MuttleyLaff's Posts

Nairaland Forum › MuttleyLaff's Profile › MuttleyLaff's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 (of 441 pages)

Christianity Etc › Re: Will You Enjoy Heaven or even want to go there If ? by MuttleyLaff: 12:46am On Jul 13, 2015*

frosbel:
Will You Enjoy Heaven or even want to go there?

If into honeymoons, why not...
The fact is brides and grooms always look forward to their honeymoons
Heaven is no different, albeit a honeymoon destination, it is still a trip to return from, back down earth to.

frosbel:
If you know that 80% of your family members and perhaps spouse, parents or even kids and relatives will be tortured in an eternal oven for all eternity, with no respite or mercy?

If all the poor people who suffered on this earth without knowing Christ will be tortured forever, making their current suffering a child's play?

It always feels good to take a stand for the truth and God's word instead of honoring the traditions of men and false doctrines
God intent is to destroy sin, to destroy the devil and to destroy all the works of the devil

Ordinarily upon death, one passes on to Sheol/Hades/Hell and is oblivious to activities in side of the land of the living
but funnily enough, these same death and Sheol/Hades/Hell in the future are to be destroyed by getting thrown into a Lake of Fire

There is no torture chamber, the Lake of Fire is not a sadistic eternal burning place
but is where to carry out the permanent destruction of death and Sheol/Hades/Hell
and the process or event is tagged/signified as the second death (i.e. second state of oblivion)

johnydon22:
Well am sure you know thats not an easy choice, staying in heaven drinking milk and honey

SMH, since when has heaven turned to the land where the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites once lived - a land flowing with milk and honey

johnydon22:
while others burn and scream in an eternal flame, i can't live like that forever because that itself will be hell for me

¹Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.
²And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
³I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying,
“Look, God’s home is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them.
⁴He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever.”
⁵And the one sitting on the throne said, “Look, I am making everything new!” And then he said to me, “Write this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true.”
⁶And he also said, “It is finished! I am the Alpha and the Omega—the Beginning and the End. To all who are thirsty I will give freely from the springs of the water of life.
⁷All who are victorious will inherit all these blessings, and I will be their God, and they will be my children.
⁸“But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and all liars
—their fate is in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Revelation 21:1-8

The interesting bit of the fiery lake of burning sulfur, the burning aside, is the smell of hell and the knowledge that inhalation of air containing high levels of hydrogen sulfide (i.e. similar to the smell from farting) does cause death.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why Didn't God Forgive Adam And Eve by MuttleyLaff: 9:29pm On Jul 12, 2015*

tunaguy:
I think about this most of the time

It's good to just sit still and quietly think

tunaguy:
why God didn't forgive Adam and eve and decided to forgive us that take part in bigger sins

Instead of an admittance of sinning and an expression of regret or show of remorse
there was none of that but a lot of pointing at one another and a blame game going on.

God nonetheless did forgive Adam and Eve, this He started with a promise of redemption in Gen 3:15
and the act of love in Gen 3:21,
Apart from the garment making done in Gen 3:21 for Adam and Eve, shedding of blood & forgiveness took place first.
The correlation between shedding of blood & forgiveness is explained away in Hebrews 9:22 and Leviticus 17:11

As Moses' Teachings tell us,
blood was used to cleanse almost everything,
because if no blood is shed, no sins can be forgiven
- Hebrews 9:22

for the life of the body is in its blood.
I have given you the blood on the altar to purify you, making you right with the LORD.
It is the blood, given in exchange for a life, that makes purification possible.
- Leviticus 17:11

Adam passed on this important knowledge he saw God perform and learned from Him to his sons too, but Abel got killed by his brother practising it

tunaguy:
God did not just have mercy on them

God would have blasted them to obliteration, if He didn't have mercy on them

²²The faithful love of the Lord never ends! His mercies never cease.
²³Great is his faithfulness; his mercies begin afresh each morning
- Lamentations 2:22-23

He has not dealt with us as our sins deserve
or repaid us according to our offenses
- Psalm 103:10

To relate with Lamentations 2:22-23, Psalm 103:10 and to understand "... His mercies begin afresh each morning"
try and recall what God did for Adam & Eve, after Cain killed Abel, his brother.

tunaguy:
he also cursed them

Haba, Chief how and where did God curse Adam or Eve?

God cursed the serpent alright, saying:
"Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field..."
but He neither cursed Adam or Eve,
He only affirmed a fact, when He said to Adam that:
"the ground is cursed because of you" or "cursed is the ground because of you"

This is perfectly understandable,
as the ground referred to here, is the garden of Eden, which because of Adam, is no longer immuned.

The fact of the matter is that, when Adam ate the fruit, he embraced and welcomed in death.
This unleashed and opened a Pandora's box affecting not just only Adam
but all and anything that has connection with the ground

Eden, has inherited Adam's bad luck of unfavorable outcomes
(i.e. Eden, like Adam too, lost its divine protection from the process of degenerating)
Eden, like the ground outside, which incidentally is what Adam is made up off or made from,
is now responsive to a life of toil, blood, sweat & tears
and will turn into a/become a wilderness (i.e. Matthew 4:1 or Mark 1:12)

tunaguy:
I feel like some part of the puzzle are missing

The missing puzzle pieces are trust and repentance

Adam did not trust God's word
even after committing the sin by the eating, he did not show any signs of regret or remorse (i.e. repentance)
instead, when queried about the fruit, he tried to justify the eating, saying:
“The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

This is what the Sovereign LORD, the Holy One of Israel, says:
"In repentance and rest is your salvation,
in quietness and trust is your strength,
but you would have none of it
- Isaiah 30:15

tunaguy:
is God really a changeable God

No, God actually always remains eternally the same.
He is the unchangeable Changer
From the very beginning, Eden and up to now, it is never an issue of God changing,
but is more of, God taking actions,
God dealing with the sin-problem and the repercussions introduced into the system when Adam strained the relationship between man and God.

The gift of Salvation, restoring that lost relationship, the Kingdom of Heaven
and not creating a religion, is the Good News Jesus preached and taught

"I am the LORD, and I do not change.
That is why you descendants of Jacob are not already destroyed
- Malachi 3:6

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Should Men Of God Handle Weapons by MuttleyLaff: 12:24pm On Jul 12, 2015*

^^^
I picked up the hardcopy of the above "Testify" free tabloid last week in the bakery where I do my weekly "Agege" bread purchase.
Found the "He that answereth by fire(arms)" article written by one Kingsley Ahamefulah very interesting then
and now have found the opportunity to reproduce it here as it is relevant to this topic

When talking of weapons the disciples definitely handled weapons, were armed with them and Jesus didnt complain about it
Jesus only complained when Peter actually used the sword to cut off one of the temple guard's ear when they came to arrest Jesus.

