In the conversion of paul.on Acts22:10 he says,what should I do,Lord.in this verse whe see that paul believed,and he called Jesus ,Lord.there were instructions for him on verse 16 ,to get up baptize,wash your sins.
In Acts22:10,This is not the actual story event.This is where Paul was recounting the story of his conversion to the multitude in about AD 60.The actual conversion event took place back in Acts 9:1-19 , 26 years earlier in about AD 34.
Verse 16 of Acts 22 , was Paul telling the multitudes to not tarry and call on the name of the Lord & be baptised,because he had just give them testamony of his own conversion.
Ananias only said those things in Acts 9:17, not Acts 22:16.
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
You can't deny plain passages of scriptures to affirm a point that is derived by assumptions. The Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius was to show that the Gentiles were also heirs of the gospel.
You say baptism isn't for salvation, Christ stated the very opposite. Mark 16:16
You say baptism isn't for remission of sins, Peter stated the very opposite. Acts 2:38; 2:47=saved after obedience.
These plain verses were inspired of the H. Spirit yet you deny them by drawing uninspired conclusions.
@ Calvinist007 - Irenaeus stated they were alone, period . It is you who once again write your own version of peoples quotes in order to make them support your false doctrine.
@Bobsblues No, that is NOT what Irenaeus said, man. He said that Philip and the eunuch were alone, obviously meaning that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT;
Wow, who cares if the Eunuch was born a Jew or converted? And who cares if he had a million people around him during his conversion? None of that matters. What matters is what the Holy Spirit revealed to us in the word. Phillip preached Jesus to the man and his first reaction was to be water baptized, so Phillip was clearly preaching that baptism is part of the conversion process.
@Concatenate "And who cares if he had a million people around him during his conversion?" Calvinist does - that's who. To him, baptism is NOTHING MORE than "public profession of prior salvation in Christ." If I can find ONE example of a non-public baptism, his "definition" (<-- using the term leniently) falls flat, just as the rest of this theology does. As far as the eunuch's being a Jew by choice or by birth, such a distinction is of no consequence. It's a quibble.
@lllannallll SHUT YOUR FACE, you WICKED SPIRITUAL HARLOT; you have been gone for about a month, and it is only a matter of time before God removes you completely, for I have commanded it in Christ's Name. What saith the Scriptures? Rom. 8:9 (KJV): "Ye are...in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Acts 10:47 (KJV): "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" They were saved BEFORE they were baptized.
@Calvinist007 "and it is only a matter of time before God removes you completely, for I have commanded it in Christ's Name." I'm afraid God could care less what tardo like you "commands." I wasn't gone: I was waiting for a reply WITH SUBSTANCE from you, but gave up. From a non-existent military entourage to a fake Bible page to Apostle Philip to "public private" baptisms, you certainly are a theological juggler - to your own detriment.
@lllannallll Rom. 8:9 (KJV): "Ye are...in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Acts 10:47 (KJV): "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" They were saved BEFORE they were baptized.That calvinist egged u right!!LOL
@Calvinist007 Here's the truth for ya: it just TEARS YOU up that Philip and the eunuch were ridin' along, and Philip "preached Jesus" (which included baptism - how sad for your position), and likelihood is that Philip and the eunuch were the only two present who witnessed the event (equally sad for your position). How nice it would be (for you) if Philip had hesitated, put the eunuch's case before the brethren, took a vote, and came back with a group of them a week later to baptize him.
@lllannallll No, HERE is the truth for ya, ya WHIPPED LITTLE WORM: why, once again, ya DUMMY, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans was a great danger to him; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@uwique "your a pro at theo babble aint ya?" THAT, from someone who won't use a lexicon and who pleads ignorance bout most Bible passages? Oh, c'mon. Your so-called "plan" blurs faith, repentance, confession, and prayer - and makes conversion an illogical mess. THAT is "theo-babble".
@lllannallll Rest easy, for we have the truth of His word and we know that the enemies of the Lord will continue to fight against us. Please recall what our brother, Peter, said in one of his letters.
"which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
Perhaps this is one of those times to shake the dust off your feet and move on to proclaiming the good news to others. Peace be with you.
@Calvinist007 - Ireneas ,a person just a couple of generations from this event, has told us that the Eunuch and Phillip were Alone . You craft your grand entourage in complete contradiction to what this man has stated, and you have been told this, but yet you still insist on maintaining your self created story. You are in fact calling him a liar and asking us to believe that you know more than the man that was taught by those who were instructed by the Apostles themselves.
@Bobsblues No, that is NOT what Irenaeus said, man. He said that Philip and the eunuch were alone, obviously meaning that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; he did not discount the fact that the eunuch had a DRIVER there with him, nor did he discount the fact that he was escorted by a military retinue to protect him. Irenaeus focused on their conversation and the eunuch's salvation; he never said anything to refute what I have asserted. That man was a royal official; he was escorted.
@Calvinist007 "...nor did he discount the fact that he was escorted by a military retinue to protect him." <-- LOL. You are assuming a "fact" that you have yet to prove - therefore, it's an unscriptural assumption. The "fact" is that such a retinue is NOT a necessary inference. The Bible nowhere mentions any such retinue - and you are trying in vain to pawn off an argument about what the Bible DOES NOT say. That, sir, is about the weakest attempt at a "reply" from you -and that's saying alot.
@lllannallll Why, SHUT YOUR FACE, ya pompous pseudo-intellectual. Why, once again, ya DUMMY, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans was a great risk to him; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Calvinist007 - no, it is not I who miss the point , it is you. The Scriptures tell us that the Eunuch had come to Jerusalem to WORSHIP , It is you who insist on conjuring up your own scenario of military escorts . The Eunuch was reading from and trying to understand the book of Isaiah when Philip came upon him. The Spirit brought Philip to him at just the pefect time to explain to him what that passage meant that he was reading. He had come on a spiritual journey not a monetary one.
@Bobsblues No, YOU miss the point, man; that eunuch traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Do you know nothing of how people traveled then? Nomadic, thieving bands were reality, and this man required that protection if only for that reason. He went to Jerusalem to worship, but his journey of several months demanded a large amount of wealth to finance--to buy food and other such things.
@Calvinist007- The scriptures tell us that the Eunuch had come to Jerusalem to WORSHIP. YOUR fancifull tale is constructed out of your own imagination. You have spent weeks weaving your tale insisting that there was a grand entourage accompaning the Eunuch to PROTECT him all the while being blinded to the fact that the scripture tells us that Phillip ran right up and jumped into the Eunuchs chariot. DUHHHHHHH !!!!!. Your tale is proven wrong by your own insistance on a huge number of guards .
@Bobsblues You miss the point entirely. Yes, the Ethiopian eunuch was escorted by a military train; I have given information which shows that. Those soldiers did not prevent Philip from approaching the chariot, for what saith the Scriptures? Acts 8:29 (KJV): "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." Prov. 21:1 (KJV): "The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." God runs the show; YOU LOSE.
@Calvinist007 - The Eunuch had come to Jerusalem to WORSHIP and was reading from the book of ISAIAH when Philip came upon him, what do YOU believe he was ? ARE YOU BRAIN DEAD ???? You said the following -
" @Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. "
@Bobsblues He is (I think) making an unnecessary and irrelevant distinction between a Jew by birth and a Jew by prosyelitism. The reason is to divert the discussion to a quibble and deflect from his losing effort at finding some supposed "audience" to witness the eunuch's simple obedience to the gospel. He finds deacon Philip's presence a little too weak for a "public profession", and I do too. The eunuch, had he been drinking, wouldn't even qualify as a "public drunk" in that deserted area.
@Bobsblues Yet again, you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. YOU LOSE. AS ALWAYS.
@Calvinist007 - you said - "@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; "
You either fail to get this or you are purposly trying to use misdirection to avoid the truth concerning this , the scriptures tell us that the Eunuch Came to Jerusalem TO WORSHIP, Not state business or official duties in his capacity as treasurer.
@Bobsblues Again, you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.
@Calvinist007 - Jewish by birth or jewish by conversion matters nothing at all, he would still have had to make his journey to Jerusalem to fullfill his duty just like every other Jew had to , no military train was needed to escort him for this.
You said - " @Bobsblues Man, how the devil do you know the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish? You are groping HORRIBLY now; there is nothing to suggest that he was anything but a Negro who had converted to Judaism. "
@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Think, man, think.
@Calvinist007 "that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham." Blah. He was either a JEW or a GENTILE. If a Gentile, then he - not Cornelius - was the first Gentile convert. However, it seems nobody viewed it that way because he was either a JEW by birth or a JEW by conversion, and that's that. What a weak diversion!
@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Think, man, think.
@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Think, man, think.
@Calvinist007 You said - @Bobsblues LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! You really are falling quickly, man. You're suggesting that the Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem BY HIMSELF? Do you know anything of how people journeyed at that time?'
Other than the Eunuch having the occupation of Treasurer In Ethiopia , he was just another Jew who had come to Jerusalem to worship and fulfill his religious duty just like every other Jew was required to do. No military train to protect him !
@Bobsblues Man, how the devil do you know the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish? You are groping HORRIBLY now; there is nothing to suggest that he was anything but a Negro who had converted to Judaism. Ethiopia was rich at that time due to the precious metals that it possessed. This man was a higher-up in the queen's court, man; any royal official at that time undoubtedly had military protection with him, especially if he was carrying valuables. Think, man; think. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.
@Calvinist007 "Man, how the devil do you know the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish?" Certainly he was a Jew or a proselyte to Judaism. If not, he was a Gentile. What's wrong with you?
@lllannallll That's not what the man said; he said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism.
@Calvinist007 "he said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text" Many times, religionists were placed in but one of two classes: Jews and Gentiles: "you, your children, and those who are afar off." In this sense, the eunuch is viewed as a Jewish convert, not a Gentile. He may have been a Gentile by birth, but he was also a Jew by choice. Further, he might have been born a Jew anyway.
@lllannallll Again, you don't KNOW that; the evidence shows nothing more than that the Ethiopian eunuch was obviously a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that is not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. The Lord Jesus Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. The two must be distinguished.
@Calvinist007 "Again, you don't KNOW that; the evidence shows nothing more than that the Ethiopian eunuch was obviously a Negro who had converted to Judaism" LOL You don't KNOW that, so why assert it? You simply DO NOT KNOW. Either way, he is counted as a Jew - religiously. Dude, he's either a Jew (you and your children) or a Gentile (those that are afar off). No need in nitpicking over your unprovable assertions, as if they matter.
@Calvinist007 - you said - " Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, man. "
The bible tells us that the eunuch and Phillip were in a Moving chariot & the eunuch commanded the chariot to stop. Ireneaus tells us they were Alone , so its obvious that either Phillip or the Eunuch was driving the chariot and the Eunuch either commanded Phillip or the horses to stop. NO Witnesses !!
@Bobsblues LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! You really are falling quickly, man. You're suggesting that the Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem BY HIMSELF? Do you know anything of how people journeyed at that time? They moved in numbers over long distances, and this journey required a military train to protect his money all the while. Irenaeus wrote nothing that contradicts anything that I have written; he simply concentrated on the conversation between Philip and the eunuch. YOU LOSE.
