Water Baptism - Is It Really Necessary?

[GenemZ]

Completely, unfiltered, HOG-WASH !

And, it's organic, too!

So..... according to YOU,
(1). God made an ERROR (by allowing Baptisms to happen ?!?! ...

God made an error when he allowed Adam to eat the forbidden fruit? What are you thinking? God made an error?

(2). Then God uses his own ERROR for good ?!?!
tee-hee !

Peter was not God. Somehow, you think he was.

Not only that.... God gives a "crash-course"
(I always SUSPECTED Protestianity, itself is a "crash-course" / "encapsulated version")...

You do not know when to drop the making fun of other's beliefs. Do you? That kind of expression is more like your high school team against the other team mentality. Rather than dealing with the issue of truth at hand.

Whereever you learned this stupidity, If I were you, I would demand my money back.

I see. You pay for truth. Interesting.

OH!... I get it,
St. Peter had it all WRONG. ....You have it all RIGHT.

Peter had it wrong. The WORD has it right.

What did you say the name of your god is ?

I admire your maturity.

I notice Peter introduces his 2nd. letter with;
"Servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ..."

What kind of "credentials" do you have ?

What has that to do with the fact that Peter made some mistakes?

Very clever...(more human trickery)

Sorry GeneZ, I do not believe ONE WORD you say.

Great act!

You CAN NOT lead even a believer to water;...
"NO ONE can come to me UNLESS The Father who sent me DRAWS HIM."
...but you are certainly TRYING VERY HARD !

I am relaxed, sir. Relaxed and resting in the LORD.

Peter goes on to say;
"In times past there were false prophets among God's people, and among you also there will be false teachers who will smuggle in PERNICIOUS HERESIES.

Notice something? He wrote that to his congregation.

Peter knew he was soon to die. His surviving congregation members he wrote to will soon have false teachers in amongst them to secretly smuggle in false teachings.

The very teachings the first Church integrated into its thinking. Thank God for the Reformation which finally broke away from that trend that started way back in the beginning.

I realize, of course, since you believe Peter is in error,
you don't have to ACCEPT HIS WORD as the WORD OF GOD.

You are the one in error about what I said.

I said Peter made some errors in the early days of the Church. Understandable errors.

Its you who are trying to say that I believe Peter was a man who was always making errors. Its you who are making that error. And, you keep on making it. Over, and over again.

(sort of like how Peter kept water baptizing, over and over, again).

Why, He may even have "tricked" the other Apostles and Early Fathers who put the Bible together,
into including his Epistles.... who knows ?

You just keep making the same error. I never implied that.

Maybe if you get a following... they may replace Peter's writings, .... with yours.

And! Another error of yours.

How many are you going to make in one post? More than Peter made over many years, it looks like.

I personally place all your thoughts and writings UNDER THE FEET OF JESUS (Heb. 10: 13)
.......and I will rest IN MY BAPTISM as I sleep.

"Wake up, O sleeper, ​

rise from the dead, ​

and Christ will shine on you."​

​

You keep making many errors about what I said about the few errors Peter did make while he was learning the new system of the Church age.

In Christ, GeneZ​

​

 

[Theophorus]

Wierd?

That's a weird way to spell weird.

Is that supposed to mean something for all of us? Because you find it weird?

You believe that the Apostles were error free in all they did? They were not. The Bible records it for us so we can see that they were also human.

Acts 17:19-20 (New International Version)
"Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean."
​

Some thought Paul's thinking was weird. So?

In Christ, GeneZ
​

​

I find it strange that people claim , and others strongly imply, that the apostles lacked understanding, practiced and taught a false doctrine.

 

[Schroeder]

All that Scripture promises is available IN BAPTISM.

of course you NEVER NEVER give scripture to back up most of what you say. BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE.

In other words;
Baptism is NOT MEANT to be like taking a "Bubble-Bath" with your "rubber-duckie"
to clean the outside of your body.

Baptism penetrates deep into the soul and spirit, the conscience, Joints and bone marrow.

Baptism further prepares and enables one to RECEIVE THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST,
the Blood of the New Covenant.

AGIAN NO SCRIPTURE to back it up. The Spirit is not indwelling in you UNTILL you accept Christ into your heart. HOW does water baptism do all this. seeing how you wont give scripture to back up this silly claim. i give scripture to back up what i say and have BUT you ignore those post. DO you NOT read ALL of scripture or do you just cherry pick the passages that seem to make the ccc theology seem correct. your so off its sad, ecspecially seeing how rude you are in your posts. i mean we all get a little unkind at times but your posts just reek of it.

Maybe you are not AWARE that BAPTISM is both Physical and Spiritual.

Because of THE POWER OF GOD.......
Because THE WORD BECAME FLESH ...and dwelt among us , and we have seen His Glory.

i am aware that that is what you make it seem like because you have to because otherwise the theology would be WAAAY off. SHOW me scripture that says it is both.