Now some would be tempted to quote verses like Luke 22:36, to pass on that Jesus advised his disciples to buy physical weapons or swords:

³⁵And he said to them,
"When I sent you without a money bag and without wallet and shoes, did you lack anything?
And they were saying to him, "Nothing!"
³⁶He said to them,
"From this hour, whoever has a money bag should take it and thus also a wallet,
and whoever lacks a sword, let him sell his tunic and buy a sword for himself
- Luke 22:35-36

The truth and fact of the matter is that, Jesus wasnt talking of physical swords in Luke 22:36 but rather He was talking of the word of God

Conventional wisdom in Hebrews 4:12, has it that, the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword

For the word of God is living and all-efficient,
and much sharper than a double edged sword,
and it pierces to the separation of soul and spirit and of joints, marrow and of bones,
and judges the reasoning and conscience of the heart.
- Hebrews 4:12

Proverbs 23:23 and Ephesians 6:17 even elaborates on what message Jesus really was passing on to the disciples in Luke 22:36 when he talked of buying swords

Buy truth (and do not sell it), [that is,] buy wisdom, discipline, and understanding
- Proverbs 23:23

Also take salvation as your helmet and the word of God as the sword that the Spirit supplies.
- Ephesians 6:17

Christianity Etc › Re: Should Men Of God Handle Weapons by MuttleyLaff: 11:52am On Jul 12, 2015*

MOORCHMOORE:
I remembered in my secondary school day, My School Principal a Catholic Rev. Fr.
He used to threaten students that if he see us Jumping fence or sneaking out of school at night, he will shoot the person, he even claimed he has a camera that can capture your face when taken from your back side. With all these both teachers and students are scared of him.

But he suprise us all the day a new hostel (designed by oldboys association) dedicated. I watched him open his white Mercedes Benz, brought out a double barrel gun professionally cork & explod 6 bullet.

Also I've had cases were armed robbers were repelled at parish house by a priest, pastors using guns during Elections.

My?
Should Men of God handle weapons.

Cc: Lalasticlala, OAM4J

[size=34pt]He that answereth by fire(arms)[/size]

https://s21.postimg.org/jrlv2h3wn/gun_Church.jpg

Opinions are divided in many US churches as some church goers believe that their faith in God only can protect them. Whilst others believe that faith in God is much stronger if they have their guns tightly concealed inside their Bibles during church services.

When associate pastor Brian Ulch is preaching at Trinity Lighthouse Church in Denison, Texas, he’s armed with a Glock (a type of pistol).
It sits on his right side just under his suit jacket or dress shirt. And when he’s not preaching, he’s training other churchgoers around the state to protect themselves.

In Jackson, Michigan – as Bishop Ira Combs preached the gospel on the pulpit, he was flanked by a man on each side of the pulpit, each armed with handguns beneath their suit coats. Other members of the church’s security team were scattered among the crowd. Congregants did not know who was armed and who was not – an undercover approach that is part of the security plan.

He reassured his flock, the shootings that killed nine people in a Charleston church could not happen here. “If they had security, the assailant would not have been able to reload,” Combs declared. “All of us here are not going to turn the other cheek while you shoot us.”

He was referring to the mass shooting on the evening of 17 June 2015, at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston, South Carolina, United States. Nine people were killed including the senior pastor, state senator Clementa Pinckney; a tenth person was shot and survived.

The 17 June church shootings in Charleston, have ignited fierce debates within and outside the country over hate crimes, the Confederate flag, and gun control.

They also have laid bare an uncomfortable truth for religious leaders: churches and other houses of worship. Such places can be among the most vulnerable, especially because they are the most open and welcoming places in the community.

“Nobody should have to worship in fear or be looking over their shoulder,” said Charles Ellis, pastor of the Greater Grace Temple, a Pentecostal megachurch in Detroit with 6,000 members.

Ellis’ church has a trained, armed, 25-man security force, nicknamed “The Ministers of Defense.” Many have backgrounds in law enforcement. Some are stationed conspicuously on the stage while others blend in with the crowd.

Not everyone supports the presence of guns in sanctuaries that are supposed to be devoted to peace and reflection.

At Denison, Texas, Ulch says “We feel like we owe it to our congregation to engage any type of threat. If people aren’t willing to combat a threat, then they’re making themselves vulnerable.”

Church goers at Tulsa are concern about such threats, as a result one business owner in Tulsa, Oklahoma, has offered free gun training to local pastors.

Many pastors argue that arming congregants go against religious teachings of non-violence and that guns have no place in a place of worship. Many states, including South Carolina, specifically prohibit guns in church. “The presence of a cross in our sanctuary reminds us that God’s response to violence is never greater violence,” Pastor Baron Mullis of Atlanta’s Morningside Presbyterian Church a told a local TV, WGCL-TV. “This is a place of peace. … This is not a place for guns.”

But increasingly, a more states have recently passed laws allowing concealed weapons in churches, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Illinois and North Dakota.

Bryan Crosswhite, president of 2AO, an organisation that advocates for Second Amendment rights, says that roughly 25 states allow concealed carry weapons in churches. But after the shooting in Charleston, his group is pushing for more states to open up their churches to firearms.

“Churches are often gun-free zones,” Crosswhite says. “That makes them a major target for those who go to worship. In most churches, the congregation has their back to the doors. People could walk right in and shoot so many people if you don’t have a plan in place.”

Several organisations specifically work with churches to arm congregants that volunteer to provide security. Chuck Chadwick, founder and president of the National Organisation for Church Security and Safety, says that his organisation has worked

with thousands of churches since the group’s founding in 2005, including churchgoers who attend security seminars and pastors who go through gun training.

“We train men and women to run toward the sound of gunfire,” Chadwick says.

NOCSSM has worked with churches around the country, but in Texas, where the organisation is located, Chadwick says his group has trained hundreds of officers who are now deployed throughout the state. Since the Charleston shooting, Chadwick says he’s been getting flooded with calls from churches looking to boost their own security.

The shooting in Charleston has already reignited the push to allow guns in church, but it could potentially have a lasting effect on people of faith who no longer feel like their churches are sanctuaries from violence.

Ulch doesn’t see it that way. “Personally, I would not attend a church if it didn’t have armed security,” he says. “There’s no other place where everyone is welcomed and people can come and go freely without question. I believe every ministry owes it to their people.”
http://www.testifynews.com/2015/07/07/he-that-answereth-by-firearms/

Christianity Etc › Re: No Pastor Has Ever Answered This Questions by MuttleyLaff: 5:20am On Jul 07, 2015

Bigbang2013:
that is what I keep saying you won't just accept the fact that jesus was a son of man born through divine form but with of high blessing from God n of good moral intelligence which makes him a great prophet of time that is why he is most respected ...in the al-quran sometimes I wonder if he God can simply pray to his father someone hu is more above him n can simply teach his disciples how to pray to him den wat r we saying okay through out his lifetime none of the people around in his existence never worship "jesus"

Its God's prerogative how He does whatever He does, afterall He told Moses:
I AM WHAT I AM, I AM THAT I AM or I WILL BE WHATEVER I WILL BE
besides just as you talk to yourself, God too equally is free to do so

Bigbang2013:
but the fact that most of us are born into Christianity makes it difficult for you to understand both religion

Jesus didnt come to set up a religion,
Enough of your going off topic, from now on, can you please stick to the original post and the "forsaken" matter in it

Christianity Etc › Re: No Pastor Has Ever Answered This Questions by MuttleyLaff: 3:03am On Jul 07, 2015

Bigbang2013:
the fact that you pick some point from the Bible doesn't jusify that your points real ..
Because actually none of u have read the original version of Bible
and as a matter of fact if Bible wasn't tampered with they should have just left in a transliteration form
so to say I will conclude dat Bible has been tampered with

Imagine the squirming and the cop out "actually none of u have read the original version of Bible"
Logical deduction instead of abductive reasoning shows that "Sabachthani" is not "forsaken"
The translation and transliteration of "Sabachthani" to "forsaken" or "abandoned" is an error, a violation of what is right
It is an unjust act, a grave injustice and an insult claiming Jesus said God had "forsaken" or "abandoned" Him

