OH, you said this yourself.  Good you admit it.  Now go to the gospels and read what Christ had to say about these traditions.  Hint:  they were NOT good.   So it's a GOOD thing we "Protestants" have rejected these oral traditions.  Not a bad thing. 

"Jesus said to the multitude and to his disciples:  The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat (like the RCC sit in Jesus' seat) All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do, but DO NOT do after their works; for they say and do not.  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be born and lay them on men's shoulders' but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers (too many rings?) .  But all their works they do for to be seen of men, they make broad their phylacteries (catechisms) and enlarge the borders of their garments (robes).  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues (cathedrals & Bascilica), and greetings in the markets (big whigs) and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi (Father, Priest, Bishop, Pope).  But be not you called Rabbi for one is your Master even Christ; and you ARE ALL BROTHERS.  And call NO MAN your father upon the earth; for one is your Father which is in heaven.  Neither be you called masters (God's vicars on earth) ; for one is your Master even Christ.....but who unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for you shut up the kindgom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, neither suffer you them that are entering to go in.....woe unto you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!  for you compass sea and land to make one proselyte and when he is made, you make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.  (by their traditions).....even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity..."  Mattew 23

It's funny you say this on one hand and then when convenient you like to point out the thousands of "protestant" religions?  Isn't this a contradiction?  I'll answer that...

Yes it is.  Because the "Protestants" don't have oral traditions.  Maybe some of the cults do but true Christianity has no outside traditions they adhere to equal to the scriptures.   How can we if we're so fractured as you say?  Makes no sense. 

It's the RCC who has handed down oral traditions as did the Pharisees.  Not the Protestants as YOU SAID YOURSELF.  Let me go on the record and I'll say it big and plain.  I HAVE NO ORAL TRADITIONS THAT I ADHERE TO THAT IS OUTSIDE OF SCRIPTURE CALLING IT EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE. 

You do and you admit you do.  So please stop saying otherwise.  It gets tiring. 

Again hopefully for the LAST time.  There is NO such thing as Protestant oral tradition. 

All means all.  It means the promises made to the patriarchs are irrevocable.  Israel must be restored.  As a Nation. 

Look at v25.  Israel's blindness is partial and temporary.  The fullness of the Gentiles means the full number of Gentiles who will be saved during this temporary blindness.  After that God will turn again to the Jews and will save "all Israel" just like it says. 

The clause in v26 meaning "there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob?" 

This means Christ's rule is related or associated with Zion.  Check this out; this has not happened yet. 

The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.  And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains and shall be exalted above the hills and all nations shall flow into it.  And many people shall go and say Come you and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us his ways and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.   Isa 2:1-3

I find it interesting that we even have to discuss what "all" means.

Lula specifically said that "all Israel" means just some of the Israelites. It's weird. Of course "all" means "all". That's what "all" means.

What does it mean when G-d gives the holy land to Abraham and his descendants and then commands the descendants of Jacob to live there? To me it means that G-d gave the holy land to Abraham and his descendants and that the descendants of Jacob should must live there (and about half of them do, so we are good). I cannot imagine that it means that the land belongs to random people who managed to invade and were allowed to stay during Turkish rule (although they might have a right to live there too, just like anybody else who wants to live there and manages to behave).

I always thought that this is one of the most impressive quotes from the Bible.

Oddly enough, there is the same discussion in Islam. There is the old school, who say that G-d's word is forever and that Israel belongs to the Jews. And then there is the new school, which claims for itself the gift of prophecy (although it doesn't acknowledge that it does) and says that this has changed since G-d informed the world about it in the Bible and the Qur'an.

I guess it is about one's opinion about what "eternity" means. Some people believe in the traditional eternity, others use a new, improved and much shorter eternity that is easier to deal with.

I understand what she means when she says remnant.  While all Israel will be saved not all individual Jews will be.   Like Judas.  He was not saved.  You go back to the OT and you'll see Jacob was chosen, but Esau was not.  Isaac was chosen but Ishmael was not.  You look at the Jews during the times of the Kings and the Judges and you'll see some were good godly leaders and some were not.  King Ahab for one was a wicked Jewish King.  King David was a good Godly king.  Both were Jewish.  Both were not "saved." 

