The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[Politician Spock]

there are churches who haven't bought the lie, Cross...

Cool, got a list for us?

look at what they believe... this isn't difficult, Cross..

So then humor me. Give me a list of churches that haven't bought the lie.

Cross - I haven't studied the doctrine of every group on earth... I know what the Bible says is needed, I know what history says the early church did, and I would expect churches to follow those things (since they are the same)...but, as far as a list goes, it ain't gonna happen...

I didn't say a comprehensive list, just a list of a few so if I ever come to my senses I'll know where to go to be in a true church. C'mon Larry, hook a brutha up.

how's this, sit down with yourself and ask yourself these questionso you baptize in Jesus' name? (if the answer is "no" it is not a proper church and you should find someplace else)

Do you baptize in emersion? (if the answer is "no" you should find a different church since "baptize" is simply a transliteration of the greek word that actually means to dunk/immerse)

Do you believe there is one God? ("yes" is fine... "yes in three forms/persons" is good enough, it sucks but that terminology is not likely to go away anytime soon...)

Do you believe that speaking in tongues is still valid for the modern church? (if "no", wrong church...)

that's pretty much it... everything else is superfluous... the speaking in tongues question is just to see if it is spirit-filled or not (I know of no charismatic/spirit-filled churches that don't speak in tongues a little)

I gotta say LB....these are all examples of Religion getting in the way of your relaitonship with God. I gotta say, all these things you want us to sit down and ask ourselves have NO affect on our direct relationships with God with the exception of the Trinity. Everything else has no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Sorry to break it to you....

So you don't think actually obeying God's commands, rather than obeying the commands that idolaters have passed down through generations, is important?

No...let me explain my position...let's use baptism as the subject. What is important is that you be baptized. Though it's not required, it's a sacrament and I believe everyone should be baptized as a tribute to God and a testament to their relationship with him. What is NOT important is what you seem to be focusing on. I.E. if you aren't fully submersed then it doesn't count. That thought process is religion talking. There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that sprinkling or the laying on of hands is wrong and does not equal submerssion. The account of Jesus baptism was one that had him completely submerged in the river, which was great, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to be submerged. Again....the sacrament is what is important, not the technique. Does that make more sense?

The technique is important in that it's symbolic. The technique is not a criteria that will damn a true believer to hell.

 

[larry_boy_44]

there are churches who haven't bought the lie, Cross...

Cool, got a list for us?

look at what they believe... this isn't difficult, Cross..

So then humor me. Give me a list of churches that haven't bought the lie.

Cross - I haven't studied the doctrine of every group on earth... I know what the Bible says is needed, I know what history says the early church did, and I would expect churches to follow those things (since they are the same)...but, as far as a list goes, it ain't gonna happen...

I didn't say a comprehensive list, just a list of a few so if I ever come to my senses I'll know where to go to be in a true church. C'mon Larry, hook a brutha up.

how's this, sit down with yourself and ask yourself these questionso you baptize in Jesus' name? (if the answer is "no" it is not a proper church and you should find someplace else)

Do you baptize in emersion? (if the answer is "no" you should find a different church since "baptize" is simply a transliteration of the greek word that actually means to dunk/immerse)

Do you believe there is one God? ("yes" is fine... "yes in three forms/persons" is good enough, it sucks but that terminology is not likely to go away anytime soon...)

Do you believe that speaking in tongues is still valid for the modern church? (if "no", wrong church...)

that's pretty much it... everything else is superfluous... the speaking in tongues question is just to see if it is spirit-filled or not (I know of no charismatic/spirit-filled churches that don't speak in tongues a little)

I gotta say LB....these are all examples of Religion getting in the way of your relaitonship with God. I gotta say, all these things you want us to sit down and ask ourselves have NO affect on our direct relationships with God with the exception of the Trinity. Everything else has no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Sorry to break it to you....

So you don't think actually obeying God's commands, rather than obeying the commands that idolaters have passed down through generations, is important?

No...let me explain my position...let's use baptism as the subject. What is important is that you be baptized. Though it's not required, it's a sacrament and I believe everyone should be baptized as a tribute to God and a testament to their relationship with him. What is NOT important is what you seem to be focusing on. I.E. if you aren't fully submersed then it doesn't count. That thought process is religion talking. There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that sprinkling or the laying on of hands is wrong and does not equal submerssion. The account of Jesus baptism was one that had him completely submerged in the river, which was great, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to be submerged. Again....the sacrament is what is important, not the technique. Does that make more sense?

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

 

[larry_boy_44]

there are churches who haven't bought the lie, Cross...

Cool, got a list for us?

look at what they believe... this isn't difficult, Cross..

So then humor me. Give me a list of churches that haven't bought the lie.

Cross - I haven't studied the doctrine of every group on earth... I know what the Bible says is needed, I know what history says the early church did, and I would expect churches to follow those things (since they are the same)...but, as far as a list goes, it ain't gonna happen...

I didn't say a comprehensive list, just a list of a few so if I ever come to my senses I'll know where to go to be in a true church. C'mon Larry, hook a brutha up.

how's this, sit down with yourself and ask yourself these questionso you baptize in Jesus' name? (if the answer is "no" it is not a proper church and you should find someplace else)

Do you baptize in emersion? (if the answer is "no" you should find a different church since "baptize" is simply a transliteration of the greek word that actually means to dunk/immerse)

Do you believe there is one God? ("yes" is fine... "yes in three forms/persons" is good enough, it sucks but that terminology is not likely to go away anytime soon...)

Do you believe that speaking in tongues is still valid for the modern church? (if "no", wrong church...)

that's pretty much it... everything else is superfluous... the speaking in tongues question is just to see if it is spirit-filled or not (I know of no charismatic/spirit-filled churches that don't speak in tongues a little)

I gotta say LB....these are all examples of Religion getting in the way of your relaitonship with God. I gotta say, all these things you want us to sit down and ask ourselves have NO affect on our direct relationships with God with the exception of the Trinity. Everything else has no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Sorry to break it to you....

So you don't think actually obeying God's commands, rather than obeying the commands that idolaters have passed down through generations, is important?

Why don't you respond to what he said? Why do you ALWAYS take something someone has said and respond with something like "What your really saying is..." or "In other words you are saying...", etc., etc....When your version of their argument that you use in your response is nothing more than an incredibly weak example of what they really said, it's called "straw man arguing". And you do it frequently.

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

 

[The Commish]

The technique is important in that it's symbolic. The technique is not a criteria that will damn a true believer to hell.

And I can agree with this, but I really believe that if you strip everything down to the core and take religion out of the picture, and really look at what is being expressed, the sacrament means the same thing regardless of how one goes about it.

 

[Politician Spock]

So, pretty much you are the only guy in the world that truly understands the message that God was trying to give man in the Bible. Everyone else is wrong except LB. Thanks for clearing that up.

no, I'm still piecing it together myself, Cross, I don't think I know everything, far from it in fact...

and you realize that you are saying exactly what you claim I am saying, right? I mean, by picking a denomination you are saying they are right above everyone else...

No, LB, that's not what I'm saying when I choose a church. (And our church isn't in a denomination, it's in an association, but I would hate to confuse you with the facts). When I choose a church I am recognizing that God's word encourages us to fellowship with other believers so that we can teach, learn, grow, pray, evangelize, worship, encourage, etc., etc. together. I'm not the one who claims that if you don't believe exactly like a Baptist that you are damned to hell. There's only one person around here that claims they are right above everyone else...lol...seriously. }=O)

that's only because most Christian organizations/denominations have bought into the same lie... I mean, did you know that there are orgs. that are now saying that people of other religions (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, whateveR) are saved, too?Modern Christianity is a mess, we've moved so far from God... we need to go back...

Nice redirect. It's what you do best. What does your reply have to do with anything I wrote?

its just another reason that most modern denominations have no connection with the God they claim to serve...

God doesn't connect with denominations. He connects with people. People are saved based on that relationship - it's between them and God. People choose to attend churches that may or may not be part of a denomination. That has nothing to do with their salvation despite the many, MANY, MANY times you've claimed that people that are <insert any denomination other than Pentacostal> are not saved because the denomination has traces of pagan rituals.

when I say something like "Catholics are not saved" I am referring to anyone who actually follows the doctrine of the Catholic Church, not simply someone who shows up at a Catholic Church each Sunday...You can be saved showing up to a Catholic Church every Sunday, you cannot be saved following Catholic doctrine...

Likewise, you can be saved showing up to a Pentacostal Church every Sunday, you cannot be saved following Pentacostal doctrine...No denominations doctrine is perfect. The only thing that is perfect is Jesus. Which is why Jesus saves, and not denominational doctrine.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Cross - I haven't studied the doctrine of every group on earth... I know what the Bible says is needed, I know what history says the early church did, and I would expect churches to follow those things (since they are the same)...

but, as far as a list goes, it ain't gonna happen...

I didn't say a comprehensive list, just a list of a few so if I ever come to my senses I'll know where to go to be in a true church. C'mon Larry, hook a brutha up.

how's this, sit down with yourself and ask yourself these questionso you baptize in Jesus' name? (if the answer is "no" it is not a proper church and you should find someplace else)

Do you baptize in emersion? (if the answer is "no" you should find a different church since "baptize" is simply a transliteration of the greek word that actually means to dunk/immerse)

Do you believe there is one God? ("yes" is fine... "yes in three forms/persons" is good enough, it sucks but that terminology is not likely to go away anytime soon...)

Do you believe that speaking in tongues is still valid for the modern church? (if "no", wrong church...)

that's pretty much it... everything else is superfluous... the speaking in tongues question is just to see if it is spirit-filled or not (I know of no charismatic/spirit-filled churches that don't speak in tongues a little)

I gotta say LB....these are all examples of Religion getting in the way of your relaitonship with God. I gotta say, all these things you want us to sit down and ask ourselves have NO affect on our direct relationships with God with the exception of the Trinity. Everything else has no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Sorry to break it to you....

So you don't think actually obeying God's commands, rather than obeying the commands that idolaters have passed down through generations, is important?

No...let me explain my position...let's use baptism as the subject. What is important is that you be baptized. Though it's not required, it's a sacrament and I believe everyone should be baptized as a tribute to God and a testament to their relationship with him. What is NOT important is what you seem to be focusing on. I.E. if you aren't fully submersed then it doesn't count. That thought process is religion talking. There is nothing in the Bible that would indicate that sprinkling or the laying on of hands is wrong and does not equal submerssion. The account of Jesus baptism was one that had him completely submerged in the river, which was great, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to be submerged. Again....the sacrament is what is important, not the technique. Does that make more sense?

The technique is important in that it's symbolic. The technique is not a criteria that will damn a true believer to hell.

actually, the technique is important because the Greek word wasn't referring to the name of a sacrement, but the actual act...basically Jesus told them to go and make disciples of all nations, dunking them in His name...

 

[larry_boy_44]

The technique is important in that it's symbolic. The technique is not a criteria that will damn a true believer to hell.

And I can agree with this, but I really believe that if you strip everything down to the core and take religion out of the picture, and really look at what is being expressed, the sacrament means the same thing regardless of how one goes about it.

it wasn't said to be a sacrament... Jesus simply just told them to dunk people in His name... that's it...

 

[larry_boy_44]

No, LB, that's not what I'm saying when I choose a church. (And our church isn't in a denomination, it's in an association, but I would hate to confuse you with the facts). When I choose a church I am recognizing that God's word encourages us to fellowship with other believers so that we can teach, learn, grow, pray, evangelize, worship, encourage, etc., etc. together. I'm not the one who claims that if you don't believe exactly like a Baptist that you are damned to hell. There's only one person around here that claims they are right above everyone else...lol...seriously. }=O)

that's only because most Christian organizations/denominations have bought into the same lie... I mean, did you know that there are orgs. that are now saying that people of other religions (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, whateveR) are saved, too?Modern Christianity is a mess, we've moved so far from God... we need to go back...

Nice redirect. It's what you do best. What does your reply have to do with anything I wrote?

its just another reason that most modern denominations have no connection with the God they claim to serve...

God doesn't connect with denominations. He connects with people. People are saved based on that relationship - it's between them and God. People choose to attend churches that may or may not be part of a denomination. That has nothing to do with their salvation despite the many, MANY, MANY times you've claimed that people that are <insert any denomination other than Pentacostal> are not saved because the denomination has traces of pagan rituals.

when I say something like "Catholics are not saved" I am referring to anyone who actually follows the doctrine of the Catholic Church, not simply someone who shows up at a Catholic Church each Sunday...You can be saved showing up to a Catholic Church every Sunday, you cannot be saved following Catholic doctrine...

