Come Mr Called deal with baptism %3d regeneration

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Come, Mr. Called, you seem unable to deal with any coherent thought. I asked for one single example of a gentile being told to quote, unquote “repent” quote, unquote “be baptized for remission of sin” quote, unquote “in Jesusnameonly.” I even asked kindly that you try reading your Bible.

Instead you offer some nonsensical misquoted proof text taken out of context. Please do as I asked. Sit down with your Bible on your lap. After placing your hand on the Bible, repeat one hundred times “my religion lied to me,” “my religion lied to me.” After you come to admit your religion played you like a well oiled fool, read your Bible as I asked in the first place.

When you do, you will discover the theory known as baptism (Acts 2:38) = regeneration (Acts 3:19) was invented by the Roman church. Will the pope be in heaven? Careful, he repented and was baptized for remission of sin, just as you were. Either Acts 2:38 = Acts 3:19 works for him the same as it does for you or someone lied! Namely, your religion.

Now kindly read your Bible. When Jesus sent the disciples out two by two, he told them point blank, “do not go among the gentiles.” Salvation was not available to gentiles until after Peter received his vision in Acts 10. Now pay attention, please.

“When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. Acts 11:18 (KJV)”

We have established that salvation was not available to any gentile until Acts 10, so come Mr. Called, one single example of any gentile who was told quote, unquote “repent” quote, unquote “be baptized for remission of sin” quote, unquote “in Jesusnameonly.”

Your Ever Humble Servant,
Rev. Sandy Bryant DD.
Counter-cult Apologist

ps By the by, I can disprove your religion’s plan of salvation using God’s Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages.” Good luck. Acts 8:12 (KJV)

[granite]

Baptismal regeneration is a heresy, perpretrated by an assortment of denominations to various degrees (Mormon, Catholic, Church of Christ, & some Oneness Pentecostals). But Scripture does teach baptismal REMISSION! (Acts 2:38, 10:43)

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Are you calling baptism (Acts 2:38) = regeneration (Acts 3:19) false? Which verse is not in scripture?

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43 (KJV)

Please underline baptism in that verse.

[called]

That’s right Baptism in the name of our Master Yahshua Ha Messiah is for the {{{REMISSION}}} of sins, Only the blood of Christ will cover our sins, But the blood of Christ dose not apply to you until you make that public confession of faith in water Baptism, He who believes and is baptized shall be saved!!! Unless one is born of water and of Spirit {{{he cannot}}} enter the kingdom of God!!! You must be born again, Can you read REV???
Johnny

[called]

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him{{{and make a public confession of their faith in water baptism Acts 2:38}}} shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43 (KJV)
We must go line upon line and precept upon precept, we must preach and teach the whole council of God! Not bits and peaces you chose to believe, Believe all or none at all,Point Blank!!!

Luke 24:47 And that {{{repentance and remission of sins}}} should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. [[[ AND THIS INCLUDS GENTILES]]]


Theirs only one scripture in the whole BIBLE where repentance and remission of sins comes togather beginning at Jerusalem. AND THAT’S Peter’s first sermon on the day of Pentecost Acts 2:38!!!

Study to show yourself Approved Sir!!!

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

I am, approved that is.

Quoting:
""To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him{{{and make a public confession of their faith in water baptism Acts 2:38}}} shall receive remission of sins." Acts 10:43 (KJV) "
End quote.

That is called adding to the Word of God. It is not necessary to make God's Plan of Salvation work. I keep asking you to read God's Holy Inspired Inerrant Word for the Ages and not your religion's guide book.

Salvation simply was not available to any gentile when Acts 2:38 was alleged to have been preached. Sorry.

Acts 8:12

[called]

That’s not adding to the word of God, its simply showing you and everyone else that the two scriptures must go together along with every other scripture pertaining to the precept at hand, as in the whole council of God, not just what you pick and chose, it don’t work like that sir!!! and the first gentiles to ever enter into the new covenant were baptized in the name of the Lord Acts 2:38 as the 3000 Jews were on the day of Pentecost, their is no difference between Jew or gentile, we are all one in Christ Joshua, Baptized By one Spirit onto One Body, One Church, One Bride!!! We as a whole were and are the walking living breathing church of Christ, You have no idea what your talking about Sir, Their is no division in the True body of Christ. Those Gentiles that God has called unto himself from day one was written in the Lambs book of life before the foundation of the world Sir! so how can you say that{{{Salvation simply was not available to any gentile when Acts 2:38 was alleged to have been preached}}} I have a question for you Rev, Was the day of Pentecost before the foundation of the world? I don’t think so

Johnny

[pro610]

To All
Here is a little history from the Early Christians on Baptism

I,ll start with St. Athanasius, Bishop of
Alexandria(A.D367), who was the first to list the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament.

Here is what Saint Athanasis wrote...

"And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, III:33 (A.D. 360).

From Saint Irenaeus who was friends with Saint Polycarp who was a direct Disciple of the Apostle Saint John

" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D.190)

From Saint Justin Martyr who writes about Saint John said....
"John, one of the Apostles of Christ" as a witness who had lived "with us", that is, at Ephesus.

Here is what Saint Justin Says about Baptism

"For Christ also said, 'Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: 'Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well…And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow...And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 (A.D. 110-165).


These are just a few of what the first Christians taught on Baptism -there are tons more from some who knew the Apostles and some of them were involved in Bible Canon.

We don,t see anyone teaching anything different til the "invention" of solo Scripture which of course was also NEVER taught in the first 1500 plus years of Christianity

[pro610]

Some writings from the Early Christians on Infant Baptism.....

"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).

"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?" Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9 (A.D. 156).

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).

"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).

"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).

"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).

"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).

"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244).

"But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day...And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism...we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…" Cyprian, To Fidus, Epistle 58(64):2, 6 (A.D. 251).

"It shows no crease when infants put it on [the baptismal garment], it is not too scanty for young men, it fits women without alteration." Optatus of Mileve, Against Parmenium, 5:10(A.D. 365).

"Have you an infant child? Do not let sin get any opportunity, but let him be sanctified from his childhood; from his very tenderest age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Fearest thou the Seal on account of the weakness of nature?" Gregory Nazianzen, Oration on Holy Baptism, 40:17 (A.D. 381)

[pro610]

Scripture

Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.

Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:38 - there is nothing in these passages or elsewhere in the Bible about baptism being symbolic. There is also nothing about just accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior in order to be saved.

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase "born again" is "anothen" which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where "anothen" is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

Acts 16:15; 31-33; 18:8; 19:2,5 - these texts present more examples of people learning of Jesus, and then immediately being baptized. If accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is all one needs to do to be saved, then why does everyone in the early Church immediately seek baptism?

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins," even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul's acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.

Acts 22:16 - further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin. It is not a symbolic covering up of sin. Even though Jesus chose Paul directly in a heavenly revelation, Paul had to be baptized to have his sins washed away.

Rom. 6:4 - in baptism, we actually die with Christ so that we, like Him, might be raised to newness of life. This means that, by virtue of our baptism, our sufferings are not in vain. They are joined to Christ and become efficacious for our salvation.

1 Cor. 6:11 - Paul says they were washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, in reference to baptism. The “washing” of baptism gives birth to sanctification and justification, which proves baptism is not just symbolic.

Gal. 3:27 - whoever is baptized in Christ puts on Christ. Putting on Christ is not just symbolic. Christ actually dwells within our soul.

Col. 2:12 - in baptism, we literally die with Christ and are raised with Christ. It is a supernatural reality, not just a symbolic ritual. The Scriptures never refer to baptism as symbolic.

