Have you changed?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Many many ways to come to know Christ? ... the verse is simple enough, even a child can understand... believe and be baptized. Where are the "many" ways in that?

so what i'm hearing is that there is only one way (which btw is absolutely true, in a sense, even if i cannot agree with you yet; we are not in agreement) and that if i don't pick the right way, i am doomed. So now i have to choose; and you suggest that my choice is upon which religion. And you also suggest that not seeking other ways, other ways to understand God--Whose ways cannot be known--is the Way, and that any other way to know God cannot be the Way. So in this way, we are invited to attempt to come to know A Being Who cannot be known, and prohibited--by law--from seeking any other understanding; they are condemned here by you--just like those other ways condemn your way, it seems.

So now, i will agree with you, and say that i chose...oh, Catholic, say, and i believed--i assumed their beliefs--and got "baptized." So i'm good, right? Because after all, there is only one way, and they are assuring me of this too. Hallelujah, now we are in agreement!

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I agree that the entire process of salvation takes a lifetime of doing, but the initial process starts quite simply, and that is what the scripture in Mark 16:16 is about.. BEGINNING to walk with Christ.

so we're good? i as a Catholic are in agreement with you?

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I am not trying to read anything more or less into this scripture than what it says.

Compare these two scriptures:

Mark 12:29
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Mark 16: 15-16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.



Two scriptures, both which can be taken literally, were spoken in a way for all to hear, but you choose the literal translation of the first, and a spiritual translation for the second. Cherry picking it seems to me.


It seems that you just don't like the message in the Mark 16:16 scripture, so therefore you spiritualize it away. But the Mark 12:29 scripture is one that fits your way of thinking, so to you, it is literal.

Why not take them both literally? What then would they mean?

What is happening is that if a scripture doesn't fit into your way of thinking, it changes into a different spiritual application somehow for you. Yet the literal evidence of both scriptures stands... again I say, easy enough for a child to understand either one.

ok well you might be right, we'll see, but i suggest that we are maybe dealing with too many concepts now for my brain, and if you could, simplify the argument, into whatever you like, sounds like it will be something like

"you accept Love your neighbor literally enough, but do not accept Believe and be baptized literally."

so verify that for me, and let's finish the top before we go to this, as we might then have a better common lexicon, and won't be talking past each other. Meanwhile, while i reflect upon how i might interpret the first passage spiritually and the second literally, you might give me a definition of "believe" in Mark 16 there--the point of finishing the top iow.

[Godsdrummer]

Don't know if I should enter this conversation or not, been here done that with the same results I will most likely get again.

But here goes.

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

First two things about this passage, what was the gospel? Regardless of what we would think, the gospel is not Acts 2:28. The gospel is simply the good news that the kingdom of God had come.

Secondly when reading the word baptism we must understand what baptism meant in that day and age, and how it was used. Not going to explain what I believe here, already did that on this forum.

Just a couple of questions, if baptism is what you teach and so important why did Christ not say in John 3:16 he that believed and is baptized shall be saved? And regardless of many that believe "born of water" is speaking of baptism I and many others believe he is speaking of natural birth. One cannot be born of the spirit if one is not first born naturally. And that is the whole context of John 3, being born of the spirit.

And why in the same chapter did Christ use the example of Moses lifting up the serpent as how we are to believe to be added to the kingdom of God?

Baptism is what one did when they became a disciple of someone. As John baptized and Christ disciples baptized before the cross. And as others baptized and were baptized after the cross. They were baptized because they became disciples of Christ. The only way one can say baptism saves one is by the refusal of one not being baptized, hence refusing to be counted as a disciple of Christ. Anything else makes baptism a work of salvation, "not of works lest any should boast".

And finally why is it that every time we read the word saved or salvation, do we seem to think it is speaking of eternal salvation, rather than world calamity? When Peter said "save yourselves from this untoward generation, he was speaking of that generation, not some generation 2000 years in the future. We know what happened to that generation that did not believe, they were destroyed in 70ad. As Jesus said, "this generation shall not pass till all these things come to pass.

Ok so I have said my piece, and notice if you did not read it I also said this is my belief. Not trying to push rather giving another opinion.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Don't know if I should enter this conversation or not, been here done that with the same results I will most likely get again.

i abstain sometimes, too, but note that you will speak a different reflection, to other people, and you cannot interrupt in a forum; i can scroll right past that puppy if it doesn't speak to me, that is the beauty of a forum. Also, you interpret the results you get from the responses you get? And this is not an accurate way to judge the results imo, because you speak to many that will not post.

And if Unregistered has a different reflection, but doesn't post it for this reason, they are denying the readers whom they might otherwise have reached with some truth, all because i gave up on them a long time ago?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Just a couple of questions, if baptism is what you teach and so important why did Christ not say in John 3:16 he that believed and is baptized shall be saved?