Likewise, you can be saved showing up to a Pentacostal Church every Sunday, you cannot be saved following Pentacostal doctrine...No denominations doctrine is perfect. The only thing that is perfect is Jesus. Which is why Jesus saves, and not denominational doctrine.

I agree... Although I would say that following the doctrine of a denomination that is absolutely wrong will damn you...

 

[Politician Spock]

So then humor me. Give me a list of churches that haven't bought the lie.

Cross - I haven't studied the doctrine of every group on earth... I know what the Bible says is needed, I know what history says the early church did, and I would expect churches to follow those things (since they are the same)...but, as far as a list goes, it ain't gonna happen...

I didn't say a comprehensive list, just a list of a few so if I ever come to my senses I'll know where to go to be in a true church. C'mon Larry, hook a brutha up.

how's this, sit down with yourself and ask yourself these questionso you baptize in Jesus' name? (if the answer is "no" it is not a proper church and you should find someplace else)

Do you baptize in emersion? (if the answer is "no" you should find a different church since "baptize" is simply a transliteration of the greek word that actually means to dunk/immerse)

Do you believe there is one God? ("yes" is fine... "yes in three forms/persons" is good enough, it sucks but that terminology is not likely to go away anytime soon...)

Do you believe that speaking in tongues is still valid for the modern church? (if "no", wrong church...)

that's pretty much it... everything else is superfluous... the speaking in tongues question is just to see if it is spirit-filled or not (I know of no charismatic/spirit-filled churches that don't speak in tongues a little)

I gotta say LB....these are all examples of Religion getting in the way of your relaitonship with God. I gotta say, all these things you want us to sit down and ask ourselves have NO affect on our direct relationships with God with the exception of the Trinity. Everything else has no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Sorry to break it to you....

So you don't think actually obeying God's commands, rather than obeying the commands that idolaters have passed down through generations, is important?

Why don't you respond to what he said? Why do you ALWAYS take something someone has said and respond with something like "What your really saying is..." or "In other words you are saying...", etc., etc....When your version of their argument that you use in your response is nothing more than an incredibly weak example of what they really said, it's called "straw man arguing". And you do it frequently.

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

 

[The Commish]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

 

[larry_boy_44]

how's this, sit down with yourself and ask yourself these questions:

Do you baptize in Jesus' name? (if the answer is "no" it is not a proper church and you should find someplace else)

Do you baptize in emersion? (if the answer is "no" you should find a different church since "baptize" is simply a transliteration of the greek word that actually means to dunk/immerse)

Do you believe there is one God? ("yes" is fine... "yes in three forms/persons" is good enough, it sucks but that terminology is not likely to go away anytime soon...)

Do you believe that speaking in tongues is still valid for the modern church? (if "no", wrong church...)

that's pretty much it... everything else is superfluous... the speaking in tongues question is just to see if it is spirit-filled or not (I know of no charismatic/spirit-filled churches that don't speak in tongues a little)

I gotta say LB....these are all examples of Religion getting in the way of your relaitonship with God. I gotta say, all these things you want us to sit down and ask ourselves have NO affect on our direct relationships with God with the exception of the Trinity. Everything else has no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Sorry to break it to you....

So you don't think actually obeying God's commands, rather than obeying the commands that idolaters have passed down through generations, is important?

Why don't you respond to what he said? Why do you ALWAYS take something someone has said and respond with something like "What your really saying is..." or "In other words you are saying...", etc., etc....When your version of their argument that you use in your response is nothing more than an incredibly weak example of what they really said, it's called "straw man arguing". And you do it frequently.

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

 

[larry_boy_44]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

 

[CrossEyed]

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

Yet another episode of Larry's Lessons on Legalism.

 

[Spartans Rule]

it is non-sensicle...

As is your spelling of nonsensical. Seriously. A hyphen?

 

[larry_boy_44]

it is non-sensicle...

As is your spelling of nonsensical. Seriously. A hyphen?

I don't really care... you know what I mean, I'm not all that worried about it...

should I be? Probably... but, eh... whatever...

nice to know you read the topic to proofread my posts, though, always nice to have that proofreader for things you write...

 

[The Commish]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

 

[The Commish]

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

Yet another episode of Larry's Lessons on Legalism.

He needs to become a politician....he'd fit right in.

 

[Dt's Mules]

Hello Zalf,

Well, please allow me to retort...

Real interesting thought from the one who started this thread.  Another in a long line of posts youve started trying to talk people out of christianity. 

The thread's original post had nothing to do with trying to talk anyone out of anything. It was simply an interview from an author promoting his book. A book that I happen to find interesting. The banter back and forth bubbled to the surface when some of our favorite players got involved. You know who they are.

First you start a post insinuating that since part of the Bible isnt in the earliest known forms of the Bible that the Bible as a whole must be invalid. 

hmm.. here's what I posted: I posted the author and his book, a little background on him, and then posted just one story in his book that he discusses... then I add: According to the book, this story was not in the original gospel manuscripts.. our oldest manuscripts of the bible do not have this story. It was likely a later addition by a scribe or church leader in later centuries. Sounds like an interesting book.

hmm.. nope. I can't find the words where I said the entire bible must be invalid because this story wasn't in the original texts. I just find it interesting. You should too.

Then you post a qoute from the Bible about how the Holy Spirit will come back and remind us of any of Jesus's teachings that we(mankind) miss or screwup, insinuating that since there are still disagreements about those teachings, that the Bible must be invalid.  Thats certainly playing it from both sides.

I'm not insinuating that the bible is necessarily invalid because these people can't agree. I'm simply asking the question of since Jesus said something would happen, where is the evidence that it happened? I like to quote the bible, as I don't hate the bible at all. I find it fascinating. Don't dislike me because I know what it contains.

According to you, the Bible is invalid if anything is added after the original but it is also invalid if nothing is added after the original. 

nonsense. The bible is valid for many things. Is it inspired by God? I don't think so. But it is truly a treasure and the most important set of literature in the history of mankind. The most influencial I would add. If by Invalid, you mean I don't think it is the infallible word of God, then yes. It is not infallible by any means.

To me, divine inspiration didnt end the first time the Bible was written and hopefully still isnt done.

That's because you are a Jehovas Witness. Maybe you should post some of your beliefs based on scripture (and whatever they let you talk about from the Watch Tower police). I wonder how the mainstream christian contingent here would reply to your world view.

