The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Ok...I am tapping out. I see two things clearly now.

#1. LB is still working on his faith in the Bible. There is no other explanation for his Conspiracy Theory trail he is venturing down.

#2. It doesn't matter what is thrown at LB. It all comes to who's right and who's wrong and that, by definition is judgemental, and I simply can't participate in that kind of banter.

Good Luck Spock...you're gonna need it and I am STILL going to pray for your LB...even though you don't think you need it.

 

[Politician Spock]

I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

Don't you think it's dangerous to behave like the Pharisees?

yes, Spock, your phariseutical behavior where you forget about God in favor of tradition is bad...

I want to , but this is just sad. You do realize that the self rigtheousness of the Pharisees was based on their assumption that following the strict letter of the law as much as possible put one in good standing with God, yes? And that Jesus many times said that the Pharisees, who's behavior followed the law strictly, have missed the boat?

Do the Pharisees sound more like a Christian who believes God will save all those who believe in Him, or a Christian who believes God will save only those who have followed His commands strictly?

You realize you are wrong, right?Jesus didn't get on the Pharisees because they followed the Law, following the Law is GOOD... Heck, I'd say any Chrisitan who decided to, themselves, follow the entire law would be doing a good thing today...

The Pharisees were bad because they ADDED to the law, because they added thier own interpretations and traditions on top of the law and followed those. They were more worried about looking righteous to the people rather than doing right before God...

I don't say we should be emersed at baptism so people can see me get dunked and be wet, I say it because God commanded it, what I am doing is NOTHING like what the pharisees did...

You, however, are sticking to your own later interpretation of the command and tradition that is related to the command rather than obeying God's actual command itself. That, my friend, is exactly what Jesus told the pharisees they were wrong for doing...

Following the law is good Larry. I never said it wasn't. And I agree with you about the Pharisees adding their own interpretations and tradition on top of the law and followed those. This (in addition to other issues) is exactly what you are doing. Your interpretation that baptism is required for salvation is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said do it. One can only insinuate (add on top of) that He requires it for salvation. Your interpretation that baptism must be a "dunking" and all other form of baptism will be rejected by Christ is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said to get dunked. He never said he would reject everything that is not a dunking. You say others are following tradition, but it's you that is promoting that a "traditional" way is the only acceptable way. You argue your case that everyone in Acts got dunked, and that everyone for 1000 years got dunked, and then the Church modified the definition. Then dunking is the traditional way, and you are saying it's the only acceptable way BASED ON TRADITION, and the new way that the Church began allowing is not acceptable.But really where the Pharisees miss the boat (and you as well) is placing law as more important than a relationship with God. Following the law was more important to the Pharisees than having a relationship with God. That's not what God wants. The order of importance is this:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mar 12:28-31)

Now you can come back and say that of course loving God is more important than a baptism done with correct procedures. But that's not any different than the Pharisees claiming that they loved God more than the law they followed strictly. Their behavior (and yours) spoke far greater than their claims (and yours) ever could. The heart of the matter in your argument is this, if ### ####s a person to hell because their baptism didn't follow strict procedure or because they didn't have a chance to get baptized, then the above commandment is NOT the greatest commandment because even following that commandment one is trumped by failure to follow other commandments - baptism.

Edit to say: The filter caught me and I was using it literally and not swearing.

Let see is "Jesus damns" is filtered.

 

[larry_boy_44]

the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...

I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...

Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you.

you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...

There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.

When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?

Then this is documented some place....show me. It's pretty simple. Just a warning though...you are treading on the conspiracy theorist line here. I am not sure what Dogma you are speaking of as I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and the only thing that I have to go on is the Bible. With that said, I am STILL WAITING on the scripture in the Bible that says the right and wrong way to observe Baptism. This is the FOURTH time I have asked. I will take that scripture or the pages erased (per your insinuation) that prove what you are talking about. I have not found any documents given forth by the Holy Catholic Church that would support your argument...that's what I have a problem with.

the Bible tells us what is the right and wrong baptism in a few ways...1. The word used had nothign to do with a sacrament of the same name and was simply saying, in thier language, "dunk them in Jesus' name"

2. The Apostles state that htere is only "one baptism" and that's it... ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism")

3. historically, Biblically, and in any other way that we can ever find, baptism was ALWAYS done by emersion in Jesus name until well after Jesus' death (read: 500+ years)

there ARE conspiracy theories... I've documented that Matthew 28:19 was edited to "prove" the new wording the Catholics adopted centuries after Jesus' death... they cahnged it from emersion to sprinkling at about the same time, that is history...

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html

both those sites talk about baptism and/or Matthew 28:19 and it being edited...

the part of the Bible that was "erased" that shows us how to baptize correctly is the actual word used by Jesus & Peter & Paul. See, the church made a "sacrament" that used the exact same word as its name, thus the meaning of the word was eliminated, it no longer menat that, now it meant a "sacrament".

The only problem is that the sacrament is not what was done by the original church, and we all know that...

And as far as dogma goes, whether you like it or not you are following dogma when you sprinkle at baptism or baptize in the titles, because both fo those beliefs originated as Catholic dogma before they edited them into the Bible...

I'll say it one more time.....I don't see anything in the Holy Catholic Church that would indicate you are correct. What part of that don't you understand? If you are correct, and I am not saying you are wrong, there would be evidence in the Holy Catholic Church doctrine, right? Show it to me.

you don't find proof that they edited the text of Matthew 28:19 as evidence??I mean, what do you want? Do you want me to find the part of the catechism that says "WARNING!! ALL WHO BELIEVE THIS ARE GOING TO HELL"??? 'cuz that doens't exist...

stop putting up impossible walls that I have to scale to prove this, give me something that is possible, because what you are asking for now is not doable... the simple fact that it is preached that baptism in Jesus' name through emersion is not the only correct baptism is anti-Biblical...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Ok...I am tapping out. I see two things clearly now.

#1. LB is still working on his faith in the Bible. There is no other explanation for his Conspiracy Theory trail he is venturing down.

#2. It doesn't matter what is thrown at LB. It all comes to who's right and who's wrong and that, by definition is judgemental, and I simply can't participate in that kind of banter.

Good Luck Spock...you're gonna need it and I am STILL going to pray for your LB...even though you don't think you need it.

nice job being judgemental (saying I'm wrong)... just a thought...

 

[larry_boy_44]

I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

Don't you think it's dangerous to behave like the Pharisees?

yes, Spock, your phariseutical behavior where you forget about God in favor of tradition is bad...

I want to , but this is just sad. You do realize that the self rigtheousness of the Pharisees was based on their assumption that following the strict letter of the law as much as possible put one in good standing with God, yes? And that Jesus many times said that the Pharisees, who's behavior followed the law strictly, have missed the boat?

Do the Pharisees sound more like a Christian who believes God will save all those who believe in Him, or a Christian who believes God will save only those who have followed His commands strictly?

You realize you are wrong, right?Jesus didn't get on the Pharisees because they followed the Law, following the Law is GOOD... Heck, I'd say any Chrisitan who decided to, themselves, follow the entire law would be doing a good thing today...

The Pharisees were bad because they ADDED to the law, because they added thier own interpretations and traditions on top of the law and followed those. They were more worried about looking righteous to the people rather than doing right before God...

I don't say we should be emersed at baptism so people can see me get dunked and be wet, I say it because God commanded it, what I am doing is NOTHING like what the pharisees did...

You, however, are sticking to your own later interpretation of the command and tradition that is related to the command rather than obeying God's actual command itself. That, my friend, is exactly what Jesus told the pharisees they were wrong for doing...

