The True Gospel

[Lightbearer]

Peter never said water baptisn saves, He said it is only a sybol of salvation, PLEASE NOTE, The water didn't save Noah, It was the ark that saved him, PLEASE NOTE, water killed the other people, NOT SAVED THEM.

Actually it was obediance that saved Noah and his sons and their wives... the Ark was the mode in which God ordained for them to be saved. It is also obedience to God by fulfilling all righteousness by being baptized with one who has been authorized to baptize by water and the receiving of the Holy Ghost which witnesses the righteousness of that priesthood ordinance that makes it valid.

(Matthew 28:19-20) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

This baptism of the water is just as vital and essential as the baptism of the spirit, in fact I will say that no true baptism of the spirit can occur without the baptism of water by the proper priesthood authority. I realize this places many in a defensless position, because if they have no true claim to authority, and no revelation, all they have is the dead letter of the word.

Jesus never said you can only enter the Kingdom by water baptism. He said, You must be born of the water,[WORD] and the Spirit. Water is symbolic of the word. See Jn 15: 3. Eph 5: 26. 1 Pet 1: 22--23.

Water baptism alone will not save, it must be accompanied by obediance to all the laws and ordiances of the Gospel: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, followed by enduring in faithfulness to the end... that is the only way salvation can come.

Johns baptism only prepared the way for Jesus.

Not true, why then did Jesus disciples continue to baptize after His resurrection? Peter, Phillip, and even Paul did so and the scripture cannot be broken, just look in the book of Acts.

The Greek emphesis for saved in, "He that believeth and is baptised" is on the Believing, Not baptism.

The Greek emphesis for remision, in "Repent and be baptised for the remision of sins", Is on Repent, Not baptised.

Who is to say if you interpretation of the Greek is correct? By what authority? Do you believe in direct modern revelation? That would be the only way to be sure.

You don't need water baptism to be saved, If you did, then God, Jesus Peter and Paul didn't know it.

Says who? You? I have the testimony of the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost to the contrary, in fact all the apostles say so including Peter and Paul. The only ones who deny baptism are modern sectarians who are devoid of any authority anyway. In fact since you prove that the Bible is unclear on this important doctrine you also prove that a living prophet is necessary to establish the word of the ancient apostles. That is what the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants is for, to be another witness along with the Bible so that the truth of these doctrines can be established and God has promised His wittness to all of us if we will read all of His words and ask Him, instead of teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually it was obediance that saved Noah and his sons and their wives... the Ark was the mode in which God ordained for them to be saved. It is also obedience to God by fulfilling all righteousness by being baptized with one who has been authorized to baptize by water and the receiving of the Holy Ghost which witnesses the righteousness of that priesthood ordinance that makes it valid.

This is very valid and relevant. If Noah had just had faith, as some EV types define it, then Noah's faith alone should have saved him from teh rains. But more was needed. Only by Noah's actions were him and his family saved. Faith with out works is indeed dead. Great point Lightbearer.

[BCSpace]

Peter never said water baptisn saves,

Hate to disappoint you, but it says precisely that:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 3:20-21

He said it is only a sybol of salvation, PLEASE NOTE, The water didn't save Noah, It was the ark that saved him, PLEASE NOTE, water killed the other people, NOT SAVED THEM.

What part of "saved by water" don't you understand? And what did the water save them from? The wickedness of the people of Noah's generation by killing them off.

[Kingsson]

The more I study the Bible, the more impressed I am that Joseph Smith, a man who had a 3rd grade education, managed to interpret better than anyone of his day. What we believe is what, I say, is a superior interpretation of the Bible than you have.

I don't care what J Smith [ Or anyone else] interpreted from the Bible, If it doesn't agree with the Bible it isn't from God.

If J Smith realy knew the Bible, [instead of his own interpretations of it], He would have know how wrong those visions were.

SO MUCH FOR HIS INTERPRETATIONS.

You aren't suposed to have a superior interpretation of the Bible, You aren't supsoe to have any kind of interpretation of the Bible, You are supose to let the Bible interpret itself AND BELIEVE WHAT IT SAYS.

