Sola Scriptora

King James Version, simply becasue it is a superb translation of the right Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, while the new versions are based on a handful of corrupt manuscripts no one usedin church history. I refer to other versions as helps and commentaries, knowing they are fallable. But I have God's infallable Word and can show it to you.

You "have heard" the Church of Christ DENOMINATION is the true church??? Yes, THEY make that claim, as do Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, the vatican, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc etc. So what??? Judge these claims by the Word of God.

A Video showing Hinn, Steve Brock and others smoking a long pipe? And it is them for sure??? Please!

Well the problem is that the Old Testament teaches us, as it did the jews of that time to call on His name, Praise His name, and exalt His name. So, this tradition is nonsense. Besides the New testament NEVER DOES THIS. The Words for Lord and God are spelled out every time, as are every qoute from the Old Testament where the word Lord or God appears. None of the inspired writers cared to hyphenate Lord or God when qouting the Old Testament, even though they knew many Jews would be reading their writings. I say dispense with these unBiblical traditions, as the Bible teaches us to.

That's assuming the the typical anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-Christan, leftwing, sociliast, lying, liberal, press actually told the truth and didn't lie and fabricate things. You know, like Dan Rather and his "unimpeachable" sources that "proved" President Bush was a bad guy???

I expect you to run away, after making sure you tell lies and slander me. You are the false teacher. All religious hypocrites are exactly what they falsely accuse others of being. You cannot properly exegete this passage. It is clear you don't know how to exegete a passage. You simply superimpose you ideas onto a text. Hence you are guilty of wresting the Scriptures to your own destruction, just as Peter warned people like you, who trust in water rather than the blood of Christ. Hebrews 11:7 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; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. Here is a plain reference to you, who is hard of hearing, on exactly HOW Noah was saved---by FAITH. And because he believed what God said he built an ark "to the SAVING OF HIS HOUSE" Now how was Noah saved??? By water??? Or throught faith??? Now then Hubert, here you have a LITERAL EXPLANATION of what saved Noah and His house--faith, and works which goes with them-James 2. Genesis: 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. And here we have it--it was GRACE hubert, something you apparently know nothing about, because you believe you are saved by works. That hateful, lying, judaizer spirit that animates self-righteous men who think they can do works to add to Calvary's work to save themselves. Dunk yourself 100 times you can't save yourself hubert. And lastly, so that you may know, not what saved Noah, but WHO saved him, Peter tells us: 2Peter: 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; Now then Hubert, go ahead and run away. You have lost this debate. Peter told us that God saved Noah. And this was because he found grace in the sight of God. He had faith in God, and that faith pleased God and God gave him the plan on how to be saved from the destruction of the flood. You don't believe the Bible, while hollering loudly that you do, and to let God be true, and every man a liar. Look in the mirror, you will find yourself there. Check-mate. I take it you believe everything in Revelation literally? To be consistent you must. Your commentary on that book would be a hoot to read.

Lets try second-grade English with you again. Peter said Noah was "saved by water" FIGURATIVLEY!!! Hello out there! That means NOT LITERALLY. That means by way of analogy Noah was saved by water. So to say Noah was saved by water is a figure of speech, not a literal truth. A child can comprehend this, but not you! In the same way Peter says EVEN BAPTISM--get that...even baptism saves, clearly showing he is making the same point---a stretch! When he says in a like figure where even baptism---do you not hear the tone??? we can even say that baptism "saves us". Peter's whole way of saying it shows he is being figurative. Baptism saves us the exact same way the flood waters saved Noah. Since Noah's flood didn't literally saved anyone, but actually killed millions of people, and since it was actually God saving Noah via an ark, through grace-Gen 5:5, anyone who will compare Scripture with Scripture and be RESPONSIBLE knows what Peter was saying. Baptism is a "figure" of our salvation just like the flood waters were a figure of Noah's. Neither was actual, but a shadow of the real thing. The exegesis you guys throw up is on the same level as the guys who showed someone the Scripture that says "Judas went and hanged himself", and then turned to another Scripture that said "Now go and do likewise". Great!

