Posts by Zuriel

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Alabama toddler drowned in church's baptismal water: coroner

    09/22/2014 9:12:34 PM PDT · 31 of 90
    Zuriel to DariusBane

    **You have never experienced the chaos that is a Pentecostal church?**

    Hey......I found you in the Bible:

    “Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine”. Acts 2:13

    If it’s appropriate to mock these people here, under these sad circumstances, then it’s appropriate to mock them at the funeral as well.

    Go for it. /s

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/11/2014 9:27:43 PM PDT · 299 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    **Zuriel, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. Thanks, God Bless and good night.**

    Well, I do appreciate your polite, and honest conclusion. I thought I replied to the below assertion from you (#296), before I replied to #295. But, I must not have double clicked ‘post’ before handing over the pc to my wife for a few minutes. So, please allow me to touch on it for a few moments.

    from #296 **And later, as I pointed out previously, Peter corrected himself: Act 11:16 -“Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.”**

    I really do wonder why folks think that Peter didn’t quite get it right beginning with that day of Pentecost, and also the conversion of the house of Cornelius. I mean, look at the teacher he had.......none other than Jesus Christ. Who, taught him, prayed for him (a lot), and told him this:

    “..Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and WHEN thou art CONVERTED, strengthen the brethern”. Lk 22:31,32

    They then went to Gethsemane to pray, where the Lord prayed to the Father, mostly for his disciples. One verse that sticks out for me, concerning the upcoming evangelism, is this one:

    “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on ME through THEIR WORD”. Jn 17:20

    We know that Peter promptly went and ‘fell flat on his face’ with his denial. But, he was going to ‘be scattered’ anyway (Zech. 13:7; Matt. 26:31; Mk 14:27), and he was yet to be CONVERTED. That happened, when the Spirit was poured out on the first 120.

    I don’t believe that Peter was erroneous in any of his first sermon to the lost, and that Acts 2:38 is inspired from God, as well.

    Below is a comparison of the conversion events in Acts 10, and the Acts 11 testamony of Peter, back in Jerusalem:

    The Holy Ghost falls:
    10:44 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.”
    11:15 “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them...”

    The witness:
    10:45,46 “And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles ALSO was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God..”.
    11:15 “..fell on them, AS ON US at the beginning.”

    The declaration of that witness:

    10:47 “...which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we.”
    11:17 “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did onto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ..”.

    Did you notice that I left out the last three words of 10:46, and the first part of 10:47; and, that I left out the last part of 11:17?

    That’s because there is a challenge given in both cases:
    10:46,47 “..Then answered Peter. Can any man..” (including Peter himself) “..forbid water, that these should not be baptized...”.
    11:17 “What was I, that I could withstand God?” (yes, I believe Peter was faced with God’s command of baptizing them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and HAD TO DO IT. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord...”. 10:48

    My conclusion:
    Peter’s remembrance, that he relates to the brethern in Jerusalem (11:15-17), is that the same Spirit baptism promised from the Lord (vs 16), happened to the Gentiles, and there was no doubt to him that their infilling of the Holy Ghost was the real deal.

    I believe that Peter’s remembrance that he quotes in 11:16 happened right here, between the words “..and magnify God.”, and, “Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water,..”.

    Remember that Paul was baptized, and baptized others, even admitting so in his letter to the Corinthians. Between the apostles, there were disagreements about what, and what not, to eat, etc., but, I believe that he taught the same conversion as Peter and the other apostles: Acts 2:38

    Thanks, God bless, and good night.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/10/2014 7:17:23 PM PDT · 297 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    **“Romans 10:3,4, -“For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”**

    That’s great. But, I know you are using that verse to deny water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

    The CONTEXT of Romans 10: (which is a continuation of Paul’s lament in chapter 9) “Brethern, my heart’s DESIRE and PRAYER to GOD for ISRAEL is, THAT they MIGHT be SAVED.

    Do you understand context? Paul is making it clear to the saints at Rome that God wants to save the Israelites, and anyone from any ethnicity. He tells them that anyone can be saved by calling on the name of the Lord, BUT, they have to be instructed by preacher/witness sent from God. Paul met the Lord under shocking circumstances, YET, even HE had to go and listen to a preacher (Ananias) that would “tell thee what thou must do”. Acts 9:6

    Ananias to Paul: “And why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16

    “Romans was written to those called to be saints.”
    And that is every one who believes!

    Do you believe the context?......such as Chap 6, vss 17,18:

    “But God be thanked, that ye were” (past tense) “the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed” (past tense) “from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered” (past tense) “you. Being THEN” (past tense) “made free from sin, ye became” (past tense) “the servants of righteousness”. Rms 6:17,18

    Those folks were already born again.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 9:56:09 PM PDT · 294 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    **The specific scripture is clear and the intention is to inform those who are not saved about how to obtain salvation.**

    You are using one verse, and not taking the epistle as a whole. Context is your friend. Romans was written to those called to be saints. Say it ain’t so, and defy the scriptures. The epistle of Romans gives testamony to how they were saved:

    “But God be thanked, that ye were” (past tense) “the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed” (past tense) “from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered” (past tense) “you. Being THEN” (past tense) “made free from sin, ye became” (past tense) “the servants of righteousness”. Rms 6:17,18

    Romans 10 DOES talk about people being saved in a present and future tense form; but it also DETAILS the believing unto righteousness is accomplished by HEARING a preacher (witness) sent from God. The first was Peter, and after he preached Jesus Christ, he said to the hungry souls: “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. (Acts 2:38) Three very distinct steps in the conversion instructions. It’s very plain, very simple.

    Is the following your interpretation?... “Repent for remission of sins, and in the name of Jesus, be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” If so, you have reduced it to two distinct steps, that disagrees with the Word.

    I can continue this discussion, although it may be a while, since this truck driver’s 34 hr restart will happen shortly, and I will be rolling.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 9:31:25 PM PDT · 293 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **How is one united with Christ? “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” That is how you come to be in Christ - thru the baptism Jesus gives, immersion in the Spirit.**

    “And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” Acts 5:32

    You need to obey God. From your own testimony, you truly believe that water baptism in the name of Jesus is essentially nothing more than outward sign of an inward cleaning, proof of separation from the world. But IT’S IMPORTANT, you say. What you’ve actually done is reduce it to powerless vanity.

    The Spirit is life, and testifies of the truth. It is not death and burial.

    My outward sign of an inward cleansing; my proof of separation, is the Holy Ghost baptism. The Lord said there is a sound, of which the origin is unknown, when one is born of the Spirit. Jesus said, concerning the coming Comforter (Holy Ghost): “At THAT day ye shall KNOW that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.”

    Did you experience the ‘sound’, OR did you just accept the man-made concept of: “You automatically receive the Spirit when you believe on the Lord Jesus”? (with no supernatural sound)

    Acts doesn’t support the latter. There are detailed cases that point out people believing, and being baptized with the Holy Ghost later, and some detailing the ‘sound’ (tongues).

    Witnessing the Samaritans being filled with the Holy Ghost sure rocked Simon the sorcerer’s world. He offered money to have the power to give people the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Of course his attitude was grossly wrong, but I don’t think he offered money because he saw people simply say: “I accept the Lord as my personal savior”. They had already done that a few verses earlier when they believed.

    Peter said: “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. Three very distinct steps in the conversion instructions. It’s very plain, very simple.

    I know you don’t believe that, since you believe that the ‘baptized’, and receiving ‘the gift of the Holy Ghost’ is the same distinct action. So just rewrite it to match your interpretation: “Repent for remission of sins, and in the name of Jesus, be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” And you have even reduced it to two distinct steps. Bravo (sigh)

    I can continue this discussion, although it may be a while, since this truck driver’s 34 hr restart will happen shortly, and I will be rolling.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 4:19:50 PM PDT · 290 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **How is one united with Christ?**

    Sounds similar to this question:
    Acts 2:37 “Men and brethern, what shall we do?”

    Obey Acts 2:38,. It’s that simple. And it agrees (corresponds) with Heb.6:1,2:

    “..the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God. Of the doctrine of baptisms, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement.”

    **How is one united with Christ?**

    By being born of the water and the Spirit.

    Did Philip not paint a big enough picture when he baptized the Samaritans? The same Philip that baptized the eunuch in water. Does Paul not paint a big enough picture with his conversion?...

    Ananias to Paul: “And why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16

    Another point to address: Do you believe that there is a sound that makes the presence of the Holy Ghost known to the hearer, and that you don’t know where it comes from? Jesus Christ said that that is the case for EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.