Following the law is good Larry. I never said it wasn't. And I agree with you about the Pharisees adding their own interpretations and tradition on top of the law and followed those. This (in addition to other issues) is exactly what you are doing. Your interpretation that baptism is required for salvation is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said do it. One can only insinuate (add on top of) that He requires it for salvation. Your interpretation that baptism must be a "dunking" and all other form of baptism will be rejected by Christ is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said to get dunked. He never said he would reject everything that is not a dunking. You say others are following tradition, but it's you that is promoting that a "traditional" way is the only acceptable way. You argue your case that everyone in Acts got dunked, and that everyone for 1000 years got dunked, and then the Church modified the definition. Then dunking is the traditional way, and you are saying it's the only acceptable way BASED ON TRADITION, and the new way that the Church began allowing is not acceptable.But really where the Pharisees miss the boat (and you as well) is placing law as more important than a relationship with God. Following the law was more important to the Pharisees than having a relationship with God. That's not what God wants. The order of importance is this:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mar 12:28-31)

Now you can come back and say that of course loving God is more important than a baptism done with correct procedures. But that's not any different than the Pharisees claiming that they loved God more than the law they followed strictly. Their behavior (and yours) spoke far greater than their claims (and yours) ever could. The heart of the matter in your argument is this, if ### ####s a person to hell because their baptism didn't follow strict procedure or because they didn't have a chance to get baptized, then the above commandment is NOT the greatest commandment because even following that commandment one is trumped by failure to follow other commandments - baptism.

Edit to say: The filter caught me and I was using it literally and not swearing.

Let see is "Jesus damns" is filtered.

Spock - are you seeing what you are doing? You are holding YOUR TRADITION over Scripture... You are saying that I am adding tradition to TRADITION, what?dunking is not the traditional way, it is the COMMANDED way... the greek word used in Acts and Matthew 28:19 and elsewhere means to dunk someone... that's the whole point, it was made into a "right' and all of that to hide the fact that you are being lied to...

When Jesus told them to baptize people, he wasn't telling them to perform some ritual, he was LITERALLY TELLING THEM TO DUNK THIER CONVERTS IN JESUS' NAME!! Yes, it had spiritual/ceremonial/symbolic significance and wasn't just dunking someone for no reason, but that doesn't change the fact that all He did was tell them to dunk people...

which is the whole problem with Sprinkling, they weren't told to perform a right, they were told to do something specific... The Catholic Church CHANGED that and now you, following your tradition and not God's command, still hold to that.

If you really loved God, Spock, you'd obey what He said to do and not the tradition that your church has given to you...

But you aren't... and why? Because it appeases you and you really don't want to give your life...

 

[The Commish]

the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...

I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...

Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you.

you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...

There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.

When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?

Then this is documented some place....show me. It's pretty simple. Just a warning though...you are treading on the conspiracy theorist line here. I am not sure what Dogma you are speaking of as I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and the only thing that I have to go on is the Bible. With that said, I am STILL WAITING on the scripture in the Bible that says the right and wrong way to observe Baptism. This is the FOURTH time I have asked. I will take that scripture or the pages erased (per your insinuation) that prove what you are talking about. I have not found any documents given forth by the Holy Catholic Church that would support your argument...that's what I have a problem with.

the Bible tells us what is the right and wrong baptism in a few ways...1. The word used had nothign to do with a sacrament of the same name and was simply saying, in thier language, "dunk them in Jesus' name"

2. The Apostles state that htere is only "one baptism" and that's it... ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism")

3. historically, Biblically, and in any other way that we can ever find, baptism was ALWAYS done by emersion in Jesus name until well after Jesus' death (read: 500+ years)

there ARE conspiracy theories... I've documented that Matthew 28:19 was edited to "prove" the new wording the Catholics adopted centuries after Jesus' death... they cahnged it from emersion to sprinkling at about the same time, that is history...

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html

both those sites talk about baptism and/or Matthew 28:19 and it being edited...

the part of the Bible that was "erased" that shows us how to baptize correctly is the actual word used by Jesus & Peter & Paul. See, the church made a "sacrament" that used the exact same word as its name, thus the meaning of the word was eliminated, it no longer menat that, now it meant a "sacrament".

The only problem is that the sacrament is not what was done by the original church, and we all know that...

And as far as dogma goes, whether you like it or not you are following dogma when you sprinkle at baptism or baptize in the titles, because both fo those beliefs originated as Catholic dogma before they edited them into the Bible...

I'll say it one more time.....I don't see anything in the Holy Catholic Church that would indicate you are correct. What part of that don't you understand? If you are correct, and I am not saying you are wrong, there would be evidence in the Holy Catholic Church doctrine, right? Show it to me.

you don't find proof that they edited the text of Matthew 28:19 as evidence??I mean, what do you want? Do you want me to find the part of the catechism that says "WARNING!! ALL WHO BELIEVE THIS ARE GOING TO HELL"??? 'cuz that doens't exist...

stop putting up impossible walls that I have to scale to prove this, give me something that is possible, because what you are asking for now is not doable... the simple fact that it is preached that baptism in Jesus' name through emersion is not the only correct baptism is anti-Biblical...

Do you know the difference between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church? You are completely lost on this LB....did you ever stop to think that "putting up impossible walls" = what you believe isn't right? Matthew 28:19 is says "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the the Son and of the Holy Spirit". This is what you gave me as proof that you can only be baptized by emersion....I want the LB logic on this one.

The fact is, there is not a single passage in the Bible that indicates what God feels is an acceptable "baptism" and what is not acceptable. Are you saying the Bible is littered with mistruths? I don't understand your point at all and am completely lost.

So, there is a conspiracy theory out there around Matthew 28:19....what is your point? How does that conspiracy (which is really not anything more than people arguing over technicalities) have anything to do with what is acceptable to God and what isn't? If this verse is wrong, what is the correct way it should read?

This is pretty much your last chance with me...if all you can come back with is some other babble about other things, rather than answering my specific questions, our conversation is over, and the hole you are in, is now deeper, if that is possible.

 

[CrossEyed]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

 

[The Commish]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

It's a slow day at the office....besides....I think I have been in my Bible more the last few days than I have the last month. It's good for me This also gives me practice in trying to understand how my wife "discusses" things with me....she too throws out statements that have nothing to do with our "discussion".I am REALLY trying to understand where LB is coming from, or even what denomination he is, based on his belief....I have it narrowed down, but can't find a denomination out there that thinks parts of the Bible aren't true, or at least altered by the Roman Catholic Church. This is new to me and in a really screwed up way, I am learning a good bit

 

[larry_boy_44]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

can you please either try and add something constructive or shut the #### up and go away forever?? OK? Seriously...

 

[Politician Spock]

Don't you think it's dangerous to behave like the Pharisees?

yes, Spock, your phariseutical behavior where you forget about God in favor of tradition is bad...

I want to , but this is just sad. You do realize that the self rigtheousness of the Pharisees was based on their assumption that following the strict letter of the law as much as possible put one in good standing with God, yes? And that Jesus many times said that the Pharisees, who's behavior followed the law strictly, have missed the boat?

Do the Pharisees sound more like a Christian who believes God will save all those who believe in Him, or a Christian who believes God will save only those who have followed His commands strictly?

You realize you are wrong, right?Jesus didn't get on the Pharisees because they followed the Law, following the Law is GOOD... Heck, I'd say any Chrisitan who decided to, themselves, follow the entire law would be doing a good thing today...

The Pharisees were bad because they ADDED to the law, because they added thier own interpretations and traditions on top of the law and followed those. They were more worried about looking righteous to the people rather than doing right before God...

I don't say we should be emersed at baptism so people can see me get dunked and be wet, I say it because God commanded it, what I am doing is NOTHING like what the pharisees did...

