THE importance of baptism AND BEING "IN CHRIST"

[Hillsage]

Gail,

I assume that my last post must have triggered some of where you're coming from...even though I'm not really sure where that is, exactly. You appear to be a very sold out Roman Catholic...would that be correct?

You are so right that "the church is ONE." But as I understand it, you/I don't "GO to church", as far as the bible is concerned...we ARE the church.

GO TO CHURCH in the right place. Pleeeeeeeease!?!

I might just say, I was born, baptized and raised as a Roman Catholic though I don't claim that denominational name any more. I do fellowship with a number of R Catholics who are not only 'water baptized' but some who are even 'Spirit baptized and tongue talking'.

I'd like to comment on a another statement you made following my post, which I'd appreciate a bit more elaboration on. You seem to think that there is only one baptism in the NT in the following quote.

The Church is ONE. By a valid Baptism you have allowed God in your lives..."Baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." That's God talking and telling folks to preform a work, which Baptism is..

While I don't disagree with what you're saying above, I explained EPH 4 the way I did to prove that the 'one baptism' of that scripture has nothing to do with us...but everything to do with Jesus. Would you agree or not?

Hillsage

 

[Schroeder]

It's been a while since I've posted on this thread and if I'm saying something that's already been covered I apologize. But I would like to comment on EPH 4:5 and the One baptism comments.

Remember taking those tests in school where you were supposed to pick out the 'one thing' that didn't fit in a listing of four things? Example: What doesn't fit in this list? Rose, lily, carnation, rock. Got the answer? It's rock of course. Now let’s apply that same logic to the 'one baptism' verse.

EPH 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father

"One Lord"...is that speaking of you or Jesus?
"One faith"...is that your faith or the Christian faith based on Jesus?
"One God" and “Father”...is that like when Isaiah 9:6 said Jesus' name was "mighty God, Everlasting Father or is this verse talking about you?

Now, we only have "One baptism" left in that list, so the question is: Is that 'a baptism' that pertains to Jesus...or to you?

I believe it pertains to Jesus;
LUK 12:50 But I/Jesus have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

The baptism spoken of here was a baptism Jesus hadn’t received yet. Even though He was water baptized by John and subsequently Holy Spirit baptized by ??? The point that this scripture is talking about, I believe, is the ‘one baptism’ that unifies all believers. And that “one baptism” in Ephesians 4 is the ‘baptism of death’ which Jesus accomplished on the cross. And that is the only baptism necessary for us to ALL believe in, which will determine whether we maintain the unity of the Spirit or not...which is the context of Eph 4:3.

you may look at john 7:38-39, speaking of the spirit given to those who believe, SPirit baptism, then read acts 10:43, 15:8, then 1 Cor 12:13, then eph 1:13-14. then eph 4:5. t hey all fit together as well. what do you think?

 

[Hillsage]

you may look at john 7:38-39, speaking of the spirit given to those who believe, SPirit baptism, then read acts 10:43, 15:8, then 1 Cor 12:13, then eph 1:13-14. then eph 4:5. t hey all fit together as well. what do you think?

Hello Schroeder,

I had a complete post ready from yesterday and when I finished it and sent it...it glitched and I lost it. Patience. Let me start over with a more abbreviated post and just say I appreciate what you said in your last post when you said: "the spirit given to those who believe".
I don't know if you left spirit uncapitalized on purpose or not but I totally agree with you if you did.

I have a book written over a hundred years ago that is still in print because of the supportability of the points made in it. And one of those points is this...that 52 times in the NT translators capitalized the word spirit or holy spirit when they shouldn't have. And the reason they shouldn't have is because when our spirit was born from above or born again, it became a holy spirit. And that holy spirit is different from The Holy Spirit.

I'll just stop here and ask your thoughts?

Hillsage

 

[Schroeder]

Hello Schroeder,

I had a complete post ready from yesterday and when I finished it and sent it...it glitched and I lost it. Patience. Let me start over with a more abbreviated post and just say I appreciate what you said in your last post when you said: "the spirit given to those who believe".
I don't know if you left spirit uncapitalized on purpose or not but I totally agree with you if you did.

I have a book written over a hundred years ago that is still in print because of the supportability of the points made in it. And one of those points is this...that 52 times in the NT translators capitalized the word spirit or holy spirit when they shouldn't have. And the reason they shouldn't have is because when our spirit was born from above or born again, it became a holy spirit. And that holy spirit is different from The Holy Spirit.

