Legalist Nutcase Wants to Play!

[jpholding]

I got an email from a wacko fruitcake on my article at http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html -- his email won a Screwball Award not only for its raft of spelling errors, but for it's inability to make a coherent or logical point.

Well, the fruitcake says he wants to come play on a forum. So here we are. I'll reprint his email first.

1. When starting a essay on scriptural teachings. It would be wise to begin with scripture rather then what 'Riddlebarger' has to say on the matter of salvation.

2. We are required to obey Christ unto salvation. I can agree that the commands do provide a mirror image of perfection we cannot attain without the atonement of Jesus Christ on our behalf. It is what makes us and our works acceptable to God. None of these good works earns salvation. Baptism in water does not earn anything more then a soaked body. Baptism in water however according to the word of God, 'saves us also'. How and from what would be good questions to answer.

3. Paul taught that works of the Law do not save us. Pauls motivation in writing this was to prove that one is not saved by their own efforts nor that of the Law. Jesus and the Apostles all concur that we however must both believe and Obey Christ if we are to walk in the light as he is in the light 1John. Please provide me one passage that states that we need not obey the Lord Jesus Christ to get saved? Heb 5:9, Acts 5:32, 1Peter 1:22

4. Mark 16:16. It is good to simply give it no merrit since it is suspect even in my Bible (NIV). Yet regardless the translators of all the Modern transalations we have today include it. Rejection of scripture is sort of a slippery slope don't you think? I mean if the Schollars got this wrong what can we be really be sure is the real word of God? I think this would simply open up a whole can of worms don't you? Even if we all were to have a basic understanding of Koine Greek would this be enough to understand the ancient texts. I guess the next thing we would fight over would be the dates of the texts, what books were included, where they came from, and which ones we would accept as authoritative, based on our limited knowlege. What a mess.

5. a John 3:5. Born of water cannot mean 'water baptism' since it didn't yet exist. Have a look at Mark 1:8. The Pharasees and Saducess both went out to John the Baptist in the Wilderness, before Christ began his ministery. Nicodemus was a Pharasee and there is a very good chance he too saw John the Baptist. Not only this it is documented that the Jews also had a baptism of the Priests and baptisteries in the temple I believe the hebrew name is Mikvah. In fact the illustration you provide from Ezekiel 36 could both parallel to the Priestly baptism and the one that would bring final cleansing. It also closely parallels Titus 3:5, and Hebrews 10:22. Incidentally later in John 3 Jesus takes over the ministery of water baptism and John concedes to deminish as his Job seems to be concluded.

b. Acts 2:38. Message of the Gospel is preached. The Jews were convicted of their sins (belief and repentance). They ask what they must do (to be forgiven of their sins). Peter answers, 'repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit'. Vs 39 solidfies this as a promice for all people.

The language is plain. Repentance and baptism are both 'for' the remission of sins. If the passage said 'repent and believe the Gospel' and your sins will be forgiven you - the statement would be accepted as it is however it includes baptism and that is simply not acceptable.

The 'eis' retrospective argument. From what I can understand 'eis' is a prepostion that can only be used in the prospective rendering. 'For' however in the English language can be either prospective or retrospective. Since it qualifies as prospective it qualifies lexically and grammatically to be in this passage. I have read translations that include 'so that' your sins may be forgiven. There is no room for a 'retrospective' understanding in English concerning this language. What I have yet to see is Mantey, or AT Robertson publish a Bible that renders this passage 'because of'. Zondervan explaination lexically as to why this is, perhaps you should include it on your run down of this passage.

6. We are not saved through baptism, however if we refuse to be baptized we never really believed, and therefore are not saved. Many who believed in Jesus walked away from him and only followed for a short time. The Apostles also mensioned false brothers, and the ability to fall away from the faith. Many today believe and follow the teachings of the Salvation Army who to my knowledge do not baptizes nor adminster the Lords Table. Their outreach ministery is however world famous and they do it in the name of Christ on the basis of salvation by faith alone (correct me if I am wrong). Now are they saved? They do not see baptism as necessary at all, yet they help others. They are led to do good works but are not baptized.

