Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View
- Thread starter LightBearer316
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
There was hope for your post - until this:
And, of course, the telltale 'kitchen sink' tactic - a non sequitur, a gaslighting ad hominem:
"Articles, booklets, scholarly references and substantiated interpretations" of men bring death to your position.
And, of course, the telltale 'kitchen sink' tactic - a non sequitur, a gaslighting ad hominem:
So to track your reasoning: I gave a Greek grammatical argument and then cited scholarship that affirms it. Your response was that using scholarship ‘brings death’ to my position?
So just to verify: you're rejecting my conclusion because the grammar doesn't support it, or because you believe any scholarly support is automatically disqualifying?
If you don't like the support, then go back and deal with the grammar and why the conclusion is wrong.
I asked a straightforward question about your agenda in response to your rhetoric. It looks like you don’t like the point, so you label it a fallacy instead of engaging it, which is itself the actual fallacy.
How about we go back to the Greek grammar and you show where I've erred and why my conclusion is wrong.
and
How about we go back to the Holy Bible?
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. (2 Tim. 3:14-15)
Notice that even a child understands the holy scriptures -- no middlemen wanna-be foreign language ‘scholars’ required!
Then what's your problem, because this began with your misunderstanding of Matt28 and English 101, let alone Greek 102.
BTW, that child you're referencing was Timothy who grew up in at least a 2 generation family of faith and understanding and "from infancy had known the holy writings" - point being he had been taught by family who could likely put many of our "scholars" to shame. IOW middle-women in this case.
You should back off and maybe we go back to Matt28 and have you try to explain yourself.
Apparently, you're unaware that the word of God is clear - it is a sin to deal presumptuously with others:
Numbers 15:30, "But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people."
Deuteronomy 17:13, "And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously."
Psalms 19:13, "Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression."
"Scholars" should be put to shame. Who gives us understanding - men, or God? It's the scholars, the wannabee's, the fakirs, who have corrupted the covenant and led many astray:
But ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the LORD of hosts (Mal. 2:8).
It's written to EVERY man of God.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Or maybe we should simply leave you with your voice to remain as your own Greek audience.
You're chasing your tail adding error to error. Nearly everything you've said is wrong in content or application.
Let's try to break into the chaos: Your interpretation of Matt28 was wrong and you chided others who didn't agree with you as not knowing basic English. I attempted to show you how and why you were wrong, in English translation by the way, and offered work from another who is in agreement with what I said and who offered references from others who also agree. But according to you any scholarship brings death to what you call opinions.
You do realize that our English translations were translated by teams of scholars using lexical tools and research of other scholars, don't you? And you do realize that many or most or maybe all, I don't know, are children of God who likely lay claim to the Spirit of God also and may well tell us they were led by God to learn and work, don't you? Then you come along and essentially say they're all disqualified and should be put to shame?
Please explain why I was wrong in what I said re: Matt28. Here's a link to make it easier for you.
This is vanity on full vexatious display, which is the 'foundation' you're working from i.e. a scholarly bucket of cloudy baptismal water. "And you do realize" this is not the debate forum, "don't you?"
Again, you assume baptism is always with water. Here's a link to a Vine's entry (Strong's G907) "to make it easier for you."
I actually don't assume what you say.
You haven't been here long. Assuming you stay you'll soon find there is little-to-no Bible discussion apart from debate in many forms.
You do realize while denigrating scholarly work, you presented a link to some basic scholarly work, right? You should probably read that linked work again, or maybe for the first time.
So far what you've been presenting is out of context use of Scripture, a personal agenda against another's referencing scholarship for more in-depth understanding or substantiating certain interpretations, being self-contradictory, and a few other issues within the fallacious reasoning realm,
Do you have some Scripture you'd like to discuss? You should prep yourself for debate and being called-out when you divert as you've done from dealing with your error re: Matt28.
Yeah, I get that now. Thus it's no mystery why you've indulged in such a powerless performance.
You've been unable to bear the burden of proof, even as you blather while citing the Calvary Chapel sycophant David Miller:
A cursory search of your addiction reveals a post count of 5,323 over a 587-day period. That's a whopping average of 9 posts per day - every single day . And many of those posts are just minutes apart. I smell a rat.
In any case, even A.I. ain't too schmart, as neither of you have spiritual discernment - only "denigrating" worldly scholarship which, as the Holy Bible tells us, is in the trash. The "error" is all yours.
IOW, you can't support your error re: Matt28.
You used a rhetorical claim re: “English Grammar 101” to try to mask the fact that your reading contradicts both the English and Greek grammar of Matt28:19-20.
And now the rhetoric continues and expands with the central focus being personal attacks combined with not a single correct application of Scripture, all in avoidance of dealing with the Scripture you originally misrepresented.
Fascinating.
BTW, not the same Dave Miller, so you can't even get this right.
And, frankly, after I had discussed Acts2:38 and Mark16:16 on this thread I came across the actual David Miller's booklet I posted. His work on the grammatical matters of those verses and of Matt28 as I recall agreed with my read of them. He also cited work he referenced.