 

[GenemZ]

I find it strange that people claim , and others strongly imply, that the apostles lacked understanding, practiced and taught a false doctrine.

They did not practice it. They got (at times) caught up in it. Like when Paul, after returning to Jerusalem, entered under the prompting of the religious Jewish Christians, into the Temple to offer a sacrifice. Almost cost him his life if he were not rescued by the Roman guard. And, Paul from then on, went into chains.

You do not know this?

And? Peter? Good old Peter? He gets a vision straight from the LORD that Jews and Gentiles are now both seen as clean? And? What did Peter end up slipping into? Withdrawing from the Gentiles like religious Jews were supposed to.

Get it? Its in the Bible.

I am sure you know where to find it because you are more knowledgable than me in the Word. Right?

I am the heretic because my fault is I have knowledge and understanding of what the Word reveals? I am a heretic because I am not informed as to what a certain Church demands that I believe in light of what those passages speak of? Its, Church vs. The Word of God.

Its a modern day Reformation!

John 8:32 niv
"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Grace and truth, GeneZ
​

 

[Schroeder]

I find it strange that people claim , and others strongly imply, that the apostles lacked understanding, practiced and taught a false doctrine.

for one where has genez or me or the others said they TAUGHT a false doctrine. give us a post that we did say this. lack understanding, yes, that is scriptual, genez has more then given examples of this. PETER was real good at it all through the gospel and beyond. Act 9-10 show it well and Paul rebukes him of it, this would be practicing it (the lacked understanding) ITS IN SCRIPTURE. are you just scared to see it thinking it will destroy your whole faith or what.

 

[Theophorus]

for one where has genez or me or the others said they TAUGHT a false doctrine. give us a post that we did say this. lack understanding, yes, that is scriptual, genez has more then given examples of this. PETER was real good at it all through the gospel and beyond. Act 9-10 show it well and Paul rebukes him of it, this would be practicing it (the lacked understanding) ITS IN SCRIPTURE. are you just scared to see it thinking it will destroy your whole faith or what.

It has been stated that he was in error, erroneously spoke, was caught with his pants down, had an incorrect application, did not see clearly, had it wrong, and that he reapetedly acted in error.

If my statement is amiss, then it certainly sheds light on how you approach the bible, and interpretation.

That's the key to understanding what was happening in Acts 2.

Peter hadn't remembered what Yahushua said about being baptised with the Holy Spirit, and erronesly said "and be baptised", forgetting that Yahushua doesn't baptise with water to save people, but batizes with the Holy Spirit.

Peter was trying to put old wine into new wine skins.

Or is it New wine into Old wine skins?

I can never remember

...Samarians had not been previously water baptized! Peter was just getting used to the idea of water baptizing others who were not Jews! Water baptism had been something exclusively for the Jews! Samarians were not water baptized. That is why Peter asked if the Gentiles could be denied water baptism after he saw they were saved and filled with the Spirit. It was still an error. But I believe God allowed for the ignorance to continue so the Jews who were highly biased against the Goyim would adjust to this revolutionary new way of thinking. Romans 8:28! God worked Peter's mistake for the good!

...There was a whole new mindset being given to Peter. I'm no expert on this but I try to stand in Peter's shoes as it were and think ... "if I was a good Jew, what would I be thinking?" I'm sure this business with Cornelius must have been quite shocking to Pete. I know it would have been shocking to me if I was a good Jew. I would have spent a lifetime keeping myself "pure" so that the Gentiles had opportunity to be saved. For did the scripture not say that I (Israel) was to be a blessing to the Gentiles? Yet suddenly it is as if the Lord has turned around and made me (Israel) redundant (as it were). Now salvation is to be found in One man not in the nation. I would have been very confused by this and if I had not already had a mindset of "to whom else will we go Lord, you have the words of eternal life", It would have left me undone.

Now I'm not Pete and he's not me but I consider there is enough evidence in the story, as recorded in scripture, to strongly suggest Peter got caught with his pants down. There is as much reaction in the story as there is action. I usually find it helpful to note the difference when reading the scripture for I have come to see that a man of truth acts in any given situation but a man of ignorance reacts to the situation.

peace

He forgot its application. For he saw it as only applying to his baptism. It took time for it to sink in that it was for all who believe. Including Gentiles.





It was the time to remind him, and get him to make a CORRECT application.

Then, after the Jews were acclimated to this drastic change in protocol, God opened the eyes of Peter to show him the correct application for the Holy Spirit Baptism. Up until then Peter was only viewing his experience and the Jews as being applicable. He just was not seeing it clearly yet. That is why he ordered water baptisms.

...Peter had it wrong. The WORD has it right.

...I said Peter made some errors in the early days of the Church. Understandable errors.

Its you who are trying to say that I believe Peter was a man who was always making errors. Its you who are making that error. And, you keep on making it. Over, and over again.

(sort of like how Peter kept water baptizing, over and over, again).


