₦airaland Forum

Ubenedictus:
lol,

it is effective because of the life death and resurrection on Jesus, nobody is argueing that.

OUr point is that "IT IS EFFECTIVE"

Ubenedictus:
even after resurrection Jesus still commanded baptism, what is your point?

Ubenedictus:
that is you job, you are d guy trying to disprove baptism. I'll not do your work for you.

Ubenedictus:
I'll simply say the baptism on Moses was a figure, that of John was in anticipation for repentance. That of Jesus make us partakers in him.

italo:
Above is what you said about baptism.

Jesus commanded his apostles to baptize and they kept doing it...now you teach us that it is "sentimental" and "ignorant" and "expired"

italo:
You are dodging my question and asking yours.

italo:
1 Peter 3:20 those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat.
Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.
21And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you,
not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience.
It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You earlier said baptism is the picture, while the passage says that "that water is the picture of Baptism. A contradiction!

italo:
Which water is Peter referring to as "that water?"

italo:
I didn't see the "it's effective because..." part. what's effective? The same baptism you've been telling us is obsolete? What's the effect?

italo:
And you're that "spirit of truth" that teaches us what is contrary to what Jesus and the apostles taught by the Holy Spirit. The same "spirit" that makes hundreds of thousands, millions of protestant groups teach contradictory doctrines. The same "spirit" that the Apostle told us would bring new teachings and we must flee from them.

Some teach that abortion is good...and say the "Spirit of truth" has come. Some even engage in sexual immorality and say they are using it to anoint the women...with the "Spirit of truth." Some say baptism is now obsolete/useless...and claim to be taught by the Spirit of truth to contradict Jesus who is truth himself. may God have mercy on all of you.

italo:
Why should I throw light on those? You throw light on them and show us how it makes Jesus' baptism useless/obsolete.

Ubenedictus:
sorry dear, i was hinting to learning more English because you seem to be messing up a pretty clear passage.

I already read 1 cor 10 and it describes the types on baptism in the old testament, it actually wasn't discussing new testament baptism like Rm 6 and 1 pt 3, and it doesn't excuss the fact that you fluffed when you tried to give a partial quote of 1 pt 3.

Peter never said new testament baptism is a figure, he instead said the waters of noah Prefigured baptism.

Ubenedictus:
no it just means Useless, and when rites of a covenant become obsolate then we can safely conclude that covenant is finished.

Ubenedictus:
Since you have proposed that the covenantal rite of the new covenants are obsolate I am waiting for you to establish your personal covenant.

Ubenedictus:
I actually enjoy Chess in my spare time, have done so since my secondary school days, If we ever meet I'll probably bring a chess board just so you can show your prowess.

italo:
Lol...what is difficult to understand in

italo:
1 Peter 3:20 those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat.
Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.
21And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you,
not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience.
It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Which water is Peter referring to as "that water?"

italo:
There is only one baptism for Christians, that of Jesus Christ.

italo:
What does it matter whether Jesus had died or not died? Almost all Jesus' recorded teachings were done before he died.

italo:
Jesus instructed his apostles to baptize with water and they kept doing it.

italo:
But you who knows more than Jesus and his apostles have come to teach that it is not useful.

Ubenedictus:
since I saw my name i'll answer,

I prefer ofcuz the baptism of Jesus.

Syncan:
I prefer the baptism that the apostles practiced on ethiopian eunuch, Paul, Cornelius, Lydia, etc.
Which one was that?

italo:
Sorry, I don't want your "holy spirit" that makes contradict/challenge the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

sportsmaster:
i can explain the concept of Ministry gifts of the new testament
1cor12:28,rom12:4,Eph4:11
Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

italo:
Clap clap!

You said St. Paul was saved when he believed...

And the Bible tells us Ananias came to him days later...and had him baptized and washed his sins away Acts22:16.

So you're saying being saved doesn't wash away ones sins.

And it's amazing how you first want us to go by scripture alone, then when we bring scripture, you start contradicting scripture under so many guises (Remember you said Mary ceased being Jesus' mother when he started his ministry...and that Jesus time had come in John 2 - both contrary to scripture).
It's also amazing how you know that you have the Holy Spirit and I dont...or you have more of him than I do...and claiming you have an open heart and I dont...

Away with you and your 'spirit of knowledge and understanding' that makes you contradict the Bible.