Tell me some of J Smith's Biblical interpretations and I will tell you they are true or not.

[LeSellers]

You are supose to let the Bible interpret itself AND BELIEVE WHAT IT SAYS.

Where does the Bible say this?

I have a Bible (one of many I own) sitting on my book shelf. It's been there for years. In all that time, it's never interpreted itself. Perhaps I have a defective copy.

Lehi

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

There is no such teaching in the Bible of baptising for the dead. There was a group of people doing it, But Paul wasn't making a doctrine of it, He was just staying to those people If there is no resurrection from the dead, WHY DO YOU BAPTISE FOR THEM

PLEASE KEEP THE BIBLE IN IR'S RIGHT CONTEXT.

Besides,Acording to the Bible, You need at least two scriptures to build a doctrine.

You shall have it.

The baptism of the souls of the dead or of their resurrected bodies was a frequent theme in the recounting of Christ's descent into the spirit prison. In the Shepherd of Hermas (mid-second-century scripture) The angel of Hermas tells the pre-Christian dead - "who had fallen asleep" - were also baptized (the "seal");

The Third Book of Hermas, Sim. 9:152-160 : "So these also who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and 'entered into the kingdom of God'. . . . This seal, then, was preached to them also, and they made use of it 'to enter into the kingdom of God.'"

"Why, Sir," said I, "did the 40 stones also come up with them from the deep, although they had received the seal already?"

"Because," said he, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former, who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. Through them, therefore, they were made alive, and received the knowledge of the name of the Son of God. . . . For they had fallen asleep in righteousness and in great purity, only they had not received this seal. You have then the explanation of these things also."

1 Peter 3:18-19 : "[Christ] went [in His spirit] and preached to the [disobedient] spirits in prison."

To what end?

1 Peter 3:21 : "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

He says that it is baptism that saves as baptism is more than just bathing (“putting away the filth of the flesh”) but it cleanses us so we can answer a good conscious toward God. If the disobedient spirits were preached to are to be saved, they must also be cleansed. But that seems to require the impossible. Unless there is some how a way that the dead can receive baptism.

So Paul refers to those baptizing for the dead:

1 Corinthians 15:29 : "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"

This is part of Paul's argument against those who denied a future resurrection. Because the resurrection of Christ was a reality thus the Apostles did not preach it in vain, the literal resurrection of the dead is also a reality, thus dead do rise. Thus the baptisms for the dead likewise are not done in vain. Many modern biblical scholars interpret this the same way have been puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice, making the churches today Biblically inconsistent.

What do Christ’s words mean: “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. It’s not the gates attacking the church, its the church attacking the gates, and the "gates" will not prevail. How is the Church of Jesus Christ expected to attack the gates of death? The spirits in the prison can be preached to and people can be baptized on behalf of the dead, and if your church does not do these things, then how can you claim, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"? You condemn the dead as lost, because your church cannot prevail against death.

There is considerable evidence that some early Christians and some Jewish groups performed proxy ordinance work for the salvation of the dead. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 B.C., it was discovered that the Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had concealed pagan idols beneath their clothing. Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high priest and commander, collected money to purchase sacrificial animals, and taking account of the resurrection, makes Atonement on behalf of his dead comrades.

2 Maccabees 12:43–46 : "And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin."

Historical records show the baptism of a living person by proxy for the dead was performed by the dominant church until they were forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397. Baptism for the dead was practiced and only banned about four hundred years after Christ by church councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the apostasy and a need for a restoration - church councils altered doctrines and practices that was accepted at an earlier date.

Thus for Catholics, proxy baptism was replaced by prayers and masses for the dead, such as the Jewish did, as illustrated by Judas Maccabaeus. Except they of course don't do the sacrifices, they are Christians. But what sacrifices did in ancient Judaism is what baptism does in Christianity. What good are your prayers if baptism is needed to remit our sins?