    My Calvinist upbringing taught me that there was no sound in Spirit birth. It was automatically there when I confessed faith in Christ. Only thing is, that’s not scriptural.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 3:50:04 PM PDT · 289 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    **Romans 10:9 -**

    Written to those already born again: “Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ. To all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints... Rms 1:6,7

    Here is more of Romans:
    “Know ye not, that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his DEATH? Therefore we are BURIED with him INTO DEATH..”

    Now the ‘life’ part: “..that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life”. Rms 6:3,4

    **Paul: 1 Corinthians 1:17 “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”**

    Paul’s ministry wasn’t a ‘John the baptist’ ministry. But, in his first letter to the Corinthians, who were already born again (”them that are sanctified in Jesus Christ, called to be saints..” 1:2), Paul promptly addressed those that were bragging about WHO baptized them, instead of WHO was crucified for them.

    Paul DID baptize: “I thank God that I baptized none of you, BUT Crispus and Gaius; LEST any should say that I had baptized in MINE OWN NAME. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other”. 1Cor. 1:14-16

    “I know not whether I baptized any other”?? That tells me Paul was a real busy man, and POSSIBLY baptized others in Corinth.

    Let’s assume there was at least two that comprised the ‘household of Stephanas’, plus Cripus and Gaius, and POSSIBLY others. All baptized by Paul, who was sent NOT to baptize. So, Paul was disobedient to his calling.

    That reasoning is another example of people twisting the scriptures to their own destruction, as Peter warned of.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/09/2014 3:21:14 PM PDT · 287 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **I read it. Noah needed to do something to save his family from destruction. But Noah was ALREADY RIGHT WITH GOD. hE WAS ALREADY JUSTIFIED IN THE EYES OF GOD! “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.”**

    In what ways do think that Noah was found ‘right with God’. Do you think he skipped out on the animal sacrifices God had ordained after he clothed Adam and Eve?

    Like Abel before him, I’m sure he was offering sacrifices unto God. He was doing something (gasp!), and probably many things, to be found faithful to God.

    **The Flood separated Noah from the evil around him,**

    God buried the sin of that present world in a watery grave. Was evil removed from around Noah? NOT FOR LONG!!.....

    “And Ham, the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethern without......And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethern.” Gen. 9:22,24,25

    Noah lived after the flood 350 years, and no doubt saw plenty of evil spring up during that time. Noah was still alive when Abram was born.

    **and baptism with water corresponds to that. Deal with it!**

    Your interpretations again. Deal with this, this time, since you have so far chosen not to:

    Moses was the voice of God to the Israelites. Ex. 4:12,15.
    They “were under the cloud, and passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. 1Cor. 10:1,2

    That’s when “Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still and SEE the SALVATION of the Lord, which he will SHEW to you TO DAY: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen TO DAY, ye shall see them again no more for ever.” Ex. 14:13

    You will say they were saved without works before the Red Sea, overlooking that they offered animal sacrifices unto God, in order to survive the ‘destroyer’. They then arrive at the Red Sea where God shows them final and complete deliverance (”the salvation of the Lord”).

    At the Red Sea, we see the water (death and burial) and the cloud (Spirit).
    At creation, we see the water (lifeless, and therefore dead)and the Spirit.

    There was death and burial in the Flood. THEN “God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters were asswaged..”. (Gen, 8:1). Then, new life came forth.

    Which reminds me of the ‘rushing mighty wind’ of Pentecost.
    Which reminds me of “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the SOUND thereof, but canst NOT TELL whence it cometh or whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.” Jn 3:8

    **It is very simple. It is very obvious. But I don’t have a crayon large enough to draw the picture for you**

    Philip draws you a BIG picture, (but you will probably dodge it with more man-made tradition):

    “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself was baptized also....Now when the apostles...heard...they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For AS YET, he was fallen on NONE OF THEM. ONLY they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” Acts 8:12-17

    That ‘corresponds’ (agrees) with the conversion of the certain disciples in Ephesus, Where they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. BUT, the Holy Ghost did NOT come on them until Paul laid his hands on them.

    **Water baptism does not place us in Christ Jesus. The Spirit does that. Period.**

    So, you plan on showing up at the wedding feast without a wedding garment?

    **It is simple. Paul uses baptism as a type - an image to explain things.**

    Where’s that YOPIOS dude?

    The Spirit is life, NOT death and burial: Paul taught THIS:

    “Know ye not, that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his DEATH? Therefore we are BURIED with him INTO DEATH..”

    Now the ‘life’ part: “..that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the GLORY of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life”. Rms 6:3,4

    **“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”**

    I believe that. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his”. But, you are using 1Cor. 12:13 to bypass being ‘buried with him in baptism’ (death and buriel). The context of that verse, shows Paul teaching that there is one Spirit that does a multiude of things for a diverse membership.

    **This is not open to debate.**

    Are you one of those climate change types that believes the debate is no longer open there as well?

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 10:46:11 PM PDT · 281 of 300
    Zuriel to CynicalBear

    **You didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask when you “knew” you were saved.**

    And I answered it with this:
    It was then I knew I was saved, when I obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to me. (see Rms 6:17)
    “Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness”. Rms 6:18

    You asked this:
    **So do you believe you were saved after asking Jesus to be your savior or not until you were baptized?**

    You have to repent, call on his name and be baptized to receive remission of sins, and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, just like Acts 2:38 teaches.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 10:33:24 PM PDT · 280 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    **Galatians 2:16 -**

    The saints at Galatia were already born again. But, unfortunately were still performing some of the ‘works of the Law’. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins is NOT a work of the Law. God remits the sins, not man.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 10:26:34 PM PDT · 279 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **So what did the Flood do? Hmmmm? In what sense did the Flood ‘save’ Noah? Well, it separated him from the evil generation he was in - which is what water baptism does for us.**

    Did you even read this?
    “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, PREPARED an ark to the SAVING of his house.....”. Heb. 11:7

    Noah was WARNED (grace) of God. He HAD to DO something to be saved. The warning, and instructions for escaping God’s wrath were to be followed..to the letter.

    You seem to believe in predestination. Are you predestined to not be buried with Him in likeness of his death?

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 10:14:13 PM PDT · 277 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **Yes - God had already claimed them as His own, and had already decided to bring them out of Egypt. They were already saved by God, and already His Chosen People. They were not accepted by God based on crossing the Red Sea, but crossed the Red Sea because God had already accepted them!**

    Moses was the voice of God to the Israelites. Ex. 4:12,15.
    They “were under the cloud, and passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. 1Cor. 10:1,2

    That’s when “Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still and SEE the SALVATION of the Lord, which he will SHEW to you TO DAY: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen TO DAY, ye shall see them again no more for ever.” Ex. 14:13

    **Peter was not teaching a systematic theology class,**

    Yes he was!!

    **What he said, after the people repented, is summarized in three sentences:**

    ...after the people repented? The word says they were pricked in their hearts. That’s conviction, not repentance. That’s why Peter told them they had to repent.

    You seem to do a lot ‘cart before the horse’ theology. And go into long interpretations of baptism, and STILL you won’t address ‘being buried with him’. That’s not Holy Ghost baptism. Because Holy Ghost baptism is not death and burial, but life eternal.

    **No Jew believed the water gave life,**

    That’s good, because I haven’t said it does either. Remission of sins is not Holy Ghost baptism. They are not the same thing; just like the ‘cloud’ and the ‘sea’ were not the same thing. But the Iraelites had to experience them both to ‘see the salvation of the Lord’.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/08/2014 9:13:37 PM PDT · 275 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **Noah was accepted by God long before the Flood!**

    I guess he didn’t need to BUILD the ark after all since he was saved before the flood.

    “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, PREPARED an ark to the SAVING of his house.....”. Heb. 11:7

    Since we’re in Hebrews:

    “By faith Abraham, when he was called to GO OUT into a place.......OBEYED..” 11:8

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/07/2014 9:32:42 PM PDT · 268 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    Another thing about this comment of yours:

    **Water baptism saves you out of the wicked world we live in and show we are a people set apart. It follows new life, but does not give it.**

    Noah did not have a new life until he was out of the water.
    The life on the ark was not sustainable. Eventually the feed would run out, and the animals would perish, and then also Noah and family. New life follows death and burial.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/07/2014 9:12:01 PM PDT · 266 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **You can argue with Peter and Paul all you want, but it is not water that gives us life:**

    I never said one time that water gives life. Water baptism in the name of Jesus is burial with him, We are to rise from that burial, by the ‘glory of the Father’ (the Holy Ghost.