This is a serious matter to reveal the truth about "sabachthani"
as "sabachthani" has meanings more than "forsaken" or "abandoned"
This actually should have given any serious minded
and truth seeking believer cause for concern or worry that the truth about "sabachthani" is being gagged

Bigbang2013:
Song of Solomon
2:8 The voice of my beloved! behold, he cometh leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills.
2:9 My beloved is like a roe or a young hart: behold, he standeth behind our wall,
he looketh forth at the windows, shewing himself through the lattice.
2:10 My beloved spake, and said unto me, Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.
2:11 For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone;
2:12 The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land;
2:13 The fig tree putteth forth her green figs, and the vines with the tender grape give a good smell.
Arise, my love, my fair one, and come away.
2:14 O my dove, that art in the clefts of the rock, in the secret places of the stairs, let me see thy countenance,
let me hear thy voice; for sweet is thy voice, and thy countenance is comely.
2:15 Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes.
2:16 My beloved is mine, and I am his: he feedeth among the lilies.
2:17 Until the day break, and the shadows flee away, turn, my beloved,
and be thou like a roe or a young hart upon the mountains of Bether.

furthermore tell me what this actually contribute to us

Apart from learning from the sweet relationship, beauty and aura in the composition,
I dont know what else you're on about with Song of Solomon
but it's suffice to say you can open up a different thread for it

Christianity Etc › Re: No Pastor Has Ever Answered This Questions by MuttleyLaff: 2:09am On Jul 06, 2015*

Syncan:
So you read George Lamsa's claim

I might have, at some time, a very long time ago for that matter, milked George Lamsa's cow but so also have I milked other people cows to make that cheddar post

Syncan:
and that suddenly makes you authoritative in the matter.

If I am being objective why not. I advise you should try objective too. You honestly should, it is healthy.

You should be a stickler for Truth. Be less conservative and more objective instead of hanging/holding on to tradition or dogmatism for dear life

Syncan:
Your question is whether the Aramaic shavaktani (which is spelled sabachthani in Greek) really means “abandoned.”

When will this practice of passing other people's posts, word for word, copy for copy verbatim as ones and not giving or showing the credit

Syncan:
And the answer is yes.

This answer is no.
Go back over the link below, to see how I constructed the question and post
https://www.nairaland.com/2423726/no-pastor-ever-answered-questions#35452634

Syncan:
Though it is a remote possibility that both Mark and Matthew translated it wrong (note that mark used eloi eloi),

Using "Eloi lema" or "Eli lama" has nothing to do with getting anything wrong,
the fact is they at least, both retained "sabachthani" (i.e. the bone of contention)
Mark and Matthew must have known and realised something which is why they both preserved "sabachthani"

I have mentioned before in a previous post that Mark and Matthew were writing to different audiences.
Mark used "eloi" because he was writing to an Aramaic audience and Mark used "Eli" because he was writing to a Hebrew audience

Syncan:
It is still likely that Jesus substituted another word rather than translating azavtani directly, but we have external evidence about shavaktani.

Are these your own very words, or is it another direct lift off a website and it's someone's else work?

Syncan:
In particular, we find the same verb (in different conjugations) in Ezra 6:6 and Daniel 4:23. In each spot, it has to do with “leaving alone.”

Furthermore, we frequently find the Aramaic shavak as a translation for the Hebrew azav, just for example, in Targum Onkolos (aramaic translation) to Genesis 2:24.

SMH, how can I possibly comment on this when it's not even original. This comment is someone's else work

Syncan:
Wikipedia has this to say "The Aramaic word form sebaqtani is based on the verb sebaq/sabaq, 'to allow, to permit, to forgive, and to forsake', with the perfect tense ending -t (2nd person singular: 'you'), and the object suffix -ani (1st person singular: 'me').

Hope you took note of "to allow, to permit, to forgive, and to forsake" in there.
I am more particular that the first two are noted & remembered, as they'll be referred to in my later addressing and/or unfolding post

Syncan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_Jesus.

This is a dead link (i.e. Wikipedia does not have an article with that link)
You should have left out the dot at the end when typing or copying out the link

Syncan:
Lastly, I prefer to choose he was quoting Psalm 22 as He always does concerning various passages that points to his life, many of such were pointed out by the evangelists, referring us to the prophets.

You know the contention is not about if Jesus was quoting Psalm 22 or not,
but is that, Jesus did not quote Psalm 22:1 verbatim, as in, He did not directly word for word or copy for copy it.
Jesus deliberately and consciously changed "azabtani" in Psalm 22:1 to "sabachthani" when He uttered His 4th words on the cross

"azabtani" rightly means forsaken or abandoned but "sabachthani" interestingly, is a homonym.
Homonyms are words which are written alike and sound alike but have different meanings

"sabachthani" is not neccesarily "forsaken or abandoned", as it has multiple meanings
You actually touched on the crucial and other meanings of "sabachthani" above when you did your verbatim copying of "to allow, to permit, to forgive, and to forsake"

"sabachthani" apart from "to allow" or "to permit", actually, also means "to keep"
(i.e. that's my contribution to your "sabachthani" meaning collection)

Examples of homonyms just like "sabachthani" is, are:
rose:
My favorite flower is a rose - "flower"
He quickly rose from his seat - "got up"

date:
His favorite fruit to eat is a date - "fruit"
He took her out on a date - "outing"

Syncan:
Also on that Cross we cannot overlook his other last words such as the last words
"Into the hands I commit my spirit", which comes straight from Psalm 31:5
nor "I thirst" which is believed to come from
Psalm 63:1

I was pleased reading you quoting Jesus' "into your Hands I commit my spirit"
- Jesus' 7th and last word on the cross.

You obviously did not realise that Jesus' 6th word on the cross (i.e. "It is finished'') is from Psalm 22
He paraphrased Psalm 22:31, (i.e. the last verse in Psalm 22)

Lets knuckle down BUT whilst at it, it is necessary to read this unfolding section with an open and receptive mind.

- previous post start -

"Nashatani" AND NOT "sabachthani", is the Aramaic word for Hebrew's "azabtani", which in Psalms

22:1 is the translated English word "forsaken"

For whose benefit there, did Jesus, in Aramaic utter those words?
Who were listening, who there could have understood the language He uttered and who there was the message in that utterance for?

Jesus doesnt speak impetuously, like David did, with "forsaken me" in Psalms 22:1
It just isnt at all part of any of Jesus' m.o

- previous post end -

I asked the above questions, because no matter how much any dying person has talked in life, the final words of most dying persons in life seems to command that little extra respect, as listeners pay special attention to the last words of a dying person, they strain ears to hear and listen to them.

Most people' last words are very profound, and Jesus' is no exception to this.

Jesus as a dying man hung on a cross, uttered the below famous seven dying last words
1) Luke 23:34 - Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.
2) Luke 23:43 - Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.
3) John 19:26–27 - Woman, behold your son. Son Behold your mother.
4) Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 - My God, My God, (this bit is blanked out, to be revealed later)
5) John 19:28 - I thirst.
6) John 19:30 - It is finished (or "It is accomplished'')
7) Luke 23:46 - Father, into your hands I commit my spirit

Most enquiring minds after reading Matthew 27:46 or Matthew 27:50 and then reading Mark 15:34 or Mark 15:37 would ask:
"What were those Jesus' last words on the cross not explicitly mentioned in Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37?"