7. Act 22:16 Paul met Jesus, was fasting and praying for three days on the street straight. What is amazing here is that God does not 'remove' his sins until Ananias comes and gives him the instruction to call upon the name of the Lord. Paul should have been instantly saved when he met Jesus, why did it take fasting prayer, and Ananias to get him there? Now for the baptism part. 'be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.' You are correct that calling on the name of the Lord is the main term here, however baptism in water is the How. Matt 28:18-20, Acts 2:21.

8. Gal 3:27. Colossians 2:11-15 makes it clear that the circumcision of Christ is done in baptism. It is of the heart not of the flesh. Your comment on vs 3:2-3 in regard to the fact that Paul ask if they recieved the Spirit - not if thy were baptized. If you have a look at Act 19 you will see that Paul asks the Jewish men there what 'Spirit' they recieved. Their reply is that they didn't know there was a Holy Spirit. Then he ask what baptism they recieved and they said Johns. If reciet of the Spirit is not dependant upon Baptism in water then why would Paul bother asking them?

9. Rom 6. The passage seems to be a description of what is going on spiritually as you are baptized in water. The Holy Spirit does the work of atonement as you go under and are brought up.

10. 1Peter 2:21 Baptism now saves us also. It is the pledge, answer, appeal, interrogation, of a clean conscience from God. It saves us by the ressurection of Jesus Christ. If is interesting what Josphus says on it. Yet the litteral wording is what we must look at. How does baptism save us. It is the appeal to God for a clean conscience. Now if this is correctly translated this would mean that baptism is the answer for us to gain a clean conscience from God. The only Translation that renders it they way you try to understand it is the NLT and has in the footnotes (or Appeal), which logically would be the very opposite of what is rendered.

Not all these points are as fruity as others, but there's enough lunacy here to fill a bandshell, so let's do a few points at a time and see if Nutsy wants to play.

1. When starting a essay on scriptural teachings. It would be wise to begin with scripture rather then what 'Riddlebarger' has to say on the matter of salvation.

No it wouldn't be "wise". That's a bunch of legalist snot-nosed claptrap. Nutsy fails to realize that the Bible isn't an idol. There's no reason to "begin" any essay on Scriptural teachings with a Bible verse just to satisfy some holier-than-thou crusade. Riddlebarger is a qualified commentator who made a poignant observation that reflected truth. His comment has as much right to be quoted first as anything else.

2. We are required to obey Christ unto salvation. I can agree that the commands do provide a mirror image of perfection we cannot attain without the atonement of Jesus Christ on our behalf. It is what makes us and our works acceptable to God. None of these good works earns salvation. Baptism in water does not earn anything more then a soaked body. Baptism in water however according to the word of God, 'saves us also'. How and from what would be good questions to answer.

Not much to comment here as this is setup for what follows.

3. Paul taught that works of the Law do not save us. Pauls motivation in writing this was to prove that one is not saved by their own efforts nor that of the Law. Jesus and the Apostles all concur that we however must both believe and Obey Christ if we are to walk in the light as he is in the light 1John. Please provide me one passage that states that we need not obey the Lord Jesus Christ to get saved? Heb 5:9, Acts 5:32, 1Peter 1:22

Nutsy's crusade is such that he apparently feels the need to create some argument to refute since the ones I provide are too hard for him to refute. The whole point of the Semitic Totality article is that to even say something like, "we need not (or need) to obey the Lord Jesus Christ to get saved" is to miss the point. The one with true faith WILL obey. Not MUST, but WILL. Thus to ask for "one passage that states that we need not obey the Lord Jesus Christ to get saved" is to miss the point entirely. No one argues that there's a "need not" because the word "need" implies a MUST, not a WILL.

As for the passages, sorry, Nutsy -- babbling out citations without explanation won't impress anyone but the fundies.

4. Mark 16:16. It is good to simply give it no merrit since it is suspect even in my Bible (NIV). Yet regardless the translators of all the Modern transalations we have today include it. Rejection of scripture is sort of a slippery slope don't you think? I mean if the Schollars got this wrong what can we be really be sure is the real word of God? I think this would simply open up a whole can of worms don't you? Even if we all were to have a basic understanding of Koine Greek would this be enough to understand the ancient texts. I guess the next thing we would fight over would be the dates of the texts, what books were included, where they came from, and which ones we would accept as authoritative, based on our limited knowlege. What a mess.