@Calvinist007 - you said - " Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, man. "
Well , first off A driver is not an entourage of witnesses and Ireneaus obviously knew that if there was a driver , that the driver was no longer with them, as he stated that they were alone. ALONE means just that - ALONE, no witnesses , just the eunuch and Phillip were present at this event.
@Bobsblues Oh, please. Are you serious? You have got to be kidding me. That Ethiopian eunuch, a royal official in a rich kingdom, had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27), a journey of about 7 or 8 months ONE-WAY. That required a pile of money to finance, and he loaded up for the return journey; a military train protected him all the while. Irenaeus wrote nothing that contradicts anything that I have written; he simply concentrated on the conversation between Philip and the eunuch.
@Calvinist007 - Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the eunuch brought any money or treasure with him . The early church writers refer to him by his position as chamberlain , which is treasurer. A treasurer does not carry the countries wealth along with him when he goes to worship in another country and the eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning to Ethiopia when Philip came upon him.
@Bobsblues "Military officer" .... "carrying huge sums of the queen's money" .... "large military entourage to protect the money" ... "pagan soldiers watching the eunuch's baptism." He got alot out of one eunuch, one driver, and a chariot, didn't he? And all because he needs some other folks there. Why? Cuz Calvinistard says that baptism is nothing more than a public profession, sooo ... he be needin sum publik dere to watch de baptizin'. I'm not sure he's elect, anyway.
@Bobsblues Oh, please; what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:27 (KJV): "Behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship." Ethiopia is about 1,000 miles from Jerusalem, man; that journey took about seven or eight months to complete ONE-WAY. Do you think that might have required some money to finance? The more you deny this obvious fact, the more you discredit yourself.
@Calvinist007 "Do you think that might have required some money to finance? The more you deny this obvious fact" Oh, I never denied that fact, did I? I denied that every sojourner to Jerusalem who travelled a long distance required a MILITARY ESCORT - and you won't claim that they did, either. You just claim THIS one - the eunuch - did! That's how inconsistent you are. People traveled from all over to Jerusalem - they didn't require military escorts.
@lllannallll Oh, yes, you DID deny it, LIAR; you denied that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 commanded a military escort to protect the money he was carrying. Why, not everyone who traveled to Jerusalem traveled about 1,000 miles one-way, ya DUMMY, and not everyone who journeyed to Jerusalem was a ROYAL OFFICIAL in the Ethiopian court, a kingdom that was very rich in substance at that time. Why, this man was a special case, one who commanded a military escort to protect that substance.
@Calvinist007 " Why, this man was a special case, one who commanded a military escort to protect that substance." Know what? All your bickering and imaginations simply PROVES that you have no intention of taking the Bible and the Bible alone as your guide. I've seen you present Beisners Fraud, yap about Apostle Philip, and claim baptisms done in the dark in a bathtub with no witnesses were public. You lose again: you're about 0-12 now and falling fast.
@lllannallll Oh, SHUT YOUR FACE, LIAR; I believe your defeat is imminent and I think you feel it coming. The Bible is my Supreme Authority, Dr. Mantey's endorsement is valid (I have the evidence to prove it), water baptisms performed at home are valid (they're not private in the sense of visiting the facilities), and here's what I said: "Even if the Philip who baptized that eunuch was not the Apostle Philip he still witnessed his public profession of faith in water baptism." Why, YOU LOSE.
2Calvinist007 @Bobsblues Man, your lack of scholastic acumen is showing badly once again; you don't know how to read information. Irenaeus: "...he and this man were alone together...." Yes, Philip and the eunuch were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; this is his obvious idea.
MY lack of scholastic accumen ?? NO, it is your lack or dishonesty in taking liberty with writtings of other authors, to write your own fanciful tales that are not based in actual facts but needed to support your position.
@Bobsblues Yes, you baptismal regenerationist HERETIC, you have a lack of scholastic skill; it's spelled "acumen", not "accumen". NO, what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, man. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN. AS ALWAYS.
@Bobsblues Calvinist must be running around with some strange "pseudotranslation" of a Koine Greek verse - trying to find ANYBODY with PhD after his name to autograph it. Then after the "autographee" is dead - and has been dead awhile - he'll resurrect his Greek Bible page and present a "photostatic copy" to the world. That's about what Beisner's Fraud amounts to.
@Bobsblues Man, your lack of scholastic acumen is showing badly once again; you don't know how to read information. Irenaeus: "...he and this man were alone together...." Yes, Philip and the eunuch were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; this is his obvious idea. That does not nullify the fact that the eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles, which required a boatload of money to finance, and that he was in charge of a MILITARY RETINUE which PROTECTED his MONEY. Those soldiers witnessed his baptism.
@Calvinist007 " Irenaeus: "...he and this man were alone together...." <--- LMAO @ that! Maybe Iranaeus was too BIG on the Bible, and too LITTLE on speculative imaginations, to suit you. He never envisioned that some little theological one-by-four would come around 2,000 years later and try to INVENT some pagan "public" to save a heretical baptismal doctrine. That's funny!
@lllannallll Your time is up. Acts 16:18: "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, I both claim this Scripture and plead His shed Blood against you and your wicked, evil attacks on scriptural truth and on me, His servant, for defending it. On the authority of this Scripture, I command both you and the DEVIL who is motivating you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST to depart from this forum and never again to enter it.
@Calvinist007 "I command both you and the DEVIL who is motivating you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST to depart from this forum and never again to enter it." <--- LMAO. You screwed yourself. You "COMMANDED" me - does that make you a military officer? No, you're a civilian as the eunuch was. The difference is that he didn't wind up heretical.
@lllannallll Again, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY, Dr. Thayer's definition cannot be taken in and of itself; Greek words always are determined by CONTEXT. That Ethiopian eunuch commanded a military train to protect his money, you LYING SERPENT.
@Calvinist007 "Again, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY, Dr. Thayer's definition cannot be taken in and of itself" <-- You're having a rough day, aren't you? I still can't believe YOU commanded ME! Looks like you'd proofread your posts. You need to.
@Calvinist007 "Again, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY, Dr. Thayer's definition cannot be taken in and of itself; Greek words always are determined by CONTEXT." Tell that to Calvin: he's the one who thinks the eunuch went down into the water to get sprinkled. You think he got immersed, but "see" a gang of pagans standing around to witness it. I think both you and Calvin hallucinate.
@lllannallll Hear Calvin: "Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. ..... For some dipped them thrice, some but once."--"Commentaries", Acts 8:38 Either get your facts straight or SHUT UP.
@Calvinist007 "Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head." SPRINKLE? You said, "The meaning of a Greek word is determined by the context." "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water." The meaning of baptizo is "to dip, to immerse" and the context so indicates. Calvin was wrong on baptism, too - he advocated sprinkling in spite of the context.
@lllannallll Read all of Calvin's comments, LIAR: "Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. ..... For some dipped them thrice, some but once."--"Commentaries", Acts 8:38 Why, get it right.
@Calvinist007 "Read all of Calvin's comments" I have! Calvin admitted that the ancient baptism was IMMERSION - sometimes triune immersion. Then he proceeds to tell us what uninspired men are doing TODAY and tells us we ought not be care one way or another. Look at his silly reasoning: "some were immersed once, some thrice". Ok, now what? Oh, according to Calvin, that proves that SPRINKLING can be substituted! Isn't that illogical? He flunked on that point - and many others.
@lllannallll One point where Calvin never flunked and YOU flunk, Campbellite HERETIC: "Baptism serves as our confession before men. Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God's people; by which we testify that we agree in worshipping the same God...by which finally we openly affirm our faith...."--"Institutes", IV, 15 This dear man had no misunderstanding about water baptism and what it meant, although he held to infant baptism; nobody's perfect.
@Calvinist007 "This dear man had no misunderstanding about water baptism and what it meant" Yes, he did - he flunked on the MODE, and he flunked on the PURPOSE. He can't be trusted on either one.
@lllannallll Why, wrong, Campbellite baptismal regenerationist; just because someone may be off on some things, that doesn't mean that they're untrustworthy. Why, J.B. Rotherham was a Campbellite HERETIC just like YOU are; why, how did he render II Tim. 1:9? "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to the peculiar purpose and favour - which was given to us in Christ Jesus before age-during times." Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Calvinist007 "just because someone may be off on some things, that doesn't mean that they're untrustworthy. " Oh? So you can't totally rely on Calvin, can you? No, you won't take Calvin on his "sprinkling", and you won't take him on other things, either. You'll pick and choose as it suits you. Truth is: you believe man is ELECT and SAVED without faith, repentance, or anything else.
@Calvinist007 "The Gospel didn't go to the Gentiles officially until Acts ch. 10; it is no mystery that none of these soldiers whom the eunuch of Acts ch. 8 commanded may have been saved people. 'Tis singularly odd that ya didn't ... take all that into account, eh?" The Bible mentions no soldiers, and sure I took all that into account, tard. Why do you think I called em pagans? Certainly the soldiers of Ethiopia were pagans, and had no interest in a Christian baptism.
@lllannallll Why, that's the point, ya DUMMY. Why, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that none of them may have been saved argues for MY position because he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans at great risk to himself; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
@lllannallll LIAR, use some cogent reasoning; Irenaeus said that the eunuch and Philip were alone together, obviously in the chariot. Anybody who knows anything about chariots knows that they hold about two people at the most comfortably; what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." The more you post the more you bury yourself, HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
@Calvinist007 "LIAR, use some cogent reasoning; Irenaeus said that the eunuch and Philip were alone together, obviously in the chariot." Methinks Irenaeus simply said the eunuch and chariot driver were ALONE, whether in the chariot or out of it. You had to do your specialty again: ADDING things. In this case, you add "in the chariot" to Iranaeus. You see, you are hapless, helpless, and hopeless on baptism being a "public profession", so you invent all these tales in your losing effort.
@lllannallll Methinks your use of Elizabethan English shows your desperation, LIAR. What saith the Scripture? Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, ya DUMMY. You see, you are hapless, helpless, and hopeless on this point from the standpoint of cogent reasoning, ya HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOL!!
@Calvinist007 "Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, ya DUMMY." You're losing what little mind you have! I always said the Bible implied a driver. It is implied at v38: "And he commanded the chariot to stand still" So? Who cares? A driver is implied - a necessary inference. A military convoy is NOT a necessary inference.
@lllannallll Why, no, YOU have lost this debate BADLY more than once, which is the obvious reason why you attack my intelligence, ya PHARISAIC LIAR. Why, yet again, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27), a journey of about seven or eight months ONE-WAY. Why, do you think that might have required some money to finance? SURE, it did! Do ya think he might have loaded up for the return journey? SURE, he did! A military train protected him all the while.
@Calvinist007 "A military train protected him all the while." You assert that which you must prove, and even an IDIOT or ATHEIST who reads Acts 8 will note the complete absence of any "military train." Then you forge ahead into your heresy and make the absurd claim that your imagined "military train" actually WITNESSED the eunuch's baptism. THERE is the point. You have NO PUBLIC there to witness the so-called PUBLIC PROFESSION - and THAT is where u lose the point!
@lllannallll Oh, please; ya DUMMY, any THINKING person knows that the Ethiopian eunuch, the queen's TREASURER (Acts 8:27), carried a large amount of money with him for the approximate 1,000 mile one-way journey to Jerusalem, both there and back. That man was a royal official with great power, and those folks traveled with military escorts, especially when they possessed money. You have suggested absurdly that this man was accompanied by only one to two other folks at most. Why, you're a JOKE.
@Calvinist007 "You have suggested absurdly that this man was accompanied by only one to two other folks at most. Why, you're a JOKE." The JOKE is on you because I stand squarely upon the 8th chapter of Acts, whereas you plant your feet solidly, as usual, on the 23rd chapter of your imagination. Poor thing: can't find any witnesses, can you? Scholars would laugh at you.
@Calvinist007 "which is the obvious reason why you attack my intelligence" LOLOL! I sure can't attack your IMAGINATION in going beyond anything either written or implied. " you denied that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 commanded a military escort to protect the money he was carrying" <--- I STILL deny that, you retard. I said he possibly had DRIVER: THAT is implied. A military train is NOT implied - you made it up. And the driver - if he existed - was most likely a PAGAN.
@lllannallll Why, once again, ya DUMMY, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that none of them may have been saved argues for MY position because he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans at great risk to himself; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Calvinist007 ""And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Yeah, well, that'd make THREE in the chariot, unless you envision the chariot driver getting out. If so, that's a little more believable - or should I say possible - than the rest of your hallucination. Is hallucination a side effect of Calvinism? If so, I need to know before I ride with a Calvinist.
@lllannallll You see, ya WHIPPED LITTLE PUPPY, ya just admitted that the chariot required a driver; ya just VALIDATED my point regarding Irenaeus' statement, that he was indicating that Philip and the eunuch were alone together IN THE CHARIOT, that there was ANOTHER PERSON there. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, ya just DEFEATED yourself, didn't ya, ya LYING BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST CAMPBELLITE HERETICAL CULTIST? I am praying and am fasting against you; you are HISTORY (Mk. 9:29). Why, YOU LOSE.
@Calvinist007 " ya just admitted that the chariot required a driver" Why, the Bible admitted that, tard. "And he commanded the chariot to stand still." <-- see that? ONE chariot - not a military train or caravan. I've always said there was most likely a driver, you idiot. That's nothing new. I deny that anything in the context implies, and certainly nothing states, that there was anyone else there. And no mention of anyone witnessing the baptism. You lose. Fast away, dude.
@lllannallll Wrong. Why, YOU lose; fast away, ya LYING SPIRITUAL HARLOT. Why, once again, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27), a journey of about seven or eight months ONE-WAY. Why, do you think that might have required some money to finance? SURE, it did! Do ya think he might have loaded up for the return journey? SURE, he did! A military train protected him all the while. The more you deny these obvious facts, the more you embarrass yourself.
@Calvinist007 ""I command both you and the DEVIL who is motivating you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST to depart from this forum and never again to enter it." Blah, get you a priest, and you can "fast" and have an exorcism. You never did tell us whether your "command" indicates that you are a military officer or not. Why don't you simply back up and say that baptism is not necessarily a "public" profession of anything. It is simply obedience, whether "public" or "private." You're 0 for 11.
@Calvinist007 "Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?" Yeah, notice that the gospel was carried to the eunuch by an earthen vessel, Philip. Singularly odd that out of your hallucinated "vision" of maybe fifty soldiers, not A ONE of them was ELECT. 1 outta 50 isn't good odds on the election business.
@lllannallll Yeah, what saith the Scriptures, LIAR? Rom. 9:18 (KJV): "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth." The Gospel didn't go to the Gentiles officially until Acts ch. 10; it is no mystery that none of these soldiers whom the eunuch of Acts ch. 8 commanded may have been saved people. 'Tis singularly odd that ya didn't have enough cogent reasoning and biblical knowledge to take all that into account, eh? Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
" Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of whom the prophet spoke: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the mouth?” “But who shall declare His nativity? for His life shall be taken away from the earth.” [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; cont.
@Bobsblues Again, the Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles from his home country to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27)--a journey of seven to eight months; that required a boatload of money to finance, and he, as the queen's treasurer (Acts 8:27), had the means whereby to do that. He was in a CHARIOT, and he COMMANDED that vehicle to stop (Acts 8:38); this man was in charge of a MILITARY RETINUE which PROTECTED his MONEY. Sound deductive reasoning shows all of this to be true. YOU LOSE.
.... as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, "
@Bobsblues The Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles from his home country to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27)--a journey of seven to eight months; that required a boatload of money to finance, and he, as the queen's treasurer (Acts 8:27), had the means whereby to do that. He was in a CHARIOT, and he COMMANDED that vehicle to stop (Acts 8:38); this man was in charge of a MILITARY RETINUE which PROTECTED his MONEY. Sound deductive and historical reasoning shows all of this to be true.
Remember how evil the world. Think of all the evil and bless your own life. God doesnt seem to wanna show himself but hes sure to take control every nw and then if you sin?
Be strong, take risks, and remember hard things are so easy?
Learn to understand other people beliefs and see there point of view.
What is truth?
Could just be a mind movie in a film or a hypnotiser.
Truth is twisted but I no life isnt normal as there are 16 methods of power and only one is religion. Be cool
faith without works is dead. Water baptism does not come from man, It comes from God. If salvation is by faith alone, then WHY GET BAPTIZED??? Everything is needed. Repentence (trust), Baptism (obedience - your response to who/what you believe in), and the Holy Spirit is your gift for believing and obeying. If i believe there is a million dollars for me, and i know where it is, IM GOING THERE. If i only believe, will i get the million?
Sorry, folks, I gave the wrong translation designation for Mark: Mk. 3:29-30 (DBY): "Whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;-because they said, He has an unclean spirit." Jn. 8:48 (DBY): "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a demon?" These are the same UNBELIEVERS to whom Jesus said (Jn. 8:43, YLT), "Ye ARE NOT ABLE to hear my word." TOTAL DEPRAVITY, TOTAL INABILITY. God be praised.
@Calvinist007 I'm taking note that "Calvinist" is so inept that he merely "copies and pastes" verses (from whateever pseudo-translation sounds best to him for that verse) out-of-context, and takes passages that refer to national Israel or an ADULT sinner, and merely quotes them - without much comment. He's too DUMB to comment much. And he excuses his ignorance by saying "Well, Jesus quoted scripture to the devil." Yeah, but JESUS didn't take a few verses out of context, did he? That sums it up.
@lllannallll Forget it, LIAR; if the Lord will, I will continue to answer you in the same way that Christ answered the DEVIL who is motivating you: with the Scriptures (Mt. 4:1-11). What saith the Scriptures? Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Psa. 58:3 (NIV): 'Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.' Jer. 17:9 (NIV): 'The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.' Why, YOU LOSE.
@Calvinist007 "if the Lord will, I will continue to answer you in the same way that Christ answered the DEVIL who is motivating you: with the Scriptures" That's all you CAN do: you sure can't EXPLAIN any verses - you just toss em out, and I take each and every one from you - easily at that.
@lllannallll No, you won't take any Scripture from me, LIAR, for it is written (Isa. 55:11, NKJV), 'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.' Psa. 51:5 (NKJV): 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.' Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOL!!!!
@Calvinist007 "Psa. 51:5 " Look at him run to Psa 51: 5 - "In sin did my mother conceive me." And he thinks THAT makes David a born sinner! "In drunkenness did my date rape me." By Calvinist's "exegesis", he makes the VICTIM the DRUNK. "In anger did my mother slap me." The tard makes the VICTIM the ANGRY ONE. All to save a sagging ship of total hereditary depravity. LOL
@lllannallll LIAR, what saith the Scripture? Psa. 51:5 (WYC): "For lo! I was conceived in wickednesses; and my mother conceived me in sins. (For lo! I was conceived in sinfulness; yea, my mother conceived me in sin.)" Psa. 51:5 (GW): "I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Psa. 51:5 (HCSB): 'Indeed, I was guilty [when I] was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.'
@Calvinist007 Psa. 51:5: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."" Yeah, we know all about David's mom. So FROM WHENCE did that totally depraved spirit COME? From his mommy, his daddy, or God above? Answer that one." <-- Go ahead and ANSWER. We all know you can't - I just wanna drive home the point.
@lllannallll What saith the Scriptures, LIAR? Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Rom. 5:12, 18 (NIV): 'Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.' Adam condemned all of his posterity.
@Calvinist007 Isa. 1:5-6 (YLT) ""It is often indeed adduced to prove the doctrine of depravity; but it has no direct reference to it, and it should not be adduced to prove that people are depraved, or applied as referring to the moral condition of man." - Albert Barnes, Presbyterian. OK, that's a scholar. Let's hear from a NON-scholar: "Barnes was wrong. The verse doesn't refer to national Israel; it's talking about BABIES." - Calvinist. As they say, "judge for yourself."
@lllannallll Again, Barnes was entitled to his opinion, but he was wrong; Isa. 1:5-6 shows that Israel was corrupt because MAN is corrupt. What saith the Scriptures? Psa. 51:5 (GW): 'I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.' Rom. 3:10-12 (KJV): "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
@Calvinist007 "Rom. 3:10-12 (KJV): "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way" GONE out of the way? GONE? Then they must have been IN THE WAY to start with! Why, I'll take that verse. Your doctrine allows NO ROOM for anyone "GOING OUT OF THE WAY."
@lllannallll Why, no, you won't take any Scripture from me, LIAR, for it is written (Isa. 55:11, NKJV), 'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.' Psa. 51:5 (NKJV): 'I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.' Rom. 3:12 (NKJV): 'All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.'
@Calvinist007 "Again, Barnes was entitled to his opinion, but he was wrong." Oh, he was "wrong" about like ALL the church fathers that you or I know of were WRONG on "born of water" in Jn 3: 5, eh? Don't you just HATE that EVERY ONE OF THEM that EITHER of us knows about said: "born of water" means "water baptism." Along comes Calvinist and says, "Nope ... y'all are all mistaken and HERETICS on that point, and Isa 1: 5-6 refers to BABIES." LMAO. That's funny, Calvinist.
@lllannallll What saith the Scriptures, eh? Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Isa. 1:5-6 (NIV): 'Your whole head is injured, your whole heart afflicted. From the sole of your foot to the top of your head there is no soundness--only wounds and welts and open sores, not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil.' Don't you just HATE that the Word of God rebukes you sharply, LIAR? Why, YOU LOSE. AGAIN. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Calvinist007 "Ohhh, but the POINT is that you have NO IDEA of knowing WHEN those people in Acts 19:1-5 were baptized with John's baptism" The POINT is that I don't HAVE to know. John's baptism was STILL unto the remission of sins, and you can't "Beisner's Fraud" your way out of that. Those folks were either baptized with the baptism of John PRIOR to Pentecost or AFTER Pentecost. I say the evidence points to "AFTER".
@lllannallll Yes, the POINT is that you are saying that John's baptism was not in force, which is why those folks in Acts 19:1-5 had to be baptized AGAIN; you have NO IDEA when they were baptized--NONE. You cannot PROVE your point; your argument from silence is invalid. John's baptism never saved anybody, it never washed away sins; that is WHY his baptism was not SUFFICIENT for these people--it was the outward evidence of saving faith. Dr. Beisner has NOT committed fraud, you FILTHY LIAR.
@Calvinist007 "Yes, the POINT is that you are saying that John's baptism was not in force, which is why those folks in Acts 19:1-5 had to be baptized AGAIN" Yep, that'd be a good reason. I said the EVIDENCE points towards that conclusion. It is VERY POSSIBLE and LIKELY. And John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins" - there is NO EVIDENCE that any of the apostles were re-baptized, is there? WHY? Because their sins were washed away in John's baptism, that's why.
@lllannallll Nope, you cannot PROVE WHEN those folks in Acts 19:1-5 were baptized with John's baptism; until you can do that SHUT YOUR HERETICAL FACE, LIAR. John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; THAT is why these people who had been baptized with his baptism required rebaptism. Your PATHETIC attempt to salvage your untenable position by your mentioning the apostles' baptisms CANNOT help you. You have NO IDEA whether or not they were rebaptized under the New Covenant. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOL!!!!
@Calvinist007 "John's baptism did NOT wash away sins" Yes, it did - you MUST explain "unto the remission of sins" in relation to John's baptism, and, when you do, we'll see if you contradict the meaning of 'eis' in Beisner's Fraud. Something tells me you WILL contradict it - that's no surprise. But .... carry on (and don't forget to answer)
@lllannallll No, you LIAR, John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; what saith the Scriptures? Mt. 3:8,11 (KJV): "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire." John's baptism was a PICTURE of the repentance that ALREADY HAD TAKEN PLACE, ya BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE. AGAIN. LOL!!
@Calvinist007 "What saith the Scriptures, LIAR? Jn. 8:37" Oh, blah. You can't FIND a SINGLE - not ONE - unbeliever in Jn 8: 30-47, and that's pretty sad. I can't help it if some believers - people who KNEW Jesus was the Son of God - nonetheless sought to kill him. They loved their traditions and positions as did the chief rulers in Jn 12. So?THAT is no reason for you to INVENT a group of NONBELIEVERS who weren't THERE. I challenge you to FIND AN UNBELIEVER in Jn 8 - you WON'T. Haven't found any?
@lllannallll What saith the Scriptures, LIAR? I Jn. 3:15 (KJV): "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Jn. 8:37, 44 (KJV): "Ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." These were UNBELIEVERS. Oh, well, YOU LOSE.
@Calvinist007 I challenge you to FIND AN UNBELIEVER in Jn 8 - you WON'T. Haven't found any? Keep lookin through your pseudotranslations. You might find one!
@lllannallll LIAR, what saith the Scriptures? Jn. 8:44 (ESV): 'You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a LIAR and the father of lies.' Rev. 21:8 (ESV): '...all LIARS...will be in the lake that burns with fire...." Christ made these statements to UNBELIEVERS. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOL!!!!!!!!!
@Calvinist007 Look at you: "LIAR, what saith the Scriptures?" OK, fine - and what do you say following that? "Christ made these statements to UNBELIEVERS." You never gave a REFERENCE for that - other than the 23rd chapter of your imagination. There's not ONE UNBELIEVER mentioned in John 8: 30-44 - NOT ONE. You had to INVENT THEM to salvage the false notion that a BELIEVER IS SAVED AT THE MOMENT OF BELIEF. You made it all up - and misrepresent scripture, to boot.
@lllannallll Look at you: a FILTHY ATTACKER of the Scriptures, you LIAR. What saith the Scriptures? I Jn. 3:15 (KJV): "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Jn. 8:44 (KJV): "Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." Why, these statements were made to UNBELIEVERS.
@Calvinist007 "Why, these statements were made to UNBELIEVERS." Yeah, well, you have YET to find a SINGLE UNBELIEVER in Jn 8: 30-44, and you WON'T. THAT is why you MAKE THEM UP: to suit your belief that a BELIEVER is SAVED AT THAT POINT. If you want some FICTIONAL NON-BELIEVERS in Jn. 8, be my guest, but EVERYONE can see that you are required to MERELY INVENT THEM.
@lllannallll Eph. 6:10-11: "Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, I now both claim all the Scriptures and plead His shed Blood on the Mercy Seat of יְהֹוָה in Heaven against you and the DEVIL who is motivating you to the effect that you all shall be rebuked (ἐπιτιμάω, Lk. 9:42). I am praying and am fasting (Mk. 9:29); YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE AGAINST THAT.
@Calvinist007 "John's baptism never saved anybody, it never washed away sins" John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins." Let's see YOU and Beisner pull off another fraud in a futile effort to "2nd person plural" that one away. You CAN'T. Watch him! He'll revert to the old standard "because of" silliness - which Beisner's Fraud DENIES. Can't have it both ways, Calvinist.
@lllannallll Again, LIAR, you cannot PROVE WHEN those folks in Acts 19:1-5 were baptized with John's baptism; until you can do that, SHUT YOUR HERETICAL FACE. John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; THAT is why these people who had been baptized with his baptism required rebaptism. They had identified publicly with the coming Messiah, but they had not been baptized into His NAME; what saith the Scripture? Acts 19:5 (KJV): "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Why, YOU LOSE; LOL!!!
@Calvinist007 "John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; THAT is why these people who had been baptized with his baptism required rebaptism." Oh, John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins" - you can SPEW, but you can't EXPLAIN exactly what "unto" means in that verse. I challenge you to do so in a way that doesn't conflict with Beisner's Fraud. Know what? YOU CAN'T DO IT!
@Calvinist007 ""Psa. 51:5: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."" Yeah, we know all about David's mom. So FROM WHENCE did that totally depraved spirit COME? From his mommy, his daddy, or God above? Answer that one." Oh, answer the question! It's time for you to STEP UP and ANSWER SOME THINGS, rather than HIDING ALL THE TIME. And you really need to explain Tertullian, "No one can ATTAIN salvation WITHOUT BAPTISM ... " Answer the questions, tard.
@lllannallll Oh, no, you LYING HERETIC, I answer the DEVIL who is motivating you in the same way Christ answered him: with the Word of God: Psa. 51:5 (WYC): "For lo! I was conceived in wickednesses; and my mother conceived me in sins. (For lo! I was conceived in sinfulness; yea, my mother conceived me in sin.)" Psa. 51:5 (GW): "Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.'
@Calvinist007 "You cannot PROVE your point; your argument from silence is invalid" Oh, well, here goes: you shoulda kept that in mind when you were INVENTING that "large military entourage" that you MADE UP - the scriptures are certainly SILENT on that point, yet you "felt the need" to supply some "witnesses" after you discovered that your "apostolic witness" sank in the quicksand. See? Your argument from TOTAL SILENCE is invalid. You can't FIND any "public profession" in Acts 8.
@lllannallll Oh, well, here's the evidence again: Acts 8:38 (KJV): "HE COMMANDED (κελεύω) the chariot to stand still." Acts 21:33 (KJV): "Then the chief captain came near , and took him, and COMMANDED (κελεύω) [him] to be bound with two chains." Acts 22:24 (KJV): "The chief captain COMMANDED (κελεύω) him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging." The eunuch in Acts 8 was in charge of a military retinue, ya DUMMY. Why, YOU LOSE. AGAIN. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
@Calvinist007 "Oh, well, here's the evidence again: Acts 8:38" WHAT evidence? That SAME GREEK WORD is used for "commands" to DOGS! All it denotes is authority of the eunuch over ONE CHARIOT DRIVER, and I challenge you to find ONE MORE PERSON mentioned in the entire passage! You can't do it, and you can't even prove that the chariot driver WITNESSED a thing. THAT is pretty pitiful - trying to formulate an argument out of thin air from the word "commanded". LOL! Not a chance!
@lllannallll Not a chance for you, LIAR; what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:27 (KJV): "Behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship." That eunuch was in charge of the queen's MONEY; he had undertaken a journey of about 1,000 miles from his home to Jerusalem, and you're suggesting he didn't take any money with him requiring military protection? Why, you're PATHETIC!!!
@Calvinist007 ""John's baptism did NOT wash away sins" Yes, it did - you MUST explain "unto the remission of sins" in relation to John's baptism, and, when you do, we'll see if you contradict the meaning of 'eis' in Beisner's Fraud. Something tells me you WILL contradict it - that's no surprise. But .... carry on (and don't forget to answer)." NICE JOB, Calvinist - you really STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE and HANDLED IT WELL. LMAO @ your losing every passage.
@lllannallll No, you LIAR, John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; what saith the Scriptures? Mt. 3:8,11 (KJV): "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire." John's baptism was a PICTURE of the repentance that ALREADY HAD TAKEN PLACE, ya BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.
@Calvinist007 "John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. (Mk 1: 4) LOL @ "picturing repentance". So what if it did? It was STILL "unto the remission of sins." And you can't "Beisner's Fraud" your way outta that.
James 2:17 "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action,is dead" Faith alone is false doctrine!
bwilliams13able 1 day ago
In the conversion of paul.on Acts22:10 he says,what should I do,Lord.in this verse whe see that paul believed,and he called Jesus ,Lord.there were instructions for him on verse 16 ,to get up baptize,wash your sins.
skooby619 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skooby619
In Acts22:10,This is not the actual story event.This is where Paul was recounting the story of his conversion to the multitude in about AD 60.The actual conversion event took place back in Acts 9:1-19 , 26 years earlier in about AD 34.
Verse 16 of Acts 22 , was Paul telling the multitudes to not tarry and call on the name of the Lord & be baptised,because he had just give them testamony of his own conversion.
Ananias only said those things in Acts 9:17, not Acts 22:16.
USAFreedomReform 1 week ago
no matter what u tell te COC members,they will not beleive u,or the scriptures.
uwique 3 weeks ago
@uwique We love you too. "By this all men will know..." John 13:35
bwilliams13able 1 day ago
@bwilliams13able i'm sure u do,,what i dont agree with is coc doctrine.
uwique 1 day ago
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1John 1:9,10
USAFreedomReform 1 month ago
Comment removed
USAFreedomReform 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD said all the way back in the very beginning of the old law,"Thou shall not have any other gods before me".
If people think water will save them,isn't that the same as putting a physical god(water) before GOD?
Think about it.
JESUS DID IT ALL ON THE CROSS !! All we have to do is repent & believe on the name of Jesus Christ to be SAVED !!
USAFreedomReform 1 month ago
Comment removed
USAFreedomReform 1 month ago
Comment removed
USAFreedomReform 2 months ago in playlist More videos from SKYSPLASH
This has been flagged as spam show
All have sinned and greatly offended the holy God of the bible. The just punishment is death then hell. That's not Gods will. He suffered and died on the cross paying for the law you broke in His life's blood so He could legally dismiss your case. You must repent turn from sin and trust alone in Jesus Christ for your salvation.
mamainmancj 2 months ago
You can't deny plain passages of scriptures to affirm a point that is derived by assumptions. The Holy Spirit falling on Cornelius was to show that the Gentiles were also heirs of the gospel.