Well of courtesy of John 19:30 and Luke 23:46, we know what the last words, which were not explicitly mentioned in Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37 are

Syncan, if you keep, "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani", (i.e. Matthew 27:46 and Matthew 27:50) in the mind,
and also keep "it is finished" or "it is accomplished" together with "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" in mind too
(i.e. Matthew 27:50 or Mark 15:37 with John 19:30 and Luke 23:46)
then there is a good chance of understanding what Jesus Christ actually said with "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
(i.e. My God, My God, (the continuing bit here is blanked out, to be revealed later))
and also know what He was saying and was doing with those last dying words.

As previously hinted above "Sabachthani" is a homonym
and it apart from meaning "forsaken or abandoned", it also means "to keep or kept", "to allow" or "to permit"

The final words of most dying persons are very important,
and last words of such dying people, are usually filled with messages for certain people, last wishes, final requests, final blessings, special instructions, cryptic messages (e.g. Jesus switching to Aramaic with "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani'') etcetera

The dying last four words of Jesus were:
4) Matthew 27:46 & Mark 15:34 - My God, My God, (this bit is blanked out, to be revealed later)
5) John 19:28 - I thirst.
6) John 19:30 - It is finished (or "It is accomplished'')
7) Luke 23:46 - Father, into your hands I commit my spirit

The first of the last four words were for the benefit of the disciples, which is why it was spoken in Aramaic (e.g. "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani'')
The last two words are self explanatory and makes everthing else fall into place once the proper translation of the "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" is done.

"Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" means:
"My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny"
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

So we have "My God, My God, this is why You kept me"; "It is finished (or "It is accomplished'')

and then "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit"

Jesus for the benefit of the disciples uttered in Aramaic the purpose
(i.e. the reason all those things were happening, the reason why He was created or the reason why He came to exist)
He then after declaring that the purpose (i.e. the process for salvation) is finished or accomplished
excused Himself with the "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" last word

Jesus chose His word very carefully and didnt speak impetuously when He used "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
He actually was paraphrasing the begining of Psalm 22 (i.e. Psalm 22:1) just like He paraphrased the end of Psalm 22 (i.e Psalm 22:31)
There are a bunch of other scriptures and messianic psalms Jesus paraphrases.
Paul Peter et al also display this behaviour

Jesus deliberating DID NOT quote Psalms 22:1 verbatim or directly
but consciously changed or switched language and used the Aramaic "sabachthani",
so as to make the distinction from the Aramaic "nashatani"

"nashatani" and "sabachthani" are both Aramaic
"Nashatani" is the Aramaic word for the Hebrew word "azabtani", where in Psalms 22:1 it is correctly translated as the English word "forsaken"

Since "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani" is Aramaic, if Jesus meant "forsaken", He would have uttered "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani"
where "Eli, Eli, lama, Nashatani" would mean "My God, My God, why hath Thou forsaken Me"
but He used "Eli, Eli, lama, Sabachthani"
which means:
"My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny" (i.e. I was born to do this)
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

Unlike some saying insisting on "forsaken", the Aramaic speaking disciples and those in the crowd who were from Galilee never for a moment thought that Jesus had said God had forsaken Him. How can that possibly be? God, forsake Jesus? Nah, no, no, no.

Those words, "My God, My God, for this I was kept"
or "My God, My God, this is why You kept me"
or "My God, My God, this is My destiny" (i.e. I was born for this)
or "My God, My God, this is what You permitted"
or "My God, My God, this is what You allowed"

was deliberated spoken in Aramaic by Jesus to God the Father and He spoke it loudly enough for the benefit and hearing of the disciples and others who understood Aramaic. He confirmed the plan, confirmed the reason for His crucifixion, and confirmed the execution of the plan
He did all this to the hearing of the disciples et al, made it publicly official, so that the beautiful message be known and be passed on to the entire world by the hearers of those unforgetable last words.

Syncan:
Read the whole Psalm, short as it is and it becomes clear what Jesus was saying on the cross, especially since he rejected the vinegar soaked sponge after reciting those words.

You must have already read the immediate above and it should have become clear what Jesus correctly was saying on the cross

Syncan:
Sorry, Lamsa's is just a claim by one who spoke syriac of 2000 years old from what Jesus spoke, and I’m not convinced by his (unsupported) claim that Jesus would not have referred to the Psalms in Aramaic.

I am not aware of Lamsa or I, saying Jesus didnt quote from the Psalms

What I have posted is that God never forsook Jesus. Jesus wasnt saying God forsook Him
Here, part of what I wrote is repeated below:
"Quite sure Jesus is fully aware of Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8, Joshua 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 28:20 to not have used that strong "forsaken" word in the manner or way, that the translators want to lead all to believe is what and how He uttered the words"

Christianity Etc › Re: No Pastor Has Ever Answered This Questions by MuttleyLaff: 2:21pm On Jul 05, 2015*

double post

Christianity Etc › Re: A List Of False Teachings In The Roman Catholic Church by MuttleyLaff: 2:20pm On Jul 05, 2015

italo:
What is your proposal for harmonization?

...and how do you mean God is not a Catholic?

urheme:
Remove religion and their stupid doctrines and lets all focus on God

Ok, God is neither a catholic nor a protestant.

https://s16.postimg.org/d1zyejs0l/Denomination.jpg
First step towards ecumenism or "proposal for harmonization" is recognising God is neither a catholic nor a protestant

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › Re: What Did Jesus Meant When He Said; Blessed Are The Poor In Spirit? by MuttleyLaff: 8:09am On Jul 04, 2015

ipreach:
In Matthew 5:3 Jesus said to the multitudes that came to listen to him that '' Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.''

The question now is, what did He meant when he said; Blessed are the poor in spirit?

Simply put, He meant:
Cursed are the rich in flesh, for theirs not, is the Kingdom of Heaven

The "cursed" part is the rude awakening the "rich" in "the works of the flesh", in "legalism", in "dogmatism" etcetera
gets concerning the qualification for Kingdom of Heaven

Christianity Etc › Re: No Pastor Has Ever Answered This Questions by MuttleyLaff: 11:12pm On Jul 03, 2015*

Syncan:
I just read through your "I too know" write up here, you seem to just be arguing with your self to a simple quote that says "Psalm 22". Why you are quarreling with Psalm 22 which obviously began with "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me"? Indeed a messianic psalm which illustrates the agony the suffering servant will go through. Don't be perplexed, God the Father did not abandon his Son in his Son’s suffering but allowed him in his humanity to experience the sense of divine abandonment that humans often feel during times of need, and especially when in sin. Just as we often feel that God has abandoned us when we are suffering (even though this isn’t the case), so the Son of God in his humanity experienced that aspect of human suffering as well. He died for our sins, and the weight of those sins—and thus the feeling of abandonment—must have been exceedingly heavy at that point. This is God's will, and note that Jesus had prayed that "Thy will be done" in the garden of Gethsemane.

By quoting this psalm, Jesus shows that he is the fulfillment of that prophecy and that he will be vindicated, which is evident in the psalm’s triumphant ending. Yes it is the first verse of the Psalm like you pointed out, but Jesus does not need to read the whole Psalm. If i say "The Lord is my shepherd" for example, many will know to complete the rest. He quoted Psalm 22.

As for the Aramaic translation stuff, bring your Aramaic here and show us how it wasn't psalm 22:1.
It's not everything that I want to argue about, but I just had to make myself clear since you quoted my post "Psalm 22".

