SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[po18guy]

Bible Baptism
By Dr. John R. Rice

CHAPTER 4 - BAPTISM DOES NOT SAVE - DOES NOT HELP SAVE

A favorite device of the Devil is to have men look to their works for their salvation instead of looking to Christ. He leads some to trust in their morality, some to depend upon lodge membership, some to depend upon confessions to priests; some he leads to trust in baptism. That is a fatal mistake. The unanimous voice of all the Scriptures is that people are saved by simple faith in Christ, without any act of righteousness, and baptism is never mentioned as a part of the plan of salvation. Baptism is an act of righteousness, for Jesus said in Matthew 3:15, “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” Titus 3:5 says that such acts of righteousness do not save us:

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

Baptism is certainly a good work, but Ephesians 2:8,9 likewise says plainly that salvation is altogether a matter of God’s mercy and not of our works :

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.”

Salvation is a gift of God which is not deserved, is not bought, and cannot be paid for. No church nor preacher nor the individual saved has any right to claim credit when a soul is saved.

In fact, we are told again and again in the Bible that the man who trusts in Christ has everlasting life immediately. John 3:36 says:

“He that believeth on the Son HATH everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

“Hath” means has, present tense, in modern English. Likewise, John 5:24 says:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HATH everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation: but IS PASSED from death unto life.”

The same teaching is given in John 6:47:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me HATH everlasting life.”

In the Bible, we find it clear that people believed first and then were baptized. According to these statements from God’s Word, they were already saved before they were baptized and any other man who trusts in Christ is saved that second, before he could possibly get to the baptismal waters. It does not take baptism to save one.

WHAT DOES “BAPTIZED FOR REMISSION OF SINS” MEAN?
In Acts 2:38, the term “for the remission of sins” is used as follows :

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Some people think that this passage contradicts the dozens of other plain statements in the Bible that a man is saved by faith and saved immediately when he believes. But when you use the word for in this passage just as it is used so many times in every-day conversation, you will see what Peter said. A man is arrested for stealing; one is grateful for a favor; one is blamed for carelessness; one is commended for bravery. The word for here does not mean in order to or to secure remission of sins, and it is not rendered that way in any translation of the Bible we know of anywhere. The Greek word eis here translated for is sometimes translated in the Bible against, among, at, unto, upon, etc. It might properly be translated here “baptized upon the remission of your sins” or “baptized referring to, or pointing toward the remission of your sins,” or “baptized in the remission of your sins.” When one repents, he receives the remission of his sins. Then the obedient heart, following Christ in baptism, is promised the gift of the Holy Ghost, an entirely separate mutter from salvation. What Peter said was that people ought to repent and then, after their sins are forgiven, they should be baptized as evidence of that. That is exactly what people ought to be baptized for, that is, to show the remission of their sins. That Scripture, then, does not mean that people ought to be baptized in order to be saved.

jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/Dr%20John%20Rice/Baptism/b_04.htm

What’s the point of all this? No one is actually reading it. Your theology is tissue paper! It’s like meringue. Seems tasty, but there’s no substance. When you bow down to the recent, man-made tradition of SS, this is what you get. Fooled.

 

[LittleDeb]

I agree with no man,that does not agree with the Word of God which is the Holy Scriptures.When I say the flesh is evil,I mean that it is impossible to live in the flesh and not sin.

When you say Christ built His Church on a rock,Im I correct in saying that you mean Peter,if so that is false,for Christ is the Rock.

As for conflicting teachings,I don’t feel Ive posted any.

Christ himself names Simon, ROCK!! He says, “You are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church.” That “little pebble/big rock” nonsense that you’ve been spoon-fed is based on a misunderstanding of how the original Aramaic was translated into Greek.

(An aside to the other Catholics here: I am starting to think we should refer to him as “St. Kepha” to stop this foolishness! A priest I know who studied extensively in Rome calls him “Rock Johnson”)

And no, it is not impossible to live in the flesh and not sin. Babies do it. The mentally challenged do it. Our Lady did it. And oh yeah…Christ was “in the flesh” (the word for Him is incarnate) and HE didn’t sin either!

Yes, you have posted conflicting teachings. Every time you quote “random guy on the web” you post conflicting teachings. They don’t agree with each other. Do you agree completely with any of them? Is your particular pastor infallible in his/her interpretation of Scripture? Are you?