You say baptism isn't for salvation, Christ stated the very opposite. Mark 16:16
You say baptism isn't for remission of sins, Peter stated the very opposite. Acts 2:38; 2:47=saved after obedience.
These plain verses were inspired of the H. Spirit yet you deny them by drawing uninspired conclusions.
wealthisearned 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wealthisearned "You say baptism isn't for salvation, Christ stated the very opposite. Mark 16:16"
No mention of water.
Flesh things are of flesh things and spirit things are of spirit things. Same as earthly things are of the earth and heavenly things are of heaven.
USAFreedomReform 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course baptism doesn't save even though Mark 16:16 says it does! But, saying a prayer that's not in the Bible puts you into Christ?
Believing is UNTO righteousness (Romans 10:10)
Repenting is UNTO life (Acts 11:8)
Confession is made UNTO salvation (Romans 10:10)
Baptism is the means one gets INTO Christ (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27)
Sinner's Prayer - ???
Many people come UNTO, but those that reject the divine command of baptism to be saved never get INTO. Read Ephesians 1:3.
wealthisearned 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ Calvinist007 - Irenaeus stated they were alone, period . It is you who once again write your own version of peoples quotes in order to make them support your false doctrine.
@Bobsblues No, that is NOT what Irenaeus said, man. He said that Philip and the eunuch were alone, obviously meaning that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT;
Bobsblues 3 months ago
Wow, who cares if the Eunuch was born a Jew or converted? And who cares if he had a million people around him during his conversion? None of that matters. What matters is what the Holy Spirit revealed to us in the word. Phillip preached Jesus to the man and his first reaction was to be water baptized, so Phillip was clearly preaching that baptism is part of the conversion process.
Concatenate 4 months ago
@Concatenate "And who cares if he had a million people around him during his conversion?" Calvinist does - that's who. To him, baptism is NOTHING MORE than "public profession of prior salvation in Christ." If I can find ONE example of a non-public baptism, his "definition" (<-- using the term leniently) falls flat, just as the rest of this theology does. As far as the eunuch's being a Jew by choice or by birth, such a distinction is of no consequence. It's a quibble.
lllannallll 3 months ago
@lllannallll SHUT YOUR FACE, you WICKED SPIRITUAL HARLOT; you have been gone for about a month, and it is only a matter of time before God removes you completely, for I have commanded it in Christ's Name. What saith the Scriptures? Rom. 8:9 (KJV): "Ye are...in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Acts 10:47 (KJV): "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" They were saved BEFORE they were baptized.
Calvinist007 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "and it is only a matter of time before God removes you completely, for I have commanded it in Christ's Name." I'm afraid God could care less what tardo like you "commands." I wasn't gone: I was waiting for a reply WITH SUBSTANCE from you, but gave up. From a non-existent military entourage to a fake Bible page to Apostle Philip to "public private" baptisms, you certainly are a theological juggler - to your own detriment.
lllannallll 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll Rom. 8:9 (KJV): "Ye are...in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Acts 10:47 (KJV): "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" They were saved BEFORE they were baptized.That calvinist egged u right!!LOL
uwique 3 weeks ago
@lllannallll ,,your a pro at theo babble aint ya?
uwique 3 weeks ago
@Calvinist007 Here's the truth for ya: it just TEARS YOU up that Philip and the eunuch were ridin' along, and Philip "preached Jesus" (which included baptism - how sad for your position), and likelihood is that Philip and the eunuch were the only two present who witnessed the event (equally sad for your position). How nice it would be (for you) if Philip had hesitated, put the eunuch's case before the brethren, took a vote, and came back with a group of them a week later to baptize him.
lllannallll 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll No, HERE is the truth for ya, ya WHIPPED LITTLE WORM: why, once again, ya DUMMY, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans was a great danger to him; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 3 months ago
@lllannallll theres no truth in you.
uwique 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uwique "your a pro at theo babble aint ya?" THAT, from someone who won't use a lexicon and who pleads ignorance bout most Bible passages? Oh, c'mon. Your so-called "plan" blurs faith, repentance, confession, and prayer - and makes conversion an illogical mess. THAT is "theo-babble".
lllannallll 3 weeks ago
@lllannallll Rest easy, for we have the truth of His word and we know that the enemies of the Lord will continue to fight against us. Please recall what our brother, Peter, said in one of his letters.
"which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16
Perhaps this is one of those times to shake the dust off your feet and move on to proclaiming the good news to others. Peace be with you.
Concatenate 3 months ago
@Calvinist007 - Ireneas ,a person just a couple of generations from this event, has told us that the Eunuch and Phillip were Alone . You craft your grand entourage in complete contradiction to what this man has stated, and you have been told this, but yet you still insist on maintaining your self created story. You are in fact calling him a liar and asking us to believe that you know more than the man that was taught by those who were instructed by the Apostles themselves.
Bobsblues 4 months ago
@Bobsblues No, that is NOT what Irenaeus said, man. He said that Philip and the eunuch were alone, obviously meaning that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; he did not discount the fact that the eunuch had a DRIVER there with him, nor did he discount the fact that he was escorted by a military retinue to protect him. Irenaeus focused on their conversation and the eunuch's salvation; he never said anything to refute what I have asserted. That man was a royal official; he was escorted.
Calvinist007 4 months ago
@Calvinist007 "...nor did he discount the fact that he was escorted by a military retinue to protect him." <-- LOL. You are assuming a "fact" that you have yet to prove - therefore, it's an unscriptural assumption. The "fact" is that such a retinue is NOT a necessary inference. The Bible nowhere mentions any such retinue - and you are trying in vain to pawn off an argument about what the Bible DOES NOT say. That, sir, is about the weakest attempt at a "reply" from you -and that's saying alot.
lllannallll 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll Why, SHUT YOUR FACE, ya pompous pseudo-intellectual. Why, once again, ya DUMMY, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans was a great risk to him; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 3 months ago
@Calvinist007 - no, it is not I who miss the point , it is you. The Scriptures tell us that the Eunuch had come to Jerusalem to WORSHIP , It is you who insist on conjuring up your own scenario of military escorts . The Eunuch was reading from and trying to understand the book of Isaiah when Philip came upon him. The Spirit brought Philip to him at just the pefect time to explain to him what that passage meant that he was reading. He had come on a spiritual journey not a monetary one.
Bobsblues 5 months ago
@Bobsblues No, YOU miss the point, man; that eunuch traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Do you know nothing of how people traveled then? Nomadic, thieving bands were reality, and this man required that protection if only for that reason. He went to Jerusalem to worship, but his journey of several months demanded a large amount of wealth to finance--to buy food and other such things.
Calvinist007 4 months ago
@Calvinist007- The scriptures tell us that the Eunuch had come to Jerusalem to WORSHIP. YOUR fancifull tale is constructed out of your own imagination. You have spent weeks weaving your tale insisting that there was a grand entourage accompaning the Eunuch to PROTECT him all the while being blinded to the fact that the scripture tells us that Phillip ran right up and jumped into the Eunuchs chariot. DUHHHHHHH !!!!!. Your tale is proven wrong by your own insistance on a huge number of guards .
Bobsblues 5 months ago
@Bobsblues You miss the point entirely. Yes, the Ethiopian eunuch was escorted by a military train; I have given information which shows that. Those soldiers did not prevent Philip from approaching the chariot, for what saith the Scriptures? Acts 8:29 (KJV): "Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot." Prov. 21:1 (KJV): "The king's heart [is] in the hand of the LORD, [as] the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." God runs the show; YOU LOSE.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 - The Eunuch had come to Jerusalem to WORSHIP and was reading from the book of ISAIAH when Philip came upon him, what do YOU believe he was ? ARE YOU BRAIN DEAD ???? You said the following -
" @Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. "
Bobsblues 5 months ago
@Bobsblues He is (I think) making an unnecessary and irrelevant distinction between a Jew by birth and a Jew by prosyelitism. The reason is to divert the discussion to a quibble and deflect from his losing effort at finding some supposed "audience" to witness the eunuch's simple obedience to the gospel. He finds deacon Philip's presence a little too weak for a "public profession", and I do too. The eunuch, had he been drinking, wouldn't even qualify as a "public drunk" in that deserted area.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@Bobsblues Yet again, you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. YOU LOSE. AS ALWAYS.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 - you said - "@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; "
You either fail to get this or you are purposly trying to use misdirection to avoid the truth concerning this , the scriptures tell us that the Eunuch Came to Jerusalem TO WORSHIP, Not state business or official duties in his capacity as treasurer.
Bobsblues 5 months ago
@Bobsblues Again, you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 - You said this - " @Bobsblues Man, how the devil do you know the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish? "
Acts 8:27-28
"...and had come to Jerusalem for to worship,
28 Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. "
THE EUNUCH HAD COME TO JERUSALEM TO WORSHIP !
Bobsblues 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 - Jewish by birth or jewish by conversion matters nothing at all, he would still have had to make his journey to Jerusalem to fullfill his duty just like every other Jew had to , no military train was needed to escort him for this.
You said - " @Bobsblues Man, how the devil do you know the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish? You are groping HORRIBLY now; there is nothing to suggest that he was anything but a Negro who had converted to Judaism. "
Bobsblues 5 months ago
@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Think, man, think.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham." Blah. He was either a JEW or a GENTILE. If a Gentile, then he - not Cornelius - was the first Gentile convert. However, it seems nobody viewed it that way because he was either a JEW by birth or a JEW by conversion, and that's that. What a weak diversion!
lllannallll 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Think, man, think.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bobsblues Wrong; you said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. In any event, that man traveled a one-way distance of about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem; as a royal official with money, he most certainly was attended by a military escort. Think, man, think.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 You said - @Bobsblues LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! You really are falling quickly, man. You're suggesting that the Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem BY HIMSELF? Do you know anything of how people journeyed at that time?'
Other than the Eunuch having the occupation of Treasurer In Ethiopia , he was just another Jew who had come to Jerusalem to worship and fulfill his religious duty just like every other Jew was required to do. No military train to protect him !
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues Man, how the devil do you know the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish? You are groping HORRIBLY now; there is nothing to suggest that he was anything but a Negro who had converted to Judaism. Ethiopia was rich at that time due to the precious metals that it possessed. This man was a higher-up in the queen's court, man; any royal official at that time undoubtedly had military protection with him, especially if he was carrying valuables. Think, man; think. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Man, how the devil do you know the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish?" Certainly he was a Jew or a proselyte to Judaism. If not, he was a Gentile. What's wrong with you?