..How many are you going to make in one post? More than Peter made over many years, it looks like.


You keep making many errors about what I said about the few errors Peter did make while he was learning the new system of the Church age.

 

[Carlos Vigil]

God made an error when he allowed Adam to eat the forbidden fruit? What are you thinking? God made an error?

Peter was not God. Somehow, you think he was.

I said nothing about Adam.
It is YOU who said God made an error.

I said nothing about Peter being God,
that is your statement...

Notice something? He wrote that to his congregation.

Peter knew he was soon to die. His surviving congregation members he wrote to will soon have false teachers in amongst them to secretly smuggle in false teachings.

where does it say it is "his" (Peter's) congregation ?

The very teachings the first Church integrated into its thinking. Thank God for the Reformation which finally broke away from that trend that started way back in the beginning.

Are you implying THE CHURCH limped along 1500 years in ERROR... intil the Deformation came along ?

 

[Theophorus]

Are you implying THE CHURCH limped along 1500 years in ERROR... intil the Deformation came along ?

Of course. Just like those baptizing apostles, Peter and Paul.

 

[GenemZ]

I said nothing about Adam.
It is YOU who said God made an error.

I said God made an error? Its you that are making an error about what I said. My gosh! You are constantly making errors throughout this thread.

I said nothing about Peter being God,
that is your statement...

Yet, it was Peter who made the mistake. Not God. So? When you said God made a mistake? God did not make a mistake. Peter did. And, so do you. Lot's. Which anyone following this thread will see as being self evident in how you make mistakes all the time about what others are telling you.

where does it say it is "his" (Peter's) congregation ?

Who did Peter write to? Paul's congregations? Peter was sent to the Jews. Paul was sent to the Gentiles.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[Carlos Vigil]

of course you NEVER NEVER give scripture to back up most of what you say. BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE.

It is there.
Protestians Pride themselves in quoting reams of Scripture, I don't.
I figure IF YOU ARE sincerely searching for TRUTH, you will run into it, sooner or later.....
provided you have the GIFT OF PERSISTENCE.

(A). AGIAN NO SCRIPTURE to back it up. The Spirit is not indwelling in you UNTILL you accept Christ into your heart.

(B). HOW does water baptism do all this. seeing how you wont give scripture to back up this silly claim.

(C). i give scripture to back up what i say and have BUT you ignore those post.

(A). No problem: Christ is IN MY HEART. and I am iN HIS HEART. (He is in my belly, metabolizing into all my molecules.)

(B). The Spirit of God abides in me INDEPENDENT of what scripture I may know or post.

I AM IN MY BAPTISM .....same as "the food" Jesus ate was in his belley, .....the night before He died.
When one is in Christ's belly, one can "quote scrupture" if he wants to,
but SILENCE is much more powerful.

(C). You quote Scripture mingled in among heresies....Scripture I accept...... Heresies I do not.

Protestians quote Scripture to impress others...the same way they are "baptized" ...to impress others.
All of this is in vain.

I read Scripture so I can LIVE RIGHT,
I remain in my Baptism because I would be an IDIOT to be "somewhere else"
Like BEING IN THE ARK ...vs. "being somewhere else" DURING THE FLOOD

Scripture will never back-up heresy.
Clean up what you say, and you could become VERY EFFECTIVE in the Service of Christ.

DO you NOT read ALL of scripture or do you just cherry pick the passages that seem to make the ccc theology seem correct.
your so off its sad, ecspecially seeing
(A). how rude you are in your posts. i mean we all get a little unkind at times but

(B). your posts just reek of it.
i am aware that

(C). that is what you make it seem like because you have to because otherwise the theology would be WAAAY off.

(D). SHOW me scripture that says it is both.

(A). I respect that you think I am RUDE

(B). I respect that you think I wreak of RUDE

(Love is never RUDE...but when mingled with TRUTH, the messanger is liable to get crucified.)

(C). I speak TRUTH to you IN LOVE.... realizing that I probably sound like first class JERK.
But if I omit the TRUTH..... what good is my message ?

When I stopped counting, I had read the OT twice, the NT 9 times.
The Spirit of God prompts me what to read.
The Scripture I HEAR at Mass is always RIGHT ON TARGET for me.

(D). I will show you something more personal and effective than Scripture:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer me this:What purpose does YOUR NAVEL serve ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

After you have discovered , and are HAPPY with your answer,
Read all of Psalm 139 ..."O Lord, you have probed me and you know me;......."


I CAME INTO CHRIST a different way from how you came into Christ.

That is why you don't understand me.

 

[Rich48]

I have attempted to point a couple of things out several times, yet do not remember anyone responding to tnem.

1. The English word baptizm or baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo. The word was created in English, because a literal translation of the Greek-to immerse or to dip could not be used, as immersion had long since been abandoned in England. ANY time the word baptize appears in the Bible, it means to immerse or dip!

2. The command of Christ at the end of Matthew is to IMMERSE--and that does mean water; as no man has the power to baptize another in the Spirit.