[Nathair/|\]

I don't care what J Smith [ Or anyone else] interpreted from the Bible, If it doesn't agree with the Bible it isn't from God.

If J Smith realy knew the Bible, [instead of his own interpretations of it], He would have know how wrong those visions were.

SO MUCH FOR HIS INTERPRETATIONS.

You aren't suposed to have a superior interpretation of the Bible, You aren't supsoe to have any kind of interpretation of the Bible, You are supose to let the Bible interpret itself AND BELIEVE WHAT IT SAYS.

Tell me some of J Smith's Biblical interpretations and I will tell you they are true or not.

You have multiple CFR's to answer in this thread as well as others.

It's been demonstrated in every case that the Prophet's exegesis is far less tendentious than your eisegesis,

It is impossible to read anything without interpreting. It's foolish to attempt to read an ancient text without either revelation or an understanding of the setting it was written in.

Why should we take your asserted interpretations over those of a known Prophet of God? What are your credentials? If you claim to be a Prophet, how were you called? Did you attend the Divine Council to receive your commission?

[Kingsson]

So why did Jesus get baptized if not to show us that if he who was perfect would be baptized then shouldn't all of us be baptized; othewise it was a senseless act. Isn't baptism itself the symbol of being born again; when one goes down in the water and comes up again his sins are washed away.

Yes, please do and quit nitpicking what you accept and don't based solely on your interpretation.

And what the heck does it mean let the Bible interpret itself? It obviously isn't doing a very good job when if 10 people read it they all come away with a different interpretation.

[1]I didn't say we shouldn't be baptised, I have been baptised, But that was Seven months after I was born again, [saved], So I know water baptism doesn't save.

I was baptised in the Holy Ghost and spoke in tongues Two months before I was baptised in water, So I know water baptism doesn't save.

And I can prove it by scripture.

Water baptism is one identifying themself with Jesus, It is an outward sign of an ALREADY inward experience.

The reason it was, [And is] impportant is because a person is identifying that they are dead to self and risen with Jesus to a new life.

Water baptism doesn't wash our sins away, It is the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin, NOT WATER.

[2]I don't take scripture out of context, It is people who don't believe the Bible that think I do take them out of context.

[3]I am not nitpicking, I am saying what the Bible says, AND IT ISN'T MY OW INTERPRETATIONS.

[4] Let the Bible interpret itself, means, JUST BELIEVE WHAT IT SAYS, In it's right context. Why 10 people come up with different interpretations is because they put theirown interpretations to it instead of puting it in context with the rest of the Bible and believing it.

For instance, The catholics interpret Matt 16: 18 as Jesus building His Church on Peter, But Jesus never said that.

The JWs interpret Jn 17: 3 as, eternal life is,"TAKING IN KNOWLEDGE OF GOD", But Jesus never said that.

The mormon interpret 1 Cor 15: 29 as they can baptise for the dead, But Paul never said that.

So you can see by taking one scripture out of context with the rest of the Bible can build wrong doctrines.

[Mordecai]

You aren't suposed to have a superior interpretation of the Bible, You aren't supsoe to have any kind of interpretation of the Bible, You are supose to let the Bible interpret itself AND BELIEVE WHAT IT SAYS.

Books are inanimate objects. They can't interpret and must be interpreted. You have your (inferior) interpretation. I have Joseph Smith's (superior) interpretation. I'd like a response to this instead, which I wrote in an earlier post:

I don't think anyone disputes that Jesus is greater than Paul, and we shouldn't suggest that Paul was a superior teacher of correct doctrine.

Let's see what Jesus has to say on how to receive eternal life:

John 4:35 Say not ye, There are yet four months, and [then] cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest.//36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together...John 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed... Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? ...[Jesus] said unto him...lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor... and come, follow me.

James, who knew Jesus well, being his half brother, taught that works are precursors to greater faith:

James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with [Abraham's] works, and by works was faith made perfect?

It's pretty clear, if Abraham had not obeyed God, no angel would have appeared to him, and no ram would have been caught in the thicket. Would his faith have increased without the work of bringing Isaac to be sacrificed?