While there will be a remnant of Jewish believers in the end all Israel will be saved meaning God will save the Nation intact and it will be from this nation that he will rule (Psalm 2).   

just like all is all, eternity is eternity.  I go by the definition of scripture not man's opinion. 

I never heard of a short eternity...sounds like an oxy moron to me. 

lula posts:

KFC POSTS:

The New Testament is full of passages that when put together teach Baptism and it's effects.  

---THAT CHRIST'S DEATH ESTABLISHED THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT IN HIS BLOOD, BAPTISM IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION 

St.John 3:5.

"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

"Unless a man be born again"... By these words Jeus declared the necessity of baptism; and by the word "water",  it is evident that the application of WATER is necessary with the WORDS of St.MATT. 28:19 INVOKING THE BLESSED TRINITY.  

St.Matt. 28:19,  

16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

----That BAPTISM IS FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS..... St.Peter told the Jews "do penance and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins.

Acts 2: 36-39

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified. 37 Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? 38 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.

kfc posts:

In acts 22:16, Ananais told Paul to "....be baptized and wash away thy sins invoking His name" . ....and St.Peter said "be baptized.."  What do they mean by "be baptized"? How's that done?

Are you saying that after Pentecost, when St.Peter baptized those thousands of converts, it was only an external washing?

The Christian rite of Baptism is a spiritual washing, KKC that regenerates the soul and washes away sins. That is accomplished not by the water used in the rite but by the merits of Christ's death on the Cross and invoking the name of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit descends and washes away or cleanses the stain of sin away with sanctifying grace.

 Sin is a free will offense against God and His commands. He says don't commit aduiltery and if you commit adultery you have committed a sin against God and His command. Sin comes from the world, the flesh and the devil, not from the heart. We sin  through our thoughts, our words and actions.  Sin is a stain upon our immortal soul. We acknowledge our sins by confessing them and  by  repentance,  with the firm intention to sin no more.  If we are truly repentant and only God knows for only He knows our heart, then our sins are forgiven..washed away  by the gift of sanctifying grace thourhg  the Holy SPirit.

This is a fairly good explanantion. I've seen the numbers calculated...

This is Dispensationalist/Rapturist/political Zionist end-time fantasy.

At the general resurrection our physical bodies are reunited with our eternal souls, we go directly to be judged....those who pass into the Heavenly gates will be with Our Lord Jesus Christ who will take our glorified bodies to New Jerusalem, a spiritual, eternal place in Heaven.

With CHrist's Advent starts the Millenium..at the end of the Millenium (not aliteral 1,000 years just biblical language symbolizing a long time) the end of the millenium comes the end of the world and Christ comes in glory and battles Satan and sends him to Hell for good, then comes the general resurrection of the living and the dead, then the Final Judgment, and Final justice will be meted out....for the good, Heaven , for the wicked,  Hell.  

The four last things are Death, Judgment, Heaven or Hell.

Esau wasn't an Israelite. Yishmael wasn't an Israelite.

Or, in Biblical terms, G-d's promise.

"Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Man, Lulapilgrim, is always born of water, the clue here is "born again".  Jesus doesn't say "baptised" as in the baptism of John.  It seems to me that you are making an assumption here that baptism is what Jesus is speaking of.

I guess that's why this discussion is over.

Tell me something Infidel, when you read scripture, the torah for instance, besides your eyes, what else do you read it with?

So you're saying that of all the religious people who have been commenting, you're the only one who reads scripture with more than your eyes?

If one religion is wrong or false, why aren't they all?

Says who?  You?  The RCC?    What about the 70th week of Daniel?  Who says the 1,000 is just biblical language?  When God said 7 days for creation was that just symbolic too?  I now you would say no.  So why no there and yes here?  When God said it took 40 years to wander the desert was it really 40 years?  How about Jesus being tempted in the desert for 40 days?  Was it really 40 days Lula?  Why or why not?  When God says SIX TIMES in one chapter that there will be a 1,000 time period called the Millenium why can't it be 1,000 years?  Hmmmm?  Why does it have to be "biblical language?" 

and it can have nothing to do with that as well.  I'm just reading to you what the scriptures say Lula.  Your RCC is telling you otherwise.  I understand that because they have to. 

this is Semantics Leauki.   They all came from Abraham.  Abraham was the first Jew understanding Jacob was the one called Israel.  But the promise started with Abraham and flowed from his loins from which Esau and Ismael came out of.  Israel is chosen, protected and linked to the promise of Abraham. 

ummmmm I might be going out on a limb here...but I'm thinking Infidel doesn't read scripture.  I mean...his name is Infidel after all. 