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit.

[called]

The first century church only baptized by immersing consenting repenting adults in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38; 2:41; 8:12; 8:38; 16:33; 22:16; Rom. 6:4).

No other baptismal formula has ever been recorded being practiced in our NT Canon!!! Why is that? Why weren’t the first gentiles to ever enter the new covenant {The Household of Cornelius} Baptized in the name of the Father the son and the Holy Spirit? Why was they {commanded} to be baptized in the name of the Lord Acts 10:47-48, the same exact way the 3000 Jews were baptized on the day of Pentecost!
These are very serious questions that Trinitarians will not even ask themselves today!!! And why is that?

Johnny

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Pro610:

Why do you need to paraphrase scripture? Are you trying to force your plan of salvation on the Word of God?

Why do you think the Greek word "baptism/baptized" was transliterated into the English language? Would not Acts 2:38 make more sense if it said "repent and be immersed/submersed in water in order to receive forgiveness of sin"?

Acts 8:12

[called]

Baptism and Acts 2:38

Acts 2:38 is the most controversial baptism verse in the Bible. Trinitarians hate it and have fought hard to either pervert the wording of it or the meaning of the words. At issue is two things: the name to be invoked over the convert, and if baptism by faith in water is essential to salvation.

Baptism was not invented by man and not a work instituted by man (John 1:33--"he that sent me to baptize"). Therefore it is from God. What was God's purpose in baptism is the issue here. If the purpose was to demonstrate one's faith in Messieh and the finished work of Calvary and the Resurrection how can men deny its holiness and essentiality? Only through this act of faith a person is risen with Christ. A person is not risen with Christ until they are baptized by faith. Baptism is essential as an act of faith and is a requirement for salvation (Mark 16:16-"he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved").

Acts 2:38 is Peter's obedience to the command of Christ in Luke 24:47-49. We cannot discount Peter's preaching on the grounds additional Scripture to be written 25 years later might be manipulated to prove Peter was wrong. Acts 2:38 was the only baptismal formula used by the Church. There is no trinitarian formula ever used. In fact the Hebrew Matthew now discovered does not contain the trinitarian clause at all proving as scholars say it was added to the text and Bible in the second century.

Upon close examination we will see that water baptism in Romans chapter 6 does teach baptismal regeneration. When trinitarians are defeated in the formula to be used they next want to say that baptism is not essential in faith salvation and attack the concept of regeneration. But Romans 6 leaves us with no escape: those baptized into the death of Christ are raised, regenerated, in the likeness of his resurrection. If this is not true, then it is not essential to be buried with Christ in baptism and it is not essential to be raised in the likeness of his resurrection. So, baptismal regeneration is a Biblical truth? Let's look at Titus 3:5:

"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Regeneration: Greek paliggenesia Strongs #3824--rebirth (born again), from #3825 palin=anew, once more and #1078 genesis=birth, nativity.

The second birth, called being born of the Spirit (John 3:8); born again (1Peter 1:23); born of God (1John 3:9, 4:7, 5:1, 5:4).

Regeneration here is the same as re-birth or born anew or again as found in John 3:3-5. Now where is there a washing of rebirth except in the waters of baptism as found in Romans 6:4-5?

Does a person receive this washing of regeneration and resurrection by saying I accept Jesus into my heart? No! Do they receive it by saying I accept the Lord Jesus as my personal Savior? No!

Where is washing by the blood of Jesus by which he saves us, in the same place as renewing in the Holy Ghost? It is found exclusively in Acts 2:38 and not grouped in any other single text in the New Testament. In one text we have both, and Paul writing to Titus says this is how he saved us. Therefore, this washing of regeneration is not works of man or Paul contradicted himself. Faith is not works of man. Faith is works of the Word of God. For faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

[called]

Acts 2:38 stands uncondemned in spite of the many attacks by trinitarians to destroy its message and meaning.

Can a doctrine be made from one verse in the Bible? Yes! There are many things mentioned one time in the Word of God and these are just as valid for doctrine as things mentioned many times. The Holy Ghost, the author of the Bible, does not need to speak twice for something to be true. The Holy Ghost spoke through Peter in Acts 2:38. Those words were not Peter's words. Why do so many always resist the Holy Ghost?

Is Acts 2:38 the only verse we have for baptism in the name of Jesus only? No, we have many text such as in Acts 8:12, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5. And there are other text that indicate baptism into Christ and him alone for it is his death into which we are baptized (Romans 6:4-5). Then there is the text in Ephesians 4:5 of one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. We have plenty of verses to validate baptism into the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38 is the pole-star of the Apostolic baptismal mode and method as practiced by the Apostles.

Now it must be understood that Acts 2:38 teaches salvation by grace through faith. Without this understanding a person can wrestle this verse unto their own destruction.

Repentance that is commanded in this text is an act of faith and the grace of forgiveness is given.
Water baptism that is commanded is an act of faith and the grace of remission of sins is given.
Holy Spirit baptism is commanded as a receiving by faith, and the grace of the gift of eternal life is given.

There is complete and full salvation by grace through faith in the obedience of Apostle Peter's preaching.

Anyone who teaches water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not essential to salvation is preaching a false doctrine. Anyone who teaches water baptism according to Acts 2:38 is a work of man and is not of faith is teaching a false doctrine. Anyone who teaches that in Romans 6 that baptismal regeneration is not taught is teaching a false doctrine. Why follow after the cunning devises of men. Why not take the Apostle Peter's words unto your own heart as if you were there on the day of Pentecost.

What was the intent of the Apostle Peter in this text? Why do men pervert his intent? They asked the Apostles: "men and brethren what shall we do?" Why do men pervert the words of Peter in answer to this important question? They wanted to know what to do to be saved.

Things Peter did not say:
Peter did not say Calvary plus nothing;
Peter did not say believe in your heart and confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is Lord;
Peter did not say accept the Lord into your heart;
Peter did not say accept the Lord as your personal savior;
Peter did not say accept the Lord Jesus by faith;
Peter did not say receive Christ and have a personal relationship;
Peter did not say come as you are and believe you are saved because Jesus died for you;
Peter did not say come and receive holy communion and be saved from your sins;
Peter did not say come up and shake the preacher's hand and get the right hand of fellowship from the church members;
Peter did not say sign the church roll and you are saved;

[called]

Peter did not say confess you are a Baptist and you are saved without water baptism;
Peter did not say confess you are a Church of Christ and you are saved;
Peter did not say confess you are a Catholic and you are saved;
Peter did not say sign a prayer card as your profession of faith and you are saved;

What Peter did say:
Peter said repent;
Peter said to be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ:
Peter did say they would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

What did the people do:
3,000 Israelites from the 12 tribes repented of their sins;
They asked to be baptized after the order Peter had preached;
There were baptized that day 3,000 souls;
They were added to the New Testament Church following their baptismal covenant.

What was the intent of the Apostle Peter:
He was following the command of Jesus that repentance and remission of sins was to be preached first in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49);
He was being obedient to the authority given him with the keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19);
He now had power upon him by the Holy Ghost and so now he could witness the Gospel in its purity (Acts 1:8).

He intended the people to repent by faith;
He intended the people to be baptized by faith in water in the name of Jesus Christ that they may rise to walk in a newness of life;
He intended all the people to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by faith and to be added to the Church as born again believers.

If the Apostle Peter did not intend all this by his preaching, he played one of the biggest jokes upon 3,000 Jews ever pulled upon Israelites. It is indeed sad and a shame that men would try to destroy this first Gospel message preached after Jesus ascended. It is a mockery that they would alter Peter's words and play alphabet soup with them until they totally destroy all faith, all grace, and all salvation that comes by Jesus Christ as contained in Acts 2:38.
Why do trinitarians want this verse destroyed?
It proves there never was a trinitarian phrase in the original Hebrew Matthew;
It proves baptism is in the New Testament name of God which is Jesus Christ;
It proves there is faith and grace in repentance and water baptism;
It proves according to Romans 6 there is baptismal regeneration from a dead corpse burial and a resurrection unto a new life;
It proves water baptism is essential to salvation;
It proves Mark 16:16--"he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned" IS TRUE;
It proves there was one water baptism ordained by Jesus and this is the same as born of the water in John 3:3-5;
It proves all who are not baptized by faith to receive the grace by Christ alone, by grace alone, by faith alone, ARE NOT SAVED!

[called]

I urge all to receive the Word of God in Acts 2:38 and follow this. Do not follow the cunning lies of trinitarians who are sending more people to hell then the Moslems and Hindus by their lies and deceptions.

Go to Acts 2:38 and see of you can find evil in this verse or in Peter's intent. See if you can find in this verse any hint that these could be saved without repentance, without water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and without Holy Ghost baptism. Go there and see how 3,000 were added to the Church. Why, if these 3,000 were the first Gospel converts added to the New Testament Church after the ascension of Christ, MUST THE PATTERN BE CHANGED? Ask yourself if it was good enough for 3,000 to accept by faith and then find salvation into the Church, why it will HURT YOU!

Trinitarians have spread the lies that if you follow the Apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 it will hurt you. Some how you will be added to a cult instead of the Church. That some how you will become demon possessed and deceived. Don't be afraid to think outside the trinitarian box. Get out of the box. Don't let men deceive you so easily. Take the Word of God because it is Holy Spirit inspired. The Apostle Peter was speaking by the Holy Ghost when he commanded the multitude of Jews to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Any man who claims Peter was not speaking by the Holy Ghost is a devil. If Peter was speaking by the Holy Ghost, what was the intent of the Holy Ghost for those who heard the first Gospel message?

The intent of the Holy Ghost was for people to be saved!

How did the Holy Ghost tell the people to be saved through the lips of the Apostle Peter?

The Holy Ghost said through Peter REPENT!
The Holy Ghost said through Peter BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS!
The Holy Ghost said through Peter RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST!

Now, what will you do?

Will you follow the cunning lies and devices of trinitarians who have always perverted the Word of God?

Will you follow the Apostle Peter, the man to whom was given the keys to the Kingdom?

Key #1 REPENT;
Key #2 BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST (Messieh);
Key #3 RECEIVE THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST!

You must follow the Word of God with your faith. Do it now! Do it today! Do not allow men to talk you out of obeying the Holy Ghost who spoke through Peter on the day of Pentecost. Come to the waters of burial. Come to the waters of separation. Come to the waters of holiness. Come to the place where the blood of Jesus will wash your sins away. True, water does not wash away sin: we NEVER SAID IT DID! But we did say, that the blood of Jesus washes away sin during water baptism. If there is no blood of Christ applied in water baptism, then remission of sins by and during water baptism is a joke Jesus and the Apostle Peter pulled on 3,000 believing Jews. It was no joke. It is for real. Now come to these waters of the blood covenant. Come to these waters of blood purification. Come to these waters of the crossing from death unto life. Come today. Come right now. Do not delay. It is you soul you must bring from darkness to light by the way of New Testament salvation found in Acts 2:38.

May the Lord Jesus himself reveal unto you his glorious grace in Acts 2:38 water baptism.

[called]

With all due respect Just how can anyone come against these Biblical facts?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Yes. God did.

[pro610]

the_apostolic

Dear Friend,the whole point of my 3 posts on this thread is to show how the early Christian fathers and Saints believed and interpreted Scripture.
They were clear and consistent thru the ages on Baptism and many other things.
It is not until after the reformation that various inconsistencies on such issues arrive.
Things such as solo Scripture,solo fide were NEVER taught for over 1500 plus years of Christianity

My 3 posts were NOT meant to impose my belief on anyone but,rather show just how consistent Christianity has always been pre-reformaton.
Whether a person is Catholic or Protestant, one needs to set God as a high priority. When a person, either Catholic or Protestant, does not, there will be problems. That goes without saying. I think that while Protestantism can awaken within people the desire for God, I think that it stands on shaky theological grounds - especially Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. It ignores the Living Tradition of the Church - which is guided by the Holy Spirit of God (as Jesus Christ promised). Some things that we NEED to know are just not in the Bible! I can't find a WORD about stem-cell research, but the people of today need guidance on proper moral action. We need interpreters with authority given from above, not private interpretation subject to error. That is my view on the matter.

Anything that brings people closer to God is not a bad thing. Thus, while I disagree with Protestant theology, I realize that God's Spirit works through their communities, as well.

Christianity is NOT simply a doctrine,it is an encounter with Jesus.
This means having the strength to choose the One for whom we were created and accepting his lordship over our lives. You perceive it in the depths of your heart.
In order for this to happen we must completely deny ourselves as Christ says in Luke 17:33 "Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it".
This means that in the end we must drop the question in our minds as to "what do I get out of it". Thus only the person who gives up his life in total commitment to Christ will then find his life.
We must let ourselves be completely guided by Christ
If we deny ourselves,let go of ourselves, it draws us away from possessive and narcissistic love and opens us up to the joy of a love that is self-giving.
Thus we must free ourselves from self-attachment in order to open ourselves to others ,thus making the transition from an affective love to an effective love. For love is not merely a feeling; it is an act of will that consists of preferring, in a constant manner, the good of others to the good of oneself.
This Dear Friend, is what Christianity is all about!

I Wish you a Blessed Day!

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Quoting: "Some things that we NEED to know are just not in the Bible!"
End quote.

Like "discovery" for example?

[called]

Thank you for your kindness Friend and I pray you have a blessed day to.

Hi Bob
Id like to ask you a very simple question ok, and please keep it very very simple ok! Just how was each and every NT Convert Baptized in the 27 Books of our NT Canon, Please do not include writings of the Catholic church fathers or your personal beliefs ok, just simply answer just how everyone was water baptized in the NT scriptures without adding anything whatsoever to it ok,

Thanks and God Bless you Brother

Johnny

[pro610]

Johnny,
John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people "in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Acts 10:47 - Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" The Bible always links water and baptism.

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.

All of this is affirmed with the writings of the first Christians.

You can choose to ignore them if you wish.

Time for Mass

Peace in Christ

[called]

Johnny
{You can choose to ignore them if you wish}. And I agree with you 100% here Bob,
am sorry please forgive me maybe you did not completely understand my question so ill ask you again ok!{{{Just how was each and every NT Convert Baptized in the 27 Books of our NT Canon, Please do not include writings of the Catholic church fathers or your personal beliefs ok}}}, Copy and paste from my above post, we all know they used water {{{but in what formula was they ALL Baptized IN THE SCRIPTURES BOB}}} MATTHEW 28:19 or ACTS 2:38?

[called]

Bob
I what to tell you that I truly admire you for going to church each and everyday, I think that’s great because that’s just what am talking about here when it comes to truly following the scripture only! The Bible clearly states in the book of Acts that the first century Christians met in the temple daily = 7 days a week until the temple was destroyed in 70 AD of course than they met in each others houses, but you sure got my Vote on that one Brother, May God truly bless you for that!!!

Johnny

[pro610]

Johnny,
I,m short on time, so I will cut and paste to show you the mistake you,re making

Jesus told the apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.(Matt 28:19)

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals, baptize "in the name of Jesus." As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid. "Jesus Only" Pentecostals note that Jesus told the apostles to baptize in "the name" (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but they make the mistake of assuming that name is Jesus. In reality, the single name shared by the three is almost certainly Yahweh, the personal name of God in the Bible.

This name is applied to both the Father and the Son in the New Testament. In Acts 2:34-36, Peter quotes Psalm 110:1, applying the term "Lord" to the Father, but in the Old Testament original, the term "Lord" is actually Yahweh.

In Philippians 2:10-11, Paul quotes Isaiah 45:19-24, applying a prophecy about the Lord to the Son. And in the Old Testament original, the term "Lord" in this passage is actually Yahweh. Jesus applied the name Yahweh ("I AM") to himself in John 8:58, and his audience understood exactly what he meant and tried to stone him. Since the Bible applies the name Yahweh to the Father and the Son, it is almost certainly possessed by the Spirit and thus is a name of all three Persons of the Trinity.

There are only four passages that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5); they don't use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," others say "Jesus Christ"), meaning they were not technical formulas used in the baptism but simply on-the-fly descriptions by Luke. The four cannot stand up against the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

The phrase "baptized in the name of Jesus" is not a technical version of the baptismal formula, simply Luke's way to distinguish Christian baptism from other baptisms of the period, such as John's baptism (which Luke mentions in Acts 1:5, 22, 10:37, 11:16, 13:24, 18:25, 19:4), Jewish proselyte baptism, and the baptisms of pagan cults such as Mithraism. It also indicates the Person into whose Mystical Body baptism incorporates us (Rom. 6:3, Gal. 3:3).

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed. Christians from the beginning have recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

A few examples...
"He [Jesus] commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow-when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?"( Saint Cyprian Letters 73:18 [A.D. 253]).

"Then said Jesus unto them, 'I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world'" (Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

[called]

There are only four passages that the New Testament talks about people being baptized "in the name of Jesus," (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, and 19:5); they don't use the same designation in each place (some say "Lord Jesus," others say "Jesus Christ"),

{{{meaning they were not technical formulas used in the baptism}}}}

but simply on-the-fly descriptions by Luke. The four cannot stand up against the divine command of the Lord Jesus Christ to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Ok Bob than if thats the case than Matthew 28:19 is not a {{{technical formula}}} either, because the Apostles never even once obeyed this so called commandment in baptizing anyone in the NT Scripture, So what do we have than?

[called]

"Then said Jesus unto them, 'I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world'" (Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

And either the apostles completely ignored this so called commandment of Christ or they deliberately disobeyed it!!! Which one?

[called]

"Then said Jesus unto them, 'I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world'" (Diatesseron 55 [A.D. 170]).

And either the apostles completely ignored this so called commandment of Christ or they deliberately disobeyed it!!! Which one?

[called]

"Jesus Only" Pentecostals, baptize "in the name of Jesus." As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid.

Ok lets see just what we have here ok, If what you say is true and all those baptized Acts 2:38 in the name of jesus only is {{{invalid}}}. and from what we can clearly see, the apostles never ever baptized anyone in the name of the father the son and the Holy Spirit in the NT Scriptures!!!

i guess that would mean that the apostles baptized EVERYONE WRONG and that everyone's baptism in the NT is invalid right Bob?

Do you hear how that sounds? Please think about ok!

[mcmstaff78]

Actually, they didn't. If you are familiar with the Didache, which has been dated anywhere between 50 to 120 AD and is considered the earliest authentic extra-biblical written exposition of the doctrine and practice of the first century Church, you'll find the following:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7:2 Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
7:3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7:4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

(Message edited by mcmstaff78 on March 27, 2007)

[called]

Hi mcmstaff78

Yes I am very familiar with the Didache, but I do not believe it was the practice of the original 12 during the time of Christ, because if it was their would be at least one example of it in the NT scripture, From the 3000 Jews baptized on the day of Pentecost the birth of the NT Church to the household of Cornelius the first gentiles ever to enter the new covenant and EVERYONE in-between all were baptized in the name of the lord or yeshua only Acts 2:38 without exception, and am not talking Pentecostal oneness doctrine here, am giving pure Biblical facts.

and like i said,if this were true, i guess that would mean that the apostles baptized EVERYONE WRONG and that everyone's baptism in the NT is invalid right

this is really something to think about woulden't you say?

[mcmstaff78]

Actually, you're argument is not logical nor is it persuasive. There is plenty to believe that the Didache represents Apostolic teaching and practice and that the use of the phrase "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" was shorthand for the
Trinitarian formula. There is nothing in the Book of Acts to indicate any of the Apostles ever served Holy Communion, or partook of it, but can you truly doubt they did?

Unlike you, I don't believe that the scriptures represent exhaustive truth. Your argument appears to be with the Lord Himself, not with those on this thread.

[called]

There is plenty to believe that the Didache represents Apostolic teaching and practice and that the use of the phrase "baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" was shorthand for the

you can’t be serious right?

Dose the scriptures teach this or is this your own bent apostate RCC theology?

and your argument is with the Lord if you put your twisted man made theology over the living word of God Sir.

[called]

Theirs just no getting through to you people no matter what, its like your all programmed with the same roman catholic computer chip stock in your backs or something, you people are like zombies, I just don’t get it, its like you don’t have a mind of your own and the Pope and the RCC does all your thinking for you!!! Unbelievable
i give up with you guys! i love you but i truly give up.

[plow_deep]

Here's a thought

If your baptised in the name of Jesus Christ...

then you ARE baptised in the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

By default,

for these three are "One".

[called]

Ya Plow that has to be what the Apostle Peter meant on the day of Pentecost no doubt!!!

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Come, Mr. Pro610, is “water” and “baptism” really associated in scripture? Or just Roman doctrine? Considering that the King James is written on the eighth grade level, why didn’t the Church of England simply translate “baptism”? Why was the Greek word “baptism/baptize” transliterated?

Take Acts 2:38 for example:
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 (KJV)

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be (im)(sub)mersed in water every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 Roman style.

Or:

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 (KJV)

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born by (im)(sub)mersion in water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John 3:5 Roman style.

Your Ever Humble Servant,
Rev. Sandy Bryant DD.
Counter-cult Apologist

ps. For those who did not understand my question labeled “discovery,” it is a Roman doctrine that calls God a liar. The Roman Church holds that (wo)man “discovers” her/his sexuality. God clearly addresses the question in Romans chapter 1, without the need to paraphrase.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” Romans 1:26 - 32 (KJV).

Ps and by the by. It was the Roman Church who changed the baptismal formula. No, not in the second century but in the seventh century. No, not from the singular to the trinity, but from the trinity to the singular. During the seventh century, the pope signed a bull giving the nation of Spain the right to baptize in the singular. Mr. Called is simply blowing smoke.

[pro610]

To APTM

Please produce this "actual"doctrine(NOT someone elses interpretation of something)from the Vatican that calls God a liar?

All documents are all available at vatican.com

You said
"It was the Roman Church who changed the baptismal formula. No, not in the second century but in the seventh century."

First of all- the Catholic Church is not the Roman Church .There is only a diocese of Rome.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
excerpt:
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.


Secondly ,you have no idea what you are saying in regards to the Baptismal formula being changed

Again,
Show the "actual" Vatican document that the Catholic Church changed the Baptismal formula?

[pro610]

One more thing APTM,
Show us all actual writings from the early Christians that says Baptism does NOT = regeneration?

I can show you that the early Christians don,t agree with you.