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll That's not what the man said; he said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text. I said that he probably was a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that's not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 "he said that the Ethiopian eunuch was Jewish, which is unprovable from the text" Many times, religionists were placed in but one of two classes: Jews and Gentiles: "you, your children, and those who are afar off." In this sense, the eunuch is viewed as a Jewish convert, not a Gentile. He may have been a Gentile by birth, but he was also a Jew by choice. Further, he might have been born a Jew anyway.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll Again, you don't KNOW that; the evidence shows nothing more than that the Ethiopian eunuch was obviously a Negro who had converted to Judaism; that is not the same as saying that he was Jewish, a physical descendant of Abraham. The Lord Jesus Christ was Jewish; he was not a convert to Judaism. The two must be distinguished.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "Again, you don't KNOW that; the evidence shows nothing more than that the Ethiopian eunuch was obviously a Negro who had converted to Judaism" LOL You don't KNOW that, so why assert it? You simply DO NOT KNOW. Either way, he is counted as a Jew - religiously. Dude, he's either a Jew (you and your children) or a Gentile (those that are afar off). No need in nitpicking over your unprovable assertions, as if they matter.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 - you said - " Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, man. "
The bible tells us that the eunuch and Phillip were in a Moving chariot & the eunuch commanded the chariot to stop. Ireneaus tells us they were Alone , so its obvious that either Phillip or the Eunuch was driving the chariot and the Eunuch either commanded Phillip or the horses to stop. NO Witnesses !!
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!! You really are falling quickly, man. You're suggesting that the Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem BY HIMSELF? Do you know anything of how people journeyed at that time? They moved in numbers over long distances, and this journey required a military train to protect his money all the while. Irenaeus wrote nothing that contradicts anything that I have written; he simply concentrated on the conversation between Philip and the eunuch. YOU LOSE.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 - you said - " Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, man. "
Well , first off A driver is not an entourage of witnesses and Ireneaus obviously knew that if there was a driver , that the driver was no longer with them, as he stated that they were alone. ALONE means just that - ALONE, no witnesses , just the eunuch and Phillip were present at this event.
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues Oh, please. Are you serious? You have got to be kidding me. That Ethiopian eunuch, a royal official in a rich kingdom, had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27), a journey of about 7 or 8 months ONE-WAY. That required a pile of money to finance, and he loaded up for the return journey; a military train protected him all the while. Irenaeus wrote nothing that contradicts anything that I have written; he simply concentrated on the conversation between Philip and the eunuch.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 - Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the eunuch brought any money or treasure with him . The early church writers refer to him by his position as chamberlain , which is treasurer. A treasurer does not carry the countries wealth along with him when he goes to worship in another country and the eunuch had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning to Ethiopia when Philip came upon him.
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues "Military officer" .... "carrying huge sums of the queen's money" .... "large military entourage to protect the money" ... "pagan soldiers watching the eunuch's baptism." He got alot out of one eunuch, one driver, and a chariot, didn't he? And all because he needs some other folks there. Why? Cuz Calvinistard says that baptism is nothing more than a public profession, sooo ... he be needin sum publik dere to watch de baptizin'. I'm not sure he's elect, anyway.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@Bobsblues Oh, please; what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:27 (KJV): "Behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship." Ethiopia is about 1,000 miles from Jerusalem, man; that journey took about seven or eight months to complete ONE-WAY. Do you think that might have required some money to finance? The more you deny this obvious fact, the more you discredit yourself.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Do you think that might have required some money to finance? The more you deny this obvious fact" Oh, I never denied that fact, did I? I denied that every sojourner to Jerusalem who travelled a long distance required a MILITARY ESCORT - and you won't claim that they did, either. You just claim THIS one - the eunuch - did! That's how inconsistent you are. People traveled from all over to Jerusalem - they didn't require military escorts.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Oh, yes, you DID deny it, LIAR; you denied that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 commanded a military escort to protect the money he was carrying. Why, not everyone who traveled to Jerusalem traveled about 1,000 miles one-way, ya DUMMY, and not everyone who journeyed to Jerusalem was a ROYAL OFFICIAL in the Ethiopian court, a kingdom that was very rich in substance at that time. Why, this man was a special case, one who commanded a military escort to protect that substance.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 " Why, this man was a special case, one who commanded a military escort to protect that substance." Know what? All your bickering and imaginations simply PROVES that you have no intention of taking the Bible and the Bible alone as your guide. I've seen you present Beisners Fraud, yap about Apostle Philip, and claim baptisms done in the dark in a bathtub with no witnesses were public. You lose again: you're about 0-12 now and falling fast.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Oh, SHUT YOUR FACE, LIAR; I believe your defeat is imminent and I think you feel it coming. The Bible is my Supreme Authority, Dr. Mantey's endorsement is valid (I have the evidence to prove it), water baptisms performed at home are valid (they're not private in the sense of visiting the facilities), and here's what I said: "Even if the Philip who baptized that eunuch was not the Apostle Philip he still witnessed his public profession of faith in water baptism." Why, YOU LOSE.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
2Calvinist007 @Bobsblues Man, your lack of scholastic acumen is showing badly once again; you don't know how to read information. Irenaeus: "...he and this man were alone together...." Yes, Philip and the eunuch were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; this is his obvious idea.
MY lack of scholastic accumen ?? NO, it is your lack or dishonesty in taking liberty with writtings of other authors, to write your own fanciful tales that are not based in actual facts but needed to support your position.
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues Yes, you baptismal regenerationist HERETIC, you have a lack of scholastic skill; it's spelled "acumen", not "accumen". NO, what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, man. YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN. AS ALWAYS.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007- No huge troop or grand entourage - JUST Philip & The Eunuch !!!
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues Calvinist must be running around with some strange "pseudotranslation" of a Koine Greek verse - trying to find ANYBODY with PhD after his name to autograph it. Then after the "autographee" is dead - and has been dead awhile - he'll resurrect his Greek Bible page and present a "photostatic copy" to the world. That's about what Beisner's Fraud amounts to.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@Bobsblues Man, your lack of scholastic acumen is showing badly once again; you don't know how to read information. Irenaeus: "...he and this man were alone together...." Yes, Philip and the eunuch were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; this is his obvious idea. That does not nullify the fact that the eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles, which required a boatload of money to finance, and that he was in charge of a MILITARY RETINUE which PROTECTED his MONEY. Those soldiers witnessed his baptism.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 " Irenaeus: "...he and this man were alone together...." <--- LMAO @ that! Maybe Iranaeus was too BIG on the Bible, and too LITTLE on speculative imaginations, to suit you. He never envisioned that some little theological one-by-four would come around 2,000 years later and try to INVENT some pagan "public" to save a heretical baptismal doctrine. That's funny!
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Your time is up. Acts 16:18: "I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour." IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, I both claim this Scripture and plead His shed Blood against you and your wicked, evil attacks on scriptural truth and on me, His servant, for defending it. On the authority of this Scripture, I command both you and the DEVIL who is motivating you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST to depart from this forum and never again to enter it.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "I command both you and the DEVIL who is motivating you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST to depart from this forum and never again to enter it." <--- LMAO. You screwed yourself. You "COMMANDED" me - does that make you a military officer? No, you're a civilian as the eunuch was. The difference is that he didn't wind up heretical.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Again, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY, Dr. Thayer's definition cannot be taken in and of itself; Greek words always are determined by CONTEXT. That Ethiopian eunuch commanded a military train to protect his money, you LYING SERPENT.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "Again, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY, Dr. Thayer's definition cannot be taken in and of itself" <-- You're having a rough day, aren't you? I still can't believe YOU commanded ME! Looks like you'd proofread your posts. You need to.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Again, ya UNEDUCATED DUMMY, Dr. Thayer's definition cannot be taken in and of itself; Greek words always are determined by CONTEXT." Tell that to Calvin: he's the one who thinks the eunuch went down into the water to get sprinkled. You think he got immersed, but "see" a gang of pagans standing around to witness it. I think both you and Calvin hallucinate.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Hear Calvin: "Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. ..... For some dipped them thrice, some but once."--"Commentaries", Acts 8:38 Either get your facts straight or SHUT UP.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head." SPRINKLE? You said, "The meaning of a Greek word is determined by the context." "And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water." The meaning of baptizo is "to dip, to immerse" and the context so indicates. Calvin was wrong on baptism, too - he advocated sprinkling in spite of the context.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Read all of Calvin's comments, LIAR: "Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. ..... For some dipped them thrice, some but once."--"Commentaries", Acts 8:38 Why, get it right.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Read all of Calvin's comments" I have! Calvin admitted that the ancient baptism was IMMERSION - sometimes triune immersion. Then he proceeds to tell us what uninspired men are doing TODAY and tells us we ought not be care one way or another. Look at his silly reasoning: "some were immersed once, some thrice". Ok, now what? Oh, according to Calvin, that proves that SPRINKLING can be substituted! Isn't that illogical? He flunked on that point - and many others.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll One point where Calvin never flunked and YOU flunk, Campbellite HERETIC: "Baptism serves as our confession before men. Indeed, it is the mark by which we publicly profess that we wish to be reckoned God's people; by which we testify that we agree in worshipping the same God...by which finally we openly affirm our faith...."--"Institutes", IV, 15 This dear man had no misunderstanding about water baptism and what it meant, although he held to infant baptism; nobody's perfect.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 "This dear man had no misunderstanding about water baptism and what it meant" Yes, he did - he flunked on the MODE, and he flunked on the PURPOSE. He can't be trusted on either one.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@lllannallll Why, wrong, Campbellite baptismal regenerationist; just because someone may be off on some things, that doesn't mean that they're untrustworthy. Why, J.B. Rotherham was a Campbellite HERETIC just like YOU are; why, how did he render II Tim. 1:9? "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to the peculiar purpose and favour - which was given to us in Christ Jesus before age-during times." Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "just because someone may be off on some things, that doesn't mean that they're untrustworthy. " Oh? So you can't totally rely on Calvin, can you? No, you won't take Calvin on his "sprinkling", and you won't take him on other things, either. You'll pick and choose as it suits you. Truth is: you believe man is ELECT and SAVED without faith, repentance, or anything else.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 "The Gospel didn't go to the Gentiles officially until Acts ch. 10; it is no mystery that none of these soldiers whom the eunuch of Acts ch. 8 commanded may have been saved people. 'Tis singularly odd that ya didn't ... take all that into account, eh?" The Bible mentions no soldiers, and sure I took all that into account, tard. Why do you think I called em pagans? Certainly the soldiers of Ethiopia were pagans, and had no interest in a Christian baptism.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Why, that's the point, ya DUMMY. Why, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that none of them may have been saved argues for MY position because he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans at great risk to himself; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@lllannallll LIAR, use some cogent reasoning; Irenaeus said that the eunuch and Philip were alone together, obviously in the chariot. Anybody who knows anything about chariots knows that they hold about two people at the most comfortably; what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." The more you post the more you bury yourself, HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "LIAR, use some cogent reasoning; Irenaeus said that the eunuch and Philip were alone together, obviously in the chariot." Methinks Irenaeus simply said the eunuch and chariot driver were ALONE, whether in the chariot or out of it. You had to do your specialty again: ADDING things. In this case, you add "in the chariot" to Iranaeus. You see, you are hapless, helpless, and hopeless on baptism being a "public profession", so you invent all these tales in your losing effort.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Methinks your use of Elizabethan English shows your desperation, LIAR. What saith the Scripture? Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, ya DUMMY. You see, you are hapless, helpless, and hopeless on this point from the standpoint of cogent reasoning, ya HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOL!!
