A Question for fellow Christians. (Jesus, Moses, Earth, gospel)

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

I see things differently myself. I always worry about congregations that say that "they are the only ones saved".

just to make it clear ma'm .... I NEVER SAID "WE ARE THE ONLY ONES WHO WERE GOING TO BE SAVED"

i NEVER said that. besides, what are you afraid of? you dont beleive that God will make an exception for you? there is something wrong then. seek and you shall find!

all i did was read was written .... and answer your questions BASED on the bible.

BASED on bible where all of us claim to ACCEPT ...

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Thanks, uss_bigd. I appreciate your honesty, even though I see things differently.

that is your right ma'm

but i suggest you ask your self, " do you see things differently based on what is written"? or do you see things differently because you do not want to accept the verses you just read?

no need to tell me your answer, we are accountable to our own conscience, we all are.

it is also your right to know the truth!

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

that is your right ma'm

but i suggest you ask your self, " do you see things differently based on what is written"? or do you see things differently because you do not want to accept the verses you just read?

I see things based on what is written, what God's prophets have taught and what the Holy Ghost has confirmed to me is true.

no need to tell me your answer, we are accountable to our own conscience, we all are.

I'm glad to hear you say that.

it is also your right to know the truth!

You're right again. Indeed it is.

[Ratiocinative]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

faith, by definition is looking forward for things to come. you can have faith, beleive in something yet not do something about it. you can say you call Jesus name, yet not live like a christian.

but still the point remains. according to the scriptures, according to verses i pasted above. THERE IS A CHURCH WITH A SPECIFIC NAME, AND BAPTISM IS A REQUIREMENT. THEY DO NOT COLLECT 10% OF YOUR INCOME AND THEY DO NOT COLLECT FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THEIR CHURCH(YET).

No, looking forward for things to come is hope. Faith is confidence or trust, and when you trust someone you will do what they say. If Peter was teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation in Acts 2:38, then why did he forget this important detail in Acts 3, when telling another crowd how to be saved in verse 19? How did the people in in Acts 4 receive the Holy Spirit, as they did in verse 31, when they were never baptized or even told about baptism? Why did Peter say in 10:43, that all the prophets bear witness to that fact that everyone how believes in Jesus' name receives forgiveness of sins, which logically includes those who believe and are baptized as well as those those who are believed and not baptized? What about Acts 15, why does Peter not mention baptism in his speech during the meeting in which leaders of the Church were discussing what must people must do to be saved? In Acts 16, the Jailer asks Paul and Silas "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", and what as their response? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved". Why did they not tell him baptism was part of salvation?

Furthermore, Acts 2:38 doesn't specifically mention anyone becoming saved or actually receiving the Holy Spirit, like many other passages that do not mention baptism do. How do you know whether it was a result of their repenting, baptism, or both, that would cause them to receive the Holy Spirit? From this passage alone, you can't, but from many, many, many other passages that mention repentance and receiving the Holy Spirit(Acts 3:19, 10:44), but not baptism, the only logical conclusion is that baptism is not a pre-requisite for receiving the Holy Spirit.

[Jeremy Mason]

See what happen when I leave for a day. WOW!!!!

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Ratiocinative

No, looking forward for things to come is hope. Faith is confidence or trust, and when you trust someone you will do what they say. If Peter was teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation in Acts 2:38, then why did he forget this important detail in Acts 3, when telling another crowd how to be saved in verse 19? How did the people in in Acts 4 receive the Holy Spirit, as they did in verse 31, when they were never baptized or even told about baptism? Why did Peter say in 10:43, that all the prophets bear witness to that fact that everyone how believes in Jesus' name receives forgiveness of sins, which logically includes those who believe and are baptized as well as those those who are believed and not baptized? What about Acts 15, why does Peter not mention baptism in his speech during the meeting in which leaders of the Church were discussing what must people must do to be saved? In Acts 16, the Jailer asks Paul and Silas "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?", and what as their response? "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved". Why did they not tell him baptism was part of salvation?

