have to say Leauki you are quite correct.  Lula has to agree with this because of the whole RCC and the infant baptism thing.  That's why she's been taught this way.  It's just not correct theology.  Agree with you. 

The fact is, neither circumcision nor water baptism (gasp) saves anyone.  Circumcision was ONLY given to the Jews and any in their household as a matter of obedience and to stand apart from the other nations.  God also knew how healthy this would be for them.  In fact...it was just in the news last week about the benefits of circumcision.  Big article.  In it they mentioned that heterosexuals were actually more protected from HIV if they were circumcised in comparison to those men that were not.  When it came to homosexuals (I thought this was interesting) it didn't make any difference at all.  In other words if a homo was circumcized or not he was still in the same high risk category of contacting HIV if involved in risky behavior. 

No, this is not theologically correct but I don't want to go here Lula.  That's not what this blog is about.  Let's stick to the subject matter of "you can know" ok? 

great questions Whisper.    I know the answers to your questions but really this isn't about baptism but about the fact that one can know he/she is going to heaven.  Full assurance.  In case you haven't been around long Lula keeps trying to bring up infant baptism on almost every blog I write and I keep telling her to stop because she doesn't accept what the scriptures have to say but only what the Catechism of the RCC teaches.  That's why I don't want to go there.   This blog or any of my blogs are about the RCC and their beliefs.

I didn't think it was a pat answer Whisper.  I actually thought it was a truthful one.  I would have said the same thing.  But he can't do this thing unless God opens his eyes to Him first.  Christ said we can do nothing unless the Father draws us first. 

"But you're focusing on their immaturity in the faith and the beginning of their ministries.  Look at how they ended their lives and their ministries.  Remember it's not how you start a race that's important; it's all in the finish.  Have you ever heard of an 85 meter race? "

It is for that very lack of faith and immaturity that their ideas are to be doubted.  They had all the information Jesus made sure of that, and they were witnesses.  What more proof do you think that they were in need of to shore up their faith?  If they had an immature faith tell me why did they think that they could minister to those of no faith?  As to the finish of their race, and the effectiveness of their ministries.........the jury is still out...........the race is not over yet, not until the end of time.

"Paul didn't start out humble, agree but he sure ended up that way in order to be used of God."

Why would God chose a man that was not humble to begin with?  A man full of himself hasn't the time or inclination to listen to the holy spirit.  As to his ending up humble...........that's a matter of opinion.  God did nothing to Paul that God hasn't done or will do to every human being living, dead, or to yet be born.  That doesn't make him an apostle of Jesus's.  No does his being sorry for what he did make him one.  It just makes him sorry, the fact that he calls himself the least of the apostles doesn't mean anything at all either.  The fact is that he was never an apostle.  Yes Moses was a learned man, a learned man who became a common nobody, a shepard, a profession that leads to humility.  It wasn't until after Moses had become a nobody that God chose him.  Paul was never a nobody, not his entire lifetime, not even when he was jailed or beaten.

I'm impressed with the fact that you've worn out two bibles, but I'd be more impressed if you'd worn your "self" out following in Jesus's footsteps.  I personally think that it would change you in ways that you can't even begin to imagine................no mind however, it's not an easy path to choose, and it must be chosen willingly. 

This is a blog?  I thought this was a forum where people discussed things not a blog.  Tell me is there no difference?  I find it most unusual that you say "He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit whom he poured out on us generously thru Jesus Christ our Savior."  

It doesn't sound much like baptism by water at all to me.  It sounds like something altogether different.

it is...that was my point.  This is speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.  The physical baptism (by water) is a picture of the baptism of the Holy Spirit which only comes by God himself.  In the OT the ceremonial cleansing would be akin to our NT baptism. 

Again, you've assumed I don't follow in Christ's footsteps.  Let me just say this..."right thinking precedes right living." 

oh and btw Whisper, you gave me inspiration to write this new blog when you brought up the part about Christ making us think:  http://kfc.joeuser.com/article/363323/Do_You_Have_Ears_To_Hear

lula posts:

Leauki posts:

LEAUKI,

Then you are either ignorant of the Old Testament or deluding yourself concerning actual Jewish history.

Deut. 7 tells us that Isreal became a "chosen people" through Abraham selected by God. Gen. 17:5 tells us that Abram was to be magnified, that is "the father of many nations". The children of Isreal (later called the Jews), were chosen by God to be the keepers, teachers and interpreters of His law. This law included a priesthood from the tribe of Levi, and the selection of Judah as the tribe from which the promised Messias, the Son of David,  would come to fulfill the Law.

The Jews were especially favored by being the people from whom all the great prophets came, through whom God told the world of the great things that would take place in Isreal until "God Himself would come and save them" Is. 35:4; 40:10.

The Jews werre the only selected people to whom God made a cocovenant, a contract so to speak, in the days before the coming Messiah. This covenant was bilateral in the sense that the reward God promised would go to the "elect" IF they were faithful to His commands and prophecies. Read Exodus 19, where God told Moses to tell the Jews that---"IF you will hear my voice and keep My covenant, ....and you shall be to Me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation."

Aside from the fact that the Jews are no longer a "priestly kingdom" being without the Temple or sacrifices, there stands the command of Moses Deut. 18:15, (read it it would do you good), whihc they fail to obey that bars present day Jews from calling themselves God's "chosen people". Moses commanded that they "hear" or listen to the "PROPHET" God would send whom "thou shalt hear."    

The Abrahamic-Mosaic contract was fulfilled 21 centuries ago by Christ, a spiritual King whose reign will last forever. The King of the Jews came, the priesthood, sacrifices and Temple of the Jews ceased to exist. there is no House of David in existence today in which a future son of David can be born, again being no longer needed as the Abrahamic -Mosaic contract was fulfilled.

The mission that was once given to the Jews exclusively, that through them the world would be brought to belief in the ONe True God was given by the Messianic King of the Jews to His Chruch, the body commissioned to "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.".

The Jews of today, like most of their forefathers in Jerusalem, have become God's wayward children, by their rejection of the Son of David. Pay attention to this...the "children of the promise" (those who accepted Christ then and today as the Prophet Moses said should be heard) are the chosen people and not the present day Jews who reject or deny Him.

This is not to say that God has abondoned them, for the very existence of the Jews proves that God has not cast them off as St.Paul says in Romans 11. Christ awaits on the Cross, with outstretched arms, their coming into His embrace. then will the remnant of Isreal, regenerated through Baptism be numbered among the chosen people.

Lula...what does the above have to do with the subject matter?  I thought I was the junkyard dog with a bone but you sure got me beat! 

 We are talking about the fact that God has given us his assurance of salvation for all eternity.    Let's go back to the subject matter at hand. 

Leauki posts #530

Agree or not, believe it or not, the human race is a unit, summed up with Adam as its first parent head and therefore, it is not the sin of Adam but the necessary effect of that sin which is depravation of original justice that was transmitted to all mankind.

The dogma of OS is taught by St. Paul in Romans 5:12-21.

kfc posts:

Again, in order to effectively address your topic and assertions, one must address sin and sin is also original sin. Leauki has his own ideas and commented...one comment lead to another and then he made this false statement which evidently would have gone unchallanged had I not commented.

Stating the facts is not a "false statement", even if they contradict your beliefs.

We have had this before.

The people of Israel have been without Temple three times in their histpory. If being without Temple means that they are no longer a "priestly kingdom", they would have been non-priestly immediately that day on the Sinai.

I don't think you get this "eternal" thing when it comes to G-d. 2000 years without the Temple mean NOTHING. In fact, 10,000 years without the Temple mean nothing. The Temple will be rebuilt, eventually. That's my belief. But that its absence changes anything is not a fact. The people of Israel had a pact with G-d with or without a Temple.

"A mere ceremony"?  Who said that?  I only read and said that it was a ritual and like all rituals of all faiths in all nations, it was designed to totally focus one's attention on the task at hand, because without total attention the ritual is meaningless.  However, the fact is Lulapilgrim, the RCC baptises infants, who have no focus or attention due to their age.  Baptism has in effect for the most part, become nothing more than a ceremony, designed more to satisfy the wants and desires of the parents of the infant more than to give the infant a chance to save it's own soul which is the purpose of baptism to begin with.  Catholisism has become quite frankly an empty series of ceremonies for all but the very few.  Don't think that it pleasures me any to say this either, because it doesn't.  There is no specific person to blame for this, but there's enough blame to go around.  The RCC knows the truth and should tell it, because the people are drifting away from the faith with all this "pie in the sky" talk, if you are good you'll go to heaven after you die.  Heaven is not something that one comes to after death, but something that must come while one still lives.  It is life, not death!!  Once we cross that threshold called "death" it is too late!  How many would flock to the church that tells the truth, how many would strive to acheive a place with Jesus if they knew that it was not something that was promised in death, but in life, in the here and now? 

Most of the apostles dropped the ball, plain and simple.  They became "men" forgetting the most important lessons that Jesus taught them by ceding to the agenda of "men" which is self importance and self concern.  They saw that they could become leaders of many and the temptation to become so important, to become so unique and special as being the one that sat at the feet of the master and was given the plain unvarnished truth, was too much to resist.  Don't get me wrong, it didn't necessarily make them bad men, just men.

When Jesus told Peter that he must return to Rome because if he didn't he (Jesus) would have to return and die once more, he wasn't speaking of Peter returning to be martyred but to return in life after his martydom and correct all that had gone wrong, much of which he was complicit in causing.  Peter will return again and sit on the "throne" of the HRCC.  He will correct all that was undone.  It has been predicted by one of the HRCC's own priests, Peter will be the last and final pope.

Oh, come on! You are just explaining your Catholic religion and views to us as if they were facts. They are not. They are YOUR views and belief, not fact.

When I tell you what circumcision means in Judaism I am as correct as you are when you tell us what baptism means in Catholicism. But that's it. I don't tell you what baptism has to mean to Catholics, so please don't pretend that you have the rigth and power to tell me what circumcision has to mean to me.

St.John the Baptist administered Jewish and not Christian Baptism and the difference between them was recognized by St.John himself who exalted the Baptism of Christ to a comparatively infinite state.

Yes, Jesus is God who had no sin.  Jesus is the Incarnate God. Jesus, the man, being a Jew, was obedient to the ceremonial requirements of the Old Dispensation which His Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem in 46AD declared no longer to be binding. So the process by which St.John baptised is no more binding upon Christians than circumcision or the Jewish process of consecrating its priests.

Now, this is NOT to say that St.John's baptism had no significance for it certainly has. It was the Baptismal bridge from the Old Dispensation to the New Dispensation and that's why Christ was baptized before His public ministry.

Remember this was inferred in St.John the Baptist's call upon the people to "prepare the way of the Lord" through the baptism of Penance, as the "kingdom of God", the reign of Christ in His Chruch and in their individual souls, was "at hand". The discarding of the baptism of penance for the Baptism of the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world was done by St.John himself. It was becasue the transition period was at hand that St.John reminded the people, "I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but He will baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire."  

Here I must disagree Lulapilgrim.  Jesus is not God.  There is nothing supernatural about anything, including the "miracles" of Jesus.  It is simply natural law in operation, and natural law is God.  The hebrews knew this, nowhere in the OT do they call anything "supernatural", they rightly call it what it is.....................the works of God.  Nor do they attribute any "miracles" performed through any man by God to that man declaring him a God.  They do render unto God that which is Gods.  The gentiles are a superstitious lot and this is why Jesus forbad his apostles to go unto the gentiles.  They were not of understanding yet obviously.

Wow!  What bible are you reading anyhow?  This is just so wrong in all sorts of ways.  Every single one of them were killed for their faith.  A man of self importance (as you keep speaking about) would not be dying for another.  These men died for the church and the cause of Christ.  Again...what book are you reading?   You ARE NOT getting this from scripture.  You are being tutored somewhere along the way to come up with such statements.  Can I ask what you're reading? 

 To be honest...I'd be very afraid of making such comments against God's annointed. 

Lula...you pushed me enough so that I had to delete three of your responses.  Mainly because you are doggedly pushing RCC baptism beliefs which I keep asking you not to do.   While I don't mind the subject matter taking twists and turns here and there I keep asking you not to proselytize your RCC here and you keep insisting on bringing up the RCC incorrect view of Christian baptism or the Eucharist as fact on almost every blog I do on religion. 

Baptism, like circumcision does not save anyone.  Water baptism does not wash away sins.  The blood of Christ washes away our sins.  Not baptism. It's NOT about us.  It's ALL about HIM.   You are incorrectly applying scripture from a RCC viewpoint ignoring many other scriptures that refute it. 

"And From Jesus Christ....Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in HIS OWN BLOOD.  Rev 1:5

"These are they which came out of great tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.  Rev 7:14

Baptism DOES NOT wash away sins.  You have to twist scripture to make it say that. Calling on the name of the Lord is what washes away our sins.  Not the act of water baptism.   That's why John said "he will baptise with spirit and with fire."  That's the real deal.  Not water baptism.   Read them again.  This time do it praying in the spirit instead of reading RCC commentaries.   Your focus is all wrong.  It's not on Christ, it's on the RCC's teachings. 

We've been thru this so many times that's why I get so frustrated because I know I've given you those verses above on this before. You keep insisting on the same things and I keep refuting it with scripture.   You just don't have ears to hear right now because the RCC is teaching something totally different than what the bible is teaching. 

What makes you think that I say what I say because I've read it somewhere? 

You may be afraid but I am not.  Peter had a great deal of self importance, before and after Jesus's death.  Dying for one's faith doesn't mean that one no longer posess self importance.  No one walks the path without falling off every now and again, not even the apostles.

Am I saying that the apostles did this thing deliberately?  No I didn't, for in truth they thought that they were doing a good thing.  Bringing all into the fold of Jesus.  But just as Jesus reserved certain teachings for his apostles, (not because they were special or unique, but because they were ready to hear what he had to say), the apostles should have reserved certain teachings for those of the world that were ready for them.  The gentiles were not.  They were still superstitious attributing the operation of natural law to the supernatural, which must have been caused by various and different Gods.  Heck they even made men who they felt were more special than ordinary men of their own time into Gods.  In their superstitious reasoning they must have been Gods, or born of Gods because they could do what others could not.  We do tend to make too much of others who can do what we can not. 

You are correct in what you are telling Lulapilgrim, KFC, but the blood of another doesn't wash them away either.  The only thing that washes away sins is forgiveness and penitence.  Forgiveness from those we offend and cause harm to befall as well as from God, and penitence to make correct that which we have caused to go wrong.

So the above scripture is incorrect?  Can't we be saying the same thing?  Only God washes away sins correct?  Our repentance doesn't wash away our sins tho.  All sin is an affront to God.  Every sin we commit is against Him.    God's forgiveness does save us when he accepts our repentance.  Our repentance brings us to Christ who then washes away our wrongs.  But he does so with the blood of His cross.  It's the blood of the cross that washes us, it's not  of us. 

Remember in the OT the sacrificial atonement of sins?  How was that done?  By the blood of bulls and goats right?  It says in Lev 17:11

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.  " 

So God had it set right from the getgo that it was blood that had to be shed for the remission of sins.  In other words, the blood in the OT covered the sins of the people.  That's why the Priest would sprinkle the blood over the heads of the people.  No blood, no atonement. 

Now while the Jews had to continually do this on a yearly or more frequently basis, Christ came and did it once and for all.  Our sins are not only covered but are now taken away for good.  We have to go thru the cross to be cleaned and on our way to eternity.  By doing so we can't help but get his blood on us and it's that blood that cleanses us and makes us clean enough to be in the presence of God. 

I think about those in Moses' day putting blood around their doorposts.  Those with the blood applied God passed over and they lived.  Those who did not, perished.  Christ said he was the door.  So picture a cross in a door frame.  In order to go thru the door, we pass under the cross and the blood of his crown of thorns (representing the earth) falls upon us. 

Well the proof is on you.  Show me where Peter had a great deal of self importance AFTER the denial that you've already brought up and I answered.  Remember also the Holy Spirit was not given until after Christ's ascension and you don't seem to be taking that into account.  But I do agree with your last sentence.  They were human afterall but I see nothing of what you're saying in scripture at all. 

you answer me with a question?  Your question does not answer my question. 

Is that it?  You don't think the Gentiles were ready?  Says who?  You?  That can't be true because they did accept the word with joy.   Who are "those of the world" that you speak of.  There were only Jews and Gentiles.  That was it.  Who are you speaking about?   Then why did Christ say this before he left them?

"Go you therefore and teach ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 

"But you shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you and you shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and all Judaea and in Samaria and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." 

They were doing exactly what they were supposed to do.  Goes all the way to Abraham when he was told that ALL nations of the world would be blessed because of his descendant.  Even Jesus turned from his own (the Jews) and left the temple to their own destruction just before he died because of the rejection. 

Perhaps we are saying the same thing KFC, we shall see. 

Tell me, what do you believe the "holy ghost" is?  What is your definition?

Why do you think that God would die for mankind?  Where is the sacrifice by men in God dying for them?  Why would God take a human form? 

To answer your question..............I thought I did.  There is not a book.  So now answer my question, why did you think ther was?

No this information is not found in the "holy scripture", but remember that the "holy scripture" is what the church had decided it to be.  Many other testaments were considered and decided against based on their decision of what was the truth and what wasn't.  (As if they were there to experience the events themselves to know, but no mind).  So the NT is a compendium of what men decided it shoud be unlike the jews who kept their torah complete and unaltered.  They haven't disappeared, although the church would like to think so.  The church will deny their existance but even in the church records that deny their existance they are alluded to. 

have to go for now, I will address your other concerns when I return.   

kfc posts:

Hmmm....All the others in this discussion are voicing their respective beliefs about Baptism too, but only mine get deleted!!

Here's my response using Scripture.

Christ Himself gave the formula of Christian Baptism and we are spiritually cleansed by calling down the action of the Holy Ghost at our Baptism. This is all Scriptural and for someone who has read Scriputre as much as you should know it.

 KFC posts:

Circumcsion is in the past, but as for Baptism....take it up with Christ for His words plainly say somethiing completely different..."Amen. Amen I say to you, Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

And, if as you say, Baptism (by wwater, blood or desire) doesn't save and isn't necessary for salvation...Why did Christ give the universal command and formula to baptize all nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Read carefully St.Matt. 28:19 and St.John 3:5 or were these just empty words of Christ?

kfc posts:

No one has to twist Scripture to understand that Baptism is one of the means Christ provided for the remission of sins. And this accusation is getting old having you claim that of every one who disagrees with your individualistic theological take on a given subject.

Here's Acts 2:38 straight up..."But Peter said to them: Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST".   And how did Christ teach us to be baptised (born again)?... "of water and the Holy Spirit" did He not?

Add to that St.Paul's teaching... "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ." "We are all baptized into one Body." Gal. 3:27; 1Cor. 12:13-27.

kfc posts:

Agree and that is what I essentially said in one of my comments you deleted.

Lula said Jesus is God.

