Here the long and the short of it, As Jim stated if I'm some prophet
then I have to say what Jesus reveals for me to say. I'm leaving my
original thread in tack (yet unfinished) for I wanted to share so much
more, yet why. For that's what Jesus has come back to me with.
Sorry, but user-net had a chance JUST-ONE and not one answered.
Jim you yourself made this quite evident when you stated and Facilator
Amend
' I will NOT continue to debate this with you.'
Your right since you never asked me to pray about anything. Then you
never prayed about what Jesus asked, why bother. For when we do not
come to Jesus in prayer it is just a debate. That is not how we should
approach scripture, without prayer that is. Since NO ONE prayed ,about
JUST-ONE, then how can I expect G_D to reveal Himself in these news
groups. You had the chance but pride (or whatever) got in your way.
So we finally agree, for I'm done debating also
end of debate. 'stamp' 'stamp'
Jim, Facilator (new you were still with us) I guess I will post this
last message as more of a testimony then as a usually debate answer
style.
First off Jim the answer is Yes; I constantly Ask G_D why not Mat
28:19. The more i ask the more the answer comes back it's Acts 2:38
only. Does this bother me, very much so. For I know many people that
live a more Christian lifestyle then I might judge myself as doing (not
that I am living in sin). So why not Mat 28:19.
The reason Mat 28:19 cant save is that you can't know G_D from the
bible, it just doesn't work that way. The only way to know Jesus is
that you have to humble your self and pray. Then and only then will
Jesus reveal Himself through the bible. This is the only way EVERY
revelation (doctrine) can be established as the truth. Even after you
do find G_D, revelation through Jesus never stop. Jim you claimed to
have struggled with this over 30 years ago, how many revelations has
Jesus revealed to you since. You labeled me as some prophet (I never
used that title though), yet you failed to present any evident to the
contrary. You know if it doesn't come true, thing. Though my point is
that YES (don't ask me why), Jesus reveals something's to me,
constantly.
I see Jim that you at least followed the Just one-post, though I don't
think you did that simple task; why not may I ask?? To tell you the
truth it was never about the Miracles that Jesus was working in that
time 8/14, through 9/22, but about that simple task about Acts 2:38.
Since no one answered Jesus call in user-net, I fill like Jonah, except
Jonah had a far greater results then obviously I did, as is evident in
the Just-one posts results, Guess I'm just not much of a prophet.
However Jesus has showed such great love toward to me that I know I
must answer His call.
So please Jim and you Facilator, believe what ever you like, for surly
it does not matter. Which ever church you attend, they all preach
basically the same doctrine.
Jim T wrote:
good for you. you broke down everything I instructed, and answer it with your narrow indoctrination in your belief. take off the glasses, dump the man made theology and do the study yourself. That's what I did almost 30 years ago. There is no "special" meaning to Acts 2:38 other than what I have told you. You are stuck on 1 point of doctrine which is keeping you from seeing the truth of the gospel. I've seen it many times in others. I will NOT continue to debate this with you. Have YOU done what you ask of us? if so, why does God ask for "JUST ONE" Are you not "ONE"??? One, just one, If you are not the one maybe We should listen to someone else have people who are hungry for the truth which are not convinced they are the prophets of Acts 2:38, which want to know the truth of the word. It is they which I will help, and the true gospel, Given to me of God, I will teach and preach. Those who hear the word and believe shall be saved. There is more to the gospel Than
Acts 2:38 out of context to support a man made law. Which(by the way) Jesus died to free us from
tsquare21 <tlthomas21@netscape.com> wrote:
'nowhere is it a mandate to baptize in the name of Jesus.'
Acts 2:38 mandates everyone (including you) to
'Peter gave no commandment in Acts.' He did Acts 2:38
'Nor did he have the authority to do so.' Jesus gave the keys to
Peter and He (Jesus) told 'Peter that he had the power to lose and bind
in Heaven and Earth. He obeyed Jesus in Acts 2:38
'He merely differintiated between a baptism of repentance and a baptism
of obedience.' Are we even reading the same bible. Where does it say
(without private interpertation) baptism of repentance or baptism of
obedience. I do know of a baptism of Spirit and water only.
'I prefer Jesus' instruction in Matthew 28: 19 over the loosely spoken
words of Peter '
What Peter commanded us to do in Acts 2:38 is exactly what Jesus told
the deciples in mat 28:19. Baptize in the NAME, read the other two
accounts of the commission of Christ.
I also believe the intent of Peter was not to place a law upon baptism,
No Peter was obeying Jesus in Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you: That he did in Acts 2:38
In all fairness Jim, note how i addressed every one of your scriptural
interpretations. YOU on the other hand, have not addressed one simple
Question of what is the interpretation of Acts 2:38
Jim T wrote:
simply a difference between the risen messiah and John's baptism. nowhere is it a mandate to baptize in the name of Jesus. Peter gave no commandment in Acts. Nor did he have the authority to do so. He merely differentiated between a baptism of repentance and a baptism of obedience. I prefer Jesus' instruction in Matthew 28: 19 over the loosely spoken words of Peter concerning a technical religious ceremony which is a symbolic act of obedience on the part of the newly born again child of God. A few verses back, Peter took it upon himself to announce elections for the replacement of Judas Iscariot, and made Mattias an Apostle without consulting God. I believe all the twelve were selected by God, but Paul was the 12th Apostle. Taking this into consideration, I believe the name of God is Yeshua (Jesus in KJV) but baptism is an answer in good conscience toward God by the baptised...not the baptiser. I also believe the intent of Peter was not to place a law upon baptizm,
but to differintiate from baptizm of John, or Apollo, or Zeus, or Baal, etc.
tsquare21 wrote:
Sorry Jim but how can you take a literal translated verse out of
context. Does not it teach repentance. Does it not teach baptism.
Does it not teach Filling of the Holy Ghost. What is out of context, if
you obey the gospel and baptize in Jesus Name FOR the remission of
sins.
You offer no commentary on the specific verse. Instead you claim that
my obeying scripture is not scriptural but biased. How many times do I
have to say this
EXPLAIN ACTS 2:38, Please include verse 37 also, if this is not asking
to much.
I await you private interpretations.
Jim T wrote:
how very religiously biased and self righteous of you to take an out of context verse of scripture and call it the gospel. Gospel (good news) was fulfilled at the resurrection. not at the baptism. lose the dogma and receive the word of truth.
tsquare21 wrote:
Acts 2:38 is the gospel of Christ and His salvation. So why would
anyone think it juvenile or of none importance. For in Acts 2:38 is
Calvary fulfilled, it's John 3:3-5 realized. For in Acts 2:38 is the
NAME lifted up unto salvation. Acts 2:38 is the name that was referred
to in mat 28:19. It's the law and the tabernacle plan made manifested
in the Person of Jesus Christ, G_D with us. even the deliverance out
of Egypt is found in Acts 2:38. For at Acts 2:38 is where we come face
to face to the One that was slain at the foundation of the world.
Acts 2:38 is salvation
Please, Please don't take my word for this, pray Ask Jesus.. Jesus!
remove the scales and reveal your word. for you alone are G_D.
Prayer I think that's good advice, thank you Jesus.
Jim (Buddy) T.
My Baby's Daddy
That's Me
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
--0-2002737-1160752101=:378
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Google-AttachSize: 2375
how very religiously biased and self righteous of you to take an out of context verse of scripture and call it the gospel. Gospel (good news) was fulfilled at the resurrection. not at the baptism. lose the dogma and receive the word of truth.
tsquare21 wrote:
Acts 2:38 is the gospel of Christ and His salvation. So why would
anyone think it juvenile or of none importance. For in Acts 2:38 is
Calvary fulfilled, it's John 3:3-5 realized. For in Acts 2:38 is the
NAME lifted up unto salvation. Acts 2:38 is the name that was refereed
to in mat 28:19. It's the law and the tabernacle plan made manifested
in the Person of Jesus Christ, G_D with us. even the deliverance out
of Egypt is found in Acts 2:38. For at Acts 2:38 is where we come face
to face to the One that was slain at the foundation of the
world.
Acts 2:38 is salvation
Please, Please don't take my word for this, pray Ask Jesus.. Jesus!
remove the scales and reveal your word. for you alone are G_D.
Prayer I think that's good advice, thank you Jesus.
Jim (Buddy) T.
My Baby's Daddy
That's Me
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
--0-2002737-1160752101=:378--
Jim (Buddy) T.
My Baby's Daddy
That's Me
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
--0-869420594-1160811304=:48941
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Google-AttachSize: 7146
simply a difference between the risen messiah and John's baptism. nowhere is it a mandate to baptize in the name of Jesus. Peter gave no commandment in Acts. Nor did he have the authority to do so. He merely differentiated between a baptism of repentance and a baptism of obedience. I prefer Jesus' instruction in Matthew 28: 19 over the loosely spoken words of Peter concerning a technical religious ceremony which is a symbolic act of obedience on the part of the newly born again child of God. A few verses back, Peter took it upon himself to announce elections for the replacement of Judas Iscariot, and made Mattias an Apostle without consulting God. I believe all the twelve were selected by God, but Paul was the 12th Apostle. Taking this into consideration, I believe the name of God is Yeshua (Jesus in KJV) but baptism is an answer in good conscience toward God by the baptised...not the baptiser. I also believe the intent of Peter was not
to place a law upon baptizm, but to differintiate from baptizm of John, or Apollo, or Zeus, or Baal, etc.
tsquare21 <tlthomas21@netscape.com> wrote:
Sorry Jim but how can you take a literal translated verse out of
contex. Does not it teach repentance. Does it not teach baptism.
Does it not teach Filling of the Holy Ghost. What is out of context, if
you obey the gospel and baptize in Jesus Name FOR the remission of
sins.
You offer no commentary on the specific verse. Instead you claim that
my obeying scripture is not scriptural but biased. How many times do I
have to say this
EXPLAIN ACTS 2:38, Please include verse 37 also, if this is not asking
to much.
I await you private interpretations.
Jim T wrote:
how very religiously biased and self righteous of you to take an out of context verse
of scripture and call it the gospel. Gospel (good news) was fulfilled at the resurrection. not at the baptism. lose the dogma and receive the word of truth.
tsquare21 wrote:
Acts 2:38 is the gospel of Christ and His salvation. So why would
anyone think it juvenile or of none importance. For in Acts 2:38 is
Calvary fulfilled, it's John 3:3-5 realized. For in Acts 2:38 is the
NAME lifted up unto salvation. Acts 2:38 is the name that was refereed
to in mat 28:19. It's the law and the tabernacle plan made manifested
in the Person of Jesus Christ, G_D with us. even the deliverance out
of Egypt is found in Acts 2:38. For at Acts 2:38 is where we come face
to face to the One that was slain at the foundation of the world.
Acts 2:38 is salvation
Please, Please don't take my word for this, pray Ask Jesus.. Jesus!
remove the scales
and reveal your word. for you alone are G_D.
Prayer I think that's good advice, thank you Jesus.
Jim (Buddy) T.
My Baby's Daddy
That's Me
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
--0-2002737-1160752101=:378
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Google-AttachSize: 2375
how very religiously biased and self righteous of you to take an out of context verse of scripture and call it the gospel. Gospel (good news) was fulfilled at the resurrection. not at the baptism. lose the dogma and receive the word of truth.
tsquare21 <tlthomas21@netscape.com> wrote:
Acts 2:38 is the gospel of Christ and His salvation. So why would
anyone think it juvenile or of none importance. For in Acts 2:38 is
Calvary fulfilled, it's John 3:3-5 realized. For in Acts 2:38 is the
NAME lifted up unto salvation. Acts 2:38 is the name that was referred
to in mat 28:19. It's the law and the tabernacle plan made manifested
in the Person of Jesus Christ, G_D with us. even the deliverance out
of Egypt is found in Acts 2:38. For at Acts 2:38 is where we come face
to face to the One that was slain at the foundation of the
world.
Acts 2:38 is salvation
Please, Please don't take my word for this, pray Ask Jesus.. Jesus!
remove the scales and reveal your word. for you alone are G_D.
Prayer I think that's good advice, thank you Jesus.
.