Rich

Also, please--the tone here has lately become confrontational--this is not necessary to discuss the issue!

 

[GenemZ]

I have attempted to point a couple of things out several times, yet do not remember anyone responding to tnem.

1. The English word baptizm or baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo. The word was created in English, because a literal translation of the Greek-to immerse or to dip could not be used, as immersion had long since been abandoned in England. ANY time the word baptize appears in the Bible, it means to immerse or dip!

2. The command of Christ at the end of Matthew is to IMMERSE--and that does mean water; as no man has the power to baptize another in the Spirit.

We are not called in the manner you speak........

Some are confused over what it means to be baptized in the NAME of Jesus. Scripture must explain itself. For, it is Scripture that speaks of baptizing in the name...

Please read carefully... all what was said.

Acts 19:1-7 (New American Standard Bible)​

"It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. ​

He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit." ​

And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" And they said, "Into John's baptism." ​

Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus." ​

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. ​

​

Paul was telling them to BELIEVE in the one called Jesus. They had not heard of this Jesus before!

When they were baptized in water it was one of repentence of one's sins, not about belief in Christ. To be introduced to the name of Christ was being baptized in the name of Christ.


Let me try explaining it this way.....

When you were just beginning to become interested in computers? And knew nothing? The day someone told you about viruses and having an anti-virus on your computer? You were then baptized into the world of internet security.

We normally do not speak that way today. But some writer skilled in our language could use that wording. For that is how it was used in the days the Church began. Baptismo was a Greek word! Not a religious Jewish word! It was used in the common day speaking of the people. It was for many things other than water!

Its like when someone is holding back the truth? And, another tells them to "come clean!" Some here? Would swear he was being told to take a bath.

Baptismo meant to be immersed into something as to become identified with it.

It was not water specific. To be baptized in the name of Jesus was to be INTRODUCED to who and what Jesus is. For to those back then, the word 'name' could also have been used to mean his person.

1 Corinthians 10:2 niv​

"They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."​

​

Now?

Can you even begin to explain to us how the Jews were baptized into Moses?

If baptism means only as you see it?

Using your definition? You can not.

Problem is. Some of our erroneous and well accepted traditions which have been passed down have caused some of us to have spiritual tunnel vision when it comes to seeing certain issues. It blinds us from seeing all that is there to be seen. That is why we have ended up with so many denominations.
Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[Rich48]

But you still reufuse to answer the basic question as to the real meaning of the Greek word. You cannot "dip" into a baptism of the Spirit. And again, no man can baptise another into the Spirit, as commanded by the Lord, but any Christian may immerse another in water!

Rich

Again I ask--what, just what if you are wrong? Everything is lost! But if we are are right, everything is gained!

 

[Schroeder]

It is there.
Protestians Pride themselves in quoting reams of Scripture, I don't.
I figure IF YOU ARE sincerely searching for TRUTH, you will run into it, sooner or later.....
provided you have the GIFT OF PERSISTENCE.

i am not a protestant. what ever that might mean to you or anyone else. i am a Christian affiliated with Quakers. Christ centered quakers that is. we teach to SOLEY rely on the SPirit and the scriptures to allows us to KNOW which Spirit to listen two. we have NO need of pastor or preacher or pope or priest, FOr Christ in us is our teacher and guide. NOT that any of those are bad. Just Christ is MUCH MUCH better.

(A). No problem: Christ is IN MY HEART. and I am iN HIS HEART. (He is in my belly, metabolizing into all my molecules.)

(B). The Spirit of God abides in me INDEPENDENT of what scripture I may know or post.

GOOD But it may help if what you say is actually IN scripture. If it is not then it is NOT of the SPirit, generally.

I AM IN MY BAPTISM .....same as "the food" Jesus ate was in his belley, .....the night before He died.
When one is in Christ's belly, one can "quote scrupture" if he wants to,
but SILENCE is much more powerful.

to bad because it will not or did not save you.

(C). You quote Scripture mingled in among heresies....Scripture I accept...... Heresies I do not.

Protestians quote Scripture to impress others...the same way they are "baptized" ...to impress others.
All of this is in vain.

you YET to prove this. what heresy is that. a herecy is to quote ONE piece of a passage to build a theology on it. yes doing what you say is in vain, SO why do you do it. DO you really think God likes it or something. he could CARE LESS about your rites or sacraments or ordances ect. NOTHING counts BUT LOVE. he did not ask us to worship him through these things, WE did that once and God did NOT like it. hebrews 7:18, 8:7, 9:10. I give scripture so you KNOW i do not make it up. How are your rites different then the rites of the old covenant.

I read Scripture so I can LIVE RIGHT,
I remain in my Baptism because I would be an IDIOT to be "somewhere else"
Like BEING IN THE ARK ...vs. "being somewhere else" DURING THE FLOOD

i sort of understand what you mean BUT Christ baptism is of the SPirit, this is the one i just assume have. Noah survived because he was IN the ARK the ARK is an anology of CHRIST. SOO they were alive IN CHRIST. when we are SPirit baptized we are IN CHRIST. do you get it?

