OldSchool2 Posted November 8, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 8, 2017 12 hours ago, Butero said: He doesn't list 300 words. He just makes a statement with nothing to support it, like you did. Without faith it is impossible to please God, so I am happy I believe.... ... in the KJV? And we're not talking about pleasing God, but in putting your faith in a translation dating back to 1611, i.e., "bibliolatry." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted November 8, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 8, 2017 13 hours ago, simplejeff said: So ? The rcc authorities reject everyone who is immersed in Yeshua's Name. The darkness in the rcc CANNOT TOLERATE anyone who is saved. Did you get that nonsense from one of your Chick cartoon pamphlets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchool2 Posted November 8, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 701 Topics Per Day: 0.13 Content Count: 7,511 Content Per Day: 1.35 Reputation: 1,759 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/16/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/18/1955 Share Posted November 8, 2017 13 hours ago, simplejeff said: Jesus spoke the truth "MY WORDS ARE SPIRIT" explaining to HIS DISCIPLES (not to pagan churches) what it means to eat His Flesh and to drink His Blood.... Obviously Jesus wasn't referring to cannibalism, but his flesh "... is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 55 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: You must have missed the point of what I was saying, i.e., there are posters on this forum who would say such a sprinkling was "invalid" despite those scriptures. No, you missed the part about the fact that he was not talking about baptism in water. Sprinkling is an invalid form of "baptism." It is not baptism at all. 47 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: ... in the KJV? And we're not talking about pleasing God, but in putting your faith in a translation dating back to 1611, i.e., "bibliolatry." No, just talking about faith in God's word. People who put faith in a religion and a so-called "church" for salvation and pray to dead people are the real idolators. 38 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said: Obviously Jesus wasn't referring to cannibalism, but his flesh "... is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55). Jesus was not referring to cannibalism, nor was He talking about the pagan eucharist. He was spiritualizing His body and blood to make the point that He was giver of eternal life. It is the RCC that turned Jesus teaching into cannibalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 On 11/3/2017 at 8:04 AM, Running Gator said: So, what is wicked, corrupt, immoral, or lawless about riding in car alone with a member of the opposite gender that is not your spouse or close family member? So, what is wicked, corrupt, immoral, or lawless about eating a meal alone with a member of the opposite gender that is not your spouse or close family member? No one said that about those things. We are talking about appearances. And appearances matter. But taking it from another perspective, you have the Christian baker and photographer who did not want to lend their services to gay weddings. They were practicing exactly the admonishment of I Thess. 5:22. And one can argue that they were trying to avoid both the appearance AND the form of evil by not lending their services to the gay wedding. They did not want to appear to be approving of such behavior AND they did not want to in fact, participate at all in that form of evil. Yet, many Christians, some on this very message board, condemned the baker and photographer for doing exactly what they claim the Bible says we are to do and agreed with the secular world that they should be prosecuted for following their convictions. So even if the argument is made that I Thess. 5:22 is about avoiding every form of evil, even by that standard, Christians are condemned for that, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brakelite Posted November 8, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 23 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 977 Content Per Day: 0.21 Reputation: 641 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/15/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2017 It isn't about us. We are called to be ambassadors. We represent a kingdom...called to be a light in the world....for that kingdom. Our appearance matters. It reflects on who we represent. That doesn't mean we cannot associate with sinners and unbelievers, but it does mean we do not partake of their practices and traditions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heleadethme Posted November 8, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 15 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,371 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,268 Days Won: 5 Joined: 07/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 hour ago, OldSchool2 said: You must have missed the point of what I was saying, i.e., there are posters on this forum who would say such a sprinkling was "invalid" despite those scriptures. I still don't know what other people have to do with our conversation Old school........we are looking at scripture together and can see what it says. Especially where Jesus said ye must be born again of the Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heleadethme Posted November 8, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 15 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,371 Content Per Day: 1.36 Reputation: 3,268 Days Won: 5 Joined: 07/10/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 hours ago, shiloh357 said: That's partly why He defended Himself against the accusations made by His enemies that He had appeared to have sinned. Because obviously in that case He didn't avoid the outward appearance of evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 45 minutes ago, Heleadethme said: Because obviously in that case He didn't avoid the outward appearance of evil. Sure he did. He didn't do anything that appeared "evil" in the sight of God, whose view on what constitutes evil is the only one that matters. And the fact is that He silenced them by proving that there was nothing wrong with what He did, be it in appearance, or form, pretty much defeats the notion that Jesus took on the appearance of evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted November 8, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.69 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Author Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Sure he did. He didn't do anything that appeared "evil" in the sight of God, whose view on what constitutes evil is the only one that matters. And the fact is that He silenced them by proving that there was nothing wrong with what He did, be it in appearance, or form, pretty much defeats the notion that Jesus took on the appearance of evil. Me having a meal with a woman not my spouse or family member is not evil on the eyes of God, so then there should be no issue with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts