Total posts: 8,861
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
-->@3RU7AL wrote: (IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.Tradesecret wrote: I certainly don't have any regard for such a depiction of a person.
I believe he was talking about your megalomaniac, self serving, vain, sadistic, narcissistic, egotistic, warmongering and jealous god.
I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong..
Created:
More back pedaling from the ever so reliable WHO
Covid 19 coronavirus: World Health Organisation doctor backflips on virus lockdowns: Don't use them as a 'primary control'
Dr David Nabarro from the WHO appealed to world leaders yesterday, telling them to stop "using lockdowns as your primary control method" of the coronavirus.
He also claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved.
Created:
-->@BearMan wrote:
I'm blocking you
Hahahahhahahah. What a complete tit. Those facts have given you food for thought haven't they? And the stats of Ferguson's and repeated by Fauci have left a serious bad taste in your mouth too.
Ok, goodby. I shall leave you in peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Death23
Can't wait for Trump to lose like a bitch
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
Why did these demons calling themselves "legion" ask for or need permission?
12 And the demonic spirits begged him, “Send us into the pigs. Let us enter them. 13 Jesus gave them permission.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I have no desire to get into a slanging match with you.
Then don't . If you have no answers then simply leave the thread. It's that fkn simple!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said you made up the notion
I didn't make anything up. "THE NOTION" was all your own. This thread concerns questions that have arose from YOUR OWN NOTION that YOU shared on this thread here>>>>
#29 "I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves"
. I suggest you look up the word "notion". Here I'll do that for you too;
noun notion
- 1.a conception of or belief about something."children have different notions about the roles of their parents"Similar:idea ,belief, concept,conception,conviction, opinion, AND >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>view<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<!!!https://www.google.com/search?q=notion+meaning&rlz=1C1GCEA_enGB907GB907&oq=notion&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i433l2j0i131i433j0i433l2j0j5.7064j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Now look at your own fkn comment on said thread; here it is AGAIN!!!! >>>> #29 "I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves".
So away with your false accusation. You have also told us that John the Baptist was indeed himself baptised, haven't you? But you cannot prove that yourself. And It is only ASSUMED by god that John was baptised, but I don't care who it was.
I am just asking you to prove it. Or to show where you got it from.
I have, See above, what's the matter with you? The only reason that this thread was created was because of "THE NOTION" that YOU had and shared!! I simply agree with YOUR "notion".
AND that it was you that suggested that it should be a requirment
Yes, I believe it should be. AND Yes, I agreed with YOUR NOTION. AND I have given my reasons why I agree with YOUR NOTION, which is something else that you failed to do.
I'll say it again if you wish.. It is reasonable to believe that a person that to calls others to have their sins washed away and be baptised should have FIRST have had their own sins washed away and have been baptised themselves. Why you are making an issue out of this simple reasoning only you know? Is it because I have shown you to be - to put it politely _ foolish AGAIN!?
I do not know why you keep confusing John's own personal baptism of which there is no evidence verses what John did - he was the baptizer?
I am not confusing anything. You have said that John was baptised. I can accept that. And depending on which way one was to read it, so does Jesus.>>>>>"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25. I don't care, from "whence it came" and don't care who baptised him or when.
It seems from my point a view a rabbit hole to go looking for where John was baptized as opposed to what he was doing which is part of the text.
I see again that I should have made myself more clear. I am sorry. Try this >>> I don't care, from "whence it came" and I don't care who baptised him or when or WHERE.
I am happy in the knowledge that you have made it clear that it is your belief that John was baptised himself regardless of by whom, or "whence it came from" or when or where.
You do, after all tell us, HERE>>> Tradesecret #29 that John spoke of his own baptism don't you? And John wouldn't speak of his own baptism if he hadn't indeed been baptised, would he?
Yes, I indicated Jesus was baptized by John and that I am of the view that this was his anointing as a priest.
And you said "king and prophet" and you also said that the evidence is in the bible and that evidence is " is very clear". But when asked numerous time to show this "very clear evidence", you simply have ignored the request to do so. Never mind eh.
John did decide to baptize Jesus. [..................................................................................] Melchizadek because he was of the line of David, not Levi.
None of the above is relevant to this thread. Those points concerning Levi- David etc - are points that being argued separately on another thread . They have nothing to do with this thread. Do not cross contaminate this thread.
Let me whittle this down to one single question for you:
Was John the Baptist baptised himself? YES or NO?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
I'm saying masks work,
And "millions" disagree with you, including those that should and do, know better than you.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Yes we know don't we.... NOW!
We already knew it at the time. The WHO quoted it from China, who was spreading misinformation about the virus.
yes they did and MSM was offering this information as gospel wasn't they.
"Millions!"? My word! you have been listening to your governments that closely you are beginning to exaggerate like them.
My word! You have been spreading misinformation, like your own far-right news channels!
No. I have simply repeated what we now know about Ferguson official record of failed predictions AND his advice to government , which they AND DR Fuachi in the US have pinned their recommendations on.
It seems like you are trying to prove with Doctor Ferugson,
No I have shown his official and abysmal track record for predictions.
I have read closer is that since ONE GUY who literally resigned from the task force in the UK made a mistake,
He didn't resign because of his record, or "mistakes" he resigned because he got caught breaking lockdown laws that he helped set in place , you clown. And Government simply cannot admit to following this clowns advice and following the advice of such a dickhead and his fairy tale predictions.
"Health Secretary Matt Hancock has told Sky News he was "speechless" after it emerged one of the government's key scientific advisers had broken the UK's lockdown rules.
Mr Hancock described the actions of Professor Neil Ferguson as "extraordinary", after it emerged he allowed Antonia Staats, who is reported to be his lover, to visit him at home - in breach of official social distancing rules".https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-matt-hancock-speechless-at-extraordinary-actions-of-govt-scientist-11983885
Created:
-->
@BearMan
The WHO is not a reputable source, It was wrong,it can SPREAD from human to human,
Yes we know don't we.... NOW!
MILLIONS of doctors deny that claim of yours.
"Millions!"? My word! you have been listening to your governments that closely you are beginning to exaggerate like them.
As others came out in support of the experts, it seemed most scientists were of one voice. But that is not the case. Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford University, believes – somewhat controversially – that the lockdown should be lifted faster. In the rush to drive infections down, she fears the poorest have been brushed aside.“It’s becoming clear that a lot of people have been exposed to the virus and that the death rate in people under 65 is not something you would lock down the economy for,” she says. “We can’t just think about those who are vulnerable to the disease. We have to think about those who are vulnerable to lockdown too. The costs of lockdown are too high at this point.”
I am not sure what you were attempting to prove with that link but again, this proves that there are those (one) scientist that recommended actions to government on lockdown & face masks such as this clown from Imperial College; epidemiologist Neil Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.
He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. when here were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed only 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay;
while "millions" of others are against both lockdown and face masks and have been proven correct and Ferguson, Dr Fauchi and Government to be WRONG!
Get over it princess. This flu was grossly exaggerated and lied about from day one.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Wear a mask
I will and do. But not because of fearmongers such as you but because the government here are threatening its citizens with £10,000 fine. That's about 13 GRAND! in the States.
And did I mention that a scientist- one of many around the world - at Oxford university Professor Sunetra Gupta a epidemiologist that studies infections & infectious disease in humans spoke out on a UK radio program saying that wearing face masks "should be voluntary".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waNZOT2ItT0
And have you forgotten that it was non other than the World Health Organisation that told the world that " the C19 infection cannot be passed from human to human".?
You are just a big baby in denial. You simply remind me of my own governments stance; one that is dictating that they have gone this far and taken so many drastic measures and caused so much damage to lives and the economy that they simply cannot afford to admit that they over reacted, so are keeping up the great lie.
Just recently here, we were told by our Government that they - the government were trying to head off a "second peak that could cause the death of 100's of 1000's ". More BS to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Created:
Posted in:
This has to be among the silliest stories in the New Testament scriptures. And this is not "nitpicking".
It starts with Jesus in a boat crossing to a city named Gadarenes ( perhaps, this day Jesus didn't feel like getting his feet wet by simply walking on the water of lake Galilee to the other side?) where he meets a man with "unclean spirit" ; we can assume a demon of sorts has taken possession of the poor man.
And god forbid ! that I dare take this silly story "out of context", here is the full account with the relevant parts highlighted bold & underlined;
Mark 5:1-20
Healing of a Demoniac. New English Translation
5 So they came to the other side of the lake, to the region of the Gerasenes. 2 Just as Jesus was getting out of the boat, a man with an unclean spirit came from the tombs and met him.
