Recent content by bosco

You know, I've been a member here for a few months, trying to get a feel for things. I enjoyed reading some of the discussions, only participated in a few, but the most troubling thing (and what has often held me back from participating more) is the level of invective and personal insult...

Scripture says water baptism saves us. Seems pretty plain.

I don't see where we're disagreeing then.

You're going to have to espand on that-- why exactly?

Belief in the Trinity is absolutely essential to salvation. One cannot come to faith in Jesus without knowing Him as the Son of the Father, and one cannot say that He is Lord without the Holy Spirit. As some have said, that understanding may come later in their Christian walk, but without it...

That is petty, Jeremiah. Quoting from the Bible does not make you an expert, and disagreeing with your interpretation or presentation does not make someone antibiblical. Your thesis seems designed to promote OSAS, not to lead one to actual biblical truth about Judas Iscariot.

The word "woe" could be just as you wrote it above. I agree that, by itself, it does not determine what we should think of Judas' salvation. I would venture to say that while we cannot know the state of Judas' salvation, that the weight of biblical evidence casts it in a very dubious light. But...

That's the same logic as saying "If people didn't murder each other, there would be no way of knowing just how powerful Jesus' salvation is because there would be no sins serious enough to show it." What you are putting forward here sounds eerily similar to the so-called "Gospel of Judas", which...

fair enough, but just creating a hierarchy for church ministry and or government is not sinful, then; just the abuse of it.

So... the Apostles sinned in creating the deacons?

Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Going to Scripture is appealing to Him. Christ is present in a unique way in His Word; it is a both/and proposition, not an either/or.

Those Scriptures don't really answer any of the questions, and actually kind of intensify the point. You say that Scripture isn't really entirely reliable, but then quote Scripture to make your point-- how do you know those Scriptures are reliable? What is the list of books you think should be...

I agree with you, Mrjhealth-- we need another source of revelation to confirm the correct interpretation. You have no argument from me there. But I'm not seeing what you believe that other source is, or what exactly you think is true and what is false in the Bible. For instance, you just quoted...

I'm not believing it simply because I'm told; I'm believing it because it's true. The evidence is there to back it up: theological, physical, historical, etc. I am not sure at this point what canon you believe in-- the way you phrased this last post, it sounds like you don't accept the 27 New...

So... which books from the 27-book canon don't belong, in your opinion, and why? And why do you think God would let pretty much every Christian get it wrong for more than 1 and 1/2 millennia?