I find it hard to believe that Paul knew better than Jesus or James. Not to say that Paul was wrong. It's our translation and/or our interpretation that is the problem.

Romans 10:9-10 suggests that if we "confess that Jesus is Lord" and "believe that God raised Him from the dead," we'll be saved. Nowhere does Jesus say that if we confess that He is Lord, we'll be saved. However, Jesus does teach that if we become His servant (thereby making Him our Lord), we can be saved. If you go back to the Greek and consider that the Greek word pisteuo meant, prior to 200 A.D., "make an agreement," and you also consider that Paul did write his epistle to the Romans prior to 200 A.D., we might read Romans 10:9 as follows, "...if you make an agreement that Jesus is Lord... you'll be saved." That is to say, if you become Jesus's servant, i.e. "Come follow me" and become a "fisher of men," or, "labour for the meat that endures," you can be saved.

We might also consider what Paul says here:

Romans 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Hearing the word of God is an internal work. You make a choice to hear/listen, which is a work in itself.

As far as I'm concerned, this is an open and shut case. You either accept Jesus as your Lord and agree to obey Him or you can't receive eternal life. Jesus Himself preached this, as did James as did Paul. If you want to increase your faith or even receive your first bit of faith, you have to take action.

[Deborah]

So you can see by taking one scripture out of context with the rest of the Bible can build wrong doctrines.

Sigh.

[Kingsson]

It is written:

4Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world. 5And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

10And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

Baptism of water, baptism of fire, baptism of blood.

He didn't need to, it was already established doctrine when he wrote that letter, as BCSpace's ECF quotes demonstrate.All of the epistles in the New Testament were written to people who were already baptized members of the Church.

CFR

Yours under the scriptural oaks,

Nathair /|\

[1] Whatever book you have quoted from contradicts the Bible, The Bible proves that you don't need to be baptised in water to be baptised in the Holy Ghost.

[2] In know about baptism in water as an outward sign of an ALREADY inward experience, and our identification with Jesus.

I take it by "Baptism of Fire", You mean the baptism in the Holy Ghost. But what is the baptism of blood..

[3]Baptism for the dead wasn't an already established Christian doctrine, It never has been and never will be, The Bible teaches that it is to late after death, You are either a Christian and go to heaven or you aren't a Christian and go to hell.

[4] Of cause the letters were wrote to baptised Christians, That what they believed in those days, [ And we still believe it, And do ir today].

But that doesn't mean baptsim saves, Check out the original Greek text and you see that water baptism doesn't save, It is our identifying with Jesus, It is showing that we are ALREADY dead to self and are risen with Jesus. There is no power to forgive or cleans sins in water baptism.

[Kingsson]

This is a common error of most men who read the Bible. I too fell into this trap for a while. The Bible is a bridge so we can learn some of the mechanics on how to talk to God. If we follow what the Bible says we clean our house by repenting of sin and we start to follow the commandments. Then we ask the Holy Ghost into our clean house. That is when we start to get the more sure spirit to spirit communication that reading can't supply. The true witness of God's truth is the Holy Ghost because it takes interpretation out of the equation. But the Holy Ghost does not sit on our shoulder and whisper a Bible interpretation in our ear. In some cases the Holy Ghost will confirm when we have something right and in some cases will tell us we are on the wrong track. The hard work is still for us to do. I do not know the correct interpretation of many areas of the Bible. I have an opinion on some things and others I am solid as a rock because I have the sure witness of God to back me up. But that is the core Gospel, the core of the plan of salvation, and the love of God.

We all bring our worldview with us as we read the Bible so we will all read it differently. The message is interwoven and each verse rests on the others. Let me give you am example:

Christ said:

Matthew 18:22 (King James Version)

22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

This was said in response to a question about how many times we are to forgive someone. So it seems we are to forgive 490 times. But if we make the connection to another seventy times seven in Daniel the message actually becomes clear. In Daniel chapter 9 in the seventy week prophecy will bring an end to sin.