The Bible is many different things to many different people.  Its can be either a loosely historically based book of fairy tales or a literal blueprint to salvation or anything inbetween.  It can be many different things to the same person depending on where in life that person is at any given time; even when the Bible hasnt changed during that persons life.  Man is the variable here, not the Bible.

no argument here. The bible means different things to different people. To me, the bible is not a collection of fairy tales. It is not 100% historical either. It is a collection of books, writings, poetry, etc about a group of people. I believe many of the stories are made up, but most of them are based on true events. The people, places and many events in the bible are historical, no question. However, I believe those stories were exaggerated (sometimes greatly) for effect to make a point.. usually politically, as writing of the time this was common practice. I don't believe anything supernatural occured in truth, but it always occured in the tales. The Old Testament is an epic journey of the nation of Israel. I believe it was written, written over, interpolated, corrected by later authors, patched together based on what was happening to the Jewish nation around Judah.. I believe the NT writers were living in a time of religious superstition and were influenced by other religions of the era who had god-men messiahs walking around performing miracles. This was apparently common around the first century CE.

I believe the NT writers borrowed bits and pieces of the OT scriptures to craft the hero of their stories. I'm not a Christ myther. I believe Jesus lived and even taught on earth. I believe he was an Essene who led a cult of followers teaching them reformed Judaism. I believe someone named Paul had a vision (which was also commonplace in the first century) that changed his life and I believe it was Paul who originated Christianity as we know it today. I believe Paul's Jesus was a spiritual being, not a physical person. But that's a long story.

The Bible is awesome. I enjoy reading it. And I agree with you that man is the culprit here, not the scriptures. My point is that man wrote the bible and man is errant and infallible.

Maybe Jesus should have wrote the bible himself..

You remain hung up on the Bible as historical literature, and not on the bigger picture.  You arent going to disprove faith by arguing the Bibles validity.  The Bible remains the most influential piece of literature in the history of man due to the message, not the words.  It was that way yesterday, it is that way today, and it will be that way tomorrow.

I'm not trying to disprove your faith, Zalf. Faith is a strong bond. That doesn't mean I can't interject some things that question why you might believe something. I look at the bible for what it is, a work of man. If you choose to look at it as the ultimate pathway to some eternal life that you are obsessed with once your life here on earth is done... good for you.

And if you want to discuss some of the things in the bible that convinced you that your faith is the true faith among all the others, then that would be fun too.

i've been staying out of this and catching up, but this is the best post i've come across thus far and had to put in my 2cents hereonly other comment is that i think you meant man is errant and fallible, not infallible

 

[Politician Spock]

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

It doesn't say that. That's just how you are reading it (and again rephrasing it into a weak representation of the orginal). It says:Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It's not the baptism that cleans us of our sin, but the name of Jesus Christ that cleans us of our sin. Again the greek word "onama" being interpreted into the English word "name" means

onoma

on'-om-ah

From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

It's God's authority that cleanses us, not the act of baptism. The baptism is for our benefit, not so that God can sit at the gates of Heaven like a scrunchy old man who says "ticket please" where the only acceptable ticket is our baptism meeting the right procedural requirements.

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

I've already been baptized, and I didn't do it disobediently. If someone says they are a believer and refuses to get baptized, I'd question if they really believe. If someone has been baptized and refuses to get baptized AGAIN because the think Larry is full of bunk, then I'd tell them "don't worry about it since his bunk is based on a lot of faulty logic".

 

[larry_boy_44]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

 

[The Commish]

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

It doesn't say that. That's just how you are reading it (and again rephrasing it into a weak representation of the orginal). It says:Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It's not the baptism that cleans us of our sin, but the name of Jesus Christ that cleans us of our sin. Again the greek word "onama" being interpreted into the English word "name" means

onoma

on'-om-ah

From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

It's God's authority that cleanses us, not the act of baptism. The baptism is for our benefit, not so that God can sit at the gates of Heaven like a scrunchy old man who says "ticket please" where the only acceptable ticket is our baptism meeting the right procedural requirements.

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

I've already been baptized, and I didn't do it disobediently. If someone says they are a believer and refuses to get baptized, I'd question if they really believe. If someone has been baptized and refuses to get baptized AGAIN because the think Larry is full of bunk, then I'd tell them "don't worry about it since his bunk is based on a lot of faulty logic".

I was beginning to think I wasn't saying it right....well put Spock

 

[The Commish]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I think I am beginning to understand your non-trinity theory.  I am not saying I agree with it, but see if I understand it -

1.  Jesus = God = Holy Spirit

2.  They are not separate, they are all the same thing just called by different name based on the function they are performing

3.  In the cases where all three are manifested at the same time (i.e., the baptism of Christ where he is being baptized, the spirit descends and the Father says he is well pleased) this does not make them separate personalities because of God's omnipresence.

4.  You believe that saying they are separate and yet one implies that there are 3 Gods which denies the passage "no other Gods".

5.  Any passage referring to plurality are possible mistranslations introduced by transcripting.

i think the first four are pretty accurate from what I have read from you, but #5 I had to make an assumption so correct me if I am wrong.

1-3 are 100% right...4 is true, although I would add the small note that when the trinity was first accepted it WAS polytheistic, even if that isn't true anymore, it definately should be noted by the modern church and we should work to "fix" and changes made upon the polytheistic foundation the Catholic "Church" had from ~300-1300 AD (give or take a smidge)...

five... I understand plurally referring to God at times... in OT and in his royalty, plurally referring to him makes sense (as referring to royalty often is done that way)... referring to Jesus and the Father as seperate when you personally knew Jesus as a man makes some sense, because it is a little confusing...

I think the best example of oneness is simply this:

Jesus is said to be the First and the Last (just like the Father is) and it is Jesus who is sitting on the throne of God in Revelation... There is one throne, and Jesus occupies it...

Remember, God is a Spirit... Jesus is God (a spirit (soul)) manifest in flesh... He made himself a body and lived among us and then died for us...

but, yeah, basically you have it right, I don't think 5 is, though, because I understand pluralistic terms given to God at times, we just absolutely need to realize that God is one, period... He can show Himself to us in different ways, but it is still, in the end, God that is shown whether it is through Father, Son, or Holy Spirit...

The thing that gets confusing though is when we have certain examples in the Bible such as Jesus baptism or Jesus' death on the cross. In the baptism example, I guess I can see where you could use the omnipresence of God to expalin how he could be in Heaven, descending as a dove and being baptized simultaneously. What about the death on the cross, though? If Jesus died and descended into Hell (maybe this is something that you disagree with because it may be based upon tradition) then you are saying that God died - who was running the show? Is it that his body died and his spirit descended into hell and if so did he really die? My question is probably confusing, but I am trying to grasp how oneness accounts for certain events of plurality.