I'll just stop here and ask your thoughts?

Hillsage

Not sure what I think. It is interesting thought. I would need a little more info on this idea to make an opinion. I believe we all share a spirit of Christ in us when we are saved. that Christ is in us and this is the holy SPirit I speak of. I dont think it is a different unigue spirit that is just ours. If this makes sense. I think it is the One Spirit of God through Christ or Christ. Gets a bit confuseing because its hard for us to grasp such an idea. That God is everywhere at once or that Christ could be in heaven building a place for us yet be in us. But Rom 8 speaks of this in saying if Christ is not in us then we are not a part of God or he does not know us. I th ink this is what makes the Church. That Chirst the ONE Holy Spirit is or a part of each of us. the whole eph 4 speak. Part of why I am Quaker. no creed, no denom doctrine, no rites, no ordances or sacraments etc. It just doesnt seem to fit into what scripture says to me a bout salvation and doing the will of God. I dont think his willl was to create a Church for doing different rites for what ever purpose, to receive or keep your faith or salvation. We are Saved to be ambassadors of Christ to be like Christ for the world sense christ is now not on earth to do it. i dont think all these so called rites or sacraments etc help us do this. Loving one another does and being christ like does. Not that all these rites shouldnt be done, I dont care if they do but to claim they must is a lie. If they help you be better at being christ like then fine, do them. But others may not need to do such outside physical things to be closer to God. For me Reading scripture and prayer( as in talking to God like a friend) works for me. God sees the heart and doesnt need us to perform outside physical rites to prove our faith. Its our actions that do this. james 2. So anyways give me some more info on this idea or the book title so I can look it up.

 

[Hillsage]

Not sure what I think. It is interesting thought. I would need a little more info on this idea to make an opinion.

I couldn't ask for more.

I believe we all share a spirit of Christ in us when we are saved. that Christ is in us and this is the holy SPirit I speak of. I dont think it is a different unigue spirit that is just ours. If this makes sense. I think it is the One Spirit of God through Christ or Christ.

I'm curious as to what you think about the following verse then. It is talking about the OT prophets.

1PE 1:11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.

Gets a bit confuseing because its hard for us to grasp such an idea. That God is everywhere at once or that Christ could be in heaven building a place for us yet be in us. But Rom 8 speaks of this in saying if Christ is not in us then we are not a part of God or he does not know us.

But then we have the verse below which indicates that there is more to 'Christ in us'
GAL 4:19 My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!

I th ink this is what makes the Church. That Chirst the ONE Holy Spirit is or a part of each of us.

I can't say I disagree, but I do make a distinctional difference between the spirit of Christ and The Holy Spirit based upon the following verse. It seems to make a distinction between our spirit and The Holy Spirit.

ROM 8:16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

the whole eph 4 speak. Part of why I am Quaker. no creed, no denom doctrine, no rites, no ordances or sacraments etc. It just doesnt seem to fit into what scripture says to me a bout salvation and doing the will of God. I dont think his willl was to create a Church for doing different rites for what ever purpose, to receive or keep your faith or salvation.

I hear you. And I don't believe we ever did anything good enough to 'get saved' and can't do anything bad enough to 'get unsaved'.

We are Saved to be ambassadors of Christ to be like Christ for the world sense christ is now not on earth to do it. i dont think all these so called rites or sacraments etc help us do this. Loving one another does and being christ like does.

Amen on the highlighted bold.

So anyways give me some more info on this idea or the book title so I can look it up.

It's call Word Studies on the Holy Spirit by EW Bullinger. He also wrote the Companion Study bible which also still happens to be in print.

Gotta leave shortly for the weekend Schroeder so I won't be responding til Monday.

Hillsage

 

[Schroeder]

I couldn't ask for more.



I'm curious as to what you think about the following verse then. It is talking about the OT prophets.

1PE 1:11 they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory.

Well i did mention that this Spirit is God. Jesus was here at the start of creation and I beleive it was his spirit spoken of in the old testement. Jesus came for reason and i think it was to pay the price God asked for. The Spirit was given to us by God through Christ because of what he did. its the same spirit now as then except we all get it and not just certain prophets. It also shows that the spoken words of those prophets were not of the prophet himself but of Christ or God.