3 He lived among the tombs, and no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain. 4 For his hands and feet had often been bound with chains and shackles, but he had torn the chains apart and broken the shackles in pieces. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Each night and every day among the tombs and in the mountains, he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him.
7 Then he cried out with a loud voice, “Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of the Most High God! I implore you by God—do not torment me!” 8 (For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of that man, you unclean spirit!”) 9 Jesus[ asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “My name is Legion, for we are many.”
10 He begged Jesus repeatedly not to send them out of the region. 11 There on the hillside, a great herd of pigs was feeding. 12 And the demonic spirits begged him, “Send us into the pigs. Let us enter them. 13 Jesus gave them permission. So the unclean spirits came out and went into the pigs. Then the herd rushed down the steep slope into the lake, and about 2,000 were drowned in the lake.”
And it goes on to tell us that all the people that witnessed this event, "ran off and spread the news in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened".
So Jesus exorcised a man of his demon/demons named "legion" and "we".
The "permission" is to me, the sticking point. Why did they need Jesus's permission?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Perhaps it is childish. But if he refuses to answer the question but expects others only to answer questions - and never produces the evidence. And refuses to publish his sources - then I am quite entitled to say he makes it up.
I didn't refuse anything. I answered your question although it was of no significance and was irrelevant to the thread. You obviously missed it.. I said the source was YOU and I have shown you that it was you. I have admitted that maybe I should have chosen my words better because I was talking to YOU, that has a very poor attention span, and simply chooses to overlook anything biblically inconvenient.
HERE IT IS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!POST above. #41
I thought you wanted me to leave if I was going to ask questions.
Is it any wonder that you don't have the slightest idea what is going on in these gospels when you don't understand a simple either or request.
At #6 above I simply request that :
You can either answer the questions or simply leave the thread. <<<<< that is a polite request.#6
I know how you dread it when anyone asks you to prove anything.
Not at all. But you seem to be of the belief that responding to questions with questions of your own is somehow answering the/my original question. This is how you Christian cowards always operate when you want to derail a thread or are simply stumped for answers.
I don't think you have any evidence to support the idea that you need to be baptized to baptize someone else.
That is the reason for these inquiries that you have failed time and time again to address.
Who baptized John?
No one knows, especially you. I am simply suggesting that it is not unreasonable to believe that one would have been baptised and had their own sins washed away before taking it upon themselves to proceed to wash away the sins of others. do you not see the hypocrisy should one call another to cleans their sins without having their own sinse cleansed away? Of course you don't. You Christian cowards live and thrive on hypocrisy alone .
For the record - you might be correct - but produce the evidence first.
Well Jesus appears to make suggestion - ambiguously as usual - that John was indeed baptised in the verse that YOU have accused me of "making up". here is a reminder :
You just make it up.What have I made up? I have quoted Jesus who appears to confirm that John the Baptist was baptised AND/ OR that he had the authority to perform the Baptismal rite?Are you saying that I made this up????? >>> Jesus said; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25.. ??????
So did I make up that biblical verse or not?
I do not think that Jesus' words imply that John had been baptized.
Ok then what do his words imply? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS FKN THREAD!
I think he is asking about John's baptisms of other people - of whether they are godly or not?
Well the conversation is initiated by the priests isn't it? And what are they asking about? You want leading by the nose every step of the way don't you.
LOOOOOOOK>>>>>>Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" Matthew 21:23 So we can CLEARLY see the conversation is all to do with AUTHORITY.
SO keeping in mind that Jesus doesn't even ask - "by what authority " did John have to baptise, but simply asks instead about "THE baptism of JOHN "
>>>>>>>>"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25. What are we to make of it. AND AS I ASKED in the op POST # 1; #1
So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?#1
This is why it is ambiguous. This is why I have asked those questions and this is the whole fkn reason for this thread.
Not as it seems you are suggesting - of his own person baptism.
Where have I done that? I don't know either way. This is the whole reason for this thread. But seeing that the conversation started by the priests was about AUTHORITY, I believe it is reasonable to assume that Jesus asked about John's AUTHORITY.
BTW didn't you tell us that "John says that his baptism was deficient". ? Yes here we are:
Yet, even this is gets screwed up by many because as John says - his baptism is deficient - which is why a greater one with a greater baptism is coming.
So this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is you confirming for us that John was Baptised. I mean, would John talk about his own BAPTISM, if he hadn't even been baptised!? And isn't Jesus asking about "John's baptism" and where it came from? Matthew 21:23-25.
And didn't Jesus baptise his disciples and only then tell them to go out and do the same? and don't you also make yet another claim that you have failed to prove? yes here we are:
No it doesn't and you haven't and cannot, prove otherwise.
And isn't it you that has reasonably suggested that one ought to be baptised themselves before being able to baptise another? Yes here we are:
#29 I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves.
So in the same post #29 you confirm John was baptised and that it is reasonable to suggest one should be baptised before baptising another.
So yes, I think you are making it up.
WTF HAVE I MADE UP!
Your post starts with We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4889/post-links/207206Who told you?
I see, you are pounding the words >>>>told here <<<<<. maybe I should have chosen my words a little more careful when it comes to you and your understanding of … well... just about anything.
I believe it was YOU that suggested this , or are you going to deny it. It matters not to me. Because it has nothing to do with the crux of the thread.
Maybe I should have chosen the words _ it has been suggested by tradesecret? as I have shown above but it matters not, does it!? Because it is as you suggest, a reasonable biblical assumption given the biblical evidence , and from your own fkn words !!!!!
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^is also you.
Just thought I'd let you know.
.New Living Translation bible asks ; “Did John’s authority to baptize come from heaven, or was it merely human?”
Contemporary English Version bible askes "Who gave John the right to baptize"?
There are other modern biblical examples too.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
You sourced one.
I did. and from a man - Dr Hilary Jones - that has just days ago been awarded with Queens Honour who had this to say about the wearing of face masks _ " reveals easy ways face masks can become contaminated and therefore ‘completely useless"
I also gave you the source of the original stats given by a professor from the Imperial Collage London that had totally exaggerated the death expectancy and his past record of failed predictions AND that your own Dr Fauci had taken his predictions directly from. but you point blank said " I won't read them".
I'm not gonna act like a doctor here, I'm not.
And I am not asking you to.
From the USA
"“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”
Imperial College epidemiologist Neil Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
Wad'ya think!?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).You've just answered your own question.How so?John was presumably authorized (if not physically baptized) by "YHWH" (confirmed by Jesus' endorsement).
You/we have already addressed authority.
I am sorry but this goes nowhere in answering if or not it is a prerequisite for one to be baptised THEMSELVES BEFORE baptising another?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Alternatively, you are having an imaginary conversation with your ultra ego because you are lonely.Why did "YHWH" create humans?
Slavery.
"there was not a man to till the ground." Till = dig = mine.
A better question I have asked hundreds of theists, is why did god create anything, at all, in the first place? and like much of the bible, I have never had a answer that couldn't easily be debunked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god).You've just answered your own question.
How so?
In all likelihood, Jesus took John for just another popular Jewish heretic (probably more popular than Jesus at the time).
Speculation. Not that it matters. It has nothing to do with my question of authority and was it a prerequisite for John or any one, to be baptised themselves before having the authority to perform the baptismal rite on anyone else? <<<<<<<<<<<< The answer to that is either yes or no. But the theists seem to be giving the questions a swerve.
Jesus, who was also a popular Jewish heretic, took advantage of an opportunity to increase his own popularity with a publicity stunt.
Maybe, but its Irrelevant to the thread.
John (correctly) concluded that his own popularity (and historical profile) would get a decent boost from this charismatic traveling magician (Jesus).
Well I believe they were actually rivals. I also happen to believe that they were half brothers fathered by the same man (the acting Gabriel). I also believe that Jesus and or his followers were responsible for the death of John the Baptist.. But all this is speculation, and I have no evidence and none of this has anything to do with this thread or my questions.
It's kind of like when a moderately popular yootoober invites another moderately popular yootoober on their channel in order for both to get a chance to cross-pollenate their subscribers.
There maybe some truth in that. But, like I have said; I believe that they were deadly rivals. As always seemed the 'tradition' in those ancient times.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
Essentially what 3RU7AL says is that masks don't work 100% so we shouldn't use them.
As do many Doctors and Scientist. But you don't want to hear about that side .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?It's a question the priests were unwilling to answer.
That's not the point of the thread or the question. The point is that Jesus is, one way or another confirming John had been baptised. But did this also then qualify John to baptise others? And would he have had to have been baptised himself before being qualified to baptising others?