Are you going to call them heretics and liers,even the one,s that were direct Disciples of the Apostles themselves?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Mr. Pro610:

You either take me for a fool or are praying that I am. The Roman Church changed its name to Catholic recently in the United States to hide its affiliation with the Pope. Most on this board recall using the name “Roman Church” throughout our high school years. We were forced to eat fish Wednesday to suit your religion’s restriction on meat. Save yourself some breath, I know the Pope has since changed it to Friday.

You are correct. Anyone who would refuse ‘ice cream’ without first tasting of it, would truly be foolish. One should not judge the Roman Church until you have compared Roman doctrine to the Word of God. Nor should one accept Roman claims without first testing them against history. Test every spirit is the correct biblical admonition, I believe. I can not help your lack of wisdom concerning Roman doctrine. You certainly want us to believe you spend all your time at Mass.

As to ‘baptism = regeneration’ there can be no argument.

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38 (KJV).

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” Acts 3:19 (KJV).

Anyone with the ability to read can see the two words are used interchangeably.

“Repent, and be baptized” Acts 2:38

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted” Acts 3:19.

Unfortunately, neither verse was every given to a single gentile. Try addressing my question under “Salvation,” Acts 8:12; Acts 19:1; Matthew 7:21; Matthew 25. As to ‘discovery’, ask your pope at the next Mass you attend. And YES, the Roman Church did change the baptismal formula. You really need to study the religion into whose hands you have placed your all against that day.

Your Ever Humble Servant,
Rev. Sandy Bryant DD.
Counter-cult Apologist

ps. The ‘reformation’ did not start in the fifteenth century.

[mcmstaff78]

Called, in the four instances of baptism in the Acts of the Apostles, not one is described the same as another. Consequently, what you have is not a description of the formula by which the people were baptized, but simply a distinction of what the baptism was contra ritual Jewish or Pagan baptism. Baptizing someone in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is baptizing them in the "name of the Lord", or "in the name of Jesus" as opposed to baptizing then "with John's baptism" or "into Mithra".

And your comebacks are so pithy. Obviously you can't refute the historicity or genuineness of the Didache so you simply write "are you serious". Well, yes, I'm serious. Demonstrate why I should not be. Further, ad hominem arguments are pointless and simply demonstrate your own lack of charity.

Also, give me a leader of the Reformation who baptized "in Jesus' Name" as a formula.

[pro610]

the_Ap said...
""You either take me for a fool or are praying that I am. The Roman Church changed its name to Catholic recently in the United States to hide its affiliation with the Pope""

Nonsense! An utter lie!

Dear Brother/Sister I don,t take you for a fool nor am I praying you are one.

I have dealt with people such as yourself before.
Your hatred of anything Catholic causes you to psychologically convince yourself that something must be true,even though you can,t provide actual documentation to back up your wild claims.
Ignorance is the result of hatred!

The problem you seem to have is that "your opinion" = "God's Word and Spirit within me"

DO you know how a person can identify whether the Spirit of God is within them? By their humility and obedience. Not by your condescension and hatred. We don't find such an attitude with the Holy Spirit. We find humility.

As far as Baptism = regeneration goes

I think this is clearly in the Bible and the first Christians found it when looking at how God worked during the time of Christ. Thus, we see the first Christians speaking of Baptism = regeneration .

Here is just one example

Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of REGENERATION,--as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).


I think where you are having difficulties is the artificial concept that only things in the Scriptures are valid to believe. Christianity never would have gotten off the ground with that idea floating around. We'd still be circumcising, because the Scriptures do not give the Apostles the mandate to do away with circumcision. Yet, the Church, given the power to bind and loosen, DESPITE the Old Testament commands, loosened the requirement for men to be circumcised before entering into the Church.

BTW ,Things such as eating meat on Wednesday or Friday are not Dogma,thus they can change.
FYI, even a priest never being allowed to be married is not dogma and can change some day.

What is Dogma is things like Baptism,Eucharist,and all the other Sacraments.
They can NOT Change,even if a Pope or Bishop makes a statement that it not in line with the Church,s teaching.We disregard them and follow the Dogma

you also said..
"ps. The ‘reformation’ did not start in the fifteenth century"

Partially true because the Church has needed reformation and has undergone reformation "within its own walls" thruout its history.
Many of the Saints have argued with Popes and reformed the Church on certain teachings.
This is how we know the Church is alive.

The result of reformation outside of the wall of the Church is over 30,000 splinter groups of protestantism with a variety of beliefs to suit anyone,s fancy.

I see no more reason to correspond with someone like you on facnet because there is not enough space here without posting 10 different posts.

I suggest you join the free republic religion section if you want to debate Catholic,s
It is a better forum

I wish you in your search for the truth.

[ezekiel_37]

pro610,

I think that you are the only Catholic (practising) on this thread.

You may remember that I used to be a Catholic, Baptized as a baby (no choice there by the way),
and brought up in the Catholic school system, weekend church, a great choir though....

I have a series of serious questions for you.

about intercessory prayer. If you decide to answer them, please only use biblical reference.



1.Is there ANY biblical example of the soul of a man/woman (who is deceased) praying for those who are still alive?

2.Is there any biblical example of alive people praying to those already dead, even if for intercession?

3.Are there any warnings against such practices?

4.Did the Hebrews pray to Moses, or Abraham, or Joshua, or Samuel, or David...?

5.Or did they instead pray to God Y_H_V_H?

Please think about this.

Thanks

Find Peace In Christ
c

[ezekiel_37]

pro610,

I think that you are the only Catholic (practising) on this thread.

You may remember that I used to be a Catholic, Baptized as a baby (no choice there by the way),
and brought up in the Catholic school system, weekend church, a great choir though....

I have a series of serious questions for you.

about intercessory prayer. If you decide to answer them, please only use biblical reference.



1.Is there ANY biblical example of the soul of a man/woman (who is deceased) praying for those who are still alive?

2.Is there any biblical example of alive people praying to those already dead, even if for intercession?

3.Are there any warnings against such practices?

4.Did the Hebrews pray to Moses, or Abraham, or Joshua, or Samuel, or David...?

5.Or did they instead pray to God Y_H_V_H?

Please think about this.

Thanks

Find Peace In Christ
c

[pro610]

Ez,
First, I urge you to join a better discussion site to discuss this, like free republic.The answers are just too long for factnet
Part 1 of 2
You may have been a Catholic but ,sadly many were not ever shown typology and correct historical Scripture interpretations

There was some terrible catechism teachers in the late 60,s thru the 90,s.

If You had correct teaching ,you most certainly would have never believed the serpent seed heresey because scripture types perfectly that the women in genesis 3:15 is the prophecy of Mary and Jesus.
Christians have recognized since the first century that the woman and her seed of Genesis 3:15 do not simply stand for Eve and one of her righteous sons, such as Abel or Seth. They prophetically foreshadow Mary and Jesus. The first half of the verse (speaking of the enmity between the serpent and the woman) has been applied to Mary, and so the second half (speaking of the crushed head and heel striking) also has been applied to Mary.

Now,regarding Intercessory prayer
Scriptures are not the SOLE means of how God has graced us with His revelation. God gave us the WORD, not a word of the Bible alone. This WORD gave His teachings to His apostles to teach and preach to the rest of the world. Nowhere did Christ commission a Bible to be written to "back up" His teachings or the teachings of the Apostles.
With that said, here are a few examples of Scriptures...

Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither. And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. Luke 16:24-30

This passage presumes that the dead CAN come and aid people. It is very likely that such beliefs were already prominent throughout Palestine, since the people hearing this parable do not seem to be upset that the dead can come to aid the living... A reading of 2 Maccabees 12 shows that WE here on earth can also in some manner effect the dead.