Dont ever mistake truth for ITK
If the truth is incontrovertible then your swipe is a small price to pay for airing it.

If you thought I was arguing with myself, then...

and your "Don't be perplexed" bit is just hilarious, you must have had a good laugh writing that
but then you seem oblivious of the Socratic method used in the post, you got "perplexed" reading the post,
not realising am asking questions and returning a few odd answers to stimulate critical thinking towards illuminating the truth

Fulfilment of prohecy? Pfft
SMH. Fulfilment of prohecy indeed.

" thus the feeling of abandonment—must have been exceedingly heavy at that point." - LOL, kai listen to yourself
"Agba o le wa lọja, ki ori ọmọ wọ" - ask any igbati/yooba neighbours for the meaning of that
You definitely noticed I used "strong borrowed Psalms 22:1 forsaken word", as opposed to not using the actual word Jesus uttered on the cross

You need to examine the sorroundings and backdrop up to when Jesus uttered those words to ascertain if He was "forsaken"

The fact is Jesus uttered those famous words out in Aramaic,
if He were referring to Psalms 22:1 verbatim, as in word for word, copy to copy, why didnt He repeat it same, as it was in Hebrew?
Why didnt He utter: ""Eli, Eli, lamah azabtani?" in Hebrew like in Psalms 22:1
but instead in Aramaic uttered "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?
Why did Jesus change words, why change "azabtani" to "sabachthani"?
- Obviously they have different meanings, besides the mago-mago, wuru-wuru trying to pass "sabachthani" as "azabtani" clearly is there for any willing to see

"Nashatani" AND NOT "sabachthani", is the Aramaic word for Hebrew's "azabtani", which in Psalms 22:1 is the translated English word "forsaken"

For whose benefit there, did Jesus, in Aramaic utter those words ?
Who were listening, who there could have understood the language He uttered and who there was the message in that utterance for?

Jesus doesnt speak impetuously, like David did, with "forsaken me" in Psalms 22:1
It just isnt at all part of any of Jesus' m.o

Christianity Etc › Re: No Pastor Has Ever Answered This Questions by MuttleyLaff: 9:03pm On Jul 03, 2015

Bigbang2013:
if jesus has the same will has God why did he prayed to God on the cross he even went to an extent of say "father, father why have though forsaken me" do u know the gravity of that word....

"... Father, Father why have thou forsaken me..." is not what was said in the Aramaic language He uttered.
This wrong interpretation has been passed down and incorrectly taught this way

Syncan:
Psalm 22.

So? What about Psalm 22?
That right there, the Psalm 22 you displayed, is the genesis.
By hook or by crook, translators try to align Jesus's utterance on the cross with David's lamentation in Psalms 22:1,
but the two scenarios really arent the same

Not sure of the translators' sincerety when imagining and settling for "forsaken"
when that wasnt what Jesus, in the Aramaic language uttered on the cross.

I do understand, and do see why the translators leaned towards "forsaken"
but going for that strong and "borrowed from Psalms 22:1" "forsaken" word stretched the truth
and obliterated getting the true understanding of what Jesus actually said and/or really meant on the cross

Quite sure Jesus is fully aware of Deuteronomy 31:6, Deuteronomy 31:8, Joshua 1:5 and 1 Chronicles 28:20 to not have used that strong "forsaken" word in the manner or way, that the translators want to lead all to believe is what and how He uttered the words

Christianity Etc › Re: No Pastor Has Ever Answered This Questions by MuttleyLaff: 11:58am On Jul 03, 2015*

Bigbang2013:
if jesus has the same will has God why did he prayed to God on the cross he even went to an extent of say "father ,father why have though forsaken me" do u know the gravity of that word....

"... Father, Father why have thou forsaken me..." is not what was said in the Aramaic language He uttered.
This wrong interpretation has been passed down and incorrectly taught this way

Christianity Etc › Re: Meaning Of Salvation by MuttleyLaff: 11:55am On Jul 03, 2015

Kei144:
In Christianity, salvation means to exit all that Satan brought upon mankind through the eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. There are four major consequences of the fall of man.

1. Sin
2. Diseases (death)
3. Poverty
4. Curses

Total salvation means freedom from ll these.

I see we've shifted from "total freedom" to "total salvation". OK ooo.
Why weren't you this explicit before?

Christianity Etc › Re: Uncountable Problems Of King James Version of the Bible by MuttleyLaff: 9:38am On Jun 30, 2015*

johnydon22:
Op do you know that King James was a Bisexual when he was alive?

SMH
What relevance has this remark or KJ's sexuality or sexual leanings got to do with the heading (i.e. The Problem of King James Version)
or with the original post?

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: I Refuse To Believe That Only 'Christians' Are Saved by MuttleyLaff: 12:13am On Jun 29, 2015*

Image123:
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.
Gnoni. Many times, we humans overate ourselves.
However, the fact remains that God was perfectly happy and satisfied before He created us, and He will be happy and satisfied without us.
Isa 40:17 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity.
Isa 40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?

Dan 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Psa 62:9 Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity.

God knows the end from the beginning

Isaiah 46:10
Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish.

Temporarily forget whatever frosbel has written or posted in the past, just examine the thread's topic and judge it on its own merits
Regardless of the contents of the original post which certainly went off tangent, the thread's heading or topic is not a lie

If according to scripture, it is Jesus who will be doing the judging,
then there is a good chance of likely surprises of non-"christians" saved and springing up in the Kingdom of Heaven

Image123:
The Bible clearly states that God is angry with the wicked every day.
Since the time of Adam, the wicked that have died are not with God, i do not see why God will miss them that much in the future.

The not-wicked too, since the time of Adam, that have died, are not with God too.
The fact of the matter is, God wishes no soul perish, He wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
The key phrase in the last sentence above there is "...come to a knowledge of the truth" (i.e. it's very important to take note of it)

Image123:
satan the devil was closer to God than many men, yet He will spend eternity in hell.

Are you sure it is hell satan is rendezvoused to spend eternity.
I'll leave the not correct "hell" satan's final destination for you to address or do the needful to.

Image123:
God wants us all to spend eternity with Him and many many will, but they will all be people who have the Christ.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Psalm 115:16
The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.

Acts 7:49a
"Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool..."

What God REALLY wants is the RELATIONSHIP and/or fellowship
God can and/or will always visit as He usually did in the beginning with Adam, in Eden
Visiting, that's how God in the beginning spent time with man

In short, what God is REALLY after, like it was in the beginning, is that lost RELATIONSHIP and/or fellowship with man.
This restoration is good news, as the RELATIONSHIP is now stronger and deeper.
Stronger and deeper in the sense that, the Lord God not only is endearing but has become and is now, God the Father

Image123:
It's either Jesus is saying thetruth or He is not.

With Romans 2:11-16 in mind, Jesus and frosbel in different perspectives, are both saying the truth
Jesus is the way through which to have salvation, however the exceptional circumstance cases who didn't know Jesus would be saved too
The latter is what frosbel tried with the heading to bring attention to
but he is getting judged on his past posts and the overzealous in the original post, therefore receiving all these very unpleasant earfuls over the topic

Christianity Etc › Re: I Refuse To Believe That Only 'Christians' Are Saved by MuttleyLaff: 12:12am On Jun 29, 2015

texanomaly:
Thanks for the comments. I've said everything I wanted to say.
I love "The first few minutes of Hell". Hilarious!