But then we have the verse below which indicates that there is more to 'Christ in us'
GAL 4:19 My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!

I dont think this deals with actually receiving Christ or his Spirit. I think it referes to matureity in Christ. The passage seems to speak of being inmature in their faith and needing to grow up or have their faith become stronger. Notice it never says they are not saved or need the holy Spirit in them. and notice he refers to them as children.

I can't say I disagree, but I do make a distinctional difference between the spirit of Christ and The Holy Spirit based upon the following verse. It seems to make a distinction between our spirit and The Holy Spirit.

ROM 8:16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

Could It be that the spirit or "our spirit" is that which God breathed in us to give us life, and the SPirit is the Holy Spirit Which is Christ in us for salvation and SPirtual birth or our spiritual life. Its had to make a case for both being different or I should sayt o make the holy Spirit a unigue SPirit that is to be called upon for this or that reason or for an "extra" annoiting. i see your charismatic which is why i bring this up. I dont believe in this idea. I cant find scripture to make this thinking stick. doesnt mean God cant give an annoting of some kind but he doesnt need an Holy Spirit out side of what is in you. there is but ONE Spirit as said in eph 4. The small letter s spirit is our physical life giveing spirit as the capital S Spirit is our Spiritual life giving Spirit.

I hear you. And I don't believe we ever did anything good enough to 'get saved' and can't do anything bad enough to 'get unsaved'.

I happen to believe you can be unsaved. any Gift given can be given back. Read heb. 10:26-31 heb. 6:4-6. They seem to suggest that once you taste or receive Gods grace and the holy Spirit then turn your back youve lost out and it will be worse for you then if you never were saved. But i dont tend to argue about this topic.

Amen on the highlighted bold.


It's call Word Studies on the Holy Spirit by EW Bullinger. He also wrote the Companion Study bible which also still happens to be in print.

Gotta leave shortly for the weekend Schroeder so I won't be responding til Monday.

Hillsage

I'll try to find it in the library. thanks.

 

[Hillsage]

SHROEDER,

Well i did mention that this Spirit is God. Jesus was here at the start of creation and I beleive it was his spirit spoken of in the old testement. Jesus came for reason and i think it was to pay the price God asked for. The Spirit was given to us by God through Christ because of what he did. its the same spirit now as then except we all get it and not just certain prophets. It also shows that the spoken words of those prophets were not of the prophet himself but of Christ or God.

I differ a bit in that I believe that the word was in the beginning and that 'the word' became Jesus/flesh and dwelt among us. I think that Jesus was/is the 'son of man' after Jesus' flesh and that Christ was/is the 'son of God' after Jesus' spirit. I differentiate between the spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of God and maybe even the 'spirit of Christ' (still thinking on that). On the cross, I believe that Jesus surrendered his spirit and not the Holy Spirit or the spirit of Christ (anointing).

As far as the verse in 1Peter 1:11 I'm of the persuasion that no one had access to a holy spirit (via new birth) in the OT...not even the prophets. But I think they did have access to the 'spirit of Christ'/anointing. I know that's a whole lot different than orthodoxy and I'm certainly not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong if they believe traditionally.

Hillsage: But then we have the verse below which indicates that there is more to 'Christ in us'
GAL 4:19 My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!
​

Shroeder: I dont think this deals with actually receiving Christ or his Spirit. I think it referes to matureity in Christ. The passage seems to speak of being inmature in their faith and needing to grow up or have their faith become stronger. Notice it never says they are not saved or need the holy Spirit in them. and notice he refers to them as children.

I've thought that what you say here could be the correct POV too. But I also think this verse kind of points out the difference between receiving 'a holy spirit' that is immature at our spirit's new birth. At our spirit's new birth, I think we receive the same 'holy spirit' that Jesus was born with. And it's 'a spirit' that needs to grow into the image of the stature of the fullness of the Christ spirit just like the spirit of Jesus did. But I also think scripture supports the fact that Jesus didn't get The Holy Spirit until he was 30 years old.

I didn't mean to sound like one can't be unsaved to start with when I made the comment about not doing anything bad enough to get unsaved. I reserve that comment for believers. I believe in 'eternal security' for my 'born again holy spirit'. Hope that clears something up.

