Space Merchant

Regarding baptism the Bible tells us to take in knowledge, I had already made a response to that. Playbook? Yes, Jesus did study, for the law he was born into he, and all of his people had to read and observe, recite, study, and pray, all things in regards to taking in knowledge of the God of Israel, Yahweh. Jesus even acknowledged said Law to those that asked him as read in Mark 12. Jesus told us to take in knowledge of the True God who sent him. And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. By taking in wisdom of God, people indeed examine Scripture, people will learn of who God is and what he had done, and will also come to understand of who Jesus Christ is and what role he has in God's Purpose and Will. Concerning Baptism, those who hear God's Word come to take in wisdom and understand it, and it is concerning those who seek baptism themselves by their choice to make said declaration to God. For Jesus came and spoke God's Word giving us insight on who he is, to which we examine and accept as truth. I beg your pardon? Again with the requirements, but only this time a feeble example. We are to take in wisdom and examine God's Word. I suggest you look up what the word actually is and its definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/study So tell me this, when it comes to learning and understanding God what do you do? No one says that it is an absolute requirement. The response regarding baptism is the fact that people take in knowledge of God's Word, learning about him, especially those who seek baptism, those who heard God's Word. What you said primarily is that this or that is unbiblical. I have read your responses, I haven't ignored or left anything out if I made a response to each part.

I already know this regarding Christians who do what was done by the early church vs. those that do not and apply to such things such as tradition, i.e. gay marriage, interfaith, sodomy, professing of actions that is unChristian, etc. We have examples, for instance, Kairos Movement, etc. Biblical Unitarian, non-denominational. I recall last time you tried to accuse me of being supportive of the interfaith, only to correct and rebuke you on this claim and you apologized to the confusion because you didn't know any better to which I had accepted. The Jehovah's Witnesses, as much as you heard me say it before, are Restorationist. There are 2 types of Restorationism, lone Christians, and there are organized ones, and of course we know that Jehovah's Witnesses are an organized bunch, and they are everywhere, perhaps you have one at your workplace, institution of any sort, maybe under your bed. Restorationist in a much are consider true Christians because they do anything and everything to strive to be like the True Church itself, some Restorationist take it to the extreme as to live life 100% simple, this picture below is someone who I had a chance to speak to, he is a Restorationist Christian Us Biblical Unitarians, we to strive to be like the church, some better than others, which is the case with me as well. Others outside of Biblical Unitarianism, I see them as those also, like of another nation and or tribe who are doing the same thing regarding God whereas others give in to tradition of men, practices and the like, what have you. This is why it is very important, all who move away from mainstream Christendom into true Christendom, recognize the teachings and what was spoken of by God himself. And to such it has to be taken very seriously, for doing all things for God and following the teacher, his Son, it requires sacrifice and total devotion and complete servitude to God our Father. That being said, those among the mainstream crowd tend to confuse the teachings and confuse others on this same notion, like my last discussion with you regarding what nakedness actually is to which you had been corrected on the truth of the matter.

So you are of mainstream Christendom? My claims are actually true and I have posted information on such because I had brought forth facts in regards to this, elsewhere, there has always been discussion and debate on such. You think that the mainstream does not practice some form of excommunication that is not of the church, but the facts I had professed here several times says otherwise. Watering down the church of the Christ is indefensible.

Exactly because there are those out there who say they are God's mouthpiece or they are spokesman of God declaring the message to which they preach and teach otherwise, i.e. Mario Martinez who says he is a spokesman of God but teaches and preaches people like him can have visions and see Hell itself, people being tormented in Hell and so forth. So what was said is on equal footing, granted I had stated the distinction between a prophets who are not inspired, ones being true ones and ones being false. That being said, indeed anyone can say they are God's mouthpiece, but among them there are false ones, which the verse you profess also adds on to what was originally said. Actual prophets, Christians, there are those who are God's spokesman who indeed speaks truth and such ones Jesus will recognize.

@Srecko Sostar Truly, truly I saith unto thee, he does not knoweth how things work. No it is not a double standard, this is why I posted that link so you can understand how things roll in said country.