Away with your heart that is only open to the heresy that was in it from the beginning.

italo:
Lol...what is difficult to understand in:

1Peter3:20 those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat.
Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood.
21And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Which water is Peter referring to as "that water?"

italo:
There is only one baptism for Christians, that of Jesus Christ.

italo:
What does it matter whether Jesus had died or not died? Almost all Jesus' recorded teachings were done before he died.

Jesus instructed his apostles to baptize with water and they kept doing it.

But you who knows more than Jesus and his apostles have come to teach that it is not useful.

sportsmaster:
that website belongs to the church,sermons,bulletins,materials are recorded and uploaded on that website incase you want to listen to it and study along.

sportsmaster:
Eph4:8-13

...someone quoted "when the spirit of truth is come,he will teach you all things," the person took it out of context thereby failing the inpretation.
But Jesus gave gifts to men.
See Eph4:8-13.
If the Holy Spirit is to teach us all things like Jesus said,then why did Jesus Give Ministry Gifts(Eph4:8-11).
The problem is that most of us takes scriptures out of context.

sportsmaster:
Refer to 1tim5:17
A pastor(elder) must be one labours in word and doctrine.
If a pastor is not teaching "sound doctrine" then he is not doing his Job
My pastors ensures that we have a clearer understanding of the Word and we must also be able to teach others.which is why I am able to come here in boldness and teach/correct/instrucy Others in the word.
Acts20:
a pastor must feed the flock.
And as Members we spend quality to Study,there are study Groups in the church,90% of the whole church belongs to a study group.
spend time to pray for revelation knowledge
Eph1:16-19,Eph3:14-21.Col1:9-11.Philipians1:9-11,Philemon1:6.
That why i'm NL religion section today and I'm able to explain few bible subjects to others,still learning though,there is a lot to learn

sportsmaster:
Can I send it via email,?

sportsmaster:
You're welcome bro.
Those are just bulletins,there is not enough space to fully capture all the words,
A bulletin must not be too voluminous,People will not read.

You can search the websites for teachings.
You can also visit the E-books section.
There are short e-books on subjects like

1Tongues
2Concerning tithes,offerings and giving
3Righteousness
4what every believer Must know
And many other materials.
Audio teachings are available too.
Locate any subject of you wish to study
And i Assure you that You will be blessed by those teachings.
God bless you.

italo:
No. Here is a fuller context:

1Peter3:20 those who disobeyed God long ago when God waited patiently while Noah was building his boat.
Only eight people were saved from drowning in that terrible flood. 21And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Which water is a picture? - The flood.

Picture of what, what is the real deal? - Baptism.

What does baptism do now? - It now saves v21 (as Noah was saved through water v20)

italo:
But Jesus commanded them to baptize with water in Matt 28:19 (or can a man baptize another man with the Holy Spirit?)and didn't anywhere correct that teaching...and they obeyed. You know better than Jesus and his apostles.

Ubenedictus:
another thing that pains me is when a Christian decides to play ping pong with scriptures.

This is what my bible says.

From vs 20b

in the days of Noah during the building of the ark in which a few persons, eight in all were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now

that passage says the waters in noahs time prefigures, foreshadowed, is an antitype of baptism which now saves me.

It didn't say baptism is a mere picture or a figure, it instead said the waters of Noahs day is a figure of baptism which today saves us.

You should go back and study the passage and maybe learn a little english.

Ubenedictus:
no! You didn't shout "stop it". You just called a new testament practice obsolate. And you remember Paul says what is old and obsolate is to pass away? When you start calling new testament practices obsolate then you are alledging the new covenant has failed, is obsolate and passing away.

For you its no big deal right?

Ubenedictus:
hahaha,

you should read your bible more often, unless ofcourse you believe the bible writters were mistaken.

Jn 3:22

After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptising

sportsmaster:
there is an article on the subject of BAPTISM on this site.
Www.livingwordmedia.org

click on menu,at the topmost right side of the page.
Locate "Saints community and You bulletins".
You will see a material on the subject of baptism.
its free

Ubenedictus:
you mean the "new" Christians need to spiritualise away the plain meaning of scripture and call obsolate that which scripture says unite us with Christ and make us partaker in his death and resurrection.

Clap for yourself, you just succeeded in making God's word look stupid because of your "church tradition".

Ubenedictus:
no dear, you didn't use those words, that must be due to the fact that italo is a crude guy!

Ubenedictus:
You instead called the command Jesus Christ in matt 28:19 and practice practice of his apostles ACT 2:41 and early Christians OBSOLATE!

That very thing which paul say we do "into Christ" and makes us sharers of his death and partakers in his resurrection, you have called obsolate.