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Irenaeus' obvious idea is that they were alone together IN THE CHARIOT; Irenaeus, along with anyone who thinks soundly, knew that a chariot requires a DRIVER, ya DUMMY." You're losing what little mind you have! I always said the Bible implied a driver. It is implied at v38: "And he commanded the chariot to stand still" So? Who cares? A driver is implied - a necessary inference. A military convoy is NOT a necessary inference.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Why, no, YOU have lost this debate BADLY more than once, which is the obvious reason why you attack my intelligence, ya PHARISAIC LIAR. Why, yet again, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27), a journey of about seven or eight months ONE-WAY. Why, do you think that might have required some money to finance? SURE, it did! Do ya think he might have loaded up for the return journey? SURE, he did! A military train protected him all the while.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "A military train protected him all the while." You assert that which you must prove, and even an IDIOT or ATHEIST who reads Acts 8 will note the complete absence of any "military train." Then you forge ahead into your heresy and make the absurd claim that your imagined "military train" actually WITNESSED the eunuch's baptism. THERE is the point. You have NO PUBLIC there to witness the so-called PUBLIC PROFESSION - and THAT is where u lose the point!
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Oh, please; ya DUMMY, any THINKING person knows that the Ethiopian eunuch, the queen's TREASURER (Acts 8:27), carried a large amount of money with him for the approximate 1,000 mile one-way journey to Jerusalem, both there and back. That man was a royal official with great power, and those folks traveled with military escorts, especially when they possessed money. You have suggested absurdly that this man was accompanied by only one to two other folks at most. Why, you're a JOKE.
Calvinist007 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "You have suggested absurdly that this man was accompanied by only one to two other folks at most. Why, you're a JOKE." The JOKE is on you because I stand squarely upon the 8th chapter of Acts, whereas you plant your feet solidly, as usual, on the 23rd chapter of your imagination. Poor thing: can't find any witnesses, can you? Scholars would laugh at you.
lllannallll 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 "which is the obvious reason why you attack my intelligence" LOLOL! I sure can't attack your IMAGINATION in going beyond anything either written or implied. " you denied that the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 commanded a military escort to protect the money he was carrying" <--- I STILL deny that, you retard. I said he possibly had DRIVER: THAT is implied. A military train is NOT implied - you made it up. And the driver - if he existed - was most likely a PAGAN.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Why, once again, ya DUMMY, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27). Why, it required great sums of money to finance. Why, a military train protected his money all the while, and the fact that none of them may have been saved argues for MY position because he was baptized publicly into the N.T. Church in view of pagans at great risk to himself; people who did that were murdered by the authorities. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 5 months ago
@Calvinist007 ""And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him." Yeah, well, that'd make THREE in the chariot, unless you envision the chariot driver getting out. If so, that's a little more believable - or should I say possible - than the rest of your hallucination. Is hallucination a side effect of Calvinism? If so, I need to know before I ride with a Calvinist.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll You see, ya WHIPPED LITTLE PUPPY, ya just admitted that the chariot required a driver; ya just VALIDATED my point regarding Irenaeus' statement, that he was indicating that Philip and the eunuch were alone together IN THE CHARIOT, that there was ANOTHER PERSON there. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah, ya just DEFEATED yourself, didn't ya, ya LYING BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST CAMPBELLITE HERETICAL CULTIST? I am praying and am fasting against you; you are HISTORY (Mk. 9:29). Why, YOU LOSE.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 " ya just admitted that the chariot required a driver" Why, the Bible admitted that, tard. "And he commanded the chariot to stand still." <-- see that? ONE chariot - not a military train or caravan. I've always said there was most likely a driver, you idiot. That's nothing new. I deny that anything in the context implies, and certainly nothing states, that there was anyone else there. And no mention of anyone witnessing the baptism. You lose. Fast away, dude.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Wrong. Why, YOU lose; fast away, ya LYING SPIRITUAL HARLOT. Why, once again, the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 had traveled about 1,000 miles to Jerusalem (vs. 27), a journey of about seven or eight months ONE-WAY. Why, do you think that might have required some money to finance? SURE, it did! Do ya think he might have loaded up for the return journey? SURE, he did! A military train protected him all the while. The more you deny these obvious facts, the more you embarrass yourself.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 ""I command both you and the DEVIL who is motivating you IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST to depart from this forum and never again to enter it." Blah, get you a priest, and you can "fast" and have an exorcism. You never did tell us whether your "command" indicates that you are a military officer or not. Why don't you simply back up and say that baptism is not necessarily a "public" profession of anything. It is simply obedience, whether "public" or "private." You're 0 for 11.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Acts 8:31 (KJV): "And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?" Yeah, notice that the gospel was carried to the eunuch by an earthen vessel, Philip. Singularly odd that out of your hallucinated "vision" of maybe fifty soldiers, not A ONE of them was ELECT. 1 outta 50 isn't good odds on the election business.
lllannallll 6 months ago
@lllannallll Yeah, what saith the Scriptures, LIAR? Rom. 9:18 (KJV): "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth." The Gospel didn't go to the Gentiles officially until Acts ch. 10; it is no mystery that none of these soldiers whom the eunuch of Acts ch. 8 commanded may have been saved people. 'Tis singularly odd that ya didn't have enough cogent reasoning and biblical knowledge to take all that into account, eh? Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 6 months ago
" Whom did Philip preach to the eunuch of the queen of the Ethiopians, returning from Jerusalem, and reading Esaias the prophet, when he and this man were alone together? Was it not He of whom the prophet spoke: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb dumb before the shearer, so He opened not the mouth?” “But who shall declare His nativity? for His life shall be taken away from the earth.” [Philip declared] that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; cont.
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues Again, the Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles from his home country to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27)--a journey of seven to eight months; that required a boatload of money to finance, and he, as the queen's treasurer (Acts 8:27), had the means whereby to do that. He was in a CHARIOT, and he COMMANDED that vehicle to stop (Acts 8:38); this man was in charge of a MILITARY RETINUE which PROTECTED his MONEY. Sound deductive reasoning shows all of this to be true. YOU LOSE.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
.... as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, “I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.” This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed, "
{ Ireneaus }
Bobsblues 6 months ago
@Bobsblues The Ethiopian eunuch traveled about 1,000 miles from his home country to Jerusalem to worship (Acts 8:27)--a journey of seven to eight months; that required a boatload of money to finance, and he, as the queen's treasurer (Acts 8:27), had the means whereby to do that. He was in a CHARIOT, and he COMMANDED that vehicle to stop (Acts 8:38); this man was in charge of a MILITARY RETINUE which PROTECTED his MONEY. Sound deductive and historical reasoning shows all of this to be true.
Calvinist007 6 months ago
Remember how evil the world. Think of all the evil and bless your own life. God doesnt seem to wanna show himself but hes sure to take control every nw and then if you sin?
Be strong, take risks, and remember hard things are so easy?
Learn to understand other people beliefs and see there point of view.
What is truth?
Could just be a mind movie in a film or a hypnotiser.
Truth is twisted but I no life isnt normal as there are 16 methods of power and only one is religion. Be cool
ilovejamesandmoney 6 months ago
Jesus wanted everybody to turn to christ budda hindu islam what was that witchcraft too? Bad joke.
Life has loads of magic just be sure to be blessed and be good but dont look up to anything so much that it hurts you
ilovejamesandmoney 6 months ago
John added some extra words there. But who's listening. Revelations 20 I guess.
rdsweet 6 months ago
faith without works is dead. Water baptism does not come from man, It comes from God. If salvation is by faith alone, then WHY GET BAPTIZED??? Everything is needed. Repentence (trust), Baptism (obedience - your response to who/what you believe in), and the Holy Spirit is your gift for believing and obeying. If i believe there is a million dollars for me, and i know where it is, IM GOING THERE. If i only believe, will i get the million?
moim78 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sorry, folks, I gave the wrong translation designation for Mark: Mk. 3:29-30 (DBY): "Whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin;-because they said, He has an unclean spirit." Jn. 8:48 (DBY): "Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a demon?" These are the same UNBELIEVERS to whom Jesus said (Jn. 8:43, YLT), "Ye ARE NOT ABLE to hear my word." TOTAL DEPRAVITY, TOTAL INABILITY. God be praised.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 I'm taking note that "Calvinist" is so inept that he merely "copies and pastes" verses (from whateever pseudo-translation sounds best to him for that verse) out-of-context, and takes passages that refer to national Israel or an ADULT sinner, and merely quotes them - without much comment. He's too DUMB to comment much. And he excuses his ignorance by saying "Well, Jesus quoted scripture to the devil." Yeah, but JESUS didn't take a few verses out of context, did he? That sums it up.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Forget it, LIAR; if the Lord will, I will continue to answer you in the same way that Christ answered the DEVIL who is motivating you: with the Scriptures (Mt. 4:1-11). What saith the Scriptures? Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Psa. 58:3 (NIV): 'Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.' Jer. 17:9 (NIV): 'The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure.' Why, YOU LOSE.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "if the Lord will, I will continue to answer you in the same way that Christ answered the DEVIL who is motivating you: with the Scriptures" That's all you CAN do: you sure can't EXPLAIN any verses - you just toss em out, and I take each and every one from you - easily at that.
lllannallll 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll No, you won't take any Scripture from me, LIAR, for it is written (Isa. 55:11, NKJV), 'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.' Psa. 51:5 (NKJV): 'Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.' Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOLOLOL!!!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Psa. 51:5 " Look at him run to Psa 51: 5 - "In sin did my mother conceive me." And he thinks THAT makes David a born sinner! "In drunkenness did my date rape me." By Calvinist's "exegesis", he makes the VICTIM the DRUNK. "In anger did my mother slap me." The tard makes the VICTIM the ANGRY ONE. All to save a sagging ship of total hereditary depravity. LOL
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll LIAR, what saith the Scripture? Psa. 51:5 (WYC): "For lo! I was conceived in wickednesses; and my mother conceived me in sins. (For lo! I was conceived in sinfulness; yea, my mother conceived me in sin.)" Psa. 51:5 (GW): "I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Psa. 51:5 (HCSB): 'Indeed, I was guilty [when I] was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me.'
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 Psa. 51:5: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."" Yeah, we know all about David's mom. So FROM WHENCE did that totally depraved spirit COME? From his mommy, his daddy, or God above? Answer that one." <-- Go ahead and ANSWER. We all know you can't - I just wanna drive home the point.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll What saith the Scriptures, LIAR? Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Rom. 5:12, 18 (NIV): 'Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.' Adam condemned all of his posterity.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 Isa. 1:5-6 (YLT) ""It is often indeed adduced to prove the doctrine of depravity; but it has no direct reference to it, and it should not be adduced to prove that people are depraved, or applied as referring to the moral condition of man." - Albert Barnes, Presbyterian. OK, that's a scholar. Let's hear from a NON-scholar: "Barnes was wrong. The verse doesn't refer to national Israel; it's talking about BABIES." - Calvinist. As they say, "judge for yourself."
