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!

Through His Blood

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Plain ol' Ralph, Dec 1, 2004.

  1. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Read the entire chapter, Ralph. The blood is clearly mentioned in MV's several verses later. You still have yet to prove your point without blathering.
     
  2. Scott J

    Scott J Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    It was your contention, not mine, that the Colossians were being denied salvation if that phrase weren't included... I just showed how ridiculous that argument was since only one other NT book contains that specific phrase... meaning all of those recipients were likewise deprived.
     
  3. russell55

    russell55 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2002
    Messages:
    2,424
    Likes Received:
    0
    And it's there, in all versions:

     
  4. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nasty disposition. Is that really becoming of saints?

    Besides, it is not in all versions, and to read the versions up to that point, gives the impresssion of well, utter confusion in the versions that OMIT "through Hig Blood"

    And I was right, yall love to argue. Becoming? Argue some more!!
     
  5. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was your contention, not mine, that the Colossians were being denied salvation if that phrase weren't included... I just showed how ridiculous that argument was since only one other NT book contains that specific phrase... meaning all of those recipients were likewise deprived. </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, I see, anyone who didn't have ALL the Epistles, had all the Epistles? Not. The church at Colossa didn't have but this one, and the more accurate MSS, in contradiction to what is only deemed as older by MODERN standards, are MORE right than yall are willing to admit! :rolleyes: [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  6. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Argue? Don't think so. Like you say, read it in context of the whole. Again, another continued attack from you. My pointing out that you are blathering is neither a "nasty disposition" or an attack. It is a fact. You have no substantive answers and deflection back. It's not working, Ralph. The blood is clearly mentioned in the chapter and your alleged problem is no problem at all, just your attempt to defame the MV's.
     
  7. pastorjeff

    pastorjeff New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the readers of the letter would have never just read it up to this point. They would have read the entire letter. That is what we do with letters, read them from the beginning to the end. We don't just stop and start where we wish.


    I don't think anyone here would deny the importance of the blood of Christ. What we are denying is that this omission changes the doctrine of the nessecity of the blood. It is there in the text, maybe not in that verse (an arbitrarydivision of text) but the blood is in the epistle. End of the matter.
     
  8. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    That is, if it truly is an "ommission" and not an addition. Either way, it does not affect the doctrine.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    14,362
    Likes Received:
    668
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We must keep in mind why Jesus' blood is so important, and remember it every time we mention it. First, Jesus, who is God, voluntarily became a man so he would HAVE blood. And His blood was shed by the physical abuse He received, as part of His paying the penalty for OUR sins. God doesn't even hafta have blood at all, let alone have it shed by acts of violence and hate ahainst Him...but He did it all VOLUNTARILY. Think how much YOU'D suffer if you saw YOUR only begotten son treated as Jesus was...then try to imagine how much this hurt the Holy spirit & HIS FATHER! We cannot begin to imagine the magnitude of the sacrifice the Holy Trinity made in OUR behalf, and I thank Him every day for doing it, knowing that He coulda just blanked us out and started all over!
     
  10. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Will you cut this "attack" garbage out? Is that the ONLY way you know how to discuss things is to attack with the insinuation of "attacks"?

    Look at the MSS evidence, which MSS does have the phrase, which doesn't? Which is only partial and doesn't contain the phrase? is that the ONE you'll stick with?

    Is it doctrinal and only allowed to be harmonious? Yes it is!!

    Yall's own arguements argue against you.

    Hmmm, BIG contradiction here, and a "double-standard" to say the least!!
     
  11. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes it does.
     
  12. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Talk about double standards Ralph. Check in the mirror, please. Do you have the originals? Can you prove your points? You seem to be good at avoiding questions, deflecting, etc, but really have nothing of substance to post.
     
  13. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Definitely, almost, except without the shedding of blood there is no remission, so what you said is too closely linked to apostacy.


    You might also read where "it pleased him to bruise him" Isaiah 53, in regard to who did the bruising, and whom it is that was bruised.
     
  14. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, Ralph, it doesn't as the blood is clearly mentioned several times throughout this writing. Those who are militant KJVo's intentionally try to bring into question one section when they want everyone to apply the Bible as a whole. Why don't they do this themselves? Double standard? YES!
     
  15. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Uh, Scripure is the ONLY mirror I need to look into, and the harmony of Scripture is my PROOF!

    Your post has plenty of substance, but it wreaks with the familiarity of what is found in cow pastures. And it's not grass. [​IMG]
     
  16. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh, Ralph, is that the best you can come up with? Again, another showing of how substantive your posts are. You still have not addressed the fact that the blood is mentioned in this chapter and dispels your falsehood that it deletes it. You do not KNOW for a fact that it wasn't added or deleted from either version, that is, unless of course, you have the originals. Do you?
     
  17. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
    So now you "attack" the militantcy of the Christian? [snipped - malice or not you can't use that language] IOW, no malice.

    Hmmm? "Fight a good warfare" "Soldier"? any of those words OMITTED from your watered down version?

    [ December 05, 2004, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]
     
  18. Plain ol' Ralph

    Plain ol' Ralph New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  19. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please, now that you've implied I'm almost a heretick, prove your assertion. I have in NO WAY contradicted the scriptures, and I am really tired of your implications that I and others have. It is your teachings of KJVonlyism doctrine and the twisting of scriptures in other areas that is truly shameful. Why do you imply that I use the MV's as my Bible of choice, just as you implied that I was divorced in the other thread? I think you need to pull yourself together, Ralph. You might find you're messing with the wrong person. Plus, now since you've brought it up, PROVE that it is "OMITTED".

    Again, I want to clarify to you that I have attacked nothing but the militancy of the false teachers of the KJVo "doctrine". They have nothing to back up this doctrine, nor will they ever.
     
  20. AVL1984

    AVL1984 <img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    7,504
    Likes Received:
    62
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ralph, I have never stated that I didn't believe God could preserve His Word. Please prove where I have stated that God has not preserved His Word. You can't, because I haven't. I would expect an apology, but I know that would be too much to get from you.
    Again, I also see that you've avoided pointing out how the chapter omits the blood, as it doesn't.
     
Loading...