Because John 3:16 is not a plan of salvation. It is words to a man who doubted Jesus after initially claiming he was from God but then received not the witness of Jesus. So, Jesus had to take that man to far back from anything specific. He had to take him back to juvenile basic issues in a general understanding of how He does indeed speak truth and is from God. Nicodemus STARTED to say he was from God, but when Jesus told him of being born again, Nic started to doubt and mocked as if one should enter mother's womb a second time, and then it got worse after Jesus spoke of those born again are like the experience of the wind, and Nicodemus said, "How can these things be?" Jesus interpreted that as disbelief in His words.

Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

See the reality of the situation? John 3:16 is not a verse explaining salvation at all. It is a verse that Jesus spoke to a man who started out well, but received not Christ's words after Jesus spoke of new birth. So it is a verse telling someone they need to first accept Christ as one to believe in, AND THEN He could get to other specifics later.

John 3:16 is the same thing as saying, "Nicky boy, you aren't getting anywhere fast until you get the basic understanding that I am from God and I speak truths you need to believe, and stop doubting them." THAT IS ALL.

Why so many use that verse to lay out a plan of salvation is beyond me. lol They simply don't read context.

But similar to your words, this will likely go unheeded, too.

And regardless of many that believe "born of water" is speaking of baptism I and many others believe he is speaking of natural birth. One cannot be born of the spirit if one is not first born naturally. And that is the whole context of John 3, being born of the spirit.

When water and Spirit are mentioned throughout the book of Acts, IT IS baptisms of each that the apostles spoke about. Why did they not speak of water and Spirit the way Jesus did, if Jesus meant natural birth and then Spiritual birth? Both mentioned water and Spirit together, and yet you claim Jesus meant something other than what the apostles meant? CONTINUITY suggests water is water baptism.

When one person;'s words are vague, the more plain verses are used for interpretation. IOW, when it's controversial as to what Jesus meant about birth of water in association with the Spirit, see how the apostles spoke of water plainly in Acts in association with the Spirit, for the apostles plainly meant water baptism.

I said that before as well and it went unheeded.

And why in the same chapter did Christ use the example of Moses lifting up the serpent as how we are to believe to be added to the kingdom of God?

Because lifting up the serpent represented Christ being crucified. How? Serpents were killing the Israelites in the wilderness, so what was killing them was lifted up on a pole to which they were directed to look to be healed. Jesus took the sin that was killing us and was lifted up on the cross, to whom we look for deliverance. He who knew no sin became sin for us.

Baptism is what one did when they became a disciple of someone. As John baptized and Christ disciples baptized before the cross.

And though I've said this before and you never responded, baptism after the cross was FAR DIFFERENT than anything before because IT PUTS US INTO THE DEATH OF CHRIST, and "baptisms" before the cross did nothing similar to that.

And as others baptized and were baptized after the cross. They were baptized because they became disciples of Christ. The only way one can say baptism saves one is by the refusal of one not being baptized, hence refusing to be counted as a disciple of Christ. Anything else makes baptism a work of salvation, "not of works lest any should boast".

Nope. It puts us into the death of Jesus, by saying we're good for nothing as far as earning salvation by works, so we must DIE AND BE BURIED. That's purposely is opposite to salvation by works. But I said that before, too, and got no response.

And finally why is it that every time we read the word saved or salvation, do we seem to think it is speaking of eternal salvation, rather than world calamity?

Because salvation from SIN is the ultimate issue they were concerned about.

When Peter said "save yourselves from this untoward generation, he was speaking of that generation, not some generation 2000 years in the future.

But they still had to be saved from sin so they would be saved from calamity.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Because John 3:16 is not a plan of salvation. It is words to a man who doubted Jesus after initially claiming he was from God but then received not the witness of Jesus. So, Jesus had to take that man to far back from anything specific. He had to take him back to juvenile basic issues in a general understanding of how He does indeed speak truth and is from God. Nicodemus STARTED to say he was from God, but when Jesus told him of being born again, Nic started to doubt and mocked as if one should enter mother's womb a second time, and then it got worse after Jesus spoke of those born again are like the experience of the wind, and Nicodemus said, "How can these things be?" Jesus interpreted that as disbelief in His words.

Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

See the reality of the situation? John 3:16 is not a verse explaining salvation at all. It is a verse that Jesus spoke to a man who started out well, but received not Christ's words after Jesus spoke of new birth. So it is a verse telling someone they need to first accept Christ as one to believe in, AND THEN He could get to other specifics later.

John 3:16 is the same thing as saying, "Nicky boy, you aren't getting anywhere fast until you get the basic understanding that I am from God and I speak truths you need to believe, and stop doubting them." THAT IS ALL.

Why so many use that verse to lay out a plan of salvation is beyond me. lol They simply don't read context.

But similar to your words, this will likely go unheeded, too.



