ECT uh oh Another verse where Paul says he destroyed the church of God !

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Yes, it was, idiot.

No it wasn't.

Not only was baptism not part of the Law of Moses, the word "baptism" and "baptize" are not found in the Old Testament.

C'mon Little Johnny W, if you can't back your claims with scripture, you probably shouldn't make such stupid claims.
 

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Like I said, nowhere in the Bible will you find "millennial reign".

The Latin words you have highlighted in red mean "thousand years"

Rev 20:4
et vixerunt, et regnaverunt c um Christo mille annis.

they lived, they reigned with Christ a thousand years

they lived, they reigned a millennium with Christ

equals millennial reign


Anyone who can't see that simply doesn't want to see it.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Rev 20:4
et vixerunt, et regnaverunt c um Christo mille annis.

they lived, they reigned with Christ a thousand years

they lived, they reigned a millennium with Christ

equals millennial reign


Anyone who can't see that simply doesn't want to see it.

Again, nowhere does any Bible say "millennial reign". That's a phrase invented by Dispensationalists.

The Bible says the Saints reign with Christ Jesus for a thousand years. That in no way means that Christ Jesus reigns a thousand years. It means the Saints reign with Christ Jesus a thousand years.

Colin Powell was George W Bush's Secretary of State for 4 years. That doesn't mean Bush was president for 4 years (he was president for 8 years). Yet, that is what you Dispies do to that verse.

Christ Jesus reigned before the Saints reign with Him, and will reign after the Saints reign with Him for a thousand years.

There is no such thing as a "millennial reign" of Jesus.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
No it wasn't.

Not only was baptism not part of the Law of Moses, the word "baptism" and "baptize" are not found in the Old Testament.

C'mon Little Johnny W, if you can't back your claims with scripture, you probably shouldn't make such stupid claims.

Yes it was, admitted gay boy, little arms/chin wimp, Craigie, as I showed you chapter, and verse, you pathetic loser, in which to soak that sissy face of yours, you loser.


And quit emailing me, punk.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I showed you chapter, and verse, you pathetic loser,

No you didn't Little Johnny W.

I know for a fact that you didn't, because the word "baptize" was not only not part of the Law of Moses, it's nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Again, nowhere does any Bible say "millennial reign". That's a phrase invented by Dispensationalists.

The Bible says the Saints reign with Christ Jesus for a thousand years. That in no way means that Christ Jesus reigns a thousand years. It means the Saints reign with Christ Jesus a thousand years.

Colin Powell was George W Bush's Secretary of State for 4 years. That doesn't mean Bush was president for 4 years (he was president for 8 years). Yet, that is what you Dispies do to that verse.

Christ Jesus reigned before the Saints reign with Him, and will reign after the Saints reign with Him for a thousand years.

There is no such thing as a "millennial reign" of Jesus.

Nowhere in the bible will you find the phrase "slap in the face," "omniscient," "AD 70," "fulfilled in Christ," "anti-Semite," "the Roman army was the second coming," "the new heavens and new earth is the New Covenant,"......... Yet, you Russell/Josephus/pope followers use it all the time.


So there, loser. There is no such thing as "The Roman army is the second" coming.


You're posting stinks up TOL, gay boy. We all have to take a shower, after reading your dung posts. And pay attention to your wife/kids, loser. That's all you do, on Friday night/weekends/every day-satisfy your addiction/obsession, sis? At least I have a reason-I am single. What's yours, loser? Because you think dispensationalism is so evil, and you're bored, unemployed loser, infidel? Yes...
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
No you didn't Little Johnny W.

I know for a fact that you didn't, because the word "baptize" was not only not part of the Law of Moses, it's nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.

Yes, I did, sodomite-washings, you effeminate idiot.


Try again, gay boy.Baptisms, "mikvah's/mikveh's," washings.....are throughout the OT, part of the OC, part of righteous requirement of the law, you biblical buffoon, not studying anything but your Preterist/AD 70ism commentaries, and "Catholic Answers," "Church of Christ" SOF/s, and would not know the difference, sodomite weasel, between the book of Isaiah, and Isiah Thomas.

Matthew 3 KJV

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?

15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized,

Go ahead, closet Catholic/Church of Christer-tell everyone that they must be water baptized, "sprinkled," go under the water, part of the OC law, today, to be saved. Go ahead.


Hebrews 6 KJV

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


Hebrews 9 KJV

1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.

7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;

10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.


And, since you are a Hebrew/Catholic/Jebbie....


http://hebrewcatholic.org.nz/ahc-c-mikvah-and-baptism-ord-1/


Shall we cite Josephus, or Wiki, punk, your authorities? No, you don't want to go there, do you, weakling?
 
Last edited:

dodge

New member
The reference to "The Church of God" is before Acts 9. This is between Acts 1 and Acts 9. You've only reinforced MAD. Perspective - Church of God, and note Paul is Saul in reference of Persecution of the Church.

The fact that Paul doesn't call it The Body of Christ only pads the accuracy of MAD.

/Thread

I only reinforced MAD to those that deliberately want to stay deceived.

Act 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.[/Those added to the church were and are in the B.O.C..
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
Gee.....I wonder why you're single.

Gee...I wonder why you spend half your life on TOL, ignoring your wife/kids, and unemployed, loser....Why is that? Paul says that you are an infidel. And why have you sent me 3 email's/a post, propositioning me, sodomite?
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
No you didn't Little Johnny W.

I know for a fact that you didn't, because the word "baptize" was not only not part of the Law of Moses, it's nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.

Little, you muse? Got beat up, most of your life, sweetie, and this is your way, to restore your confidence, "manhood," sissy? Yes....You are a sissy looking effeminate Clay Aiken lookalike, with no chin. little arms. Why is that, Craigie?

I can continue all night, if you want, loser,as I have no obligations. Seems like you don't either, punk, as you are ignoring your wife/kids. Why is that, no chin one? They left you, due to your obsession? Yes...
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

You've just been hoisted by your own petard.

First off, "divers washings" were ceremonial washings. They were not baptisms.

Secondly, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the ceremonial washings were to last until "the time of reformation".

So, what was "the time of reformation"?

Answer: New Covenant

How do we know that the things listed had ended?

Answer: in the last verse it says "imposed on them". That's past tense. That means all the things listed in Heb 9:1-10 were past tense, and not in place at the time Hebrews was written.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
]No you didn't Little Johnny W.

I know for a fact that you didn't, because the word "baptize" was not only not part of the Law of Moses, it's nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.[/

Show us the word "Jesus," in the Old Testament, and "resurrection," in the OT-it's nowhere to be found.

While you are at, it, show us the words "God the Father" in the OT.

You can't bed this stupid, demonic. Wait...Yes, you can. Go, ahead, and spin your "answer"-I will, as usual, pick you apart. Go ahead, little arms weasel.
 
Last edited:

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Show us the word "Jesus," in the Old Testament, and resurrection, in the OT-it's nowhere to be found.

I didn't say they were.

You said baptism was part of the law.

That's not true. Baptism was never part of the law, which is why the word "baptize" cannot be found in the OT.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
You've just been hoisted by your own petard.

First off, "divers washings" were ceremonial washings. They were not baptisms.

Secondly, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the ceremonial washings were to last until "the time of reformation".

So, what was "the time of reformation"?

Answer: New Covenant

How do we know that the things listed had ended?

Answer: in the last verse it says "imposed on them". That's past tense. That means all the things listed in Heb 9:1-10 were past tense, and not in place at the time Hebrews was written.

Catch that deception, TOL? He argues:
because the word "baptize" was not only not part of the Law of Moses, it's nowhere to be found in the Old Testament."
I address it, chapter, verse, and we get this demonic spin-the word is not...:


""divers washings" were ceremonial washings. They were not baptisms.:"


No, punk, they were washings/baptisms,as the word "baptism" was a reference to the washings, required by the law, despite your denial, to the contrary...


He that is baptized shall be saved........fulfil all righteousness...



Your daddy, the devil, to you: Deny it....

Secondly, the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that the ceremonial washings were to last until "the time of reformation".

So, what was "the time of reformation"?

Answer: New Covenant

How do we know that the things listed had ended?

Answer: in the last verse it says "imposed on them". That's past tense. That means all the things listed in Heb 9:1-10 were past tense, and not in place at the time Hebrews was written.



Quite irrelevant, demon boy, that it is past tense, drunk, as you argued:

I know for a fact that you didn't, because the word "baptize" was not only not part of the Law of Moses, it's nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.
 

Interplanner

Well-known member
I didn't say they were.

You said baptism was part of the law.

That's not true. Baptism was never part of the law, which is why the word "baptize" cannot be found in the OT.





The resurrection is a lot of places in the OT. I assume people who post here know how to operate software like Biblegateway.com/search. Finding it as a theme maybe a bit tricky, but that's where the NT comes in. Oh, that reminds me, I'd guess John is with the club on this where you are not allowed to let the NT think or say anything about the OT; you have to get it direct from the OT. So we can't use Ps 2, 16 or 110 like the apostles did. And Ps 24 would never in the world be about the ascension and the Res, and Eph 4 is nothing but bombast quoting Ps 68. In fact, many in the club only know Ps 83 because that's where Israel trounces everyone else.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The resurrection is a lot of places in the OT.

I agree.

I was just trying to make a point to Little Johnny W about baptism not being part of the law.

Here's one example of the resurrection in the OT:

(Isaiah 26:19) Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.


BTW, the above verse says the resurrection takes place when Christ Jesus' body is raised from the dead. That supports Preterism.
 

john w

New member
Hall of Fame
I didn't say they were.

You said baptism was part of the law.

That's not true. Baptism was never part of the law, which is why the word "baptize" cannot be found in the OT.
You asserted/argued, drunk, that since the word "baptism" is "nowhere to be found in the Old Testament,"was not only not part of the Law of Moses.

I know for a fact that you didn't, because the word "baptize" was not only not part of the Law of Moses, it's nowhere to be found in the Old Testament.


Thus, since the word "Jesus," in the Old Testament, and "resurrection," in the OT, is nowhere to be found, "Jesus" is not part of the OC, nor is the doctrine of resurrection, you filthy pervert, engager in sophistry.

And, since the words "God the Father" are not in OT, nowhere to be found, the doctrined al "God the Father" is false.


You cannot be this demonic.... Wait...You are, you filthy satanist.


Show us the word "Christ" in the OT, you deceiving punk.

because the word "baptize" was not...


Go ahead, you deceiving punk.
 

tetelestai

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
You asserted/argued, drunk, that since the word "baptism" is "nowhere to be found in the Old Testament,"was not only not part of the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses was given in the OT, not the NT.

If Baptism cannot be found in the OT, it wasn't part of the Law of Moses.

Same thing for Hanukkah.

Hanukkah was not part of the Law of Moses. Hanukkah cannot be found in the OT.

Hanukkah is a holiday created by the Jews. God had nothing to do with it.
 
Top