Scripture will never back-up heresy.
Clean up what you say, and you could become VERY EFFECTIVE in the Service of Christ.

Then maybe you should START giving us scripture to back up what you say. why do you think i do. and not just one i ALWAYS try to give at least two or three.

(A). I respect that you think I am RUDE

(B). I respect that you think I wreak of RUDE

i did not say YOU were RUDE, what you WRITE seems rude.

(Love is never RUDE...but when mingled with TRUTH, the messanger is liable to get crucified.)

nice way to get around it.

(C). I speak TRUTH to you IN LOVE.... realizing that I probably sound like first class JERK.
But if I omit the TRUTH..... what good is my message ?

which is why i said your post seem rude. maybe you will try a little better to make them seem LESS rude. only thing you omit is scripture which is why i say it is not TRUTH. truth is the word of God so use it.

When I stopped counting, I had read the OT twice, the NT 9 times.
The Spirit of God prompts me what to read.
The Scripture I HEAR at Mass is always RIGHT ON TARGET for me.

good for you, read it again.

(D). I will show you something more personal and effective than Scripture:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer me this:What purpose does YOUR NAVEL serve ?

it shows i came from someone. AS does the SPirit working through me. People see meacting as Christ and ask what it is i have that they wish to have. (or that is what i strive for) Tell me HOW does what you do in service or mass get that out to people outside of Mass. doesnt do a thing for them. we arent meant to puff ourselves up but to pick others up. i dont see how allthe rites or ordances or sacraments do this. if the Spirit is not able to handle it what was the whole point of GRACE.

After you have discovered , and are HAPPY with your answer,
Read all of Psalm 139 ..."O Lord, you have probed me and you know me;......."

lovely passage.

I CAME INTO CHRIST a different way from how you came into Christ.

That is why you don't understand me.

this is a wonderfull thing about God. he did not set a STRICT set order like the OLD COVENANT to get to Him. no one goes to the FATHER except through ME. apparently you think this meant a LOT MORE then just being in the Spirit. BUt you say Noone goes to the Father except through rites and ordances and sacraments and Christ. I personaly do not understand all the needs to remember someone WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN YOU ALL THE TIME! and one thing i must say HOW DO YOU say this when YOU are the one who says i and or we are NOT saved because we did not do it the way you did, because your way is the only right way. the only right way is THROUGH Christ. ever read rom 5. it makes it RATHER clear THROUGH WHOM we are saved NOT THROUGH WHAT WE DO ARE SAVED. maybe you should read it again slowly and tell me how many times he says "Through" and what follows that word. I dont think it mentions ANY rites or ordances or sacraments.

 

[Schroeder]

It has been stated that he was in error, erroneously spoke, was caught with his pants down, had an incorrect application, did not see clearly, had it wrong, and that he reapetedly acted in error.

If my statement is amiss, then it certainly sheds light on how you approach the bible, and interpretation.

well the post you give show all that what we say is TRUE. PETER DID speak wrongly HE acted wrongly. other wise WHY DID GOD GIVE HIM A DREAM TO CORRECT HIM, and why did PAUL repuke him to his face. far as i can see SEEING HOW it is CLEARLY in scripture that he did i dont understand why you keep saying he didnt. again we did not say he taught a FALSE doctrine, you can only do this if you know it is. we dont say he got it COMPLETLY wrong BUT that he let the pharisees or higher ups get the best of him. God gently lead him back. the apostles where not perfect. we have the Spirit just like them and we are not perfect. you make them seem to be unfallible.

 

[Schroeder]

I have attempted to point a couple of things out several times, yet do not remember anyone responding to tnem.

1. The English word baptizm or baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo. The word was created in English, because a literal translation of the Greek-to immerse or to dip could not be used, as immersion had long since been abandoned in England. ANY time the word baptize appears in the Bible, it means to immerse or dip!

2. The command of Christ at the end of Matthew is to IMMERSE--and that does mean water; as no man has the power to baptize another in the Spirit.

Rich

Also, please--the tone here has lately become confrontational--this is not necessary to discuss the issue!

i dont recall you EVER responding to the posts that ALLREADY ANSWERED THIS. the word immersed does not JUST MEAN to be done PHJSICALLY. when JTB said i baptize with water but the one after me he will baptize you with the SPirit. DID he mean Jesus would WATER baptize us with the SPirit. DO NOT THINK SO. this verse shows you, you ARE WRONG in your understanding of the word. Jesus also used the word in mentioning his Sacrifice. so YES we have. Which is why the use of it in Matt. 28 does not and is not about WATER. and we have SOOOOOOOOOOOO many times told you it is NOT about anyone baptizing with the SPirit. that is not the use of the word. it is NOT a physical ACT. it is usded to SHOW they were, once told the gospel of Christ, immersed(joined into) the Church or Body of Christ. It just so happens that it is Through the Spirit baptism that this happens 1 cor 12:13. there is not a better word to use to discribe HOW we are joined into the Church. we are litteraly immersed covered fully overwhelmed by the SPIRIT which is Christ which is the Church which is the Body. of course trhis is only the whoknows how many times i have said this. apparently it is not us with the problem.