I can't tell you how many debates I had regarding this. Such ones turn it into something else and quick to point the figure on your stance on baptism vs. that of mainstream Christendom. A dead giveaway would be the baptism of infant babies, which was never commanded to the church of the Christ to do, for the word and the teachings is for those who can hear it, who can understand it and who can apply it in terms of wisdom and knowledge. Yes I notice you mentioned Acts 26:20. In short, one must turn to God, to be close with him. The person who seeks to be close to God our Father must be genuine in their repentance, so he, or she must put forth effort in said repentance willfully, the action of one changing themselves, in a way, out with the old, in with the new. Apostle Paul is a great example, for we know his history, his actions and later on, him being the very man to move people to be a follower of the Christ, to move people to knowing who sent Jesus. When Paul professed the good news gospel and the things concerning the teachings, it enables people to be moved by what they heard, hearing it and making the necessary changes to let go of what is old in themselves, and bring forth what is new. That being said, all things concerning baptism, it is good to understand the context of references for such gives more insight on such things, even with what is being discussed.

Ok, I am looking. Context of passage of Peter's sermon shows us that the people heard the teachings of the Christ that day, others, who were present were already students of God's Word. Clearly, one who hears takes up wisdom of all things concerning the Christ and his God, hence why when it came to baptism, water immersion, which is a public declaration in this sense, proves otherwise. I really do not care if you agree with me, I agree to what the Bible says and what lessons and examples we as Christians draw from it. My response is based purely on biblical hermeneutics, as is with most of my comments when it comes to explaining something or someone. Acts 2:38, or the passage itself gives context of what you are reading. For we know that those at Pentecost are Christians, embracing on what was being professed to them regarding the Christ, the references in connection to that verse (or verses), as well as the helper of whom was promised. Not only the people were baptized regarding repentance of sin, but they were baptized in Christ. Simon Peter, when professing the inspired sermon, the teachings to the people heed the command of the Christ, the same verse you yourself said we are to follow since it was Jesus who gave this command (Matthew 28:19), and in this history of early Christianity, God’s people would seek repentance and be baptized in the name of God's Son, Jesus Christ, for forgiveness of sins, such echos back to John the Baptist, hence references. It is known that at this point in time that the Jews had rejected the Messiah, God’s Christ and by means of repenting and exercising faith in the Christ, one is capable of seeking and receiving forgiveness from God, granted that the New Covenant was already in effect. Public declaration as mentioned of such faith by being immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ. Christians today applies what is learned in the passage of Acts 2 and understand what Simon Peter conveyed when he talked to those at Pentecost, who were of the Church of the Christ. These people knew what they were being taught and applied it; they heard it, no doubt. Moreover, the Holy Spirit, the helper, was poured to the people, inspired them, 120 persons who are disciples, later that day, thousands more, who accepted the teachings of the Christ and understood said teaches concerning about the very person of whom God made both Lord and Christ, according to Peter (32, 36). Such ones show a public declaration of faith by being immersed in water in the name of Jesus Christ, their teacher (death unto life), not to mention that such ones were like pupils, students concerning God’s Word; reading The Coming of the Holy Spirit (1-13) should have been obvious to you, let alone the references in connection to passage. Christians today applies what is read in Acts 2, especially when it comes to Peter's Sermon at Pentecost (14-41). Peter knew very well what Jesus had taught and these teachings were presented to the people in the city, and said teachings was conveyed to those who sought baptism after hearing and accepting the sound truth about the Christ. Likewise, for us, like the early Christians of Pentecost, we too can accept the truth of the Christ by hearing and learning about all and everything that Jesus had taught, mainly when it came to the good news gospel and the Messianic Age, said teachings professed by the Christians of that day. This is why when I said we are to study the word, it is in relation to the teachings of Christ Jesus, for when it comes to becoming his servant, his follower, his disciple, we are to fully understand what he says, what he commands, and we make disciples by teaching what the Christ has taught unto the people who hears the word, in doing so, like our Eunuch friend, such ones can embrace the message concerning the Christ, and in doing so, they make declaration to the Church of the Christ, and glorify God, rejoice in such as well. Such efforts will enable such ones to do what those 120 persons have done. That being said, clearly those at Pentecost knew what they were conveying afterwards, and what they had been teaching to the people, vice versa, what the people were learning and accepting from them. A follower of the Christ understands the teachings, mainly when it comes to those who has that chance. The promise is to us, after all. And yet when something is said, suddenly you wanted a verse with that exact mention of something when clearly the context is being drawn from such verse. Concerning what Jesus taught, according to you, how does one convey if they is no need to study, read, observe, etc? Example regarding Jesus in his childhood, he read, studied, recited, and observed the laws found in the Old Testament because in doing so, he, as with all Jews, learned about the God of Israel. Why is it suddenly different according to you about those of the New Covenant; Christians? So what would you say in regards to those being hearers of the word? actually disciples and students of God's Word in Bible times, especially those at Pentecost? How would the early Christians teach and preach the good news gospel and the Messianic Age if they did not understand or observed what the teachings were to begin with? Taking in wisdom is indeed biblical not. So if Jesus urges us to take in knowledge by coming to know the True God is wrong? Let alone what was said about taking in accurate knowledge? Trying to understand you. Obscure definitions? You haven't really brought much here. In short you are having an issue with the taking in of wisdom concerning God and the Christ. Unless you can make your point clearer on how does one heed command from Jesus to know who God is and who he [Jesus] is if they do not hear any sort of teaching, or read and obverse anything from Scripture? Jesus put high importance in observing the word hence why we have the foremost commandments, and by reading and understanding, we understand why he holds such this high and why we as Christians must apply such. No, it is not that I dislike what you are saying, rather not much has come from you thus far, but I am speaking from what the Bible conveys here to which you are calling unbiblical, not to mention that random assumptions and accusations when there is no evidence of such, and the lowkey no mentions for what was talked about before i.e. The Eunuch. That being said, if you have some points to make, then do so, aside from that, I speak on what the Bible says regarding those who are in union with the Christ and what they've done, in which we as Christians today can emulate and apply.