"The first few minutes of Hell"?
Is this you turning the original "The first few minutes of Heaven" on it's head Or you fat-fingered Hell in?

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 10:18pm On Jun 28, 2015

italo:
You will have to ask Barnabaseloka and Muttleylaff,

They seem to have assumed ownership of the "spirit."
They know who has the Spirit and who doesn't.
They even know how much of the spirit each person has.

The problem is that that "spirit" tells them contradictory things sometimes.

https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 10:01am On Jun 28, 2015

btoks:
From the last 2 pages, you see an example of how sola scriptura doesn't work.
one person says baptism is important and saves, others say water baptism is obsolete.!
How do we know the truth?

I loved this thats why I liked it
Not everyone handles the truth very well
Not everyone can bear the truth now
Where Sola scriptura is tried and found wanting or doesn't work, then John 16:12-14 kicks in to know the truth

John 16:12-14
¹²“There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now.
¹³When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.
He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. He will tell you about the future.
¹⁴He will bring me glory by telling you whatever he receives from me

Christianity Etc › Re: I Refuse To Believe That Only 'Christians' Are Saved by MuttleyLaff: 8:47am On Jun 28, 2015*

texanomaly:
Because I happen to agree with some of it.

I "liked" this post because I found most of the responses in it to ihedinobi2 agreeable to.

texanomaly:
Especially this:

I believe the Bible is a good guide in some ways. I don't believe the books in the Bible have been translated correctly, or even if the men who chose the books were inspired to choose those particular books.

I completely agree with this, but will tweak it a bit by saying:
"I believe the Bible is a good guide in ~~some~~ ALL ways. I don't believe ~~the~~ ALL books in the Bible have been translated correctly,
or even if the men who chose the books were inspired to choose those particular books"

texanomaly:
Too many men have done the picking and choosing. Too many men have chosen words to replace those words they were unsure of the translation of. Too many men have replaced words that there wasn't a word for in their language.

Are you kidding me with this?! Wow, I completely agree with this too.
In past submissions, I have posted about translators, the politics, their ulterior motives and hidden agenda behind individual bible translations

texanomaly:
I have never believed in only Heaven or Hell. I believe the God of this Earth wants All to return to him, and has prepared "mansions" accordingly. I do believe there will be a judgement. He will judge. Thank God it's not my job, there or here, to judge others.

This almost became predictable, because if not for "Hell" I was nearly 100% agreeing with this.
Hell is a classic example of "Too many men have replaced words that there wasn't a word for in their language"
Jews have no idea of Hell, Jews dont have a Hell, what they have is Sheol
Hell is not Jewish or Aramaic in etymology but actually is an English word based on the Greek concept of a place populated with demons torturing and punishing the dead.
Hell originated from the word Hades, which incidentally is the name of the Greek god, Hades who is in charge of the Greek mythical place of the dead known as the underworld

"mansions", this is a very interesting one. It actually has to do with a Jewish custom prevalent in just before, around and maybe a bit after Jesus' time, am not sure if the practice is still done in Israel or still now done with present Jews
The groom is expected to prepare or build an extension in his father's estate, the extension (i.e. mansion) serves to accomodate the intended bride. The wedding does not take place until when the groom's father is satisfied with the progress and work done by the groom in preparing the extension or building the "mansion"

I completely agree with all you wrote there except for the "hell" choice of word and "I have never believed in only Heaven or Hell" intro.
There is Heaven and there is Sheol, Hell is a Greek concept, never a Jewish one. We can thank the translator for adopting the word Hell/Hades instead of sticking to the original and authentic Sheol word

texanomaly:
Even those who don't worship Christ will have a place in Gods kingdom.
Where that will be I don't know.

https://s8.postimg.org/tktl1ubqd/heaven.jpg
Surprises of seeing many, who didn't worship Christ,
being found in the Kingdom of God

Seems we are back on a roll here because I completely agree with all this, however if they will have a place in Gods kingdom, then in the presence of God there is fullness of joy settles "Where that will be I don't know" for me

texanomaly:
I don't believe it will be in eternal torment.

Dont you just love translators, here we have translators again, at work, horrifically mistranslating and mistransliterating something that means permanent correction to eternal torment

texanomaly:
Before you start quoting Bible verses, don't bother. I'm well aware of its contents.

Must admit, frosbel went a bit OTT, a bit off tangent but if frosbel is now tagged a "false Christian" I wonder what Martin Luther is.
Martin Luther did quite a lot of frosbel's and more, the Germans have Martin Luther to thank for having the Bible readily available in their German mother tongue and be aware of its contents

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 11:47pm On Jun 27, 2015*

osicom:
I never attacked your person for you to attack me.

I am not attacking your person but talked about your post. If it came across as attacking your person, that wasnt the plan or intention, so please deem it fit to accept my apologies for the misconstrued attack

osicom:
We are debating issues here not the person who can use the best of words. Address and discuss the passages in the Bible I quoted.

Exactly, which is why I advised to PLEASE scrutinise the 13 page thread to know what so far has been been written and especially posted by me

osicom:
It is not for you to say baptism is not important. With the numerous passages I cited and examples of people who were baptized, recorded in Bible I am well informed to believe what the bible says on this matter. I never posted my opinion here, what I posted was backed by scriptures I cited.

I can say or repeat same for myself too

osicom:
How do I cause barrier? If I caused any barrier by simply saying exactly how the Bible puts its, so be it. I would rather prefer to be seen as causing barrier, saying exactly how it is, than going with popular notion.

You will see the barrier and how you're causing it soon. Watch out for it in my final post

osicom:
Where are the holes,those passages simple tell of water as a medium of baptism. Where are the inconsistencies? Are you telling me that you do not compare different passages of the bible for proper understanding of a topic? If u think otherwise, then it becomes very difficult to discuss further.

May I bring to your attention that the topic of this thread is "Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism?"
The holes and inconsistencies seen from a mile off, are you building up a case around showing "water baptism" as a requirement for salvation

osicom:
I was supposed to type verse 19 instead of 28. Don't crucify me for what I never intended to type. To tell that it was a mistake, did you not see the reading that accompanied the quotation?

Crucify?
So me saying "There is no such thing as Matt 28:28" and afterwards typing "Correcting you, where is water in Matt 28:19?" is now crucification
and you hard done by it?
I am not saying a word further on the matter, as you might misconstrue it

osicom:
My friend this is not a phantom.

Friend, if Matt 28:28 is not in the Bible, then that's phantom right there for you, it's the brain playing a figment of the imagination tricks on you. Happens to everyone now or then, dont lose sleep over it, am not.

osicom:
I am not building a water baptism doctrine. Did Christ not command baptism, did the apostles not administer it to would-be Christians

Oh yes you are. There is baptism and there is water baptism, so which one are you referring to

osicom:
what about the Ethiopia eunuch, what about Paul? What about the numerous believers in Act chapter 2. I once again implore you to read and see water being used to administer baptism here:

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Act_8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act_8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water[i], both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act_8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Act_10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [/i]

SMH, If and when I say you're concocting, you flip.
Dont you see John 3:3 is out of place with the other quoted verses, its like a swollen like a red sore thumb among them, it doesnt gel with the others
As for John 3:3, why dont you stimulate your palate with "born again" by visiting a post quoting brocab with Ubenedictus cc'ed on it, I think its seven to ten posts above
https://www.nairaland.com/2383797/saved-faith-water-baptism/13#35213348

osicom:
On the issue of which baptism, I agree there were many baptism mentioned in the new testament.
There was John baptism of repentance for the remission of sin Mk_1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Luk_3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
We also read of baptism of suffering of christ:
Mark_10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?
Mar_10:39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Luk_12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
We are read of baptism of the Holy Ghost which empower the Apostle as we see in Act 2:
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat_3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
This passages also made mention of baptism in fire which connotes destruction.
From all these example,we can that baptism (Baptizo from greek) mean to be submerge/immerse/covered/overwhelm in something.