 

[larry_boy_44]

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

It doesn't say that. That's just how you are reading it (and again rephrasing it into a weak representation of the orginal). It says:Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It's not the baptism that cleans us of our sin, but the name of Jesus Christ that cleans us of our sin. Again the greek word "onama" being interpreted into the English word "name" means

onoma

on'-om-ah

From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

It's God's authority that cleanses us, not the act of baptism. The baptism is for our benefit, not so that God can sit at the gates of Heaven like a scrunchy old man who says "ticket please" where the only acceptable ticket is our baptism meeting the right procedural requirements.

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

I've already been baptized, and I didn't do it disobediently. If someone says they are a believer and refuses to get baptized, I'd question if they really believe. If someone has been baptized and refuses to get baptized AGAIN because the think Larry is full of bunk, then I'd tell them "don't worry about it since his bunk is based on a lot of faulty logic".

do you know what a "prepositional phrase" is??? 7th grade English (at the absolute latest, it was probably well before that) taught me thishrase:

be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins

now, let's mark off prepositional phrases in "(" and ")" ok?

be baptized everyone (of you) (in the name) (of Jesus) (for the remission) (of sins)

those prepositional phrases are either describing the subject (the people), the verb (be baptized), or the predicate (everyone)...

ok, so, "of you" is describing the predicate...

the other 4 are describing the verb and clarifying what exactly needs to be done and what it does...

 

[larry_boy_44]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

 

[Dt's Mules]

i'm just on page 6 of 11 while typing this but has anyone said:

larry, you readily except that certain passages of the bible were altered, correct? then how do you know that other passages weren't altered? which is kind of the point of the initial post, right?

 

[Politician Spock]

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

It doesn't say that. That's just how you are reading it (and again rephrasing it into a weak representation of the orginal). It says:Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It's not the baptism that cleans us of our sin, but the name of Jesus Christ that cleans us of our sin. Again the greek word "onama" being interpreted into the English word "name" means

onoma

on'-om-ah

From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

It's God's authority that cleanses us, not the act of baptism. The baptism is for our benefit, not so that God can sit at the gates of Heaven like a scrunchy old man who says "ticket please" where the only acceptable ticket is our baptism meeting the right procedural requirements.

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

I've already been baptized, and I didn't do it disobediently. If someone says they are a believer and refuses to get baptized, I'd question if they really believe. If someone has been baptized and refuses to get baptized AGAIN because the think Larry is full of bunk, then I'd tell them "don't worry about it since his bunk is based on a lot of faulty logic".

do you know what a "prepositional phrase" is??? 7th grade English (at the absolute latest, it was probably well before that) taught me thishrase:

be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins

now, let's mark off prepositional phrases in "(" and ")" ok?

be baptized everyone (of you) (in the name) (of Jesus) (for the remission) (of sins)

those prepositional phrases are either describing the subject (the people), the verb (be baptized), or the predicate (everyone)...

ok, so, "of you" is describing the predicate...

the other 4 are describing the verb and clarifying what exactly needs to be done and what it does...

Do you realize that other languages don't go by the same sentence structure as English?Also do you realize that water has obsolutely no power to wash away our sins without the name (authority) of God? It doesn't matter if you dunk in it, shower in it, bathe in it, drink it, gargle it, brew it, boil it, freeze it, steam it, or pee in it.... water has no power to wash aways sins any which way you chose to use it. God's authority (his name) washes away our sins, and baptism is symbolic to us as believers of that happening.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think I am beginning to understand your non-trinity theory.  I am not saying I agree with it, but see if I understand it -

1.  Jesus = God = Holy Spirit

2.  They are not separate, they are all the same thing just called by different name based on the function they are performing

3.  In the cases where all three are manifested at the same time (i.e., the baptism of Christ where he is being baptized, the spirit descends and the Father says he is well pleased) this does not make them separate personalities because of God's omnipresence.

4.  You believe that saying they are separate and yet one implies that there are 3 Gods which denies the passage "no other Gods".

5.  Any passage referring to plurality are possible mistranslations introduced by transcripting.

i think the first four are pretty accurate from what I have read from you, but #5 I had to make an assumption so correct me if I am wrong.

1-3 are 100% right...4 is true, although I would add the small note that when the trinity was first accepted it WAS polytheistic, even if that isn't true anymore, it definately should be noted by the modern church and we should work to "fix" and changes made upon the polytheistic foundation the Catholic "Church" had from ~300-1300 AD (give or take a smidge)...

five... I understand plurally referring to God at times... in OT and in his royalty, plurally referring to him makes sense (as referring to royalty often is done that way)... referring to Jesus and the Father as seperate when you personally knew Jesus as a man makes some sense, because it is a little confusing...

I think the best example of oneness is simply this:

Jesus is said to be the First and the Last (just like the Father is) and it is Jesus who is sitting on the throne of God in Revelation... There is one throne, and Jesus occupies it...

Remember, God is a Spirit... Jesus is God (a spirit (soul)) manifest in flesh... He made himself a body and lived among us and then died for us...

but, yeah, basically you have it right, I don't think 5 is, though, because I understand pluralistic terms given to God at times, we just absolutely need to realize that God is one, period... He can show Himself to us in different ways, but it is still, in the end, God that is shown whether it is through Father, Son, or Holy Spirit...

The thing that gets confusing though is when we have certain examples in the Bible such as Jesus baptism or Jesus' death on the cross. In the baptism example, I guess I can see where you could use the omnipresence of God to expalin how he could be in Heaven, descending as a dove and being baptized simultaneously. What about the death on the cross, though? If Jesus died and descended into Hell (maybe this is something that you disagree with because it may be based upon tradition) then you are saying that God died - who was running the show? Is it that his body died and his spirit descended into hell and if so did he really die? My question is probably confusing, but I am trying to grasp how oneness accounts for certain events of plurality.

well, for one, the hell that we descibe (eternal firy damnation and seperation from God) isn't the hell that Jesus went to...Jesus just went to where people were waiting for judgement (where everyone who dies go), it is possible that this is what Jesus was describing to the thief (although that would be kinda dishonest...)