Hubert, if you g back and re-read, you will see someone DID say Noah wasn't saved by water. He was, in a figurative way. And, we are saved by baptism in the same figurative way, just like we will be saved "by fire". You can say whatever you like, and twist my words, but it is because YOU are not writing by the Spirit of God. Ye are Judaizers. Anyone can see what I meant--that Peter did in fact say eight souls were saved by water, which some of you deny, because you know Peter was speaking figuratively, and if you admit that, thenmaybe ithe baptism reference is figurative also. But you at least are taking these figurative statements literally, unlike your buddies, and do so at your own peril. I take it you believe in transubstantation also? Do you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood? His flesh is meat indeed, and His blood drink indeed--John 6:53-56. Well?

Nonsense, we owe nothing to Rome there Foggy, except that they produced confused and embittered people like you who saw the evil and hypocrisy, and wrongly concluded Christianity must not be true, look at its adherents! You are looking at the wrong group--this one we were warned about in the Bible--Rev 17. As for burning witches--you guys forget something. The pilgrim fathers founded a nation and made laws. They forbade witchcraft as well as kidnapping, stealing etc. If someone wanted to live in this new nation, its understood they had to obey the laws of the land. Witchcraft was against the law and a capital offense. To our pilgrim fathers, this behavior was an affront to God and would bring His displeasure upon the nation. If the witches didn't like it, they just could have left. Don't blame the pilgrims for following through with their laws. The Catholic cult on the other hand, persecutes anyone who doesn't agree with her. The pilgrim fathers founded a nation and set the laws. This is different. For you to be consistent, you would ALSO have to condemn them for punishing thieves, perjurers, murderers, etc. They had the right to establish this nation any way they wanted. Witches were not welcome. They took their chances, and paid the price for defying the civil government they lived in.

Boy you guys are thick! All cranium, no space in between for a brain??? That's how you talk. Now if the above qoute isn't exactly "argument ad naseum" and constant "reassertion", I don't know what is! That's all you can say--unproven assertions, over and over and over. You are arguing wth Peter there my boys, because he said: 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 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: Now then, who said Noah WASN'T saved by water??? Why its you guys. Yet there it is in black and white--eight souls 'WERE SAVED BY WATER". Period. And then Peter tells us that in the same way Noah was saved by the waters of the flood, so we to, in a "figure" are saved by the waters of baptism. Guess what, and eigth grade education in English is all that is required to simply BELIEVE what peter said! You guys are so samrt, you can't accept plain English! Now once and for all-- Peter said eight souls were SAVED BY WATER. That is a fact only the most hardened of religious hypocrites would deny He then says that in the same way we are saved by the waters of Baptism, in a like FIGURE--FIGURATIVELY, not literally. Look at the language! Now were the eigth souls actually saved by the flood waters? Literally NO WAY. In a figurative way they were. In the SAME WAY even baptism "saves us". If you want to take that literally, you must take what peter said about the flood waters saving the eight also. Be consistent, or be quiet. You cannot play games with the Word of God like this. Both statements by peter are figurative, and analogous. In the same way Paul said we would be "saved, as by fire". Common sense and honesty forbids the water-dogs misinterpretation of the passage in Peter

I don't know what perversion you are qouting, but lets stick withthe KJV, shall we? It says Noah was saved by the waters of the flood. Period. In a "sense" he was. Those waters symbolized his death to the world, and the world was dead to him. In the same way, baptism "saves" us. it symbolizes our death to this world, and us being dead to the world. I am afraid that English was my best subject at school there Hubert, and you need to know that no amount out out-of-context twisting of those three verses by you can ever change what is truly says, by rules of grammar, analogy, and the over-all Scirptureal context. You can believe that baptism washes yoursins away, but we know its the blood of Christ that washes our sins away the moment we believe and confess Christ.

Fog: The "church" said no such thing. The Roman Catholic Cult said those things, not real Christians. The BIBLE TOLD US 2700 years ago that the world was ROUND--A CIRCLE. So the poor persecuting dupes at the Vatican were wrong, that's all. Get your facts, or the lack thereof, straight.

I'm sorry my UPC friends, but your arguments and reactions to my posts are ridiculous. I am not being deceitful, nor engaging in strawman argumentation. You are simply bound by that circular reasoning you were taught at UPC churches. And round and round we go! It is amazing to watch people simply refuse logic or honesty when it is pointed out that CONTEXTUALLY, their PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of a phrase is false. It is sad to see people REBEL against the light that is shown to them simply because they come to the Scriptures with an a priori assumption. I gave you two longer posts that exegetically EXPLAINED our position. None of you have tried to interact with those posts. I say because you cannot. Evidence was provided PROVING Peter was speaking FIGURATIVELY about baptism saving us, just as he said the WATERS SAVED NOAH. The whole REASON Peter brought up baptism was BECAUSE he just mentioned the flood waters in Noah's time and then said, (since Baptism involves water!!)--he said we can view baptism as saving us in a like "figure". Then he goes further to state that baptism DOES NOT WASH AWAY MORAL FILTH, but it is an act that is an answer of an already good conscience to God. Peter WAS SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY, and used the word "figure" RIGHT THERE IN THE CONTEXT!!! HE SAID THAT IN RELAYING BAPTISM TO THE EXPERIENCE OF NOAH, WE ARE "SAVED" IN A LIKE FIGURE. It is OBVIOUS that he was using the word "saves" in a figurative manner. Peter SAID HE WAS RIGHT THERE! You are in denial, plain and simple, then you turn and attack me. I BELIEVE WHAT PETER SAID, you don't. You TWIST what he said, that much is very obvious. If you believe baptism saves--FINE. Just ADMIT that you don't find that teaching in 1Peter 3:19-21. Just concede that point and prove your doctrine elsewhere. What's wrong with that? What wrong with HONESTY boys and girls???

No sir, my UPC frineds. No one denied that the Bible teaches "baptism saves" simply because the Bible DOES NOT TEACH IT. An honest person would have read the context, and saw Peter was making an allusion to Noah's Flood, and how IT saved him, as a matter of speaking. And then in the same way he said even baptism was a like fugure that "saved us". 1- Now if you are such Bible BELIEVERS, tell me, are we "saved by Fire" like Paul said literally like you interpret Peter saying we are saved by water??? 2- Was Noah saved by the DROWNING WATERS OF THE FLOOD? Did those waters LITERALLY save him? 3- Oh yes, and while we're at it, do we REALLY, literally have to eat the flesh of the Son of God, and drink His blood to have eternal life? He said so plainly in John 6:53-57! Do you believe in that also, literally? 4- Was Jesus a literal door with hinges?-John 10? 5- Does he offer us literal water to drink?-John 4, and 7??? Answers please. Your answers will go a long way to showing who really believes the Bible and interprets it properly.

Lots of books and lots of errors, apparent and subtil will require hours to fully expose there serrotta. Surely it took you HOURS tom aqauint yourself with,let alone learn to refute cults like Jehovah's Witnesses?

If you are willing to read for 10-12 HOURS on some well researched sites about his writings, and teaching tape series, then you'll find all you can handle. If not, a little snippet here and there, a little sound-bite just won't work.

He taught being Jewish(at that time) was an advantage. But his heritage and traditions caused him to persecute and kill Christians, something he lamented over and over in the epistles! How about 2Cor 3? 3:5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. The Old Covenant was the ministry od death, condemnation, and the deadness of the letter. It has been left behind by the Lord for the REAL PURPOSE--Jews and Gentiles in one body foloowing the Lord by His Spirit, not seasons, days, rituals, ceremonies, titles etc. And I think blatantly disobeying the Lord about the titles "Rabbi" is not gnatstraining there Botz, but rather brazeness! Its an easy command to obey, and yet to openly defy Christ the Lord! This shows a spirit behind their ways. It is puffed up flesh.