    Sir, you certainly use a LOT of private interpretation.

    The flood washed away a type of sin; the evil in the world. And the flood BURIED it.

    **Water baptism saves you out of the wicked world we live in and show we are a people set apart. It follows new life, but does not give it.**

    FOLLOWS new life? So you’re saying that, symbolically, the Israelites had new life without crossing the Red Sea, but passed through the sea to be a people set apart.

    The Red Sea ‘washed away’ a type of sin (the life in Egypt), burying it in a watery grave. The children of Israel passed through it, else they would have perished at the hands of the Egyptians. They arose from that ‘passing through the sea’ experience to life in the Spirit (the cloud that went before them).

    **There is a reason why the baptism in the Holy Spirit is so important:**

    You’re preaching to the choir. I believe in the Holy Ghost infilling making us one spiritually with Christ, and giving us power to overcome the world, AND having the power of the resurrection by that Spirit.

    I’ve never said that water baptism is life. It is being buried with Christ.

    Whether you realize it or not, you seem to interpret Acts 2:38 this way:
    “Repent, and be baptized every one of you with the Holy Ghost in the name of Jesus Christ and ye shall receive remission of sins”.

    That’s not what it says in my Bible. The obedience of repentance, and being baptized in the name of Jesus (buried with him) brings remission of sins (that’s when His blood is applied to you individually, bringing remission of sins). Believe it!

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/07/2014 8:26:58 PM PDT · 265 of 300
    Zuriel to CynicalBear

    **So do you believe you were saved after asking Jesus to be your savior or not until you were baptized?**

    According to the Calvinist message, I believed on the Lord as my savior.
    But, always wondered why Acts was almost always avoided in bible studies and sermons. When I was hungry for more, at the age of 28, I was sent a witness, to the born again experience prophesied by the Lord, and shown several times in Acts.

    It was then I knew I was saved, when I obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to me. (see Rms 6:17)

    “Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness”. Rms 6:18

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/07/2014 12:35:48 PM PDT · 258 of 300
    Zuriel to CynicalBear

    **Of course. Now let me ask you, have you asked Jesus to be your personal savior?**

    Yes, over fifty years ago, but wasn’t taught Acts 2:38 by my Calvinist ministers, EVER, during my time attending those churches. I trusted them, unfortunately, more than the Word itself. But God sent me a witness, to show me the way of God more perfectly.

    “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled”. Matt. 5:6

    Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell all he had, and come and follow him. This rich young ruler had been faithful to God in all that he knew up to that point.

    And in the world of financial riches here in the US, there is this yap about the 1% folk. That makes for good, us versus them arguments, yet the line is not so precise. To me, the top 20% are financially rich compared to me.

    Some folks are rich in family tradition, including church tradition as well. The truth of the Word forces separation from the world, separation in families, too. Here, the line IS precise:

    “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.’ Matt. 7:14

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/07/2014 12:09:06 PM PDT · 256 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    **And when Paul had met with Apollos’ disciples, he was not satisfied with water baptism and taught them to be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ!**

    Paul not only ‘taught them to be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ’, they then “were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”. After which, when Paul laid his hands on them, they received the Holy Ghost baptism.

    **Hebrews 9:10 -“Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Here, we see stated the old rituals done away with at the reform “Day of pentecost/administration of grace” which began in Acts 1.**

    In Heb. 6:1-3, the writer is not discontinuing the ‘doctrine of Christ’, which included repentance from dead works, faith toward God, the doctrine of baptisms(plural), laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement. For he says: “And this we will do, if God permit”.

    You see, the epistles were written to those already born again, already sanctified (saints). That includes Romans, which people incorrectly use as evangelistic teaching (bypassing all or much of Acts), instead of as it really is: instruction and edification to the saints.

    Remember my pointing out how Paul said to the Corinthians (some of which were of Gentile ethnicity) “ALL our fathers were under the cloud, and ALL passed through the sea, and were ALL baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”

    The Israelites were as good as dead without crossing the Red Sea. Could God have preserved them with just the cloud? God knows, but he wanted them to leave that world behind and begin a new life. So, he made a way of escape, and it was ‘though the sea’. They then continued on with the cloud leading them.

    Mainline Christianity makes ‘passing through the sea’ kinda important, but not urgent, and that it certainly doesn’t save. Moses would beg to differ with you.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/07/2014 11:26:12 AM PDT · 252 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you...”**

    So, the Lord wasn’t commanding water baptism in Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:16; and John 3:5?

    So, Peter wasn’t commanding water baptism in Acts 2:38; 10:47,48? (”can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord...”. And..I believe that in harmony with those, He was INDEED referring to water baptism in his ‘like figure’ teaching in 1Peter 3:21

    So, Paul, who rebuked the Corinthians for bragging about WHO baptized them, instead of whose name was actually called upon during baptism, shouldn’t have personally baptized the few that he did in Corinth? (Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas)

    Now, we know that Paul preached to a lot of people in Corinth. But, he personally baptized a few himself, and was thankful he hadn’t done more since some of the Corinthians were getting preacher religion, because of who baptized them. Others with him, such as Silas and Timothy, probably performed many of the baptisms. Paul told the Corinthians that he was not sent to solely baptise, but to preach the gospel, and we know his wasn’t a John the baptist ministry.

    **Peter says it saves us, but from what?
    “Be saved from this perverse generation!”**

    So, you are saying that the Holy Ghost is the new life, but doesn’t save us from ‘this perverse generation’; that water baptism does that?

    **I’m sorry, but you are twisting scripture if you claim water baptism gives us life. Water baptism does not regenerate us, but it is a part of the sanctification - separation - process, as Peter clearly taught.**

    Being born again gives new life. Water baptism is the death and burial, the Holy Ghost is life:

    “Therefore we are buried with him in baptism INTO death”....
    The Spirit is life, not death.....”that like as Christ was raised up from the dead BY the GLORY of the Father..”. Rm 6:4

    “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Col. 2:12

    Burial is death. the ‘operation of God’ is the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit.

    “For if we have been planted together” (you and Christ. that’s why you use his name in water baptism) “IN the LIKENESS of his DEATH, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection”. Rm.6:5

    If you could literally be buried be buried in the tomb, wrapped in the same linen with Christ, then you would literally have his blood on you.

    **The blood cleanses us from sin. The water cleans us from the world, and dedicates our life to God.**

    True, and that takes place in one action...being buried with Him.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/06/2014 11:09:51 PM PDT · 230 of 300
    Zuriel to CynicalBear

    **If the man didn’t walk the mile it’s evident that God didn’t draw him to walk that mile.**

    Has God drawn you to obey Acts 2:38?

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/06/2014 11:05:43 PM PDT · 229 of 300
    Zuriel to Mr Rogers

    **Salvation has two aspects - justification and sanctification.**

    Justified by His blood, sanctified by His Spirit.

    **It is here where water baptism plays an important role - a ritual cleansing showing we are no longer part of the world, but citizens of another. It was also a public sign of dedication to service, such as the baptism of Jesus.**

    A ritual cleansing..??
    You say it doesn’t wash away sins, but it still cleanses??

    Peter says it SAVES us. Man says it doesn’t,...but it’s somehow important?!?!

    I cover this more in post 228.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/06/2014 10:47:07 PM PDT · 228 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    **(5) On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.(6) When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.**

    So you believe that they received the Holy Ghost in verse 5, but the Holy Ghost didn’t come on them until Paul laid his hands on them?

    That’s definitely spinning things to meet an anti-water baptism position.

    **And here’s Peter correcting his earlier mindset that water was required for baptism: Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.**

    Corrected his earlier mindset? Peter baptized because he was commanded to by the Lord. Matt. 28:19.

    So you are saying his command to baptise Cornelius and his household, after the Lord baptized them with the Holy Ghost, was a mindset that needed corrected? And that he corrected himself when back at Jerusalem?????

    Philip baptized the Samaritans. Then God baptized them with the Holy Ghost. “A man must be born of water and of the Spirit..”.

    Man baptizes the seeker in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins (as the Lord commanded), and the Lord baptizes with the Holy Ghost.

    From the beginning of creation it is clearly seen...(types and shadows)

    From a world, dead and covered with water, God brought forth life. And did it again with Noah’s flood.

    Under the Law, the priest could not begin the blood sacrifices with out first washing in the laver.

    Namaan the Syrian, a leper, (a man as good as dead), was given new life after immersing in the Jordan.