Jesus didn't go to a place where God's presence wasn't, He didn't go to where there is gnashing of teeth and darkness and all that... He went to where the people were that were waiting for judgement (read: everyone who had already died)...

thus, God, in His omnipresence was still everyone, even while Jesus (as a man) went down into Hades...

does that make sense? (I'm honestly asking, 'cuz I want to make sure that my position makes sense (whether you agree with it or not... so feel free to ask for clarification on any point...)

 

[The Commish]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

Ok...we aren't getting anywhere going this path. Let's try another. Show me in the Bible where the act of submersing someone completely in water is the ONLY way to demonstrate one's commitment to God via baptism.

 

[larry_boy_44]

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

It doesn't say that. That's just how you are reading it (and again rephrasing it into a weak representation of the orginal). It says:Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It's not the baptism that cleans us of our sin, but the name of Jesus Christ that cleans us of our sin. Again the greek word "onama" being interpreted into the English word "name" means

onoma

on'-om-ah

From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

It's God's authority that cleanses us, not the act of baptism. The baptism is for our benefit, not so that God can sit at the gates of Heaven like a scrunchy old man who says "ticket please" where the only acceptable ticket is our baptism meeting the right procedural requirements.

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

I've already been baptized, and I didn't do it disobediently. If someone says they are a believer and refuses to get baptized, I'd question if they really believe. If someone has been baptized and refuses to get baptized AGAIN because the think Larry is full of bunk, then I'd tell them "don't worry about it since his bunk is based on a lot of faulty logic".

do you know what a "prepositional phrase" is??? 7th grade English (at the absolute latest, it was probably well before that) taught me thishrase:

be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins

now, let's mark off prepositional phrases in "(" and ")" ok?

be baptized everyone (of you) (in the name) (of Jesus) (for the remission) (of sins)

those prepositional phrases are either describing the subject (the people), the verb (be baptized), or the predicate (everyone)...

ok, so, "of you" is describing the predicate...

the other 4 are describing the verb and clarifying what exactly needs to be done and what it does...

Do you realize that other languages don't go by the same sentence structure as English?Also do you realize that water has obsolutely no power to wash away our sins without the name (authority) of God? It doesn't matter if you dunk in it, shower in it, bathe in it, drink it, gargle it, brew it, boil it, freeze it, steam it, or pee in it.... water has no power to wash aways sins any which way you chose to use it. God's authority (his name) washes away our sins, and baptism is symbolic to us as believers of that happening.

i am aware that it isn't the water, but the washing is symbolic of the basin in the OT Tabernacle...wihtout the washing, we will still die when we enter the Holy of Holies, thus we need it...

It is the Power of Jesus' name and His blood that cleans us, and the baptism is symbolic of that... but just because it is nothing more than symbolic doesn't mean it isn't necessary...

 

[Politician Spock]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

Where's the conspiracy that couldn't continue without the new word?

 

[Dt's Mules]

Let me be blunt:

I've shown you Matthew 28:19 said "My name" originally, you know the original church baptized in Jesus' name...

SO why in the world have you not sucked it up and gotten dunked in the name of Jesus???

The answer is simple: You are neglecting the true commands of God for the traditions that you have been given by men...

How do you know the commands you believe to be true are actually true? If Matthew 28:19 was changed, is it not possible that other verses have been changed as well? I know that discovering that a part of the bible had been changed would make me more hesitant to believe that the rest of the book is the literal word of God, but it seems to have no effect on you.

 

[Politician Spock]

for one, he didn't really say much, his next post had a much better argument (and one I could talk about on point)...

No Larry, you didn't really listen much, which is why he had to post again in more detail.

for two, that is basically what he was saying... That God's commands don't need to be exactly followed, that He is ok with our crappy submission that really isn't submission to Him at all...

No, he didn't say that at all! He said your examples have no bearing on being saved and being in a relationship with God. Once you are saved and in that relationship, THEN obedience becomes important.

You tell your kid to clean his room and make his bed and vacuum and such... and all he does is throw the toys on the floor under his bed, did he really clean it? Of course not...

Why do we think that we can do small bits and pieces of God's commands and it still be ok?

Because I don't expel my son from the family for disobedience. I discipline him. You seem to think God's discipline for disobedience is expulsion from Heaven. That would mean that His grace is not sufficient. And it would also leave no one knowing if they are saved or not because even 99% obedience is still 1% disobedience which will get you expelled.

sin gets you expelled from heaven, Spock, and the bible states that baptism is for remission of sins (Acts 2:38)...

It doesn't say that. That's just how you are reading it (and again rephrasing it into a weak representation of the orginal). It says:Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

It's not the baptism that cleans us of our sin, but the name of Jesus Christ that cleans us of our sin. Again the greek word "onama" being interpreted into the English word "name" means

onoma

on'-om-ah

From a presumed derivative of the base of G1097 (compare G3685); a “name” (literally or figuratively), (authority, character): - called, (+ sur-) name (-d).

It's God's authority that cleanses us, not the act of baptism. The baptism is for our benefit, not so that God can sit at the gates of Heaven like a scrunchy old man who says "ticket please" where the only acceptable ticket is our baptism meeting the right procedural requirements.

and un-repentant sin is unforgiven (repentance is turning away from sin and seeking to do better actively)... You can't actively seek to stop your disobedience in not being baptized without trying to get baptized (and it is pretty hard to fail in finding someone who will dunk you in Jesus' name)

I've already been baptized, and I didn't do it disobediently. If someone says they are a believer and refuses to get baptized, I'd question if they really believe. If someone has been baptized and refuses to get baptized AGAIN because the think Larry is full of bunk, then I'd tell them "don't worry about it since his bunk is based on a lot of faulty logic".

do you know what a "prepositional phrase" is??? 7th grade English (at the absolute latest, it was probably well before that) taught me thishrase:

be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins

now, let's mark off prepositional phrases in "(" and ")" ok?

be baptized everyone (of you) (in the name) (of Jesus) (for the remission) (of sins)

those prepositional phrases are either describing the subject (the people), the verb (be baptized), or the predicate (everyone)...

ok, so, "of you" is describing the predicate...

the other 4 are describing the verb and clarifying what exactly needs to be done and what it does...

Do you realize that other languages don't go by the same sentence structure as English?Also do you realize that water has obsolutely no power to wash away our sins without the name (authority) of God? It doesn't matter if you dunk in it, shower in it, bathe in it, drink it, gargle it, brew it, boil it, freeze it, steam it, or pee in it.... water has no power to wash aways sins any which way you chose to use it. God's authority (his name) washes away our sins, and baptism is symbolic to us as believers of that happening.

i am aware that it isn't the water, but the washing is symbolic of the basin in the OT Tabernacle...wihtout the washing, we will still die when we enter the Holy of Holies, thus we need it...