There are those who insist on dietary laws and ways of dress etc. These are Americans, raised American, who start to dress this way for no good reason except that Judaizing spirit. It is always divisive. Notice what our Lord said: Matthew: 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 23:6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. In blatant disobedience, these people not only take these expressly forbidden titles to them selves, but allow others to call them by them. That religious, "make a shew in the flesh" spirit is all over them. They are conceited. Paul said: 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. 3:4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. 3:7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: Paul's jewish background and customs meant NOTHING to him after He found the Messiah. He counted them as manure! So those who glory in what Paul counted manure are not wise, AND they always have an air of superioroty, pretending to be more authentic than us poor dumb gentiles believers and churches. It is flesh and it is divisive. I see the "little" thing to you as a seed-bed for big problems. Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 4:10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. 4:11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain. Most of what the Messianincs are into are weak and beggarly elements, according to Paul, and "bondage". If people get all caught up in that, they are wasting their time.

That passage has to do with forgiveness or wrongs done, not patience Botz! Sure I have an attitude towards those with Judaizer tendencies. I am watching a froend of mine become a Judaizer by wasting time on their websites. He is becoming a kook. He refuses to say the name of Jesus, but Yeshua, and only the names for God in Hebrew. So when he shows up at abortion clinics with us and preaches, he is talking nonsense that no one understands, but that he thinks pleases God! Most messianic Jews were not raised in strict Jewish homes. They are3 not under that culture, they LEARN to be this way from others, who should know better now that we are in the light of the New Covenant. Paul had no patience for them and their nonsense either. They should be encouraged to SPELL the words "Lord" and "God". They should be encrouaged to let go of unBiblical traditions. What's wrong with that?

Well I think it is ridiculous. The Messianic Jews need to face the reality that the New Testament has the Words for God and Lord, vowels and all. The Lord does not want us leaving out vowles for whatever reason the Jews did. They need to get delivered from the Old Covenabt, and see the glory of God in the face od Jesus Christ. I get tired of these people and their refusal to give up the dead letter of the law, as well as their unbiblical rabbinic traditions.

Here is an able expostion, to show you in detail why we reject your intperpreation in 1Peter 3. It is found in barnes Notes on the New Testament: Please read carefully so you understand WHY we believe like we do: ============================================== Water-- They were borne up by the waters, and were thus preserved. The thought on which the apostle makes his remarks turn, and which leads him in the next verse to the suggestions about baptism, is, that water was employed in their preservation, or that they owed their safety, in an important sense, to that element. In like manner we owe our salvation, in an important sense, to water; or, there is an important agency which it is made to perform in our salvation. The apostle does not say that it was in the same way, or that the one was a type designed to represent the other, or even that the efficacy of water was in both cases the same; but he says, that as Noah owed his salvation to water, so there is an important sense in which water is employed in ours. There is in certain respects