Furthermore, Acts 2:38 doesn't specifically mention anyone becoming saved or actually receiving the Holy Spirit, like many other passages that do not mention baptism do. How do you know whether it was a result of their repenting, baptism, or both, that would cause them to receive the Holy Spirit? From this passage alone, you can't, but from many, many, many other passages that mention repentance and receiving the Holy Spirit(Acts 3:19, 10:44), but not baptism, the only logical conclusion is that baptism is not a pre-requisite for receiving the Holy Spirit.

Sir, did you verify if Peter was talking to the same type of people in the verses you stated?

when you say same type,i mean are these people Gentiles? meaning people who were not yet followers? or people who were already baptized?

logic would dictate if he was talking to the people who were already baptized then, IS THERE A NEED TO MENTION IT AGAIN? I DON'T THINK SO SIR.

besides, "BE BAPTIZED" is a straightforward instruction to be baptized why must we get stubborn about it?

Granting your point without accepting, when Peter said repent and be baptized and never mentioned it again in the succeding chapters explain why is it no longer a requirement as he required it in ACTS 2:38?

an argument like, "well he did not mention it anymore in succeeding chapters" is just not an logical response... i suppose we all are obedient enough to accept a single mention of instructions righ? let us not allow ATHIEST to laugh at us because of our lapses in logic.

[Ratiocinative]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

Sir, did you verify if Peter was talking to the same type of people in the verses you stated?

when you say same type,i mean are these people Gentiles? meaning people who were not yet followers? or people who were already baptized?

logic would dictate if he was talking to the people who were already baptized then, IS THERE A NEED TO MENTION IT AGAIN? I DON'T THINK SO SIR.

besides, "BE BAPTIZED" is a straightforward instruction to be baptized why must we get stubborn about it?

Granting your point without accepting, when Peter said repent and be baptized and never mentioned it again in the succeding chapters explain why is it no longer a requirement as he required it in ACTS 2:38?

an argument like, "well he did not mention it anymore in succeeding chapters" is just not an logical response... i suppose we all are obedient enough to accept a single mention of instructions righ? let us not allow ATHIEST to laugh at us because of our lapses in logic.

Peter was talking to Jews, and different groups of Jews through the first several chapters of Acts. Why would Peter be explaining how Christ's death was the fulfillment of God plan and the way for them to be saved, as he did in Acts 3, to people who already knew this? And if they didn't already know this, then how could they have been baptized? Being baptized is a straightforward command, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be baptized, but being baptized won't save you. The Bible is full of things we are commanded to do, but there is only one thing that saves us, faith in Christ.

[Sola'lor]

Originally Posted by Ratiocinative

Peter was talking to Jews, and different groups of Jews through the first several chapters of Acts. Why would Peter be explaining how Christ's death was the fulfillment of God plan and the way for them to be saved, as he did in Acts 3, to people who already knew this? And if they didn't already know this, then how could they have been baptized? Being baptized is a straightforward command, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be baptized, but being baptized won't save you. The Bible is full of things we are commanded to do, but there is only one thing that saves us, faith in Christ.

What is the point in comamndments if they don't give you any benefit towards salvation. I agree that only through Christ can we be saved.

[uss_bigd]

Originally Posted by Ratiocinative

and I'm not saying you shouldn't be baptized, but being baptized won't save you.

So, Jesus (of whom we have faith on) commanded Peter to baptize people were not really serious about it? they meant faith was enough?

if so, why weren't they serious about it? why not just be straight forward and say baptism is a joke its not serious faith in Jesus is enough?

By the way you have mot addressed all my questions in the previous post

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

let us not allow ATHIEST to laugh at us because of our lapses in logic.

Im sure an atheist will still laugh no matter what is done to avoid it.

For my part, I dont believe baptism to be anything more than a ritual that Jesus practiced to initiate people into his mystical community, calle