When water and Spirit are mentioned throughout the book of Acts, IT IS baptisms of each that the apostles spoke about. Why did they not speak of water and Spirit the way Jesus did, if Jesus meant natural birth and then Spiritual birth? Both mentioned water and Spirit together, and yet you claim Jesus meant something other than what the apostles meant? CONTINUITY suggests water is water baptism.

When one person;'s words are vague, the more plain verses are used for interpretation. IOW, when it's controversial as to what Jesus meant about birth of water in association with the Spirit, see how the apostles spoke of water plainly in Acts in association with the Spirit, for the apostles plainly meant water baptism.

I said that before as well and it went unheeded.



Because lifting up the serpent represented Christ being crucified. How? Serpents were killing the Israelites in the wilderness, so what was killing them was lifted up on a pole to which they were directed to look to be healed. Jesus took the sin that was killing us and was lifted up on the cross, to whom we look for deliverance. He who knew no sin became sin for us.



And though I've said this before and you never responded, baptism after the cross was FAR DIFFERENT than anything before because IT PUTS US INTO THE DEATH OF CHRIST, and "baptisms" before the cross did nothing similar to that.



Nope. It puts us into the death of Jesus, by saying we're good for nothing as far as earning salvation by works, so we must DIE AND BE BURIED. That's purposely is opposite to salvation by works. But I said that before, too, and got no response.



Because salvation from SIN is the ultimate issue they were concerned about.


But they still had to be saved from sin so they would be saved from calamity.

Here you go Shaz some thing new to dig your teeth into.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Because John 3:16 is not a plan of salvation. It is words to a man who doubted Jesus after initially claiming he was from God but then received not the witness of Jesus. So, Jesus had to take that man to far back from anything specific. He had to take him back to juvenile basic issues in a general understanding of how He does indeed speak truth and is from God. Nicodemus STARTED to say he was from God, but when Jesus told him of being born again, Nic started to doubt and mocked as if one should enter mother's womb a second time, and then it got worse after Jesus spoke of those born again are like the experience of the wind, and Nicodemus said, "How can these things be?" Jesus interpreted that as disbelief in His words.

Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

See the reality of the situation? John 3:16 is not a verse explaining salvation at all. It is a verse that Jesus spoke to a man who started out well, but received not Christ's words after Jesus spoke of new birth. So it is a verse telling someone they need to first accept Christ as one to believe in, AND THEN He could get to other specifics later.

John 3:16 is the same thing as saying, "Nicky boy, you aren't getting anywhere fast until you get the basic understanding that I am from God and I speak truths you need to believe, and stop doubting them." THAT IS ALL.

Why so many use that verse to lay out a plan of salvation is beyond me. lol They simply don't read context.

But similar to your words, this will likely go unheeded, too.



When water and Spirit are mentioned throughout the book of Acts, IT IS baptisms of each that the apostles spoke about. Why did they not speak of water and Spirit the way Jesus did, if Jesus meant natural birth and then Spiritual birth? Both mentioned water and Spirit together, and yet you claim Jesus meant something other than what the apostles meant? CONTINUITY suggests water is water baptism.

When one person;'s words are vague, the more plain verses are used for interpretation. IOW, when it's controversial as to what Jesus meant about birth of water in association with the Spirit, see how the apostles spoke of water plainly in Acts in association with the Spirit, for the apostles plainly meant water baptism.

I said that before as well and it went unheeded.



Because lifting up the serpent represented Christ being crucified. How? Serpents were killing the Israelites in the wilderness, so what was killing them was lifted up on a pole to which they were directed to look to be healed. Jesus took the sin that was killing us and was lifted up on the cross, to whom we look for deliverance. He who knew no sin became sin for us.



And though I've said this before and you never responded, baptism after the cross was FAR DIFFERENT than anything before because IT PUTS US INTO THE DEATH OF CHRIST, and "baptisms" before the cross did nothing similar to that.



Nope. It puts us into the death of Jesus, by saying we're good for nothing as far as earning salvation by works, so we must DIE AND BE BURIED. That's purposely is opposite to salvation by works. But I said that before, too, and got no response.



Because salvation from SIN is the ultimate issue they were concerned about.


But they still had to be saved from sin so they would be saved from calamity.

I must say MB you worded things here a bit different than before it seems, I actually may be able to respond back to some of this.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Here you go Shaz some thing new to dig your teeth into.

Jesus is dead. The foundation has been laid. We are forgiven. If the law is fulfilled, what law will you give me, unto salvation? If i am forgiven, what sin must i dwell on? The sin of not forgiving.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

I must say MB you worded things here a bit different than before it seems, I actually may be able to respond back to some of this.

Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by shazeep

so what i'm hearing...so verify that for me

i'm ready when you are.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

As the others said, becoming like a child means trust and acceptance, not ignorance of depth. But this is a contextual issue again. Alas!

yes, alas. And so the lesson of

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them

is not heard, because some guy in a tie assures us of the only way to comprehend Living Word; and some guy in a tie will lead you.

Or how can a little child teach (lead) what they do not know?