    Paul showed the symbolism to the saints at Corinth: “Moreover, brethern, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that ALL our fathers were under the cloud, and ALL passed THROUGH the sea. And were ALL baptized unto Moses IN the cloud and IN the sea.” 1Cor. 10:1,2

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/05/2014 6:14:03 PM PDT · 185 of 300
    Zuriel to ScottfromNJ

    ping to #183

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/05/2014 4:21:56 PM PDT · 183 of 300
    Zuriel to CynicalBear; metmom

    I said this: The same Peter said: “..were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also SAVE us....”. 1Peter 3:20,21.

    You (and metmom, in similar words) said this: **There you go again by leaving off part of the passage. Let’s look at what it says actually saves.**

    Well, you took the bait. BECAUSE.....y’all like to quote Acts 16:31, and NOT quote verse 32 and 33. You’ve also pointed out the importance of the NAME, as I knew you would (this ain’t my first rodeo). So, let’s go to Acts 16:

    “And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and his straightway.” vs 32,33

    Y’all also don’t like to quote Acts 19, where the ‘certain disciples’ had only been baptized unto John the baptist’s baptism unto repentance (vss 3,4):

    vs 5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus”. (WHAT? not in the names ‘Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’?)

    That wasn’t Holy Ghost baptism, BECAUSE..., that happened NEXT:

    vs 6 “And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them”...”.

    But hey, let’s back on up to Acts chapter 8:

    The Samaritans: “But when thy believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ”..(this is where y’all stop)..”they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip..”. vss 12,13

    Looks like they needed to believe AND be baptized (Mk 16:16).

    What name were they baptized in.......oh yeah...here it is:

    They hadn’t received the Holy Ghost yet...”(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” vs 16.

    Looks like they needed to believe and be baptized.

    The Ethiopian eunuch: “Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is WATER: what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And Philip baptized him.

    He believed and was baptized. And these water baptisms were done pronto, like right now.

    My insertion: (isn’t gonna think that baptism is important) doesn’t sit well with you? Well, you’ve already made water baptism out to be unessential to some degree or another, when Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul, and Philip, all commanded it. I’ve pointed out how they ordered it done NOW.

    **1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:**

    Good conscience toward God, because of obedience to him, and faith that he blots out your sins when you are buried ‘with him in baptism’. (’him’ being Jesus Christ, who did indeed rise from the dead).

    **Ananias told Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”. Acts 22:16

    **What did he say washed away the sins in that passage?**

    Looks like Acts 2:38 in action to me: Being baptized while invoking the name of Jesus, washes away the sins. Without the name of Jesus, baptism is useless.

    Paul had met the Lord on the way to Damascus. He KNEW (believed) the Lord at that point, but he wasn’t saved yet; he still had his sins, until he obeyed Ananias’ command.

    **No one has said it was unimportant.**

    If water baptism is still important to you, do you treat it with the same urgency as the apostles? Do you baptise in the name of Jesus, as they did?

    **It is not what saves.**

    It’s part of the apostles doctrine, given to them by the Lord. Man-made tradition has made it kinda important, but not very important.

    To me, and those like minded, it’s obvious that the Lord meant REAL water, and Spirit was necessary to be born again. For the apostles preached and performed it just that way. Acts 2:38; it’s how we become one with Him; His Blood, His Spirit, His righteousness.

    Point to ponder:
    You folks would possibly condemn a person that chose not to walk a mile to hear someone preach the Gospel, and therefore stay lost. So, you would be placing requirement on that mile long walk in order to be saved.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/04/2014 9:34:08 PM PDT · 164 of 300
    Zuriel to CynicalBear

    ‘for’, ‘into’,.....ok...

    “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ ‘into’ the remission of sins...”.

    Jesu said, “He that believeth (no comma) and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not”(isn’t gonna think that baptism is important)”shall be damned”.

    And of course, there’s the command for baptism in Matt. 28:19, “..in the NAME of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost..”. Those are titles, not THE NAME.

    The Son said he came in his Father’s NAME, not his own. John 5:43

    Hebrews 1:4 says that the Son received his name (Thou shalt call his name JESUS; Lk 1:31) by inheritance.

    Jesus Christ said the Holy Ghost would be sent in his name. Jn 14:26.

    Peter said that the name of Jesus is the only name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.

    The same Peter said: “..were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also SAVE us....”. 1Peter 3:20,21.

    Ananias told Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”. Acts 22:16

    My time is very limited, and I’ve only scratched the surface on water baptism, but even in those few references you should see the importance that the Lord and his apostles placed on it: That’s where his shed blood is applied to one’s soul;....when one is ‘buried WITH HIM in baptism’. Romans 6:4; Col. 2:12.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/04/2014 4:28:03 AM PDT · 153 of 300
    Zuriel to MHGinTN

    Jesus told him, “Except a MAN be born again..”. Nicodemas was hung up on natural birth, so the Lord told him again, in detail, “..Except a MAN be born of water (no comma) and of the Spirit..”.

    Jesus’ ‘flesh’ comment clarifies that he is not talking about natural birth. He doesn’t say, “That which is water is flesh”. John 1:13 makes no mention of water when describing natural birth: “..not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man..”.

    If you deniers (of which I was for years) believe that water baptism is really just ‘an outward sign of an inward cleansing’, then you are admitting it to be nothing more than vanity.

    John baptism was a baptism of repentance. It MEANT something spiritual. After the Lord’s resurrection, he upped it’s importance BIG TIME. Now you repent, and are baptized in his name FOR the REMISSION of sins.

    And his apostles didn’t delay baptism (until grandma and grandpa could come to town next week, etc) when they saw the hungry soul was sincere, OR if the Spirit fell first, as was the case of Cornelius. They got it done pronto. And as Ananias told Paul, “And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”. Acts 22:16

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/03/2014 7:44:15 PM PDT · 146 of 300
    Zuriel to Chong

    Q&A in John chapter 14......great! here’s another question:

    Is the Father in Jesus Christ?

    (pssst....here’s the answer below)

    “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak NOT of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, HE doeth the works.” Jn 14:10

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/03/2014 7:23:13 PM PDT · 145 of 300
    Zuriel to Gamecock

    **HE. DENIED. JESUS. That is enough.**

    Is he going to hell if he dies tonight? If you know, then maybe you can let us in on others deceased not found in the book of life.

    Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins........is it from heaven or of men?

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/02/2014 9:17:37 PM PDT · 78 of 300
    Zuriel to fwdude

    **The constant smile is downright creepy. Smiling is way overrated..**

    Smiling is way overrated??? Then you should not finally meet your nephew’s twin 9 month old daughters, as my wife and I did this past saturday. Joel’s big smile ain’t any bigger than the ones I saw at that family get together.

  • Victoria Osteen and Her Joy-Robbing Brand of Cheap Christianity

    09/02/2014 9:05:16 PM PDT · 76 of 300
    Zuriel to Gamecock

    “Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely,...but the other of love....whether in PRETENCE, or in TRUTH, Christ is preached; and I therefore do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice”. Phil. 1:15-18

    “Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they SHALL be filled.” Matt. 5:6

    Whether the path leads through a ‘showtime’ megachurch, and/or a stoic mainsteam denomination, God’s promise is sure: they that ‘hunger’ SHALL be sent, or led to, a minister of the true gospel.

  • Victoria Osteen Ripped for Telling Church 'Just Do Good For Your Own Self'; Worship Is Not for God.'

    09/02/2014 7:47:37 PM PDT · 242 of 242
    Zuriel to Gamecock

    Sorry for the delay, internet was down last night, and a long workday today.

    I said: So, verses such as Acts 2:38, 5:32, and Rms 6:17 (not to mention conversion commands from Jesus Christ himself) are ‘law’ to you?

    You said: I didn’t say that. You did.

    I say: You are the one, that upon seeing my comments (which included the above mentioned verses) replied, “If you can follow the law you don’t need Jesus”.

    **I have no idea what this tirade is about.**

    Tirade? That’s the weakness of this medium; the inability to accurately discern someone’s emotional level. No, my ‘Acts conversions’ comment had to do with your implying that you can receive Jesus without obedience. For example: repentance is obedience.

    **Proud Calvinist? The two are contradictory. You were one or the other.**

    Poor choice of words on my part. More appropriately, I was not ashamed of my Calvinist assembly, and felt we were following the Word faithfully. While in college I attended a Reformed Presbyterian church. We had a piano to set the key, then sang without accompanyment. I remember thinking, “if the piano is a bad thing, then why is it here at all?” lol

    You seem proud, or at least judgemental, by using a video clip to show people following others into a great pit, and using it to show your opinion of the ‘megachurches’.

