Do you believe Spirit baptism replaces water baptism?

[BreadOfLife]

Bread of Life is intent on pushing Catholic doctrine down everyone's throats, as though it, and not the word of God, contains the truth. It gets very tiresome. C

No – as I’ve always said – I am here for ONE reason:
To seek out lies about the church and to set the record straight.

If you’re tired of seeing me here – it is simply a testament to all of the LIES being vomited out around here about the Catholic Church.

If YOU and your friends here would just behave – there wouldn’t be a need for me here . . .

atholicism is just one of many denominations and, IMHO, are closer to the beliefs and practices of the Jews of the Old Covenant than to the beliefs and practices of the New Covenant believers.

No – instead of discarding what those Jewish rituals and practices prefigured v- WE understand the New Covenant FULFILLMENTS they represent. And they point to Christ (CVol. 2:16-17).

 

[GTW27]

The “sledgehammer:” is “ONLY for those who persist in spreading blatant falsehoods about what Catholics teach and believe.

I have absolutely NO problem with someone who simply “disagrees” or has a difference of opinion with Catholic teaching. It is only those posts that seek to denigrate the Catholic faith by exaggerating or lying about the Church.

I expose them for what they are . . .

Blessings BreadOfLife! You know a sledgehammer does not represent The Catholic Church, nor does it represent Jesus. Be kind. Like I said, I learned a lot but I could not ignor the insults that came through your lips. Put it down.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your source:
View attachment 30915
Shows only one credential, Dr. Ken Matto is a lifetime member of the Dean Burgon Society
The Dean Burgon Society is an organisation that promotes and defends the King James Bible and the underlying Hebrew and Greek manuscripts through extensive publications, seminars, online information, and selling printed material. The current president is D. A. Waite.

It's an "old school tie" club with no mechanism for ruling out inaccuracies. It's a for-profit internet group with no accountability to any reputable institution of learning. The home page tells lies against the "Catholic Bible". There are many authorized translations used by both Catholics and Protestants. There is no copywrite on this mysterious "Catholic Bible". A red flag when up.
+++
The decision whether to use an old or a modern translation is complicated by attitudes held by conservative Christians. Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as “King James-onlyism.” Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the Paul, it’s good enough for me” or “My King James Version corrects your Greek text.”

They claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there are no perfect manuscripts, and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus), that it is the only translation that avoids liberal renderings, and that its translators were saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” [To this one may point out that it was authorized only in the Anglican Church, which now uses other translations, and that the man who authorized it, King James I, was scarcely the well-spring of moral authority King James-onlyites paint him as (in fact, he was a notorious homosexual). For a critique of King James-onlyism, see D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979).]

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, many Protestants take it seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James (the complete KJV was published in 1611, the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

The arguments for Douay-Rheims-onlyism mirror the arguments for King James-onlyism. Just as the King James is said to be superior because of the manuscripts on which it is based, so the Douay-Rheims is said to be superior because it is based on the Vulgate, Jerome’s ancient Latin translation of the Bible. Appeals are made to how saintly and scholarly Jerome and the translators of the Douay-Rheims were, and to the fact that the Douay-Rheims, like the King James, avoids modern, liberal renderings. Finally, stress is laid on the fact that the Douay-Rheims, being based on the Vulgate, is based on the official or “authorized” Bible of the Latin Church.

Choosing a Bible Translation

Which is the best Bible Translation for Catholics to use? Some background on the methods translators use can help you choose the one that is right for you.

www.catholic.com

As for your list, are you sure none of the victims on your list were Catholics? I'm not going to debunk each one, some may be true, but I will comment on the last one.
1605 - Gunpowder plot attempt to kill King James and his 47 translators (creating the King James Bible).

It was an ill-fated conspiracy with disastrous consequences. On November 5, 1605, a small group of fanatic Catholics in England planned to blow up the House of Parliament, killing the assembled leadership and assassinating King James I. When it had become clear that King James was not to grant Catholics any relief from the persecution of his predecessor, Queen Elizabeth I, the plot was hatched among a few desperate men. From a rented building the conspirators dug a trench to a cellar beneath Parliament. The room was filled with barrels of gunpowder. One of the conspirators, Guy Fawkes, was to set off the charge. But the conspiracy was discovered, Fawkes arrested, and a roundup began of possible conspirators. Among those captured were a small cadre of Catholic priests. They had nothing to do with the conspiracy. But the government was less interested in the facts, more interested in the propaganda value.

The result of the Plot ended up with more laws persecuting Catholics.

Gunpowder Plot, The

Gunpowder Plot, the (oath taken May, 1604, plot discovered November, 1605). Robert Catesby, the originator of the Powder Plot, owned estates at Lapworth and Ash...

www.catholic.com

I don’t believe you are dealing with the facts presented, dear sir. I am sure Dr Matto did not invent that list because I seen a similar list elsewhere. By the way, I believe the King James Bible is the perfect inspired words of God. I have 101 reasons why a person should believe the King James Bible as their final Word of authority (of which I am still polishing up to share here at CF). Keep in mind, I am not against the use of Modern Translations. I am just against a person trusting in them as their final word of authority. No offense: This is a foreign concept to you because the Catholic church is your ultimate authority. My authority is the Word of God (the Bible), and the Anointing of the Spirit to understand it. I look at the Catholic Church and scratch my head how you cannot see how it is so obviously fake or a show. Men dressing up in holy garments and desiring to be more holy than others is something Jesus warned against. Call no man your Father. Bowing down to statues. Praying to dead people. Pagan fish hats. The insane amount of wealth the Catholic Church has. Sex scandals. The list goes on and on in regards to the biblical violations you have to ignore (if you are for the Catholic Church). It’s the church promoted in Hollywood and I don’t trust Hollywood for anything true or good. Again. No offense to you personally. I just know too much about the Catholic Church and know why it is wrong. So I don’t believe this guy’s book in trying to rewrite Catholic history to cover up the murders that it committed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Blessings BreadOfLife! You know a sledgehammer does not represent The Catholic Church, nor does it represent Jesus. Be kind. Like I said, I learned a lot but I could not ignor the insults that came through your lips. Put it down.

You’re obviously NOT a Catholic.
Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in this society.

In today’s world - you cannot speak ill of anybody’s gender, race or even sexual deviance – but you can attack Catholics with all of the venom, lies and fervor you can muster.

When you come to a place like this where you’re addressing more falsehoods than legitimate questions - THEN you can put yourself in my place . . .

Everybody is free to disagree with me.
BUT - if you're going to spread lies - then the hammer is coming down.

 

[GTW27]

You’re obviously NOT a Catholic.
Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice in this society.

In today’s world - you cannot speak ill of anybody’s gender, race or even sexual deviance – but you can attack Catholics with all of the venom, lies and fervor you can muster.

When you come to a place like this where you’re addressing more falsehoods than legitimate questions - THEN you can put yourself in my place . . .

Everybody is free to disagree with me.
BUT - if you're going to spread lies - then the hammer is coming down.

Do I seem like a enemy to you O BreadOfLife. Show them the Love of Jesus that is in The Catholic Church. Put a piece of tape over your bold key for a while, and love them as you have been loved. Did not Jesus say, "Father forgive them as they know not what they do"Then forgive them.

 

[GTW27]

Bread of Life is intent on pushing Catholic doctrine down everyone's throats, as though it, and not the word of God, contains the truth. It gets very tiresome. Catholicism is just one of many denominations and, IMHO, are closer to the beliefs and practices of the Jews of the Old Covenant than to the beliefs and practices of the New Covenant believers.

Blessings Jim B. Thank you for your response. Perhaps praying would help.

 

[Titus]

You absolutely DO speculate, assume AND presuppose by stating emphatically that Infant Baptism us “unbiblical” or a “false Gospel” without producing even a SINGLE verse to support this

There is not one Scripture in the Bible that teaches Babies are candidates for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is not one Scripture that teaches in the new covenant that babies are commanded to be baptized.
There is not one apostle that ever taught babies are to be baptized.
I know more need to produce a verse that says babies are not to be baptized than I need to produce a verse that says thou shalt not use heroin. BOTH ARE INFERRED!

A complete and total FAILURE to provide Scriptural evidence for the false, 16th century invention that is Sola Scriptura. Posting verses about the efficacy and value of Scripture is woefully short of proving that Scripture is our “SOLE Authority”.
The fact is that Scripture NEVER makes this claim for itself.

Scripture DOES, however, tell us that the CHURCH is our final earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23)

Quote from Breadoflife, :" scripture does tell us that the CHURCH IS OUR FINAL EARTHLY AUTHORITY"

Well, that excludes you for the Roman catholic church never was nor ever will be the Lords church.
Also none of those scriptures teach the earthly authority is the church.

You are spreading falsehoods!
Listen, PAY ATTENTION TO SCRIPTURE!!!

Matthew 28:18,
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ALL, ALL, ALL, AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven and on earth....

How much authority does that leave the catholic church? NONE
How much authority does that leave catholic priests? NONE
How much authority does that leave the pope? NONE

ALL authority is His!

You claim the church has earthly authority.
What you mean by that is MEN have earthly authority.
Because in the catholic church A MAN IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH.

This also is err.
So much unscriptual false doctrine.

Colossians 1:18,
- And JESUS IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY, THE CHURCH, who is the beginning, the first born of the dead, that in ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE THE PREEMINENCE

Nowhere in Matthew 16:18-19, does the word say that the church is the final authority.
Jesus tells Peter who is an apostle! That he will be given the keys to the kingdom.
The apostles are all dead! They have no authority over anything on earth today.
Only Jesus and His gospel has authority over all today.
The apostles only had limited authority.
There are no apostles today, so that limited authority is over.

None of the verses you misused teach the church is the authority on earth.
They cannot for it would contradict Jesus, Matthew 28:18

 

[BreadOfLife]

Do I seem like a enemy to you O BreadOfLife. Show them the Love of Jesus that is in The Catholic Church. Put a piece of tape over your bold key for a while, and love them as you have been loved. Did not Jesus say, "Father forgive them as they know not what they do"Then forgive them.

Loving people doesn’t meant you allow them wallow in lies.
Sometimes, you show mercy by chastising someone who engages in those things so that they won’t do it again.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is not one Scripture in the Bible that teaches Babies are candidates for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is not one Scripture that teaches in the new covenant that babies are commanded to be baptized.
There is not one apostle that ever taught babies are to be baptized.
I know more need to produce a verse that says babies are not to be baptized than I need to produce a verse that says thou shalt not use heroin. BOTH ARE INFERRED!

WRONG.

When Nicodemus asks Jesus how a person is born again – Jesus answers himL
John 3:5
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Peter tells the crown of Baptism –
Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you and for your CHILDREN and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

NEITHR verse make mention of an age requirement.

VOTH Peter (Acts 10:1-49, 11:13-14) and Paul (Acts 16:23-33, 1 Cor. 1:16) baptized ENTIRE households of people based on the faith of the leader of the household. This harken back to the OT, when 8 d-old INFANTS were circumcised and entered the Covenant with God based on the faith of their parents.

Quote from Breadoflife, :" scripture does tell us that the CHURCH IS OUR FINAL EARTHLY AUTHORITY"
Well, that excludes you for the Roman catholic church never was nor ever will be the Lords church.
Also none of those scriptures teach the earthly authority is the church.

You are spreading falsehoods!
Listen, PAY ATTENTION TO SCRIPTURE!!!

Matthew 28:18,
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ALL, ALL, ALL, AUTHORITY has been given to Me in heaven and on earth....

How much authority does that leave the catholic church? NONE
How much authority does that leave catholic priests? NONE
How much authority does that leave the pope? NONE

ALL authority is His!

You claim the church has earthly authority.
What you mean by that is MEN have earthly authority.
Because in the catholic church A MAN IS HEAD OF THE CHURCH.

This also is err.
So much unscriptual false doctrine.

Colossians 1:18,
- And JESUS IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY, THE CHURCH, who is the beginning, the first born of the dead, that in ALL THINGS HE MAY HAVE THE PREEMINENCE

Nowhere in Matthew 16:18-19, does the word say that the church is the final authority.
Jesus tells Peter who is an apostle! That he will be given the keys to the kingdom.
The apostles are all dead! They have no authority over anything on earth today.
Only Jesus and His gospel has authority over all today.
The apostles only had limited authority.
There are no apostles today, so that limited authority is over.

None of the verses you misused teach the church is the authority on earth.
They cannot for it would contradict Jesus, Matthew 28:18

I FULLY agree.

The “Roman” Catholic Church is BOT the Church if Christ.
I belong to the Catholic Church – there is NO “Roman” Catholic Church.
“Roma” or “Latin” simply refers to one of about 20 Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church.

That aside – it IS the original Church built by Jesus Christ – and not by MEN like every single Protestant faction. Not only is this a fact of history – many of your Protestant scholars agree with this

A LIFELONG student of the Apostle John and ordained by Peter, Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following on his way to martyrdom in Rom at the beginning of the 2nd century . . .

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic
(Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

“Follow your Bishop”
“Obey your clergy . . .”
“The sole Eucharist . . .”
“Catholic Church”

Gee . . .WHAT Church does THAT sound like??

 

[CadyandZoe]

And when THOSE Overseers died off – they did WHAT? Did they simply descend into chaos – or were NEW Overseers chosen to replace them?
THAT is Apostolic Succession in a nutshell.

Again, your argument is fallacious because it depends on an equivocation of "office." Peter is talking about the role Judas was to play as one of the twelve. That is one definition of "office." Another, related definition of "office" denotes an official and essential function within an organization. And the absence of someone in that position is detrimental to the organization.

So then, whereas Peter intends the first meaning, you assign the second meaning to his words. Consider the office of priest, for instance. The priest plays a vital role in the Catholic church because a priest is necessary to perform the Sacraments. In this case, the office of the priest is necessary and essential to Catholic praxis and can not remain vacated for long.

If I see a Catholic priest, wearing a black shirt and a white collar, I respect his office as a priest, even though I no nothing at all about the character or the heart of the man. We all expect each and every man who holds the office of Catholic priest to be a man beyond reproach, men of dignity, men of integrity, not insincere, not prone to drink much wine, not greedy for money, and etc. And we also expect that an organization dedicated to teaching and faith to excommunicate a man who touches a kid in an inappropriate manner.

But the Catholic church did not excommunicate these men; the Catholic church moved them to a different location. These men were relocated, not to protect kids, but to protect the "office" of Pastor. These boys trusted the man with the white collar because such men are typically beyond reproach and dedicated to service and ministry. But some of the men were not. For this reason I say that the man himself, not the office is important. And if the man is above reproach, a man of good character and trustworthy, then he deserves my respect and my honor -- not because he is a priest but because he is a lover of God.

The point is, what good does the office of priest do for the church if the men who were appointed to that office violate the trust of those whom he serves? And what good is a religious organization if it fails to represent the will of God?

In his treatise, Against Heresies, Irenaeus lists 13 successive Bishops of Rome (Popes) from Peter all the way to his own day in the 2nd century. Each Bishop SUCCESSED the previous one (Against Heresies 3:3 [A.D. 189]).

I don't really care about what Irenaeus said. I don't.

Peter is quoting TWO Psalm verses:

Psalm 96:2 and 199:8. Whereas, the latter doesn’t use the word “Bishopric” – it used the term “Oversight”, which is precisely the definition of “Bishop”.

I heard you the first time.

I already showed you the etymology from Episkopos” to “Bishop” in my last post but you persist in your denial.

No, I persist in my pursuit of relevant facts. What do I care about the etymology of the term "Bishop"? It isn't relevant. You claim, incorrectly that an episkopos is an office to hold and must be filled when vacated. I see no evidence of such an "office." What I see is the role of the overseer appointed to individuals of good reputation and character.

Correct – and that’s why we ALSO have Priests, Deacons and other clerics and instructors who occupy those functions.

Jesus was addressing the LEADERS of His Church in this passage – NOT the crowds.

I don't see that.

 

[CadyandZoe]

continued . . .


Tell that to PETER – who appointed Ignatius to succeed him as Bishop of Antioch.

The point is, Peter appointed the man to act as an overseer. Peter felt no need to fill an office of Bishop.

There were about 500 witnesses to the Resurrection (1 Cor. 16:6).

Peter said that they needed someone who was there from the beginning – from John’s Baptism to Jesus’s Ascension (Acts 1:22).

Yes, that's right. And who among you can do this?

I said their successors continued to BUILD ON the foundation of the Apostles.
I didn’t say that continued to build the foundation itself.

You and I have a different concept of "successor."

I find it humorous, however, that YOUR vision of the Church is one of complete chaos and confusion, devoid of ANY visible leadership . . .

We are led by the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Where do your leaders obtain what they believe?

WRONG.

First of all, Jesus gave the Bread of Life Discourse the day AFTER He fed the crowd (John 6:22).
Secondly, The correlation between the Passover sacrifice and and

We see not only in the writings of the Early Church, their belief and devotion to the Real Presence and the Eucharist – we also see in historical texts how the pagan Romans referred to the Early Christians as “cannibals” for their UNBIVERSAL belief in the Eucharist.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch was a lifelong student of the Apostle John.

He wrote the following on his was to his martyrdom in Rome at the beginning of the 2nd century:

Ignatius of Antioch
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

The Church isn’t responsible for the doctrinal perversion that sprang upo in the 16th – ANY more than Protestantism, is responsible for the Cults of David Koresh or Jim Jones in the 20th century.
Arrogant and prideful MEN will do what they do.

Paul warned against factions (1 Cor. 3) – but, apparently, your Protestant Fathers didn’t get the memo . . .

Does it matter where your religion got its paganism? Give us a break.

 

[Jim B]

I live in Santa Fe NM, where the diocese was recently bankrupted paying for the sexual abuse of many children by the priests whom they protected. Nobody has to tell me about the virtues of the Catholic clergy!!!

 

[Titus]

You do not understand nessary inference.

John 3:5
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Peter tells the crown of Baptism –
Acts 2:39
For the promise is for you and for your CHILDREN and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

NEITHR verse make mention of an age requirement

Mark 16:15-16,
he that believes and is baptized will be saved
The gospel of Jesus Christ infers only men are candidates for the gospel.
Babies have no faith, so it is inferred they are not included in the great commission.
If they are then the catholic church better start baptizing atheists.

I FULLY agree.

The “Roman” Catholic Church is BOT the Church if Christ.
I belong to the Catholic Church – there is NO “Roman” Catholic Church.
“Roma” or “Latin” simply refers to one of about 20 Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church

The catholic church began in Rome.
You are in that ever evolving church.

That aside – it IS the original Church built by Jesus Christ – and not by MEN like every single Protestant faction. Not only is this a fact of history – many of your Protestant scholars agree with this

I'm not protestant.
It is not the church Christ established.
The church Christ built began in 30-33ad
The catholic church came much later in history,
The apostles warned of its coming,
1Timothy 4:1-3,
- Now the Spirit expressly says that in LATTER TIMES(The catholic church began after the Lord established His church) some will depart from the faith giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron. forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
For every creature of God is  good and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving.
For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Deceiving spirits like Ignatius of Antioch,

A LIFELONG student of the Apostle John and ordained by Peter, Ignatius of Antioch wrote the following on his way to martyrdom in Rom at the beginning of the 2nd century

In recent years it has become more apparent that the statements attributed to Ignatius cannot by taken as the true picture of conditions in the church, but rather represent what he wanted them to be.
It is traditionally believed that Ignatius was ordained by the apostle Peter(appointed elder not an apostle) and for a time served as a chairman of the elders in the church at Antioch. He was arrested during a persecution under Trajan and was escorted to Rome in the care of ten soldiers to be thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheater......

It is thought that his permission to talk with Polycarp and dictate to secretaries do not harmonize with true conditions during the period of persecution. Furthermore, in a letter to the church at Rome he pleads passionately with the brethren there to make no effort to prevent his martyrdom. which seems absurd since it is not likely that the church at Rome had enough influence to have prevented his martyrdom even if they had tried. His desire for martyrdom and his attitude toward the elders of the church has led many to believe that he had a NEUROTIC WILL TO POWER and that this explains his statements that elders should be IN SUBJECTION TO THEIR BISHOPS. A consideration of external conditions surrounding the writing of these letters and statements made in the letters themselves has CAUSED ABLE SCHOLARS OF THE PAST TO DOUBT THEIR GENUINENESS.
The other writers of this period all agree that the churches were GOVERNED BY A PLURALITY OF ELDERS AND THERE WAS NO CONGREGATION WHICH HAD A MONARCHIAL BISHOP AS IGNATIUS ADVOCATES.

You Catholics always use uninspired men as your evidence for the unbiblical practices and doctrines of your church!

Give Scripture that teaches what Ignatius of Antioch advocated?
You cannot this is why you always use uninspired men as your "proof" for what you preach.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

When you write such garbage as "I don’t believe Modern Translations can be trusted as our final Word of authority because they teach false doctrines" there is no discussion possible! You are clearly deluded!

Well, I believe it’s a false accusation for you to say that I am deluded because of my stated belief that Modern Bibles teach false doctrines.
I have already listed changed doctrines found in Modern Bibles already here at CB.
Let the unbiased reader check out the truth for themselves here:

#1. Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles (Part 1).
#2. Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles (Part 2).
#3. New Age Teachings in Modern Bibles
#4. Fourteen Changes in Modern Bibles that Favor the Catholic Church (See Page 21 of this PDF).

There are of course more than these, too.

Side Note:

Keep in mind that I slightly updated #2, and #3 (involving the list above).

And I do not believe you when you write "Please keep in mind that I asked my questions so as to figure out what you actually believe and I was not attempting to slander your current beliefs as a Christian". You are either deluded or lying.

Keeping a day by day record of what everyone here believes on the forum is a full time job I did not sign up for. I have a life outside of the forums and other things I am doing for the LORD. In fact, I have not been on the forums here in a while and I have been busy with King James Bible study. I also do not know you well enough to really know what your beliefs actually are, either. So no. My asking you those questions about your faith is not a lie. All I really know what you believe is that:

#1. You have a “hate on” for those defending the KJB as the perfect Word (rather than just agreeing to disagree in love and respect),
#2. You gave a “like” to a good number of my posts on the forums (But I cannot recall which ones they are).
#3. You do not agree with the Catholic Church (of which we have in common).
#4. You are easily angered in forum discussions, and:
#5. You appear to defend Liberalism (But I am not sure how exactly you are a liberal). Are you in support abortion? Do you believe in an Old Earth or a form of Macro Evolution? Do you believe Leviticus 18:22 should be read literally or metaphorically? Do you believe certain stories in the Bible are myth or legend only like the story of Jonah is not really real? Do you believe the book of Job is just a metaphor and not real? Do you believe in a local flood?

 

[Grailhunter]

Well, I believe it’s a false accusation for you to say that I am deluded because of my stated belief that Modern Bibles teach false doctrines.
I have already listed changed doctrines found in Modern Bibles already here at CF.
Let the unbiased reader check out the truth for themselves here:

#1. Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles (Part 1).
#2. Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles (Part 2).
#3. New Age Teachings in Modern Bibles
#4. Fourteen Changes in Modern Bibles that Favor the Catholic Church (See Page 21 of this PDF).

There are of course more than these, too.

Hey! I got this fan here.....I can ship it to you, it you want to pee into it. Make sure you smile, because I want a picture.
There is nothing correct about your statement here.
You got this thing about labels and it is always going to bite you in the tail and make you look dumb.

The facts are facts, but just common sense should have prevented you from saying what you said here.
The translations are one thing. But if a person really cares, they can order books that have photo copies of the existing texts and if they purchase some quality logistic books they can verify the translations.

But since you love labels, here you go.....the King James Version of the Bible is the number 1 official Bible for false beliefs and inaccurate understandings. Just about any other Bible in print right now is better.

And why would anybody hate someone that defends the KJB? It is the state of everything now. There are people that believe and there are books written that defend the prims that the world is flat! Pity would be better....I just shake my head.....one more stupid thing I run into in the course of my day.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

It’s really quite amusing when people beat their chest in defending Modern bibles (as their final word of authority), or Textual Criticism.

People are generally lazy and they really don’t do their own homework on this topic with an open mind or they are clearly the worst detectives in human history (and they should never be hired to do any kind of detective work ever). Anybody who compares the KJB vs. Modern Bibles can see a clear corruption and that is for the worse and not for the better. Folks either just bury their conscience or they want to put their fingers in their ears saying, “La, La, la…” because they don’t want a perfect final Word of authority to rule over them. Who wants authority right? Most people don’t. Therein lies the difference here. You are more likely to get a person to believe something false in the world of Textual Criticism because Dan Wallace does not agree with James White on everything. There is no absolute final Word of authority because they each become their own authority. For if I ask a Textual Critic to point me to an actual “book of the LORD” that is the perfect and infallible words of God on this planet, they cannot do so. So they then become the authority. It’s just that simple. Men like control, and they don’t want to give that control up to God. When you have an error ridden Bible, you can fill in the blanks or the holes or problems with you seating in the seat of GOD (Calling the shots).

It’s a known fact throughout history that liberals have a “hate on” for the King James Bible. Why? Because they don’t want authority to rule over them. They want their liberal ways instead.

Granted, I am not saying all who reject the belief that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God is a liberal, but I have ran into others who are liberal who even hate the KJB. There is this one guy on another forum (Who even came over here to CB) who really expressed his hatred for my defense of the King James Bible.

 

[Grailhunter]

To all:

It’s really quite amusing when people beat their chest in defending Modern bibles (as their final word of authority), or Textual Criticism.

People are generally lazy and they really don’t do their own homework on this topic with an open mind or they are clearly the worst detectives in human history (and they should never be hired to do any kind of detective work ever). Anybody who compares the KJB vs. Modern Bibles can see a clear corruption and that is for the worse and not for the better. Folks either just bury their conscience or they want to put their fingers in their ears saying, “La, La, la…” because they don’t want a perfect final Word of authority to rule over them. Who wants authority right? Most people don’t. Therein lies the difference here. You are more likely to get a person to believe something false in the world of Textual Criticism because Dan Wallace does not agree with James White on everything. There is no absolute final Word of authority because they each become their own authority. For if I ask a Textual Critic to point me to an actual “book of the LORD” that is the perfect and infallible words of God on this planet, they cannot do so. So they then become the authority. It’s just that simple. Men like control, and they don’t want to give that control up to God. When you have an error ridden Bible, you can fill in the blanks or the holes or problems with you seating in the seat of GOD (Calling the shots).

It’s a known fact throughout history that liberals have a “hate on” for the King James Bible. Why? Because they don’t want authority to rule over them. They want their liberal ways instead.

Granted, I am not saying all who reject the belief that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God is a liberal, but I have ran into others who are liberal who even hate the KJB. There is this one guy on another forum (Who even came over here to CB) who really expressed his hatred for my defense of the King James Bible.

The reason that people do not like the KJB is that not only is it a faulty translation....It has additional scriptures that have an intent to inserting a particular belief....it comes up with words that have no connection to the scriptures with the intent of deceiving. I am not going to believe that these people have never looked at the actual scriptures. So just like "cults" leaders they are playing on people's ignorance.....Fishing for the ignorant....you are bound to get a bite. Television commercials do it all the time......they pay big money for a spot on TV.....they know they are lying but they also know that there is a certain number of people that will bite and make them rich.

A "cult" leader will never tell you to check it out against the actual scriptures. And most "cults" use the KJB.
The Johnny Appleseed of Truth will always tell you to check it out for yourself, because his ministry is about other people at least having the opportunity to know the truth.

And no I do not think you are a cult leader.....but I have never heard you say check the KJV out against the scriptures. And I say that about any Bible.....compare to the scriptures.....Yes it takes a little work but.....how important is your soul?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

Please take no offense, but I believe ignorance happens when a person fully trusts and or whole heartedly defends Modern Bibles. Why would I make such a bold statement? Well, most do not know that Modern Bibles are actually Catholic Bibles. Just check your Nestle and Aland 27th Edition (See here to learn more). Most do not know that the changes are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. Watering down the blood atonement, and the nature of Jesus Christ is just the tip of the iceberg. Some like to falsely label KJB believers as being cultists or Ruckmanites. But believing the Bible that came out before Westcott and Hort started the Modern Bible Translation movement (that did not really take off until the success of the corrupted NIV in the 1970’s) is no more cultic than trusting God’s Word for hundreds of years by faithful believers. The KJB was THE Bible before all the hundreds of Modern bibles came on to the scene grasping to get the ole green out of Christian’s pockets.

Side Note:

Granted, I do use Modern Bibles, but they are not my final Word of authority (Like the KJB). Why? Check out my list of changed doctrines in post #894.

May God bless you all.

 

[Grailhunter]

Please take no offense, but I believe ignorance happens when a person fully trusts and or whole heartedly defends Modern Bibles.

If anybody is blindly believing something it is you. I am telling people to check it out.

Well, most do not know that Modern Bibles are actually Catholic Bibles.

"Modern Bibles" actually translate the actual scriptures.....not arbitrary promote false beliefs.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To all:

What I said stands and a person can research the truth easily for themselves by what I posted.

Anyways, the real topic of this thread is ”Spirit baptism“ and “water baptism.”
I think it is best we get back on topic.

May the love of the Lord Jesus Christ shine upon you all.