 

[GenemZ]

But you still reufuse to answer the basic question as to the real meaning of the Greek word. You cannot "dip" into a baptism of the Spirit. And again, no man can baptise another into the Spirit, as commanded by the Lord, but any Christian may immerse another in water!

Problem is, you are running with a poor definition, and are accepting it as an absolutely definitive answer. It is not the true definition. Its a commonly held superficial one.


Again.....

Take what you claim must be the definition of dipping. And then apply it to this verse.

1 Corinthians 10:2 niv​

"They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."

​

It should become evident after reading that verse that the definition you were given can not be the correct and complete definition.

Water baptism required dipping. But? The baptism of fire? Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Being baptized into the body of Christ? Had nothing to do with 'dipping.' It has everything to do with being immersed into something as to become identified with it. Israel was placed into total identification with Moses.

But? Your definition? Would force us to believe that Israel was dipped into Moses somehow.

Your definition is partial, at best. It was created according to someone's understanding of water baptism alone. Not from an etymological study of the Greek word itself.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Carlos Vigil]

i am not a protestant. what ever that might mean to you or anyone else. i am a Christian affiliated with Quakers. Christ centered quakers that is. we teach to SOLEY rely on the SPirit and the scriptures to allows us to KNOW which Spirit to listen two.
we have NO need of pastor or preacher or pope or priest,
FOr Christ in us is our teacher and guide. NOT that any of those are bad. Just Christ is MUCH MUCH better.

I perceive that as a dead give-away as "one who despises Authority..."
2 Peter 2: 10, 15

GOOD But it may help if what you say is actually IN scripture. If it is not then it is NOT of the SPirit, generally.
to bad because it will not or did not save you.

"...The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also NOW SAVES US....."
1 Peter 3: 21
According to Mark 16: 16, a person who
BELIEVES, (the Gospel of Jesus Christ)
ACCEPTS BAPTISM, (of water & Spirit)
& OBEYS.....(Christ, The Spirit, & the Apostles)
Such a man is IN CHRIST.

you YET to prove this. what heresy is that. a herecy is to quote ONE piece of a passage to build a theology on it. yes doing what you say is in vain, SO why do you do it. DO you really think God likes it or something.
he could CARE LESS about your rites or sacraments or ordances ect.

He is the ONE who set these SACRAMENTS in place, He is the ONE WHO WORKS THROUGH THEM.
John 5: 17, 20, 23, 36
John 6: 27.... 10: 38

NOTHING counts BUT LOVE. he did not ask us to worship him through these things, WE did that once and God did NOT like it. hebrews 7:18, 8:7, 9:10. I give scripture so you KNOW i do not make it up. How are your rites different then the rites of the old covenant.

I was afraid you would never ask...
FIRST read Heb. 7: 12
"When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law."
Those scriptures you listed above describe the Old Covenant.
Heb 10: 4, and 10: 19 - 29 describe THE NEW COVENANT,
All our Rites & Rituals are directly sprouted from the ancient Jewish Rituals.
Example: Compare Exodus 24: 1--8 with Matt. 26: 26-28 / Matt. 27: 50 / Heb. 9: 17.
Take the time that Christ deserves... don't rush through this, sleep on it.

i sort of understand what you mean BUT Christ baptism is of the SPirit, this is the one i just assume have. Noah survived because he was IN the ARK the ARK is an anology of CHRIST. SOO they were alive IN CHRIST. when we are SPirit baptized we are IN CHRIST. do you get it?

Yes, I get it.
BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT, without Baptism of water, is nothing more than ...
"The Kingdom of God is at hand....." (Mark 1: 15
(without the FOLLOW-THROUGH required by the Gospel)
But
Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Baptism in water is the ACCORD required for us. 1 John 5: 6, 7, 8.

Baptism of the Holy Spirit WITHOUT Baptism of water is same as having the WHEAT FLOUR & YEAST in the pan....
but NO WATER !
How are you EVER going to make EATABLE BREAD ?

Tell me HOW does what you do in service or mass get that out to people outside of Mass.
i dont see how allthe rites or ordances or sacraments do this. if the Spirit is not able to handle it what was the whole point of GRACE.

Same as "Bread is MOST DELICIOUS, when it comes right out of the oven."
Psalm 19:8-12 can give us insight about Rituals & Ordinances
But the lasting effect of Christ's flesh & blood in us is that it takes days, weeks, months for it to
PHISICALLY METABOLIZE THROUGH our body, and
all serious Catholics Receive Him deep within at least ONCE A WEEK, more, even daily, if desired.