    **what stream of Presbyterianism did you worship in?**

    It was PCUSA, but a rebel as far as PCUSA churches go. They held on to the same doctrines as the Reformed Calvinist churches, like the one I attended in college, except we used a piano AND organ during hymns. Years ago, the bulk left the liberals, and started a new one affiliated with the PCA. But they still disregard Acts 2:38, so they just as well have stayed put.

    **Whatever we are commanded to do is law. What saves us is grace. I pray that on that great and fearful day I never point to anything that I have done as playing any part of why I should be admitted into the Kingdom**

    Noble words. You realize that remission of sins (grace) is by baptism in the name of Jesus? For Jesus Christ said:

    “And that repentance and REMISSION of SINS should be preached in his name among ALL nations, BEGINNING at Jerusalem.”

    The beginning:
    Upon hearing about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the listeners were convicted and asked, “men and brethern, what shall we do?” Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the REMISSION of SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

    Peter, ‘called the carpet’ back in Jerusalem, for preaching to the Gentiles (Cornelius’ household), replied: “...and as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the BEGINNING.

    It’s the ‘new and living way’, and I never heard it preached like that in all my years in Calvinist churches. Why? Because they are mired in a mix of truth and man-made tradition. Example:

    John 3:16 is a great verse. That, I’m sure we both agree on. But, the reality is, it’s the start of a closing statement on the rebirth topic that the Lord addresses in his testamony to Nicodemas. Mainstream Christianity declares that being ‘born of the water’ (Jn 3:5) is not water baptism, while the Lord and his Apostles command it FOR remission of sins.

    Mainstream Christianity declares one receives the Spirit when one believes; no supernatural sound to confirm it’s presence, contrary to the Lord’s testamony: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou HEAREST the SOUND thereof, but canst NOT tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit.”

    That is how one ‘believes on the Lord Jesus Christ’ to be saved. His plan, not mine.

    To the saints (already born again) at Rome, Paul reminded them of their conversion in chapter 6. With verses 3,4,17, and 18 being quite direct to the issue of being converted.

    No Calvinist church I ever attended spent much time in Acts. Which is why I never saw any conversions there like those found in Acts.

    So, when Calvinists disobey Acts 2:38, are they predestined to do so?

    **Psalms 32:2....Romans 4: 7..**

    Wonderful verses! So just do as Paul, and be baptized in the name of Jesus to wash your sins away: “and why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”. (Acts 22:16)

    How can being immersed in water and calling on the name of the Lord wash sins away? Well,..God hath chosen the foolish things...and the weak things...and the base things...and things which are not....; and He is the Author of this faith.

    Child-like faith. Tell children that baptism in the name of Jesus washes away all the sins, and they believe it.

  • Victoria Osteen Ripped for Telling Church 'Just Do Good For Your Own Self'; Worship Is Not for God.'

    09/01/2014 9:44:05 AM PDT · 219 of 242
    Zuriel to Gamecock

    **you can follow the law you don’t need Jesus.**

    So, verses such as Acts 2:38, 5:32, and Rms 6:17 (not to mention conversion commands from Jesus Christ himself) are ‘law’ to you?

    Your’s is so typical of Calvinist replies. Almost utter disregard for the conversions displayed in Acts. Yours, and other mainsteam protestant organizations gladly quote Acts 16:31, and avoid the ‘rest of the story’ where the Philippian jailor’s household was taught the Word and baptized.

    But, I understand, for I was a proud Calvinist up to the age of 28. Our rural Presbyterian church was well stocked with studious, devout, and EXTREMELY conservative members. Going to movie theaters or even eating in an establishment that served liquor was looked down upon. Some refused playing card games and/or listening to music other than gospel.

    Such godly behavior was commendable, but the disregard for Word’s conversion process was what opened my eyes. Death, burial, and resurrection:

    Death and burial: Repentance, of course is required (even by Calvinists. For without that, one is burying a ‘live’ man; one that has not accepted the ‘not my will, but thine’ attitude). Buried with him in baptism unto death (Rms 6:3)

    Resurrection: the power of the Holy Ghost to make one walk in newness of life (Rms 6:4)...AND... have the same Spirit that will ‘quicken’* our mortal bodies. (Rms 8:11)

    (* not to be confused with that quicken mortgage loan dude.)

    It’s all pretty basic scriptural teaching, but man-made tradition has blinded many. Luther didn’t leave behind all the man-made traditions, and neither did Calvin.

  • Victoria Osteen Ripped for Telling Church 'Just Do Good For Your Own Self'; Worship Is Not for God.'

    08/31/2014 11:29:43 PM PDT · 186 of 242
    Zuriel to Gamecock; TexasFreeper2009

    TF2009: God wants our obedience.

    Gk: Something we cannot give.

    Peter: “And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that OBEY him.” Acts 5:32

    Paul: (to the saints in Rome) “..but ye have OBEYED from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you”. Rms 6:17

    That’s just a couple. You should refresh your memory by looking up ‘obedience’, ‘obedient’, ‘obey’, and ‘obeyed’, in your concordance.

    And of course, there are verses that are commands to the hearer, that can only be fulfilled by obedience. Such as Peter’s commands in Acts 2:38 (a verse that Calvinists prefer to ignore).

    One may say: “I offer the sacrifice of praise to God”; while disregarding obedience to verses such as Acts 2:38.

    Samuel said to Saul (who allowed himself to substitute sacrifice in place of total obedience to the Lord): “..Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice”. 1Sam. 15:22

  • Seven Things Even God Cannot Do

    08/18/2014 9:26:35 PM PDT · 115 of 133
    Zuriel to POWERSBOOTHEFAN

    **My statements are based on the Tanach and what G-d said about Himself.**

    Then how do you explain Isaiah 9:6?

    It’s obvious that the invisible God does choose to dwell in a man that he brought forth, and place ALL power IN that man.

  • Seven Things Even God Cannot Do

    08/18/2014 9:23:29 PM PDT · 114 of 133
    Zuriel to POWERSBOOTHEFAN; SeekAndFind; CatherineofAragon; Manic_Episode; Rides_A_Red_Horse

    **He cannot become a man.**

    True. BUT...

    God is IN a man,....with all of his fulness. God was IN Christ reconciling the world unto himself. IN Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. That’s how the Son of God achieves the titles bestowed upon him in Is. 9:6, and in chapter 1 of Hebrews.

    Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God. NO man hath seen God at any time. God is displaying his unlimited power and attributes TO man by being IN a man. Which is what the Christ spends a great deal of time explaining in the gospel of John; that the Father IN him is the source of EVERY divine attribute that the Son displays. Jn chap. 14 lays this out very plainly.
    God the Father is a Spirit. Jesus Christ declares that to be so (Jn 4:23,24), and told his disciples that “..a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have” Lk 24:39.

    He further states that the Father is the only true God. Jn 17:1-3

    He tells Mary Magdalene, “..I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God”. Jn 20:17

    Jesus Christ is the ‘beginning of the creation of God’. Rev. 3:14

    A stumbling block of the ‘three God’ folks is this: Neither Jesus Christ or his apostles EVER defined the Son as ‘God the Son’; but always as ‘the Son of God’.

    ALSO,..Those that believe that the flesh of the Son...is God... are are using their carnal logic to declare that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is also the mother of God. In so doing they defy the Christ’s own description of God.

    I wish I had more time for this, but am very busy and need rest. I drive a semi-truck, and must not fall asleep at the wheel.

  • Why do Protestant lay people hate clergy?

    08/04/2014 7:10:21 PM PDT · 1,105 of 1,112
    Zuriel to michaelwlf3

    Bookmark

  • Finding My Way Home: The Eucharist drew me back [Johnnie Bernhard]

    07/13/2014 10:51:04 AM PDT · 61 of 101
    Zuriel to Salvation; ealgeone

    You say this in #18:
    **trans — transfer
    substantiation — substance**

    **The substance of bread and wine are changed into the substances of Christ’s Body and Blood, by Christ’s words, repeated by the priest**

    Then this in #23:
    **The same with the Blood of Christ — some people who are allergic to wheat will partake of the wine only, for it also contains the Body of Christ.**

    If the wafer can be miraculously changed into the flesh and blood of the Son of God, then there should be NO wheat allegic reaction.