A little actual training in languages makes it very easy to spot your error. Actually just reading an English translation makes it easy to spot your error.
Self-protective rhetoric to try to mask error is a common practice here. It seems to take some a bit more time to get into the ad hominem.
It was all a trap, and "you" got snared.
...and thus a target-rich environment for your game.
and
and
BINGO!
A cursory peak a few pages back reveals what is attempting to insinuate itself here - and it's less than human.
Check the unreal postings count again, then check the following:
Federal government routinely hires internet trolls, shills to monitor chat rooms, disrupt article comment sections
and
Internet Trolls May be Trained Government Agents According to Leaked Document
and
Bots Have Taken Over Nearly Half the Internet, but Almost a 3rd of Users Can’t Tell Difference
and
How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations
and
The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations
and
Paid government trolls rove internet in search of resisters who oppose police state tyranny
and
Bots Are Taking Over the Internet: Automated Threats are a Growing Risk for Organizations
and
AI21 Labs concludes largest Turing Test experiment to date
and
CTV Confirms Government(s) employing Internet Trolls, Shills & PR Agents
ROFL!
So, I got trapped by recognizing from an author's bio on his publisher's website that he was not the same person the "trap" said he was? OK, then...
Amateur sleuths and amateur theologians with underdeveloped reasoning skills - the new era of attack against others who oppose certain systematic theologies and misuse of Scripture - disregard because they're paid government trolls.
Does Social Security count?
Any Matt28 discussion?
Amateur sleuths and amateur theologians with underdeveloped reasoning skills - the new era of attack against others who oppose certain systematic theologies and misuse of Scripture - disregard because they're paid government trolls.
Does Social Security count?
Any Matt28 discussion?
The medium is the message." - Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media
How information is delivered (medium) has a bigger impact than the actual content (message).
Don't be a sore loser.
@WiselyWoven
IOW, and in closing, you cannot support your initial claim about Matt28 either in English 101 or Greek grammar, which we knew some time ago.
IOW, and in closing, you cannot support your initial claim about Matt28 either in English 101 or Greek grammar, which we knew some time ago.
Rather, you cannot.
For the rest of us, it didn't take long to flesh out the intent of Mr. Prolific Poster here. The perpetual temptation is to know more than God has already revealed. Even Moses said, "I beseech thee, shew me thy glory." But God replied, "Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live...thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen" (Exodus 33:18-23). Many want to see too much and know something other than what God has revealed. Man has never been content with what God said. Therefore, since the garden of Eden, the devil has made himself available to tell man what God really meant.
A.I. is the latest manifestation of the Devil's "Plan B" - his tower of shaky bibles is now being buried beneath babbling and conflicting Greek lexicons, grammars, texts, and software - the tongues of Babel and the heresy of Babylon, all in one cloud. You know when studier is losing - he scurries behind a maze built of Greek tools. Like a snake, which can even flatten itself and slide under a loose doorway, doubtless he has slipped into many good households in the guise of so-called "original" Greek study tools.
Where do lex-icons come from? This is a grave secret which babes in Christ are never told. Has anyone ever thought to inquire, "Where do lexical writers get their English definitions and translation equivalencies?"
The fiery serpent still lurks around the Greek tree of knowledge in every unpruned garden (Isa. 14:29). The Greek-speak A.I. geek presently spewing in this thread is ignorant of the fact that his beloved study tools are corrupt. And so he comes here, in his foolish pride, to compound his error. Selah.
Perpetual diversion from your Matt28 error. Growing ever more wordy and filled with fallacies.
Indeed.
For example, as I have shown in these forums, among certain "biblical hermeneutics"
While A.I. regurgitates its repository of data (much of it foundationally flawed) at every opportunity, it's far more than a mere fact finder. Its algorithms cover every form of communication and include all the emotional characteristics of human behavior. It's this wicked aspect of the demonic device that has it constantly gaming internet forums, chat rooms, social media, etc. It's hyper game theory on steroids; it's all about the data.
Every time you click "like," every time you swipe to the next "recommendation," every time you reply to an A.I.-generated response, you are feeding the beast valuable data that would result in your eventual enslavement and ultimate elimination. It's all about the data.
Your voluminous data stream has thus far essentially been flowing in one direction - from you to the cloud, where a cognitive model, your digital twin, is being developed. By design, this requires LOTS of data. Once the model is complete, the feed will be reversed and you will be controlled by your digital twin.
One obvious strategy is to recognize the monster (and its adherents) for the enslavement system it is, and to stop feeding it. Randomness also works against this beast system, as predictability is central to its control. Also, this is where spiritual warfare comes into its own, where continually sanctifying yourself gains you the advantage of the Holy Spirit to squash this monster that constantly seeks an open door. By denying it your data, you deny it fuel and access.
A.I. is an accursed thing. We now see fools touting the satanically imbued tool as their latest weapon in their war of words. They are blissfully ignorant of the fact that in embracing A.I., they have already lost the war. Do not be found among the blind leading the blind.