Wheyhey!, are you f_ _ kidding me with this s_ _
Bravo, encore, by the way, I already love you but I think I am now beginning to be in love with you. No homo, that needs to be said too.
Only you have had the balls and stretched your neck to agree and admit all this
I've hinted all this before, gave examples on differences in baptisms to no avail, did illustrations on different ways of using the baptism word, all for nada etc
What you've just submitted is actually part of and is in my final post on this matter

osicom:
In our discussion, one is immersed in water for baptism.

Here is where you and I might be at opposing ends, you seem to leave out baptism of fire and the spirit which John the Baptist said Jesus will baptise all with

osicom:
It is important to note that John's baptism was no longer in effect and was replace by the one commanded by christ. For this reason, those who received John baptism were baptized properly:
Act_19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act_19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Yeepa! You just right there killed it. Aw, wish I could see you, rub your chubby face together and plant a kiss on it.
You be correct guy to "see" this. You sure are "born from above" to "see" all these
Would have loved it if you had managed to shed light on Moses baptism
and particularly talk on what Moses baptism for the Israelites leaving Egypt, John baptism for the Jew and Jesus baptism for believers implies.
It's all good anyway, I hold no one no grudges, we inform only the most important information after careful scrutiny or examination

osicom:
Concoct what? I simple quote and read of baptism of being mentioned and practiced by the 1st century Christians. Yet you say I concocted it. This is not funny. I hope no body accuses you of concocting something when u tell them to stop stealing, repent, believe,do good works and numerous thing you read of in the bible. It becomes a concocted doctrine when one mentions baptism. Hmm. Where is our standard here.

Never mind bro, just watch out for my final post. Concoct, concocted or concocting was just a tongue in cheek, me jokingly saying you added various ingredients (i.e. a verse or two that didnt flow with others) in making up the dish you served.

PS: I waited for you to finish your editing,
a pain those double entry or repeat posts, isnt it and how your post looked like before you properly edited it
Nice one for removing the treble entry or repeat posts

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 9:39pm On Jun 27, 2015

italo:
If this were in Greek, I could have used the Internet to interpret...

Please who can understand and interpret jargons? please tell us...

Was he able to say how Ubenedictus twisted his words?

DILLIGAD. This is a tall order for any Pharisee aka Far-to-see

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 6:26pm On Jun 27, 2015

Ubenedictus:
lol,

you have manage to insult me.

Weldone.

You can show everyone where I lie, if you can't shame on you.

Nicodemus wasnt laughing at that lecture, like you just now did.
brocab took style to tell you that, like that night time visiting Pharisee or shall we "Far-to-see" you're coming across as not "seeing"
You're not acknowledging what you "see".
If you're not accepting or admitting what is in sight, hmm, there is something somewhere or somehow wrong
- the source or origin of your accouchement is being questioned wink

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 3:59pm On Jun 27, 2015*

brocab:
But there is truth. You either walk with it' all you lie about it. Which one are you
Jesus said one must be born again, if there is no denomination, then why is the Lord calling for the body' His Church, His personal army to believe in Him.
We are born again Christians, the Church that belongs to God. There's no other church that stands above the Lords Church, one must be born again.
How about you

cc Ubenedictus
What is "born again"?
Why must anyone be born again?
How did this issue of "born again" come about? What was the background, circumstance and reason?
Why did Jesus bring up the "born again" matter?
How many people on record did Jesus teach or preach "born again" to?
Jesus is known to preach and teach to multitudes, is it on record He preached and taught "born again" to any of the multitudes?
What benefit, was mentioned as the objective of being "born again"?
What is the sharp distinction and/or difference between "born again" and "born of water and spirit"?

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 3:50pm On Jun 27, 2015

Ubenedictus:
Here!

Here what?. What's that suppose to mean?
Again, do you agree that there is no record of Paul ever being water baptised?
If your answer is NO, then show the verse backing your reply which tells of Paul been exactly and explicitly water baptised

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 2:57pm On Jun 27, 2015*

osicom:
I am reiterating my earlier (above) comment by adding the following for those who still kick against water baptism as essential to one's salvation with insurmountable evidence from the Bible.

Until just now, I wasnt going to dignify your posts with comments.
Please scrutinise the thread to know what so far has been written or posted because your post reeks of regurgitations, ill-informed opinions and unnecessary barriers

osicom:
Act_8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Act_8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
Act_9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Act_10:47 Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Too many holes in these poor attempt at trying to gel-together three verses,
too many inconsistencies and you know what they are

osicom:
Water baptism as a 'must step' for whoever want to be born again (to be a christian).
I affirm this because christ said in Matt 28:28:
''Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost''

Please dont cook up a phatom Matt 28:28 and dont try to build a water baptism doctrine on it.
There is no such thing as Matt 28:28
Correcting you, where is water in Matt 28:19?
Have you not read what I hinted about Matt 28:19 to Ubenedictus?

osicom:
Baptism was commanded for numerous reasons among them is the forgiveness of sin Act 2:38 ''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''
It may interest you to know that baptism is not only for the people in the Bible, but for all who God will call Act 2:39
''For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Which baptism was commanded?
What kind of baptism was Peter refering to for the almost 3000 converts there in Act 2:38?
Compare and contrast the following: Moses baptism, John baptism and Jesus baptism

osicom:
Why can we just rely on what the Bible say rather than opposing it with so called knowledge which is like a rage juxtapose with God wisdom.

Ask yourself that question, why can't we just rely on what the Bible say rather than concocting up doctrines and man traditions like Pharisees do
and just bear in mind that to inform is all that's so far being done on this thread, to know is the duty of the readership
Putting out what we ALL, really ought to know, but often like in this case, few, despite all discussed here, which has been very instructive to all, wish they might not have known.

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 10:06am On Jun 27, 2015

MuttleyLaff: Like tithing, it is past its "best before" date
but people still use tithing as well as water baptism for sentimental or ignorance reason.
https://www.nairaland.com/2383797/saved-faith-water-baptism/2#34869078

Shown above is the link for the original discussion between muttleylaff and esere826.
This is snapped up and seized by Ubenedictus.
He then vindictively blew it out of proportion, italo in tandem, too has unashamedly dissected it with ulterior intent and brought it up here, as seen following below

Ubenedictus: you simply said, water baptism was obsolate and those who do it, do so out of ignorance and sentiment! Abi no be so?

MuttleyLaff: Ubenedictus, you know how we got to me making that remark
I didnt abracadabra pluck it out of the air and just blurt out that truth like the manner you're twisting and incorrectly making it out that way
Dont you get tired of this Ubenedictus? You've had a field day of straw-man at my expense

brocab: These Catholic's lie all the time, they are good at twisting words around only because they don't know any truths, all they can't seem to find the truth, that makes any sense. Just remember you are dealing with the unsaved-who believe they were saved in baby baptism.
keep on pushing the word of God into them, Satan never wins.

italo:
@scholars8200, osicom, plus can you help us judge who is lying here?