Jesus knew they would be unwilling to answer the question and simply asked it in order to avoid answering the question posed to him.
Its not about the questions of the priests or Jesus . It is to do with the qualifications of John.
Jesus basically said, "When you ask me a trick question, I will ask you a trick question. My answer will be the same as yours."
Yes I got that . But as I keep saying, my question is solely to do with Johns qualifications. I take the opinion that Jesus is telling us that John was indeed baptised.
But as I have explained a few times now. The verse is ambiguous.
The "true" answer is "they were both granted authority directly from YHWH", but according to the law, only the high-priest could communicate directly with "YHWH" and so anyone claiming they were granted authority directly from "YHWH" could be charged with blasphemy.
Yes I understand that the story in general was all supposed to have been about setting a "trap" for Jesus into committing blasphemy. .
And Jesus makes it quite clear that one way or another that John had been baptised (presumably by god). So tell me, would it also be a requirement that John needed to be baptised himself before preforming the baptismal rite on others? We have to remember that John had been performing the baptismal rite on the Jordan well before Jesus came into the picture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for the quote. But you still need to address the letter to the Hebrews.
Why?
It makes no difference. It is your baby sunshine , you have made all the claims , not me. You keep forgetting that. I have simply repeated what YOUR god has dictated on the matter.. You just want to ignore it. But looking at what you have produced it look like someone has disobeyed THE LAW OF GOD or was about to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Just because you want it to be the case so badly, does not make it so.
I know. And I can also admit that I don't know. What I don't do is pretend to know something by making shite up that cannot be supported by any evidence.
Address the writer to the Hebrews. You keep having a go at me - but you won't touch that one at all. Everytime you just skip right on past.
I am, as you put it "having a go at you" because you keep ignoring your own gods laws and dictates. Your god handed down the priesthood to Aaron and his descendants exclusively.
It is not me with the blinkers on - it is you.
I have read what god in the bible has said on the matter of the priesthood and its heirs. I haven't invented anything.
Hebrews clearly states Jesus is not a Levite -
Well you say many things are "clearly stated in the scriptures" when they are anything but clearly stated.
For instance you tell us that the evidence that John baptised Jesus "a king, prophet and priest" " is there and it is clear". But this is an outright lie, because isn't it? #18 IN FACT, nothing is mentioned at all about priests, kings or prophets, is there. But what is mentioned and in the very same chapter are "sins" and "repentance".
Another example is your out right bullshite lies is that " In the NT we know that John and his disciples baptized" . #13 No evidence again.
But it is very clearly stated in the scriptures that all matters religious and priestly were god given to Aaron and his descendant only, wasn't it?
This was interesting.
"According to Matthew's genealogy there were three Davidic Kings who had Levite mothers. They are as follows: (1) Abijah whose mother was Michaiah the daughter of the Levite Uriel - 2 Chronicles 13:1-2, (2) Jatham whose mother was Jerushah the daughter of the Levite Zadok - 2 Chronicles 27:1, and (3) Hezekiah whose mother was Abijah the daughter of the Levite Zechariah - 2 Chronicles 29:1. It was as a Levitical priest that Jesus performed 2,000 years ago, and that was why He went to Jerusalem in the Kingdom of Judah to make the priestly sacrifice".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I thought you wanted me to leave if I was going to ask questions.
Is it any wonder that you don't have the slightest idea what is going on in these gospels when you don't understand a simple either or request.
At #6 above I simply request that :
You can either answer the questions or simply leave the thread. <<<<< that is a polite request.#6
I know how you dread it when anyone asks you to prove anything.
Not at all. But you seem to be of the belief that responding to questions with questions of your own is somehow answering the/my original question. This is how you Christian cowards always operate when you want to derail a thread or are simply stumped for answers.
I don't think you have any evidence to support the idea that you need to be baptized to baptize someone else.
That is the reason for these inquiries that you have failed time and time again to address.
Who baptized John?
No one knows, especially you. I am simply suggesting that it is not unreasonable to believe that one would have been baptised and had their own sins washed away before taking it upon themselves to proceed to wash away the sins of others. do you not see the hypocrisy should one call another to cleans their sins without having their own sinse cleansed away? Of course you don't. You Christian cowards live and thrive on hypocrisy alone .
For the record - you might be correct - but produce the evidence first.
Well Jesus appears to make suggestion - ambiguously as usual - that John was indeed baptised in the verse that YOU have accused me of "making up". here is a reminder :
You just make it up.What have I made up? I have quoted Jesus who appears to confirm that John the Baptist was baptised AND/ OR that he had the authority to perform the Baptismal rite?Are you saying that I made this up????? >>> Jesus said; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25.. ??????
So did I make up that biblical verse or not?
I do not think that Jesus' words imply that John had been baptized.
Ok then what do his words imply? THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS FKN THREAD!
I think he is asking about John's baptisms of other people - of whether they are godly or not?
Well the conversation is initiated by the priests isn't it? And what are they asking about? You want leading by the nose every step of the way don't you.
LOOOOOOOK>>>>>>Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" Matthew 21:23 So we can CLEARLY see the conversation is all to do with AUTHORITY.
SO keeping in mind that Jesus doesn't even ask - "by what authority " did John have to baptise, but simply asks instead about "THE baptism of JOHN "
>>>>>>>>"The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25. What are we to make of it. AND AS I ASKED in the op POST # 1; #1
So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?#1
This is why it is ambiguous. This is why I have asked those questions and this is the whole fkn reason for this thread.
Not as it seems you are suggesting - of his own person baptism.
Where have I done that? I don't know either way. This is the whole reason for this thread. But seeing that the conversation started by the priests was about AUTHORITY, I believe it is reasonable to assume that Jesus asked about John's AUTHORITY.
BTW didn't you tell us that "John says that his baptism was deficient". ? Yes here we are:
So this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is you confirming for us that John was Baptised. I mean, would John talk about his own BAPTISM, if he hadn't even been baptised!? And isn't Jesus asking about "John's baptism" and where it came from? Matthew 21:23-25.
And didn't Jesus baptise his disciples and only then tell them to go out and do the same? and don't you also make yet another claim that you have failed to prove? yes here we are:
No it doesn't and you haven't and cannot, prove otherwise.
And isn't it you that has reasonably suggested that one ought to be baptised themselves before being able to baptise another? Yes here we are:
#29 I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves.
So in the same post #29 you confirm John was baptised and that it is reasonable to suggest one should be baptised before baptising another.
So yes, I think you are making it up.
WTF HAVE I MADE UP!
Your post starts with We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4889/post-links/207206Who told you?
I see, you are pounding the words >>>>told by <<<<<. maybe I should have chosen my words a little more careful when it comes to you and your understanding of … well... just about anything.
I believe it was YOU that suggested this , or are you going to deny it. It matters not to me. Because it has nothing to do with the crux of the thread.
Maybe I should have chosen the words _ it has been suggested by tradesecret? as I have shown above but it matters not, does it!? Because it is as you suggest, a reasonable biblical assumption given the biblical evidence , and from your own fkn words !!!!!
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church.
This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^is also you.
Just thought I'd let you know.
.New Living Translation bible asks ; “Did John’s authority to baptize come from heaven, or was it merely human?”
Contemporary English Version bible askes "Who gave John the right to baptize"?
There are other modern biblical examples too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
His Mother is Mary. From Mary he is able to claim he a Son of Man all the way back to Adam.
Indeed son of a man born of a woman.
John never broke the law. Not in relation to baptizing Jesus anyway.
You just make shite up on the hoof. You simply have no evidence for your claim at all.
But where in the OT does it tell us that a Levite Priest is not allowed to ordain or baptize a non-levite to a priesthood?
If it is a biblical fact that if the laws of god were adhered to by John the baptist, then Jesus would have had to have been a Levite LIKE JOHN HIMSELF!. The role of the priesthood was handed down by god himself to Levites- Arron and his descendants.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I find it amazing that you accept this as the bible dictates yet won't even entertain the idea that Jesus ( maybe via Mary?) was a Levite. So either John broke these godly laws or he didn't.
Stop inventing things. The true answer is that - like me , you don't know. So stop pretending that you do. I find it odd though that Jesus would surround himself and abide among these Levites at his center of operations (Bethany) and not be a fkn Levite himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
So you think you are the only one allowed to answer questions.
On the contrary. I am inviting you and others to answer questions.
You are not a teacher.
I know, and that is why I ask loads of questions. And pose them especially of those that should know the answerers.
You don't have an answer.
