Free Republic

Theology is the philosophy that there is a need for an “enlightened” man to interpret the word for the lowly and limited sheep.

Wrong! Theology is not a philosophy, and so you obviously don't have a clue what you are discussing.

I would say that most ‘theology’ students were never in fellowship.
Theology is just the all-encompassing term for man made beliefs that are promulgated as Biblical truth.
Believers have no need for theology, nor ‘interpretation.’
Believers read and hear the word of God, and thereby find faith, through the work of the Holy Spirit.
Theologians believe in their beliefs and interpretations, and have no need for the Holy Spirit.

Is that so? I'm a theologian, and almost every theologian I know walks in the light with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

"The rabbit trails of long, rambling sentences that lead the easily distracted astray to follow the error of their own hearts, as Peter so clearly stated."

You will not find the words in the Bible, but both Trinity and the imputation of Christ's righteousness are thematic facts found in the Word.

I have seen numerous reports the officer is an African-American.

Ping

Not at all the thought. Your imaginative assumption is that water baptism has anything at all to do with The Father's decision to save an individual from eternal death and, on the basis alone of The Father's acceptance of the placement by Jesus, as The Eternal High Priest, of His Life-giving Incorruptible Shed Blood upon the Mercy Seat of Heaven by which alone The Father's righteous demands for the damages caused by Sin were completely satisfied, and by which The Father was unilaterally and righteously able to offer reconciliation and recommencing fellowship as with Adam to the otherwise worthless product of Adam's flesh, thus giving him/her the gift of eternal life.

I have walked with the Lord over 40 years. I'm an old man with Parkinson's Disease, and typing is very difficult for me, and just to type and correct this short response takes a long time. I never said water baptism alone saves as you are determined to attribute to me, and we made it very clear in the article the Lord does not see water baptism as salvation by works, or a work of the flesh. That said, I will make my point and then leave you.

They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around." Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. NIV Mk 8:22-25

Jesus used spit on the man's eyes to heal the man. Was this healing using spit a work of the flesh or faith working?

If the Lord uses spit in healing, why do you think it so strange He uses the element of water in baptism? Could it be He wants to confound the wise by using one of the most common elements found on earth? He clearly has used water in the past working miracles.

When Peter first preached The Gospel and opened the Kingdom to the Jews with the keys The Lord Jesus Christ had given to him, he preached The Gospel of Christ and the necessity of repentance for Salvation followed by the command to be baptized at once. A few days later Peter had a little better understanding of The Gospel. He did not tell the hearers to be baptized, but he told them to repent and be converted (Acts 3:19). So he moved away from the preaching the act of baptism in connection with Salvation. But in the beginning he preached it because of the understanding from the fact that The Lord Jesus baptized and His disciples baptized and prior to that John baptized. There was a primitive understanding about baptism, but as The Holy Spirit revealed The Truth more clearly, the contents of the message became more precise and the act of baptism was not retained in the message of The Gospel of The Lord Jesus Christ.

According to your position Jesus command to go into the world and make disciples, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was an error on His part. Furthermore, we see baptism in water after Acts 3.

Let me suggest there are two parts to one baptism, one part the sinner does by faith, and the second is completed with God giving the Holy Spirit by grace.

I don’t believe this for a second..

All of the NT was first written in the only language in which the apostles were sufficiently literate: Hebrew. It soon got translated to Aramaic because much of the dispersion of the house of Israel that they were commissioned to reach were in Aramaic speaking enclaves.

Nonsense! Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic, when Israel was in BABYLON. After that time Hebrew was only used in worship services.

Your Hebrew New Testament line has slightly less reality than a cow jumping over the moon.

That said, you may fully agree with baptism being part of the conversion process, but I strongly suggest you carefully read the article. Many have told us it is one of the best articles they have read on the subject.

Those that did the Greek translations of the NT did it after all the apostles were dead, and used as authorities the least reliable of sources.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Time after time you display profound ignorance on this subject. Let's go to evidenceforjesuschrist.org, and under the Bible link we find when hundreds of top Bible experts say each Book of the New Testament was written. 72 top scholars list as Mark as being written 59 to 64 AD, Matthew 62 to 69 AD, Luke 64 to 68 AD, and John 84 to 89 AD.

Furthermore, you are dead wrong about the NT being written in Hebrew.

You’re in the same shape as the Greek translators were, depending on unbelieving Jewish scholars for your translation.

i've worked on two translations, and will state you are dead wrong on almost every point.

.There was no name “Jesus” until the KJV translators invented it to hid his true name, which name they had no difficulty correctly translating for Joshua of OT fame. (the J is ‘soft’ as in a ‘y’ )

His name is Yeshua, because he came to yoshia his people.

Your poor knowledge of English Bible translations leaves a lot to be desired. The Geneva Bible used the name Jesus 51 years before the KJV. Furthermore, Pilate wrote Jesus in Latin, Aramaic, and Greek, and not Hebrew.

Now be a nice little gnostic and run home.

We see your kind on a rather regular basis around here always knowing some better way than the apostles taught.

It certainly sounds like Gnosticism to me. It sounds like Fabian has more faith in Roy Masters than Jesus Christ and the Apostle John. He has nothing to offer us or anyone else, and so kick the dust off your feet, let him go, and offer him silence. He has rejected Christ.

Oh no..I am talking about way way back. The was plenty of very good texts excluded.

Mr. WayWay Back, Please list them? I'm a theologian, and know quite a bit about the subject.

People who have looked into it know very well that many scriptures did not make it into the bible...hello!

I have contributed work to two major Bible translations. Yes, there are so-called scriptures which didn't make it into our translations, and for good reason. They are NOT considered inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The sad thing is that your type reject the very power of the holy spirit by over emphasizing the bible. Big mistake!

If you knew what you were talking about, then you would show Him the honor and respect due by correctly capitalizing the name of the third person of the Trinity, Holy Spirit.

Are you joking? There is plenty left out of scripture..that’s why the spirit is most important!

Oh really! The name of the spirit you have been listening to wouldn't be named IMeThinkItus would it?

I’m amazed to see those who profess belief in Jesus Christ reject his words as history. Jesus consistently treats Old Testament historical narratives as straightforward records of fact. He refers to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27), Abraham (John 8:56), the institution of circumcision (John 7:22; cf. Gen. 17:10-12; Lev. 12:3), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15; 11:23, 24; Luke 10:12), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28), manna (John 6:31, 49, 58), the snake in the desert (John 3: 14), David eating the consecrated bread (Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4), David as a psalm writer (Matt. 22:43; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42), Solomon (Matt. 6:29; 12:42; Luke 11:31; 12:27), Elijah (Luke 4:25, 26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt. 12:39-41; Luke 11:29, 30, 32), and Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The last passage brings out Jesus’ sense of the unity of history and His grasp of its wide sweep. His eye surveys the whole course of history from “the creation of the world” to “this generation.” He repeatedly refers to Moses as the giver of the Law (Matt. 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:5; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He frequently mentions the sufferings of the true prophets (Matt. 5:12; 13:57; 21:34-36; 23:29-37; Mark 6:4 [cf. Luke 4:24; John 4:44]; 12:2-5; Luke 6:23; 11:47-51; 13:34; 20:10-12) and comments on the popularity of the false prophets (Luke 6:26). He sets the stamp of His approval on such significant passages as Genesis 1 and 2 (Matt. 19:4, 5; Mark 10:6-8).