The Baptist ?

[sandy whitelinger]

the imperfection we are born with is genetically inherited. Just as a father passes on his physical traits, he also passes on his mental traits.

When Adam sinned, he lost perfection and could not pass perfection onto any of his children. Thats what it means that we are born imperfect and sinful.

We have the tendency toward sin. It doesnt mean that we have to sin or we are willful sinners...it just means that we are 'prone' to it. And that is why some humans were called 'blameless' even though they were still in the imperfect state and still prone to sin. We can fight the urge to sin, but we cannot remove the urge to sin.

I thought you were doing well until here. Adam had the ability to sin. Evidence, he sinned. The only thing that changed in Adam was his residence, choice in clothing and his demise. That death passed upon all men was a consequence of Adam's sin. The wages of sin is death according to Romans. After death, all will be resurrected for judgement. We will all be judged on our sin. The exemption from the subsequent wrath of God upon sinners is belief in Jesus.

Now, as to Jesus being baptized, the Bible says it was to fulfill scripture but I'm not aware it ever clarifies exactly what that means.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I can only assume “blameless” means without sin.

Making assumptions about the Bible leads to false doctrine. Read and study instead.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Who said they were "blameless" and what does that mean anyway?

It most likely means that they followed the Law. When sin did occur they would have made the appropriate sacrifices to atone for their sin.

 

[thau]

I can only assume “blameless” means without sin.

It is suggested in Luke 1:1-25.

It appears to be the same scenario in the case of Jesus’ mother some 3 months later. Angel appears , speaks of a baby to be born and disappears.


I have found nothing in the biblical scriptures that state that Mary was “without sin” and what is more, it is debateable whether or not they were married at the time of Mary’s conception but only betrothed (engaged).
Example;

So Mary isn’t quite the good wife “without sin” after all, depending on which bible one decides to take as truth. Or is it just a case of the believer cherry picking the bible, the chapter and the verse that suites their beliefs?

I see no point in getting too worked up over this, but I think the original Greek for “blameless” is not as you describe? I would consider the description more akin to calling some great servant of God a holy man. It does not imply perfection however since there are man holy men and women in the Bible. We can see in Luke 1:20 where Zechariah sins.

Still, is your point to point out how ridiculous the Bible truly is, hence, we cannot trust it? Not sure?

As far as the Mother of God is concerned, yes, she was conceived without sin and lived a sinless life. She was saved by the Blood of Jesus before she was even born so she did need a Savior. (as some saints taught) God can do as He pleases and He surely has done so with special people or prophets to carry out His will in Scripture, Mary being chief among them. Worth noting, when the angel Gabriel first comes to Mary he greets her with “Hail thee, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.” Here again, you can argue holy not perfect as I just did, but given all else bestowed upon the Mother of God I tend to believe it means something greater.

I might point out to you that the miracle at Lourdes in 1858 was simply that. It has manifested itself in thousands of divine healings since albeit the Church puts these healings through such scrupulous examinations with unrelated medical authorities that hitherto they have only recognized 67 as divinely directed. Be that as it may, the very highly documented events of 1858 are beyond dispute. All one needs to do is read the secular reports at the time or the civic reports of the local government. Bernadette was an illiterate 15 year old girl who kept seeing the Virgin Mary appear to her at the grotto. Of course she was not wise enough to say for certain who this beautiful lady was speaking to her and the people demanded that she ask the woman her name. Finally Mary told her, she said “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Bernadette had no idea what it meant when she told the people that is what she said. But it amazed the clerical authorities to hear such words! Why? Because it was four years earlier when the pope invokes rare papal infallibility and issued a new Catholic dogma declaring Mary to have been immaculately conceived. Of course this greatly angered the Protestant circles of the time, the very audacity of the Catholic Church, but here Mary comes along herself not four years later to perform a miracle and to validate this teaching! Yes, wonderful and beyond reproach.

ps -- If you want to charge our Lord with the possible shame of an illegitimate birth, be my guest.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

As far as the Mother of God is concerned, yes, she was conceived without sin and lived a sinless life. She was saved by the Blood of Jesus before she was even born so she did need a Savior.

Then why did she die?

 

[monti]

Making assumptions about the Bible leads to false doctrine. .

It most likely means that they followed the Law. When sin did occur they would have made the appropriate sacrifices to atone for their sin.

"Most likely means"? Is that an assumption?

 

[monti]

Making assumptions about the Bible leads to false doctrine. .

I see no point in getting too worked up over this, but I think the original Greek for “blameless” is not as you describe?

So you are assuming again then?

 

[monti]

As far as the Mother of God is concerned, yes, she was conceived without sin and lived a sinless life.

and your biblical evidence for this is what?

She was saved by the Blood of Jesus before she was even born so she did need a Savior.

And your biblical evidence for this is what?

ps -- If you want to charge our Lord with the possible shame of an illegitimate birth, be my guest.

I have charged "your lord" with nothing. I have pointed out an anomaly in what the scriptures actually state and not what you want them to state.

 

[thau]

and your biblical evidence for this is what?


And your biblical evidence for this is what?



I have charged "your lord" with nothing. I have pointed out an anomaly in what the scriptures actually state and not what you want them to state.