To answer your question of the subject line: I know what Christ taught that wasn’t written because I look to the Church for knowledge, not “random guy’s” personal, fallible interpretation. I am sure He taught it because he founded a Church, One Church, not “churches.” He never wrote a word of Scripture. He never commanded that Scripture be written (although he didn’t forbid it either.) He studied Scripture. He taught from the Scriptures. But He said to His apostles to “go and preach” not, ‘go and hand a Bible out and let the people interpret for themselves.’ And worse yet, he NEVER said, ‘hand out a Bible and guide the person to your own personal interpretation of what it says.’

So why do you do that then?

 

[po18guy]

The following is from the book, Vicars of Christ, by a former Jesuit professor at Gregorian University in Rome, Peter DeRosa:

    "It was in the area of indulgences that (Pope) Sixtus showed a touch of genius. He was the first pontiff to decide that they could be applied to the dead. Even he was overwhelmed by their popularity. Here was an infinite source of revenue that even his greediest predecessors had not dreamed of. It was breathtaking in its implications: the pope, creature of flesh and blood, had power over the regions of the dead. Souls in torment for their misdemeanours could be released by his word, provided their pious relatives dipped into.their pockets. And which of them wouldn't if they had a spark of Christian decency? Widows and widowers, bereaved parents spent their all trying to get their loved ones out of Purgatory, painted in ever more lurid colours. 
    Praying for the dead was one thing, paying for them another. Simple folk were led to believe that the pope, or those who came to their village and sold the pope's pardon, guaranteed their dead would go to heaven on the wings of indulgences. The potential for abuse was considerable. The sale of relics from the tenth century had been bad enough. . . Martyr's bones, like oil, were not a renewable commodity, but indulgences were limitless and could be priced to suit every pocket. Nothing was required of the donor or recipient, not love or compassion or prayer or repentance - only money. No practice was ever more irreligious than this. The pope grew rich in the measure that the poor were duped."
    Purgatory had no justification, whether in Scripture or in logic. Its real basis was papal avarice. An Englishman, Simon Fish, in A Supplicacyion for the Beggars, written in the year 1529, was to point that out irrefutably: 

'There is not one word spoken of it in all holy Scripture, and also if the Pope with his pardons may for money deliver one soul hence, he may deliver him as well without money.  If he may deliver one, he may deliver a thousand: if he may deliver a thousand, he may deliver them all; and so destroy purgatory.  And then he is a cruel tyrant, without all charity, if he keep them there in prison and in pain, till men will give him money.' "

from redirecting to current file-name & location

I went to the official KKK site. I found more love there.

 

[n2thelight]

LittleDeb

And no, it is not impossible to live in the flesh and not sin. Babies do it. The mentally challenged do it. Our Lady did it. And oh yeah…Christ was “in the flesh” (the word for Him is incarnate) and HE didn’t sin either!

Yes, you have posted conflicting teachings. Every time you quote “random guy on the web” you post conflicting teachings. They don’t agree with each other. Do you agree completely with any of them? Is your particular pastor infallible in his/her interpretation of Scripture? Are you?

To answer your question of the subject line: I know what Christ taught that wasn’t written because I look to the Church for knowledge, not “random guy’s” personal, fallible interpretation. I am sure He taught it because he founded a Church, One Church, not “churches.” He never wrote a word of Scripture. He never commanded that Scripture be written (although he didn’t forbid it either.) He studied Scripture. He taught from the Scriptures. But He said to His apostles to “go and preach” not, ‘go and hand a Bible out and let the people interpret for themselves.’ And worse yet, he NEVER said, ‘hand out a Bible and guide the person to your own personal interpretation of what it says.’

So why do you do that then?

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

So what part of ALL is hard to understand

 

[LittleDeb]

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

So what part of ALL is hard to understand

Jesus sinned? Funny theology you’ve got there.

Please try to stay on track. You have bounced this thread all over the place.

It is plain and simple. The Church predates the New Testament. It also predates a formal organization of the Old Testament. The different Jewish sects disagreed on the canon of the OT. Many still do.

The Church thrived during the years before the canon was finally declared around the year 380. Most Christians couldn’t read anyway so the written Scripture was more about preservation and consistency of Oral Tradition than in actually “owning a Bible.”

So tell me some things please, n2thelight. How much do you actually know about the history of your actual Bible? Did you know that the dueterocanon books were in earlier translations of the KJV? How much do you know about King James? Do you know the motivation in ordering the translation? Do you know who did the translating? Do you know their qualifications?

How do you know that YOUR Bible contains all that Christ taught? Who told you that? Why do you believe that? If you and your best friend at church disagree over a Scripture passage how do you resolve it? Do you fight over who actually “has” the Holy Spirit? How do you follow the Biblical command to take your dispute to the Church? Who is your church? Where might I find “your church” to take my dispute with you? (No, I’m not asking for a physical location or any other such personal information.)

