Is Baptism a necessary part of salvation according to the Bible?

[Nathair/|\]

They were not cannonlized books so I am talking about the 66 books of the bible we have now.

Also remember the bible is not just a book but it is alive and God Word does return void, like other religious book even an koran!

one love

Could you explain that phrase for me? I've heard it before but it doesn't parse for me.

Yours under the confused oaks,

Nathair /|\

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

oooh, let's watch the two non-mormons duke it out on this one.

[Rob Bowman]

The person who has excused himself from this discussion is Vance, not I. Since others are interested in this issue, I will present my argument.

The New Testament writers did not have access to the original manuscripts of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they confidently quoted Old Testament texts and attributed them to God himself:

• "For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.'" (Matt 15:4, quoting Exod. 20:12/Deut. 5:16 and Exod. 21:17/Lev. 20:9).
• "He [Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Mat 19:4-5, quoting Gen. 1:27; 2:24)
• "For it is written in the law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake?" (1Co 9:8-10, quoting Deut. 25:4)

In these passages, Jesus and Paul attribute various statements from the OT directly to God (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; Exod. 20:12; 21:17; Deut. 25:4; etc.). These statements include not only passages that quote God speaking to someone, but also the human narrator's comments (Gen. 2:24) and specific statutes in the legal code attributed to Moses (Gen. 21:17; Deut. 25:4).

You might speculate that Jesus and Paul knew by inspiration which statements in the OT were reliably transmitted and which ones were not. However, neither Jesus nor Paul ever suggests or hints at this idea. No one in the NT ever suggests that there were any statements in the OT that could not be accepted as the word of God. Instead, Jesus asserted that every letter and stroke of the Torah would be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18). Both Jesus and his apostles taught that all of the prophetic revelations throughout the whole range of the Jewish canon of Scripture were to be believed (Luke 24:25, 27; 44; Acts 3:18; 24:14). Jesus and the apostolic writers treated quotations from all parts of the OT as proof texts (Matt. 4:4-10; 26:31; Mark 7:6; 11:17; Luke 19:46; John 6:31; 12:14; Acts 15:15; 23;5; Rom. 1:17; 2;24; 3:4, 10; etc.; 1 Pet. 1:16).

Forget about buzz words like "inerrancy" for the moment. The point here is that Jesus and the NT writers all seem to assume that anything the OT Scriptures said was true and could be quoted without apology or hesitation as God speaking, as God's revelation. They clearly did not subscribe to the notion that the OT texts had been so badly garbled or corrupted or altered that one needed to discern which teachings of the OT were from God and which ones were not. It was all God's word.

[stemelbow]

The person who has excused himself from this discussion is Vance, not I. Since others are interested in this issue, I will present my argument.

The New Testament writers did not have access to the original manuscripts of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they confidently quoted Old Testament texts and attributed them to God himself:

• "For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.'" (Matt 15:4, quoting Exod. 20:12/Deut. 5:16 and Exod. 21:17/Lev. 20:9).
• "He [Jesus] answered, "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" (Mat 19:4-5, quoting Gen. 1:27; 2:24)
• "For it is written in the law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake?" (1Co 9:8-10, quoting Deut. 25:4)

In these passages, Jesus and Paul attribute various statements from the OT directly to God (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; Exod. 20:12; 21:17; Deut. 25:4; etc.). These statements include not only passages that quote God speaking to someone, but also the human narrator's comments (Gen. 2:24) and specific statutes in the legal code attributed to Moses (Gen. 21:17; Deut. 25:4).

You might speculate that Jesus and Paul knew by inspiration which statements in the OT were reliably transmitted and which ones were not. However, neither Jesus nor Paul ever suggests or hints at this idea. No one in the NT ever suggests that there were any statements in the OT that could not be accepted as the word of God. Instead, Jesus asserted that every letter and stroke of the Torah would be fulfilled (Matt. 5:17-18). Both Jesus and his apostles taught that all of the prophetic revelations throughout the whole range of the Jewish canon of Scripture were to be believed (Luke 24:25, 27; 44; Acts 3:18; 24:14). Jesus and the apostolic writers treated quotations from all parts of the OT as proof texts (Matt. 4:4-10; 26:31; Mark 7:6; 11:17; Luke 19:46; John 6:31; 12:14; Acts 15:15; 23;5; Rom. 1:17; 2;24; 3:4, 10; etc.; 1 Pet. 1:16).

Forget about buzz words like "inerrancy" for the moment. The point here is that Jesus and the NT writers all seem to assume that anything the OT Scriptures said was true and could be quoted without apology or hesitation as God speaking, as God's revelation. They clearly did not subscribe to the notion that the OT texts had been so badly garbled or corrupted or altered that one needed to discern which teachings of the OT were from God and which ones were not. It was all God's word.

