Search results

This is pure invention from start to finish. Not one sentence you just wrote exists in Scripture or in any Christian doctrine taught by Jesus, the apostles, or the prophets. None of the following appear anywhere in Scripture: John transferring priesthood John being an Aaronic priest Jesus...

@ChristRoseFromTheDead He is at it again folks! This was AI-generated Here’s why, broken down in a way you can point out if needed: 🚨 1. The structure is textbook AI The sentence has the classic AI pattern: Bold claim stated as fact Colon List of parallels in perfect symmetry...

This entire interpretation collapses because it’s built on a method the Bible itself condemns — forcing your own symbolism onto passages that were never connected by God. Nothing in the Old Testament predicts Christ’s baptism as a reenactment of Exodus 29. Nothing in the Gospels explains His...

That’s a complete shift of the argument — and it doesn’t rescue your claim. Yes, Jesus said John was the greatest prophet ever born of women (Matt. 11:11 KJV). But notice what Jesus did NOT say: He did not call John a priest. He did not tie John to Aaron. He did not connect him to Levitical...

That’s pure fiction, and it falls apart the moment you open a Bible. Scripture never calls John an Aaronic priest — not once, not in passing, not even indirectly. His father was a priest (Luke 1:5 KJV), but John never served in the temple, never performed priestly sacrifices, never wore priestly...

That connection simply isn’t in the text! Jesus wasn’t baptized to “enter God’s house like a Levitical priest.” Scripture gives His reason directly: “To fulfil all righteousness.” — Matthew 3:15 (KJV) If your interpretation were correct, John would have been functioning as a Levitical priest...

You’re wasting your time with @ChristRoseFromTheDead he just cycles through his other accounts whenever he needs backup for his unsound theology. It’s the same pattern every time.

No 90% for him over 100% for you, since you post under various accounts here.

90% of your responses came chatgpt

All of you are wasting your time with these guys. You might as well go straight to ChatGPT chatgpt.com and argue with it, because debating Studier and a few of the others in his circle feels exactly the same. The wording, the tone, the structure — it’s identical. You’re basically arguing with a...

give it up already

Just open an account on ChatGPT.com you'll see. chatgpt.com

1. The structure is formulaic The piece follows a very standard AI pattern: Statement Explanation “Silence does not negate…” “According to Mark…” Rapid-fire verse list Repetition of the thesis Human writers rarely produce that kind of perfectly tiered outline unless they’re deliberately...

Your reply repeats the same assumption without proving it — that Mark 16:16 makes baptism a requirement for salvation. But the text itself, the grammar, and the rest of Scripture say otherwise. Let’s walk through this carefully and biblically. 1. The second clause controls the meaning, not...

I don’t think Jesus was talking about some kind of “spiritual baptism” in Mark 16:16. The wording is pretty straightforward. In the early church, when someone believed the gospel, they immediately went and got baptized in water. It was the outward step that normally followed faith. But notice...

No real “issue,” just a sharp disagreement about how salvation and grace are presented in Scripture. I believe the Bible teaches salvation by grace through faith alone — not by baptism or any outward work — and I’ve been backing that with context and citations. Unfortunately, what started as...

1 Corinthians 1:17 (KJV) 17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. If baptism were what actually saves, then his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV would logically read like this parody I...

I recommend just putting studier on ignore...