It is the Power of Jesus' name and His blood that cleans us, and the baptism is symbolic of that... but just because it is nothing more than symbolic doesn't mean it isn't necessary...

If it's nothing more than symbolic, and God requires it for salvation, then God is subject to symbolism. OUCH!

 

[larry_boy_44]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

Ok...we aren't getting anywhere going this path. Let's try another. Show me in the Bible where the act of submersing someone completely in water is the ONLY way to demonstrate one's commitment to God via baptism.

that is what baptism means... It wasn't a word meaning the sacrament that we use it as now until it was started to be translated..."baptizo" the word used there simply means "to be dunked"...

Strong says:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm

++++

Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

look at the second definition of "baptizo"... to make clean by dipping or submerging...This is the word that was used in Greek... so how did it become sprinkling? Because sprinkling absolutely has nothing to do with what this word means...

 

[larry_boy_44]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

Where's the conspiracy that couldn't continue without the new word?

the simple fact that all the people who were sprinkled weren't baptized...

 

[Politician Spock]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

 

[Spartans Rule]

it is non-sensicle...

As is your spelling of nonsensical. Seriously. A hyphen?

I don't really care... you know what I mean, I'm not all that worried about it...

should I be? Probably... but, eh... whatever...

nice to know you read the topic to proofread my posts, though, always nice to have that proofreader for things you write...

I read your posts mostly for the trainwreck aspect.Keep up the good work.

 

[Politician Spock]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

Where's the conspiracy that couldn't continue without the new word?

the simple fact that all the people who were sprinkled weren't baptized...

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

 

[larry_boy_44]

If it's nothing more than symbolic, and God requires it for salvation, then God is subject to symbolism.

OUCH!

What in the world do you think all of this is?He tells them to sacrifice animals and sprinkle blood on a golden alter that He tells them how to make... That was symbolism, do you think that the actual blood of the animal going on the alter actually washed away thier sins? Or is that what God told them to do for Him to forgive them?

God MADE THE RULES!!! He decided how sins were forgiven, He decided blood was needed... He wanted to come to earth and die as our sacrificial lamb to forgive us of our sins...

THIS IS ALL SYMBOLISM!! None of it is truely exact, it is all symbolic of things that happen... Jesus wasn't really a lamb, He didn't go "bah", He didn't have sheep and rams as His parents, He was a human... SO THAT WAS SYMBOLIC!!!

its all symbolic, Spock, and God set the symbols up and decided on the rules, we just need to follow them...

 

[Dt's Mules]

we were kind talking about this in my religion class, and the question came up was like, would you still believe if Jesus didn't actually walk on water? And I was like "yes"...

so the question was "What is necessary to have happened at minimum" and, honestly, the only thing I really absolutely believe happened is the ressurection, I don't even care about the rest of it, ya know?

Did He walk on water? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He heal those lepers? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Jarius' daughter? Did Jarius or his daughter even exist? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

Did He raise Lazurus from the dead? I think so, but it doesn't matter...

then how to you decide what does matter from a book that by your own admission has been altered? or are you simply convinced that your version of the book hasn't been altered at all?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

 

[larry_boy_44]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

 

[Politician Spock]

If it's nothing more than symbolic, and God requires it for salvation, then God is subject to symbolism.

OUCH!

What in the world do you think all of this is?He tells them to sacrifice animals and sprinkle blood on a golden alter that He tells them how to make... That was symbolism, do you think that the actual blood of the animal going on the alter actually washed away thier sins? Or is that what God told them to do for Him to forgive them?

God MADE THE RULES!!! He decided how sins were forgiven, He decided blood was needed... He wanted to come to earth and die as our sacrificial lamb to forgive us of our sins...

THIS IS ALL SYMBOLISM!! None of it is truely exact, it is all symbolic of things that happen... Jesus wasn't really a lamb, He didn't go "bah", He didn't have sheep and rams as His parents, He was a human... SO THAT WAS SYMBOLIC!!!

its all symbolic, Spock, and God set the symbols up and decided on the rules, we just need to follow them...

You sound excatly like the Pharisees!!!!!!! They missed the boat because executing the symbolism was so important to them that they completely missed knowing God.

 

[Politician Spock]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

 

[The Commish]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point? If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish - you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

Ok...we aren't getting anywhere going this path. Let's try another. Show me in the Bible where the act of submersing someone completely in water is the ONLY way to demonstrate one's commitment to God via baptism.

that is what baptism means... It wasn't a word meaning the sacrament that we use it as now until it was started to be translated..."baptizo" the word used there simply means "to be dunked"...

Strong says:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm

++++

Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

look at the second definition of "baptizo"... to make clean by dipping or submerging...This is the word that was used in Greek... so how did it become sprinkling? Because sprinkling absolutely has nothing to do with what this word means...

Ok...you want to continue down this path....here we go:Just a little bit of looking tells me that "Baptizo" is an intensified variation of "Bapto" which means TO DROWN!!!!!

So, we all need to show our dedication to God by being drown!! LB....face it....you are allowing religion to get in the way. Here's more on what your definition is based on:

Baptizo is an intensified form of bapto—the Greeks had ways of sticking in a few extra letters and intensifying a word. Baptizo is used many, many times in the New Testament; many, many times. It means "to dip completely" and it’s the Greek word for "drowning’; that shows you how complete the dipping is, potentially.

 

[Politician Spock]

all the people conspired? Conspired to do what?

they changed things and didn't translate "baptizo" into English to hide the fact that htey were lying to the people and that no one was following Jesus like they were being told they were....

So my relationship with Jesus depends on the intent of those who shared Jesus with me? That's ludicrous.

Oh wait, you think exectuing symbolism is more important than actually knowing God, so of course the above would make sense to you.

 

[The Commish]

Larry_Boy....might I suggest you read as much as you can on this. Here is a fantastic site to show you what we are all trying to explain to you.

http://www.monergism.com/

It has more stuff there than I will be able to digest in a lifetime.

 

[larry_boy_44]

If it's nothing more than symbolic, and God requires it for salvation, then God is subject to symbolism.

OUCH!

What in the world do you think all of this is?He tells them to sacrifice animals and sprinkle blood on a golden alter that He tells them how to make... That was symbolism, do you think that the actual blood of the animal going on the alter actually washed away thier sins? Or is that what God told them to do for Him to forgive them?