The short answer: matthew 16 "whatsoever thou (the Church) hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven."

By the way, who told you the Bible was the be all and end all of the Lord's givings to this world and contained all that Jesus endowed upon His Church and believers? Surely not the Church itself?

I see no anomalies of any concern. Too many "authorities" out there and not enough servants.

 

[monti]

thankfully, its not the church 'fathers' who wrote the bible or who were selected by Christ to record his teachings.

Indeed the gospel writers are no better at getting their story straight either though are they?
Thier contradictions and half stories are endless.

 

[monti]

By the way, who told you the Bible was the be all and end all of the Lord's givings to this world and contained all that Jesus endowed upon His Church and believers?

You are assuming a lot about me now. strange that you tell me not to assume anything about the bible and go on to assume much yourself about the bible (and myself) .

 

[thau]

You are assuming a lot about me now. strange that you tell me not to assume anything about the bible and go on to assume much yourself about the bible (and myself) .

Well ok it's not you. Sorry.

Then we are in agreement?

 

[monti]

She was saved by the Blood of Jesus before she was even born so she did need a Savior.

She was saved by the Blood of Jesus before she was even born so she did need a Savior.

I asked you for your biblical evidence for both these statement, your reply was;>

The short answer: matthew 16 "whatsoever thou (the Church) hold bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven."

So you have no biblical evidence for those two extraordinary statements of yours then?
You see what is beginning to unfold here for you thau, is that the bible simply cannot be trusted to tell us the “Gospel truth”. It seems that you have gone outside of the bible to make your version of truth plausible (which it doesn’t), it defeats the object in an attempt to answer my questions.. And this only serves to make the waters muddier, because you are left then with only assumed opinion on what you are going to accept as truth, from outside the bible (words of man) as you have shown here yourself and so as Pegg..

 

[monti]

Then we are in agreement?

About what exactly?

 

[thau]

I asked you for your biblical evidence for both these statement, your reply was;>



So you have no biblical evidence for those two extraordinary statements of yours then?
You see what is beginning to unfold here for you thau, is that the bible simply cannot be trusted to tell us the “Gospel truth”. It seems that you have gone outside of the bible to make your version of truth plausible (which it doesn’t), it defeats the object in an attempt to answer my questions.. And this only serves to make the waters muddier, because you are left then with only assumed opinion on what you are going to accept as truth, from outside the bible (words of man) as you have shown here yourself and so as Pegg..

What exactly are you trying to say? Do I have to keep guessing and suggesting what the real crux of your argument is?

Are you saying the Bible cannot be trusted because of apparent contradictions therefore we are free to believe as we wish?

Are you saying there is no real evidence for Jesus Christ being divine?

Or are you simply trying to elevate John the Baptist to the level of demi-god?

Be brave and say something coherently.

 

[monti]

he wasnt cleansing people of their sins... he was baptising 'in symbol of repentance from sins' is what the gospel writers state.

So what did Jesus have to repent about,? What sins had he committed? He was a son of god, and according to some on this thread his mother was also sinless.

He instructed his disciples to baptise people in his name

Strange they didn't start with John then, don’t you think?

 

[monti]

Be brave and say something coherently.

Deary me. I asked a question about john, and since then I have been replying to all kinds of statements, whereas no one as managed to answer my question.
I believe that John and Jesus didn't like one another very much. I believe the incident down at the River Jordan was one of conflict. But this thread isn't about what I believe it is about why John, all of a sudden, felt the need to be baptised when he had been baptising others. No one has explained that. No one has answered me why Jesus(a sinless man who had nothing to "repent" about") needed to be baptised either.

Is that brave enough for you? or is it that you are not brave enough to admit the whole baptism story is full of holes from start to finish?

 

[thau]

Deary me. I asked a question about john, and since then I have been replying to all kinds of statements, whereas no one as managed to answer my question.
I believe that John and Jesus didn't like one another very much. I believe the incident down at the River Jordan was one of conflict. But this thread isn't about what I believe it is about why John, all of a sudden, felt the need to be baptised when he had been baptising others. No one has explained that. No one has answered me why Jesus(a sinless man who had nothing to "repent" about") needed to be baptised either.

Is that brave enough for you? or is it that you are not brave enough to admit the whole baptism story is full of holes from start to finish?

I wouldn't call it brave.

I would call your supposed incongruity in Scripture to be nothing more than a distraction.

Clearly you are trying for something more when you point out this alleged "nonsensical" in the Bible, but I guess the world will never know.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"Most likely means"? Is that an assumption?

No, it's based on my study of the Old Testament. Yet since the Bible does not directly say what it means in that instance then there is some speculation about it. This means it's not doctrinal.

 

[outhouse]

Why that is after reading that John the Baptist’s parents were said to be “blameless” and seemingly from good stock, why is that John believed he was in need of baptism?

Did any of these teachers ever claim they were perfect, and never made a mistake??????????????????

He was after all the son of a priest, and he was the immaculately conceived messenger of god?

The books say a lot about JtB

They also claim he was Jesus cousin.


Did the "books say" he was perfect?


Did they claim he was a angel or did they claim he was a human being living outside eating bugs and honey wearing what amounts to a burlap sack?