Ok. And your point? And yet that was of my original response until you equated such to a faith community. Because forums are usually like this. They had guidelines, rules, regulations when it comes to topic focused things, comments, review, etc. in conjunction to that, those who partake in said forum space who can bring forth an opinion, speak their peace, converse, joke and troll, or that one guy who has very little to say but only wants to be notice by his senpai, the admin, etc. My focus was Admin and Librarian in terms of this forum, and yet, as stated, you threw in a faith community and suddenly assume I am mad, angered or hurt when I show little to no such thing on a forum, or in a public area in the realm of discussion and or debate. I do not want to find your response in this claim amusing, but I must. Are you aware of what mainstream Christendom is and their practices? Their theological stance and so forth? Mainstream Christendom not only integrates doctrines that are not of Jesus' church, but they tend to water down and twist the teachings and other things concerning the Bible. How are you so sure that mainstream Christendom practices binding and loosening in the church when the majority practices 2 out of 3 excommunication concepts that is not related to what was entrusted to the church? That being said, I advise you understand the difference between True Christianity and mainstream Christianity being unaware of such will only bring forth confusion on your part when most people who has discernment and understanding can tell the difference. Other than that, excommunication I had spoken of several times before. Do not get it confuse with the MSC.

Reasons why I had already stated that even those who make claim to being the mouthpiece of God, thinking that they are in the correct, but are not, who are liken to the passage you just quoted, my favorite one by the way, mainly verse 23. People like Pastor Mario Martinez will make such claims, but what they teach is not of the church at all, not of the 'Christ or God. Hence when one says they are the mouthpiece or spokesman of God, a declaree, faith of what they profess must be aligned with Jesus' Church, be it they are of it or strive to be as such. That being said, why would I pick part? You pretty much agreed with me concerning my other responses. Therefore, any man who teaches that God is for or supports what he drove out of the land is incorrect, and in the wrong, hence, topic.

Soothing emotional words that tickle the ears. Such ones people will believe. They or their flock will speak of such ones as God's chosen one, mouthpiece, God's sole servant, what have you, but such ones speak ill doctrine, hence the term false prophet/teacher used unto such ones. Back to the topic at hand here, people who make claim to these visions will often get folks by means of strong words and emotion, and we have the end result of those who make claim to vision, the best example I can find is here: https://listverse.com/2014/02/20/10-visions-of-hell-that-will-scare-the-crap-out-of-you/ One lie that so called false prophets in Christendom often teach is indeed what is being discussed here, for not only they make claim to these visions, but also, they will say that God punishes the evil men, deceased, with eternal torment in the lake of fire. The falsehood can easily be read out in this sense, when we read the Bible, we know that God is indeed love, and God would not be able to send deceased, those who are not living, those who are dead, to be committed to harm if they perish, conscious of nothing at all. I am sure your faith community is already aware, but the lake of fire, which is Gehenna, is symbolic, a place of everlasting destruction. Something that has cease from existence by means of Gehenna cannot succumb to what today's mainstream Christendom preaches or Christian prophets such as those mentioned in this sense. Truly I say, it is not that difficult to spot such. But this is merely one of such teachings from those who proclaim that God is with them or that they are speakers of the Most High God. That being said, reminds me of a recent discussion with someone, who ended up attacking everyone for not believing in these testimonies. Yet one girl, her English was not that great she is from Dominican Republic, mentioned a testimony she was aware of and could not believe God to be the villain in this sense, only for the one I discussed with to call her a lair, after he himself professed such visions as an absolute truth. Another told me that this misguided Christian is a lost cause, so I had to cease discussion with him, even going about calling the misguided one depraved minded. But I continued, thinking that he could see the truth of the Bible, but he refused, calling everyone, even those who were seeking to learn to read the Bible, agents of the Devil. This alone shows you the state of mind in what mainstream Christendom teaches vs. those who are not of the mainstream. The funny thing is there was a guy who said Jesus quoted, used Bible citations of the Old Testament, the misguided Christian said Jesus never quoted the Old Testament - that remark there is equated to the hill he died on in regards to this discussion. Mind you this is one of many, and there is always discussion, debate, etc. when it comes to these things, but in the end, truth always stands firm.