Wrong. It's a proven fact from the experiences of others.

Not any more.

WHISPER2,

a COUPLE OF THINGS....

We must remember the Baptismritual of St.John the Baptist was of Old Testament Judaism...a precursor of the New Testament Baptism. St.John warned the Jews to repent and prepare the way for the Lord....who was Jesus, the Messias come to redeem all mankind as God promised Adam and Eve just before they were banished from the Garden of Paradise. If God hadn't mercifully promised the Redeemer who would be victorious over death and deliver them from their sin, they would have died in utter despair.

 We, in the New and Eternal Covenant of Grace in the Blood of Christ, "make way for the Lord God" in our heart,mind,body and soul by Baptism which is being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. 

Just as Christ commanded, the rite (Sacrament) of Christian Baptism is how Catholics are "born again" of water and the Holy Ghost.  The Protestant forefathers ditched the sacrament of Baptism as such and developed the doctrine of saved by "Faith Alone" which teaching has been passed down through the centuries by Protestant oral tradition.  Even though it isn't, Protestants believe it's based upon Scripture and  follow this doctrine with all their heart ---hook, line and sinker. They are told  all they have to do to be "born again" (saved) and thus have absolute assurance of salvation is  believe in Christ and call on Him as their personal Savior.  

It's no assumption on my part.  It's worthy of noting that the Christian rite of Baptism that Jesus commanded in St.Matthew 28:19 has Jesus saying the word "baptize". This is a big deal! A really big deal.  If you haven't already read St.John 3:5 in its entire context and you may be able to discren for yourself that Jesus is indeed speaking of Baptism and that in these last days, the Christian rite of Baptism as taught in these passages of Scrpture is necessary for salvation. St.Mark 16:16 confirms this as well.  

What exactly is the "Baptismritual" of "Old Testament Judaism"?

I practice the religion and I have never heard of it.

Folks, I'm sorry for all the typos..and oftentimes can't edit.

We are in the process of buying a home and until then and I getsettled in,  I use my mother-in-law  or my son's computer.

"So you're saying that of all the religious people who have been commenting, you're the only one who reads scripture with more than your eyes?

If one religion is wrong or false, why aren't they all?"

No, I'm not sayn=ing that, and it's my fault that you are confused, my apologies.  I meant what do you understand scripture with?

No one religion is "wrong", all religions contain a modicum of the truth.  If they didn't people wouldn't follow them. 

It should be Baptism ritual...

"Wrong. It's a proven fact from the experiences of others."

It's only proven fact to others who have proven it through their own experience of adding the two numbers together for themselves.  But if indeed you do think that it is simply a matter of telling another, perhaps you'd care to explain why a teacher makes a student do the addition for themeslves? After all the teacher already told them that adding to two numbers together equals four.

"We, in the New and Eternal Covenant of Grace in the Blood of Christ, "make way for the Lord God" in our heart,mind,body and soul by Baptism which is being born again of water and the Holy Ghost. "

Says who?  Where did you read in scripture, OT or NT, this?  Are you refuting what John the Baptist said?  If so why didn't Jesus?   I still think that you are assuming a great deal Lulapilgrim, but I'm willing to learn.  Quote me scripture that says this.  Not the apostles nor even Paul, but Jesus, because Jesus is the final authority. 

"It's no assumption on my part.  It's worthy of noting that the Christian rite of Baptism that Jesus commanded in St.Matthew 28:19 has Jesus saying the word "baptize"."

Did not John say that Jesus would baptize with the holy spirit and fire?  Yes he did.  Why on earth would you think that Jesus would instruct the apostles to baptize in any other way than that which he himself baptized in?  He didn't say to his apostles "baptize in the way of John", but in the manner of which Jesus himself taught.  They were after all his apostles, Lulapilgrim, not Johns. 

