|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 25, 2018 15:04:14 GMT
Because the Queen and DK now has her own personal theme about religious topics, anyone who wants to ask a question for them can leave the question here. This theme is open to all comers!
|
|
flow3
Full Member
Posts: 147
Likes: 82
|
Post by flow3 on Sept 25, 2018 19:14:16 GMT
@eodnhoj7 Be careful what you wish for though, or else you might just get whole quotebook
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2018 19:49:27 GMT
@eodnhoj7 Be careful what you wish for though, or else you might just get whole quotebook Dk will just say..."bible"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2018 19:50:26 GMT
Good point...we should kill infants because they are born naked and that may be considered immodest. Or just preach to them about their sin and tell them to repent and if they don't repent cast them off. Another great point: Age of moral accountability You write pretty serious stuff here! This requires training on the topic. So where does scripture say this?
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 26, 2018 14:17:17 GMT
In the Greek text of the Gospel of Luke is: "tou nun makariousin me pasai ai geneai" 1: 48). The key word is the word makarizo (1. glorify, extol; 2. considered happy). The Evangelist Luke verb is put in the plural of the third person-makariousin. There is a mandatory rule for all exegetes and translators: if a word has several meanings, then take only the meaning that is in semantic agreement with other words of the translated or commented place, that is, take the text and context. If this is not observed, then it turns out literalism, which leads to errors and arbitrariness. So Christians should, according to the Scriptures, glorify Mary! Protestants do that? No one pays her divine honors( though Catholics may) A lot of what the prayer of the righteous. James 5: 16 but most people are sinful...make a request about the prayer of the righteous For himself, he can at will. It's scriptural acceptably!
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 26, 2018 18:59:50 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 20:21:23 GMT
And this is why I don't take Elizabeth or Dis prosetilization seriously....hence their faith.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 27, 2018 8:29:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 28, 2018 9:32:05 GMT
My next question: Is why aren't you baptizing babies and children? When the Scriptures say that the apostles baptized entire families. The original Scriptures use the Greek term οίκονWe repeatedly read about the baptism of not only a particular person, but also people close to him: "Stephen's house" (1 Cor. 1,16), Lydia and "her house" (acts. 16,15), a prison guard and "all [his] household" (acts. 16,33); the head of the synagogue of Crispus "with all his house" (acts. 18.8 in) and, perhaps, of Cornelius the centurion ("thou shalt be saved and thy house", acts. 11.14). The concept of "house" ( oikos) in the Jewish and Greco-Roman environment of that era included the father and mother of the family, their children, living together with their relatives and even servants. We see that the expression "he and (all) his house" is already widespread in the Old Testament. Saul promises Ahimelech that he and his "whole father's house" will die, and then "both men and women, and young men and babies" (1 Sam. 22,16.19), i.e. destroyed all posterity. Pharaoh allows Joseph's brothers to take their father and their "homes" to Egypt (Gen. 45,18), sending Egyptian chariots to transport their "children and wives" (V. 19). The same applies to the cult area: the order of circumcision includes "the whole male sex of the people of the house of Abraham", including the eight-day-old babies(Gen. 17,23). It is obvious that the New Testament concept of "oikos" in the context of baptism is a parallel to the Old Testament ritual language: baptism, like circumcision, is an act of initiation, the entry of a person into the Covenant and a new religious community. Therefore, by analogy, we can conclude that the Church "house" included children. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikos16. Εβάπτισα δε και τον οίκον του Στεφανά· εκτός τούτων δεν εξεύρω εάν εβάπτισα άλλον τινά. (Προς Κορινθίους Α΄ 1:16) www.bibleonline.ru/bible/ell/53/01/#16Greek Bible www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-Infant%20Baptism www.luterilainen.com/en/read/word-is-the-fountain-of-life/19-infant-baptism-is-based-on-the-bibleorthochristian.com/82448.htmlEvery heresy in Christian history has always removed something from the Scriptures and traditions laid down by the apostles! 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition( παράδοσιν/paradosis ) which he received of us.(2 Thessalonians 3:6)We know from history that the Monophysites removed the human nature of Christ. Islam has removed Him divine nature. The Vatican removed the role of Him Church leadership attributed it to the Pope. In the 16th century, the reformers removed a Sacred tradition. And so on.. Although if you study history you will find that the fullness of Christ's teaching has always been preserved. I will create my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it (Matt. 16: 18).I am with you all days, even to the end of the age (Mat. 28: 20).
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 28, 2018 17:29:49 GMT
I really wish you’d stop being dishonest in these posts. The word in the context is makariousin, yet you’re defining makarizo. Makarizo can mean glorify depending on the context, but the word being used in the context is makariousin. The word makariousin is defined as follows...