So you see, Jesus is CONSTANTLY PASSING THROUGH US ...
As He passes THROUGH, he leaves something of Himself in us.

Who can adequately describe the JOYS & WONDERS of The Lord ?

lovely passage.
this is a wonderfull thing about God. he did not set a STRICT set order like the OLD COVENANT to get to Him. no one goes to the FATHER except through ME. apparently you think this meant a LOT MORE then just being in the Spirit.

the only right way is THROUGH Christ.
THROUGH WHOM we are saved
NOT THROUGH WHAT WE DO ARE SAVED.
tell me how many times he says "Through" and what follows that word. I dont think it mentions ANY rites or ordances or sacraments.

"Do this... (Rite / Ordinance) in memory of me....."
"Unless a man is begotten of water and Spirit..."

Maybe it would be better to get a more THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF ..."THROUGH".

According to Acts 2: 42
Being IN CHRIST (or THROUGH CHRIST) is having (doing):

(1). The MESSAGE...............................Kerygma
(2). The FELLOWSHIP..........................Koinonia
(3). The body and blood of Christ..........Eucharistia
(4). The WITNESS................................Marturia

If ONE of these is lacking.... it is like having a car with a FLAT TIRE.
You don't throw away the car, ...
you FIX THE FLAT, so you can GO where you intended.

God Bless

 

[Schroeder]

I perceive that as a dead give-away as "one who despises Authority..."
2 Peter 2: 10, 15

i did say they were NOT a bad thing did i not. MY AUTHORITY is from the SPirit, HOw more authorative can you get. i do go to a meeting(church) that has a pastor i myself wish to become one.

"...The like figure whereunto even BAPTISM doth also NOW SAVES US....."
1 Peter 3: 21
According to Mark 16: 16, a person who
BELIEVES, (the Gospel of Jesus Christ)
ACCEPTS BAPTISM, (of water & Spirit)
& OBEYS.....(Christ, The Spirit, & the Apostles)
Such a man is IN CHRIST.

Mark 16:16 does not mention water. if you read john 7:38-39 you might understand it. he is saying if you believe in ME and are baptized by ME you will be saved. you no why i no this, because if you proof read your interpretation with scripture, you will see that he ALWAYS said if you BELIEVE in me you will have eternal life. you know why he didnt say if you believe in me and are baptized in john 3:16 and the many other times he says the same thing. because they ONLY knew of water baptism. if this is what he means he WOUILD have said that the MANY times he says if you believe in me you will be saved. which is ALSO why we know he does not mean water baptism in john 3:5. as he says in verse 3 born from above, verse 6 Spirit gives the SPirit, and verse 8 SO IT IS WITH THOSE BORN OF THE SPIRIT. Why does he not say so it is wiht those born of water and SPirit again, then say if you believe in me and are baptized you will have eternal life in verse 16. because as john 7:39 says he was NOT YET GLORIFIED, he could not speak of HIS baptism untill after his ressurection. which is why he also says if you do not BELIEVE you are condemed, amazingly he said this exact thing in john 3:18 BUT guess what he left out the word baptize. verse 18 doesnt say because he has not been water baptized does it. SEE SCRIPTURE BACKS UP ITSELF IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO STUDY IT CORRECTLY.
1 peter 3:20 they believed God and built the ark(christ) they then went "into" the ark(Christ) at which time GOD sent the water (SPIRIT) onto the earth and destroyed sin. this water is like baptism now Titus 3:5 washing of rebirth and renewal BY the Spirit. DID not the flood waters do this to the earth. yes it did, was it NOT from GOD from ABOVE (john 3:3,6,8) SO we build the Ark and enter it by believing in Gods Son at which time God sends the SPirit DOWN ON US. (read gal 3:2,14 eph 1:13-14.)

He is the ONE who set these SACRAMENTS in place, He is the ONE WHO WORKS THROUGH THEM.
John 5: 17, 20, 23, 36
John 6: 27.... 10: 38

well at lest you give scripture. john 5: PLEASE explain to me HOW on earth you got sacraments and rites from these. indeed it says if he is in us we are in him what he does we do. in context he is explaining his WORK on the sabbath. nothing about what your saying. John 6:27 he is tyelling them to quite coming JUST for the real food and to listen to what he is TRUELLY saying. FOR one the Church age is not around yet SO WHY on earth would he be trying to establish a rite for the Chruch at this point. and in verse 63 he explains the whole thing. you hjust dont read that far done. and NOTICE the last part of this verse" on him God has placed his seal of approval. know read acts 10:43 acts 15:8 and eph 1:13-14. his seal of approval is giving them the SPIRIT when they BELIEVE. it is stated CLEAR AS DAY in eph 1:13-14 HAVING believe you were mark in him WITH A SEAL THE PROMISED HOLY SPIRIT." now JOHN 6:27".... On him God the Father HAS PLACED HIS SEAL OF APPROVAL. 10:38 dont see how you get Jesus saying rites are needed here.

I was afraid you would never ask...
FIRST read Heb. 7: 12
"When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law."
Those scriptures you listed above describe the Old Covenant.
Heb 10: 4, and 10: 19 - 29 describe THE NEW COVENANT,
All our Rites & Rituals are directly sprouted from the ancient Jewish Rituals.
Example: Compare Exodus 24: 1--8 with Matt. 26: 26-28 / Matt. 27: 50 / Heb. 9: 17.
Take the time that Christ deserves... don't rush through this, sleep on it.

NO kidding the discribe the OLD covenant but they sound a AWFULL lot like what you do now. 10:4 is about sacrificing bulls and verse 5 says he did not disire a outward rite. verse 16. he says HIS LAWS are in our hearts and minds. do you NOT say you do these rites to do away with Sin as in child baptism water baptism and all the others. BUT verse 18 there is no more sacrifice for sins. WHY because verse 10 say we have been made HOLY though his SACRIFICE(not our rites and ect) ONCE FOR ALL. verse 11 says they did religious DUTIES day after day which can NEVER take away sin. YET do you not do it week after week the same religious DUTIES. they are SPROUTED from the very same thing GOD said he did NOT DESIRE. HINT HINT!!! 10:8 in matt. 26 he is making a point not establishing a rite. you do know that in the earliest manusripts no passages says do this in rememberance of me luke 22:19 I compared it and see you twist it into making what Jesus says to be litterale. he did not speak in a litterale since all the time MOST of the time he spoke figurativly. you are making the scriptures in a tricky since, as in you cherry pick it to pieces to convince some one who may not no better, i am not that ignorant of scripture. the RCc as always done this so that there POWER would not be compramised.

Yes, I get it.
BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT, without Baptism of water, is nothing more than ...
"The Kingdom of God is at hand....." (Mark 1: 15
(without the FOLLOW-THROUGH required by the Gospel)
But
Baptism in the Holy Spirit and Baptism in water is the ACCORD required for us. 1 John 5: 6, 7, 8.

read eph 1:13-14 gal 3:2 3:14. what you say is JUST NOT THERE. giving vague scripture to back it up is useless.

Same as "Bread is MOST DELICIOUS, when it comes right out of the oven."
Psalm 19:8-12 can give us insight about Rituals & Ordinances
But the lasting effect of Christ's flesh & blood in us is that it takes days, weeks, months for it to
PHISICALLY METABOLIZE THROUGH our body, and
all serious Catholics Receive Him deep within at least ONCE A WEEK, more, even daily, if desired.

nothing in psalms speak of what you say. read 1 john 3:21-24 5:1-5, 9-12. FACT is all he asks of us is to LOVE. and we cant do this with out the SPirit in us. and eph 1:13-14 tells us how we get it and what it means to have it. the rest of what yuou say is rubish and rather silly sounding. HE IS ALREADY IN US!!!!!!! ALL THE TIME!!!!!!

"Do this... (Rite / Ordinance) in memory of me....."
"Unless a man is begotten of water and Spirit..."

this is NOT in the earlist manuscrips. and in ONLY one gospel at that. he said to wash one anothers feet john 13:14-15 this is RATHER straight forward but i DONT see you doing it.

Maybe it would be better to get a more THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF ..."THROUGH".
According to Acts 2: 42
Being IN CHRIST (or THROUGH CHRIST) is having (doing):

(1). The MESSAGE...............................Kerygma
(2). The FELLOWSHIP..........................Koinonia
(3). The body and blood of Christ..........Eucharistia
(4). The WITNESS................................Marturia

If ONE of these is lacking.... it is like having a car with a FLAT TIRE.
You don't throw away the car, ...
you FIX THE FLAT, so you can GO where you intended.

God Bless

nice how you just add to what is being said you take a very vague passage and decide what you want it to say instead of just reading it and looking at the context of it. and i might add in the verse after this one it says they SOLD all there possesions BUT i think you have not done this either. breaking bread is saying they eat together not COMMUNION, again the Church age had JUST begun and you assume they had it al together and functioning with rites and everything right off the bat. THAT IS SILLY. you truelly need to refocus and reread the new testement. as you say to me PLEASE pray about it.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

I have attempted to point a couple of things out several times, yet do not remember anyone responding to tnem.

1. The English word baptizm or baptism comes from the Greek word baptizo. The word was created in English, because a literal translation of the Greek-to immerse or to dip could not be used, as immersion had long since been abandoned in England. ANY time the word baptize appears in the Bible, it means to immerse or dip!

2. The command of Christ at the end of Matthew is to IMMERSE--and that does mean water; as no man has the power to baptize another in the Spirit.

Rich

Also, please--the tone here has lately become confrontational--this is not necessary to discuss the issue!

This is so clear is is absolutely astounding that anydone sincerely seeking the Truth can miss it.

May the Lord richly bless you all the days of your life.

Your brother in Christ