Let MuttleyLaff show us how Ubenedictus twisted his words and incorrectly made it up, please

MuttleyLaff: 9:10am On Jun 19
Excuse my language
but you've probably guessed that I dont give a Foxtrot-Uniform-Charlie-Kilo about what type of water are in those passages,
as my stance on water baptism is no secret.
Do it, if you're compelled or feel the need to
but if you dont, please do not lose sleep over it. It isnt a do-or-die fanaticism

I just love it when people pull out the heresy card and play it grin grin grin
Something must have rattled and got them fidgety to do that

Nota bene, I am very particular and more concerned about John 3:5 and John 7:8
Do you agree both verses have nothing whatsoever to do with physical or literal water
https://www.nairaland.com/2383797/saved-faith-water-baptism/5#34918196

MuttleyLaff: 7:51am On Jun 24
God bless you.
This exactly is the genesis of this whole matter.
Before it spilled into this thread, it started between Kei144 and I, here https://www.nairaland.com/2352063/enter-kingdom-god-now#34519061
https://www.nairaland.com/2383797/saved-faith-water-baptism/8#35090589

Ubenedictus:
lol,

i did not lie, i simply wrote what you said.

You said baptism is an expired, obsolate practice and those who practice it do so out of ignorance and sentiments, that was what you said, isn't it?

You guys are employing delay tactics, to distract with another straw-man
and so prevent the submission of the promised last post which will settle and put the final nail in this whole thing

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 8:58am On Jun 27, 2015*

italo:
I was talking to someone with a different idea of the events than you have.

He believes that one is saved, with their sins washed away when they believe. He believes that Paul was baptised with water in Acts 22:16.
But he claims that Paul already had his sins washed away before Acts22:16.

So I told him that to show that all those are one event. When you asked me how baptism with water is done, I told it is done by sprinkling, immersion or pouring, invoking the Holy Trinity(Matt28:19)

OK, never mind, seems you're arent aware of the additions inserted in that passage. Seems you dont want to admit whose name specifically was used by the Apostles, Paul included when baptising and/or water baptising after Jesus' death and resurrection

italo:
You expect me to answer you, but you still can't tell me the effect of baptism with water...and what Peter meant by "that water" in 1 Pet3,20,21 which I'm asking for the third or fourth time

Even if you tried, you know you'll only get yourself tied into a twist with the gymnastics flirtation with Matt 28:19 "invoking the Holy Trinity".
I like how you avoided or sidestepped the question though

I had answered you in so many ways before
but you seem not ready for the truth, talkless of recognising it
Forom another angle, try, a glorified "Placebo effect"?

italo:
That shows you to be a dishonest debater who is only interested in winning an argument even if it means avoiding pertinent questions and diverting with trivial matters.

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks
To you, this is a debate, to you, this is about winning, to you, this is about scoring cheap points.
All this, is to you is scalping-cutting for hanging trophies

You, Syncan and Ubenedictus have continually wielded and threw about one form of straw-man to another,
all in different shapes, forms and guises
and you have the cheek you accuse someone else or say that, that one is avoiding pertinent questions and diverting with trivial matters

When answers are given, you single out a sentence
and without taking in account the train thought nor the flow of the discussion, build indictments with them.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 8:57am On Jun 27, 2015*

brocab:
It doesn't matter how you catholic's try and twist the scriptures around just to suit yourselves, even if it doesn't make any sense, we protestants are trying to work around you.
It's not easy If you were saved as we are saved' there wouldn't be a war against you Catholic's and us protestants.

brocab:
These Catholic's lie all the time, they are good at twisting words around only because they don't know any truths, all they can't seem to find the truth, that makes any sense. Just remember you are dealing with the unsaved-who believe they were saved in baby baptism.
keep on pushing the word of God into them, Satan never wins.

italo:
One mad dog: These Catholic's lie all the time, they are good at twisting words around only because they don't know any truths, all they can't seem to find the truth, that makes any sense. Just remember you are dealing with the unsaved-who believe they were saved in baby baptism
keep on pushing the word of God into them, Satan never wins.

italo:
@scholars8200, osicom, plus can you help us judge who is lying here?

Let MuttleyLaff show us how Ubenedictus twisted his words and incorrectly made it up, please.

https://s16.postimg.org/d1zyejs0l/Denomination.jpg
I hear you brocab, but God is neither Catholic, Protestants etc
There is no denomination in the Kingdom of God

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 7:38am On Jun 26, 2015

italo:
If Paul had been baptized with his sins washed away, invoking the name of the Lord, Jesus would not have told him to do them again through Ananias (as things he must do) Acts 22:10.

Baptism is done, invoking the name of the Lord and it washes away sins. They are one event, not separate.

It makes no sense to tell Paul "wash away your sins" alone.

And Paul had been chosen before he gave his life to Christ.

Acts 22:14. - Appointed for chosen, A.V.; to know for that thou shouldest know, A.V.; to see the Righteous One for see that Just One, A.V.; to hear a voice from for shouldest hear the voice of, A.V. Hath appointed thee; προεχειρίσατό σε, a word found in the New Testament only here and in Acts 26:16, and in Acts 3:20 (R.T.). In classical Greek it means mostly "to get anything ready beforehand;"

Jesus also chose Matthew when he was deep in his sins. Nothing strange.

So all your weak excuses come crumbling down.

Paul believed, but he still had to be baptized and have his sins washed away, invoking the Lord (one event - exactly as baptism has always been done in Christianity). When you try to separate them, you appear to mean that baptism is just to pour water on a person.

Alarm bell triggered...

What does the bolded mean and especially "still had to be baptized have his sins washed away, invoking the Lord"?
What is invoking the Lord in "baptized have his sins washed away, invoking the Lord" about?
Is there and has there always been only one baptism in Christianity?

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 10:02pm On Jun 25, 2015

Ubenedictus:
you simply said, water baptism was obsolate and those who do it, do so out of ignorance and sentiment! Abi no be so?

Ubenedictus, you know how we got to me making that remark
I didnt abracadabra pluck it out of the air and just blurt out that truth like the manner you're twisting and icorrectly making it out that way
Dont you get tired of this Ubenedictus? You've had a field day of straw-man at my expense

In my next post, lets (i.e. italo, Syncan, you, Ubenedictus and I) put this matter to rest once and for all.
You and italo are going to love it. Syncan upon reading it, as usual might stay aloof
You better go put on a gum shield Ubenedictus, as the glove is coming off now.

I have countlessly said and gave examples,
that baptism is not an exclusive use meaning "water baptism" or only to be associated with "physical water baptism"
Forewarned is forearmed. I am taking no prisoners, so dont say there were no warnings wink

Christianity Etc › Re: Are We Saved By Faith Or By Water Baptism? by MuttleyLaff: 11:04am On Jun 25, 2015

Syncan:
Ubenedictus may continue expounding on allusions and prefigures used by the apostles to teach. For me, The apostles, obeying Jesus baptized with water and the Holy Spirit's presence was made manifest. In this baptism I die with Christ and rise with Him a new man. I am born again.

https://i57.tinypic.com/34sp9j4.gif
Chai. Diarisgud ooo, see Syncan, avoiding action, pushing Ubenedictus into line of fire and using him as a human shield LOL

Syncan you wont get off that easily, please throw light ON EACH of the following, then compare and contrast them:
Moses baptism, John baptism and Jesus baptism

Have a go, dont be shy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 (of 441 pages)