Featured Why do Mormons and Baptists deny the need for historical evidence?

As I have said before, Jesus had not shed his blood yet on the cross, the cup had fruit of the vine, and the bread was bread. The fruit of the vine and the bread were symbolic of the Covenant Jesus was making. Jesus had not yet given up his body, yet you want us to believe that Jesus was giving his body and blood before the cross.

Of course, we are supposed to take this bread and drink seriously; it is in remembrance of Jesus!

Did you not read that? We proclaim the Lord’s death when we eat the bread and drink we do this in remembrance of Jesus.

Can you quote the scripture exactly.

To eat and drink the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner is a warning about not being disrespectful. The people who were eating at the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner did not wait for others to eat first, to make sure the poor were fed, and people were getting drunk on the wine.

 

You are a liar from hell! I was appointed archbishop by Archbishop Rodney Rickard of the Primitive Catholic Church; he was validly ordained in the Old Catholic succession. I did not appoint myself! Do NOT lie about me!

My fellowship is called the Celtic ANABAPTIST Communion; we adhere to the four Baptist freedoms and other Baptist principles!

I highly resent you telling me that I am listening to the voice of Satan! My communion ministers to the spiritual descendants you Magisterial Protestants murdered in the name of Jesus! Considering your highly offensive tone, manner, and accusatory and false posts, I submit that it is YOU who are listening to the voice of Satan. You are not my brother; you are the voice of hell. You need to leave this forum. Your intent is clearly to malign the beliefs of the people here with your false and haughty accusations.

As much as I have vehemently disagreed with some members here, I have never thought anyone should be banned -- until you. You should be kicked out of here; you have abused the privilege to post here.

 

Words have meanings.
1. The word baptidzo means immersion.
2. All those baptized were baptized by immersion. For example the Ethiopian Eunuch did not take of his ample supply of water, perhaps in a canteen equipped for a rich man traveling over a desert. A few drops would have been enough in either pouring or sprinkling. But he waited until there was a large body of water, big enough for "both of them to go down into the water and come back up out of the water."

John the Baptist went into the middle of the Jordan River and baptized by immersion there.
Jesus and his disciples baptized near Salim "because there was much water there."

Your opinion backed up by your opinion worth your opinion, value of which is nothing but your opinion.

I don't presume to be God.

The Bible is the best historical book I know of. You don't want the history of the Bible. Is it so inferior that you honor the ECF and secular sources greater than God's inspired Word??

I have read the Book of Mormon, and I teach cults. Have you done either?
The book of Mormon teaches that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. There are dozens of factual historical mistakes in the Book of Mormon. Gleason Archer in his Introduction to the Old Testament Appendices lists about three pages of them. Here are some of them:

[/FONT]

Your OP is despicable. The Baptists honor honest history. The Book of Mormon is full of appended and revised history, history that doesn't even exist.
There is no contradiction in the Bible; the book of Mormon is full of contradiction.
You, yourself, turn a blind eye to actual history and have swallowed the RCC revised history hook, line, and sinker. That is unfortunate. It is sad when people don't do their homework and gullibly swallow what others tell them.

Whose argument is circular. My argument is that the Word of God is my final authority. Your argument is in unbelief.

It seems obvious to me which one of needs to repent. I stand on the Word of God, and have ever since I came out of the RCC. The RCC is not a Christian church, never was and never will be a Christian church. Its gospel, so-called is one that Paul calls accursed. Yet that is the one you call historical, and one that you are preaching that people should return to.
You are right. Repentance is needed.

 

I never posted a lie about you, and I never said you were listening to the voice of Satan; you did both in one post! I can take anything, if it is honest and not a personal attack. You can bet I will defend myself.

You accuse me of listening to the voice of Satan. You must be familiar with that voice yourself.

How dare you tell anyone on here to repent!

 

As for me personally, I welcome the widest possible representation of the Christian faith. I have been a member of and posted on Baptist forums, Anglican forums, Catholic forums, Methodist forums, Presbyterian forums, Nazarene forums.

I am not afraid of being presented with differing beliefs. What I object to is the manner in which you present those beliefs. You have absolutely no right to equate anyone's beliefs here with Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example. You have no right to tell any of us to repent. You need to repent for your haughty and self-righteous manner.

 

First of all, even the office of archbishop in the CAC is not the same as in other denominations. Your snide remark about appointing myself pope is a continuance of your insults, so what good is your apology. Further, how could any legitimate minister appoint himself to anything.

Secondly, I am NOT Reformed; I am almost as opposed to Reformed theology as I am to Romanism.

It would probably be best if I stopped responding to you. I'll tell you this, though: You are unwise to come in here telling everybody they are wrong, that they should repent, and return to the infant baptizing state-church ideology that was responsible for centuries of murder of our spiritual ancestors.

 

What I find insulting and offensive is your telling people to repent and return to denominations whose "tradition" included killing others for Jesus.

Tell me my doctrine is false all you want, but don't try to recruit me into a state-church theological system. Just because you can't forcefully impose that on people anymore doesn't mean the ideology has changed.

 

The Squire is not backed into a corner at all.

You are here to share the truth? Really? So tell us, ... when are you going to start?

What you have been posting has not been "the true Gospel of Jesus Christ." You are posting hatred for those who have made professions of faith in Christ.

It needs to stop, Whittenberger. You have been attacking Baptists since the first day you posted on this board. You are not preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are preaching your own religion that has nothing to do with the true gospel.

 

So Paul is pitted against Paul, how amusing! Paul explictly denies that circumcision has anything to do with justification by faith for not only Abraham but for "ALL WHO ARE OF FAITH" whether they are circumcised or uncircumcised:

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

So Paul does not teach that remission of sins or regeneration occurs in either baptism or circumcision but they are both equally "signs" of an already regenerated, justified, sin remitted believer!

When you depend upon your uninspired writings (Fathers) to interpret the scriptures you end up exactly with the same kind of interpretation of those Judaistic legalist who also interpreted scriptures according to their uninspired rabbi's (Elders).

 

It's not that Paul is pitted against Paul, it is more like Whittenberger is pitted against the Truth.

 

Nowhere does the Bible ever say that baptism is a "oath-curse sign" but rather we are "BURIED with him by baptism" and thus it is a "sign" that publicly identifes the JUSTIFIED REGENERATED BELIEVER with the gospel essentials of Jesus Christ so that a BURIAL is depicted by that sign.

That is why God did not choose the term rantizo (sprinkle) or the term "epicheo" (pour) as neither could convey that "sign" which is the same "sign" as Jonah in the belly of the great fish - BURIAL in water. That is why one must be "baptized IN Jordan" rather than "by Jordan" and why one needs "MUCH water" instead of a little handful of water.

This is the nonsense one is led to believe when cults depart from the scriptures as their final authority and are led to interpret scripture by uninspired writings (Fathers).

 

More intellectual ignorance! Under the old covenant the circumcision of male babies was merely an extension of the same "sign" as salvation begins with NEW birth. Paul explicitly states what circumcision was a "sign" of and that is a "new creature" whether the individual was literally circumcised or not:

Gal. 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

The Abrahamic Covenant demonstrates the same truth:

Rom. 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


Can't get it plainer IF you have eyes to see (and apparently you do not). However, here is a little tidbit to help - Nicodemus was a circumcised Jew and yet needed to be "BORN AGAIN" demonstrating that his circumcision did not bring him into the Abrahamic covenant but only a New birth would. Thus neither does baptism bring anyone into the New Covenant but only NEW BIRTH does and the PHYSICAL birth preceded PHYSICAL circumcision under Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenants because circumcision is the "sign" that SPIRITUAL birth must always precede DIVINE RITES under the New Covenant.

However, when one follows UNINSPIRED interpreters (Fathers) instead of going directly to the scriptuers as did the more noble Bereans than one ends up with such nonsense and false doctrine that are found consistently throughout the Fathers.