I've explained this a while ago pertaining to the early church in relation to Scripture and the Didache, as well as such in regards to Salvation, I believe this was talked about to you several times. Even before them, before us, there were people of God who are of this church, the same one that Jesus has built, same teachings, same practices, etc. all intact. A Christian would not be concerning of preaching the gospel if they believe that only they themselves would be saved, otherwise that would be hypocritical, hence why Christians will preach the gospel to the people, and this is an example in which we see with what took place during and after Pentecost, perhaps even Jesus and the Samaritan woman as read in John 4. For someone such as yourself to claim you are anointed, yet water down Christ's Kingship and butcher God's order of things, you cannot be taken seriously. Not to mentioned, you be very, very aware of the connection between Christians and the church of the Christ, and those of whom who heed the word. Hypocritical, is all that can be said. But surely one among the Firstfruits should have seen that one coming. That being said, God is merciful and such mercy is extended to all persons, God knows who is and who is not for him. There are those out there who still needs to know what the gospel is, and clearly, so what are you doing to help such ones? The church itself is of the Christ, built by him. I advise you not to forget what that is, and what it means.

@Equivocation Faithful Word Baptist Church Pastor Steven L. Anderson. He is also a fundamentalist pertaining to mainstream Christendom ideologies. This guy had quite a few words to say about Biblical Unitarians that only come back to bite him in the end. It is not just verses in Acts that irks this man. Full context in regards to baptism, yes? Other than that baptismal regeneration is not such an unknown term, for it relates to those in support of baptism requirement in which what pertains to what that doctrine consist of. Clearly if one is seeking to be baptized and makes this decision on their accord, it does not relate to or conflict with the latter belief. Also, one has to take into account those that never got the chance to or have yet sought baptism, ending up in a situation, loss of life, etc. Which is why we have the example of the thief who was crucified and was hung next to Jesus. Drawing context from Jesus' interaction with him, and his interaction with the command he gave, clearly the support of baptismal regeneration isn't there as some denominations would have you believe.

Indeed, everyone. As for self-defense all I've uttered is the elementary stuff compared to the middle to high level things. What I brought up is common with all persons in all levels of self-defense. And yes, that verse is indeed correct in regards to this situation of this world Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! That being said, they've integrated things into the schools and professing such as normal to the children, even outside of the churches, clubs and educational institutions, we have influence from communities that pushes people, young people to do bad things, i.e. having a 10-11 year old child dancing for money in bars. Clearly that is not right, but should you say anything about it you are attacked, and in this sense that is in the realm of child abuse in of itself, and clearly no one bats an eye.

https://www.diarioconcepcion.cl/ciudad/2018/09/13/no-izar-bandera-nacional-puede-ocasionar-multas-de-hasta-240-mil.html Possibly related:

The irony here is that we see people bring forth the idea of self-defense yet when it comes to core things to know in this regard, nothing has been said. This concise with what we should be teaching our children and nothing has been said expect the latter. With recent events, it should be made known that even adults need to be educated in some sense because they too reap consequence from their actions, so it can be said, not children alone, but rather all people. Some grown folks should know better: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/14/why-lori-loughlin-felicity-huffmans-alleged-roles-college-bribery-scandal-hit-such-nerve/?utm_term=.f5d9d39756e0 The actions of even older folk of the same blood can cause not just consequence to them, but to their own. Clearly they didn't learn that it is not ok to cheat.