Yeah what a mess all right. A mess for people with limited brainpower who think serious scholarship means a "slippery slope". Maybe for them it does. No, there's no can of worms here, Nutsy, except maybe in your lunch pail. And only an idiot like Thomas Paine would make such a comment about Greek (and he did). Your knowledge may be limited, but that of scholars isn't. Get your head out of the sand.

[quote]5. a John 3:5. Born of water cannot mean 'water baptism' since it didn't yet exist. Have a look at Mark 1:8. The Pharasees and Saducess both went out to John the Baptist in the Wilderness, before Christ began his ministery. Nicodemus was a Pharasee and there is a very good chance he too saw John the Baptist.
[/quote

I'll cut this one short because Nutsy rattles on and on and on having missed that I am clearly pointing out that it is Christian baptism that did not yet exist, as a sacrament of Chrisrianity. Baptisms by John, Hebrew priests, etc. which he goes on to appeal to next don't help interpret John 3:5, unless he wants to make the idiotic claim that Jesus meant to be born again, you had to be baptized by John, or by the priests, etc.

Dumbo also adds:

It also closely parallels Titus 3:5, and Hebrews 10:22. Incidentally later in John 3 Jesus takes over the ministery of water baptism and John concedes to deminish as his Job seems to be concluded.

How nice. However, Titus and Hebrews were written AFTER the sacrament of Christian baptism was known, so they provide no informing basis for John 3:5. Nor does Jesus' own offering of baptism, since that is still not the Christian sacrament with its attendant meanings.

b. Acts 2:38. Message of the Gospel is preached. The Jews were convicted of their sins (belief and repentance). They ask what they must do (to be forgiven of their sins). Peter answers, 'repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit'. Vs 39 solidfies this as a promice for all people.

The language is plain. Repentance and baptism are both 'for' the remission of sins. If the passage said 'repent and believe the Gospel' and your sins will be forgiven you - the statement would be accepted as it is however it includes baptism and that is simply not acceptable.

The 'eis' retrospective argument. From what I can understand 'eis' is a prepostion that can only be used in the prospective rendering. 'For' however in the English language can be either prospective or retrospective. Since it qualifies as prospective it qualifies lexically and grammatically to be in this passage. I have read translations that include 'so that' your sins may be forgiven. There is no room for a 'retrospective' understanding in English concerning this language. What I have yet to see is Mantey, or AT Robertson publish a Bible that renders this passage 'because of'. Zondervan explaination lexically as to why this is, perhaps you should include it on your run down of this passage.

No thanks. My explanation in the article is fine as is. It explains the factors that govern my reading: Semitic Totality, etc. Nutsy doesn't even touch that because he's too busy counting translation noses. His counter here is of that stupid species of argument (seen from the likes of Till) that somehow, the translations are revealing something accurately, but the commentaries (written by the same scholars who did the translations) are making stuff up. No one need to publish a version that says "because of" just to satisfy this bibliolatrist's personal problems.

That'll be enough for today. I'm sure Nutsy will provide plenty of entertainment just from this.

[RumTumTugger]

I got an email from a wacko fruitcake on my article at http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html -- his email won a Screwball Award not only for its raft of spelling errors, but for it's inability to make a coherent or logical point.

Well, the fruitcake says he wants to come play on a forum. So here we are. I'll reprint his email first.



Not all these points are as fruity as others, but there's enough lunacy here to fill a bandshell, so let's do a few points at a time and see if Nutsy wants to play.



No it wouldn't be "wise". That's a bunch of legalist snot-nosed claptrap. Nutsy fails to realize that the Bible isn't an idol. There's no reason to "begin" any essay on Scriptural teachings with a Bible verse just to satisfy some holier-than-thou crusade. Riddlebarger is a qualified commentator who made a poignant observation that reflected truth. His comment has as much right to be quoted first as anything else.



Not much to comment here as this is setup for what follows.



Nutsy's crusade is such that he apparently feels the need to create some argument to refute since the ones I provide are too hard for him to refute. The whole point of the Semitic Totality article is that to even say something like, "we need not (or need) to obey the Lord Jesus Christ to get saved" is to miss the point. The one with true faith WILL obey. Not MUST, but WILL. Thus to ask for "one passage that states that we need not obey the Lord Jesus Christ to get saved" is to miss the point entirely. No one argues that there's a "need not" because the word "need" implies a MUST, not a WILL.

