Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:-- a person does Not find children being baptized in Scripture.

So when entire households were baptized, are we to assume there were never any infants there?

We're neither to assume that there were or that there were not. You don't build a doctrine on what is unstated.

So -- if a small child dies or is badly injured in an accident -- does the RCC church say that the child Might die if there is Any kind of sin present in their life? But what if the situation takes place in a setting with no water available -- Maybe my question IS Why does the RCC church teach the ...

The Romans crucified Him, yes, but completely with His permission. And in the end, it was Jesus who gave up His own spirit.

Basically, a baby is innocent of pretty much anything. So for them, a baptism, or washing away of sins, is redundant. Of course, paedobaptists would say you are wrong on this. So they're going to answer the OP differently than you. That's the point I'm trying to make. If you think a baby is innocen...

Baptism is to show Outwardly that which has already taken place in the person Inwardly. When a person believes in his heart and confesses with his mouth -- salvation then takes place. Then comes the outward act of. When our pastor has a baptisimal service as part of the regular church service -- he...

I don't think there's anything to do with "fairness" here, mel. The Comma came up, most people dismiss it out of hand, and so I provided a (cheap) book length treatment of the subject if anyone is or ever happens to be interested in a proper defense so that they can have a more informed vi...

For those interested and who don't mind shelling out 4USD, here's a whole book written in defense of 1 John 5:7. It really is a shame to me how quickly people will give this up. The whole Alexandrian text type is so problematic, but people just read "the oldest/best manuscripts lack these verse...

Are you open to the possibility, JB, that you have not understood or appreciated the Vatican's position here?

1. The HS is given;
2. Persons are not given;
3. Thus, the HS is not a person.

----------------

1. My wife was given;
2. Persons are not given;
3. Therefore, my wife is not a person

Glad you think it's funny, jenna, to ignore Jesus' words and tell Him that He's wrong.

So how do you understand Jesus' words? Because when someone quotes Jesus and you say, "Tell that to so and so," it's hard not to draw the conclusion that you're saying Jesus' words were wrong based on that so and so.

I'm thinking my terminology was wrong. Lets' try 'this' -- Jesus Christ had to ascend back up to the Father in heaven so that the Holy Spirit could come to indwell believers. Jesus Christ could only be one place at a time -- in His human form -- as the Son -- teaching a group or individually. But H...

Then -- why are people baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit? And, why is the Holy Spirit given to believers? the holy spirit is given to believers. if it were a person or being within the Godhead, it would not be given , it would come to them of its own accord. So ...

Then -- why are people baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit? And, why is the Holy Spirit given to believers? the holy spirit is given to believers. if it were a person or being within the Godhead, it would not be given , it would come to them of its own accord. So ...

Can we please refocus a bit. Is there not an enormous problem with picking and choosing certain passages and trying to extract various specific parts and declaring them simply not true AT ALL???!!! And when we look at key passages, like the Creation accounts, Adam and Eve's creations and their fall...