Is it possible to lose salvation?

[BreadOfLife]

Such ignorance.

Baptize:

βαπτίζει — 2x
βαπτίζειν — 2x
βαπτίζεις — 1x
βαπτίζομαι — 4x
βαπτιζόμενοι — 1x
βαπτίζονται — 1x
βαπτίζοντες — 1x
βαπτίζω — 3x
βαπτίζων — 7x
βάπτισαι — 1x
βαπτίσει — 3x
βαπτισθεὶς — 3x
βαπτισθέντες — 2x
βαπτισθέντος — 1x
βαπτισθῆναι — 11x
βαπτισθήσεσθε — 4x
βαπτισθήτω — 1x
βαπτίσωνται — 1x
βεβαπτισμένοι — 1x
ἐβάπτιζεν — 2x
ἐβαπτίζοντο — 5x
ἐβάπτισα — 5x
ἐβαπτίσαντο — 1x
ἐβάπτισεν — 4x
ἐβαπτίσθη — 5x
ἐβαπτίσθημεν — 3x
ἐβαπτίσθησαν — 2x
ἐβαπτίσθητε — 3x
Dictionary Aids
Vine's Expository Dictionary: View Entry
TDNT Reference: 1:529,92
KJV Translation Count — Total: 80x
The KJV translates Strong's G907 in the following manner: baptize (76), wash (2x), baptist (1x), baptized (with G2258) (1x).
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm
   "Note on Baptism in Ac. Baptism in water (such as John's) is distinguished from baptism with the Holy Spirit (i. 5, etc.). Those who receive the latter, however, may also be baptized in water (cf. xi. 16 with x. 47); and there is one example of people who had previously received John's baptism receiving Christian baptism as a preliminary to receiving the Spirit (xix. 3 ff.). John's was a baptism

YOU made the following false claim:
"also the baptism a believer must go through is dunking in water."

NOWHERE does the Bible make this claim. All YOU gave me was a general definition.
In fact, in Ezekiel's prophecy about Baptism, he states:

Ezek. 36:25-28
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

In the Early Church document, the Didache (Doctrines of the Twelve Apostles), written while they were STILL alive, we read the following:

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. ​

 

[Ezra]

Nope, you cannot choose unless God opens the heart. It's works to choose.

that is Calvinist teaching at its best .. you have it part right God does draw us first. but we have the chose him its called free will the whosoever shall call upon. romans 10:10 with the heart we believe. with the mouth we confess theirs the choice

 

[MonoBiblical]

That's NOT historical evidence.
It's just another one of your unsubstantiated claims . . .

I gave you historical evidence, and you were just too stupid and ignored it.

 

[MonoBiblical]

The Early Church WAS the Catholic Church.

- It had a hierarchy of Bishops, Priests and Deacons . . .

- They celebrated the Liturgy of the Eucharist – NOT as a mere symbol - but as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ . . .

- They confessed their sins to the Church . . .

- It was even called the “Catholic Church” - NOT as a description but as a TITLE . . .

The early was in 2 differing parts. You had the Jewish Church, and you had a reconstructed Christian Church. Neither are the same as the Roman Catholic denomination. Freedom of speech was not practiced because few knew how to read.

And Kath-olos means according to the whole and is not a title.

 

[MonoBiblical]

I haven’t been able to find such language in the entire document.

I asked you for an excerpt, which you haven’t been able to do so far . . .

That you read a gnostic document as proof is lame of itself. You need to present your proof because no one cares about that shitty document. That Mary had perpetual chastity is not debated in the NT, but there is no lame contention that the Latin Clit remained.

 

[MonoBiblical]

He doesn’t “define” it, as YOU say. Nicodemus was STILL puzzled. Jesus was talking about supernatural, spiritual birth – NOTabout physical birth.

Why do you think John’s Gospel is so fixated on Baptism for the first THREE chapters?? What does Jesus DO after conversing with Nicodemus?? He goes out with His disciples to BAPTIZE (John 3:22).

But Mister J does define. You must be started up so as to see the kingdom of God or begun higher. It was a metaphor about doing relevance in the world, and being sways by the Father's pouring of a wholly spirit; of which was his to give.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I gave you historical evidence, and you were just too stupid and ignored it.

You have ZERO historical evidence and instead have me YOUR guess about when the 2nd Coming occurred. You have NO documentation, NO witness testimonies - or even a date that this return allegedly happened.

In a court of Law – YOUR case would have bee thrown OUT . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The early was in 2 differing parts. You had the Jewish Church, and you had a reconstructed Christian Church. Neither are the same as the Roman Catholic denomination. Freedom of speech was not practiced because few knew how to read.

And Kath-olos means according to the whole and is not a title.

Acts 9:31 is where we first hear the term “Catholic Church”:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

Here is the phrase in Greek:
η μεν ουν εκκλησια καθ ολης της ιουδαιας

The Catholic Church gets its name from the GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal” - εκκλησια καθ ολης, which is pronounced “katah-holos”.

Εκκλησια (ekklesia) - A gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly; CHURCH
καθ (katah) - Through out, according to
ολης (holos) - All, whole, completely
"ekklesia Kata-holos" = CATHOLIC CHURCH.

In the 2md century document, The Martyrdom of Polycarp – it was used as a TITLE and NOT a mere description.
Excerpt –
“When finally he concluded his prayer, after remembering all who had at any time come his way – small folk and great folk, distinguished and undistinguished, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world – the time for departure came. So they placed him on an ass, and brought him into the city on a great Sabbath.”

As we have already examined, the words, καθ ολης (katah-holos) is GREEK for “according to the whole” and “universal”.

The phrase in The Martyrdom of Polycarp - which, by the way, is ALSO written in GREEK - would be horribly redundant, if not comical. It would go something like this:
"... and the whole whole throughout Church throughout the world ..."

It is blindingly clear that this document is using the term Catholic Church as a TITLE and not a mere description or the wording would make no sense whatsoever.

 

[BreadOfLife]

That you read a gnostic document as proof is lame of itself.

And the fact that you LIED about what was in that document is even MORE reprehensible . . .

Besides, I only referenced this document as a corroborative source for what Scripture already says about Mary.

You need to present your proof because no one cares about that shitty document. That Mary had perpetual chastity is not debated in the NT, but there is no lame contention that the Latin Clit remained.

First of all – your profane language (in RED) is prohibited on this forum and is unbecoming of a person who professes to be a follower of Christ.
And Scripture has much more implicit evidence of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity that YOU have to the contrary.

 

[BreadOfLife]

But Mister J does define. You must be started up so as to see the kingdom of God or begun higher. It was a metaphor about doing relevance in the world, and being sways by the Father's pouring of a wholly spirit; of which was his to give.

HUH?

Take some time and RE-READ what you just wrote. It doesn’t make ANY sense.
I will respond to this when you have written it coherently . . .

 

[MonoBiblical]

You have ZERO historical evidence and instead have me YOUR guess about when the 2nd Coming occurred. You have NO documentation, NO witness testimonies - or even a date that this return allegedly happened.

In a court of Law – YOUR case would have bee thrown OUT . . .

It would not, and you would lose day one.

 

[MonoBiblical]

Acts 9:31 is where we first hear the term “Catholic Church”:
“Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria experienced peace and thus was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, the church increased in numbers.”

Wow, you are proving it isn't a title by your gibberish. And what you do say about the other catholic churches.

 

[MonoBiblical]

You have ZERO historical evidence and instead have me YOUR guess about when the 2nd Coming occurred. You have NO documentation, NO witness testimonies - or even a date that this return allegedly happened.

In a court of Law – YOUR case would have bee thrown OUT . . .

There weren't going to be any witnesses because he was to come like a thief in the night. But the historical implications are there.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

that is Calvinist teaching at its best .. you have it part right God does draw us first. but we have the chose him its called free will the whosoever shall call upon. romans 10:10 with the heart we believe. with the mouth we confess theirs the choice

Calvinists don't believe mankind has free will even though it's taught in God's Word:

Romans 6:16
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

 

[MonoBiblical]

And the fact that you LIED about what was in that document is even MORE reprehensible . . .

No, what is stupid is using that document from a disproven canon.

Besides, I only referenced this document as a corroborative source for what Scripture already says about Mary.

It, the NT never says she had permanent virginity. You seem to not know it or quote it. The burden is on you buddy.

First of all – your profane language (in RED) is prohibited on this forum and is unbecoming of a person who professes to be a follower of Christ.
And Scripture has much more implicit evidence of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity that YOU have to the contrary.

You know the implicit evidence is about chastity and not virginity.

 

[MonoBiblical]

HUH?

Take some time and RE-READ what you just wrote. It doesn’t make ANY sense.
I will respond to this when you have written it coherently . . .

Mister Jesus defines what born above or what begun up means. The statement is not for the modern believer.

 

[ProverbsInPink]

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Why do you preach opposite of what Scripture says?

Curious Mary

Jesus is the Rock.
OT Scripture says this.
Jesus never taught what is practiced in the RCC.

 

[Big Boy Johnson]

Jesus never taught what is practiced in the RCC.

Nope, He never said nuthin about praying to His Momma

 

[MonoBiblical]

The Gospel of James was a widely influential source for Christian doctrine regarding Mary.[5] According to Bernhard Lohse, it is the earliest assertion of her perpetual virginity, meaning her virginity not just prior to the birth of Jesus, but during the birth and afterwards.[30]

 

[ProverbsInPink]

"The Protoevangelium of James is a pseudepigraphal work also known as the Book of James (not to be confused with the New Testament Epistle of James), the Gospel of James, or the Infancy Gospel of James. It is subtitled “The Birth of Mary the Holy Mother of God, and Very Glorious Mother of Jesus Christ.” The word protoevangelium means “proto-gospel” or “precursor to the gospel,” which in this case means Mary’s story....."

More at link:

What is the Protoevangelium of James? | GotQuestions.org

What is the Protoevangelium of James? Is there any truth in the Protoevangelium of James? Does the Protoevangelium of James belong in the Bible?

www.gotquestions.org