I'm going to stop, there's too many potential bunny trails already.
Hillsage
​

 

[Schroeder]

SHROEDER,


I differ a bit in that I believe that the word was in the beginning and that 'the word' became Jesus/flesh and dwelt among us. I think that Jesus was/is the 'son of man' after Jesus' flesh and that Christ was/is the 'son of God' after Jesus' spirit. I differentiate between the spirit of Jesus and the Spirit of God and maybe even the 'spirit of Christ' (still thinking on that). On the cross, I believe that Jesus surrendered his spirit and not the Holy Spirit or the spirit of Christ (anointing).

In Gen. it sats "created in OUR image" of course whether this be "flesh" or Spirit such is God not sure. thou it says God walked witht hem in the garden, So again the Flesh idea is a bit tough to stick one way or the other. I dont tend to seperate any of them I think they are all a part of God in sum way or another. I would say the SPirit is in many forms or purposes but the same spirit. Kind of like 1 cor 12 in saying different works but all the same SPirit. But I would say to pin it down would be a pretty long study.

As far as the verse in 1Peter 1:11 I'm of the persuasion that no one had access to a holy spirit (via new birth) in the OT...not even the prophets. But I think they did have access to the 'spirit of Christ'/anointing. I know that's a whole lot different than orthodoxy and I'm certainly not saying I'm right and everyone else is wrong if they believe traditionally.

I feel the same in many aspects. i think they were not given the SPirit but had an annoiting or leading of the Spirit. i just think its the same spirit we are now given. (and dont take my capitalizing spirit or not it just my poor typing and laziness to fix it)

I've thought that what you say here could be the correct POV too. But I also think this verse kind of points out the difference between receiving 'a holy spirit' that is immature at our spirit's new birth. At our spirit's new birth, I think we receive the same 'holy spirit' that Jesus was born with. And it's 'a spirit' that needs to grow into the image of the stature of the fullness of the Christ spirit just like the spirit of Jesus did. But I also think scripture supports the fact that Jesus didn't get The Holy Spirit until he was 30 years old.

I would say jesus was born with a spirit or soul as we were. The difference is kind of blured in scripture, saying spirit or soul. I suppose if you really looked into it and all the greek or hebrew etc stuff you could get them correct. I believe we receive the SPirit to help us redo or lives to help us see things differently then the world and we grow from there. I think he was able to live without sin because of his faith and the fact that he was not born thru the curse of sin through Man(adam). What is your support of Jesus receiving the HOLY SPIRIT at 30,curious.

I didn't mean to sound like one can't be unsaved to start with when I made the comment about not doing anything bad enough to get unsaved. I reserve that comment for believers. I believe in 'eternal security' for my 'born again holy spirit'. Hope that clears something up.

I'm going to stop, there's too many potential bunny trails already.
Hillsage

Well i am not a once saved always saved person. Liked i said if a gift is given it can be given back, and if you give it back it very unliky your get the gift given again. BUT as I said i dont argue this much if at all. Not a necessary arguement for me.

 

[Hillsage]

In Gen. it sats "created in OUR image" of course whether this be "flesh" or Spirit such is God not sure. thou it says God walked witht hem in the garden, So again the Flesh idea is a bit tough to stick one way or the other. I dont tend to seperate any of them I think they are all a part of God in sum way or another. I would say the SPirit is in many forms or purposes but the same spirit. Kind of like 1 cor 12 in saying different works but all the same SPirit. But I would say to pin it down would be a pretty long study.

Just recently it came to me that 'in the beginning' God wasn't flesh. John says "God IS Spirit", and that was written in the NT. So I've started thinking a little differently on this whole idea. I used to say God was triune and he made us triune (spirit, soul, body). But now I'm thinking that before 'the word' became flesh it was 'spirit' too.
JOH 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
And we know that the Holy Spirit was spirit, so what was the Father if not spirit? For years I've said I am a spirit, I have a soul, and I live in a body. Now I'm thinking that the 'I am a spirit' part of that may have meant more than I thought.

I feel the same in many aspects. i think they were not given the SPirit but had an annoiting or leading of the Spirit. i just think its the same spirit we are now given. (and dont take my capitalizing spirit or not it just my poor typing and laziness to fix it)

So when you keep typing a capital SP in SPirit you really aren't indicating there's something more?

I would say jesus was born with a spirit or soul as we were.

I differ a little bit in that I say when we are 'born again' we are born as Jesus was to begin with. His spirit never needed to be born again, and ours does.

HEB 2:17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect,
I think that this verse says brethren because Jesus wasn't "made like unbelievers" to begin with.

What is your support of Jesus receiving the HOLY SPIRIT at 30,curious.

LUK 3:22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

JOH 1:33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain,..

Well i am not a once saved always saved person. Liked i said if a gift is given it can be given back, and if you give it back it very unliky your get the gift given again. BUT as I said i dont argue this much if at all. Not a necessary arguement for me.

I only believe in 'once saved always saved' for the born again spirit of a person. But I don't hold that position for the soul or the body. I think we begin to work out the salvation of our soul after our spirit is born again, and I don't think anyone has a 'saved body' this side of glory.

I'm enjoying our discussion Shroeder. Iron can sharpen iron without making the sparks fly...a quality that seems lacking in so many posts.

I'm enjoying our discussion Shroeder. Iron can sharpen iron without causing sparks to fly.

Hillsage

 

[Tangible]

Just recently it came to me that 'in the beginning' God wasn't flesh. John says "God IS Spirit", and that was written in the NT. So I've started thinking a little differently on this whole idea. I used to say God was triune and he made us triune (spirit, soul, body). But now I'm thinking that before 'the word' became flesh it was 'spirit' too.

"Please step away from the edge. You are about to fall into heresy. Please step away from the edge."

 

[Hillsage]

"Please step away from the edge. You are about to fall into heresy. Please step away from the edge."

I've lived on 'the edge' most of my Christian life. Some of what I believe is very much considered heresy. But I don't worry too much about it because I figure I'm in good company historically.

Martin Luther was a heretic...as far as orthodoxy 'then', was concerned. And you are a Lutheran now??? Do you feel like a heretic?

Paul, by his own confession, was a heretic too.

ACT 24:14 But this I (PAUL) confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Actually scripture says that there must be heretics in the church:

1CO 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

I suppose many think that being "approved" in the above verse, based upon winning a doctrinal argument. Some think being approved is based upon clinging unrelentingly their particular indoctrination...no matter how wrong it is and how poorly they're defending themselves here on these forums.

I persoanlly think that the one who 'manifests' the fruit of the spirit proves the character of God. And in the end no one is going to be judged for 'what' they believed in doctrinally. They're going to be judged for their works and 'who' they believed in.

I do appreciate your concern though Tangible.

Hillsage

 

[Tangible]

I've lived on 'the edge' most of my Christian life. Some of what I believe is very much considered heresy. But I don't worry too much about it because I figure I'm in good company historically.

Martin Luther was a heretic...as far as orthodoxy 'then', was concerned. And you are a Lutheran now??? Do you feel like a heretic?

Paul, by his own confession, was a heretic too.

ACT 24:14 But this I (PAUL) confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Actually scripture says that there must be heretics in the church:

1CO 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

I suppose many think that being "approved" in the above verse, based upon winning a doctrinal argument. Some think being approved is based upon clinging unrelentingly their particular indoctrination...no matter how wrong it is and how poorly they're defending themselves here on these forums.

I persoanlly think that the one who 'manifests' the fruit of the spirit proves the character of God. And in the end no one is going to be judged for 'what' they believed in doctrinally. They're going to be judged for their works and 'who' they believed in.

My bible reads a little differently than yours, apparently ...

Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,

1 Cor 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

But I can appreciate how ML was characterized as a heretic by the RCC of the time. However, history has shown his theology to be thoroughly orthodox.

It just seemed to me like you were straying dangerously close to a kind of Nestorian or maybe Gnostic view of the deity of Christ.

I do appreciate your concern though Tangible.

I'm glad you accepted it in the spirit it was intended.


.

 

[Hillsage]

My bible reads a little differently than yours, apparently ...


Acts 24:14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect/hairesis, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,

1 Cor 11:19 for there must be factions/hairesis among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

What does your translation say in 2Peter 2:1? If it says heresies then if you "study to show yourself approved" you'll find that the translation I quoted is simply being more consistent than yours.

The Greek word in all three verses is: 0139 hairesis in Strongs. And it's also the word that we get heresy and heretic from.

But I can appreciate how ML was characterized as a heretic by the RCC of the time. However, history has shown his theology to be thoroughly orthodox.