As for the passages, sorry, Nutsy -- babbling out citations without explanation won't impress anyone but the fundies.



Yeah what a mess all right. A mess for people with limited brainpower who think serious scholarship means a "slippery slope". Maybe for them it does. No, there's no can of worms here, Nutsy, except maybe in your lunch pail. And only an idiot like Thomas Paine would make such a comment about Greek (and he did). Your knowledge may be limited, but that of scholars isn't. Get your head out of the sand.

5. a John 3:5. Born of water cannot mean 'water baptism' since it didn't yet exist. Have a look at Mark 1:8. The Pharasees and Saducess both went out to John the Baptist in the Wilderness, before Christ began his ministery. Nicodemus was a Pharasee and there is a very good chance he too saw John the Baptist.

I'll cut this one short because Nutsy rattles on and on and on having missed that I am clearly pointing out that it is Christian baptism that did not yet exist, as a sacrament of Chrisrianity. Baptisms by John, Hebrew priests, etc. which he goes on to appeal to next don't help interpret John 3:5, unless he wants to make the idiotic claim that Jesus meant to be born again, you had to be baptized by John, or by the priests, etc.

Dumbo also adds:



How nice. However, Titus and Hebrews were written AFTER the sacrament of Christian baptism was known, so they provide no informing basis for John 3:5. Nor does Jesus' own offering of baptism, since that is still not the Christian sacrament with its attendant meanings.



No thanks. My explanation in the article is fine as is. It explains the factors that govern my reading: Semitic Totality, etc. Nutsy doesn't even touch that because he's too busy counting translation noses. His counter here is of that stupid species of argument (seen from the likes of Till) that somehow, the translations are revealing something accurately, but the commentaries (written by the same scholars who did the translations) are making stuff up. No one need to publish a version that says "because of" just to satisfy this bibliolatrist's personal problems.

That'll be enough for today. I'm sure Nutsy will provide plenty of entertainment just from this.

I hope this new toy is stronger then some of the others you've gotten for the children you know they tend to play rough with the new toys

RTT
Twebmom

[jpholding]

I hope this new toy is stronger then some of the others you've gotten for the children you know they tend to play rough with the new toys

Well based on his followup emails he seems to be blessed with invincible ignorance of the Ed Dingess/Johnny Skeptic variety. So we shall see.

[jpholding]

The nutcase sent me an email showing he's fallen for the old Turkel gag. I told him to get his bad chicken self over here.

[One Bad Pig]

You might get more people to come play if you made the OP somewhat neutral. It's not like the errors need to be mockingly pointed out in order for the average poster here to spot them.

[Mountain Man]

Not necessary, but so much fun.

[RumTumTugger]

Just try and be a bit more careful of your toys they will last longer the last one JP brought over broke in 2 days.

RTT
Tweb Mom.

[jpholding]

You might get more people to come play if you made the OP somewhat neutral. It's not like the errors need to be mockingly pointed out in order for the average poster here to spot them.

It was more to get HIM to come over...he posed himself as a brave cowboy who'd be able to stomp all over anyone, and challenged ME to discuss it on a forum, so if anything he was already committed...assuming he was telling the truth about himself.

But, in the end, looks like he's chicken after all.

[One Bad Pig]

It was more to get HIM to come over...

Yeah, I get that - but I'd think twice about coming to a forum with that form of introduction.

[jpholding]

Yeah, I get that - but I'd think twice about coming to a forum with that form of introduction.

If you'd seen the other emails I got from him....you'd see that "thinking twice" would describe, for him, an average day's mental activity.

[SarahB]

I got an email from a wacko fruitcake on my article at http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html -- his email won a Screwball Award not only for its raft of spelling errors, but for it's inability to make a coherent or logical point.

*chuckle*

wacko fruitcake
Nutsy
snot-nosed claptrap.
babbling out citations without explanation won't impress anyone but the fundies.
people with limited brainpower
only an idiot
Dumbo

Scholarly?

[jpholding]

This message is hidden because SarahB is on your ignore list.

Beg pardon? Did someone belch?

[fm93]

Hey Sarah.

Piss off.

Thank you.

[SarahB]

Hey Sarah.

Piss off.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr W, this is acceptable and encouraged under the Insults for Christ paradigm.

[One Bad Pig]

Hey Sarah.

Piss off.

Thank you.

SarahB 1
fm93 0