No you didn't say they were "wrong things" you said they were old, passed and withered away, you compared the things of the new covenant and equated them with that of the old.

Ubenedictus:
Peter says "baptism save you now" but you would rather teach against scripture that it is obsolate!

Ubenedictus:
So I'll ask you, from whom have you recieved a different covenant that will make you teach that the rites of the new covenant is obsolate?

Because it seems clear to me you guys are certainly not operating in the covenant of Jesus Christ, you are not in d same covenant, paul, peter and the other apostles were! If you are in that same covenant you won't teach that it practices are obsolate.

Ubenedictus:
this is why I enjoy the gospels, the evangelists always make sure to explain the figure of speech, d above passage is explained. Do you see any such explanation in jn 3:5?

What is actually written after that discourse is that Jesus went to the countryside of Judea and baptised.

There is nowhere that passage lends itself to figurative interpretation

Syncan:
Are you serious at the bold? What kind of baptism were the followers of John complaining about here :

John 3:26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

Syncan:
The thing is just so tiresome. Jesus said its water and spirit....they now say no, its word and spirit.

Philip taught the ethiopian eunuch that its water and went ahead to use water in acts 8....they say its because the ethiopian eunuch was a babe (as if any convert is an adult in the way already)


Peter knowing the importance of the water, insisted on it after the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in Acts 10....They say he used his discretion.


Paul used water on lydia and the others in Acts 16...They have not said anything on it yet.

Syncan:
I don't know why they are afraid of water.

italo:
That's not all.

The same person said Jesus didn't tell his apostles to stop water baptism, because he hadn't died and resurrected yet. As if all of Jesus ministry on earth wasn't about telling people to stop wrong, do right; quit the old and come to the new. E.g Matt 5.

Peter said baptism is for remission of sin, the other one said Peter meant say 'Baptism is not for remission of sin.'

Who are these prophets that know more than Jesus, Peter, Philip, Paul etc?

Barnabaseloka:
1. And what do you have to say as regards Rom.6?
2. John 3:5 talks about being BORN AGAIN and not about WATER BAPTISM as you might have thought.
3. If one repents of his sins on hearing God's word and believes in Jesus, is he born again?
4. It is not everywhere the word 'water' is mentioned in the bible that it signifies 'physical' water. It can also signify the 'Holy Spirit' as well as the 'word of God'.
This is what we have been trying to make clear here.

parisbookaddict:
[size=5pt]British Muslim Convert Thomas Evans Dies Fighting for al-Shabab in Kenya

Source

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33135540

The mother of a British man killed while fighting for Islamist militant group al-Shabab in Kenya has told the BBC her "whole world has fallen apart".
Sally Evans, from Buckinghamshire, said a journalist had phoned to tell them Muslim convert Thomas, 25, had died.
Her other son Michael said that when he looked on Twitter, the first thing he found was a picture of Thomas's body.
"We remember him as being my brother, your son," he told the BBC. "But to everyone else he's just a terrorist."
Kenyan officials have confirmed that Thomas Evans was killed on Sunday when al-Shabab fighters attacked a military base in the north of the country.
Militants armed with AK47s and grenades raided the base in Lamu County, close to the Somali border, and then stormed a nearby village.
Eleven gunmen were killed in total and two Kenyan soldiers also died.
'Twisted views'
Evans, who had changed his name to Abdul Hakim, contacted his family in 2012 to say he had travelled to Somalia to join the militant group.
At least 50 British citizens are believed to have joined al-Shabab, an al-Qaeda affiliate based in Somalia, which has been behind a series of high-profile attacks in Kenya and Somalia.
Ms Evans, from Wooburn Green, said she would remember her son as "the little boy who had a bright future before he went down the path he went down".
She said he had met "some people with some very twisted, warped ideas of Islam" in the local area to begin with, and was later influenced by online material.
"I'm very angry that they were prepared to put my son on the line but they are still here," she said. "They are not brave enough to go out there themselves."
Jahan Mahmood is a former counter-terrorism adviser to the Home Office who knows the Evans family.
He said Thomas had been suffering from depression and "stressed out" with personal issues when he was approached by a group of "young Muslims", who did not belong to a particular mosque and had a "very poisonous interpretation".
"These men found him at a vulnerable time in his life, which is often the case," he said.
"This is a cycle that seems to be repeated again and again."
Michael Evans said his brother had changed from the "fun and loving" person he had grown up with.
Lost track
At the age of 21, Evans announced he was moving to Kenya and bought a single plane ticket.
He was turned back at the airport by police, but later sold his CDs and other possessions and told his family he was travelling to Egypt.
In August 2011, police told the family they had lost track of him. The following January he called and said he had joined al-Shabab.
Ms Evans repeated her claim that the British authorities had not done enough to stop her son from travelling to Egypt.
"If they had suspicions, why didn't they involve me?
"We could have worked together to save him and I wouldn't be in this situation now," she said.
"They should have taken his passport. If I'd have known, I would have taken his passport but when they let him fly to Egypt, I thought there was nothing to worry about."
She said she did not know who to turn to for advice and help.[/size]
"He would never tell me what he was doing," Ms Evans said.
"He did say if the worst thing happened,
I wasn't to cry because he would be going to paradise, but somehow I cannot celebrate that."