Who would I speak to who has authority over you? If I disagree with your pastor or website quotes, where would I go from there? Who has authority to correct them if they are mistaken?

To whom will you listen?

 

[n2thelight]

I think many here don’t know where I stand,so let me share.

I am a Christian which means Christ man
I am non denominational,Christainanity is a reality not a religion

I study mainly from 3 sources with Pastor Arnold Maurry of the Shepherds Chapel being #1

The other 2 are Biblestudysite.com with Nick Goggin and theseason.org with Roger Christopherson

Below is the link for the statement of faith from the Shepherds Chapel of which I am in total agreement.

Feel free to read it and in doing so understand my positions

Also know that I believe what no man says without checking them out from the Word of God

shepherdschapel.com/statement1.htm

 

[n2thelight]

LittleDeb

Jesus sinned? Funny theology you’ve got there.

Same answer I get from a lot of peeps who try to dodge the point.

No Christ did not sin,and He as I just gave you scripture is the only one

 

[JLongoria]

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
So what part of ALL is hard to understand

Oh my.

Let’s see what it says immediately after all that.

They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed, through the forbearance of God–to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus. What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Does God belong to Jews alone? Does he not belong to Gentiles, too? Yes, also to Gentiles, for God is one and will justify the circumcised on the basis of faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Are we then annulling the law by this faith? Of course not! On the contrary, we are supporting the law

Romans 3:24-31

This passage is saying that we are not justified by works of the law, that law being the Mosaic law, and instead by God’s grace. Why else would they include circumcision at all? It doesn’t make sense to include it otherwise.

 

[po18guy]

I just love the fundamentalists that come blazing on in here, setting the Christian world straight after 2,000 years of deception. And, they copy/paste ad nauseum profundo words penned by some guy named "Professor/Doctor/Pastor/PhuD/“Norman” or something who actually wrote a book. As if this is proof of anything! I’ll bet I can find more coherence in Mein Kampf! They need de-programmers more than anything, because the demon has turned them from the truth.

I guess all false prophets only lived in the past. I guess that scripture is just something which means nothing, because it means something different to each individual. I lose patience with the ARROGANCE! I get sick of the accusations and lies! I pity these poor, lost, mislead souls that are so superior. Lord, have mercy!

 

[JLongoria]

Same answer I get from a lot of peeps who try to dodge the point.

No Christ did not sin,and He as I just gave you scripture is the only one

You’re missing the point. A veritable swing-and-a-miss.

The Bible, as you clearly pointed out, says that ALL have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God.

ALL, since you wanted to point it out that way.

Yet the Bible says elsewhere that Christ was without sin. Well, what’s up with that? Christ was truly man, and He died like a man. So, according to the Bible - since you want to take it at its word, plain and simple, without any authoritative interpretation - says that all have sinned.

How might you make peace with the Scripture that says all have sinned, and the Scripture that says Christ was perfect, and without sin? You won’t be able to say on your own, “well, clearly it wasn’t talking about Jesus,” because there is no footnote inserted by St. Paul saying, “except for Jesus.”

If you’re going to take the Bible at its word, you’re going to have to see that all of a sudden, without the authoritative teaching of the Church which has been passed down for thousands of years, you’re going to find yourself in a bind, where there just might be apparent contradiction.

You’re going to find yourself relying heavily on paradosis for that one, my friend.

 

[fdmilkis]

Jesus was speaking of Himself, not Peter.

Matt 16:16-18
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 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. KJV
The specific words that are key to understanding this are “Peter” and “rock,” for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to “Peter” in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to “rock” is petra. Also, the word “rock” below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word “Peter” (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.

Matt 16:18
18 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. KJV
Peter: Greek word #4074 Petros (pet’-ros); apparently a primary word; a (piece of) rock (larger than NT:3037); as a name, Petrus, an apostle: KJV - Peter, rock. Compare NT:2786.

rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

(The definite article): Greek word #3588 ho (ho); including the feminine he (hay); and the neuter to (to); in all their inflections; the def. article; the (sometimes to be supplied, at others omitted, in English idiom): KJV - the, this, that, one, he, she, it, etc…

Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse.  Notice the definite article (tee -Grk. word #3588) preceding "rock":

 Also, the word "and" (between "Peter" and "upon") in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word "but" in the English.  This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood.  Observe:

and: Greek word #2532 kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words: KJV - and, also, both, but, even, for, if, or, so, that, then, therefore, when, yet.
But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra (“rock”), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. “Peter” (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra (translated “rock”) was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:
1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock [petra] that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ. KJV
Rock: Greek word #4073 petra (pet’-ra); feminine of the same as NT:4074; a (mass of) rock (literally or figuratively): KJV - rock.

biblestudysite.com/answers26.htm#2

you are correct, if the Bible was written in 5 B.C. However, the greek language evolved over time and during the 1st century, the Koine Greek was used in which Petros and Petra meant the same thing except one was masculine and the other was feminine.

