I Thes 5:22

[frienduff thaylorde]

26 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Do you realize that there are posters on this forum who would take issue with you for suggesting just sprinkling as opposed to total immersion?

NO they did not really like benedict very much.  BUT that is because HE was a far more BIBLCAL on CERTAIN THINGS.

the world is done with any reminder of the truth.   Its not that I support benedict .   But yalls got the most dangerous prophet known to man ON TOP NOW.

yalls needs to flee that man fast .    Why not just start over in the bible.   I mean ponder this at least.     You know the jehovas

and Mormons , they make claims THEIR MEN were OF GOD .   Can we at least agree that those two groups are in fact dead wrong.

now emergent church and others like prosperity , they too claim to be OF GOD ,    yet you got to know deep down THEY AINT.

so my question is .  HOW DOES ONE TRULY KNOW their LEADER IS OF GOD.    cant all them groups be right , in fact none of them are.

WHEN I witnessed to a Jehovah lady ,   and the SPIRIT gave me timothy three sixteen , that talks about HOW GOD was manifest in the flesh

AND that they had forgotten to take it out of THIER OWN BIBLE..................old school, the lady froze and could say nothing , nothing .

However instead of repenting , you KNOW what she mangaged to squeak out .    SHE DID NOT say , well your wrong.  HOW COULD SHE , it is in their bible too.

SHE KNEW, ,SHE KNEW at that moment .    BUT what did she say...............WELL if JEHOVAH wants our watch tower society to know it , HE WILL REVEAL THIS TO THEM.

SHE STAYED TIED TO HER LEADERS.    okay ,   Mormons have done this too, so have many in many faiths . 

WHAT is my point.    well , lets examine something .    IF the POPE is truly hearing FROM GOD .   HOW COME so many popes have not only contradicted the bible

BUT THEMSELVES......................OLD SCHOOOL its a trap .      GET out of it.   I am not leading you into one a denomination .   I aint saying BE a protestant

I aint saying be a Baptist.  THE CHURCHES are in shambles.    THE ONLY way we going to KNOW if we are truly FOLLWING GOD , GET BACK IN THAT BIBLE FAST old school

FAST .   please .   please .    please .  

HERE IT IS AGAIN OLD SCHOOL.   now read slowly and come respond .

okay round three.    come and answer old school.   read slowly.   just respond to this.

[Guest Butero]

43 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

That's not surprising for someone who substitutes belief for thinking.

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

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.  Thanks for acknowledging that.  As for thinking, I have looked into this subject very carefully.  That is how I know that those attacking the KJV only position are making up things that are not true.  That is how I know the KJV Bible didn't have but one revision, and it was only because of the spelling.  I actually have a 1611 King James Bible with the old English spelling, and have read it cover to cover three times.  I know what is in it.  I have also read the Authorized King James Bible a dozen times cover to cover.  I have compared translations.  I have looked into the numerous false claims about supposed scribal additions and nonsense like that.  I have heard all of the arguments from people on your side and found them wanting.  They are lies.  They are tricks of the devil.  I would also point out that one of the reasons you gave for support for the NIV was because many Jehovah's Witnesses have turned to it instead of the New World Translation.  What an endorsement!  The NIV has the endorsement of a Catholic who lifts it up because Jehovah's Witnesses like it.  That is really thinking!  

Back to the original challenge.  What are the 300 words?  You post the 300 words, and I will start looking them up in my unabridged Dictionary to see if the definitions are the same.  

[Guest Butero]

51 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

... by Moses, but Jesus told you to drink his, so which of them are you going to obey?

It wasn't by Moses.  It was by the Apostles.  You have totally taken that passage out of context, and everyone that has ever read it knows that you have.  

[Guest Butero]

51 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

By faith, just like everyone else.

 

By that answer, are you saying that a person doesn't have to do anything more than believe to be saved, including eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood?  

[Heleadethme]

37 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Do you realize that there are posters on this forum who would take issue with you for suggesting just sprinkling as opposed to total immersion?

You must have missed the point of what I was saying.....read it again, Old School.  I wasn't talking about baptism but about having our hearts sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, spoken of in scripture in many places.  You need to be born again, and then the word of the Lord will be opened to you.  It's a serious matter......your eternal destiny is at stake. because no one can enter the kingdom of heaven lest they be born again.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

On 11/5/2017 at 6:55 AM, Running Gator said:

According to you and others, it appears evil for a man to be alone in public with a woman not his spouse or family member.  Jesus was alone on public with a woman known to have a "low reputation" that was neither His spouse or family member.  