joe: my statement was . That's not an attack, that is an observation. I have observed Oneness people and their mentors engage in this type of "argument" over and over and over. I never got back to you becasue I forgot. I've been very busy, out of town, etc. You know how it is. My apologies. Now as to the questions, I know there are many questions that are not as simplisitic as to give a yes or no. But since the issues UPC people quarrel with others about are on the doctrines of soteriology, and the nature of the God head, and since they have said numereous times over the years that Trintarianism is a doctrine of the devil, therefore we are promoters of a satanic doctrine about the Godhead(quite a serious charge!), and since they have taught an EXACT FORMULA ofr baptism and said others were invalid, and since they teach that baptism SAVES(like Essias last post), and since they also teach that tongues is the initial evidence, not of a separate baptism of the Spirit for already saved people, a baptism of empowerment whose initial evidence is tongues, but rather that the baptiusm of the Spirit is salvation, therfore tongues is the proof, we can safely conclude that only UPC people are saved, according to your thinking, and the writings of your mentors, and the many interactions I have had with UPC pastors on discussion forums. They come on friendly, but they are really ALWAYS looking to dso the same thing--come onto Trintarian forums, act buddy-buddy, and lovey-lovey, and try to cast doubt on our beliefs, our salvation, our baptism etc. They do so with subtilty at first, like the Sperpent did in the garden-Gen 3:1, and they proceed from there. Wht they try to do is give you enough questions and doubts so that YOU WILL CONCLUDE you are deceived or not saved, and believe the wrong things. I prefer st4raight up honesty. Paul was not sneaky. Paul said so. He did not hide his intentions or his REAL beliefs. His apostleship was open. And so I prefer it. Lets cut right through the chase, and avoid the cut and pasteing jobs from Bernard or some other UPC big shot, tell us what you really believe. I know. I would simply like all of you UPC people to admit it. Everyone is damned but you BECAUSE the nature of the Godhead is MODALISM. Sorry Esisias, but you need to get your own doctrine straight. Ye are modalists. The present mode of God tpo us is as Spirit. We cannot be saved unless baptized, and we cannot be saved outside of the right exact to the letter formula. And if someone repents deeply of their sins, and surrenders to Jesus Christ as Lord, but doesn't speak in tongues after that, they are not saved, even though there is godly fruit in their life that shows they are a new creation. They sare still DAMNED. So just admit this. Don't use sophistry Esisias and say that the Bible teaches what you say therefore people are damned if they are not following your peculiar teachings. THAT REMANES TO BE PROVEN. And that is why Joe, I said you guys always argue in a circle--you ASSUME you are right, you assume the "biblical" viewpoint, as Esisias' post showed, and then argue from there. It is the greatest display of circular reasoning I have ever seen. I have dealt with many cults and various Christian opinions about things, but UPC people have mastered the art of assuming what needs to be proven and then arguing from there. You guys are the best at it. It is your INTERPRETATION of a handful of Scirpture that is the battleground here. The question is whether Trinitarians should abandon their ancient and majority viewpoint concerning the Godhead for the opinions of a new sect which began in the 1900s. The burden of proof is on YOU to overturn the histric Christian opinion on the nature of the Godhead, the only opinion that orthodox Christians everywhere have believed since the days of the Apostles. Just one example of how UPC people INTERPRET the Bible: Esiais says 1Peter 3:21 teaches that baptism "saves us". Now is that what Peter said? Or was that twisting what peter said? Well what did Paul mean when he said: 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 3:12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 3:13 Every man

Hey joe, Are only those who speak in tongues saved? Is tongues PROOF of salvation? Are all Trinitarians DAMNED because they don't believe on modalism? Yes or no answers please, lets get right down to the point. Oh yes, and also, do I have to be baptized by UPC people for my baptism to be valid? And if I was immersed in the Trinitarian formula, is my baptism and my "salvation" invalid? And am I therefore still in my sins and DAMNED. Yes or no.

Botz, why do you leave out the vowels in the words Lord and God?

This is true, but i see as far more destructive the leavening process of the whole Seeker Sensitive-Willow Creek Purpose Driven teachings. They have literally destoyed thousands of churches and ministires. Not by shutting the doors, but by changing them into a carnal, circus, uncrucified-driven way of "doing ministry". When you read the autobiographies of men like Wesley, Finney, Nash, Andrew Murray, etc, you soon realize why today's mega-church experts can fill pews, yet God is not there, and sin runs wild and is rampant. There is no similarity in doctrine or approach between Rick Warren vs. John Wesley, Bill Hybles vs. Charles Finney. Someone is seriously in error and misleading others.