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Again, Barnes was entitled to his opinion, but he was wrong; Isa. 1:5-6 shows that Israel was corrupt because MAN is corrupt. What saith the Scriptures? Psa. 51:5 (GW): 'I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me.' Rom. 3:10-12 (KJV): "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
Calvinist007 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "Rom. 3:10-12 (KJV): "There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way" GONE out of the way? GONE? Then they must have been IN THE WAY to start with! Why, I'll take that verse. Your doctrine allows NO ROOM for anyone "GOING OUT OF THE WAY."
lllannallll 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll Why, no, you won't take any Scripture from me, LIAR, for it is written (Isa. 55:11, NKJV), 'So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me void, But it shall accomplish what I please, And it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it.' Psa. 51:5 (NKJV): 'I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.' Rom. 3:12 (NKJV): 'All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.'
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Again, Barnes was entitled to his opinion, but he was wrong." Oh, he was "wrong" about like ALL the church fathers that you or I know of were WRONG on "born of water" in Jn 3: 5, eh? Don't you just HATE that EVERY ONE OF THEM that EITHER of us knows about said: "born of water" means "water baptism." Along comes Calvinist and says, "Nope ... y'all are all mistaken and HERETICS on that point, and Isa 1: 5-6 refers to BABIES." LMAO. That's funny, Calvinist.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll What saith the Scriptures, eh? Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.' Isa. 1:5-6 (NIV): 'Your whole head is injured, your whole heart afflicted. From the sole of your foot to the top of your head there is no soundness--only wounds and welts and open sores, not cleansed or bandaged or soothed with oil.' Don't you just HATE that the Word of God rebukes you sharply, LIAR? Why, YOU LOSE. AGAIN. LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Ohhh, but the POINT is that you have NO IDEA of knowing WHEN those people in Acts 19:1-5 were baptized with John's baptism" The POINT is that I don't HAVE to know. John's baptism was STILL unto the remission of sins, and you can't "Beisner's Fraud" your way out of that. Those folks were either baptized with the baptism of John PRIOR to Pentecost or AFTER Pentecost. I say the evidence points to "AFTER".
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Yes, the POINT is that you are saying that John's baptism was not in force, which is why those folks in Acts 19:1-5 had to be baptized AGAIN; you have NO IDEA when they were baptized--NONE. You cannot PROVE your point; your argument from silence is invalid. John's baptism never saved anybody, it never washed away sins; that is WHY his baptism was not SUFFICIENT for these people--it was the outward evidence of saving faith. Dr. Beisner has NOT committed fraud, you FILTHY LIAR.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Yes, the POINT is that you are saying that John's baptism was not in force, which is why those folks in Acts 19:1-5 had to be baptized AGAIN" Yep, that'd be a good reason. I said the EVIDENCE points towards that conclusion. It is VERY POSSIBLE and LIKELY. And John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins" - there is NO EVIDENCE that any of the apostles were re-baptized, is there? WHY? Because their sins were washed away in John's baptism, that's why.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Nope, you cannot PROVE WHEN those folks in Acts 19:1-5 were baptized with John's baptism; until you can do that SHUT YOUR HERETICAL FACE, LIAR. John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; THAT is why these people who had been baptized with his baptism required rebaptism. Your PATHETIC attempt to salvage your untenable position by your mentioning the apostles' baptisms CANNOT help you. You have NO IDEA whether or not they were rebaptized under the New Covenant. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOL!!!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "John's baptism did NOT wash away sins" Yes, it did - you MUST explain "unto the remission of sins" in relation to John's baptism, and, when you do, we'll see if you contradict the meaning of 'eis' in Beisner's Fraud. Something tells me you WILL contradict it - that's no surprise. But .... carry on (and don't forget to answer)
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll No, you LIAR, John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; what saith the Scriptures? Mt. 3:8,11 (KJV): "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire." John's baptism was a PICTURE of the repentance that ALREADY HAD TAKEN PLACE, ya BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE. AGAIN. LOL!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "What saith the Scriptures, LIAR? Jn. 8:37" Oh, blah. You can't FIND a SINGLE - not ONE - unbeliever in Jn 8: 30-47, and that's pretty sad. I can't help it if some believers - people who KNEW Jesus was the Son of God - nonetheless sought to kill him. They loved their traditions and positions as did the chief rulers in Jn 12. So?THAT is no reason for you to INVENT a group of NONBELIEVERS who weren't THERE. I challenge you to FIND AN UNBELIEVER in Jn 8 - you WON'T. Haven't found any?
lllannallll 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll What saith the Scriptures, LIAR? I Jn. 3:15 (KJV): "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Jn. 8:37, 44 (KJV): "Ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." These were UNBELIEVERS. Oh, well, YOU LOSE.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 I challenge you to FIND AN UNBELIEVER in Jn 8 - you WON'T. Haven't found any? Keep lookin through your pseudotranslations. You might find one!
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll LIAR, what saith the Scriptures? Jn. 8:44 (ESV): 'You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a LIAR and the father of lies.' Rev. 21:8 (ESV): '...all LIARS...will be in the lake that burns with fire...." Christ made these statements to UNBELIEVERS. Why, YOU LOSE; LOLOL!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 Look at you: "LIAR, what saith the Scriptures?" OK, fine - and what do you say following that? "Christ made these statements to UNBELIEVERS." You never gave a REFERENCE for that - other than the 23rd chapter of your imagination. There's not ONE UNBELIEVER mentioned in John 8: 30-44 - NOT ONE. You had to INVENT THEM to salvage the false notion that a BELIEVER IS SAVED AT THE MOMENT OF BELIEF. You made it all up - and misrepresent scripture, to boot.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Look at you: a FILTHY ATTACKER of the Scriptures, you LIAR. What saith the Scriptures? I Jn. 3:15 (KJV): "No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." Jn. 8:44 (KJV): "Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." Why, these statements were made to UNBELIEVERS.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Why, these statements were made to UNBELIEVERS." Yeah, well, you have YET to find a SINGLE UNBELIEVER in Jn 8: 30-44, and you WON'T. THAT is why you MAKE THEM UP: to suit your belief that a BELIEVER is SAVED AT THAT POINT. If you want some FICTIONAL NON-BELIEVERS in Jn. 8, be my guest, but EVERYONE can see that you are required to MERELY INVENT THEM.
lllannallll 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lllannallll Eph. 6:10-11: "Be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil." IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, I now both claim all the Scriptures and plead His shed Blood on the Mercy Seat of יְהֹוָה in Heaven against you and the DEVIL who is motivating you to the effect that you all shall be rebuked (ἐπιτιμάω, Lk. 9:42). I am praying and am fasting (Mk. 9:29); YOU HAVE NO DEFENSE AGAINST THAT.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "John's baptism never saved anybody, it never washed away sins" John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins." Let's see YOU and Beisner pull off another fraud in a futile effort to "2nd person plural" that one away. You CAN'T. Watch him! He'll revert to the old standard "because of" silliness - which Beisner's Fraud DENIES. Can't have it both ways, Calvinist.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Again, LIAR, you cannot PROVE WHEN those folks in Acts 19:1-5 were baptized with John's baptism; until you can do that, SHUT YOUR HERETICAL FACE. John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; THAT is why these people who had been baptized with his baptism required rebaptism. They had identified publicly with the coming Messiah, but they had not been baptized into His NAME; what saith the Scripture? Acts 19:5 (KJV): "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Why, YOU LOSE; LOL!!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 "John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; THAT is why these people who had been baptized with his baptism required rebaptism." Oh, John's baptism was "unto the remission of sins" - you can SPEW, but you can't EXPLAIN exactly what "unto" means in that verse. I challenge you to do so in a way that doesn't conflict with Beisner's Fraud. Know what? YOU CAN'T DO IT!
lllannallll 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Calvinist007 ""Psa. 51:5: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."" Yeah, we know all about David's mom. So FROM WHENCE did that totally depraved spirit COME? From his mommy, his daddy, or God above? Answer that one." Oh, answer the question! It's time for you to STEP UP and ANSWER SOME THINGS, rather than HIDING ALL THE TIME. And you really need to explain Tertullian, "No one can ATTAIN salvation WITHOUT BAPTISM ... " Answer the questions, tard.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Oh, no, you LYING HERETIC, I answer the DEVIL who is motivating you in the same way Christ answered him: with the Word of God: Psa. 51:5 (WYC): "For lo! I was conceived in wickednesses; and my mother conceived me in sins. (For lo! I was conceived in sinfulness; yea, my mother conceived me in sin.)" Psa. 51:5 (GW): "Indeed, I was born guilty. I was a sinner when my mother conceived me." Psa. 51:5 (NIV): 'Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.'
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "You cannot PROVE your point; your argument from silence is invalid" Oh, well, here goes: you shoulda kept that in mind when you were INVENTING that "large military entourage" that you MADE UP - the scriptures are certainly SILENT on that point, yet you "felt the need" to supply some "witnesses" after you discovered that your "apostolic witness" sank in the quicksand. See? Your argument from TOTAL SILENCE is invalid. You can't FIND any "public profession" in Acts 8.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Oh, well, here's the evidence again: Acts 8:38 (KJV): "HE COMMANDED (κελεύω) the chariot to stand still." Acts 21:33 (KJV): "Then the chief captain came near , and took him, and COMMANDED (κελεύω) [him] to be bound with two chains." Acts 22:24 (KJV): "The chief captain COMMANDED (κελεύω) him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging." The eunuch in Acts 8 was in charge of a military retinue, ya DUMMY. Why, YOU LOSE. AGAIN. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "Oh, well, here's the evidence again: Acts 8:38" WHAT evidence? That SAME GREEK WORD is used for "commands" to DOGS! All it denotes is authority of the eunuch over ONE CHARIOT DRIVER, and I challenge you to find ONE MORE PERSON mentioned in the entire passage! You can't do it, and you can't even prove that the chariot driver WITNESSED a thing. THAT is pretty pitiful - trying to formulate an argument out of thin air from the word "commanded". LOL! Not a chance!
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll Not a chance for you, LIAR; what saith the Scripture? Acts 8:27 (KJV): "Behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship." That eunuch was in charge of the queen's MONEY; he had undertaken a journey of about 1,000 miles from his home to Jerusalem, and you're suggesting he didn't take any money with him requiring military protection? Why, you're PATHETIC!!!
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 ""John's baptism did NOT wash away sins" Yes, it did - you MUST explain "unto the remission of sins" in relation to John's baptism, and, when you do, we'll see if you contradict the meaning of 'eis' in Beisner's Fraud. Something tells me you WILL contradict it - that's no surprise. But .... carry on (and don't forget to answer)." NICE JOB, Calvinist - you really STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE and HANDLED IT WELL. LMAO @ your losing every passage.
lllannallll 7 months ago
@lllannallll No, you LIAR, John's baptism did NOT wash away sins; what saith the Scriptures? Mt. 3:8,11 (KJV): "Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire." John's baptism was a PICTURE of the repentance that ALREADY HAD TAKEN PLACE, ya BAPTISMAL REGENERATIONIST HERETIC. Why, YOU LOSE. ONCE AGAIN.
Calvinist007 7 months ago
@Calvinist007 "John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. (Mk 1: 4) LOL @ "picturing repentance". So what if it did? It was STILL "unto the remission of sins." And you can't "Beisner's Fraud" your way outta that.
lllannallll 7 months ago