You, however, are sticking to your own later interpretation of the command and tradition that is related to the command rather than obeying God's actual command itself. That, my friend, is exactly what Jesus told the pharisees they were wrong for doing...

Following the law is good Larry. I never said it wasn't. And I agree with you about the Pharisees adding their own interpretations and tradition on top of the law and followed those. This (in addition to other issues) is exactly what you are doing. Your interpretation that baptism is required for salvation is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said do it. One can only insinuate (add on top of) that He requires it for salvation. Your interpretation that baptism must be a "dunking" and all other form of baptism will be rejected by Christ is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said to get dunked. He never said he would reject everything that is not a dunking. You say others are following tradition, but it's you that is promoting that a "traditional" way is the only acceptable way. You argue your case that everyone in Acts got dunked, and that everyone for 1000 years got dunked, and then the Church modified the definition. Then dunking is the traditional way, and you are saying it's the only acceptable way BASED ON TRADITION, and the new way that the Church began allowing is not acceptable.But really where the Pharisees miss the boat (and you as well) is placing law as more important than a relationship with God. Following the law was more important to the Pharisees than having a relationship with God. That's not what God wants. The order of importance is this:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mar 12:28-31)

Now you can come back and say that of course loving God is more important than a baptism done with correct procedures. But that's not any different than the Pharisees claiming that they loved God more than the law they followed strictly. Their behavior (and yours) spoke far greater than their claims (and yours) ever could. The heart of the matter in your argument is this, if ### ####s a person to hell because their baptism didn't follow strict procedure or because they didn't have a chance to get baptized, then the above commandment is NOT the greatest commandment because even following that commandment one is trumped by failure to follow other commandments - baptism.

Edit to say: The filter caught me and I was using it literally and not swearing.

Let see is "Jesus damns" is filtered.

Spock - are you seeing what you are doing? You are holding YOUR TRADITION over Scripture... You are saying that I am adding tradition to TRADITION, what?

No, I'm saying you are claiming that the modifications the church adopted don't work and only the TRADITIONAL way of doing things before the church made modifications can work.

dunking is not the traditional way, it is the COMMANDED way... the greek word used in Acts and Matthew 28:19 and elsewhere means to dunk someone... that's the whole point, it was made into a "right' and all of that to hide the fact that you are being lied to...

If the church has adopted new ways of baptizing, then dunking is the TRADITIONAL way.

When Jesus told them to baptize people, he wasn't telling them to perform some ritual,

Yet you want to make it a ritual by making it into a detail method of procedure. That's what the Pharisees did.

he was LITERALLY TELLING THEM TO DUNK THIER CONVERTS IN JESUS' NAME!! Yes, it had spiritual/ceremonial/symbolic significance and wasn't just dunking someone for no reason, but that doesn't change the fact that all He did was tell them to dunk people...

which is the whole problem with Sprinkling, they weren't told to perform a right, they were told to do something specific... The Catholic Church CHANGED that and now you, following your tradition and not God's command, still hold to that.

If the specifics are more important to you than the meaning it holds in your relationship with God, then you are doing what the Pharisees did. And again, the traditional way is dunking. What the Catholics do is the NEW way.

If you really loved God, Spock, you'd obey what He said to do and not the tradition that your church has given to you...

But you aren't... and why? Because it appeases you and you really don't want to give your life...

I'm still waiting for you to obey God and apologize to Crosseyed. As for me obeying God, I've already been dunked, not that it has any bearing on my salvation.

 

[larry_boy_44]

There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion.

I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.

When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?

Then this is documented some place....show me. It's pretty simple. Just a warning though...you are treading on the conspiracy theorist line here. I am not sure what Dogma you are speaking of as I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and the only thing that I have to go on is the Bible. With that said, I am STILL WAITING on the scripture in the Bible that says the right and wrong way to observe Baptism. This is the FOURTH time I have asked. I will take that scripture or the pages erased (per your insinuation) that prove what you are talking about. I have not found any documents given forth by the Holy Catholic Church that would support your argument...that's what I have a problem with.

the Bible tells us what is the right and wrong baptism in a few ways...1. The word used had nothign to do with a sacrament of the same name and was simply saying, in thier language, "dunk them in Jesus' name"

2. The Apostles state that htere is only "one baptism" and that's it... ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism")

3. historically, Biblically, and in any other way that we can ever find, baptism was ALWAYS done by emersion in Jesus name until well after Jesus' death (read: 500+ years)

there ARE conspiracy theories... I've documented that Matthew 28:19 was edited to "prove" the new wording the Catholics adopted centuries after Jesus' death... they cahnged it from emersion to sprinkling at about the same time, that is history...

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html

both those sites talk about baptism and/or Matthew 28:19 and it being edited...

the part of the Bible that was "erased" that shows us how to baptize correctly is the actual word used by Jesus & Peter & Paul. See, the church made a "sacrament" that used the exact same word as its name, thus the meaning of the word was eliminated, it no longer menat that, now it meant a "sacrament".

The only problem is that the sacrament is not what was done by the original church, and we all know that...

And as far as dogma goes, whether you like it or not you are following dogma when you sprinkle at baptism or baptize in the titles, because both fo those beliefs originated as Catholic dogma before they edited them into the Bible...

I'll say it one more time.....I don't see anything in the Holy Catholic Church that would indicate you are correct. What part of that don't you understand? If you are correct, and I am not saying you are wrong, there would be evidence in the Holy Catholic Church doctrine, right? Show it to me.

you don't find proof that they edited the text of Matthew 28:19 as evidence??I mean, what do you want? Do you want me to find the part of the catechism that says "WARNING!! ALL WHO BELIEVE THIS ARE GOING TO HELL"??? 'cuz that doens't exist...

stop putting up impossible walls that I have to scale to prove this, give me something that is possible, because what you are asking for now is not doable... the simple fact that it is preached that baptism in Jesus' name through emersion is not the only correct baptism is anti-Biblical...

Do you know the difference between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church? You are completely lost on this LB....did you ever stop to think that "putting up impossible walls" = what you believe isn't right? Matthew 28:19 is says "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the the Son and of the Holy Spirit". This is what you gave me as proof that you can only be baptized by emersion....I want the LB logic on this one.

The fact is, there is not a single passage in the Bible that indicates what God feels is an acceptable "baptism" and what is not acceptable. Are you saying the Bible is littered with mistruths? I don't understand your point at all and am completely lost.

So, there is a conspiracy theory out there around Matthew 28:19....what is your point? How does that conspiracy (which is really not anything more than people arguing over technicalities) have anything to do with what is acceptable to God and what isn't? If this verse is wrong, what is the correct way it should read?

This is pretty much your last chance with me...if all you can come back with is some other babble about other things, rather than answering my specific questions, our conversation is over, and the hole you are in, is now deeper, if that is possible.

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

 

[The Commish]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

can you please either try and add something constructive or shut the #### up and go away forever?? OK? Seriously...

He'll go away as soon as you answer any ONE of my questions above...deal?? Do you need a recap?? Such anger towards Cross there LB....need to let whatever it is that is bothering you go...for your own sake.

 

[Franknbeans]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

can you please either try and add something constructive or shut the #### up and go away forever?? OK? Seriously...

He'll go away as soon as you answer any ONE of my questions above...deal?? Do you need a recap?? Such anger towards Cross there LB....need to let whatever it is that is bothering you go...for your own sake.

Very Un-Christian like

 

[CrossEyed]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

can you please either try and add something constructive or shut the #### up and go away forever?? OK? Seriously...

He'll go away as soon as you answer any ONE of my questions above...deal?? Do you need a recap?? Such anger towards Cross there LB....need to let whatever it is that is bothering you go...for your own sake.

Can you guys try to not quote LB? It really messes up the benefits of the ignore feature.

 

[The Commish]

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

Can I send you a fax of my Bible's page that has Matthew 28:19?? Because that is EXACTLY what it says. So, in your Bible, what does the verse say??

 

[Politician Spock]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

That's just the thing. Probably the most important thing that God has been teaching me through this whole conversation with Larry is that I will never be able to change Larry's heart. Only God can change Larry's heart. If Larry ever gets it, no one will ever be able to take credit for being the one that did it. Only God can do it. And this applies not only to Larry but any unbeliever or different opinion on Christianity. So am I wasting my time sharing my belief with non-believers when God gets the glory for changing their hearts as well? Of course not. Really the only way I can conclude that I'm wasting my time is if it's impossible for God to change Larry's heart. It's not impossible. So I'm not wasting my time. But God does warn to stay away from other believers that do what Larry is doing. So maybe there's another reason to leave Larry alone other than "wasting time".

 

[Politician Spock]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

can you please either try and add something constructive or shut the #### up and go away forever?? OK? Seriously...

Okay, maybe the first time was an honest mistake, but this is looking like a chronic sin.

 

[The Commish]

Can you guys try to not quote LB? It really messes up the benefits of the ignore feature.

Sorry Cross...it's hard enough to follow conversation with him on a message board...so I quote him just to make sure I am following the "thought of the day" logic going on.

 

[CrossEyed]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

That's just the thing. Probably the most important thing that God has been teaching me through this whole conversation with Larry is that I will never be able to change Larry's heart. Only God can change Larry's heart. If Larry ever gets it, no one will ever be able to take credit for being the one that did it. Only God can do it. And this applies not only to Larry but any unbeliever or different opinion on Christianity. So am I wasting my time sharing my belief with non-believers when God gets the glory for changing their hearts as well? Of course not. Really the only way I can conclude that I'm wasting my time is if it's impossible for God to change Larry's heart. It's not impossible. So I'm not wasting my time. But God does warn to stay away from other believers that do what Larry is doing. So maybe there's another reason to leave Larry alone other than "wasting time".

Mark 6:11

 

[The Commish]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

That's just the thing. Probably the most important thing that God has been teaching me through this whole conversation with Larry is that I will never be able to change Larry's heart. Only God can change Larry's heart. If Larry ever gets it, no one will ever be able to take credit for being the one that did it. Only God can do it. And this applies not only to Larry but any unbeliever or different opinion on Christianity. So am I wasting my time sharing my belief with non-believers when God gets the glory for changing their hearts as well? Of course not. Really the only way I can conclude that I'm wasting my time is if it's impossible for God to change Larry's heart. It's not impossible. So I'm not wasting my time. But God does warn to stay away from other believers that do what Larry is doing. So maybe there's another reason to leave Larry alone other than "wasting time".

Great minds think alike Spock...You beat me to the post. It's not our jobs to change LB's heart. Hopefully, something said here, will spark something in his heart and he will go to God for help with the resolution.When it comes to the Bible, I never question what it says. It's the book of God and I believe that. Until today, I knew of people who either believed it, or didn't. What I did not know was there were people who believed it, but also believed that there are parts of it that were derived from conspiracy theories and altered in a back room to meet the agenda of a particular religious group. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how one looks at it) I now have another topic to research. In researching, hopefully I will be able to understand where LB is coming from, until then, the conversation is pointless for the reasons you stated.

 

[larry_boy_44]

You realize you are wrong, right?

Jesus didn't get on the Pharisees because they followed the Law, following the Law is GOOD... Heck, I'd say any Chrisitan who decided to, themselves, follow the entire law would be doing a good thing today...

The Pharisees were bad because they ADDED to the law, because they added thier own interpretations and traditions on top of the law and followed those. They were more worried about looking righteous to the people rather than doing right before God...

I don't say we should be emersed at baptism so people can see me get dunked and be wet, I say it because God commanded it, what I am doing is NOTHING like what the pharisees did...

You, however, are sticking to your own later interpretation of the command and tradition that is related to the command rather than obeying God's actual command itself. That, my friend, is exactly what Jesus told the pharisees they were wrong for doing...

Following the law is good Larry. I never said it wasn't. And I agree with you about the Pharisees adding their own interpretations and tradition on top of the law and followed those. This (in addition to other issues) is exactly what you are doing. Your interpretation that baptism is required for salvation is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said do it. One can only insinuate (add on top of) that He requires it for salvation. Your interpretation that baptism must be a "dunking" and all other form of baptism will be rejected by Christ is added by you on top of what Jesus said. Jesus said to get dunked. He never said he would reject everything that is not a dunking. You say others are following tradition, but it's you that is promoting that a "traditional" way is the only acceptable way. You argue your case that everyone in Acts got dunked, and that everyone for 1000 years got dunked, and then the Church modified the definition. Then dunking is the traditional way, and you are saying it's the only acceptable way BASED ON TRADITION, and the new way that the Church began allowing is not acceptable.But really where the Pharisees miss the boat (and you as well) is placing law as more important than a relationship with God. Following the law was more important to the Pharisees than having a relationship with God. That's not what God wants. The order of importance is this:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mar 12:28-31)

Now you can come back and say that of course loving God is more important than a baptism done with correct procedures. But that's not any different than the Pharisees claiming that they loved God more than the law they followed strictly. Their behavior (and yours) spoke far greater than their claims (and yours) ever could. The heart of the matter in your argument is this, if ### ####s a person to hell because their baptism didn't follow strict procedure or because they didn't have a chance to get baptized, then the above commandment is NOT the greatest commandment because even following that commandment one is trumped by failure to follow other commandments - baptism.

Edit to say: The filter caught me and I was using it literally and not swearing.

Let see is "Jesus damns" is filtered.

Spock - are you seeing what you are doing? You are holding YOUR TRADITION over Scripture... You are saying that I am adding tradition to TRADITION, what?

No, I'm saying you are claiming that the modifications the church adopted don't work and only the TRADITIONAL way of doing things before the church made modifications can work.

dunking is not the traditional way, it is the COMMANDED way... the greek word used in Acts and Matthew 28:19 and elsewhere means to dunk someone... that's the whole point, it was made into a "right' and all of that to hide the fact that you are being lied to...

If the church has adopted new ways of baptizing, then dunking is the TRADITIONAL way.

When Jesus told them to baptize people, he wasn't telling them to perform some ritual,

Yet you want to make it a ritual by making it into a detail method of procedure. That's what the Pharisees did.

he was LITERALLY TELLING THEM TO DUNK THIER CONVERTS IN JESUS' NAME!! Yes, it had spiritual/ceremonial/symbolic significance and wasn't just dunking someone for no reason, but that doesn't change the fact that all He did was tell them to dunk people...

which is the whole problem with Sprinkling, they weren't told to perform a right, they were told to do something specific... The Catholic Church CHANGED that and now you, following your tradition and not God's command, still hold to that.

If the specifics are more important to you than the meaning it holds in your relationship with God, then you are doing what the Pharisees did. And again, the traditional way is dunking. What the Catholics do is the NEW way.

If you really loved God, Spock, you'd obey what He said to do and not the tradition that your church has given to you...

But you aren't... and why? Because it appeases you and you really don't want to give your life...

I'm still waiting for you to obey God and apologize to Crosseyed. As for me obeying God, I've already been dunked, not that it has any bearing on my salvation.

the problem with the Pharisees WAS THE NEW WAY!!!The pharisees added to the Law (old way) and made it a new way...

and Jesus condemned them for it...

They held thier traditions (new way) over the Law and God(old way)...

so... what are you talking about exactly again?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

can you please either try and add something constructive or shut the #### up and go away forever?? OK? Seriously...

He'll go away as soon as you answer any ONE of my questions above...deal?? Do you need a recap?? Such anger towards Cross there LB....need to let whatever it is that is bothering you go...for your own sake.

its not really anger, I'd be fine with him if he either tried to participate or stopped making his arrogant comments... there's no reason for that, and its 10 times worse than anything that the non-Christians on this board do when these threads come up...

 

[larry_boy_44]

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

Can I send you a fax of my Bible's page that has Matthew 28:19?? Because that is EXACTLY what it says. So, in your Bible, what does the verse say??

it says the same thing... I posted it like 5 times in this thread already...Matthew 28:19 has been admitted to be changed by the Catholic Church (sort of... the church didn't decree it, but church historians have admitted it)

 

[Politician Spock]

Valiant effort here, Spock and Commish, but you are clearly wasting your time.

That's just the thing. Probably the most important thing that God has been teaching me through this whole conversation with Larry is that I will never be able to change Larry's heart. Only God can change Larry's heart. If Larry ever gets it, no one will ever be able to take credit for being the one that did it. Only God can do it. And this applies not only to Larry but any unbeliever or different opinion on Christianity. So am I wasting my time sharing my belief with non-believers when God gets the glory for changing their hearts as well? Of course not. Really the only way I can conclude that I'm wasting my time is if it's impossible for God to change Larry's heart. It's not impossible. So I'm not wasting my time. But God does warn to stay away from other believers that do what Larry is doing. So maybe there's another reason to leave Larry alone other than "wasting time".

Mark 6:11

I stand corrected.

 

[Politician Spock]

so... what are you talking about exactly again?

The best advice I can give you Larry is listen to someone before responding to them. If you want to know what I'm talking about, then read my posts again. It's all there. Don't make me waste time typing it all up again.

 

[The Commish]

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

Can I send you a fax of my Bible's page that has Matthew 28:19?? Because that is EXACTLY what it says. So, in your Bible, what does the verse say??

it says the same thing... I posted it like 5 times in this thread already...Matthew 28:19 has been admitted to be changed by the Catholic Church (sort of... the church didn't decree it, but church historians have admitted it)

Ok, so what is it SUPPOSE to say then??Edited to add question:

Also...do you know the difference between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church which supposedly altered the passage??

 

[larry_boy_44]

so... what are you talking about exactly again?

The best advice I can give you Larry is listen to someone before responding to them. If you want to know what I'm talking about, then read my posts again. It's all there. Don't make me waste time typing it all up again.

Spock - go read my post...

you were saying the old way was bad and the new was was good...

but the Pharisees were condemned by Jesus for CHANGING THE LAW...

they added to it, and they took to thier traditions (new stuff) moreso than the Law (old stuff) because thier new stuff added to it and changed parts of it...

just like what happened to baptism... it went from dunking in Jesus' name to sprinkling in the name of the father, son, & holy ghost...

and now the modern church holds on to the change rather than what God actually told them, becoming a new generation of pharisees who hold on to Man's teachings and traditions over God's teachings and commandments...

 

[Capella]

 

[Politician Spock]

so... what are you talking about exactly again?

The best advice I can give you Larry is listen to someone before responding to them. If you want to know what I'm talking about, then read my posts again. It's all there. Don't make me waste time typing it all up again.

Spock - go read my post...

I already have and refuse to read it again until you know what I'm talking about.

 

[Seehawk]

By the way, Christian pillow fight was funny..... Although you might enjoy it, I'm embarrassed. I hope Seahawk finds some other way than this website to meet God.

Oh I'm still here....Though I've given up any hope of finding anything in this thread other then anal-retentive intolerence.

I did appreciate your replies to my early questions Fightingchick and I am taking some tentative steps on my own. But MAN this thread is a turn-off....

 

[ElGatoLoco]

the problem with realizing it was the act is that when you are sprinkled you are not doing the act... you aren't being baptized if you are not dunked, you are not doing what Jesus commanded...

I do understand what you are saying, but don't you think that's dangerous?

"God said that we should only have sex within marriage, but I intend on marrying this girl, thus it is ok to have sex with her, its the heart of the matter not the exact obeying of the command God gave"

"God said not to lie, but its better off in this situation for me to tell this little lie, so I'm going to lie anyways. God doesn't want people to be hurt, so He'd obviously want me to lie."

"God said not to steal, but I really really want this and won't be happy without it. He wants me to be happy, so it'll be ok this once."

do you see what I mean? You can't go "Yeah, God didn't command what we are doing, but its close enough", its much too dangerous of a slope to go down...

Wow...religion is really blinding you LB, and for that problem, I will pray. I am NOT talking about breaking one of the ten commandments here LB. I am talking about Baptism. Baptism is simply a time between you and God. What anyone else thinks simply doesn't matter. For you to have such a stong, judgemental attitiude towards how another person deals in their relationship with God SCREAMS your religious blindness. Is there a right/wrong way to pray? Is there a right/wrong way to worship? Is there a right/wrong way to ask God to come into your lifeOf course not.....the common importance of these things is that you DO them. Baptism is just another form of worship. That's what you don't get....or you seem to lose in your quest to be right. If you seriously feel that God thinks less of a person who chooses to worship him by having water sprinkled, or a cup poured during their baptism, you are simply mistaken. If you think that God gets caught up in all these "how to " kinds of things, you simply don't understand his Grace. I don't really know what else to say, other than I will pray for you.

you aren't catching this still, Commish...When Peter told the crowd on pentecost to be baptized, he wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "baptism", he was simply telling them to be dunked...

when Jesus told them to go to the whole world baptizing people, He wasn't telling them to follow a ritual called "Baptism", He was telling them to dunk people...

the problem with baptism by sprinkling is that it is NOT baptism, the word baptism became a "right" or "simply a time between you and God" to HIDE THE LIE that you've been told...

I mean, you realize that this is the God who had a bear maul 20+ kids for laughing at a prophet, right?? That this is the God who will send all those who don't bleieve in Him to hell, right?

I mean, I want you to get that... He KILLED the High Priest of Israel if the High Priest did not do EVERY LITTLE THING properly during the sacrifice... He killed him...

and now you are telling me that we can take a command that was about a specific act, call it a sacrament, and then change it to whatever we like? Then what was the point of God's command? He shouldn't have given us a command if what He commanded (and that is that they dunk people in Jesus' name) did not need to be followed...

There were strict guidelines to the sacrafice. It was very clear what was suppose to be done and very clear that if he didn't follow, what the consequence would be. That's completely different than what we are talking about. It is obvious that baptism has developed into a form of worship. I understand you think that Jesus' command was to dunk people in the water and go forth, but your dismissal of the symbolism and your failure to acknowledge that people express themselves in their personal worship differently all points too you falling to the guise of religion. I know you understand what I am saying...that's seen in your lack of response to specific questions and just repeating yourself over and over.

If you want to bring in an example that is actually similar, I am certainly willing to listen, but the path we are on is pointless. Your implication of us being killed because we don't worship God a particular way is COMPLETELY dangerous for several reasons, but the main one being worship out of fear.

When Jesus made that command, and before the Catholic Church took over, there were strict commands about what constituted baptism, it was done in a very specifc way...I understand that there is symbolism, and I've said that before... But just because there is symbolism doesn't mean that there isn't an exact way to do it (the whole temple sacrifice was symbolic, really... the blood of the calf didn't actually forgive sins, God just forgave them when they did it)

stop listening to your dogma, and realize that the early church preached that the way they baptized was the ONLY WAY to be baptized and that they emmersed every time and did it in Jesus' name every time...

Why do you trust a group fo people who EDITED the Bible to fit thier own beliefs so much?

Then this is documented some place....show me. It's pretty simple. Just a warning though...you are treading on the conspiracy theorist line here. I am not sure what Dogma you are speaking of as I don't subscribe to any particular denomination and the only thing that I have to go on is the Bible. With that said, I am STILL WAITING on the scripture in the Bible that says the right and wrong way to observe Baptism. This is the FOURTH time I have asked. I will take that scripture or the pages erased (per your insinuation) that prove what you are talking about. I have not found any documents given forth by the Holy Catholic Church that would support your argument...that's what I have a problem with.

the Bible tells us what is the right and wrong baptism in a few ways...1. The word used had nothign to do with a sacrament of the same name and was simply saying, in thier language, "dunk them in Jesus' name"

2. The Apostles state that htere is only "one baptism" and that's it... ("One Lord, one faith, one baptism")

3. historically, Biblically, and in any other way that we can ever find, baptism was ALWAYS done by emersion in Jesus name until well after Jesus' death (read: 500+ years)

there ARE conspiracy theories... I've documented that Matthew 28:19 was edited to "prove" the new wording the Catholics adopted centuries after Jesus' death... they cahnged it from emersion to sprinkling at about the same time, that is history...

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/matt2819-willis.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/historyofbaptism.html

both those sites talk about baptism and/or Matthew 28:19 and it being edited...

the part of the Bible that was "erased" that shows us how to baptize correctly is the actual word used by Jesus & Peter & Paul. See, the church made a "sacrament" that used the exact same word as its name, thus the meaning of the word was eliminated, it no longer menat that, now it meant a "sacrament".

The only problem is that the sacrament is not what was done by the original church, and we all know that...

And as far as dogma goes, whether you like it or not you are following dogma when you sprinkle at baptism or baptize in the titles, because both fo those beliefs originated as Catholic dogma before they edited them into the Bible...

I'll say it one more time.....I don't see anything in the Holy Catholic Church that would indicate you are correct. What part of that don't you understand? If you are correct, and I am not saying you are wrong, there would be evidence in the Holy Catholic Church doctrine, right? Show it to me.

you don't find proof that they edited the text of Matthew 28:19 as evidence??I mean, what do you want? Do you want me to find the part of the catechism that says "WARNING!! ALL WHO BELIEVE THIS ARE GOING TO HELL"??? 'cuz that doens't exist...

stop putting up impossible walls that I have to scale to prove this, give me something that is possible, because what you are asking for now is not doable... the simple fact that it is preached that baptism in Jesus' name through emersion is not the only correct baptism is anti-Biblical...

Prove that it was editted. You said it was editted. What proof do you have? It seems that you are saying it is impossible to prove. A link? Reference to a few books by religious scholars? Something. Anything other than simply your word that you somehow know what happened over a 1000 years ago.

 

[Spartans Rule]

you don't find proof that they edited the text of Matthew 28:19 as evidence??

I mean, what do you want? Do you want me to find the part of the catechism that says "WARNING!! ALL WHO BELIEVE THIS ARE GOING TO HELL"??? 'cuz that doens't exist...

stop putting up impossible walls that I have to scale to prove this, give me something that is possible, because what you are asking for now is not doable... the simple fact that it is preached that baptism in Jesus' name through emersion is not the only correct baptism is anti-Biblical...

For anyone who followed the LB vs. science threads, the irony of this post is pretty awesome.

 

[Seehawk]

Wanted to quickly apologize for that last comment.

I didn't, and don't, want to cast such a wide net with that "anal-retentive" comment. The fact of the matter is that just about every post in this thread has been helpful in some way. I've seen the best and the worst, the helpful and the unhelpful....and not all of it from the people you may think. There's been enough talk here to get me thinking and if I didn't want that I would have read the posts so I guess I'm getting what I asked for in that respect.

I've exchanged a few PM's the last week on this stuff too and wanted to thank anybody who had (or still has) a serious interest in talking to me.

 

[larry_boy_44]

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

Can I send you a fax of my Bible's page that has Matthew 28:19?? Because that is EXACTLY what it says. So, in your Bible, what does the verse say??

it says the same thing... I posted it like 5 times in this thread already...Matthew 28:19 has been admitted to be changed by the Catholic Church (sort of... the church didn't decree it, but church historians have admitted it)

Ok, so what is it SUPPOSE to say then??Edited to add question:

Also...do you know the difference between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church which supposedly altered the passage??

Holy Catholic = Anglican, right? They split from the Roman Catholics well after this stuff happened...it is suppose to say "in my name" not "in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit"...

we can see this in the way the Aposteles baptized...

We can also see it in the writings of Eusibius who quotes Matthew 28:19 over 20 times in his writings (dated before Nicea) and EVERY TIME he quotes "in my name" and not the titles as the "baptismal form"...

 

[larry_boy_44]

so... what are you talking about exactly again?

The best advice I can give you Larry is listen to someone before responding to them. If you want to know what I'm talking about, then read my posts again. It's all there. Don't make me waste time typing it all up again.

Spock - go read my post...

I already have and refuse to read it again until you know what I'm talking about.

I know what you are talking about...I'm saying that, in yoru post, you were saying that you were doing exactly what i was doing, you only inverted what the Pharisees did wrong...

You said that the changed thing (sprinkling in our arguments case, the additions to the Law in thiers) is good and the old thing (emersion/Law) is bad... when, in reality, the Law was good (as is emersion) and the additions were bad (as is sprinkling)

 

[larry_boy_44]

you don't find proof that they edited the text of Matthew 28:19 as evidence??

I mean, what do you want? Do you want me to find the part of the catechism that says "WARNING!! ALL WHO BELIEVE THIS ARE GOING TO HELL"??? 'cuz that doens't exist...

stop putting up impossible walls that I have to scale to prove this, give me something that is possible, because what you are asking for now is not doable... the simple fact that it is preached that baptism in Jesus' name through emersion is not the only correct baptism is anti-Biblical...

For anyone who followed the LB vs. science threads, the irony of this post is pretty awesome.

I have said a lot of stupid stuff... I admit it...

(and those threads contain some gems... lol)

 

[Politician Spock]

so... what are you talking about exactly again?

The best advice I can give you Larry is listen to someone before responding to them. If you want to know what I'm talking about, then read my posts again. It's all there. Don't make me waste time typing it all up again.

Spock - go read my post...

I already have and refuse to read it again until you know what I'm talking about.

I know what you are talking about...I'm saying that, in yoru post, you were saying that you were doing exactly what i was doing, you only inverted what the Pharisees did wrong...

You said that the changed thing (sprinkling in our arguments case, the additions to the Law in thiers) is good and the old thing (emersion/Law) is bad... when, in reality, the Law was good (as is emersion) and the additions were bad (as is sprinkling)

I never said that I was doing exactly what you were doing.Nor did I ever say that one thing is good and the old thing is bad.

Get back to me when you know what I'm talking about.

 

[fightingchick]

By the way, Christian pillow fight was funny.....  Although you might enjoy it, I'm embarrassed.  I hope Seahawk finds some other way than this website to meet God.

Oh I'm still here....Though I've given up any hope of finding anything in this thread other then anal-retentive intolerence.

I did appreciate your replies to my early questions Fightingchick and I am taking some tentative steps on my own. But MAN this thread is a turn-off....

That's good news. I completely understand the turnoff factor on this. I'm enjoying my conversation wth Jayrock, so I keep coming back. Just like the Commish, I have been forced to study up on a few things and that has been good too...

I would have offered to PM, I just don't know how. And I have to learn that quote thing better too!!

 

[larry_boy_44]

so... what are you talking about exactly again?

The best advice I can give you Larry is listen to someone before responding to them. If you want to know what I'm talking about, then read my posts again. It's all there. Don't make me waste time typing it all up again.

Spock - go read my post...

I already have and refuse to read it again until you know what I'm talking about.

I know what you are talking about...I'm saying that, in yoru post, you were saying that you were doing exactly what i was doing, you only inverted what the Pharisees did wrong...

You said that the changed thing (sprinkling in our arguments case, the additions to the Law in thiers) is good and the old thing (emersion/Law) is bad... when, in reality, the Law was good (as is emersion) and the additions were bad (as is sprinkling)

I never said that I was doing exactly what you were doing.Nor did I ever say that one thing is good and the old thing is bad.

Get back to me when you know what I'm talking about.

you said:

If the church has adopted new ways of baptizing, then dunking is the TRADITIONAL way.

knowing full well that "traditional" when used to mean "older" is the right way, not the wrong, yet "traditional" when used to mean "man-made" is wrong...

Yet you want to make it a ritual by making it into a detail method of procedure. That's what the Pharisees did.

yes, really, all I'm saying is we UN-RITUALIZE IT and do what we are saying we are doing (that is "emersing people as to wash them")

If the specifics are more important to you than the meaning it holds in your relationship with God, then you are doing what the Pharisees did. And again, the traditional way is dunking. What the Catholics do is the NEW way.

the specifics aren't more important, but God's commands are important as they are commands from God...You are more worried about YOUR TRADITIONS and what MEN HAVE TOLD YOU than you are about GOD'S COMMANDMENTS... and that is the whole problem with sprinkling and baptizing in the titles in that we were commanded to do differently and, like the pharisees, we decided that our INTERPRETATION of those acts were more important than what God actually told us to do...

 

[The Commish]

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

Can I send you a fax of my Bible's page that has Matthew 28:19?? Because that is EXACTLY what it says. So, in your Bible, what does the verse say??

it says the same thing... I posted it like 5 times in this thread already...Matthew 28:19 has been admitted to be changed by the Catholic Church (sort of... the church didn't decree it, but church historians have admitted it)

Ok, so what is it SUPPOSE to say then??Edited to add question:

Also...do you know the difference between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church which supposedly altered the passage??

Holy Catholic = Anglican, right? They split from the Roman Catholics well after this stuff happened...it is suppose to say "in my name" not "in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit"...

we can see this in the way the Aposteles baptized...

We can also see it in the writings of Eusibius who quotes Matthew 28:19 over 20 times in his writings (dated before Nicea) and EVERY TIME he quotes "in my name" and not the titles as the "baptismal form"...

This is how it's described in Acts as well. Unfortunately for you, it DOES NOT address the dipping vs dunking vs sprinkling. And that is what my question is about. There are two parts of a baptism...what's said and what's done. To illustrate my point...do you believe that the only way to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood? That's what is said in Luke. If you take such a hard line on Baptism, what about the Lord's supper? In Matthew, it's phrased differently....so how do you choose?What I am suggesting to you, is you don't have to choose if you understand that it's a way of praising God and the gesture is what is important and NOT the methods, food/beverage used. There is nothing in the Bible that says there is a right way or wrong way to praise God when it comes to these events. Am I less of a person because of the time I was at church camp we used loaf bread and apple juice (all we had around) to praise God via communion?

I'll ask the question one last time....do you really think that God looks down on people who are baptised via one method, while holding another person in high regard because they were baptised in another method? Do you think he doesn't accept that form of praise from the person "not doing it right"?

 

[larry_boy_44]

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

Can I send you a fax of my Bible's page that has Matthew 28:19?? Because that is EXACTLY what it says. So, in your Bible, what does the verse say??

it says the same thing... I posted it like 5 times in this thread already...Matthew 28:19 has been admitted to be changed by the Catholic Church (sort of... the church didn't decree it, but church historians have admitted it)

Ok, so what is it SUPPOSE to say then??Edited to add question:

Also...do you know the difference between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church which supposedly altered the passage??

Holy Catholic = Anglican, right? They split from the Roman Catholics well after this stuff happened...it is suppose to say "in my name" not "in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit"...

we can see this in the way the Aposteles baptized...

We can also see it in the writings of Eusibius who quotes Matthew 28:19 over 20 times in his writings (dated before Nicea) and EVERY TIME he quotes "in my name" and not the titles as the "baptismal form"...

This is how it's described in Acts as well. Unfortunately for you, it DOES NOT address the dipping vs dunking vs sprinkling. And that is what my question is about. There are two parts of a baptism...what's said and what's done. To illustrate my point...do you believe that the only way to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood? That's what is said in Luke. If you take such a hard line on Baptism, what about the Lord's supper? In Matthew, it's phrased differently....so how do you choose?What I am suggesting to you, is you don't have to choose if you understand that it's a way of praising God and the gesture is what is important and NOT the methods, food/beverage used. There is nothing in the Bible that says there is a right way or wrong way to praise God when it comes to these events. Am I less of a person because of the time I was at church camp we used loaf bread and apple juice (all we had around) to praise God via communion?

I'll ask the question one last time....do you really think that God looks down on people who are baptised via one method, while holding another person in high regard because they were baptised in another method? Do you think he doesn't accept that form of praise from the person "not doing it right"?

Jesus was being symbolic in that... it represents His body and blood in that we are to remember Him when we eat it...However, do you realize that you are saying, basically, that we are saying "I symbolically dunk you while I sprinkle this water over your head" right???

kinda like saying you are symbolically playing football with a baseball bat...

"baptism" should be done in dunking simply because we are not actually baptizing (as it wasn't made a "ritual" until 500+ years later) unless the person being baptized is dipped/dunked/emmersed under the water...

and I do think that God accepts people who do it right and doesn't accept those who don't do it right. He killed the High Priest for not doing it right.

 

[guru_007]

Am I the only one here that thinks Larry is insane?

 

[The Football Freak]

Am I the only one here that thinks Larry is insane?

 

[Spartans Rule]

Am I the only one here that thinks Larry is insane?

Yes. It's just you.

 

[GregStarling]

First of all, I've avoided this thread because of the inevitable fighting that goes on when certain people get involved. I would encourage someone seeking out the Bible to read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. It gives a really great overview of what a true Christian believes.

I get really irritated where in forums such as this, Christians spend 95% of the time argueing about the 5% they don't agree on. The fact is that most Christians agree on 95% of scripture yet they fail to see that because it's more fun to argue. In a theological forum, there is room for debates like this, but that isn't what footballguys is. I think conversations that get out of hand like this tend to turn way more people off than on.

That being said, I'll weigh in on the Trinity issue.

link

Though readings of Mat 28:19 have not been found in surviving ante-nicene New Testament manuscripts, according to the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection of writings, Ignatius (35-110 A.D.), Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), Tertullian (155-250 A.D.), Hippolytus (170-245 A.D.), Cyprian (?-258 A.D.), and others already were quoting the longer version of Mat 28:19, with the trinitarian formula, many years before Eusebius quoted a shorter version, without the trinitarian formula. The overwhelming evidence is in support of the longer reading, and as Allen commented, "The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive."

 

[Politician Spock]

you said:

If the church has adopted new ways of baptizing, then dunking is the TRADITIONAL way.

knowing full well that "traditional" when used to mean "older" is the right way, not the wrong, yet "traditional" when used to mean "man-made" is wrong...

Where is the dictionary that shows "traditional" to mean "man-made"? Also, you are the only one arguing that one way is right and the other way is wrong.

Yet you want to make it a ritual by making it into a detail method of procedure. That's what the Pharisees did.

yes, really, all I'm saying is we UN-RITUALIZE IT and do what we are saying we are doing (that is "emersing people as to wash them")

By making baptism into a detailed method of procedure, you are ritualizing it, not un-ritualizing it.

If the specifics are more important to you than the meaning it holds in your relationship with God, then you are doing what the Pharisees did. And again, the traditional way is dunking. What the Catholics do is the NEW way.

the specifics aren't more important, but God's commands are important as they are commands from God...

I agree that God's commands are important. I even showed you which commandment is the most important commandment. And if specifics of the other commandments can damn you to hell, then Jesus lied about what is the most important commandment because it can be trumped by the specifics of other commandments.

You are more worried about YOUR TRADITIONS and what MEN HAVE TOLD YOU than you are about GOD'S COMMANDMENTS...

How are you concluding this? Does this have to do with your definition of "tradition" means "man-made" that I can't find in my dictionary?

and that is the whole problem with sprinkling and baptizing in the titles in that we were commanded to do differently and, like the pharisees, we decided that our INTERPRETATION of those acts were more important than what God actually told us to do...

And how is it that your interpretation of those acts are NOT more important than what God actually told us to do, when according to you the Catholic who professes belief in Christ, serves Christ, and produces good fruit is damned to hell because the words that were uttered during her baptism could be infered by a third party such as yourself to refer to a 1700 belief in polytheism that no one believes in anymore?

 

[The Commish]

for one, Matthew 28:19 does NOT say that..."baptize" the Greek word used there, means "emersion" it did not mean any kind of act or ritual until hundreds of years later when they decided to stop dunking people...

its not arguing over a technicality because the people who changed Matthew 28:19 also changed the way baptism was done and believed in 3 gods...

the fact of the matter is that you don't care what the word actually means, all you care about is your tradition that was ADDED TO THE WORD 1500 YEARS LATER WHEN THEY WERE TRANSLATING IT...

Sure, the changes had already been made, but no one realized they were made for almost 1000 years, then when they were translating, they realized that "baptizo" meant to emmerse (dunk) someone in water, thus sprinkling can't possibly be right since SPRINKLING IS BASICALLY THE OPPOSITE OF DUNKING...

like I said, sprinkling someone when you baptize is like grabbing a baseball bat to play football, it doesn't work because you just plain cannot play football with a baseball bat...

I mean, I showed you how the word "baptize" has nothign to do with a ritual (except as an added footnote) and that didn't matter, I showed you how Matthew 28:19 as a text was also changed, that didn't matter...

nothing I can ever say will ever change your mind because all you are worried about is your tradition and not what God actually said, Commish...

Can I send you a fax of my Bible's page that has Matthew 28:19?? Because that is EXACTLY what it says. So, in your Bible, what does the verse say??

it says the same thing... I posted it like 5 times in this thread already...Matthew 28:19 has been admitted to be changed by the Catholic Church (sort of... the church didn't decree it, but church historians have admitted it)

Ok, so what is it SUPPOSE to say then??Edited to add question:

Also...do you know the difference between the Holy Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church which supposedly altered the passage??

Holy Catholic = Anglican, right? They split from the Roman Catholics well after this stuff happened...it is suppose to say "in my name" not "in the name of the father, and the son, and the holy spirit"...

we can see this in the way the Aposteles baptized...

We can also see it in the writings of Eusibius who quotes Matthew 28:19 over 20 times in his writings (dated before Nicea) and EVERY TIME he quotes "in my name" and not the titles as the "baptismal form"...

This is how it's described in Acts as well. Unfortunately for you, it DOES NOT address the dipping vs dunking vs sprinkling. And that is what my question is about. There are two parts of a baptism...what's said and what's done. To illustrate my point...do you believe that the only way to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood? That's what is said in Luke. If you take such a hard line on Baptism, what about the Lord's supper? In Matthew, it's phrased differently....so how do you choose?What I am suggesting to you, is you don't have to choose if you understand that it's a way of praising God and the gesture is what is important and NOT the methods, food/beverage used. There is nothing in the Bible that says there is a right way or wrong way to praise God when it comes to these events. Am I less of a person because of the time I was at church camp we used loaf bread and apple juice (all we had around) to praise God via communion?

I'll ask the question one last time....do you really think that God looks down on people who are baptised via one method, while holding another person in high regard because they were baptised in another method? Do you think he doesn't accept that form of praise from the person "not doing it right"?

Jesus was being symbolic in that... it represents His body and blood in that we are to remember Him when we eat it...However, do you realize that you are saying, basically, that we are saying "I symbolically dunk you while I sprinkle this water over your head" right???

kinda like saying you are symbolically playing football with a baseball bat...

"baptism" should be done in dunking simply because we are not actually baptizing (as it wasn't made a "ritual" until 500+ years later) unless the person being baptized is dipped/dunked/emmersed under the water...

and I do think that God accepts people who do it right and doesn't accept those who don't do it right. He killed the High Priest for not doing it right.

So who taught you how to tell what was literal and what was symbolic?? How did you come to that determination?And a just for fun question:

I understand that you believe that you have to be dunked....but one can be "dunked" UPTO their head...shoulders, etc...correct?? How do you know how far one was dunked?? Just wondering.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

…who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you - not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.(1Peter 3:21)

You are correct with your definition of baptize, Larry, but there is a question that remains. In what does a person immerse themselves? After the Christ, water became largely symbolic. Yes, Jesus said that you should be baptized in his name with the water and the Spirit, but there was a reason that water was not capitalized in scripture and the word Spirit was. Look it up: John 3:5. I know you are familiar with it. What is capitalized? A person is to be baptized with the Spirit and water was to become a largely symbolic ceremony that a mortal person could perform. The important thing is (and you are big on what the important thing) that you are baptized with the Spirit. The Holy Ghost translations were describing The Spirit or the Breath of God, the Soul, something ethereal or in the air. Had water been all that important they would have said the Holy Water and Holy Spirit. But they didn't, did they? It says, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit." Plus, some translations say man instead of one in John 3:5. Does this really mean that only men may enter heaven? That is retorical, Larry. Don't answer it.

Well, there you go. I know you will say I am incorrect, or you will ask for proof. I am taking it largely on faith. Faith that God has given me a brain and presented me with certain knowledge of reading literature and a sense of history as well as critical thinking skills. It is interesting that people can come to a different conclusion when presented with the same material.

 

[The Commish]

First of all, I've avoided this thread because of the inevitable fighting that goes on when certain people get involved. I would encourage someone seeking out the Bible to read C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. It gives a really great overview of what a true Christian believes.

I get really irritated where in forums such as this, Christians spend 95% of the time argueing about the 5% they don't agree on. The fact is that most Christians agree on 95% of scripture yet they fail to see that because it's more fun to argue. In a theological forum, there is room for debates like this, but that isn't what footballguys is. I think conversations that get out of hand like this tend to turn way more people off than on.

That being said, I'll weigh in on the Trinity issue.

link

Though readings of Mat 28:19 have not been found in surviving ante-nicene New Testament manuscripts, according to the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection of writings, Ignatius (35-110 A.D.), Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), Tertullian (155-250 A.D.), Hippolytus (170-245 A.D.), Cyprian (?-258 A.D.), and others already were quoting the longer version of Mat 28:19, with the trinitarian formula, many years before Eusebius quoted a shorter version, without the trinitarian formula. The overwhelming evidence is in support of the longer reading, and as Allen commented, "The evidence of Eusebius must be regarded as indecisive."

I agree with everything you said and apologize to those who I have annoyed. I have witnessed similar threads before and chosen not to participate. The only reason I started participating in this one was because I saw, in my opinion, a very dangerous message being sent and felt I had to say something to correct it.....1,000 posts later here I amAgain...I apologize

 

[Politician Spock]

Plus, some translations say man instead of one in John 3:5. Does this really mean that only men may enter heaven?

That is retorical, Larry. Don't answer it.