God MADE THE RULES!!! He decided how sins were forgiven, He decided blood was needed... He wanted to come to earth and die as our sacrificial lamb to forgive us of our sins...

THIS IS ALL SYMBOLISM!! None of it is truely exact, it is all symbolic of things that happen... Jesus wasn't really a lamb, He didn't go "bah", He didn't have sheep and rams as His parents, He was a human... SO THAT WAS SYMBOLIC!!!

its all symbolic, Spock, and God set the symbols up and decided on the rules, we just need to follow them...

You sound excatly like the Pharisees!!!!!!! They missed the boat because executing the symbolism was so important to them that they completely missed knowing God.

you realize I can say the same thing about you, too, right?You are focusing more on your traditions than what God actually commanded (also what the Pharisees did)

the Pharisees ADDED to what God commanded, there is nothign wrong with following God's commands (we should do that)... and I am not solely focused on following orders, trust me, I'm not...

but saying that there are a few specific things that we MUST do is not being legalistic, its saying that God made a few commands, it isn't that hard to follow them...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Strong says:

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Larry, you should really ponder what you posted above and consider what he means by "this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism"

but yet, for 1000 years, everyone was dunked when they had this done...hmmm... maybe because the dunking (and thus washing) is symbolic of what is happening spiritually?

They could do it for 100,000 years and that wouldn't make the word refer more often to our water baptism than to our union and identification with Christ.

and thus you prove that you don't care what God said, you only care what your tradition says...

 

[larry_boy_44]

You realize that the word "baptize" isn't a word, right? It was made a word when the Bible was being translated into English from the Greek word "baptizo"...

The Greek word means "to submerse or dunk"...

that is why baptism must be through "dunking", because that is what the word means, it is only a sacrament to hide the change that the Catholics made in the 10th century from dunking to sprinkling...

Baptize isn't a word?? That's news to me. I'll pull some LB logic here. What word in the English language IS a word then. I'd wager a guess that 90% of our words we use today are derivitives of ancient languages. If that is the case, then MOST words aren't words. I fail to understand what you prove with this post. What's your point?

If I am reading you correctly, you are saying since "Baptize" isn't a word and the word it came from meant to dunk, then the only acceptable method of baptism is dunking? Is that correct? When you restrict the WAY you exhault God and show respect and appreciation towards him, it is ALWAYS because of religion. I seriously doubt that God would shun a person because they weren't dunked at their baptism, nor would he think they were better people because they were dunked. Why do I believe that? Because the Bible doesn't give me any reason to think any differently.

Commish - you have to be dunked because "baptizo" the Greek word that Peter used (and Jesus used and everyone else used) meant to do that...

In the 10th Century the CAtholic Church decided they didn't want to dunk people (a huge reason for this is that they wanted to start baptizing babies and you can't dunk babies)...

So, then, 500 years later, when people were translating the Bibles (specifically the King James Bible) they didn't translate "baptizo" to "dunk" or "immerse" because they would have gotten in trouble with the religious authorities, 'cuz you can't say "I dunk you in Jesus' name" and then sprinkle some water on someone, it is non-sensicle...

The reason baptism is called a sacrament now, and there is a big ceremony around it, is simply because if they didn't do that, they'd have to admit how bogus it is to sprinkle someone while saying "I dunk you in Jesus name" (or even the titles, really) because that is waht you are saying when you say you are baptizing someone...

The reason that you should be dunking people is because that is what the word means... that's like saying "I'm gonna go play football" and bringing a bat and a baseball with you, you can call it whatever youw ant but you simply are not playing football if you are using a bat and a baseball...

I can appreciate the fact that all the biblical accounts of baptism were of the submerssion variety, but that does NOT exclude other forms. I'm sorry....it doesn't. It's like saying that the only way you can mourn your father's death is to be on your knees beside his grave for 43 minutes and anything other than that is not mourning. There is NOTHING in the Bible that says you have to do these specific things to be baptized. You can't argue with that. RELIGION tells us that submerssion is the only way and all others are wrong. Nothing else.

commish -

you are seeing this wrong...

its like saying you "cried in mourning over your fathers death" when you never actually shed a tear... You can't cry without shedding a tear...

the word "baptizo" the Greek word used in the Bible is nothing more than a word that means "to dunk or emmerse" that's it...

it is used at other times in the Bible other than when they are talking about baptism, and it always is translated as "dip" or "dunk" or something like that...

like I said, its like saying you are going to go play football, but bringing a bat and a baseball with you... You can call it football all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually are playing football...

It isn't religion and it isn't semantics, it is the actual meaning of the word that we are using... The word was only made an English word to hide the fact that sprinkling is not baptism...

I am the first to admit that I haven't studied the origin of most words in the English language, but what are your sources for the bolded conspiracy around "sprinkling"??

the fact that the Greek word "baptizo" means "to dunk or immerse"... The fact that in the story of the man who went to hell and begged for some water (don't remember where, I think the guy was named Lazurus) when he asks for the cup to be dipped in water, the word used there is "baptizo" just like in Acts, only this time it was translated into "dipped" (something like that)

and the fact that ALL baptisms were done through immersion until about the 10th century...

Ok...we aren't getting anywhere going this path. Let's try another. Show me in the Bible where the act of submersing someone completely in water is the ONLY way to demonstrate one's commitment to God via baptism.

that is what baptism means... It wasn't a word meaning the sacrament that we use it as now until it was started to be translated...

"baptizo" the word used there simply means "to be dunked"...

Strong says:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm

++++

Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

look at the second definition of "baptizo"... to make clean by dipping or submerging...

This is the word that was used in Greek... so how did it become sprinkling? Because sprinkling absolutely has nothing to do with what this word means...

Ok...you want to continue down this path....here we go:

Just a little bit of looking tells me that "Baptizo" is an intensified variation of "Bapto" which means TO DROWN!!!!!

So, we all need to show our dedication to God by being drown!! LB....face it....you are allowing religion to get in the way. Here's more on what your definition is based on:

Baptizo is an intensified form of bapto—the Greeks had ways of sticking in a few extra letters and intensifying a word. Baptizo is used many, many times in the New Testament; many, many times. It means "to dip completely" and it’s the Greek word for "drowning’; that shows you how complete the dipping is, potentially.

wrong, baptizo means to dip and CAUSE A CHANGE in what you are dipping... read the part about the 2nd century recipe... you bapto (dip) it and the baptizo (dip & change) it...