Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...

:confused:

 

No 'work' I can do can ever satisfy the demands of His justice; only His grace resulting from the atoning death of Jesus Christ can do that.

 

...then you are agreeing baptism is not necessary? You've lost me...

 

See above: baptism is a means of communicating that saving grace, but it is a work of God, not of man. I wouldn't say necessary (see, eg: the thief on the cross) but I would say normative.

 

I think we are in agreement that it is normative, but I think we disagree on it being a work of God. It is man's response to God's work in man's heart, but it is something we do.

 

Let me put it bluntly. Your English translation is not inspired, as not translation is. God promised to preserve His word, but only the original MSS are inspired and they are preserved for us in the Greek and Hebrew. Therefore to find out the meaning of what is being said in the Bible one must use the Greek and Hebrew, we have no other choice in the matter.
The fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic (which is probably not factual) is irrelevant. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. And those are the MSS which God chose to inspire by His Holy Spirit. It wouldn't have matter if Jesus spoke English. The authors of the NT penned the words of the NT in Greek and those are the words that the Holy Spirit inspired. Please understand that.

I am not interested in those multiple meanings. I am only interested in what the Bible teaches. If you are not interested in having the Bible as your authority and Bible doctrine, then I have nothing further to discuss with you.

Shakespeare isn't God, and his teaching is not the Bible. What he says and the language he says it in is totally irrelevant. I am interested only in Bible doctrine and what the Bible teaches. All else is irrelvant.

The Bible defines doctrine like prayer. If you are not willing to start from that basis you are not willing to learn. End of discussion.

Then confine yourself to those meanings and not the RCC meanings.

Nonsense! I gave you a perfectly good definition of prayer from a Bible dictionary, and could give you many others if you so desired.

Then why are you using Webster as your authority and not the Bible?

I have showed you. Are you blind? The only one risen from the dead is Jesus Christ. That is the foundation of our faith. If you deny this you deny your own faith. If he alone is alive obviously the others are dead and in the grave to this day.

 

Are you saying that when the gospel mentions that lazereth was risen from the dead it was lying of that the saints that were dead walked around Jerusalem and spoke to people that it was lying? Jesus is the premire person to be raised from the dead. Not the only or you saying scriptures are lying?

The foundation of my faith is that Jesus was crucified for my sins and raised again on the third day and will come again. Elijah and Enoch aren't in the grave to this day. So I think there's problems with your supposition.

 

Lazarus was not raised from the dead on a permanent basis. He came back to life again, is more like it. With him, the resurrection had not occurred. He still died at the end of his life. He was still buried at the end of his life.

 

where does it say that in the bible? Where does it say that about the Other saints walking around Jerusalem? Where in the bible does it say Enoch and Elijah are in the grave?

 

Wasn't Enoch 'assumed' into heaven or something to that effect?

 

Matthew 27:51-52 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
Matthew 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.


The saints that arose, arose after the resurrection, as it explicitly says.
Paul stresses that Jesus was the firstfruits of them that slept or were dead. He was the first one to rise from the dead. It could be no other way.

Concerning Elijah and Enoch they did not rise from the dead. They were "assumed" into heaven. That is different. They didn't die. Jesus died; was buried; then after three days arose from the dead--permanently.

 

So If Elijah and Enoch were "assumed" into heaven why not Mary? No where does the scriptures say she died. Also note Christ is the first fruits doesn't say anything about them dieing agian or going back to their graves. Christ resurrection is premier not necissarily the first because Elijah raised that boy back to life long before Jesus raised. You're drawing a conclusion that doesn't specify that those who were raised went back to the grave. Paul was making an unrelated point. So, you are in fact attributing to something you think rather than accepting that the bible is silent on the matter.

 

Scripture states our flesh cannot inherit Heaven, so whether Enoch or Elijah did not die in the same manner as us, their flesh died nonetheless. It has been appointed unto man once to die...this is for every man (and woman)

 

where in the bible does it say that? If your authority is the bible you must admit the bible does not make that claim. It says enoch was no more for God Took him. Elishah saw Elijah taken up by chariot of fire. It does not say what happened to either of them.

 

When Jesus hung on the cross one of the last things he did was to look down and see Mary and John. Note the conversation:

John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

From that hour John took Mary to his own home and he took care of her until her death. There is no record of any assumption. That goes totally against Scripture and is a RCC myth.

 

1 Cor. 15:50-54. In regards to Scripture not saying anything about Elijah and Enoch, unless they were subhuman, their flesh died. Your argument is also based on silence if you claim mine is, but there are many Scriptures saying all men die.

 

Yet the scriptures are clear that Enoch did not die and nither did Elijah. So are you saying the bible contradicts itself?

 

Where does Scripture say that in those words...that they didn't die? The wording is such that they disappeared. You are approaching it with the presupposition of death as the meaning.

 

God is sovereign. It is not you or I that must command God to hold him to our rules. If he wishes to take someone straight to heaven He has that authority, and Thinkingstuff cannot argue with God about it. He can; but he will lose.

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

In light of the rest of Scripture (appointed unto man once to die, death ahs appeared to all men, flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom, etc.) his earthly flesh was not taken to Heaven. Since death is separation, while he didn't die in the manner we know, he shed his flesh all the same.