So is Evan Jesus the father of Lucifer? Y or N?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

While he was in the form/body of a serpent, couldn't he have had snakelets with demons possessing them? (Not sure what the correct term for baby snakes is)

Of course, many people take the Eden story as an allegory and not as a literal account of actual events. Which makes the question about Satan's offspring possibly moot.

Jesus said his enemies had the Devil as their father.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

He said that the "all" in "ALL have sinned" means literally everyone, including day-old babies (and presumably, babies who will be born in a week).

So why wouldn't he be consistent and believe that the "all" in "One God and Father of all" means literally everyone, too?

And sometimes there is no need to articulate one's own position in the course of questioning someone else's position.

" For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19. Don't you know your Bible? Just as righteousness is imputed, so is sin.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

" For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19.

Isn't it cool how the Bible doesn't say "all" there, and instead says "many" ?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by Apologette

" For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Romans 5:19. Don't you know your Bible? Just as righteousness is imputed, so is sin.

Apologette--that is a reference to the Redemption--where all men were absolved from the condemnation of the Fall through Christ's Atonement:


Romans 5:18---King James Version (KJV)


18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by Apologetic

Jesus said his enemies had the Devil as their father.

You are correct here.
The term "Father" talks about the relationship a person has with another.
This is why you can have a father/Son relationship with someone that you are not connected to by blood.

Jesus is the creator of "all things" and so Jesus is the creator of Satan.
But God is not the "Father" of Satan because they do not have the Father/son relationship.

So good *** Apologetic at understanding this Bible principle.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Isn't it cool how the Bible doesn't say "all" there, and instead says "many" ?

In the context of Romans 5:12 we see what is meant by "many"....

and on a side note, if you read the next verse you see something related to the question of if or not young kids sin.
For as we have read, Paul believed that before the Law came to him, (or rather before he was old enough to be covered under the law) he was "alive"
But here at verse 13 we see that even if you do not understand the law, you still can be guilty of sin.....it's just that God overlooks your sins for a time.

So Paul was correct, in the before the Law came and convicted him of his sin he was 'alive".....but we should not understand this to mean that the young Paul was incapable of committing a sin, but rather the sins that Paul may have been guilty of were overlooked and not changed against him due to him not being under the law as yet.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

So Paul was correct, in the before the Law came and convicted him of his sin he was 'alive".....but we should not understand this to mean that the young Paul was incapable of committing a sin, but rather the sins that Paul may have been guilty of were overlooked and not changed against him due to him not being under the law as yet.

Or--that his sins were washed away due to exactly what the Bible states:


Acts 22:16---King James Version (KJV)


16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Or--that his sins were washed away due to exactly what the Bible states:


Acts 22:16---King James Version (KJV)


16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

What brings you to use only the first part of the verse. yes we should be baptized but washing away our sins is through calling on the name of the Lord.. IHS jim

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Or--that his sins were washed away due to exactly what the Bible states:


Acts 22:16---King James Version (KJV)


16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Originally Posted by James Banta

What brings you to use only the first part of the verse. yes we should be baptized but washing away our sins is through calling on the name of the Lord.. IHS jim

IOW--we take what command precedes the washing away of Paul's sins---"arise, and be baptized,"----and replace it with what follows the washing away of sins,--- "calling on the name of the Lord"--cancel out the former part--and walla!--we have faith alone theology!

What a man-made construction.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=dberrie2000;143285]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---Or--that his sins were washed away due to exactly what the Bible states:


Acts 22:16---King James Version (KJV)


16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.



IOW--we take what command precedes the washing away of Paul's sins---"arise, and be baptized,"----and replace it with what follows the washing away of sins,--- "calling on the name of the Lord"--cancel out the former part--and walla!--we have faith alone theology!

What a man-made construction.

Should God command Paul to break His commandment to be baptized.. Again you believe that the Christian Church teaches against baptism.. We don't, we baptize a person as they come to Jesus and make a profession of faith in Him.. Unlike you we don't believe that water has the power to wash us clean of sin. That is done only by the blood of Jesus we gain as we confess our sin and turn to Him (1John 1:9).. How is the p***age in 1 John true if baptism is a requirement? But the p***age in Acts 22 can still be true if we say that confession is the way to forgiveness. After all confessing to God requires calling on His name.. Again I tell you use the Bible to interpret the Bible.. Allow it all to be true or just give up and call Jesus a liar and that the Bible is not his word.. IHS jim

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Allow it all to be true or just give up and call Jesus a liar... IHS jim

Hmm. So those are the only 2 choices a person has, eh? Interesting ultimatum.

Either

a) Believe that every word in the Bible as understood by Jim is true, or

b) You must call Jesus a liar.

Are you sure there isn't a third option?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by James Banta

What brings you to use only the first part of the verse. yes we should be baptized but washing away our sins is through calling on the name of the Lord.. IHS jim

this view is correct.
This is why you can be saved and not have gone near a drop of water....for it's not the washing away of the filth of the flesh that makes one free of sins, but rather the blood of Christ...

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

this view is correct.
This is why you can be saved and not have gone near a drop of water....for it's not the washing away of the filth of the flesh that makes one free of sins, but rather the blood of Christ...

So if the leaders of Christianity of the apostolic era was teaching that baptism in water like Jesus was baptized, was a commandment and one of the requirements for having one's sins remitted, what would you have to say about the state of apostolic Christianity and its leaders--that they were in a state of apostasy or were teaching heresies, or something like that?

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Hmm. So those are the only 2 choices a person has, eh? Interesting ultimatum.