No, that is not what I said about man being alone with a woman in public.  Context is pretty important.   In the case of Jesus and the woman at the well, it was not something arranged by the two of them.   Jesus shows up at the well and is alone, waiting for His disciples to show up with food.    The woman shows up to draw water.    This is fundamentally no different than a man and a woman sitting in alone in the same waiting room while their car is being repaired or sitting alone together in the waiting area of the dentist's office.   It is the act of simply being alone in public in the same location that is the problem.  The circumstances simply brought them both to the same area.  That is not the same thing as what I and others are talking about.

I was referring to the scenario of a man and a woman who are married by not to each other having dinner together.  That is a planned and intentional event by the two of them who consent such a thing.  And unless that woman is his sister, or other family member, it has the potential to be misunderstood as an adulterous affair. 

Quote

Jesus did actions that appeared to break the Sabbath, this would be evil from a biblical understanding.  

Actually, that is not true at all.  Jesus "violated" extra-biblical restrictions not listed in the Bible, so from a biblical understanding Jesus would not have appeared to break the Sabbath.

Quote

Jesus did not care about appearances. 

Sure He did.  That's partly why He defended Himself against the accusations made by His enemies that He had appeared to have sinned. 

[Guest Butero]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 12:40 PM, Running Gator said:

I could not disagree more.  An appearance is not a form of anything, it is just that, something that looks like something.   Either what you are doing is evil or it is not, there is no inbetween.

Did Jesus hurt his testimony when he stood at the well alone with a Samaritan woman?   Did Jesus care what people thought of his actions?  Did Jesus care when he was called out for the appearance he was giving by eating with the sinners?   Did Jesus care about the appearance he was giving when He healed on the Sabbath? 

 

What it means when it says we are to avoid the appearance of evil is that we don't intentionally do things that will harm our testimony.  Jesus didn't harm his testimony by talking to the woman at the well.  People were likely surprised he would be willing to have a conversation with her, but that was because most were prideful and considered themselves "too good" to be seen in the company of a sinner.  That is not an appearance of evil.  An appearance of evil would be to go into her bedroom and close the door and have that conversation with her.  Talking with her openly in a public place was not an appearance of evil.  

There was not the appearance of evil when Jesus ate with sinners.  Again, this was a pride issue.  The majority of the religious folks considered themselves "too good" to eat with sinners, and assumed that if Jesus was really a prophet, he would recognize these people were dirty and to be avoided.  It didn't make Jesus look sinful.  

Healing on the Sabbath was not an appearance of evil.  The religious leaders were looking for an occasion to accuse Jesus.  They turned something that was not sinful into something sinful to make an accusation.  Healing was no more a work than doing the office of the Priesthood.  They all knew better than that.  They were looking for anything they could find to attack.  

That is not what it is talking about when it says to avoid the appearance of evil.  It means putting yourself into a compromising situation that will look bad, especially when it is not necessary.  I don't have to go into the local bar to witness to sinners.  I can talk to those same people when they are at a more respectable place.  I don't have to walk into a Nevada brothel to witness to prostitutes.  I can talk to them at the market place or somewhere that won't ruin my testimony.  I don't have to walk into the adult book store to witness to the sales person.  In addition to that, I don't have to grow my hair long and get tattoos all over my body to witness to bikers.  

I really didn't expect you to agree with me.  I knew we disagreed because of the way you began this thread.  I don't agree with anyone that starts out saying that the KJV Bible got anything wrong, because it didn't.  I do have a question for you.  What specifically got you thinking about this particular scripture?  Was it a sermon you just heard or something you read during a daily devotion, or were you just looking for something to attack the KJV Bible over?  I know there are numerous web-sites that are filled with attempts to discredit it.  What was your motivation for starting this topic?  

[OldSchool2]

12 hours ago, Heleadethme said:

You must have missed the point of what I was saying.....read it again, Old School.  I wasn't talking about baptism but about having our hearts sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, spoken of in scripture in many places....

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.

[OldSchool2]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

By that answer, are you saying that a person doesn't have to do anything more than believe to be saved, including eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood?  

The only good work you can do is to believe on the only one who can do it for you.

It's that simple.

[OldSchool2]

12 hours ago, Butero said:

It wasn't by Moses.  It was by the Apostles...

Read the Old Testament and realize that Leviticus was not written by the Jesus' apostles