As to living people praying or asking for intercessions for the dead, again, 2 Maccabees 12 shows the example of this.
God SHARES HIS DIVINE NATURE with us - in that we are co-redeemers, co-workers in the faith with God.
The saints are mediators ONLY because they share in the Mediation of Christ. Christ is the High Priest, yet we, through our Baptism, share in the priesthood of Christ. If we are co-workers with Christ, then why WOULDN'T a saint in heaven's prayers be effective?

Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:5

2 Cor 6: 1 As God's fellow workers we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain.

These are two examples, one showing how Christ has shared His ONE Priesthood with those of the Church. The second example shows how man is involved in God's Work here on earth. And thus, if the prayer of a righteous person is truly effective, and people understood that the saints in heaven with God could somehow impart something upon those on earth (Luke 16 above, then it follows that the saints in heaven are even more powerful in God's plan than we are here.

[pro610]

More Scripture


Matt. 17:1-3; Mark 9:4; Luke 9:30-31 – deceased Moses and Elijah appear at the Transfiguration to converse with Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John (these may be the two “witnesses” John refers to in Rev. 11:3). Nothing in Scripture ever suggests that God abhors or cuts off communication between the living in heaven and the living on earth. To the contrary, God encourages communication within the communion of saints. Moses and Elijah’s appearance on earth also teach us that the saints in heaven have capabilities that far surpass our limitations on earth.

Matt. 26:53 – Jesus says He can call upon the assistance of twelve legions of angels. If Jesus said He could ask for the assistance of angel saints – and He obviously would not have been worshiping them in so doing – then so can we, who need their help infinitely more than Jesus, and without engaging in idolatry. And, in Matt. 22:30, Jesus says we will be “like angels in heaven.” This means human saints (like the angel saints) can be called upon to assist people on earth. God allows and encourages this interaction between his family members.

Matt. 27:47,49; Mark 15:35-36 – the people believe that Jesus calls on Elijah for his intercession, and waits to see if Elijah would come to save Jesus on the cross.

Matt. 27:52-53 - at Jesus' passion, many saints were raised and went into the city to appear and presumably interact with the people, just as Jesus did after His resurrection.

Almost every early Christian Father wrote about Intercessory prayer
Here is just one example of Saint Polycarp who was a direct Disciple of Saint John.

"[T]hat it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples! The centurion then, seeing the strife excited by the Jews, placed the body in the midst of the fire, and consumed it. Accordingly, we afterwards took up his bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps." Martyrdom of Polycarp 17,18 (A.D. 157).

Bring this to free republic and I,ll be happy to discuss this further

I wish you a Blessed evening!

[mcmstaff78]

A few other things to consider...

The saints are not dead:

'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Mat 22:32)

The saints who have gone before us are still one with us, as part of the Church Triumphant:

And I am no longer in the world, yet these are in the world, and I am coming to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those which You have given Me, that they may be one just as We are. (Joh 17:11)

...so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. (Rom 12:5)

Those who have gone before surround us:

So therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every impediment, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, (Heb 12:1)

The prayers of the saints rise up as incense before the throne of God:

And when He took the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls being filled with incense, which are the prayers of the saints. (Rev 5:8)

Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. And much incense was given to him, so that he could offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which is before the throne. And the smoke of the incense went up with the prayers of the saints out of the hand of the angel before God. (Rev 8:3-4)

Finally, their prayers, as righteous men and women, are powerful with God:

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (Jas 5:16)

[ezekiel_37]

about the Pro's comment on Gen 3:15.

You have just discussed the woman's "thy seed", who is (in my opinion) Christ. and the "they" (who bruise) are Christians.....the elect.

You have not spoken of the Serpent's seed. Both the woman and the Serpent have seed.

Discussing weather or not the seeds are spiritual or physical or (as I see it) both, should be the focus, not denial of a doctrine that Christ Himself taught...Tares.

Lazarus...
They were dead, both and in heaven. The rich man ASKS Abraham to send Lazarus.....

The answer is NO. Not allowed. The scriptures are plain on this point. spiritism.

Abraham did NOT answer his PLEA.

So, this example is not valid. They were dead and it was not answered.

Many believe that Elijah and Moses are the 'two witnesses' to come in the tribulation.

Either way, are two that were not buried. Elijah taken by God and Moses-no one knows where he is buried....(my opinion is that he also was taken by God)

They represent the Law and the prophets. The desciples knew them without explination and did not pray to them but spoke to them. Christ is God and God didn't turn to Moses and/or Elijah for support as claimed above...nor did God have a weak moment.

Angels on command of God will work for Him, legions or singular. Daniel called on God, and an angel was sent.

The prayers of the Saints are prayers, their prayers, not ours. We have our own prayers to send to the Father, through the Son...not through His mom or John the Baptist(the greatest man ever)or Moses or Enoch or Elijah.

All wonderful people, but we are to seek the Son, to find the Father.

Find Peace
c

[mcmstaff78]

Ezekiel, you ever ask anyone to pray for you? If so, why if you have your "own prayers to send to the Father"? Think about it.

[pro610]

mcmstaff
quote
"A few other things to consider...

The saints are not dead: "


Thanks for posting this.
I re-read my post#845 and should have been more clear.

Thanks again
I wish you a Blessed day!

[pro610]

You argue everything from the Bible as if Christianity is only a book.
Don,t you realize that is what Islam does?
The "invention" of solo Scripture is the sole reason why Christianity is divided and why we have so many "far out" fundamentalists.
They all twist Scriptures to fit their own exclusive group of believers.
None of this lines up with Christian history.

Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Jesus Christ wrote a book or commanded anyone else to write a Gospel. In fact the only place where it is recorded that He wrote anything at all, is in John 8:6-8. He wrote on the ground with His finger, and to this day, we do not even know what He wrote.

However, He did found a beautiful Church. He made her His Bride, and He made her a teaching Church.
His teaching Church had been in existence for over a decade before the first book of the New Testament was even written.
By the time Revelation, the last book of the Bible was written about 100 A.D., the Church was already on its fifth Pope.


Here is what St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria(A.D367) had to say ,he was the first to list the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament.


"Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the
Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached
by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers On this was the Church founded;
and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian."
St. Athanasius, Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D..

[pro610]

Post #845 is for EZEK

[pro610]

Correction
Post #848 is for EZEK

[pro610]

Many of the Early Church Fathers writings disprove your heretical serpent seed notion

Mary is the "New Eve" Prophecy in Gen 3:15
Over 2000 years of correct Scriptural Interpretations ,typology and Sacred Tradition proves this

Just a few writings
"He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, 'Be it unto me according to thy word.' And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him." Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 100 (A.D. 155).

"[H]e was born of Mary the fair ewe." Melito de Sardo, Easter Homily (c. A.D. 177).

"In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise 'they were both naked, and were not ashamed,' inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; s so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty… Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:22 (A.D. 180).

Zeke, Someone from your serpent seed group told me awhile back that the reason that the Early Church Fathers did not know of the serpent seed was because they lacked "modern tools of knowledge".

Ridiculous!

The early Saints had the "Holy Spirit".
What better tool of knowledge is there then that?

I have work to do!
I wish you a Blessed day and for you to open your heart to the truth

[ezekiel_37]

pro...
<font color="ff0000">Zeke, Someone from your serpent seed group told me awhile back that the reason that the Early Church Fathers did not know of the serpent seed was because they lacked "modern tools of knowledge".