That's right, I don't. And that is why I have started a thread asking questions. In fact the majority of my threads are question based.
You just make it up.
What have I made up? I have quoted Jesus who appears to confirm that John the Baptist was baptised AND/ OR that he had the authority to perform the Baptismal rite?
Are you saying that I made this up????? >>> Jesus said; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25.. ??????
Does this or does it not confirm that John was baptised? I have made it clear that I am not sure but it appears to suggest that he was.
So you go sulk and ponder. And then come back when you have dried your tears and feel grown up enough to take on this ambiguous verse from Jesus himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Interesting that it was unconscious "self segregating" and that these groups hardly communicated at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Jesus was not a Levite Priest.
This is where your bible ignorance stands out stark.
Yes so you keep saying he was not a levite but no one knows for sure because like many many other things, the bible is silent on the matter. . BUT, you keep ignoring gods own fkn laws don't you? although you have recognised gods ordination of Aaron and HIS descendants/Levites. concentrate on the word - DECENDANTS - at least for 30 seconds.
I have asked you then what kind of priest was if not a levite? You haven't replied.
I pointed you back to Melchizadek who also was a priest of GOD as indeed was Moses' Father.
It doesn't matter one iota what "Moses father was". What matters is the FACT that god had handed down - during the Exodus - to Arron and his descendants, the sole control of the of religion practices and the priesthood.
You even tell us this:
Jesus was baptized by John who was of the Levite line. And I am of the view that John baptized him to fulfill the law of the OT so as to do all righteousness.
And that law was what!? HERE IS A BIG FKN CLUE>>>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron#:~:text=High%20Priest,-See%20also%3A%20High&text=The%20books%20of%20Exodus%2C%20Leviticus,on%20the%20altar%20to%20Yahweh
Did John - a Levite - break any of those religious laws of GOD when he baptised Jesus? YES OR NO?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Cleansing in water....What a bizarre thing to do....Who ever thought of that.....Give the guy a certificate.
Maybe they did, Vic. I hadn't thought of that. but the bible, like many other things is silent on the matter. But this would prove his credentials wouldn't it..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself.Who said this and where was it said?
Responding to a question with a question of your own may well have worked in Jesus' time, princess, but not in this /our, day & age.
You can either answer the questions or simply leave the thread. <<<<< that is a polite request.
Here have another go: Jesus said; "The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men"? Matthew 21:23-25..
So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?
Created:
Posted in:
We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself. That sounds pretty fair , reasonable and honest . After all, who would have the audacity to call others to have their sins washed away yet not have had their own sins washed away first?
And we can with some confidence assume this to be correct because John the Baptist was baptising well before Jesus appeared to John on the banks of the river Jordan where it is said John had been baptising and calling multitudes to "repent their sins"! As the bible explains often enough.
"And he [John] came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"Luke 3:3
" repentance for the forgiveness of sins"(Mark 1:4-5) .
"a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" . (Luke 3:3)
"in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". (Acts 2:38)
"baptized and wash your sins away". (Acts 22:16)
But this raises so many questions that it is hard to know where to start.
It is not known who gave John the authority to perform this baptismal rite of washing away sins and it seems no one else knew either except for maybe Jesus, and he wasn't saying ?
What he did appear to do though was confirm, in a fashion, that John himself was indeed baptised or was he only confirming that John had only the qualifications to baptise? Or was this just fancy word play from a man that specialised in the non answer?
The temple priest had approached Jesus asking "where he had got his authority to go around healing the sick and curing the blind?" ( when they were perfectly happy begging).
Read for yourself>>
23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority does thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?
24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.
25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? Matthew 21:23-25..
So are we to take this as John being qualified? Or does this mean that John had himself been baptised thereby qualified to perform the baptismal rite ?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
LOL @ you. None of these floods have destroyed the world in the way that Noah's flood did. Not even close.
So you are telling us that Noah's flood was world wide are you? Lets see your evidence , then.
Tell me. Did your god not cause these floods that killed millions of Chinese, alone? Did not his perfect weather systems created by him not cause these millions of men women and children to perish under tonnes of water?
Or is this just another excuse for your gods devastating murderous handy work?
PS, "the world" wasn't destroyed was it?
Created:
-->
@sadolite
Over 6000 Scientists, Doctors Sign Anti-lockdown Petition.
" Over six thousand scientists and doctors have signed a petition against coronavirus lockdown measures, urging that those not in the at risk category should be able to get on with their lives as normal, and that lockdown rules in both the US and UK are causing ‘irreparable damage’.
Those who have signed include professors from the world’s leading universities. Oxford University professor Dr Sunetra Gupta was one of the authors of the open letter that was sent with the petition, along with Harvard University’s Dr Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya.
It declares that social distancing and mask mandates are causing ‘damaging physical and mental health impacts.’"
Those who have signed include professors from the world’s leading universities. Oxford University professor Dr Sunetra Gupta was one of the authors of the open letter that was sent with the petition, along with Harvard University’s Dr Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya.
It declares that social distancing and mask mandates are causing ‘damaging physical and mental health impacts.’"
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
And people are still led to believe that it's all true....And people still believe that it's all true.....
It's really is hard to comprehend isn't it, in the 21st century ? Adults too!
That's conditioning for you.
Yep. They are no different to those poor ancients who knew nothing of weather patterns, or climate change. They know nothing of the 1 degree retardation of the earth every 72 years that eventually takes the earth far away to it farthest point from the sun causing climate changes such as ice ages or the giant thaws when it finally returns to its starting place nearest to the sun causing scorching heat that will burn the earth to a crisp some 25920 later.
Back in 1800 BC, it is believed the people of the Cappadocia region of modern-day Turkey decided their environment was so hostile – with extreme weather and the constant threat of war – that they dug an entire city underground. Sorry, did I forget to mention that extreme climate change is usually accompanied by war. Well it was back then. I believe that I actually pointed out this climate change / war phenomenon to someone here not too long ago.
No. The priests kept this science away from the ignorant of the time. This is how they controlled them . An eclipse for instance was gods wrath for the people being naughty and now they had to give over more of their hard worked - for take home pittance and in some cases, in places such as South American, the Inca and Aztec priests demanded a blood sacrifice, usually child sacrifices for the duration of the eclipse - and gods anger had been satisfied..
Then there is gods wrath in the form of volcanoes, tidal waves, land slides and earth quakes.
I just don't know Vic. I do despair at times I really do.
BUT! Did you notice that in my lists of casualties for gods wrath, that the body count started to dwindle , Vic? This is because god is slowly showing us his mercy.
He done this by giving us early warning systems such as weather satellites,seismographs, hospitals, fire engines and doctors and nurses and heavy lifting gear and other giant machinery and rapid response units etc etc etc, so that we are now much better prepared and equipped to keep the death rates down and stop the spread of famine and diseases and pestilence that would normally follow the disasters in ancient times. Because back then people simply ran for their lives - from gods wrath - they did not care for their fellow humans as we do today.
If only the priest would have been honest, eh Vic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I said Jesus did not sin.
Then what was the reason for his baptism given that John THE BAPTIST ( the lone voice crying in the wilderness) was shouting "repent" ones sins, come be baptised.? what did Jesus have to "repent"?
“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” (Acts 22:16)
“Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “(Acts 2:38)
“John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:4-5)
“And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” (Luke 3:3)
The bible is clear . It is all to do with cleansing of ones sins yet here we have the son of god himself insisting John baptise him. WHY!?
You have said on another thread that Jesus baptism was not a ritual of repentance or the washing away of sins but a " ordination of him as Priest, Prophet and King" then later you qualify this claim telling us that you "take the view that the evidence is there [in the bible] and it is clear. " .#2 & #18 respectively.
I am still waiting for you to show us all this " very clear evidence".