Barnabaseloka:
I have done all the explanations in the first two posts.
In summary, I wrote that Jephthah would offer 'whatever' (human or animal) that came to meet him unto God.
And it (whaever that came to meet him) would be offered in the form of 'burnt offering' unto God.
This is the 'sacrifice' I have written about.

Barnabaseloka:
I concur to what you posted on Israelites tearing their clothes.
So, it is not that I am fixed to the issue of 'tearing of clothes'.
I used it to show the emotions exhibited by Jephthah when he saw his only child.

Barnabaseloka:
I still believe that Jephthah tore his clothes
to show how painful and sorrowful it was for him to have sighted his only child,
as a result of the 'sacrificing' vow he made to God.

Barnabaseloka:
I was not offended by what you said about me. Not at all. Do not mind the harsh tone I used in the beginning. Everyone is entitled to his opinions.

Barnabaseloka:
If it was for a life of celibacy, Jephthah would not have torn his clothes.
It would have been something pleasant to him that his daughter was to be dedicated to God, even as a virgin.

Barnabaseloka:
I hope you remember about Hannah and Samuel?
When one is dedicated to God to serve Him, or dedicates himself to God, it does not call for anguish and sorrow, but of joy.
I still believe that Jephthah tore his clothes to show how painful and sorrowful it was for him to have sighted his only child, as a result of the 'sacrificing' vow he made to God.

Barnabaseloka:
You can say what you want to say about me in this thread. I read all the posts that were written before me before putting in my own analysis.

Barnabaseloka:
What is clearly seen there is that Jephthah did not make TWO vows but ONE.
The second statement there completes the first. The first is that 'whatever' (human or animal) that came to meet Jephthah belonged to the Lord (who would receive the 'whatever').
While the second is that Jephthah would offer it (the whatever that meets him) as a burnt offering (an offering that must pass through FIRE).

Barnabaseloka:
I wonder why Jephthah would tear his clothes in sorrow and anguish on sighting his daughter, if it was not for the burnt offering vow he made to God.

italo:
None of those verses say 'stop water baptism. It's unnecessary.'

italo:
And no verse says 'Jesus NEVER Baptized with water'

italo:
But then, you're the one who corrects all the scripture writers.

italo:
Yes it doesn't change the truth that Jesus and his apostles taught and practiced the wrong things.

thanks for correcting them.

emrain:
Only a fool will argue that she wasn't made a human suya.

emrain:
Meanwhile, this is just a fictional story to help people control their tongue. Do not try it at home, it's not a true life story.

Barnabaseloka:
I have read the posts from others and now I will make my own analysis.
[size=5pt]It was clear that God commanded the children of Israel not to sacrifice their children as other nations did.

In Judges 11:30, Jephthah made a VOW unto God.
Deut.23:21 When you make a VOW to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you.
22. But if you abstain from vowing, it shall not be sin to you.
Ecc.5:4 When you make a VOW to God, do not delay to pay it; for He has no pleasure in fools. PAY what you have VOWED-
5. Better NOT to VOW, than to vow and NOT PAY it.
Jephthah was so quick to make such VOW, without considering that it could be a human that would come out first to meet him. All he wanted was victory over the Ammonites.

Know that Jephthah did not make TWO vows, but ONE. The second sentence was a continuation of the first. Let us take a look at it:
In Judges 11:31, 'whatever' meaning 'human' or 'animal' that comes out shall surely be the Lord's (showing who would accept the 'whatever' that comes out), and I will offer IT (the whatever) up as a BURNT offering (an offering that must pass through FIRE). You can read the book of Leviticus for further explanation on burnt offerings. So we can see that whatever (human or animal) that came out to meet Jephthah would be given to God in the form of an offeirng that would pass through fire (BURNT offering).

In Judges 11:34, the bible was very careful to state the status of the daughter- she was the ONLY child. This shows how painful it would be on Jephthah in fulfilling the VOW. This pain was manifested by Jephthah in the verse that followed.
In vs. 35, Jephthah tore his clothes and said some heart-touching statements to the daughter in these ways: Alas my daughter! You have brought me low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word (VOW) to the Lord, and I cannot go back on it. Though God did not permit the Israelites to offer their children as sacrifice, yet a VOW remained a VOW, and must be fulfilled.

In vs 36. The daughter, having realised the vow the father took, urged him to fulfil it. This is because the Lord had fulfilled His own part by giving Jephthar victory. So it was left for Jephthar to fulfil his VOW.
In vs. 39, Jephthah fulfilled his VOW by offering his daughter as a BURNT offering unto God, in that she died as a virgin- she knew no man. A custom was set up in Israel to lament her, which proved that she died.
Vs.40 (I will start this way) And it became a custom in Israel that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to LAMENT the daughter of Jephthah, the Gileadite. [/size]

Barnabaseloka:
1. Why would the daughters of Israel lament four days each year for a person who was not dead?

Barnabaseloka:
2. What if it were an animal (as included in the 'whatever') that met Jephthar,
would not the animal be used as a BURNT offering to fulfil the VOW?
Or would the animal be kept alive when it would be given to God?

Tjayjosh:
Human sacrifice is attributable to idol worship. It originated from Ammon, through worship of their detestable god molech. Isreal got entangled with the act as a result of their failure to drive out, to destroy all the idols and to break down the images of pagan nations in the land of canaan. And so King Ahaz was so deeply involved in idol worship and occult practices that he destroyed his own sons by sacrificing them to false gods (2kings 16:3). This practice was very offensive and was strictly forbidden by God. Bro what we see on NL is a manifestation of the spirit of rebellion that will be evident in the last days. That point will be characterized by the complete ridicule, rejection and rebellion against any standards and commands established in the bible.

sukkot:
which two bears ? russia ? or medopersian empire ?

sukkot:
papa fro looking clean. now the nigga na akpari

Tjayjosh:
This issue needs to be dealt with once and for all. A person on this forum brought this up, i believe he was trying to justify his ill feelings toward God. Whatever the reason may be. The bible scholers on this forum can help lay this matter to rest. Based on current research. Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter to God. It is supported by at least two reasons.

1. He would have known that God's law strictly forbids human sacrifice and that God would not tolerate such an evil act (Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Dt 12:31; 18:10-12).

2. The use of the phrase "she was a virgin" suggests that the sacrifice involved devoting her entire life to chastity (i.e., remaining a virgin and unmarried for the rest of her life) and service at the national sanctuary (Ex 38:8; 1sa 2:22).

johnydon22:
[size=16pt]ORIGINAL POST[/size]
hahahahaha it is quite a pity when someone confines a pronoun to the primary school pronoun we learnt in elementary school. . take a look at this, Muttleylaff doesnt know It is a pronoun that can be used as third person singular pronoun. . .

Boy now go and read and stop this disgraceful show please i beg you

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/it

there is nothing more i need add to this.

johnydon22:
[size=16pt]I AM CALMED DOWN/MODIFIED VERSION[/size]
modified so as not to sound offensive . .

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/it you can go and read about it.

am clearly done indulging in this where you keep wallowing in your own deception in the face of plain truth

cold:
For the cherrypicking christians. Rather than struggling so hard to defend your god which in any event you're all doing a very terrible job of. I've made your jobs a lot easier. I've taken out the verses you all hate to read and left all the feel good messages that'll put your god in good light.

Tjayjosh:
Human sacrifice was always understood from the days of abraham onward to be an abomination, it had been denounced and forbidden in Lev 18:21; 20:2-5; Dt 12:31; 18:21; 20:2-5; Dt 12:31; 18:10. There is no evidence of isrealites offering human sacrifice until the days of Ahaz.
It is stated in verse 39, after Jephthah had performed his "burnt offering" that "she knew not a man." such wording would be insane and heartless if she had died but is appropriate if she was devoted to service at the tabernacle. There are examples of such women in scripture; ex 28:8; 1sam 2:22; and luke 2:36, 38. The pathos here lies not in the daughter's devotion to devine service but in the extinction of Jephthah's line as she is his only child.