Ridiculous! </font>

That was one persons opinion. The Gospel writers new about the Serpent's seed. After, who's to say. Those with eyes and ears see it clearly.

Today more people are able to learn the truth(with Guidance)because of the concordance(s), manuscripts, and other biblical tools.

The original sin(s) in the 'garden' has been hotly debated in our era and in past era's. What that(those) sin(s) was(were) can only be accurately debated on through the use of scripture, not secondary documents of the early church fathers. They were men, as you and I and are capable of error in their theology, as you and I.

<font color="ff0000">The early Saints had the "Holy Spirit".
What better tool of knowledge is there then that? </font>

Absolutely none. But.....

All theologians claim the Holy Spirit, infact all denominations and theological holds claim Him. Even those that do not believe that Christ is God say they have the Holy Spirit's guidance.
So, I would say the same thing to you.

<font color="ff0000">I have work to do!

</font>so do I

<font color="ff0000">I wish you a Blessed day...
</font>
You aswell

<font color="ff0000">...and for you to open your heart to the truth</font>

This is implying that I do not have the truth.

Pro, that comment is unwarrented. You are trying to end with a salutation of blessings, and then throw a shot at me on the way out. I have the truth. The scriptures make sense to me, without contradiction, which I doubt is possible to do with your (catholic)current theological understanding. That dogma and tradition clouds judgement. I was there.

I am not denying the importance of the early church, nor the leaders. What we have today is not that which they had.

The Word of God is clear.....
Pray to Him, the Father....just as Christ taught.
Praying to angels is a grave sin. Remember the prophetic dreams/visions? Absolutely not allowed.

No where does it say that we shall pray to the dead for intersession on our behalf instead of to God. That's silly...why not skip the middle man....woman.

Now intercessory prayer is taught in many places in the scriptures but ALL that prayed were alive here on earth, and prayed to the FATHER about/for others.

This really should be a simple concept.

May we all find Peace in Christ
c

[pro610]

EZ.
Part 1 of 2
These 2 posts will be my last posts to you regarding serpent seed.
Here is why....
Anyone who observes the behaviour of those who defend this lie can clearly see that such a teaching breeds anger,hate and dissention on both sides most of the time.
This whole serpent seed teaching is based in hate and does NOTHING to glorify Christ.
It produces "rotten fruit" and the "rotten fruit" can only from the evil one.

You said....
"The Gospel writers new about the Serpent's seed."

Absurd statement!

Why do you think there is NO early Christians who believed this nonsense?
Everything else the Apostles taught was ALWAYS handed down,thus we see them in the writings of the Early Church fathers.Such things such as intercessory prayer to the Saints are clearly documented and accepted as taught by Christ.
We have writings from some Christians who were direct Disciples of the Apostles themselves.(I have posted them many times)

I challenge you to come up with any writings from early Christians that support this Serpent seed lie?You can,t!

The only writings I have found on the serpent seed lie was late in the second century by a group that worshipped satan and Saint Irenaues rightfully branded the serpent seed lie as evil.

The Gospel writers DID knew about The Blessed Virgin Mary,s seed as the Mother of Jesus in Geneses 3:15 "and she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

The Early Church fathers were united on this.

The whole purpose of the serpent seed document is to reject the Virgin Mary,s power over satan and to give satan power that was never given.


Arnold Murray and those who teach this lie have elevated satan over the Blessed Mother.

The serpent seed lie is from the devil and is offensive to Jesus and the Blessed Mother!

[pro610]

EZ
I,m showing you this so you can see the TRUTH.
This teaching has stood the test of time and was always believed from the earliest Christians and still to this day by many.
It is the correct teaching because it is grounded in LOVE.
I,m finished.All I can do is pray for you.

This excerpt from St. Irenaeus' classic second century work Against Heresies (Lib. 5, 19, 1; 20, 2; 21,1: SC 153, 248-250. 260-264) shows that the Blessed Virgin Mary is truly a new Eve. It is used in the Roman Office of Readings for Friday in the Second Week of Advent.


The Lord, coming into his own creation in visible form, was sustained by his own creation which he himself sustains in being. His obedience on the tree of the cross reversed the disobedience at the tree in Eden; the good news of the truth announced by an angel to Mary, a virgin subject to a husband, undid the evil lie that seduced Eve, a virgin espoused to a husband.


As Eve was seduced by the word of an angel and so fled from God after disobeying his word, Mary in her turn was given the good news by the word of an angel, and bore God in obedience to his word. As Eve was seduced into disobedience to God, so Mary was persuaded into obedience to God; thus the Virgin Mary became the advocate of the virgin Eve.


Christ gathered all things into one, by gathering them into himself. He declared war against our enemy, crushed him who at the beginning had taken us captive in Adam, and trampled on his head, in accordance with God’s words to the serpent in Genesis: I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall lie in wait for your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.


The one lying in wait for the serpent’s head is the one who was born in the likeness of Adam from the woman, the Virgin. This is the seed spoken of by Paul in the letter to the Galatians: The law of works was in force until the seed should come to whom the- promise was made.


He shows this even more clearly in the same letter when he says: When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman. The enemy would not have been defeated fairly if his vanquisher had not been born of a woman, because it was through a woman that he had gained mastery over man in the beginning, and set himself up as man’s adversary.


That is why the Lord proclaims himself the Son of Man, the one who renews in himself that first man from whom the race born of woman was formed; as by a man’s defeat our race fell into the bondage of death, so by a man’s victory we were to rise again to life.

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Quoting: "This teaching has stood the test of time and was always believed from the earliest Christians and still to this day by many."
End quote.

That means it has stood the Roman Church test. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

[pro610]

the_apostolic_truth_ministries

Here is something for you to research.

Find ANY pre Reformation Christian writings that interpret the Women mentioned in Genesis 3:15 being anyone other then the Blessed Mother?

I can show you thousands that say Mary is the New Eve.

Do you think the Saints and Martyrs are liers and heretics?

I wish you a blessed Day!

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

Quoting: "Do you think the Saints and Martyrs are liers and heretics?"
End quote.

No, just the Romans.

[pro610]

The ap said
"No, just the Romans"

Do you realize that you unknowingly just called
Saint Agnes of Rome- the 12 year old Martyr a heretic

Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge what you don,t understand?

http://www.domestic-church.com/CONTENT.DCC/19990101/SAINTS/stagnes.htm
Excerpt
Agnes, a young Christian convert, is honored as one of the four great virgin martyrs of the Christian Church. She died for her faith in the early fourth century during the reign of Diocletian (284-305), the Roman emperor who ordered the last great persecution of Christians, starting in early 303. St. Agnes, not only had no desire to marry, but was prepared to die for the sake of her faith and her virginity as "the bride of Christ", rather than become the wife of the son of a Roman prefect. She was martyred when she was only 12.

I can show you some other Roman Saints who gave of themselves to the will of GOD if you wish?

[the_apostolic_truth_ministries]

For the answer to this question, see "What the Roman Church does not want you to know."

[ezekiel_37]

Pro,

I wrote
"The Gospel writers new about the Serpent's seed."

you said
<font color="ff0000">Absurd statement!

Why do you think there is NO early Christians who believed this nonsense? </font>

Early Christians did know about it. They wrote about it in Scripture. I am suprised that you don't see this.

See the parable of the Tares
John8


<font color="ff0000">The Gospel writers DID knew about The Blessed Virgin Mary,s seed as the Mother of Jesus in Geneses 3:15 "and she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

The Early Church fathers were united on this. </font>

What? That is not the Words of the verse and leads into another direction. Stay with the right words. Wow!