Daniel 9:24 (King James Version)

24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

So the way I interpret the Bible Christ is saying to forgive sin until sin is no more. Now I have to ask you how do you interpret these same scriptures? Do you stick to the 490 literal reading or would consider the expanded meaning? Is it not true that both are true? You need to get off your high horse before someone knocks you off. There is lots of room in scripture for all of us to be wrong. Let us help each other by sharing what little we do know.

The Holy Ghost does reveal the truth of the Bible to open hearts and those with a teachable spirit, That is one of His works in the TRUE BELIEVER.

[Mordecai]

[3]Baptism for the dead wasn't an already established Christian doctrine, It never has been and never will be, The Bible teaches that it is to late after death, You are either a Christian and go to heaven or you aren't a Christian and go to hell.

Then what do you make of 1 Peter? It says Jesus went to the spirits in prison, so that "they might live according to God in the spirit." You say that we should let the Bible interpret itself, which I take to mean that we should take what it says at face value. In that case, you're going to have to accept that Paul accepted baptism for the dead as a Christian practice: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=8&num=2&id=223 You'll also have to accept that Peter preached a redemption for the dead, despite those living at the time of Noah not living a Christian life.

[LeSellers]

The Holy Ghost does reveal the truth of the Bible to open hearts and those with a teachable spirit, That is one of His works in the TRUE BELIEVER.

Hold on there a second.

A while back you claimed the Bible interpreted itself. Now you're saying the Holy Ghost does it.

Pick a position and stick with it, or we'll never get through this.

Lehi

[cdowis]

I will only reject your view if it is wrong.

Your problem was, YOU INTERPRETED THE BIBLE, THAT IS WRONG, You should let the Bible interpret itself. The Bible isn't there to be interpreted, It is there to be believed.

You might find 2 Peter 1 of interest.

[20] Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[21] For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Only a prophet can interpret the Bible. And a living prophet has done so.

[Nathair/|\]

[1] Whatever book you have quoted from contradicts the Bible, The Bible proves that you don't need to be baptised in water to be baptised in the Holy Ghost.

[2] In know about baptism in water as an outward sign of an ALREADY inward experience, and our identification with Jesus.

I take it by "Baptism of Fire", You mean the baptism in the Holy Ghost. But what is the baptism of blood..

[3]Baptism for the dead wasn't an already established Christian doctrine, It never has been and never will be, The Bible teaches that it is to late after death, You are either a Christian and go to heaven or you aren't a Christian and go to hell.

[4] Of cause the letters were wrote to baptised Christians, That what they believed in those days, [ And we still believe it, And do ir today].

But that doesn't mean baptsim saves, Check out the original Greek text and you see that water baptism doesn't save, It is our identifying with Jesus, It is showing that we are ALREADY dead to self and are risen with Jesus. There is no power to forgive or cleans sins in water baptism.

Check the links to my sources provided in my post and answer the CFR.

[Kingsson]

Lol. What a stretch. Peter is clearly talking about the physical act of baptism. He even used Noah and the flood as an example of baptism.

THis is called prooftexting. Stop doing it. You are taking what Jesus said out of context and mudding it up with your intrepretation. Again Jesus, was clearly talking about water baptism. On must be born again of the water and the spirit.

Please demonstrate this.

Acutally they did know it and they taught it. It is you that is trying to twist their words into something else. Thanks for playing.

Why in the book of Acts does Peter tell people to be baptised for the remission of sins? It seems Peter thought that the physical act of baptism remitted sins.

[1] Please note, Peter said baptism was only a figure, NOT THE REAL THING THAT SAVES. If baptism saves then God, Jesus and Paul all got it wrong.

[2] Read the original Greek meaning and you'll see the water in Jn 3: 5. doesn't mean water baptism, Please note, Jesus never said,"yOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN BY WATER BAPTISM" fALSE RELIGIONS MADE THAT UP.

Jesus said you must be born of the water, [Which is symbolic of the word] AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU. And of the Spirit.

