Search results

ok but.. did not one stone of His body remain atop one another? was He thrown down? He did not see corruption. no one takes His life from Him; He lays it down.

there is something quite salient you are ignoring here. And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’ And as I began to...

Being filled with the Holy Ghost in power, speaking in tongues and prophesying, is not the same as having Him dwelling in you. Salvation is by grace through faith. Whoever believes will be saved.

And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:42-43) at this point, hearing these...

which also proves the baptism of the Spirit is not equivalent with salvation either - receiving the Spirit is neither equivalent to being filled ((or Ephesians 2 would be violated)) and the Spirit is a guarantee. salvation is by grace through faith not of works lest any should boast - you cannot...

your argument in that post refutes your own assertion. 'words' is not the rite of H2O immersion 'grace' is not the rite of H2O immersion those at Cornelius' house were clearly already justified and approved by God before they ever got near a river or mikveh. that is the only explanation...

i disagree 100% and i will destroy whatever your argument is forthwith: the context not just definitively but overwhelming shows they received salvation prior to baptism. that is in fact one of the revelations which persuaded the Jerusalem synod in Acts 15 that God was saving the Gentiles, not...

hmm like unbaptized altogether, or 'have been baptized but not properly baptized using the authentic methods!!' ? & what's your definition of 'Christian' -- maybe mine is not as loose as yours?

i have never met an unbaptized Christian so...

the Bereans found Christ testified of throughout the Tanakh: they verified what they were hearing from Christians. ((note what they considered authoritative: scripture, not men)) i.e. they obeyed the command of John 5:39 -- "search the scriptures.. these testify of Me" they very likely were...

He said unto His disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost (John 6:12)

Who ever said Peter had no authority? Galatians 2 - Paul says James, Cephas and John appeared to be pillars. The point is that contrary to your narrative, Peter was never Supreme Authority of Christ's church. Acts 15 clearly puts James at no less than equal authority, in fact portrays him as...

lol! that or the peshitta, which is at least 4 or 500 years later than Matthew, is wrong, and "That Rock was Christ"

btw in Syriac: Ke'pha -- a pebble; a small, moveable stone Shu'a -- a boulder or bedrock

you confessed yourself what God has done, no man overturns: who is it that puts sinew on dry bones? who snatches His posession out of His hand? take one look at my avatar -- do you think i am capable of walking a single step without Someone adding strength to me? please go read Proverbs 16:9...

because He will not lose even one of those given to Him - and if they are given, they are a possession, purchased and precious. this is all previously discussed, but it's a plain fact that Petros & Petram are different nouns - you are telling me now that Jerome is in error, so in your gang...

maybe write your bro Jerome and let him know his mistake... et Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam Meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam :p

interesting, so are you in possession of an Aramaic copy of Matthew, that predates the existing Greek manuscripts? or are you just making things up, changing scripture by personal fiat, in order to mold it to your pre-determined views? L O L

we find this 4 times in scripture: Exodus 19, as a conditional premise, "if" and that condition was not met Isaiah 61, a yet future promise at that time, long after Moses, without a condition, raither announced by the mercy and favour of God the very place Christ quotes in Luke 4:21 saying...

you read Exodus 19. God said to those under Sinai, "if you obey me fully and keep my covenant... you will be a kingdom of priests" so if God puts this condition in that promise to those people, who are you to declare His word irrelevant? and the law came through Moses, but grace and peace...