<font color="ff0000">The whole purpose of the serpent seed document is to reject the Virgin Mary,s power over satan and to give satan power that was never given. </font>

Huh? The Virgin was a woman. The only power she had over Satan was through Our Lord Christ and the protection of God and the angels...not her power. Not the power of man/woman. Satan is the god of this world and has plenty of power....now and then....


<font color="ff0000">Arnold Murray and those who teach this lie have elevated satan over the Blessed Mother. </font>

Satan elevated himself. The Blessed Mother is a human being, not more and no man is to worshipped or prayed to, neither any angel....

find me a place (in the bible)where we are told to pray through her name.

<font color="ff0000">The serpent seed lie is from the devil and is offensive to Jesus and the Blessed Mother!</font>

or....it is the truth and the supression of this truth is of the devil and is offensive to Christ and ALL those who surround His thrown.

We can continue to discuss this if you wish, but I am not interested in what the early Church Fathers said....as far as proof of Doctrine.

My Doctrine comes from the Word, rightly divided as I see it, and not from a man's opinion from 1700 years ago.

Just because I am told to pray to her, doesn't make it right, and it goes against everything that I read in the Holy Bible.

And just because someone calls the Serpent Seed Theology a lie and racist, doesn't make it so.

The Serpent definitely has seed.
The Tares are identified by Christ as these seed.
They are correctly identified by Christ as both the seed of the Devil and of Cain.

John 8
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


There is Truth in Christ
c

[ezekiel_37]

Pro,

I wrote
"The Gospel writers new about the Serpent's seed."

you said
<font color="ff0000">Absurd statement!

Why do you think there is NO early Christians who believed this nonsense? </font>

Early Christians did know about it. They wrote about it in Scripture. I am suprised that you don't see this.

See the parable of the Tares
John8


<font color="ff0000">The Gospel writers DID knew about The Blessed Virgin Mary,s seed as the Mother of Jesus in Geneses 3:15 "and she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

The Early Church fathers were united on this. </font>

What? That is not the Words of the verse and leads into another direction. Stay with the right words. Wow!

<font color="ff0000">The whole purpose of the serpent seed document is to reject the Virgin Mary,s power over satan and to give satan power that was never given. </font>

Huh? The Virgin was a woman. The only power she had over Satan was through Our Lord Christ and the protection of God and the angels...not her power. Not the power of man/woman. Satan is the god of this world and has plenty of power....now and then....


<font color="ff0000">Arnold Murray and those who teach this lie have elevated satan over the Blessed Mother. </font>

Satan elevated himself. The Blessed Mother is a human being, not more and no man is to worshipped or prayed to, neither any angel....

find me a place (in the bible)where we are told to pray through her name.

<font color="ff0000">The serpent seed lie is from the devil and is offensive to Jesus and the Blessed Mother!</font>

or....it is the truth and the supression of this truth is of the devil and is offensive to Christ and ALL those who surround His thrown.

We can continue to discuss this if you wish, but I am not interested in what the early Church Fathers said....as far as proof of Doctrine.

My Doctrine comes from the Word, rightly divided as I see it, and not from a man's opinion from 1700 years ago.

Just because I am told to pray to her, doesn't make it right, and it goes against everything that I read in the Holy Bible.

And just because someone calls the Serpent Seed Theology a lie and racist, doesn't make it so.

The Serpent definitely has seed.
The Tares are identified by Christ as these seed.
They are correctly identified by Christ as both the seed of the Devil and of Cain.

John 8
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


There is Truth in Christ
c

[pro610]

EZ
I,m willing to give my life and salvation to SAY that that satan did NOT have sex with EVE and produce cain.

Are willing to give your life and Salvation to say that satan had sex with EVE and produced Cain?

This is your final question.

DO you have the guts to answer this question?

[ezekiel_37]

I teach this.

Therefore I know I shall be judged for it by God.

Just as you will be for what you teach.

To answer your question,

My life and soul is not mine to give. I already gave it up(I really never owned it anyway).
I SHALL be judged for it, and I know this, so I already am willing and have been so without ever being asked that question. This is not a game. I fully understand the opposition that this truth brings.

Tradition vs biblical truth, revealed through pattern/example in His Word with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Let's review why the Serpent Seed is true.

Line to Christ detailed
Line against Christ detailed

Fallen angels had children with Adam's daughters(Gen6)(Jude)
Satan is a fallen angel(Job)(Isa)(Eze)
Satan was in the Garden(Gen)(Eze)
Satan "fully seduced" Eve..beguiled(Genesis 3; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14)

Satan as the Serpent-named so figuratively for his brilliant shiny skin- has seed or offspring(Gen3:15)

Adam and Eve covered their genitalia, not their mouths.
The commandment Eve repeats, and then adds to by stating "neither shall we touch it"
touch is a euphemism meaning to lie sexually with...

See the very next usage of the word touch in the bible. This point should be becoming clearer now.

So, God destroys the Giants, the offspring of the Sons of God who are the fallen angels, as we are told in the flood...the reason for the flood.

Cain's lineage separate from Adam's, not listed as Adam's first born son or son at all.

Cain's lineage detailed to the flood.

Later on in the Word, Giants make an appearance, as we are told about in Gen 6. Also the kenites(Cain's sons) and descendants must have survived the flood, for they are there after it.

but back to Eve.

She is named by Adam.
Adam names her Eve because she is pregnant.
She is named Eve before Adam "knows" her.(another euphemism that most people see). Therefor she is already pregnant before Adam "knows" her.

Cain and Abel are twins, opposite in spirit. Cain a murderer and Abel righteous.

Cain goes east and marries (someone that is not of his race for there were no women of his race yet), starts a family, builds a city. That city is Babylon. See Rev for further comparison.

So, Kenites are not in the line to Christ. They are separate, not Hebrew, not from Jacob who is Israel. Not of the 12 tribes. This is a fact.

Yet, they sneak in and are counted among Judah during a cencus. See 1Chr2:55. They are the scribes.

The scribes are the main earthly force behind the crucifiction of Christ. And most Christians think that the Jews killed Him but in reality it was the scribe kenites, masquerading as Jews. See Rev2/3 for the 'synagog of Satan', the central theme spoken of by Christ to the 2(of 7) churches that Christ is happy with.

OK, next...

con't.

[ezekiel_37]

Then we have the parable of the tares.
After the parable, it becomes no longer a parable as Christ tells the scribes strait out who they are and what would happen at the end of the age.

See Mat 13

Mat 13:35 <font color="119911">That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. </font>

secrets revealed

36 <font color="119911">Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. </font>

after the parable is given, the disciples didn't get it and now are given the meaning of said parable

37 <font color="119911">He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; </font>

38 <font color="119911">The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; </font>

39<font color="119911"> The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

</font>How about John 8

38 <font color="119911">I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. </font>

39 <font color="119911">They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. </font>

Abraham is not their father. They are not of his lineage. They are not Hebrews

40<font color="119911"> But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. </font>

41<font color="119911"> Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. </font>

Seems the notion of fornication to produce these people (scribes)was not uncommon.

42<font color="119911"> Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. </font>

43 <font color="119911">Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. </font>

eyes and ears

44 <font color="119911">Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. </font>

Satan---Cain---Kenites(among other names given in the Word)---Scribes(pretending to be Jews)---those that claim to be Jews but are of the synagog of Satan.

Seems like a seed line to me. Seems like there quite a lot of biblical proof of the line of Satan, the serpent's seed.

In All Honesty, the burden of proof is no longer on me but on you to disprove what I teach, for I have provided you with much biblical proof.

No tradition, just proof.
I'm hoping that there is more conversation between us.

Peace in Christ
c