[3] As for Johns baptism, That wasn't the Christian baptism. Acts 18: 24--26. Acts 19: 1--5.

[4]You have only hald quoted Acts 2: 38, NOUGHTY, The greek Emphesis for "Remission" as in

"Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins", Is on the Repentance.

The Greek emphesis for "Saved" in "Believe and is baptised" in Mk 16: 16. Is on, Believe,

Acording to the Greek text, water baptism isn't the thing that saves of rimmits sins. in neither of these scriptures.

Please note, To understand the Bible you need to know when God is doing the talking or when it is a Biblical character doing the talking, Or wether it is the Bible translater that translated it wrong.

Acording to the original Greek texts, In Acts 2: 38 and Mk 16: 16, Jesus and Peter never said water baptism saves.

And that is proved by the Bible.

So will you kindly stop saying I am taking scriptures out of context

[Kingsson]

Who is leaving the church with me? This person's arguments are just too much to bear.

The church is clearly false and Kingsson has just proven it.

You mean the Bible proves the book of mormon wrong,

Unless you know what the Bible says, And believe it, You will never win an arguement with me, I have the Bible on my side.

[Mordecai]

Unless you know what the Bible says, And believe it, You will never win an arguement with me, I have the Bible on my side.

I believe what the Bible says. I also believe my reading comprehension is better than yours. I guess English majors have a better chance at salvation, because they are better at reading the Bible? I'm saved... via my degree in English! Wahoo!

[Nathair/|\]

You mean the Bible proves the book of mormon wrong,

Another CFR. I suggest your next post in this thread be to respond to at least one of the active CFR's against you. Specific references from the Bible are required.

Unless you know what the Bible says, And believe it, You will never win an arguement with me, I have the Bible on my side.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You mean the Bible proves the book of mormon wrong,

It does? I dare you and challange you do demonstrate this.

Unless you know what the Bible says, And believe it, You will never win an arguement with me, I have the Bible on my side.

Ha, we have your interpretation of the bible on your side. So far you are loosing and loosing bad. ALl we have from you is bald assertions.

[Kingsson]

Actually it was obediance that saved Noah and his sons and their wives... the Ark was the mode in which God ordained for them to be saved. It is also obedience to God by fulfilling all righteousness by being baptized with one who has been authorized to baptize by water and the receiving of the Holy Ghost which witnesses the righteousness of that priesthood ordinance that makes it valid. This baptism of the water is just as vital and essential as the baptism of the spirit, in fact I will say that no true baptism of the spirit can occur without the baptism of water by the proper priesthood authority. I realize this places many in a defensless position, because if they have no true claim to authority, and no revelation, all they have is the dead letter of the word.

Water baptism alone will not save, it must be accompanied by obediance to all the laws and ordiances of the Gospel: Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, followed by enduring in faithfulness to the end... that is the only way salvation can come.

Not true, why then did Jesus disciples continue to baptize after His resurrection? Peter, Phillip, and even Paul did so and the scripture cannot be broken, just look in the book of Acts.

Who is to say if you interpretation of the Greek is correct? By what authority? Do you believe in direct modern revelation? That would be the only way to be sure.

Says who? You? I have the testimony of the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Ghost to the contrary, in fact all the apostles say so including Peter and Paul. The only ones who deny baptism are modern sectarians who are devoid of any authority anyway. In fact since you prove that the Bible is unclear on this important doctrine you also prove that a living prophet is necessary to establish the word of the ancient apostles. That is what the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants is for, to be another witness along with the Bible so that the truth of these doctrines can be established and God has promised His wittness to all of us if we will read all of His words and ask Him, instead of teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

I think you better go and read the Bible, And stop showing your ignorance of it.

[1] Water baptism isn't as vital as the baptism in the Holy Ghost WHO EVER TOLD YOU THAT.

[2]You don't need to be baptised in water to be baptised in the Holy Ghost, WHOEVER TOLD YOU THAT.

[3]I never said the Disciples didn't baptise people.