Is that a problem? I brought it up because that information is true, something factual. When you study religious theology, things like this is known. And Restorationist are among the fold who are not part of the mainstream, hence why there is always a conflict between they and them. I have spoken of mainstream Christendom many, many times. It pertains to the threads I've started here on how they twist Scripture into some other form of doctrine, one of which you were in said discussion briefly. And no, I have been preaching and teachings not to the people I help, homeless, youth, what have you, but to those that speak of doctrines that is not of the church. I have even stated I do this publicly in person, etc. Hence why I, as well as many from cse, are often on conversation and or debate when we are met with falsehood. If I had to resort to forums only, why would I have preached the messages of the gospel to those in Thailand? Africa? Recently the countries of my parents? There are times whereas I am absent, if not work, if not helping young ones or the homeless, I am preaching the gospel to those who want to have a head start in learning the Bible. cross stitch? You do realize I am Unitarian, right? If I am not mistaken, you brought this up, and it is not the first time I've explained excommunication and 3 forms practiced by Christians today whereas only one form out of the 3 is correct. If I mention it now, you'd simply equate your comment about a separate discussion. That being said, I still don't understand your claim of me being hurt. Seems to be the other way around if one such as yourself is irked that easily to even make the first response that brought us to this point. But hey, it is evident when I see people watering down Scripture.

My bad, typed too fast. But yes, observe and meditate.

Don't blame me for stating something that is true. I need not have to explain to you something that is literally simple, after all, all the Christians that lived before us, our brothers and our sisters of the church, it should be obvious to you. Clearly they are not like Moses, David, etc, but they did have something in common, they proclaimed who God is, his Kingdom and all that pertains to it, hence, they are spokesman, mouth and or mouthpiece, declarees, advocates, prophets, etc. Give up? I value discussion. I've only made the response because of what you said as seen here: If I am wrong, as I told you in question, what of the good news gospel and the Messianic Age? All things pertaining to God that is spoken of by Christians, as well as the false prophets and teachers out there? There is Truth and there is Untruths, those who speak the truth will speak up. That being said, the leaders of Judah thought of Isaiah to be crazy when he not only repeat himself, but was speaking quite a lot regarding warning. So when someone is speaking the gospel of the good news, what are they professing if not of God? I am sure you are aware that even angels in Bible times were God's mouthpieces as well, example, Genesis 16:10-11, Genesis 22:10-12. Ok, my point exactly. Such ones proclaim God's Words, speaking and proclaiming the message, which pertains to what I had said. I don't make things up but ok. How are you so sure I haven't convinced anyone? If the Bible speakth something, it will be said. No one is ignorant to the fact that God uses angels and people, even speaks trough them and or uses them to push his message, Shaliach Principle being an example, which the person in question is a spokesman and or mouthpiece. For us Christians today, we are spreading God's Word and proclaiming the message, although we are not like our prophet inspired counterparts, we have the gifts of the spirit still and able to do God's will by such. That being said, there are indeed false prophets out there, some of which who preach and teach that God has given them visions of hell, people being tormented in it, burned, eaten, what have you. They make claim that they are God's spokesman, or in this case, God's mouthpiece, but they are teaching a message that is not of the church, not of God, but of man.

One thing for certain, unlike makeup, tattoos are not that easy to remove. There are people out there who literally take that their body is indeed a canvas unto a level that is beyond measure.

More of building one up and so forth. There are some Christians who believe faith over works and all that whereas a specific group avoids reading into Acts 1 and 2. In this sense, when one learns about God and they seek him, they will take into account what Jesus had told his disciples, when he says that we must take in knowledge of the one True God. John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Some denominations believe that baptism is the only way one can be saved, hence Shiwiii's misinformed response. The truth of the matter is one makes this decision on their own, yes at times, they can be encouraged, however, that choice is for them to make with God, should they want to make a declaration known in this sense, and going about following the teachings of the teacher, Christ Jesus. Knowledge of what we read from the Scriptures, to take in everything in full context, we must read, obverse and meditate it, build up wisdom, which is indeed like treasures, and like how the Jews did for their young, we pass on this knowledge to the people, men, women and children, even to our household, and so forth.