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 28, 2018 18:07:33 GMT
My next question: Is why aren't you baptizing babies and children? When the Scriptures say that the apostles baptized entire families. The original Scriptures use the Greek term οίκονWe repeatedly read about the baptism of not only a particular person, but also people close to him: "Stephen's house" (1 Cor. 1,16), Lydia and "her house" (acts. 16,15), a prison guard and "all [his] household" (acts. 16,33); the head of the synagogue of Crispus "with all his house" (acts. 18.8 in) and, perhaps, of Cornelius the centurion ("thou shalt be saved and thy house", acts. 11.14). The concept of "house" ( oikos) in the Jewish and Greco-Roman environment of that era included the father and mother of the family, their children, living together with their relatives and even servants. We see that the expression "he and (all) his house" is already widespread in the Old Testament. Saul promises Ahimelech that he and his "whole father's house" will die, and then "both men and women, and young men and babies" (1 Sam. 22,16.19), i.e. destroyed all posterity. Pharaoh allows Joseph's brothers to take their father and their "homes" to Egypt (Gen. 45,18), sending Egyptian chariots to transport their "children and wives" (V. 19). The same applies to the cult area: the order of circumcision includes "the whole male sex of the people of the house of Abraham", including the eight-day-old babies(Gen. 17,23). It is obvious that the New Testament concept of "oikos" in the context of baptism is a parallel to the Old Testament ritual language: baptism, like circumcision, is an act of initiation, the entry of a person into the Covenant and a new religious community. Therefore, by analogy, we can conclude that the Church "house" included children. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oikos16. Εβάπτισα δε και τον οίκον του Στεφανά· εκτός τούτων δεν εξεύρω εάν εβάπτισα άλλον τινά. (Προς Κορινθίους Α΄ 1:16) www.bibleonline.ru/bible/ell/53/01/#16Greek Bible www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-Infant%20Baptism www.luterilainen.com/en/read/word-is-the-fountain-of-life/19-infant-baptism-is-based-on-the-bibleorthochristian.com/82448.htmlEvery heresy in Christian history has always removed something from the Scriptures and traditions laid down by the apostles! 6. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition( παράδοσιν/paradosis ) which he received of us.(2 Thessalonians 3:6)We know from history that the Monophysites removed the human nature of Christ. Islam has removed Him divine nature. The Vatican removed the role of Him Church leadership attributed it to the Pope. In the 16th century, the reformers removed a Sacred tradition. And so on.. Although if you study history you will find that the fullness of Christ's teaching has always been preserved. I will create my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it (Matt. 16: 18).I am with you all days, even to the end of the age (Mat. 28: 20). You’re assuming every household has children or infants in it. There is no proof that any of the households that were baptized in the Bible had children or infants in them. You’re assuming based off of one instance in the OT where children are said in being part of Ahimelech’s house that it means all households are just like Ahimelech’s. It’s preposterous and silly. Moreover, Acts 8 tells us what one must do to be baptized, that is believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God(Acts 8:37). How then can an infant consciously confess that they believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Do babies come out of the womb speaking perfectly? I don’t know why you’re comparing circumcision to baptism. Circumcision is an old covenant practice, it is a physical means of entrance, but even still in Deuteronomy it is said that circumcision is not enough. God tells the Israelites that they must circumcise their hearts; Deuteronomy 10:16 [16] Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. And then God promises to do the circumcision Himself; Deuteronomy 30:6 [6] And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. Even Jeremiah speaks of a circumcision of the heart; Jeremiah 4:4 [4] Circumcise yourselves to the Lord , and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it , because of the evil of your doings. This clearly shows that an outward circumcision of the flesh isn’t enough, but that one must circumcise the heart inwardly. This verse correlates; Romans 2:28-29 [28] For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. If baptism indicates an entrance into the New Covenant, then only those devoted to God and trusting in Jesus should be baptized. How can an infant make the conscious decision to believe in Christ? Infants are not capable of exercising faith, hence they should not be baptized.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 28, 2018 18:39:38 GMT
The text is word - makariousin- The Evangelist Luke verb is put in the plural of the third person-makariousin. There is a mandatory rule for all exegetes and translators: if a word has several meanings, then take only the meaning that is in semantic agreement with other words of the translated or commented place, that is, take the text and context. If this is not observed, then it turns out literalism, which leads to errors and arbitrariness.