You have certainly over-stated things for your benefit. Jesus' quoting of a few passages and attributing commandments to God does not equate to Jesus affirming that God spoke the Song of Solomon. You can take this even further, if you like. It simply can't reasonably be concluded, as you have done.

love,

stem

[bluebell]

if we don't add the BOM in this we might get some lead way and truth, biblically!

one love

I just always think it's funny when a non-LDS Christian gets huffy with another non-LDS Christian because he mistakenly assumes the other one is actually mormon and has fallen into the trap of automatically disagreeing with everything said in a thread, regardless of what is actually said. Always interesting to see the bias in full swing.

As to what you have said here-I cannot turn my back on the words of God, regardless of how others may feel about them or how narrow their view may be. You may feel that you have enough of God's word and desire no more, but many do not feel that way.

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

Are you particularly exercised over the Song of Solomon, or are you using that book as a "wedge" to question whatever in the OT doesn't seem to fit LDS theology? Can you cite for me a single instance of Jesus questioning the inspiration or truth of anything taught in any part of the OT?

You have certainly over-stated things for your benefit. Jesus' quoting of a few passages and attributing commandments to God does not equate to Jesus affirming that God spoke the Song of Solomon. You can take this even further, if you like. It simply can't reasonably be concluded, as you have done.

love,

stem

[ELF1024]

Forget about buzz words like "inerrancy" for the moment. The point here is that Jesus and the NT writers all seem to assume that anything the OT Scriptures said was true and could be quoted without apology or hesitation as God speaking, as God's revelation. They clearly did not subscribe to the notion that the OT texts had been so badly garbled or corrupted or altered that one needed to discern which teachings of the OT were from God and which ones were not. It was all God's word.

You have certainly over-stated things for your benefit. Jesus' quoting of a few passages and attributing commandments to God does not equate to Jesus affirming that God spoke the Song of Solomon. You can take this even further, if you like. It simply can't reasonably be concluded, as you have done.

love,

stem

stem,

Are you particularly exercised over the Song of Solomon, or are you using that book as a "wedge" to question whatever in the OT doesn't seem to fit LDS theology? Can you cite for me a single instance of Jesus questioning the inspiration or truth of anything taught in any part of the OT?

Why don't you defend you own position by providing the same evidence? I say that you cannot cite a single instance of Jesus affirming the inspiration or truth of the ENTIRE Bible or the Entire OT, as the BIBLE as the book did not exist until well after Jesus' death.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I just always think it's funny when a non-LDS Christian gets huffy with another non-LDS Christian because he mistakenly assumes the other one is actually mormon and has fallen into the trap of automatically disagreeing with everything said in a thread, regardless of what is actually said. Always interesting to see the bias in full swing.

As to what you have said here-I cannot turn my back on the words of God, regardless of how others may feel about them or how narrow their view may be. You may feel that you have enough of God's word and desire no more, but many do not feel that way.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Why don't you defend you own position by providing the same evidence? I say that you cannot cite a single instance of Jesus affirming the inspiration or truth of the ENTIRE Bible or the Entire OT, as the BIBLE as the book did not exist until well after Jesus' death.

Sorry meant for Rob...

[stemelbow]

stem,

Are you particularly exercised over the Song of Solomon, or are you using that book as a "wedge" to question whatever in the OT doesn't seem to fit LDS theology? Can you cite for me a single instance of Jesus questioning the inspiration or truth of anything taught in any part of the OT?

I merely used it as an example--quite an apt example when speaking with LDS at that.

You see, if you argue because Jesus quoted some passages that we have in our OT, and even attributed them to God, that means "that Jesus and the NT writers all seem to assume that anything the OT Scriptures said was true and could be quoted without apology or hesitation as God speaking, as God's revelation." If you argue that, then a couple of examples don't make your case. The case is only made that Jesus, and Paul for that matter, obviously felt at least some parts of the OT actually are quotations of God and thus are inspired. Your examples do not account for many other parts, like the Song of Solomon, which aren't quoted or at all defined as inspired by the LORD.

love,

stem

[Vance]

The person who has excused himself from this discussion is Vance, not I.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The person who has excused himself from this discussion is Vance, not I. Since others are interested in this issue, I will present my argument.

The New Testament writers did not have access to the original manuscripts of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, they confidently quoted Old Testament texts and attributed them to God himself:

Why does all debate change as soon as others

[ELF1024]

Why does all debate change as soon as others

[Vance]

Forget about buzz words like "inerrancy" for the moment.

After the "inerrancy" thread "for the moment" isn't anywhere near long enough.