    The body of Jesus Christ contains the SPIRIT of the “only true God” (the Father) see John 17:1-3. Jesus Christ declared that the Father is God, and is a Spirit (John 4:24,25). He also declared that when one receives the Spirit that “AT THAT DAY ye shall know that I am IN my Father, and ye IN me, and I IN you”. Jn 14:20

    Pelosi, Biden, Durbin, Kerry, etc. must be saved since by your church’s definition they are.

    It’s the Spirit of God that changes people’s lives, not a ritual altered by carnally interpretted scriptures.

    Your ritual meets the desire of the flesh to see, feel, and taste something said to be a spiritual event. But it is a play on human emotions, still leaving them missing the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

    The souls that were witness to the 120 receiving the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, and hearing Peter’s message, were ‘pricked in the heart’. That is where you folks give them the wafer, and tell them they are saved.

    But, those that heard Peter asked, “Men and brethern, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”. Acts 2:38

    They obeyed that command, receiving the remission of sins, yet your religion teaches literal eating of the wafer for remission. Which is why Pelosi etc. (and even people I know personally) keep on doing their sinful acts. For they believe that they can eat another wafer, and be ‘good to go’ until they drop by again.

  • The Reformers' Hermeneutic: Grammatical, Historical, and Christ-Centered

    07/06/2014 7:36:54 PM PDT · 101 of 150
    Zuriel to narses

    They are wrong. You are clearly a TWO trick pony.

    Here, kick this around: Are you ‘narses of Washington state’, or ‘Washington state the narses’?

    AND since this thread is about sola scriptura, which you reject, you can ignore this clue: The scriptures only have the phrase ‘Son of God’. Even the Christ never called himself ‘God the Son’.

    Since you don’t believe sola scriptura, you don’t have to answer it head-on, you can just trot out one of your trick ponies.

  • FALLING AWAY FROM GOD'S GRACE

    05/26/2014 8:08:51 PM PDT · 13 of 129
    Zuriel to MuttTheHoople

    **However, I’ve seen too much scripture that shows that one can walk away from their Salvation.**

    That’s right. The five foolish virgins had their lamps lit, but they didn’t ‘keep the faith’. They didn’t make sure they had enough oil to make it.

    The seed that fell on the ground that had thorns and thistles, and the ground that had little depth of earth, both sprouted to life, but didn’t endure.

    All seven churches (souls already born again) in Revelation had this command directed at them: “he that over cometh....”.

    The little word “if” found all over in the epistles.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/24/2014 10:41:09 AM PDT · 177 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    **Ignatius, for example, who was a disciple of the Apostle John who died between 95AD and 115AD, never held to any of your teachings: “. . . united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our GOD” (Ignatius, First Epistle to the Ephesians)**

    One of King David’s messengers, Ahimaaz, was considered a good man. David knew him personally. He was good at his job, especially at getting a messge delivered quickly (even knowing short cuts). But, there were things that he didn’t have right in a critical moment......because,.....he wasn’t .....a first...hand...witness to the facts. I’m sticking John.

    Car’s packed. Adios, I’ll reply as soon as I can.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/24/2014 8:51:24 AM PDT · 176 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    I will reply more completely later (my wife has my weekend mostly booked).

    You continue to believe that you can write a better witness than Jesus Christ and the apostles, demanding that ‘God the Son’ is an equally good description to the formers ‘Son of God’

    You continue to believe that the apostles baptized in the titles, instead of the name of Jesus, which is the name the Word says they used. You have a rewrite in the works? (”Thou shalt call his name Son...”)

    You contiue to believe that God is three Spirits. Two of which ‘fathered’ the Son’s flesh (although the Holy Ghost actually performed the miracle, making the Father an adoptive parent). And you believe that the Son voluntarily didn’t use his ‘separate and distinct’ power while here on earth. Whereas, I believe the power of the Son has always been, and always will be, the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God the Father.
    You believe that all three are co-equal and none created. I’ve been on this earth for almost 60 yrs, raised cattle, hogs, chickens, dogs, cats, and sons. Every last one had only ONE head. They had members with which to perform various tasks. Is your tongue co-equal with your brain, or does your brain have absolute mastery over your tongue? Or is your ‘word’ a completely separate and distinct person from you? (clue: we are made in the image of God, but we are not made in the likeness of ‘God the image’, because there is no such thing. And you just toss aside John’s witness of God’s invisibility. More of your convenient interpretations)

    The Son is the invisible Father’s most excellent means of displaying his divine attributes to the rest of creation.

    And you continue to not touch this:

    Jesus Christ declared throughout the book of John that EVERY single thing divine is sourced back to the Father. THE CHALLENGE IS FOR YOU: SHOW ME WHERE HE POSSESSSED ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE FATHER. SHOW ME ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT THE FATHER RECEIVED FROM THE SON.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/23/2014 8:30:22 PM PDT · 166 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    First let me clarify how I went total knee-jerk on your quoting of Isaiah 44:6, knowing that you regard there to be a ‘God the Father’ and a ‘God the Son’ in that verse, I resorted to sarcasm, instead of presenting it as I believe it. (I will partly blame that on the fatigue that this week of extensive trucking has given me...and trying to maintain a conversation with my wife while typing. But hey, you make exuses for not answering questions, so I guess I’m entitled to one.)

    Compare other verses to Isaiah 44:6:

    45:11 Thus saith the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker.....(the Christ is speaking the Words of his Maker, who dwells in him).

    55:5 ...shall run unto thee because of the Lord thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel.

    The Son is holy because of the invisible Father that is in him. You can call it ‘my interpretation’, but, that is mostly what you offer, ...interpretations; as when you say the Father is in ‘unity’, but not literally one with Son, and not literally in him, contrary to what the Son spends half of the book of John explaining.

    The man Jesus Christ can speak as God the Father because he has been GIVEN the authority to speak those words:

    “I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.” And they understood not that he spake to them of the Father. Jn 8:26,27

    “..I told you, and you believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me........neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is GREATER than ALL, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are ONE.” Jn 10:35-30

    The Jews then wanted to stone him, for they knew that God was not a man. They were right about that, but, they could NOT grasp that the Father is in Christ, giving him all power; giving him the Words and works to prove the annointing.

    I honestly don’t know how anyone can read this passage and not see that God the Father is THE omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent source of the Christ power:

    Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the WORDS I SPEAK unto you I speak NOT of myself: but the FATHER that DWELLETH in me, HE DOETH THE WORKS. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works’ sake.

    There is no need to interpret those words, unless one wants to suit a desire for separate ‘persons of ‘God’.

    **You are quoting Ephesians 4:6, you incompetent, nor is it speaking of the Father alone, but of “God.”**

    You’re interpreting. Then you should put a comma in there where there currently isn’t (in the KJV anyway).

    **Eph 4:10 He (Christ) that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.**

    That is made possible by God the Father; defined by the Christ as a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24)

    The MIND of Christ IS the Father. (remember, the man Christ Jesus said the words were not his own). The Son had his own will, but, it was tied to the flesh, just like ours is. The BIG difference is this: With the Father IN him, he had the power to remain sinless, and do the will of the Father.

    **The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all coequal and living. The relationship is thusly: The Father begs from eternity; the Son is eternally begotten; the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. None are created, but all exist in this way from eternity.**

    That is what I mean by ‘your interpretations’. “Eternally begotten”....??
    “The Holy Spirit proceeds from both”.....Do you mean that one can send the Holy Ghost out on a mission if the other is too busy to?

    You see....Jesus Christ HAD to go away, OR the Comforter wasn’t going to come. He had comforted the disciples with his physical presence, fully displaying the power of the Father. “I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you”. The Father is so completely knit with the soul of the Son (they are one), that the Father can share that ‘mind of Christ’ in the baptism of the Holy Ghost (which proceeds from the Father).

    **Notice that the Father not only calls Him God, but continues by declaring “You, Lord,” that is, the Son whom He is still speaking with, “laid the foundations of the Earth...”**

    Yes, God the Father, who begat the Son, has appointed him heir of ALL things, BY whom (the Son) also he (God the Father) made the worlds. Who (the Son) being the brightness of his (the Father’s) glory, and the express image (the Son) of his (the Father’s) person.

    **The Son is not the Father, nor does He claim to be the Father,**

    But he claims that the Father is the source of all thing divine.

    **but is always a distinct individual:**

    The Son is the express image of the invisible God.
    Notice, that all the salutations to the saints, call God the Father, and Jesus Christ as Lord. Notice the comma is after ‘Father’, NOT after ‘God’. Or else the salutations would be “God, the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”; which seems to be the way you portray it.