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
PART 2 CONTINUED FLOODS SENT BY GOD
2006
125
315
North Sea flood of 1962 storm tide
1962
126
313
2003
127
300
1878
127
300
Quebrada Blanca canyon, landslide
1974
127
300
Pampayacta avalanche
1963
130
299
Nagasaki, massive rain and landslide
1982
131
290
1988
132
272
1973
133
270
Great Sheffield flood dam disaster
1864
134
268
Val di Stava dam disaster
1985
135
259
1966 Maian flood
1966
136
255
1998 Tajikistan flood
1998
137
250
La Josefina landslide dam failure
1993
138
246+
2010
139
246
United States (Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas)
1927
140
240
2017
140
238
1972
141
235–244
2009
142
230
Marrakesh flash flood
1995
143
228
2007
144
223
2012
145
225
2018
146
203+
2017
147
200–600
Chungar landslide, flood, avalanche
1971
148
200+
2008
148
200
Pamir Mountain area, mud and rock slides, torrential rain
1992
150
199
1974
150
199
2009
152
190
Huigra, landslide
1931
153
172
2012
154
165
2004
155
159
Sarno flood and landslide
1998
156
154
1995
158
141+
2011
159
140+
2019
160
138
2010
161
135
Ozengeli, avalanche
1993
162
128
Izumo, massive rain and mudslide
1964
163
125+
2010
164
123
2009 Jeddah Torrential rain, floods
2009
165
120
1991 Antofagasta Flood, mud swept
1991
166
119
2007 Central and East Java torrential monsoon rain, landslide, flood
2007
167
117
Masuda, massive rain and landslide
1983
169
115
1938
170
114
1990
171
113
2019
172
110
2002
173
104
1981 Laingsburg flood
1981
174
101
2016
175
98
1997
176
94
1985
177
90+
Columbus, Ohio flood on March 25, 1913
1913
178
86
"Las Nieves" camping river flood, in Biescas.
1996
179
85+
2010
180
81+
1957
181
81
Holmfirth floods—Bilberry Reservoir dam failure
1852
182
80–100[12]
1852 Gundagai flood
1852
183
80+
2014
184
80
1977
185
78
Austin Dam failure
1911
186
77+
2019
187
75+
2013
188
73
1993 Kagoshima Heavy Rain, mudslide and debris flow
1993
189
72+
Nigeria floods
2012
190
72
Gudbrandsdalen flood and landslides
1789
191
69
2005
192
68
2019
193
66
2020
194
61
Clermont and Peak Downs flood
Australia
1916
195
47
1927 Queensland floods
Australia
1927
196
35
Black February flood
Australia
1893
197
35
1934 Melbourne and southern Victoria floods
Australia
1934
198
35
Australia
2010
199
24
1955 Hunter Valley floods
Australia
1955
200
22
1929 Tasmania floods
Australia
1929
201
22
2020
202
14
202
Australia
1974
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
PART 1 CONTINUED FLOODS SENT BY GOD
1,605–3,363
spring flooding
2004
65
1600–2,000
2010
66
1,558
St. Martin flood, storm surge
1686
67
1,532
2002 China flood, torrential floods, mud-rock flows
2002
68
1,503
2005
69
1,437
1995 China flood, mainly, Hunan, Jiangxi, Liaoning, Sichuan, Fujian, torrential rain, devastating floods, mud-rock flows
1995
70
1,348
2007 China flood, mountain torrents, mud-rock flows
2007
71
1,268
2011
74
1,029
2004 China flood, mountain torrents, mud-rock flows, landslide
2004
75
1,000
1961 Bihar flood
1961
76
992
Isahaya, massive rain and mudslide
1957
77
941
1868
78
933
1938
79
915
1962
80
903
2011
81
848
1977 Karachi flood
1977
82
844
2006
83
827
2001
84
800
North Sea flood, storm surge
1825
85
800
2000 Mozambique flood
2000
86
705
2006
87
702
1999
88
677
2009 August 8 flood, due to Typhoon Morakot, An entire village of Shiaolin was buried at the southern county of Kaohsiung
2009
89
672
1972
90
653
1972
91
640
1987 Villatina landslide disaster
1987
92
610
2007
93
540
1969 Tunisia flooding
1969
94
532
1982
95
517
1967
96
506
1987
97
500
Malawi, flash flood and landslide
1991
98
500
Gauldal, landslide
1345
99
500[9]
2018
100
483
2018
101
464
1967
102
449+
2016
103
445
Western Japan, massive rains and landslides
1972
104
437
1967
105
431
St. Francis Dam failure
1928
106
431
2015
107
429
2002
108
425
October 1999 Mexico floods, mainly occurred at Tabasco, Puebla, Chiapas, flood and mudslide as a result from Tropical Depression Eleven
1999
109
421
Malpasset Dam failure
1959
110
420
1420
111
408
1969 South Korea flood, mainly, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Gyeongsangnam-do, Gangwon-do, torrential rain, landslide
1969
112
407
1993
113
405
1998 South Korea flood, heavy massive rain, landslide
1998
114
400
1955
115
386
1988
116
385
1937
117
373
1966 Rio de Janeiro flood, flood and landslide
1966
118
364
1983
119
360+
1913
120
360
1958 Buenos Aires flood
1958
121
353
2007
122
347
1996
123
345
1987
124
342
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
He also promised he would never send another flood to wipe out the world. He keeps his promises because he can be trusted.
Indeed but instead he decided to send many localised planetary floods murdering millions.
Lets look at just the five highest floods from China alone
1
500,000–4,000,000 dead
China
1931
2
900,000–2,000,000 dead
1887
3
500,000–800,000 dead
1938
4
229,000 dead
1975
5
145,000
And do you seriously want him to send another flood?
He does send other floods and often too. that wipe out billions of lives. And he probably did it like this so the people of the middle east - those he had made the promise too - wouldn't know that he had broken this promise elsewhere. See for yourself>>
So besides the millions of dead above in China. We also have- PART 1 FLOODS SENT BY GOD :
100,000+
St. Felix's Flood, storm surge
1530
7
100,000
1971
8
up to 100,000 [1]
1911 Yangtze river flood
1919
9
50,000–80,000
St. Lucia's flood, storm surge
1287
10
60,000
North Sea flood, storm surge
1212
11
40,000 [2]
1949
12
36,000
St. Marcellus flood, storm surge
1219
13
30,000
1954
14
28,700
1974 Bangladesh flood due to monsoon rain
1974
15
25,000–40,000
St. Marcellus flood / Grote Mandrenke, storm tide
1362
16
20,000
1999
17
20,000
All Saints' Flood, storm surge
1570
18
20,000
1939 Tianjin flood
1939
19
14,000
Christmas flood, storm surge
1717
20
10,000–100,000
St. Elizabeth flood, storm surge
1421
21
8,000–15,000
1634
22
10,000
1954
23
10,000
1824
24
several thousands
North Sea flood, storm surge
1014
25
several thousands
St. Juliana flood, storm surge
1164
26
several thousands
St. Agatha flood, storm surge
1288
27
several thousands
St. Clemens flood, storm surge
1334
28
several thousands
1342
29
several thousands
All Saints flood, storm surge
1532
30
several thousands
North Sea flood, storm surge
1703
31
5,748.[3]
2013
32
6,200
1980
32
5,000
Lake Palcacocha in the Cojup valley, Cordillera Blanca mountain range, landslide by massive avalanche
1941
33
5,000–10,000
Rajputana flood
1943
34
4,892 [2]
1968
35
4,800
1951 Manchuria flood
1951
36
3,838
1998
37
3,814
1989 Sichuan flood
1989
38
3,800
1978 Northern India monsoon rain
1978
39
3,656
1998 Yangtze river flood
1998
40
3,500
1948 Fuzhou flood
1948
41
3,189+
2010 China floods, landslides
2010
41
3,084
1993 South Asian monsoon rain
1993
42
3,076
2004
43
3,000
1992
44
2,910
1950 Pakistan flood
1950
45
2,828
2011
46
2,775
1996 China flood, torrential floods, mud-rock flows
1996
47
2,566
1953
48
2,400
North Sea flood, storm surge
838
49
1,000-8,000
2016 Indian floods by monsoon rain
2016
50
2,379
1988 Bangladesh monsoon rain
1988
51
2,209
1889
52
2,142
North Sea flood of 1953 storm surge
1953
53
2,075
1981
54
2,055
1987 Bangladesh monsoon rain
1987
55
2,000–5,0001
1979
57
2,000–3,000
1927
58
2,000+
1607
59
1,909 [2]
Vajont Dam landslide and flood
1963
60
1,834
1992
61
1,723
1991
62
1,700
1955 Northern India flood
1955
63
1,624
2005
64
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I'd hang out at the beach baptizing everyone that walks in the water.
I believe Jesus may have done this from a jetty on the shores of the sea of Galilean.
"Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will send you out to fish for people." Matthew 4:19 Other bibles say fishers of men.
SO: John 21:Simon Peter said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will also come with you.” They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing.
But just as the day was breaking: Jesus shouted ; "“Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat ".
John 21:6 When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish/ or men or people (take your pick) that they had caught.
And I bet that looking from the boat towards Jesus shouting instructions from the jetty or even the beach at this hour of the early morning-just before sunrise - I bet it even gave the illusion that Jesus was walking on water!
What I guess I'm inferring is that this biblical episode was probably a baptism en masse?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
I'm not gonna act like a doctor here, I'm not.