Whisper2

Well....Jesus Himself said He was and so I'll go with His word and advise you to keep searching for the truth becasue we both can't be right. Also consider this....here is only one truth...and on our respective claims only one of us is in possession of the truth.

And one can't give what one doesn't possess so if I possess the truth then you don't and vice versa.

I guarantee it is quote current.

again...we've been over this over and over and over again.  How many times do we go over the same old stuff?  You will not be content until you have drowned us with your words on this subject Lula. 

go back and read Matt 28:19 carefully. 

"Go you therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit." 

notice he's saying baptize them IN THE NAME.   Not the water.  Christ is the emphasis.  Not the water.  What comes first?  Teach, right?  Nowhere here does it say that baptizing saves anyone or washes away any sin.  The emphasis is on teaching and then baptizing in the name of Christ.  One doesn't get baptized to get saved.  One gets saved by coming to Christ.  Baptism is the first act of obedience but it doesn't save.    Baptism means identification. Once we are saved we want to be identified with Christ.    In Corinthians it says this: 

"and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."   1 Cor 10:2

this means the Jews in the wilderness were identified with Moses. FIRST THEY WERE SAVED out of Egypt and then were identified with Moses.    It's the same when we are baptized.  We are identified with Christ.  It doesn't save us.  Christ saves us.  Not baptism. 

we've been over this countless times as well.  Various interpretations have been suggested for the meaning here of what the water is.  You wish it to mean physical water but that contradicts many passages.  Some believe it means physical birth.  When a baby is born it comes with water at the birth.  Some believe it is the Word of God ( I believe this) as in John 15:3.  Some believe it can be for the Holy Spirit.  One truth is clear the new birth is from God thru the Spirit because Christ explains more in v7-8 which you seem to ignore. 

"and you are CLEAN through the word which I have spoken to you."  John 15:3

"Not by works of righteousness (baptism by water is an act) which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us, by the WASHING of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit."  Titus 3:5

this is the RCC's favorite verse and the ONLY one they can claim because it's the only one that sort of sounds like in English what you want it to say.  But go to the Greek and you'll see something interesting...,

the preposition "For the" can also mean "because of"  The Greek word is "eis"

so it can be translated in English as "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ BECAUSE OF the remission of sins."    which makes better sense with the whole of scripture.  So you'd rather accept the preposition "for the" instead of "because of" because that supports the RCC theology that water baptism is saving.  It's not. 

 Look at all the examples in scripture (especially in Acts) where they accepted the Lord first, repented and then were baptized after. Their sins were forgiven FIRST and then they were baptized.  Look at Simeon in Acts 8 who got baptized with all the rest and was not saved and was not repentant.  He got baptized tho.  Meant nothing.   Look at the mafia who were all RC and all got dunked and went to the RCC every week while they murdered and pillaged during the week.  What's up with that?  Means nothing.  You put WAY too much emphasis on water baptism. 

again...*SIGH* Paul is not talking "physical" baptism.  He's talking about that baptism you put up earlier by John "Holy Spirit and fire." 

well not that I saw...you said baptism washes away our sins and I stand by the fact that baptism doesn't wash away our sins.  The blood of Christ does.  Otherwise he died for naught. 

and here I'm in complete agreement with Lula.  Jesus is God and that's the whole point of the whole bible.  The most important question of all the ages is "who do you say that I am?" 

see. there you go...you're saying again we are cleansed by our baptism after agreeing that it's the blood that cleanses.  So which is it Lula? 

show me this formula you speak of.  Those scriptures you gave don't show this.  Like Whisper said Christ wasn't sinful.  Why did he get baptized if it's needed for spiritual cleansing?  It's not scriptural.  It's false teaching Lula.  Christ was identifiying himself with the Father and the HS.  He did so at the start of his ministry like we should be at the start of our ministries....not at birth. 

I meant the religious  rite of circumcision is in the past as when that's what it took to be admitted into full participation in Israel.