Unfortunately many Christians died at the hands of orthodoxy during the course of that "history" which you just mentioned. And, also unfortunately, when the Anabaptists came on the heels of Lutheranism, many Anabaptists died at the hands of both R Catholic and Lutheran's who were both crying heresy. Hindsight being what it is, I feel that the true heretic was the one whose actions/works wouldn't have been "approved" by God.

Do you think it was 'of God' for R Catholics to kill Lutherans? What about Catholics and Lutherans killing Anabaptists?

It just seemed to me like you were straying dangerously close to a kind of Nestorian or maybe Gnostic view of the deity of Christ.

I might be, but like I said earlier: I believe in eternal security and my doctrinal POV came after I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus. I personally don't think doctrines amount to much if they don't change how you live. They just seem to be a source of divisions. And I think that even your translation would agree in 1Cor 11:18 that division is what God hates more than disagreement over doctrines.

Hillsage

 

[Tangible]

What does your translation say in 2Peter 2:1? If it says heresies then if you "study to show yourself approved" you'll find that the translation I quoted is simply being more consistent than yours.

2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Meh, could be. Just because one word is used in all three contexts in one language doesn't necessarily mean the same word would be used in another.

The Greek word in all three verses is: 0139 hairesis in Strongs. And it's also the word that we get heresy and heretic from.

Yeah. I'm not that big on Strong's since it is inextricably linked to such an archaic English version.

Do you think it was 'of God' for R Catholics to kill Lutherans? What about Catholics and Lutherans killing Anabaptists?

Of course it was not of God, but then neither was the theology of the Anabaptists (violent imposition of communal property, polygamy, etc.)

Thank God we live in more civilized times.

I personally don't think doctrines amount to much if they don't change how you live.

True, with one caveat.

Unless your doctrine is correct, then how you live may be changed in a way that God never intended. The world, the flesh and the devil are always looking for ways to keep the Christian in bondage.

 

[Hillsage]

2 Pet 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

Meh, could be. Just because one word is used in all three contexts in one language doesn't necessarily mean the same word would be used in another.

I don't understand your response. What does Meh mean? Also I don't understand your explanation. It is the same Greek word in all three verses and that's the point I was making. The Greek is consistent here it's your translation that's not. Personally I don't worship any particular translation, and I study out of several. I do have a personal favorite though and it isn't the KJV.

Yeah. I'm not that big on Strong's since it is inextricably linked to such an archaic English version.

You appear to have the cart before the horse. Strong's isn't based upon the KJV it is based upon the Greek. It is merely INDEXED to the archaic KJV.

Of course it was not of God, but then neither was the theology of the Anabaptists (violent imposition of communal property, polygamy, etc.)

I think you missed the point with this answer to my question. All have been wrong and more importantly ALL ARE WRONG IMO. And I believe that includes me...I assume that there are areas that I'm wrong. I just don't know in what area I'm wrong....same as all the denominations that existed back then, and now. Again that's just a personal opinion.

Thank God we live in more civilized times.

Amen, but now we slay with words which come from hearts that are just as wicked IMO.

True, with one caveat.

Unless your doctrine is correct, then how you live may be changed in a way that God never intended. The world, the flesh and the devil are always looking for ways to keep the Christian in bondage.

While I agree with your first sentance I believe your second sentance confirms the very point I'm illustrating with the actions of 'the church', back when they were killing everyone who didn't agree doctrinally.

I'm more a peace leaving my judgment in His capable hand than I am the institutional churches of today.

Have a good one Tangible
Hillsage

 

[IreneAdler]

Researching the origins of baptism/mikvah and it's uses and meanings in Christ's time clarifies what it is and what it should be for today's christians. Seperating out church doctrine from true history/fact is helpful.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Researching the origins of baptism/mikvah and it's uses and meanings in Christ's time clarifies what it is and what it should be for today's christians. Seperating out church doctrine from true history/fact is helpful.

Very nicely put. When I did my personal research into it the issue became really easy to grasp.

 

[IreneAdler]

I think it's ignorant to form an opinion without appropriate background from people/sources other than in your church.

 

[Tangible]

Researching the origins of baptism/mikvah and it's uses and meanings in Christ's time clarifies what it is and what it should be for today's christians. Seperating out church doctrine from true history/fact is helpful.

Except that baptism /= mikvah.

 

[IreneAdler]

I'm not sure why you'd say that