We can’t go studying contemporary American english in order to learn Shakespeare now can we?

 

[Gamera]

Same answer I get from a lot of peeps who try to dodge the point.

No Christ did not sin,and He as I just gave you scripture is the only one

What about Zechariah and Elizabeth (John the Baptist’s parents)? “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments of the Lord, blamelessly,” Luke 1:6.

Romans 3:23 means all peoples, both Jew and Greek, have inherited Original Sin. Not that every individual human being has committed personal sin.

 

[LittleDeb]

I think many here don’t know where I stand,so let me share.

I am a Christian which means Christ man
I am non denominational,Christainanity is a reality not a religion

I study mainly from 3 sources with Pastor Arnold Maurry of the Shepherds Chapel being #1

The other 2 are Biblestudysite.com with Nick Goggin and theseason.org with Roger Christopherson

Below is the link for the statement of faith from the Shepherds Chapel of which I am in total agreement.

Feel free to read it and in doing so understand my positions

Also know that I believe what no man says without checking them out from the Word of God

shepherdschapel.com/statement1.htm

I was perusing Mr. Goggin’s site from an earlier reference. There is much there I disagree with. To whom would I address my concerns? Who is his superior? From whom will he take correction on his misinterpretations?

I haven’t been able to get the shepherd’s chapel site to load, so I haven’t been able to read it. You agree with the statement of faith there, that is good to know. How are they structured? Does a council of elders decide in fact what is in line with the Bible? Is it by an anonymous vote, after prayer? How does one address a concern within the hierarchy of shepherds chapel? From what branch of mainline protestantism does shepherd’s chapel descend? (Please don’t answer that it doesn’t, because it does. All non-denominational churches were founded after the fundamentalist movement which is just barely 100 years old.) Knowing the history of your particular group will save me a lot of time in understanding your personal beliefs. It is easier for us to dialog if we actually understand where the other person is coming from.

If I disagree with your pastor and you disagree with mine where does that leave our discussion? I will take correction from my bishop. My bishop will take correction from the Holy See. If we disagree, we can’t both be right. There is One Holy Spirit, so One Truth. At best only one of us is right. At worst, both of us are wrong. We both study Scripture. Where does that leave us for evangelizing non-Christians? What does the non-Christian think of a divided body? Why should I agree with the authors of Shepherds’ Chapel for the definition of Truth? I don’t ask that to be sarcastic. Why do you hold their particular teaching to be objective Truth?

 

[n2thelight]

I post this in agreement with.

Is tradition a proper source or standard of authority in religion? Does the fact a church has participated in a practice for years prove the practice is good or bad? What does the Bible teach about tradition? Does it matter what the source of a doctrine may be: human or Divine? Should we be traditional or non-traditional? Should we defend a doctrine on the grounds that “we have always done it that way”? Or should we seek what is new and progressive, so we oppose traditional practices as “old-fashioned” and “out of date”? Should we follow Scripture or man-made traditions?

I. Divine Tradition and Divine Authority Are Revealed from God and Require Our Respect

II. Human Tradition and Human Authority Originate with Men and Must Not Be Followed If They Differ from Divine Authority

Human Authority, Commands, Doctrine
Often people follow religious practices that are nowhere found in God’s word. They are different from what God has told us to do. People often reason that these practices are acceptable unless God’s word expressly tells us not to do them. The Bible teaches differently.

Jeremiah 10:23 - The way of man is not in himself. It is not in man who walks to direct his steps. Since we do not think like God does, we cannot possibly know God’s will unless He reveals it [1 Corinthians 2:10-13]. Knowing this, God completely revealed His will for us in the Bible, then He warned us not to follow human wisdom.

Galatians 1:6-9 - Any man is accursed if he preaches a gospel different from what inspired men taught in the first century. If a practice is not included in the gospel, then, for us to say it is acceptable, would be to preach a different gospel.