I don't have "again" in my version.  It's the water and the Holy Spirit that is the topic here.  You are asumming he's meaning water baptism when water can mean "word" or can mean human birth or can mean Holy Spirit but that would be redundant I guess.  Water baptism doesn't fit because of so many other scriptures including Eph 2:8-9 which says there is no works that help get us into heaven.  When we baptize ourselves or have someone do it it becomes a work because we are doing something. 

Many people believe he's talking physical birth water because of the content of the conversation.  So how do you know this means 'water baptism"  when it does not say that?  It doesn't say you must be baptized.  It says you must be born again.  During all this putting this scripture down again and again and again, you totally every single time totally leave out v 6-7-8 which is part of the whole thing.  No wonder you can't understand it.  You stop at v5 not looking at the WHOLE counsel of Jesus.  He's saying don't look at the physical (don't look at the natural water).  It's all about the Spirit of God. 

First things first.  Where does it say that Peter baptized thousands? 

".....The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." Acts 2:47.   Nothing to do with man, but all to do with God. 

Notice first things first in v41:

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized."  Same as Lydia.   Notice what came first?  Word.  Then notice this in v42...

"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread and in prayers."  All things that a church should be doing but notice how important the teaching was in all this.  Teaching is critical.  That's why it keeps saying "invoking his name"  "calling upon his name"  "baptize in the name"  etc.  The common denominator is the name of Christ.  First and foremost.  That's why I believe in John 3:5 the water stands for the Word.  So one cannot be born again without the word of God and without the Holy Spirit's indwelling.  Both are witnesses to your salvation.    

Baptism is a ceremony.  It's an earthly physical example of what's happened to us inside. That's why Christ was so against these traditions of men who are more concerned about the externals than the internals.

 It's the first act of obedience AFTER we've already been saved.  It's the calling upon his name that saves NOT water baptism. 

Because of this type of argument from you Paul would have written to you personally and said:

"I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius."  1 Cor 1:14. 

That seems to be a very strange thing to say if you believe Salvation washes away sins.  Paul did not believe this nor do I.  If it were as you say, he would be bragging about all the baptisms he did. 

He goes on to say:  "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.  For Christ sent me NOT TO BAPTIZE but to preach the gospel;

It's not the baptism that's important...it's the cleansing of the water which is the WORD.  It's the Word that cleanses, not the water.  It's Jesus who cleanses, not the baptismal pool.  It's the gospel.  Go out into the world to baptize is not the main thing.  It's the making of disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that's important.  Geeeesh Lula. 

Paul is clearly refuting baptismal regeneration.  THis has to be the strongest case AGAINST what you are saying in the whole of the bible. 

He who has ears to hear will hear.   

kfc posts:

The 70th week of Daniel has already been fulfilled. For that matter, all of the OT prophecies have been fulfilled by the First Advent of Christ, His life, Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension. Although some may have dual fullillment just as the promises to Abraham and his seed have dual fulfillment. By dual fulfilment, I mean fulfilled in the OT for national Isreal (not modern state of Isreal) and fulfilled in the NT for the Chruch.

In answer to your last question, becasue Scripture itself supports that Christ as King of kings is already reigning over His spiritual kingdom, the Church, from Heaven. How  long is He going to reign before His Second Coming to earth at the end of the world when He judges all mankind? Trhat's the 1,000 year reign, a 'long time'...We know the 1,000 year reign of Christ is symbolic period of time because only GOd knows when Christ's will come again. 

The 1,000 years began at the First Coming of Christ and will transpire until the Second Coming and then once all mankind has been judged, the eternal state will be ushered in.

In my view, the way you and others are visioning the 1,000 year future reign of Christ over the physical nation of Isreal is bonkers! Your interpretation of Scripture depends on the eschatological view that is adopted going into the reading.

Wake up! Christ is reigning now. It's time  to acknowledge Him as our Lord God and King, to repent of your sins, be baptized and become children of God.

Tell me something Lulapligrim if you would.  When you go to confession and the priest gives you seven hail Mary's to say, why are you saying them, what is their purpose?