Either

a) Believe that every word in the Bible as understood by Jim is true, or

b) You must call Jesus a liar.

Are you sure there isn't a third option?

Nope no third option.. Believe in the God of the Bible. Believe that He was made flesh and dwelt among us. Believe that he died a sinners death on our behalf and provides righteousness to all who trust Him or suffer the judgement of God.. There is no other way.. If that is the Bible according to Jim I sure got around with that message. It has been taught for over 2,000 years.. IHS jim

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So if the leaders of Christianity of the apostolic era was teaching that baptism in water like Jesus was baptized, was a commandment and one of the requirements for having one's sins remitted, what would you have to say about the state of apostolic Christianity and its leaders--that they were in a state of apostasy or were teaching heresies, or something like that?

That was never taught like that by the Apostles.. If anyone else taught it that way they never studied under the Apostles.. The Apostles knew that it is by the Blood of Jesus that remission of sins is accomplished. Water just can't do it, BLOOD IS REQUIRED.. Paul teaches us that the Baptism Jesus submitted to is NOT christian baptism.

Acts 19:2-5
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Since mormonism teaches that they have the same baptism as the baptism of John and it is sealed in the name of three Gods, and not the one true and living God it is therefore NOT valid.. LDS baptism is a product of pure apostasy.. Christian's sin were all washed away as we called on the name of the Lord in repentance.. We then can be baptized as a testimony to the gift of forgiveness we have experienced as God keeps His promises to us.. On fact I will go as far as to call it a commandment. When you start to obey His most important commandment found in Matthew 5:48, I will allow you to judge me in believing that those who trust their spiritual baptism to be the fulfillment of the commandment to be baptized are baptized members of the Church.. IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

So if the leaders of Christianity of the apostolic era was teaching that .....

Any teacher of today, or any teacher that is to come, or any teacher of the past, is only relevant if what they are teaching is in harmony with the Scriptures...

If someone teaches stuff that is not supported in the bible?...then we are to reject them.

But what if the person is well known and highly respected?.....If what they teach is not supported in the Bible, reject them.

But what if it's an angel from heaven?.....if what the angel from heaven teaches is not supported in the Bible, reject him.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Any teacher of today, or any teacher that is to come, or any teacher of the past, is only relevant if what they are teaching is in harmony with the Scriptures...

If someone teaches stuff that is not supported in the bible?...then we are to reject them.

But what if the person is well known and highly respected?.....If what they teach is not supported in the Bible, reject them.

But what if it's an angel from heaven?.....if what the angel from heaven teaches is not supported in the Bible, reject him.

And to say that you have firm Spiritual authority and the LDS here know it.. Fact it is so important that the Holy Spirit through Paul the Apostle added the message twice

Gal 1:8-9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


IHS jim

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Gal 1:8-9
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

God's word warns us about the Mormons.....yet some still fall for their song and dance.....so sad....

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Any teacher of today, or any teacher that is to come, or any teacher of the past, is only relevant if what they are teaching is in harmony with the Scriptures...

If someone teaches stuff that is not supported in the bible?...then we are to reject them.

I agree:


James 2:24----New American Standard Bible (NASB)


24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

I agree:


James 2:24----New American Standard Bible (NASB)


24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcf1J6AJB9M


there you go!



So "Salvation" is by Grace alone though FAITH, and no by Works!

And.....there are two type of "Justification" talked about in the Bible,

1st - Justification by Faith,
2nd - Justification by Works.



ok?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---I agree:


James 2:24----New American Standard Bible (NASB)


24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcf1J6AJB9M


there you go!

Could you explain for us what youtube has to do with what the Biblical record testifies is true?--- not by faith alone.

So "Salvation" is by Grace alone though FAITH, and no by Works!

Is that faith that is alone for salvation?


James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

Could you explain for us what youtube has to do with what the Biblical record testifies is true?--- not by faith alone.




Is that faith that is alone for salvation?


James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Suspended and banned from CARM, the attacker of Christ's Blood comes here to ply his wares. But his dead works won't get him anywhere!

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post----Could you explain for us what youtube has to do with what the Biblical record testifies is true?--- not by faith alone.


Is that faith that is alone for salvation?


James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Originally Posted by Apologette

Suspended and banned from CARM,

I'm usually banned before each week's end--and any LDS who does well on the CARM forum is usually banned within a short period of time.

the attacker of Christ's Blood comes here to ply his wares.

My "wares" are James2---what do you find about James 2 that you consider an attack on Christ's Blood?

But his dead works won't get him anywhere!

James did not believe either dead faith nor faith alone would get anyone anywhere:

James 2:20---King James Version (KJV)


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?



James 2:24---New American Standard Bible (NASB)


24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.


I'm pleased that Jill does not ban one for posting the Biblical scriptures--nor consider it an attack on Christ's Blood--quoting the Bible can get one banned on the CARM forum--especially if it testifies against the faith alone theology.

[nrajeffreturns]

My pattern typically is:

Day 1. Post something that gets me banned for 1-2 weeks.
Day 7 or 14: Allowed to post again. Post something that day that gets me banned again.
Day 14 or 21 or 28: Repeat.

The good thing about this is that I end up with long intervals where since I can't post at C&^m, I can post over here, or do something productive!

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

My pattern typically is:

Day 1. Post something that gets me banned for 1-2 weeks.
Day 7 or 14: Allowed to post again. Post something that day that gets me banned again.
Day 14 or 21 or 28: Repeat.

The good thing about this is that I end up with long intervals where since I can't post at C&^m, I can post over here, or do something productive!

All I see from that is you admit you have no respect from the rules of the owner of what ever site you post on.. IHS jim