2 John 9 - Whoever goes beyond and does not abide in Jesus’ teaching, does not have God. To have God we must abide in Jesus’ teaching. Since Jesus’ teaching is revealed in the New Testament, to practice things we cannot find in the gospel would be to separate ourselves from Him.

Revelation 22:18,19 - When we truly respect God’s word, we will refuse to add to or take from what He says. We will do exactly what He says without changing it.

When we study about a certain practice, then, we should not ask, “Where does God say not to do this?” Instead, ask, “Where does God’s word show this act would be acceptable?” If the act cannot be found included in God’s will for us, then we should refuse to participate in it.

[Cf. Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Colossians 3:17; Isaiah 55:8,9; Proverbs 14:12; 2 Corinthians 10:18; 1 Corinthians 1:21-24; 2:5; John 4:23,24; 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Romans 10:1-3; Colossians 2:8.]

Conclusion
Traditions are not inherently good or bad, right or wrong, any more than doctrines, teachings, practices, etc. There are true and false doctrines, true and false practices, and true and false traditions. To say “I am opposed to (or in favor of) tradition” is like saying, “I am opposed to (or in favor of) teachings and practices.” You must know what teachings or practices are referred to and what their source is.

Some people mistakenly think practices are acceptable or should be defended on the grounds a church has practiced it that way for years. Other people object to tradition and seek change for the sake of change. Invariably those people just begin new practices, which soon become new traditions.

Christians should be neither “traditional” nor “non-traditional” regarding our past practices: we should neither accept nor oppose a practice simply because people have done it in the past. The fact that “we have done it that way for years” is not, of itself, proof for or against a practice.

The question is not how long we have practiced something or when it began. The question is: Does it fit what God’s word says? If God’s word requires it, then we dare not leave it off. If it fits God’s word, but is not required, then we should not oppose it or bind it. If it forbidden in God’s word or unauthorized in God’s word, then we must oppose it regardless of how long it has been practiced.

Are you following the tradition received from God for your life, or are you following human tradition that differs from His word? Have you been forgiven of your sins according to God’s word? If so, are you living a faithful life?

Note: We have many other articles on our web site related to this topic. If you would like to have further information, please note the links below.

Condensed please see link below for entire study

gospelway.com/bible/tradition.php

 

[n2thelight]

deleted by me

 

[JLongoria]

When we study about a certain practice, then, we should not ask, “Where does God say not to do this?” Instead, ask, “Where does God’s word show this act would be acceptable?” If the act cannot be found included in God’s will for us, then we should refuse to participate in it.

Great, now where does it say in Scripture that it is the full testament of God’s will for us?

Now, let’s talk about abortion.

Can you give me a comprehensive proof from the Bible where abortion is spelled out as inherently evil and in all cases morally impermissible? This is a serious question.

 

[LittleDeb]

The question is not how long we have practiced something or when it began. The question is: Does it fit what God’s word says? If God’s word requires it, then we dare not leave it off. If it fits God’s word, but is not required, then we should not oppose it or bind it. If it forbidden in God’s word or unauthorized in God’s word, then we must oppose it regardless of how long it has been practiced.

Are you following the tradition received from God for your life, or are you following human tradition that differs from His word? Have you been forgiven of your sins according to God’s word? If so, are you living a faithful life?

I agree with this 100%.

When was the last time you consumed the Body and Blood of our Lord as commanded in John 6? Christ even used the words “you must!”

When have you been forgiven of your sins in the way Our Lord commanded, through the Apostles and their successors?

What does your church teach on contraception? Before 1930 ALL Christian churches condemned contraception as inherently evil. Most of the churches based their teachings solely on the Bible. Scripture didn’t change. Why did they?

 

[NotWorthy]

Jesus was speaking of Himself, not Peter.

If you studied ancient Greek, you would understand that Petros meaning little rock (or pebble) had gone out of vogue many centuries earlier. This is simply poor scholastic work, my friend.

When the Greek pronoun “This” is used, it is referring to the last reference of the item.

So, Upon “This Rock” refers to the last usage of “rock”. Where is that? “Blessed are you, Simon BarJonah. YOU ARE ROCK…”.

Please don’t stretch Greek Grammar rules to fit your pre-conceived notion of what is right. That’s poor exegesis.

 

[NotWorthy]

I went to the official KKK site. I found more love there.

Ooooh, that’s Bad. Good! But Baaaaaddddddd. :tsktsk:

 

[NotWorthy]

Romans 3:20 “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”

So what part of ALL is hard to understand

Let me ask you, Did everyone in Judea come to be baptized by John the Baptist?