And I am not asking you to.
From the USA
"“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”
Imperial College epidemiologist Neil Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
Wad'ya think!?
Created:
-->
@BearMan
I don't think you know what you are saying.
And I think you mean the Dr doesn't know what he is saying . Those are his comments by all accounts not mine. I was simply pointing out his contradictions once government made mask wearing compulsory.
Interestingly only yesterday a scientist at Oxford university Professor Sunetra Gupta, epidemiologist that studies infections infectious disease in humans tells talkRADIO that wearing face masks "should be voluntary".https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waNZOT2ItT0
You may also have heard of the ever so clever Professor Neil Ferguson British epidemiologist and professor of mathematical biology, who specialises in the patterns of spread of infectious disease in humans and animals at Imperial collage London
Professor Neil Ferguson - as you may well know- is the person that the British Government have been taking their advice from over the so called C19 pandemic and have been basing their C19 restrictions around.
Here are examples of Professor Neil Ferguson's previous predictions. I am also of the understanding that the American Dr Fauci had taken his findings directly from the studies of Ferguson.
You may find this interesting?
Q1.
In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed from bird flu. He told the Guardian that ‘around 40 million people died in 1918 Spanish flu outbreak… There are six times more people on the planet now so you could scale it up to around 200 million people probably.’ In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
How did he get this forecast so wrong?
Q2.
In 2009, Ferguson and his Imperial team predicted that swine flu had a case fatality rate 0.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent. His most likely estimate was that the mortality rate was 0.4 per cent. A government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ was that the disease would lead to 65,000 UK deaths.
In the end swine flu killed 457 people in the UK and had a death rate of just 0.026 per cent in those infected.
Why did the Imperial team overestimate the fatality of the disease? Or to borrow Robinson's words to Hancock this morning: 'that prediction wasn't just nonsense was it? It was dangerous nonsense.'
Q3.
In 2001 the Imperial team produced modelling on foot and mouth disease that suggested that animals in neighbouring farms should be culled, even if there was no evidence of infection. This influenced government policy and led to the total culling of more than six million cattle, sheep and pigs – with a cost to the UK economy estimated at £10 billion.
It has been claimed by experts such as Michael Thrusfield, professor of veterinary epidemiology at Edinburgh University, that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was ‘severely flawed’ and made a ‘serious error’ by ‘ignoring the species composition of farms,’ and the fact that the disease spread faster between different species.
Does Ferguson acknowledge that his modelling in 2001 was flawed and if so, has he taken steps to avoid future mistakes?
Q4.
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that between 50 and 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. He also predicted that number could rise to 150,000 if there was a sheep epidemic as well. In the UK, there have only been 177 deaths from BSE.
Does Ferguson believe that his ‘worst-case scenario’ in this case was too high? If so, what lessons has he learnt when it comes to his modelling since?
Q5.
Ferguson’s disease modelling for Covid-19 has been criticised by experts such as John Ioannidis, professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, who has said that: ‘The Imperial College study has been done by a highly competent team of modellers. However, some of the major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations seem to be substantially inflated.’
Has the Imperial team’s Covid-19 model been subject to outside scrutiny from other experts, and are the team questioning their own assumptions used? What safeguards are in place?
Q6.
On 22 March, Ferguson said that Imperial College London’s model of the Covid-19 disease is based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code, that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus.
How many assumptions in the Imperial model are still based on influenza and is there any risk that the modelling is flawed because of these assumptions?
Wad'ya think!?
from the US
"“So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?”
Wad'ya think!?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But I eagerly wait you evidence that Luke was a Greek.Ha Ha. I don't have to prove what is the status quo.No evidence then. Why doesn't that surprise anyone..at all.And I am not going to be bothered doing it for you. You know as well as I do that he was a Greek.On the contrary. I believe Luke was Jew with a capitol J.I am not going to bother with your games.
Then don't . I will put that down as another claim that you have failed to prove.
You looked at the commentaries and you know what they say.
I do and I have found (1) that you were wrong in your claim concerning "all commentators agreeing that Luke was gentile Greek" & (2) many commentators suggest with reasonable evidence that Luke was indeed a Jew.
Luke is a Greek name.
Who is arguing different. Many Hellenised Jews took Greek names. You are conveniently forgetting Palestine was taken by Alexander the Great in about 332 B.C.
Luke wrote in a more classical style of Greek than the Jewish writers did.
it matters not . Luke knew far more about the OT and referenced it more often than all the other three authors.
Luke is traditionally a Gentile by all of the early church and the consensus of the church.
There you go again. Wild and wide assumptions.
I said all of the commentaries. I have never seen anywhere but you declaring otherwise, sorry and the Brother, otherwise. There is NO evidence that he was Jew or even a Hellenized Jew. I cannot prove or disprove a negative. This means that you must believe in blind faith that Luke was Jew.
“Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor shall you take their census among the sons of Israel. But you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its furnishings and over all that belongs to it. They shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall take care of it; they shall also camp around the tabernacle.What do you think that has to with Jesus?
Exactly the same as this>>> The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants (Exodus 28:). The family of Aaron had the exclusive right and responsibility to make offerings on the altar to Yahweh.
What law do you think I am suggesting Jesus has changed?
I am not suggesting that Jesus changed anything. I have said he admit to coming "NOT" to change the law.. I am suggesting that YOU have or are attempting to deny what is written. You have claimed Jesus was - among other things, baptised a priest by John. You have also suggested Mary his mother wasn't a Levite. I am simply asking you then how could Jesus be a priest if Mary wasn't a Levite and Joseph was of Judah. WHEN WE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT GODS LAWS . You just want to avoid the fact that god exclusively gave "Aaron and his descendants the monopoly on all thing priestly and religion related.
The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants (Exodus 28:). The family of Aaron had the exclusive right and responsibility to make offerings on the altar to Yahweh.
Where does it say this? Don't just assert it. I will wait patiently for your response.
,See above. Already given you just want to ignore it. And for speed, you could always look here too>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron#:~:text=High%20Priest,-See%20also%3A%20High&text=The%20books%20of%20Exodus%2C%20Leviticus,on%20the%20altar%20to%20Yahweh.
Jesus being baptised or ordained as a priest - does not make him a Levite Priest.Ok then what kind of priest was he? Keeping in mind the orders of god and also and that it was his law that Jesus coming to "fulfill".See above. I have discussed this before.
I missed it. I have gone back and looked. So be kind enough to remind me. What kind of priest was Jesus?
And let us not forget that you haven't even proven that Jesus's baptism by John was a ritual anointing Jesus king, prophet and priest as you have claimed several times now here>>#2I have shown the link to the priesthood.
Nope. Jesus - you say - "was baptised prophet, King and Priest". You have shown no evidence of this and certainly not shown his link to the true Levitical priesthood through any bloodline.
Jesus was without sin but needed to baptised to fulfil the law.
Yes, well, we tried that one on another thread didn't we. You failed miserably on that one too. Such as > #31 You made all sorts of claims on that thread then disappeared, didn't you?
As for the kingship
Well the bible makes it clear twice that Jesus was of the line of Judah , and so a possible heir to the throne, so no one is arguing that. No. It the priestly sticking point we are discussing and there doesn't appear to be a link to the Levite tribe at all does there, which according to scripture is a requirement to be a priest. The priest that you say Jesus was?
There are a few clues to this dilemma but it would be unfair to state anything as fact not to mention completely wrong to and certainly not something I couldn't prove. And isn't it odd that Jesus can be associated with all these Levite characters yet the bible stays silent as to if or not Jesus himself was a Levite ?
But I often wonder could The Magdalene maybe the key to this enigma?
I said all of the commentaries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I really don't see what you point is.
Its a simple question, and you have gone someway to answering it. I have since asked you would the one baptising also need to have been baptised himself? You have avoided this question like a plague.
You have said that he would have to be "christian" : #13. Ok , so to be a Christian he would have also have had to have been baptised himself, would he not , yes or no?
I do hold to the view that a person who baptizes another ought to be baptized themselves.
I didn't ask that you your views. I ask what the qualifications are required for one person to baptise another. But as usual you are ONLY replying and not ANSWERING. Do you not see the difference?
Yet, I also think that there is no specific power in baptism since it is a symbolic picture of a far more important baptism.
I didn't ask anything concerning "the power" or lack of, either.
Yes, in the main, but with exceptions, baptism is to do with sin and even the remittance of sins.
Yes I have had to remind you of that often. But you want to discuss anything BUT repentance of sins on the relevant thread. And again on this thread , you seem to be doing the same , in that you want to discuss anything but the actual quantification one needs to be able to baptise another.
