Is baptism necessary to be saved? (2)

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Shrub of the field and plant of the field. Plants that we have by cultivating the ground.

Ah, there it is. Brilliant stuff! I knew it would be a semantic work-around, but I admit I didn't see that one coming. Anyone else get it?

That's why we love you, Yaqubos: your invention knows no end (and to hell with Occam and his Razor).

So...
1) which plants, exactly, exist only due to cultivation? You can name some plants that were never wild, but magically appeared at the advent of cultivation? This could be entertaining...
2) why, exactly, do cultivated plants need rain (in addition to the rising mist), but fruit trees and wild plants don't?
3) how come no version I can lay my hands on (I checked at least half a dozen) uses words like -- say, for example, just grabbing something at random -- "cultivated" or "crops" or "farmed plants" or anything like that? In fact, many of the more modern, idiomatic translations (precisely the ones likely to say "farmed plants" or something simple and idiomatically correct) actually state quite explicitly that there were no plants on Earth -- simple as that. Now, I'm not personally fond of many of those translations, and I'm sure you will object to their interpretation, being, no doubt, contrary to the True Word of God (as dictated to Yaqubos one Thursday morning), but it's still curious that no Bible translators deemed it necessary to make clear that "of the field" was the Hebrew for "farmed" (and not, say, "out there where plants grow" or "of open space" or...). And, more importantly, assuming that you are correct (which I'm sure we've seen), I'll ask once again: why is an omnipotent God incapable of making that clearer? What happened to the footnote "NB: obviously I, YHWY, am talking about cultivated crops here, not plants in general; just thought I'd make that clear to avoid possible misunderstanding"? Was it there in the Perfect Yaqubos Codex (TM), but removed from my version by the Illuminati, perhaps?

Interestingly, the text says that God planted a garden in Eden, and that there were trees in it BEFORE God put man there...

And? What's so interesting? God made Man, planted a garden, stuck Man in it. Nice story, but how does that affect anything? It doesn't say that plants were created when Man was, nor that they weren't.

Carthago delenda est!

 

[PattyOfurniture]

Ah, there it is. Brilliant stuff! I knew it would be a semantic work-around, but I admit I didn't see that one coming. Anyone else get it?

That's why we love you, Yaqubos: your invention knows no end (and to hell with Occam and his Razor).

So...
1) which plants, exactly, exist only due to cultivation? You can name some plants that were never wild, but magically appeared at the advent of cultivation? This could be entertaining...
2) why, exactly, do cultivated plants need rain (in addition to the rising mist), but fruit trees and wild plants don't?
3) how come no version I can lay my hands on (I checked at least half a dozen) uses words like -- say, for example, just grabbing something at random -- "cultivated" or "crops" or "farmed plants" or anything like that? In fact, many of the more modern, idiomatic translations (precisely the ones likely to say "farmed plants" or something simple and idiomatically correct) actually state quite explicitly that there were no plants on Earth -- simple as that. Now, I'm not personally fond of many of those translations, and I'm sure you will object to their interpretation, being, no doubt, contrary to the True Word of God (as dictated to Yaqubos one Thursday morning), but it's still curious that no Bible translators deemed it necessary to make clear that "of the field" was the Hebrew for "farmed" (and not, say, "out there where plants grow" or "of open space" or...). And, more importantly, assuming that you are correct (which I'm sure we've seen), I'll ask once again: why is an omnipotent God incapable of making that clearer? What happened to the footnote "NB: obviously I, YHWY, am talking about cultivated crops here, not plants in general; just thought I'd make that clear to avoid possible misunderstanding"? Was it there in the Perfect Yaqubos Codex (TM), but removed from my version by the Illuminati, perhaps?


And? What's so interesting? God made Man, planted a garden, stuck Man in it. Nice story, but how does that affect anything? It doesn't say that plants were created when Man was, nor that they weren't.

Carthago delenda est!

"work around"
Just had to say this.....(as a Yank)KIwis not only sound like Kiwis,in print they look like Kiwis....lol
got to know 1 at work 1 time.i learned very very quickly that my guess that he was an Aussie was out of line....lol

good stuff man

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

It is very sad that many people read the Bible without seeing anything in it other than some stories without meaning

That probably is sad. But irrelevant here since I have seen no evidence that anyone in this discussion believes that for a second. On the contrary, when you can free yourself of a dogmatic insistence on the Bible being inerrant (bats are birds! insects have 4 legs! pi = 3!) and stop wrapping yourself in absurd knots trying to make it so, you can actually find far greater meaning, because you can actually think about why the people who wrote it wrote what they did.

But I know there's no point in me trying to convince you of that (I'm just stating it for the record). You're happier using the Bible as your RefutationQuoteMaster3000. What a terrible waste of such a TREASURE.

 

[KCDAD]

That probably is sad. But irrelevant here since I have seen no evidence that anyone in this discussion believes that for a second. On the contrary, when you can free yourself of a dogmatic insistence on the Bible being inerrant (bats are birds! insects have 4 legs! pi = 3!) and stop wrapping yourself in absurd knots trying to make it so, you can actually find far greater meaning, because you can actually think about why the people who wrote it wrote what they did.

But I know there's no point in me trying to convince you of that (I'm just stating it for the record). You're happier using the Bible as your RefutationQuoteMaster3000. What a terrible waste of such a TREASURE.

A Kiwi? I thought Kiwis were New Zealanders... Isn't that an Aussie flag I see?

 

[YAQUBOS]

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? It case you hadn't guessed it shows

The baptism of John as you call it is water baptism which is what the topic refers to. John said I indeed baptise you with water but he who comes after me will baptise you with fire and the holy spirit.

btw the baptism of Jesus was done by John in water. Now the baptism John spoke of that Jesus would do has nothing to do with water but with the spirit instead but then that is not the baptism we have been talking about.

Yes, I am not talking about the baptism of Jesus with the Holy Spirit. I am talking about the baptism of Jesus with water:

"After these things Jesus and His disciples came into the land of Judea, and there He was spending time with them and baptizing.
John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized" ( John 3:22-23 )

I remind you that, at this time when Jesus was baptizing, the disciples were not baptized with the Holy Spirit yet.

So maybe now you know what I am talking about

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

The above scripture is the baptism of Jesus.

Yes, it is the baptism of Jesus BY JOHN. We are talking about the baptism of disciples ( us ) BY JESUS, or IN THE NAME OF JESUS.

YAQUBOS†

 

[Soul Searcher]

Yes, it is the baptism of Jesus BY JOHN. We are talking about the baptism of disciples ( us ) BY JESUS, or IN THE NAME OF JESUS.

YAQUBOS†

Correction. You may be talking about that but don't extend that to everyone. Most of the talk about baptism has been about water baptism and the question of if it is required and again the answer is no.

 

[Soul Searcher]

So maybe now you know what I am talking about

Save your snide remarks. I understand what you write though sometimes you are way off base and making it up as you go I still understand most of what you say. Still in the case of baptism you have said that it is required and that it is not required so the real question should be do you know what you are talking about?

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

"work around"

Er, are you correcting my hyphenation, or is that an unfamiliar term?

Just had to say this.....(as a Yank)KIwis not only sound like Kiwis,in print they look like Kiwis....lol

Aw, man... I'm even using Yankee spelling and everything! But yeah, after 10 years I still find that I use words and phrases that get odd looks. Just a day or two ago I called someone a "boffin" and watched the confused looks ensue... add another word to the "unAmerican" basket, I guess!

got to know 1 at work 1 time.i learned very very quickly that my guess that he was an Aussie was out of line....lol

Always safer to assume kiwi than Aussie. The Aussies will just blink and go "uh, no, I'm Australian"; the kiwis will be superimpressed. The reverse doesn't work as well...

good stuff man

Cheers! (Not sure if that refers to being a kiwi or my actual posts, but either's good, right?)

And KCDAD, you are right that kiwi = NZer, but not about the flag. Sadly, they look very similar and are often confused. Dissidents from both nations try every so often to change one, but usually some old fart bangs on about how it's disrespectful to those who fought and died for freedom blahblahblah under that flag blahblahblah, then someone else brings up some political sticking point (race relations are often a good one), and the idea fizzles out Anyway, as it stands, the difference is in the stars: NZ uses four, five-pointed stars with red interiors; Aus has white stars, five in the southern cross and one biggie under the union jack. For some reason, CF is infested with Aussies so you can see an Aus flag with a bit of searching. Or, y'know, Google images or something.

 

[KCDAD]

Yes, it is the baptism of Jesus BY JOHN. We are talking about the baptism of disciples ( us ) BY JESUS, or IN THE NAME OF JESUS.

YAQUBOS†

Jesus baptized you with water?

 

[YAQUBOS]

Correction. You may be talking about that but don't extend that to everyone. Most of the talk about baptism has been about water baptism and the question of if it is required and again the answer is no.

Yes, John's baptism is not required.



YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Save your snide remarks. I understand what you write though sometimes you are way off base and making it up as you go I still understand most of what you say. Still in the case of baptism you have said that it is required and that it is not required so the real question should be do you know what you are talking about?

I NEVER said that baptism is required FOR Salvation. Show me where I ever said that.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

Jesus baptized you with water?

Yes, I was baptized IN HIS NAME.

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

Yes, I was baptized IN HIS NAME.

YAQUBOS†

So, he didn't baptize you... the answer is no. You wrote "yes". Someone else baptized you invoking Jesus' name... well, actually the Greek translation of his name.

 

[KCDAD]

I NEVER said that baptism is required FOR Salvation. Show me where I ever said that.

YAQUBOS†

"necessary, not required".

Yeah... I get the difference.... NOT.

 

[YAQUBOS]

So, he didn't baptize you... the answer is no. You wrote "yes". Someone else baptized you invoking Jesus' name... well, actually the Greek translation of his name.

The answer is YES, I was baptized in HIS Name. And you still don't know what "in the Name of Jesus" means, therefore you say someone else baptized me and you mention the Greek translation. To whatever language you translate the Name "Jesus", His Name will not change. It's His Nature. So there is no difference between "in the Name of Jesus" and "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", because it is the same Name.

YAQUBOS†

 

[YAQUBOS]

"necessary, not required".

Yeah... I get the difference.... NOT.

I NEVER said that baptism is necessary ( ) FOR Salvation. Show me where I ever said that.

YAQUBOS†

 

[KCDAD]

The answer is YES, I was baptized in HIS Name. And you still don't know what "in the Name of Jesus" means, therefore you say someone else baptized me and you mention the Greek translation. To whatever language you translate the Name "Jesus", His Name will not change. It's His Nature. So there is no difference between "in the Name of Jesus" and "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", because it is the same Name.

YAQUBOS†

If it is the same name. why didn't Jesus command his disciples to baptize in the name of the "Father, Son OR Holy Spirit"?

Your ability to not understand language amazes me.

Why don't you tell us what "in His name" means?

 

[KCDAD]

And the Scripture says that Salvation is by Grace alone through faith alone.

You can be saved without being baptized with water if you couldn't be baptized. It is NOT required to be saved. It is an essential part of Salvation that you receive by faith alone.

YAQUBOS†

Dear friend, I have noticed in your replies that you don't know the difference between the Law and the Gospel. In the above quotation, you are talking about Sanctification, not about Justification. But the problem is that you are saying sanctification justifies you before God. The biblical truth is that nothing but living faith justifies you before God, and then this living faith gives the INEVITABLE fruit of sanctification. We are not saved by keeping the Law, but by faith alone.


No, it's not needed TO BE saved. It's an essential PART of Salvation.


This passage doesn't even show the importance of baptism...

YAQUBOS†

I NEVER said that baptism is required FOR Salvation. Show me where I ever said that.

YAQUBOS†

Here is your statement: "It's an essential PART...".

Here is what essential means:

• [SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][/SIZE][/SIZE][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
• absolutely necessary; vitally necessary; "essential tools and materials"; "funds essential to the completion of the project"; "an indispensable ...
• basic and fundamental; "the essential feature"
• all-important(a): of the greatest importance; "the all-important subject of disarmament"; "crucial information"; "in chess cool nerves are of the essence"
• being or relating to or containing the essence of a plant etc; "essential oil"
• substantive: defining rights and duties as opposed to giving the rules by which rights and duties are established; "substantive law"
• necessity: anything indispensable; "food and shelter are necessities of life"; "the essentials of the good life"; "allow farmers to buy their requirements under favorable conditions"; "a place where the requisites of water fuel and fodder can be obtained"
• absolutely required and not to be used up or sacrificed[/SIZE]
  
  If you would like to withdraw that statement, I will accept your apology, but this is one of the main reasons you and I have been disagreeing... that is, your presumptions about the meaning of words, and my insistence onon their accurate usage.
  
  For you to say "it is not required, but essential" is just nonsense.
  [/SIZE]

 

[YAQUBOS]

If it is the same name. why didn't Jesus command his disciples to baptize in the name of the "Father, Son OR Holy Spirit"?

Because, very simply, it is NOT "or". It is the SAME Name. The Trinity is ONE God.

Your ability to not understand language amazes me.

Your amazement is evident to everyone.

Why don't you tell us what "in His name" means?

You didn't ask me You already concluded what it must mean and then you attacked your wrong understanding.

YAQUBOS†