You are the one who inquired where in the Bible does it say exactly what you are focused on, you twisted my response to make it seem I said the Bible said exactly that whereas in reality, my comments showed that the Bible encourages us to obverse and study. Surely if I said "this verse says the word diligently", your comment would be understandable. But as we can see, nowhere in my comments I said exactly that in the Bible, but rather the opposite. You think I did not see what you attempted to do? Again, what I said exactly is the following: When a person has been studying the word diligently, becoming hearers of the word and embraces it, they will most likely seek baptism on their own accord, and as stated before, in doing so, they accept the teachings of the teacher, Lord Christ Jesus (Acts 2:38, 41). The verse in question regarding encouragement in this domain [38] And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. So tell me, can you point how anywhere to where I said the Bible stated what you claim exactly? Apparently, no. You brought forth if English was my first language and I gave answer, perhaps one should be asking you the same thing. You did. You equated my responses to baptism being a requirement and or a necessary action or else, in this sense. This is called Baptismal Regeneration. Did you not consider such in your comments? Again, not of my comments profess baptism being a requirement and or necessary, what I have stated, always, is that one can seek baptism if he or she chooses to seek it, having building themselves up working towards acquiring knowledge of who God is, his Son and the Kingdom. You also made comment as to me believing in works over belief: You've been paying attention to anything I said here and on this forums, you would know of what I profess verily easily. I am not arguing with you, but when I profess something you seem to get irked up quickly. Clearly one who is building up in their faith in professing, which pertains to baptism and observance of God's Word. You are merely adding to me words when you keep assuming works over belief, and faith being a requirement. Even by own comments on previous threads negates your claim to evidence of absolutely nothing. How are you correct if you can't even bring up any of my responses pertaining to such? IF I stated time and time again one seeks baptism on his or her own accord, why push what I say into something entirely different? You keep trending your heels on baptismal regeneration against someone who is, and has been against it for years. Did you not equate my responses to baptism being a requirement when I professed that people seek baptism? Anyone who believes in baptism a requirement, or a total necessary means are supports of baptismal regeneration. Because you seem unaware of this term, I did you the favor of linking it here: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptismal-regeneration.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptismal_regeneration https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/416-what-is-baptismal-regeneration I mean, a dead giveaway would be the fact I do not adhere to spurious and or unauthentic Bible verses whereas those who support Baptismal regeneration uses spurious text to support baptism as an absolute requirement. Not to mention the last discussion which you wanted to discuss regarding salvation. That being said, again, if someone does not support baptismal regeneration, stop tooting the horn for it because it will give you nothing in return. And no, no strawmans here, but the ignorance shows in regards to those of Christendom who actually do support such things; not me, because to quote you I, as well as the church, sees it as That being said, A strawman is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. Here we see you, making claims of baptism as a requirement in regards to my responses that shed no such thing. Baptism as a necessary means of salvation and or an absolute requirement is Baptismal Regeneration, which is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, or, more precisely, that regeneration does not occur until a person is water baptized (they also believe babies, who cannot speak or obverse God's Word, can be baptism too, in regards to guilty of sin).

Pretty much this....

@BillyTheKid46 Which proves my point for these past view years. Bystanders will succumb to vigilante justice and will go about violence of people, even the abusers themselves. Such actions is looked down upon for those who are truly fighting against child abuse without bloodying the water. Aside from that, these same people who do not out to go about combating child abuse are promoting child abuse indirectly, saying an institution is a hive, a paradise, or open to pedophilia, they are only giving word to ear to abusers to go to those institutions, and it plays into corrupt justice whereas those who people cry to in regards to child abuse are some how in it themselves; the whole double standard thing.

@BillyTheKid46 It only gets wilder. This is why Charlatans make good Christians look bad. They taint the church, they taint the Bible, they taint God's order of things, etc.

Probably because I am not? So may I ask, what of those that preached the gospel of the good news and the Messianic Age i.e. public proclamation of the inspired things/events from Scripture? Are you purposely leaving them out? Not to knock on the false teachers out there, but they too are doing the same blinding people, are they not speaking as well? The distinction between true and false, those who are of what is true will indeed speak up. That being said, a spokesman, mouthpiece and or delegatee, etc. there are many terms. Also you are forgetting, Christians (Prophets who are not inspired and not infallible) have gifts of the spirit in regards to proclaiming God's Word, thus they are mouthpieces/spokesman of God YHWH. Surely you know the difference between and can make the distinction between an inspired Prophet such as the ones you mentioned, and a not inspired Prophet who are commonly known as Christians today. One thing both of these types have in common is that they profess God, are like spokesman concerning God and so forth. Don't go about things in a simplistic manner, Shiwiii. Now, although those who bear testimony to having so called visions, they make the claim that God uses them as representatives, as his spokesmen, but clearly you see by such, they are teaching something that is not of the church. The boy mentioned the crusaders, militant Christians, they claim they are of God, but would be quick to take a firearm in threat to men, women and children should they go to the extreme, as a recent discussion this was revealed some months ago, and although all of them vary, they have a crazy view of what they see as just and thinking God Wills it (Deus vult).