Yet, even this is gets screwed up by many because as John says - his baptism is deficient - which is why a greater one with a greater baptism is coming.
Again. this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. You just want to take this thread anywhere else and away from the original source of inquiry.
In what way was his baptism deficient?
I don't care because I didn't ask that. I was asking about Q_U_A_L_I_F_I_C_A_T_T_I_O_N_S.
most important baptism in the NT is at Pentecost.
I don't care! WTF's the matter with you? I haven't ask about that, have I ?
This is the baptism that Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is the paradigm, not John's.
Irrelevant to this thread.
I hear what you say. I am not persuaded by it at all. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept it on good faith - and the condition that you stop accusing me of lying, to put it aside.
Making up things is telling lies where I come from.
Created:
-->
@BearMan
I mean come on bro. It doesn't restrict your breathing, it doesn't do anything. Stop thinking you are smarter than guys who have actually researched for years,
GMB's Dr Hilary Jones says coronavirus face masks are "useless" to the public and can do "more harm than good".
Dr Hilary Jones reveals easy ways face masks can become contaminated and therefore ‘completely useless"
He said: "There are tens of thousands of bacteria on the skin of the face, particularly around the nose and the mouth, so if you’re wearing a mask under your nose, you’ve contaminated it and it’s completely useless".
"There are all sorts of things you have to bear in mind. Masks have a value, they have a place in certain situations, but you can’t rely on them totally."
Appearing on today's instalment of Good Morning Britain, the health specialist told hosts Susanna Reid and Piers Morgan " that masks can even transmit COVID-19".
It comes after the government previously insisted that there was no scientific benefit to wearing a mask.
What I found about Dr Hilary Jones was after repeatedly telling the British public how and why masks were useless, and after spending days of going into great detail of how they cause serious infections of the face, lips, mouth, gums, throat AND possibly the lungs , he started to change his tune once the government made it compulsory to wear masks.
He simply took it that the British public had short memories and began shilling for Government.
Stop thinking you are smarter than guys who have actually researched for years,
Dr Hilary started his medical training in 1976. Do you think he had done any research? And would you regard him as "smart" ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Baptism does refer to lots of things in the NT.Another unsubstantiated claim. just saying it doesn't prove it!I did express what the NT says - you reject it. Well good for you. If you like lying to yourself - go for it.
No you didn't , you offered verses that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with the reason for the baptism ritual. You just made things up to stop yourself looking stupid. But you ignore what the bible SPECIFICLLY states is the reason for baptism; redemption of sins;
" repentance for the forgiveness of sins"(Mark 1:4-5) .
"a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" . (Luke 3:3)
"in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". (Acts 2:38)
"baptized and wash your sins away". (Acts 22:16)
One doesn't baptise themselves everything that take a bath, wash their hands or foreskin as you are desperate to say they do!!!!!
The word baptism is one which has many aspects. It means to wash. It means to dip. It is used in many ways in the NT and even in the OT LXX.
Stop lying .
John used it for his own purposes - so did others.
Stop telling lies.
The water barrels at the Wedding of Cana were baptismal water barrels.
Prove it?
Get out a concordance, do your own work.I am not here to prove fkn claims that YOU make and have made!You started this post.
I did, but not to prove any of the bullshit that you have spewed onto this thread.
You never clarify what you want - because you have your own agenda.
I couldn't have made it clearer. It is simply a case of YOU being stuck for true and honest answers that you just throw anything out there simply for the sake of needing to reply. The questions are plain simply enough. and you have gone someway to explaining it, but for some reason stopped abruptly, ignoring that actual question. Thisis what you said:
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church. #13
But you stopped dead and didn't get to the crux of the question. WHY ???? Why did you stop there and not mention that which actually qualified this Christian set apart from the rest by the church leaders to be able to perform the ritual of baptism.
You have said he needs to have "a belief in Christ".
Would he also need to be baptised himself or does by him simply having a belief in Christ alone qualify him to perform the sacred ritual of baptism?
Well I am not here to fulfil your agenda.
And I don't have one for you to "fulfil".
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church.
And would he have had to be baptised himself?
In the NT we know that John and his disciples baptized.
Do we? . Lets see your evidence that John's disciples performed baptism ritual
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And what did you do? You had a little cry about it. You did everything you could do to close me down. You cried "foul". That topic which remains for all to see - is a testament to the fact that I did not run away but in fact welcomed the opportunity to respond to you and your errors.Well that is not at all true. Very selective memory you have there. No surprises though.I fact this is a deliberate lie to make it look like the Brother was running scared from you when the truth was about face. The Brother didn't seem to care either way.The thread was actually flagged by someone else as "a call out thread"#2 and BEFORE the Brother had even posted on the thread. I won't ask that you apologise to the Brother, fake Christians can never do that. But I will say stop with your lies just for once!!!!Read it however you like. The fact is I started that thread to address the Brother's questions. Although he did not call out my thread initially.
I read it as YOU have wrote it. And you lied to incriminate and insinuate the Brother as some kind of cry baby coward when it simply wasn't true.
it was called out - he did as best he could to try and have me banned.
No. What he did was remind you that you had broken the COC rules BEFORE.. and posted that to you. This is an old argument that I do not tend to resurrect as YOU HAVE DONE, which, incidentally , is ANOTHER violation of the rules.
And you joined in as well. If he were wanting me to answer - he would not have tried to get me banned.
There is no evidence that the Brother wanted anyone banned. The call out was made by a moderator. Stop lying. Besides The Brother would have no one to correct and educate on all matters biblical had you got banned. I am not sure the Brother is stupid enough to cut of his nose to spite his face, are you? You are pure entertainment for the Brother. And I have never conspired , to get you banned EVER! So that's another load of old BS from you. I'll say it now and clear for you:
Declaration.
I would never want you -Tradesecret, - banned, even though I suffer your lies, double standard and sheer hypocrisy and made up versions of the scriptures. <<<< There. Now cutout and keep that into your memory and have it on hand if you ever feel you need to remind me of what I have said.
I don't recall in any post on that topic - that he wanted the mods to leave it alone so that I could respond.
It wouldn't have been up to him either way would it? A decision was made eventually and it wasn't made by the Brother, was it?
I don't recall you doing the same either. The fact is - you wanted me to be banned for breaching the rules. And the only conclusion that makes sense about that is that you wanted me gone.
Nope. I like you too much. So, Stop playing victim and re-read my Declaration above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But I eagerly wait you evidence that Luke was a Greek.
Ha Ha. I don't have to prove what is the status quo.
No evidence then. Why doesn't that surprise anyone..at all.
And I am not going to be bothered doing it for you. You know as well as I do that he was a Greek.
On the contrary. I believe Luke was Jew with a capitol J.
As for Jesus - of the line of David. I think we both agree with that.
GOOD! As was Joseph. So how then can Jesus also be a priest when he had no connection to the house/tribe of Levi, Aaron and "his decedents" .
“Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor shall you take their census among the sons of Israel. But you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its furnishings and over all that belongs to it. They shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall take care of it; they shall also camp around the tabernacle.
“For they [the Levites] are wholly given over to Me from among the children of Israel; instead of those that open the womb all the firstborn of Israel I have taken them for Myself . . .” The monopoly of the priesthood was given to Aaron
You want it all ways yet Jesus himself makes it clear that he hasn't come to "change the law". Mattew 5:17
The books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers maintain that Aaron received from God a monopoly over the priesthood for himself and his male descendants (Exodus 28:). The family of Aaron had the exclusive right and responsibility to make offerings on the altar to Yahweh.
Jesus being baptised or ordained as a priest - does not make him a Levite Priest.
Ok then what kind of priest was he? Keeping in mind the orders of god and also and that it was his law that Jesus coming to "fulfill".
And let us not forget that you haven't even proven that Jesus's baptism by John was a ritual anointing Jesus king, prophet and priest as you have claimed several times now here>>#2
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I didn't say they were. What I did do was ask a question concerning a remark that you made.[A] Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two). And I thought that it was common knowledge to know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant, the biblical covenant given by god to Aaron and his descendants only? In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).Ok.I don't care really. [b] Mary was not a Levite.
So then you agree that [A] and [b] above is all correct?
So then this can only mean that Jesus was not only a king via the line of David, but also a priest through the line of David too? But how can this be when we know that according to both Matthew and Luke that King David & Joseph was of the tribe of Judah!
Luke was a Greek Doctor. Every commentator affirms this.
I do feel sorry for you at times. You may find that Luke was a Hellenised Jew . And a doctor.