    **However, the image of the Father is also God**

    Interpreting again?
    “God was IN Christ reconciling the World unto himself”. Jesus Christ says that God the Father is a Spirit. Jn 4:23,24.
    And the Son of God told his disciples: “..handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have”. Luke 24:39.

    I said: You brought up John 1:4, and I answer it with the Christ’s own explanation (”For as the Father hath LIFE in himself; SO hath he GIVEN to the SON to have LIFE in himself; and hath GIVEN him authority...”. John 5:26,27),

    You replied with more ‘yopios’: **Christ is speaking of the power and authority He received from the Father as man in the giving of eternal life, not of that life and authority that He has as the “Almighty”, who was “made flesh, and dwelt among us.”**

    I’ll offer an interpretation of ‘made flesh’: “The express image of the invisible God”.

    Like I said before, if you believe that the flesh of the Son is a separate and distinct person of God, then you must believe that Mary is the ‘mother of God’.

    **And yet, the scripture explicitly declares that He has been seen, even in human form: Gen 16:13; Gen 32:30; Exo 24:10-11, Exo 33:14, Exo 33:19-23; Num 12:8; Deu 5:24, Deu 34:10; Jdg 6:22-23, Jdg 13:21-22; Isa 6:5; Joh 1:18; 2Co 3:18, 2Co 4:6; Gal 1:6; Eph 1:17; Col 1:15; 2Ti 1:10; Heb 11:27. The one seen in all these instances, therefore, must be....the Son, who is the same God, while the Father remains invisible.**

    So when the Son says that God the Father is a Spirit, and John, who I certainly trust WAAYYY more than you, declared: NO man hath seen God at any time. 1Jn 4:12

    **All three are active, performing their own unique roles in salvation, not one of them being an “it” or a mere “visual”: 2Co_13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. **

    So, you have three Spirits in you when you are born again?
    Well, I’ll be looking for the book you’re going to write that tells what Spirit can do this thing, but not this or that other thing, which only the other Spirit can do, etc. What Spirit of the three gives the fruit of the Spirit, if thou canst tell? Or maybe they divided them up.

    **And we are commanded to baptize in the name of all three, confirming their equality and personhood:**

    So, the apostles completely blew it by baptizing in the name of Jesus everywhere they went. That, or they understood that the name of Jesus covers the requirements.

    Repeating a command is not necessarily obeying a command: My boss can tell me to “go and deliver that shipment to the customer in the name of the Founder, CEO, and felloworker of this Company. His name is none of those; they’re titles. (His name is on the trucks, too).

    **This is in reference to Christ as man, who is made “both Lord and Christ.” The Word is made flesh, but the Word is from the beginning, and is therefore eternal (John chapter 1). When Christ is risen up and placed above all things, He is returning to where He was before: Joh_17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.**

    Well, at least you’re getting closer to verses where the Son calls the Father ‘the only true God’. To which you replied:

    **Christ also declares that only God is good:**

    That’s your answer? Tell me you’re not a politician!

    **Luk_18:19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Is Christ good, true or false?**

    I will interpret, since you like to debate that way:
    I believe the Lord was testing the young ruler, to see if he would confess to knowing that God was in Christ. How could Christ be good without the Father? But, we don’t have to worry about that.

    **False, since Christ isn’t just called the “Son of God,” though the Pharisees understood this as declaring equality with God.**

    So, the phrase ‘God the Son’ is used by the Son, and by the Apostles in the scriptures. And what version of the Bible would that be? So, you (and those likeminded, believe that you are better than they at defining God?

    **More technically, the Holy Spirit is in Christ: Luk_4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,
    But the Spirit is called the Spirit of God and Christ, if you recall.**

    So, which of the three Spirits (you have indicated the three persons are divine Spirits) is the one which led him into the wilderness?

    I said: When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

    You say: **Dr. Gill notes that the phrase is “expressive of the sameness of nature in the Father and the Son; of the Son’s perfect equality with the Father, since the Son is as much in the Father, as the Father is in the Son.”**

    If Gill is using that interpretation to describe the witness of the Son, who said “the Father that DWELLETH IN ME, he doeth the works”, then Gill apparently doesn’t want to take the Son at his word, and has probably made a comfortable living selling his interpretations.

    **Is the Son in the Father, true or false?**

    Can’t miss on that. Since the Father is omnipresent, the Son is definitely in the Father. And the Father is in Son, GIVING the Son all power in heaven and in earth.

    Care to try again on this?
    Jesus Christ declared throughout the book of John that EVERY single thing divine is sourced back to the Father. THE CHALLENGE IS FOR YOU: SHOW ME WHERE HE POSSESSSED ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE FATHER. SHOW ME ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT THE FATHER RECEIVED FROM THE SON.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/22/2014 6:58:49 PM PDT · 152 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    **This is no help, you are quoting passages and are hoping to goad me into doing the hard work of explaining .............. and then I shall educate you. But only until then.**

    You were very easy to correct, concerning the ‘what name are you even referring to’ question. And you certainly know how to spin, dodge, and weave, AND not answer my questions. Long rants of your supposed superior knowledge

    Do you even realize that God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24), that no man hath seen him? (the only BEGOTTEN Son, he hath declared him). The Christ is the image of the INVISIBLE God.

    Paul, while on Mars hill made it plain that God is ‘not far from any one of us’. David declared that no matter where he would be, the highest heights or the deepest depths, “Thou art there”.

    Paul again, saying: “One God (no comma) and Father of ALL, who is above ALL, and through ALL, and in you ALL”. Eph. 3:6

    God is IN Christ. The Son declares it, as do the apostles and prophets. Jesus Christ is the audio and visual expression of God the Father (’the express image of the invisible God’). So much so, that the Son could say to Thomas: “from henceforth ye know him, and HAVE SEEN HIM”; and to Philip: “He that hath SEEN me, hath SEEN the Father”.

    If you want the flesh of the Son to be God, then you should be praying to Mary, ‘the mother of God’ (maybe you do, although I thought you were a Calvinist).

    **Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.**

    The Son (remember, the one that God has ‘made both Lord and Christ’) was raised by the ‘glory of the Father’ (Rom. 6:4).
    In these last days God speaks to us by his Son. The ‘I AM’, the ‘redeemer’, the ‘only true God’ is IN the Son.

    **That makes no difference whether one receives the “Comforter” in time, who, by the way, you must acknowledge as God if you say it this way (you seem to deny this later in the post).**

    The Comforter is the Holy Ghost, which PROCEEDETH FROM the Father. That’s why it’s called the Spirit of God, not God the Spirit. You go on and say you can produce verses all day that agree with the unscriptural ‘phrases ‘God the Son’ and ‘God the Holy Ghost’, yet only produce John 1:1, which is a declaration showing the source of the Word (the Christ expressing those words perfectly, because ‘he is in the Father, and the Father in him.

    You brought up John 1:4, and I answer it with the Christ’s own explanation (”For as the Father hath LIFE in himself; SO hath he GIVEN to the SON to have LIFE in himself; and hath GIVEN him authority...”. John 5:26,27), to which you spin, and dodge.

    You can’t separate the Father from his Word, no more than you can separate yourself from the words that you speak.

    Jesus Christ declared throughout the book of John that EVERY single thing divine is sourced back to the Father. THE CHALLENGE IS FOR YOU: SHOW ME WHERE HE POSSESSSED ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT DID NOT COME FROM THE FATHER. SHOW ME ONE SINGLE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE THAT THE FATHER RECEIVED FROM THE SON.

    It’s so simple, as Peter said: “God hath MADE this same Jesus both Lord and Christ”. God is the Father, who dwells in the Son without limit, which is how the Son of God has been given all power in heaven and in earth.

    I’m convinced that you really don’t know who God the Father is. Ever learning, yet unable to answer these simple questions:
    In the scriptures, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’. True or false?

    The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare. True or False?

    So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’ is he speaking the truth?

    When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

    When Paul said in 1 Cor. 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.”, was he telling the truth?

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/21/2014 8:43:21 PM PDT · 116 of 278
    Zuriel to GGpaX4DumpedTea

    I was using sarcasm to make a point. Jesus used sarcasm on the Nazareth ‘hater’ Nathanael, when he said, “Behold an Israelite indeed in whom there is no guile.”

    Oneness Pentecostals have a brief statement that we use to explain the Godhead: The Father in creation, the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in emanation, and that it’s all found BODILY in Jesus Christ.

    I like to take it more in depth using the Lord’s, and his apostles’s own words, such as I have in this thread, the lastest comments are in post 114. You are welcome to evaluate aand answer the questions if you prefer.

    I’ve trucked all over Iowa, and parts of Ohio (had a dedicated run to a pet food plant in St. Mary’s for a couple of years. The backhaul was usually out of Wapakoneta, or Toledo).

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/21/2014 8:24:28 PM PDT · 114 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    I ask you the ‘absurd’ question: Did Jesus Christ inherit his name? And you go take a bypass around it, saying:

    **What name are you even referring to?**

    Let me help you:
    “Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and GIVEN HIM a NAME which is ABOVE every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,......” Phil. 2:9,10

    “Being MADE so much better than the angels, as he hath by INHERITANCE....OBTAINED....a more excellent NAME than they.” Heb. 1:4

    “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive’(The Christ is plaining telling you that his name is not his own, because he inherited it).

    **Do we teach that Jesus Christ is truly man and truly God? True or false?**

    Trinitarians, of course, answer that ‘true’. Oneness know that Jesus Christ is the ‘Son of God’, just as he says; and that he is filled with ‘only true God’ (the Father. Remember John 17:1-3? One of the ‘absurd questions’ you just ignore).

    **Do we teach that Christ in the mediator between God and man? True or false?**

    True, and Oneness believe that as well.

    **Do we teach that Christ is the eternal Word, the Son of God, the Alpha and the Omega? True or false?**

    True, and the words that Christ speaks are directly from the Father.

    **the scripture says “All things were made by Him; and without Him was there anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men.”**

    Look closely, ‘IN’ Him was life......THAT’S the FATHER IN Him.......”For as the Father hath LIFE in himself; SO hath he GIVEN to the SON to have LIFE in himself; and hath GIVEN him authority...”. John 5:26,27

    I said: Why would one person of God need to be redeemed by another person of God?

    You replied: **What are you hallucinating? Where does it say that the Father is “redeeming” the Son? That is nowhere in any of the verses you have molested.**

    The following the verse you presented a while back to declare two separate ‘persons’ of God: **Isa_44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.**

    To which I replied: Sounds like the LORD of hosts is the REDEEMER of the LORD the king of Israel.

    **Think logically for a moment: Christ does not just say the Father is in Him,**

    You’re right about that, the Christ not ONLY says that the Father is in him; he gives the Father credit for ALL the WORDS and WORKS that take place.

    **He declares that He is in the Father, and we are in Him, and He is in us!**

    Put it in context. Only after one receives the Comforter, does one know that they have the same Spirit in them that is in Christ. Only He received it without measure.

    **And yet, none of us are being worshipped or declaring ourselves Almighty.**

    None of us were born sinless, given the Spirit without measure, and....ONLY He is the Saviour

    **educate yourself about what we teach**

    I was trinitarian for my first 28 yrs, fully indoctrinated, but couldn’t answer some of the questions that you continue to spin and dodge like these:

    In the scriptures, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’. True or false?

    The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare. True or False?

    So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’ is he speaking the truth?

    When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

    When Paul said in 1 Cor. 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.”, was he telling the truth?

    **..you do not even understand anything about what Christianity has taught for 2000 years.**

    If you do understand the Godhead, then you could answer those questions easily, and without condecending comments, too.

    While your looking for the phrase ‘God the Son’ in scripture, you could also look for the phrase ‘God the Holy Spirit’.

    Me, I’m ‘Zuriel of Illinois’. Not ‘Illinois the Zuriel’.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/19/2014 8:10:03 PM PDT · 95 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    **Why should I answer every one of your absurd comments when I’ve already disembowed your post already?**

    So these comments (questions) are absurd?.....

    Again,...did Jesus Christ inherit his name?

    In the scriptures, neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’. True or false?

    The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare. True or False?

    So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’ is he speaking the truth?

    When the Christ said that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), was he telling the truth?

    When Paul said in 1 Cor. 8:6: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.”, was he telling the truth?

    Why would one person of God need to be redeemed by another person of God?

    The I AM spoke out of the burning bush (that was protected from being consumed by the I AM). The Son that spoke the Words of the I AM that dwells in him, was preserved from corruption, by the I AM. “God who at sundry times and in divers manners (like the burning bush) spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.”

    **”I AM the Alpha and the Omega... Saith the Lord, which is, which was, which is to come, ALMIGHTY.”**

    .........Because.......the I AM, the ALMIGHTY, is in him, and no one, including you, can take the I AM, the ALMIGHTY out. The Son sez the Father’s in him. That’s what makes the Son the everlasting Father. Or you could just black out half the book of John, especially chapter 14, and hang onto your man-made three separate and distinct, co-equal persons, Godhead description.

    After your hateful description (lumping all Oneness Pentecostals into your heavily biased stereotype), I will ask myself a question: Will GPH’s refusal to answer the above questions be regarded as a concession? Yes, I believe so.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/19/2014 3:28:43 AM PDT · 80 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    It would have been nice if you would at least have tried to answered my questions.

    **The Son receives everything from the Father because that is His role in the Godhead.**

    Well at least we agree on that. The Son also says that his words are not his own, speaking only those things that his Father do desires. “God hath in these last days spoken unto us, by his Son, whom he hath APPOINTED heir of all things”.

    Is God the Father going to die? /sarc.

    And “this day I have begotten thee”. That’s not a beginning. /sarc.

    I’m oneness Pentecostal.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/18/2014 9:09:51 PM PDT · 75 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans

    **They don’t prove that Jesus isn’t God at all,**

    So, in John 17:1-3, when Jesus Christ calls the Father ‘the only true God’, or saying that the Father is in him doing the works (Jn 14:10), and giving him the words (Jn 1:1) to speak, he’s not being quite accurate.........

    And the apostle Paul said: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;(semi-colon) and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom are all things, and we by him.” 1 Cor. 8:6. Was Paul not quite accurate in that description?

    Are you wiser than they at describing the Godhead?

    **my passages explicitly call Christ “Almighty” or the “First and the Last,” and it is stupid to claim that there can be two “Almighties” or two “First and Lasts.”**

    I make no such claim. The Almighty God is IN Jesus Christ without measure. That’s what he, and his apostles and prophets declare.

    **He’s not really God but has God in Him (like all of us do)**

    Not like all of us do, for he was born sinless, and has been given the Spirit without measure, like NO one else.

    Notice the capitalized ‘OF’ and ‘BY’. I capped them to help you notice that everything is OF God, including the Christ (Son OF God), and we IN Him (God is a omnipresent Spirit). And BY the Son OF God (the firstborn, to whom God gave the Spirit without measure) came the rest of creation, and we BY him.

    Neither Jesus Christ, nor the apostles ever used the phrase ‘God the Son’, only the ‘Son of God’.

    Are you ‘Planet Earth the GPH’ , or ‘GPH of Planet Earth’?

    Again,...did Jesus Christ inherit his name?

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/18/2014 1:41:33 PM PDT · 50 of 278
    Zuriel to TexasFreeper2009

    **create a character**

    You answered what I’m asserting, because you have to make the visible image:

    God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24). Jesus Christ is God the Father’s firstborn of creation (Eph 1:15). God has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, who he has appointed heir of all things. God even gave him a name, and ‘Son’ is a title, not a name.

    God the Father, the Almighty God, dwells without measure (all power and authority) IN Jesus Christ, and John 14 testifies in depth of that fact.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Think That They Were Inspired Like the Apostles?

    05/18/2014 1:27:32 PM PDT · 47 of 278
    Zuriel to Greetings_Puny_Humans; teppe

    **I’ll ignore it**

    That’s convenient.

    As before, you skate right over John 17:1-3, where Jesus Christ speaks of the Father as ‘the one true God’. Again ignoring that Jesus Christ declares that he is IN the Father, and the Father IN him (because the Father is a Spirit. Jn 4:23,24).

    EVERY place in the scriptures, such as Isaiah, where the Christ speaks with the authority of the ‘only true God’, it is because the Father is in him, just as he confirms it many places in the gospel of John.

    Why would one person of God need to be redeemed by another person of God?

    **Rev_1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.**

    The Son was GIVEN all power in heaven and in earth. How...because, as the Christ said, the Father is IN him. The Almighty God dwells limitless in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ dwells IN the limitless God.

    **(how does Mormonism imagine a God of flesh and bone dwelling inside someone else?),**

    That’s teppe’s problem, if he/she is mormon. Jesus Christ said that God the Father is a Spirit (Jn 4:23,24)

    bonus question: Did the Son inherit his name?