Baptism

[Meshavrischika]

You must be born of spirit and water to enter the kingdom so we have:

Spirit++++++++++++++++++water>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>kingdom

By one SPIRT are we BAPTIZED into one BODY, so we need the spirit and baptism to get into the body, so we have:


Spirit++++++++++++++++++baptized>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>body

SO both verses say we need SPirit/Spirit and water/baptism to get into the kingdom/body. THey say exactly the same thing!! Since "spirit" is equal to "spirit" in both verses then "water" must be equal to 'baptized" else they do not harmonize or there is more than one way to be saved which there isn't. Note that the physical birth is not to be found in either Jn 3:5 or 1 Cor 12:13.

no, because you took John out of context but the NEXT verses DO say that

 

[jmacvols]

so you believe blindly something you do not know for yourself?

All I said was that I am not a history buff, I did not say that I could not read what scholars, who have studied the issue, have written on the subject.

 

[Meshavrischika]

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780

"So, in the minds of not a few scholars, if it were not for the internal evidence, the external evidence would be sufficient to establish the genuineness of the verses."

"The world's foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Fredrick Kenyon, longtime director and principle librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticisms was second to none stated, "Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."
obvioulsy this is a biased article - factual things do not state "second to none" and such drivel

EDIT: I finally remembered his name, Dean Burgon:

http://www.purewords.org/kjb1611/html/mark16_9.htm

A noted scholar who extensive studied those two manuscripts you keep referring to that leave out Mk 16:9-12, Dean Burgon has concluded that are tow of the most 'foulest' manuscripts in existence.

sounds like a church guy, not just a scholar... makes me suspect his motives, but anyway, it's nto proof. "foulest manuscripts in existence" is not in any way a factual or examination based type of statement.
Burgon was elected to an Oriel fellowship in 1846. He was much influenced by his brother-in-law, the scholar and theologian Henry John Rose (1800-1873), a conservative Anglican churchman with whom he used to spend his long vacations. Burgon made Oxford his headquarters, while holding a living at some distance. In 1863 he was made vicar of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, having attracted attention by his vehement sermons against Essays and Reviews, a series of messages on biblical inspiration in which he defended against the findings of textual criticism and higher criticism the historicity and Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and Biblical inerrancy in general: "Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe the whole of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must disbelieve the whole. There is no middle course open to you."

 

[Meshavrischika]

All I said was that I am not a history buff, I did not say that I could not read what scholars, who have studied the issue, have written on the subject.

what I guess I'm asking is are you standing on an idea that you have not examined already?

 

[jmacvols]

really, research of the words is best before someone assumes a command vs. a statment

And this proves.....

 

[jmacvols]

no, because you took John out of context but the NEXT verses DO say that

I took nothing out of context, I simply compared and harmonized Jn 3:5 with 1 Cor 12:13 and NEITHER say anything about the 'physcial birth' to enter the kingdom/body.
In Jn 3:5 water means water, just like spirit means spirit.

 

[Meshavrischika]

And this proves.....

you cant take the english words and punctuation to mean what they did in the scripture. you have to look and see the original intent and research many different translations to get the feel of what is authentically there, and what is just a translator's nuance or decision on punctuation

 

[Meshavrischika]

I took nothing out of context, I simply compared and harmonized Jn 3:5 with 1 Cor 12:13 and NEITHER say anything about the 'physcial birth' to enter the kingdom/body.
In Jn 3:5 water means water, just like spirit means spirit.

not when you look at the rest of that chapter/verse

 

[Melethiel]

sounds like a church guy, not just a scholar... makes me suspect his motives, but anyway, it's nto proof. "foulest manuscripts in existence" is not in any way a factual or examination based type of statement.
Burgon was elected to an Oriel fellowship in 1846. He was much influenced by his brother-in-law, the scholar and theologian Henry John Rose (1800-1873), a conservative Anglican churchman with whom he used to spend his long vacations. Burgon made Oxford his headquarters, while holding a living at some distance. In 1863 he was made vicar of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, having attracted attention by his vehement sermons against Essays and Reviews, a series of messages on biblical inspiration in which he defended against the findings of textual criticism and higher criticism the historicity and Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and Biblical inerrancy in general: "Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe the whole of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must disbelieve the whole. There is no middle course open to you."

"If an "expert" says something I agree with, he's right. If he says something I've already decided is wrong, he's obviously biased."

 

[Meshavrischika]

"If an "expert" says something I agree with, he's right. If he says something I've already decided is wrong, he's obviously biased."

no. if there's no substance to what he has said (by commentary on critical examination in a PROFESSIONAL way as a scholar) then I dismiss what he says as biased.

 

[jmacvols]

sounds like a church guy, not just a scholar... makes me suspect his motives, but anyway, it's nto proof. "foulest manuscripts in existence" is not in any way a factual or examination based type of statement.
Burgon was elected to an Oriel fellowship in 1846. He was much influenced by his brother-in-law, the scholar and theologian Henry John Rose (1800-1873), a conservative Anglican churchman with whom he used to spend his long vacations. Burgon made Oxford his headquarters, while holding a living at some distance. In 1863 he was made vicar of the University Church of St Mary the Virgin, having attracted attention by his vehement sermons against Essays and Reviews, a series of messages on biblical inspiration in which he defended against the findings of textual criticism and higher criticism the historicity and Mosaic authorship of Genesis, and Biblical inerrancy in general: "Either, with the best and wisest of all ages, you must believe the whole of Holy Scripture; or, with the narrow-minded infidel, you must disbelieve the whole. There is no middle course open to you."

So there is no reason to suspect the motives of those "scholars' that say Mk 16:9-20 is not authentic??
It has always been my experience that those that have a bias against water baptism being necessary for salvation are the same ones that question Mk 16:9-20. Coincidence? I don't think so.
But at the end of the day 1) the evidence that does exist proves the authenticity of Mk 16:16. 2) even if Mk 16:16 did not exist, there are other verses that teach the same idea.

 

[jmacvols]

what I guess I'm asking is are you standing on an idea that you have not examined already?

I have read what others have examined/researched about it, I have not done any research myself.

 

[Meshavrischika]

So there is no reason to suspect the motives of those "scholars' that say Mk 16:9-20 is not authentic??
It has always been my experience that those that have a bias against water baptism being necessary for salvation are the same ones that question Mk 16:9-20. Coincidence? I don't think so.
But at the end of the day 1) the evidence that does exist proves the authenticity of Mk 16:16. 2) even if Mk 16:16 did not exist, there are other verses that teach the same idea.

I think that had the people you quoted presented their findings in an appropriate manner, then they could be considered, but since the quotes were obviously so biased containing absolute statements that could not be supported, they are clearly not the best sources to quote.

 

[christianmomof3]

of course, by now, the real question is
"does arguing about baptism save anyone?" does it express Christ? does it build up His Body in LOVE?

 

[Meshavrischika]

I have read what others have examined/researched about it, I have not done any research myself.

may I suggest that you look into it further and affirm or refute your belief on your own terms? you will either change or come out stronger in what you believe, but you personally will know the truth for yourself instead of taking someone's word for it.

 

[Meshavrischika]

of course, by now, the real question is
"does arguing about baptism save anyone?" does it express Christ? does it build up His Body in LOVE?

nope.

 

[Melethiel]

1. they weren't included in the old covenant and didn't HAVE to keep mitzvot (the law)

Kids were most definitely included in the Old Covenant. Circumcision was the symbol of the Old Covenant, and who were circumcised? Infants. And remember the words, "this promise is for you and for your children. You're simply quite wrong on this account.

2. if we are gnostic for what we said, you are equally gnostic (and I know that gnostic is)

One of the traits of the gnostics was ultra-spiritualizing everything, and rejecting the material. Please show me how I have said anything gnostic.

baptism the way you practice it is not biblical. this was NEVER for the removal of sin. that is NOT what mikvah is about and never has been about. therefore, either you made it up (baptism) or are misrepresenting what God previously commanded. pick.

Baptism has some roots in the mikvah ritual, but that does not mean that baptism IS the mikvah ritual. It was significantly reworked by John the Baptist and Christ before it became Christian baptism.

 

[Meshavrischika]

children in that text means future generations not people under 12 or something.

you reject the origins and practice of mikvah that are stated in the OT which sounds gnostic to me. John was Jewish and would NEVER "rework" the mikvah. That's just silly. He was practicing it JUST AS THEY DID. It was about ritual purity and reaching a higher level of holiness, not about remission of sin. Even John says he baptised with water but Christ would baptize with fire.

 

[MamaZ]

I believe Christ saves me too, but the means He uses to save me is water baptism.

Well good luck with that. For I am forgiven because of the Blood of Jesus.

 

[Stinker]

Originally Posted by jmacvols

I believe Christ saves me too, but the means He uses to save me is water baptism.
​

Well good luck with that. For I am forgiven because of the Blood of Jesus.

What a post!



I think I can see the water salvation side extremely well because I started out in a 'denomination' that taught the baptism of Jesus (Jn.4:1) and John the Baptist (Mk.1:4).........perverted.

It is the failure to see that the purpose of both Jesus' and John the Baptist's baptism (repentence unto the remission of sins. Mk.1:4) is still the same for today. It never changed! (Mk.1:4) (Jn.4:1) (Acts 2:38) and (Acts 3:19) is the same, only we are baptized in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus. (Acts 19:1-5)

No. The Romans chapter 6 reference to burial is not a reference to water baptism. Neither is the mention of 'baptism' in the same chapter a reference to water baptism......but Spiritual baptism.