These words are part of the quote of the Mary : "my soul Magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God My Savior, that he has looked down upon the humility of his Servant, for henceforth all generations will please me; that he has created me greatness Strong, and his Holy name" (LK. 1: 46-49)It is not surprising that from the first centuries the Greek churches glorify Mary. They know the meaning of these words quite well. I have already demonstrated how this applies to the Slavic texts, too.What concerns the baptism of children! You’re assuming every household has children or infants in it.You attack a straw man here. Circumcision in the Old Testament is the entrance to the community of the Lord. Baptism - in the New. 31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.[/b] 4. THE EXAMPLE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST John, not yet born, showed a willingness to serve God! One can hear the opinion that John changed the old Testament order, allowing only those who confessed their sins to be baptized. We should not forget that the baptism of John was not in the full sense of Christian baptism (see acts.19: 1-6). The people who received it then had to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. For when the voice of Your greeting came to my ears, the babe leaped joyfully in my belly. And blessed is she that believeth, because what is said to her from the Lord shall be done.
— LK. 1: 41-45. 15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. (Luke 1:15)As a whole in Church practice to take the godparents promise to bring up their godchildren in the faith in Christ. That is, Christ according to the faith of others people perform miracle: "Jesus, seeing their faith (who brought the sick), said to the paralytic: child, thy sins are forgiven thee" (MK. 2,5) 13. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour. (Matthew 8:13) Have a nice day!
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 28, 2018 19:52:00 GMT
I really wish you’d stop being dishonest in these posts. The word in the context is makariousin, yet you’re defining makarizo. Makarizo can mean glorify depending on the context, but the word being used in the context is makariousin. The word makariousin is defined as follows... I finally understand why WASP don't think what is written here - glorify- they think about blessing- because they misunderstood the meaning of the word - makariousin- they misunderstood the context of the all text . But they (WASP )non-Greeks therefore so wrong.(Recall Slavic word not contradicts Greek) Everything else that I received from you this insincerity as always and straw.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 28, 2018 22:52:21 GMT
I really wish you’d stop being dishonest in these posts. The word in the context is makariousin, yet you’re defining makarizo. Makarizo can mean glorify depending on the context, but the word being used in the context is makariousin. The word makariousin is defined as follows... I finally understand why WASP don't think what is written here - glorify- they think about blessing- because they misunderstood the meaning of the word - makariousin- they misunderstood the context of the all text . But they (WASP )non-Greeks therefore so wrong.(Recall Slavic word not contradicts Greek) Everything else that I received from you this insincerity as always and straw. You're making Christianity a cult by saying only the Greeks understand God's word
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Sept 29, 2018 9:54:24 GMT
My argument is based on the fact that the original Scripture is not English. English even if accurate.. can not convey the intonation of the text (compared to the original)..especially for the ordinary readers. The assertion that children are not baptized, claimed Calvin.Calvinism has developed a systematic theology that creates a God who is quite literally an evil monster. The Calvinist god has arbitrarily selected a few to be saved while condemning most to an eternal fire pit of Hell.... Yes... This is to justify and glorify himself. The Fruits of Calvinism = Westboro 'Baptist' Cult. John Calvin was quoted saying... "there are babies a span long in Hell..." Calvinism is an excellent example on why the Church needed to stay steadfast to the Traditions handed down through the succession of the Apostles and the visible church. This was the promise given by Christ. The reformation while on it's surface seemed good at the time standing up to the heresies of Rome has shown in the protestant's 500 years of existence to be just another schismatic equation of absolute heresy and madness. Sola Scriptura has shown itself self refuting and detrimental to the faith once delivered to the saints. What does the Scriptures say about it?34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.Jeremiah 31: 34.Christ commanded: "let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for such is the Kingdom of God" (MK. 10: 14.) Then the wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lay with the goat; and the calf, and the young lion, and the ox will be together, and the little child will lead them. Isaiah 11:6.You say I don't know the difference between Protestants. I absolutely know it ..be sure..but you even dont try to learn the difference between Orthodox and Catholics! You'll make argument against Calvin, but in practice, you're with him. You say the Church was wrong in the period but how does that fit the Scripture? I will create my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it (Matt. 16: 18). I am with you all days, even to the end of the age (Mat. 28: 20).It turns out Christ is beside the faithful even if not correctly baptize people? The Apostle Paul says: 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.(Col. 2:11-12). If Baptism is the uncircumcised circumcision of Christ, how can we remove infants from it, when in the old Testament man also made a Covenant with God through circumcision on the eighth day of his life (Gen. 17: 12). Why, in the days of Abraham, was it possible to enter into a Covenant with the Creator in infancy by the faith of his parents, and after the coming of the Savior such an opportunity was lost? P.S There are other Protestants in this forum..these questions are relevant to them too.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Sept 29, 2018 15:56:24 GMT
My argument is based on the fact that the original Scripture is not English. English even if accurate.. can not convey the intonation of the text (compared to the original)..especially for the ordinary readers. The assertion that children are not baptized, claimed Calvin.Calvinism has developed a systematic theology that creates a God who is quite literally an evil monster. The Calvinist god has arbitrarily selected a few to be saved while condemning most to an eternal fire pit of Hell.... Yes... This is to justify and glorify himself. The Fruits of Calvinism = Westboro 'Baptist' Cult. John Calvin was quoted saying... "there are babies a span long in Hell..." Calvinism is an excellent example on why the Church needed to stay steadfast to the Traditions handed down through the succession of the Apostles and the visible church. This was the promise given by Christ. The reformation while on it's surface seemed good at the time standing up to the heresies of Rome has shown in the protestant's 500 years of existence to be just another schismatic equation of absolute heresy and madness. Sola Scriptura has shown itself self refuting and detrimental to the faith once delivered to the saints. What does the Scriptures say about it?34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.Jeremiah 31: 34.Christ commanded: "let the children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for such is the Kingdom of God" (MK. 10: 14.) Then the wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lay with the goat; and the calf, and the young lion, and the ox will be together, and the little child will lead them. Isaiah 11:6.You say I don't know the difference between Protestants. I absolutely know it ..be sure..but you even dont try to learn the difference between Orthodox and Catholics! You'll make argument against Calvin, but in practice, you're with him. You say the Church was wrong in the period but how does that fit the Scripture? I will create my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it (Matt. 16: 18). I am with you all days, even to the end of the age (Mat. 28: 20).It turns out Christ is beside the faithful even if not correctly baptize people? The Apostle Paul says: 11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ. 12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.(Col. 2:11-12). If Baptism is the uncircumcised circumcision of Christ, how can we remove infants from it, when in the old Testament man also made a Covenant with God through circumcision on the eighth day of his life (Gen. 17: 12). Why, in the days of Abraham, was it possible to enter into a Covenant with the Creator in infancy by the faith of his parents, and after the coming of the Savior such an opportunity was lost? P.S There are other Protestants in this forum..these questions are relevant to them too. I can’t take you seriously someone who doesn’t know English wants me to believe the English language isn’t good enough to convey what God says in an English Bible way to limit God. And way to make Christianity a cult by saying we have to learn Greek to truly understand God’s word. Way to go diamond, way to go For the record, again, I don't care what John Calvin said, I don't subscribe to his practices.. I don't even agree with many of the things he said facepalm and I don't subscribe to any church doctrine. But you can keep on attacking those things all day if you'd like shrug I'm not going to defend either one. Keep on throwing labels on me. I'm rejoicing Why do you think all Christians believed as the Catholic church did before Protestantism came along? You do know that the Catholic church tortured people to get them to renounce anything the Catholic church deemed a heresy, right? They did terrible things to get people to follow their cult, and if they didn't renounce what they believed, they killed them. Is that what God tells us to do in the Bible? Schisms happen because God's word is a sword that divides right from wrong. The schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches was petty, as both churches still have many of the same beliefs, traditions, and practices(a majority of which don't come from the Bible). "You say the Church was wrong in the period but how does that fit the Scripture? I will create my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it (Matt. 16: 18). I am with you all days, even to the end of the age (Mat. 28: 20)." What period? Not every church was a true church, even today that is truth. Paul even said churches fell away in Asia while he was a missionary. The way you find out a church is a true church is if they are following what the Bible says. The Bible, God's word, is the standard, not the church(man) telling you what God's word says. "the old Testament man also made a Covenant with God through circumcision" Yes, and we are not under that covenant. We are under a new covenant where circumcision isn't practiced anymore facepalm "Why, in the days of Abraham, was it possible to enter into a Covenant with the Creator in infancy by the faith of his parents, and after the coming of the Savior such an opportunity was lost?" What are you talking about? God still required a circumcision of the heart, I showed you those verses facepalm you always ignore verses when it's convenient for you facepalm circumcision was just an outward sign, it didn't mean you were actually saved. Just as baptism is an outward sign, it doesn't mean you are saved just because you are baptized. Anyone can get baptized and not put their faith in Christ. The whole point of baptism is flying right over your head. Answer me this one question; why does an adult have to confess Christ to be baptized and an infant doesn't? That's a double standard. Does God operate off of double standards? Baptism means nothing for an infant. Why? Because later in life, that infant grows up and becomes a person that can consciously make their own decisions and if they want to they can decide that God isn't real and not believe in Jesus Christ. What is the difference then, between an infant that gets baptised and one that doesn't if eventually all infants grow into adults that make their own decisions? There isn't a difference, because many people were baptized as infants and do not believe in Jesus Christ. AND many people were not baptized as infants and DO believe in Jesus Christ and then get baptized. Do you see how that works? Infant baptism in completely vain. You're welcome to believe in traditions and practices not found in the Bible, that's your God given right. I'll wipe the dust from my feet and move on, and you'll sit here speaking into the air shrug
|
|