[stemelbow]

I don't think I changed the debate, I merely refocused it back on Rob who was attempting to slither out from having to support his own claim by changing the focus on Stem.

Thanks, BTW, Elf. That was sneaky of him.

[stemelbow]

I don't think I changed the debate, I merely refocused it back on Rob who was attempting to slither out from having to support his own claim by changing the focus on Stem.

Thanks, BTW, Elf. That was sneaky of him.

[ELF1024]

Thanks, BTW, Elf. That was sneaky of him.

I just get tired of playing "Pin the Tail on the Doctrine".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't think I changed the debate, I merely refocused it back on Rob who was attempting to slither out from having to support his own claim by changing the focus on Stem.

How deep does the rabbit hole go? Rob

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

You didn't answer my question. Can you cite even one instance of anyone in the NT disputing the truth of anything, anywhere, in the OT?

My evidence is not limited to "a couple of examples." I cited passages from at least 18 different chapters of the NT (and that wasn't even close to being exhaustive of the evidence).

So, I have cited at least 18 different passages in the NT for my position. You have cited . . . zero.

It's true that the NT does not quote Song of Solomon. However, it does quote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Malachi. Its quotations from these books often are introduced with dogmatic citation formulae such as "it is written." Do you concede that the NT writers viewed these books as Scripture? What about the ten or so books besides Song of Solomon that the NT does not explicitly quote: do you question their inclusion in the OT as well? If not, the lack of explicit quotations from Song of Solomon is not really decisive, is it?

Jesus accepted the same body of Scriptures as the Pharisees and most other first-century Jews (with the glaring exception of the Sadducees). We see this, for example, in Luke 24:44, where Jesus refers to "the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms." This statement reflects the same threefold division of the Jewish Scriptures that was current in his day and that Jews still accept today, as is expressed in the traditional Jewish name for the OT, the TaNaK (Torah, Law; Nevi'im, Prophets; Ketuvim, Writings). The Gospels don't report any disagreement between Jesus and the Pharisees about what writings were Scripture, and the positive evidence that we do have supports the conclusion that Jesus accepted the same books that they did. We could haggle over Song of Solomon and perhaps Esther, but that would really be a waste of time. The issue I am pressing is that the books that Jesus and his contemporaries clearly did consider Scripture, both he and they assumed were the word of God. They quoted those books without any qualifications or cautions or hesitations as divine truth. Again, I have cited just a small fraction of the evidence, but that small fraction looms large compared to the absolute zero evidence you have from the NT to the contrary.

I merely used it as an example--quite an apt example when speaking with LDS at that.

You see, if you argue because Jesus quoted some passages that we have in our OT, and even attributed them to God, that means "that Jesus and the NT writers all seem to assume that anything the OT Scriptures said was true and could be quoted without apology or hesitation as God speaking, as God's revelation." If you argue that, then a couple of examples don't make your case. The case is only made that Jesus, and Paul for that matter, obviously felt at least some parts of the OT actually are quotations of God and thus are inspired. Your examples do not account for many other parts, like the Song of Solomon, which aren't quoted or at all defined as inspired by the LORD.

[ELF1024]

How deep does the rabbit hole go? Rob

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

Huh? Are you seriously disputing that the apostles in the NT were quoting the OT? Are you denying that Paul was quoting Deuteronomy in 1 Corinthians 9:8-10 (note his reference to "the Law of Moses")??? And when Jesus said, "It is written...," was he not quoting Scripture???

Why does all debate change as soon as others

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

I have provided evidence. Now it is your turn.

Why don't you defend you own position by providing the same evidence? I say that you cannot cite a single instance of Jesus affirming the inspiration or truth of the ENTIRE Bible or the Entire OT, as the BIBLE as the book did not exist until well after Jesus' death.

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

What is your problem?

How deep does the rabbit hole go? Rob

[Rob Bowman]

Elf,

You wrote:

I assume the Rabbit Hole goes as deep as it needs to. IMHO Mr. Bowman is not here to learn. He is here to preach his own doctrine. He is here to show us the error of our ways.

Without being willing to actually accept something outside of your own beliefs, the rabbit hole is endless.

And just what evidence do we have that you are willing even to consider something outside your own beliefs?

I find it fascinating that so many Mormons on this board, whenever they run into difficulty defending their viewpoint, try to change the subject to my motivations. That is a clear signal that you have run out of rational support for your position.

[ELF1024]

Elf,

I have provided evidence. Now it is your turn.

Really Rob, your provided evidence of Christ stating the WHOLE OT is inspired and affirmed? I must have missed that post...

All I saw you do was change the focus, just like this is another attempt to change the focus off of your unsupportable conclusion to me.