And I am pretty sure that Luke, if indeed he was the gentile that you'er adamant he was, would never have been able to; in vivid detail, describe the of the comings and goings and everyday practices of the JEWISH priesthood. Luke went into some considerable detail to describe the rotating selection of the JEWISH Levitical priests for JEWISH service according to their families. He further described the position of the JEWISH priest before the altar of incense, where the messenger is said to have appeared to Zacharias who was also a JEW (Luke 1:8–20).
We could even speculate that Luke might have been a Levite as well, as he knew so much about how the Temple operated. Is it really logical to assume, without question, that Luke was a Gentile, when he had such a clear understanding of the most intimate workings of the Temple, where no Gentile was allowed to go?
(Luke 2:19, 51) indicates that he was so close to Mary mother of Jesus, that had common knowledge of Mary's thoughts! How could this "gentile" be so intimate and close to a pregnant JEWESS ? Could it be that being a doctor that he was on hand for when the "virgin" gave birth? All speculation I know. But there are many verses in the scriptures that indicate that Luke may well have been - like Jesus - a JEW!
And not "every commentator" will agree with your assumption.
My own opinion is that who cares. He contradicts the other gospel writers that often one has to wonder why he - indeed any of them - even bothered writing anything at all about Jesus in a land of turmoil.
But I eagerly wait you evidence that Luke was a Greek.
And you have missed this too>>>>>> #23
Created:
Nonsense.
Monotheism came about because a self confessed "jealous god" commanded it.
"for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God,"
"You shall have no other gods before me".
"He who sacrifices to any god, other than to [Me] the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed".
"Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you";
"“Be careful to do everything I have said to you. Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips."
The interesting thing about this is that this god- this jealous god- the Christian god- recognises the existence of other gods. Yet Christians deny there are/were other gods. You couldn't make it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
But can you please direct me to any passage that says that Elizabeth or Mary were Levites, apart from Elizabeth being married to a Levite?
I didn't say they were. What I did do was ask a question concerning a remark that you made.
Here it is. Take not of all the bold especially.
#35 Yes, I can believe that.
Although you have said on another thread that you believe Jesus was a prophet, Priest & king.#2 ( I too happen to believe the latter two). And I thought that it was common knowledge to know all Christians that to be a true priest in those times, one had to be of the family of Arron, said to be a Levite or " of the tribe of Levi". And wasn't the priestly covenant, the biblical covenant given by god to Aaron and his descendants only? In other words only those of the line of Arron could be Priests as those of the line of David "the lion of Judah" could only be kings ( aka sons of god).
Is this above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
And what did you do? You had a little cry about it. You did everything you could do to close me down. You cried "foul". That topic which remains for all to see - is a testament to the fact that I did not run away but in fact welcomed the opportunity to respond to you and your errors.
Well that is not at all true. Very selective memory you have there. No surprises though.
I fact this is a deliberate lie to make it look like the Brother was running scared from you when the truth was about face. The Brother didn't seem to care either way.
The thread was actually flagged by someone else as "a call out thread"#2 and BEFORE the Brother had even posted on the thread. I won't ask that you apologise to the Brother, fake Christians can never do that. But I will say stop with your lies just for once!!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Baptism does refer to lots of things in the NT.Another unsubstantiated claim. just saying it doesn't prove it!I did express what the NT says - you reject it. Well good for you. If you like lying to yourself - go for it.
No you didn't , you offered verses that have NOTHING AT ALL to do with the reason for the baptism ritual. You just made things up to stop yourself looking stupid. But you ignore what the bible SPECIFICLLY states is the reason for baptism; redemption of sins;
" repentance for the forgiveness of sins"(Mark 1:4-5) .
"a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" . (Luke 3:3)
"in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". (Acts 2:38)
"baptized and wash your sins away". (Acts 22:16)
One doesn't baptise themselves everything that take a bath, wash their hands or foreskin as you are desperate to say they do!!!!!
The word baptism is one which has many aspects. It means to wash. It means to dip. It is used in many ways in the NT and even in the OT LXX.
Stop lying .
John used it for his own purposes - so did others.
Stop telling lies.
The water barrels at the Wedding of Cana were baptismal water barrels.
Prove it?
Get out a concordance, do your own work.I am not here to prove fkn claims that YOU make and have made!You started this post.
I did, but not to prove any of the bullshit that you have spewed onto this thread.
You never clarify what you want - because you have your own agenda.
I couldn't have made it clearer. It is simply a case of YOU being stuck for true and honest answers that you just throw anything out there simply for the sake of needing to reply. The questions are plain simply enough. and you have gone someway to explaining it, but for some reason stopped abruptly, ignoring that actual question. Thisis what you said:
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church. #13
But you stopped dead and didn't get to the crux of the question. WHY ???? Why did you stop there and not mention that which actually qualified this Christian set apart from the rest by the church leaders to be able to perform the ritual of baptism.
You have said he needs to have "a belief in Christ".
Would he also need to be baptised himself or does by him simply having a belief in Christ alone qualify him to perform the sacred ritual of baptism?
Well I am not here to fulfil your agenda.
And I don't have one for you to "fulfil".
In summary in the Christian church - it seems clear then that qualification requires a belief in Christ. It requires being set apart by the church or the leaders in the church.
And would he have had to be baptised himself?
In the NT we know that John and his disciples baptized.
Do we? . Lets see your evidence that John's disciples performed baptism rituals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
To rely on faith alone is simply backward thinking for the lazy the weak minded and the desperately lonely and insecureLOL! You believe evolution on faith alone.I haven't said that. Stick to putting words into the biblical authors and characters mouths, and not mine.You don't need to say it...
That's correct. I didn't did I?
You believe in the big bang theory on faith alone.I haven't said that either. Stick to putting words into the mouths of biblical authors & characters and not mineAgain - your every word exudes from this premise.
Opinion. and a wrong opinion too.
But I notice that in your response there is no denial.
So you want to discuss what I haven't even said. This is exactly what you do with scripture. You attempt to discuss something that isn't even written in them.
You believe there is no God on faith alone.I haven't said that either. My, you are one confused little silly man aren't you? I think it best that you stick to putting words into the mouths of biblical authors & characters and not mine.You have said you don't believe in God.
Have I? Then I am sure you have that quote at hand. Let us see it?
You ignore the realities of life.it is not often you'er right....... but you are wrong again.And yet you ignore the realities of life with almost every breath you breathe.
And you call us lazy.I do. Along with backward thinking , weak minded, desperately lonely and insecure.I suppose I will got to the fires of hell for saying that about believers , although, Jesus' blood sacrifice tells me I am saved or has god changed his mind on that too?You won't go to Hell because you call believers lazy. See how lazy you think by throwing out ridiculous comments. Jesus' blood is only good for you if you trust him.
So I will be going to the fires of hell then. I don't believe for a second that Jesus is god or ever was a god. I also don't believe this so called "blood sacrifice" saved me from anything. I am resided and comfortably with the fact that dead is dead. I don't believe in the physical resurrection of the dead and neither the so called spiritual resurrection.
And I won't be going to hell or "heaven" - the carrot or the stick. These were just ancient and medieval threats to an ignorant and uneducated population of the time.
Do you trust Jesus as the savior of the world.
[A] Nope.
As the Messiah. As LORD. ?
[B] I believe he was believed by many to the a messiah, including by himself. I believe he was rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem and I believe he believed that too. So this would make him more than just a "lord" wouldn't it. It would make him a King. [C] You really don't know what your talking about most of the time do you? As then and now anyone can become a "lord" . We here in England have whole house of the lazy bastards 99% of them don't give two fks about those THEY serve.
If you do, then you surely have a strange way of showing it.
See [A] & [B] Oh & [C] above
God does not change his mind
Would you like some examples of god changing his mind?
- he just never promised that everyone was going to heaven.
hhahahahha. I see. So although god doesn't say or promise " not everyone will get to heaven" you somehow know he has said or means this.
In fact heaven is a place for those who love God and who love his people.
So I won't be going there. I don't love god , he is not great and he doesn't love anyone, especially Job's children". BTW , what actually happens when and if one is fortunate enough to reach this place called "heaven"?
Otherwise, stop fooling yourself -
I don't fool myself about anything, and you should look in the mirror one day. Fooling yourself into beveling I am fooling myself.
Hahahahha that not just new, its fkn hilarious.
Bob Hope was wrong. You cannot have a bet on each religion.
Well I agree, BH was wrong, he should has said "any religion", but was probably worried about losing popularity, fans, adoration and money.
Created: