you wrote:
“You dig your unscriptural hole digger.”
What?
“The Jews, similarly, practiced baptism to represent life changes, and not, of itself, a saving act.”
Christian baptism is different than anything before it - and Peter made it clear what happens through baptism.
“The same is also true for the Thief on the cross, who went to paradise that very day with Jesus, cleansed of all his sin without the working of baptism.”
1) If Paradise is Heaven - which is what you probably believe - then how is it that Jesus preached to the prisoners in the Prison of the Patriarchs? That isn’t heaven either.
2) Some men will be saved without baptism - such as those who lived before baptism existed. That doesn’t negate baptism in itself.
“Roman debate at its finest. Dozens of scriptures proving it, and the guy replies “No it doesn’t.” Please post your evidence and do some scripture exegesis.”
When you actually deal with the verses I posted I might do more. Until then I don’t see the need.
“No, not really. You can be disingenuous about it, but we both know the “Universal Pastor,” with supreme power over the church, whom binds the Bishops together, is not someone or an office you would ignore.”
Don’t claim to know what I think. That is a type of “making it personal” and the mods don’t like that. Also, you’re wrong about what I think. Man, you’re not doing well.
“What an atrocious twisting of the scripture. After these verses, James is the one who makes the decision on this matter. There is no debate on this.”
Really? Says who that there is no debate on this? I have seen debates on this so I’m wondering who you’re citing.
“Still refusing to acknowledge that the “Throne of Peter,” according to Theodoret and Gregory, was possessed by three Bishops.”
You’re still refusing to acknowledge that Theodoret had views that go against yours.
“It doesn’t matter how much you repeat the same lame argument if you refuse to acknowledge what they clearly said on the matter.”
At the very least that would have to apply to you in any case.
“Christian baptism is different than anything before it - and Peter made it clear what happens through baptism.”
Based on what? Your assertion? Why should we divorce the practice of baptism as performed by the Jews? Especially when it is clear that it is a spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit which is superior? But yet, you would have us divorce it from the practice of the Jews, only to make it even more carnal than the Jews, as if spiritual regeneration can be accomplished through a physical act.
You assert alot. You try to prove very little.
“1) If Paradise is Heaven - which is what you probably believe - then how is it that Jesus preached to the prisoners in the Prison of the Patriarchs? That isn’t heaven either.”
You are denying that the Thief was saved? If he did not go to hell, then his progress must be to heaven, whether he went with Jesus to an allegedly separate paradise and then to heaven is irrelevant. You also dodge Cornelius and his family who were baptized by the Spirit before the baptism by water, and then, without bothering to reconcile it, you make more baseless assertions.
As for the scripture you are referring to, while it doesn’t prove your point either way, and is therefore utterly irrelevant, I will add that it is not settled that Jesus preached to the dead, and it does not reference the patriarchs, but rather the antedeluvians.
1Pe 3:18-20 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; (20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
He says he went to speak to the spirits in prison, but it can either be read “when they were spirits,” or it can be read as referring to the past, “He went to preach to those who now are spirits,” which occurred during the times of Noah, as immediately referenced.
“When you actually deal with the verses I posted I might do more. Until then I don’t see the need.”
I did, and more. But if you cannot debate using the scripture, it is more to my benefit. My argument stands unmolested by any serious response.
“Man, you’re not doing well.”
I know when the other side is not doing well when they stop responding with even the semblance of argument and start asserting that I am not doing well.
When you can explain how the Universal Pasotr, possessor of supreme power, the vicar of Christ by whom all authority presides, is “just another Bishop not worthy of mentioning as separate”, then you can belittle me.
Until then, dream on.
“Really? Says who that there is no debate on this?”
Says you, who evidently stopped debating it in favor of writing this useless sentence.
“You’re still refusing to acknowledge that Theodoret had views that go against yours.”
You’re still refusing to acknowledge that Theodoret believed more than one person represented Peter. You refuse to even discuss it. IOW, you can’t.
If all you have are assertions and dodges and half-arguments, I’ll not keep responding.