. 14:6
    There is only ONE GOSPEL of salvation - Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:4
    There is only ONE NAME given under heaven to all men - Acts 4:12
    There is only ONE MEDIATOR between God and man in regard to redemption - 1 Tim. 2:5

    Every true salvation testimony harmonizes with these four absolutes.

    Every other way leads to hell and any testimony that violates even one of these four absolutes is a false story of salvation.

    BOTTOM LINE: I will take the testimony and word of an "inspired" document over the testimony of uninspired men and documents - Isa. 8:20; 1 Pet. 1:19-20; 2 Tim. 3:16-17.
     
    #28 The Biblicist, Jun 26, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 26, 2012
  9. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    there could be 6 billion water baptized persons on earth...

    ONLY those who have a personal relationship with the Lord jesus will get saved!
     
  10. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Thomas did go to India in 52 A.D. It is likely that he had more than the Torah, as that refers only to the first five books of the OT. The Ethiopian Eunuch was saved from Philip explaining a passage out of Isaiah, one of the prophets. Besides that, both Matthew and James were written ca. 50, and there is nothing to say that Thomas didn't have a copy of either one of those books.

    Either way, Thomas was a disciple of Jesus and had first hand knowledge of the Lord. He himself would have been qualified to write an inspired gospel. And he did write. He wrote many hymns. Other writings have been uncovered, such as a[FONT=&quot]n early third-century Syriac work known as the "Acts of Thomas."
    He established many churches, and did a great work in India. It is said that Bartholomew worked with him. He was finally martyred when a Brahman priest threw a spear through him about 72 A.D.
    [/FONT] Thomas ordained teachers and leaders or elders, who were reported to be the earliest ministry of the Malabar church.
    Through well established trade routes he would have obtained more and more of the NT as it became available.
     
  11. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I think ALL Christians agree with this. That is exactly what I am being taught in Catholic RCIA classes.
     
  12. 33ad

    33ad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nothing would be more personal than
    John 6
     
  13. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0

    I was reading the thread and wondering if anyone would get this. You are of course totally correct. There is absolutely no question but that this is right.
     
  14. Bro. James

    Bro. James Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,130
    Likes Received:
    59
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "On this rock..." is pivotal to understanding the confusion in the world of Christendom. If the holy see is correct: Peter, the apostle and the progeny of his bishopric are the "Rock" of the church Jesus is building, then all others are usurpers and apostates--without scriptural authority. While it is true Rome has excommunicated many, she has never authorized anyone to leave. Those who would recant can be reinstated--under the terms of Rome of course.

    If Peter is not "The Rock", the holy see is the usurper. It cannot be all of the above as reformed several times over. Jesus promised to never leave nor forsake His Bride. He has kept His promise.

    New Testament churches have never affiliated with Rome, Wittenburg, etal. In fact NT churches have been persecuted by them, even today.

    Think on these things.

    Peace,

    Bro. James
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Again, the immediate and overall context, grammar, denies that the "rock" is Peter but is the testiomony of Peter in Matthew 16:15.

    Secondarily, the application of the keys by Jesus himself proves that they were not given to Peter as an individual but rather to what he characterizes (found in his name) or the kind of material he builds the church with (1 Pet. 2:5 "lively stones built up a spiritual house") as Jesus applies the use of the keys not to a singular "thee" in Matthew 18:17-18 but to the plural "you" which has for its nearest antecedent "the church" in verse 17. The plural "you" in Matthew 18:18 sufficiently repudiates the idea that Jesus is addressing the person of Peter or the office of Peter in Matthew 16:19 but rather the characterization of Peter's name as representative of the plural "you" or "lively stones built up a spiritual house" in Matthew 18:17-18 as the nearest antecendent to this plural "you" in Matthath 18:18 is "the church" in verse 17. Paul commonly addresses each local "church" in his epistles as "you" (1 Cor. 1:1-3).

    Moreover, the nature of the church in Matthew 16:18 is the kind that can administer the keys as described in Matthew 18:15-18. In both instances the term "church" is found in the singular with the definite article ("the") without any designated geographical locations.
     
    #35 The Biblicist, Jun 27, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 27, 2012
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    not exacle, as the RCC teaches that we receive salvation/rebirth in water baptism, while bible teaches we personally receive jesus by faith!
     
  17. 33ad

    33ad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2012
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baptism is a replacement for being circumcised as Paul says

    At the time of jesus in jewish homes you are only Jewish through your fathers linage. And you could only become Jewish and have salvation if you were circumcised on the 8th day in the temple. So if you were a Jewish women you were saved through your husband or your father. If you were a non Jew such as the Ethiopian in acts 8 you had the potential for salvation to be a righteous gentile. It your chances were low.

    What the baptist tradition doesn't understand there is not one thing that saves you such as
    I was saved 2000 years ago when Jesus died for my sins
    I was saved at baptism
    I will be saved every time I have a sacrement
    I will be saved when Jesus comes again

    It's not a one time thing

    Colossians 2:11-12
    New International Version (NIV)
    11*In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh[a] was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12*having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
     
  18. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    No faith in Christ, no salvation: Regardless of what you think, the Catholic Church has always taught that.
     
  19. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Regardless of what you think the RCC teaches that salvation is through baptism. Baptism is defined as new birth. Without the magical power of baptism one cannot be saved. Thus salvation is not through Christ; it is through baptism (and perhaps the works of keeping the other "sacraments").
    That makes the RCC no different than Hinduism, Buddhism or any other religion--salvation by works--heresy.
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    The Catholic Church Catechism agrees with you that baptism is a replacement for being circumcised.

    Paul denies that justification by faith, which he defines as the blessing of imputed righteousness and remission of sins (Rom. 4:6-8) is conveyed by circumcision but rather is conveyed by faith "in uncircumcision" - Rom. 4:11.


    Hence, just replace the term "circumcision" with "baptism" or "baptized" in Romans 4:9-11 and you have a completed repudiation of Roman Catholic Sacramentalism. The following is for demonstration purposes only without any intent to change the Biblica wording but merely to shew what the parallelism between circumcision would be:

    9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the baptized only, or upon the unbaptized also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
    10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in baptism, or in unbaptism? Not in baptism, but in unbaptism.
    11 And he received the sign of baptism, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being unbaptized: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not baptized; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
    12 And the father of baptism to them who are not of the baptized only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet unbaptized.


    Again, the change of terms was for demonstration purposes only to show how a replacement between circumcision and baptism would read.

    The CCC agrees that baptism was a replacement for circumcision and that both were sacramental in regard to their respective covenants.
     
Loading...