[4The old testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testamen was written in Greek, I have both Heb And Gk key stiuy Bibles with the original Bible texts and meanings, You would say the interpretation of the Greek is wrong if it disagrees with your doctrine.

[5]I can prove from the Bible that water baptism doesn't save, I have already said that the Greek proves it doesn't save.

[5] The book of mormon will never replace the Bible and God divine order of Minister & Ministries and their authority, If the book of mormon doesn't agree with what God has said in the Bible, Then it is wrong.

[Kingsson]

Hate to disappoint you, but it says precisely that:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 3:20-21

What part of "saved by water" don't you understand? And what did the water save them from? The wickedness of the people of Noah's generation by killing them off.

PLEASE NOTE, water didn't save Noah, It was the arc that saved them, The water would have klilled them just like it did the others.

PLEASE NOTE, Water is only a "Figure" Not the thing that saves. I can prove from the Bible that water baptism doesn't save.

[Kingsson]

Where does the Bible say this?

I have a Bible (one of many I own) sitting on my book shelf. It's been there for years. In all that time, it's never interpreted itself. Perhaps I have a defective copy.

Lehi

When I say "Let the Bible interpret itself" I mean Just believe what it says, Don't try to put your own interpretations to it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

[1] Please note, Peter said baptism was only a figure, NOT THE REAL THING THAT SAVES. If baptism saves then God, Jesus and Paul all got it wrong.

Ugh. Let's quote the scripture for you again.

The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

What is the "like figure" that Peter is referning to? I will give you a hint, it has to do with Noah and the flood. He is not talking about our phsysical baptism being the "like figure" here. Peter is using symbolism to teach that in essance the earth was baptised and there is indeed a "like figure" unto our own baptism.

[2] Read the original Greek meaning and you'll see the water in Jn 3: 5. doesn't mean water baptism, Please note, Jesus never said,"yOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN BY WATER BAPTISM" fALSE RELIGIONS MADE THAT UP.

Jesus said you must be born of the water, [Which is symbolic of the word] AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU. And of the Spirit.

Sorry but the text of the new testament is clear. Jesus was talking about a rebirth both of Body and Spirit. That rebirth happens at phsyical baptism and baptism by fire. You have utterly failed to make your case.

[3] As for Johns baptism, That wasn't the Christian baptism. Acts 18: 24--26. Acts 19: 1--5.

What was different about John's baptism? Can you even answer that? Why did the saints need to be baptised by Peter after they had been baptised by John?

[4]You have only hald quoted Acts 2: 38, NOUGHTY, The greek Emphesis for "Remission" as in

"Repent and be baptised for the remission of sins", Is on the Repentance.

Sorry that is not what the text says. You are leaving out the baptism part. And remssion of sin deals directly of Baptism. The text does not say "Repent for the remission of sins". as you imply. It says repent and be baptised for the remission of sins.

The Greek emphesis for "Saved" in "Believe and is baptised" in Mk 16: 16. Is on, Believe,

Acording to the Greek text, water baptism isn't the thing that saves of rimmits sins. in neither of these scriptures.

I have no dog in this fight bout Mark 16-16. You are wasting your time with me on that verse.

Please note, To understand the Bible you need to know when God is doing the talking or when it is a Biblical character doing the talking, Or wether it is the Bible translater that translated it wrong.

Wait, I thought that bible interpreted it's self. Now you are saying that you (this implies that we interpret it) need to know when God is talkin and when it is a biblical Character, as if God is not a biblical Charater, is talking.

And what is this part about part of the bible being translated wrong? I though the bible was the complete inerrant word of God.

Acording to the original Greek texts, In Acts 2: 38 and Mk 16: 16, Jesus and Peter never said water baptism saves.

You are correct that thos literal words do not appear in thos verses, but in 1Pet it is clear that baptism doth now save.

And that is proved by the Bible.

So will you kindly stop saying I am taking scriptures out of context

You are talking it out of context you are also leaving out parts of the bible to suite your own dogma. And you ahve harldy proved anything with the bible let alone your own interpretation of scripture.