The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[ElGatoLoco]

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.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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."

Greg - what do you think of this link and the things that it quotes?

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

 

[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.

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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...

also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

 

[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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

Ok...now answer the primary question asked.

 

[popeye.]

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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

A thief on a cross next to Jesus simply believes and is told that he would be in paradise with Jesus. No mention of baptism, dunking or otherwise and any other extracurricular activies. So did Jesus lie or was the thief saved?

 

[The Commish]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...



also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

Are you suggesting that you have to be baptised to get into heaven?? Please explain the bolded.

 

[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.

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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

Ok...now answer the primary question asked.

who taught me? People who actually taught me what the Bible said about things, not what thier traditions told them about what the Bible said about things...

 

[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.

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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

A thief on a cross next to Jesus simply believes and is told that he would be in paradise with Jesus. No mention of baptism, dunking or otherwise and any other extracurricular activies. So did Jesus lie or was the thief saved?

Jesus wasn't even dead yet when He said that, of course the thief was under different rules than we are now...

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...



also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

Are you suggesting that you have to be baptised to get into heaven?? Please explain the bolded.

if baptism = born of the water that is discussed in John chapter 3 then yes, it is required...if it is not the "born of the water" being discussed there, then I think it is on the level that God commanded it and refusal to obey is refusing Him... but would there be ways "around" it then (or more ways)?? I would hope so...

 

[Mrs. Tipsy]

oy

 

[popeye.]

Jesus wasn't even dead yet when He said that, of course the thief was under different rules than we are now...

O rly?

 

[The Commish]

who taught me? People who actually taught me what the Bible said about things, not what thier traditions told them about what the Bible said about things...

So by your own admission....humans, like you and me, taught you what was literal and what was symbolic in the Bible? THAT explains A TON to me. Thanks for the info Did you ever stop and ask yourself who taught them?? or who taught them?

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

Ok...now answer the primary question asked.

who taught me? People who actually taught me what the Bible said about things, not what thier traditions told them about what the Bible said about things...

So by your own admission....humans, like you and me, taught you what was literal and what was symbolic in the Bible? THAT explains A TON to me. Thanks for the info Did you ever stop and ask yourself who taught them?? or who taught them?

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

 

[popeye.]

So by your own admission....humans, like you and me, taught you what was literal and what was symbolic in the Bible? THAT explains A TON to me. Thanks for the info Did you ever stop and ask yourself who taught them?? or who taught them?

Commish, No fair dragging in logic!

 

[ElGatoLoco]

A thief on a cross next to Jesus simply believes and is told that he would be in paradise with Jesus. No mention of baptism, dunking or otherwise and any other extracurricular activies.

So did Jesus lie or was the thief saved?

Jesus wasn't even dead yet when He said that, of course the thief was under different rules than we are now...

What? I thought God doesn't change the rules. Jesus already had command all those things before his death. Why didn't it apply to the theif?

 

[Soonerman]

On baptism, clearly baptism as practiced in Jesus' time involved immersion.

If you want to follow Jesus' teaching, why wouldn't you want to be immersed, since in this day and age, there is no reason that would keep you from doing that?

So, regardless of whether sprinkling is acceptable or not, why take the chance, since immersion is easily available now?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

who taught me? People who actually taught me what the Bible said about things, not what thier traditions told them about what the Bible said about things...

So you replaced others traditions based on a reading of the Bible with somebody elses traditions based on their reading of the Bible.

 

[The Commish]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...



also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

Are you suggesting that you have to be baptised to get into heaven?? Please explain the bolded.

if baptism = born of the water that is discussed in John chapter 3 then yes, it is required...if it is not the "born of the water" being discussed there, then I think it is on the level that God commanded it and refusal to obey is refusing Him... but would there be ways "around" it then (or more ways)?? I would hope so...

So you don't believe the scripture saying the way to God is through his grace. That it's a gift of God and not of works?? You can't have it both ways.....there is no condition for getting into heaven other than accepting God as your Lord and Savior and asking him to be the focal point of your life. As a matter of fact, earlier in this thread, I am pretty sure you agreed baptism wasn't something required by salvation. This is your problem LB....you get so caught up in having to be right, that you contradict yourself and go back on the things you say. This is why people struggle with you in this board. I think it is fantastic that you are digging into scripture and trying to understand what is required of you. What you have to understand though is, you aren't meant to understand everything 100%. You can't. You will always have questions or contradictions pop up (at least that's been my experience). It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". Regardless of what your religion tells you, it doesn't make you any less of a Christian.

 

[popeye.]

A thief on a cross next to Jesus simply believes and is told that he would be in paradise with Jesus.  No mention of baptism, dunking or otherwise and any other extracurricular activies.

  So did Jesus lie or was the thief saved?

Jesus wasn't even dead yet when He said that, of course the thief was under different rules than we are now...

What? I thought God doesn't change the rules. Jesus already had command all those things before his death. Why didn't it apply to the theif?

Easy answer, it did.

 

[larry_boy_44]

A thief on a cross next to Jesus simply believes and is told that he would be in paradise with Jesus.  No mention of baptism, dunking or otherwise and any other extracurricular activies.

  So did Jesus lie or was the thief saved?

Jesus wasn't even dead yet when He said that, of course the thief was under different rules than we are now...

What? I thought God doesn't change the rules. Jesus already had command all those things before his death. Why didn't it apply to the theif?

those commands really hadn't come into place yet... No one had yet been born again, nor would anyone be born again for another 50 dyas after Jesus (and the thief) died...

 

[Soonerman]

A thief on a cross next to Jesus simply believes and is told that he would be in paradise with Jesus.  No mention of baptism, dunking or otherwise and any other extracurricular activies.

  So did Jesus lie or was the thief saved?

Jesus wasn't even dead yet when He said that, of course the thief was under different rules than we are now...

What? I thought God doesn't change the rules. Jesus already had command all those things before his death. Why didn't it apply to the theif?

The thief could have been baptized for all we know.

 

[larry_boy_44]

who taught me? People who actually taught me what the Bible said about things, not what thier traditions told them about what the Bible said about things...

So you replaced others traditions based on a reading of the Bible with somebody elses traditions based on their reading of the Bible.

sprinkling isn't based on a reading of the Bible...its based on later dogma from the CAtholic church...

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...



also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

Are you suggesting that you have to be baptised to get into heaven?? Please explain the bolded.

if baptism = born of the water that is discussed in John chapter 3 then yes, it is required...if it is not the "born of the water" being discussed there, then I think it is on the level that God commanded it and refusal to obey is refusing Him... but would there be ways "around" it then (or more ways)?? I would hope so...

So you don't believe the scripture saying the way to God is through his grace. That it's a gift of God and not of works?? You can't have it both ways.....there is no condition for getting into heaven other than accepting God as your Lord and Savior and asking him to be the focal point of your life. As a matter of fact, earlier in this thread, I am pretty sure you agreed baptism wasn't something required by salvation. This is your problem LB....you get so caught up in having to be right, that you contradict yourself and go back on the things you say. This is why people struggle with you in this board. I think it is fantastic that you are digging into scripture and trying to understand what is required of you. What you have to understand though is, you aren't meant to understand everything 100%. You can't. You will always have questions or contradictions pop up (at least that's been my experience). It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". Regardless of what your religion tells you, it doesn't make you any less of a Christian.

"accepting God as your Lord and Savior" is as much of a work as baptism is, Commish.. you can't have it both ways, either we truely ahve to do absolutely nothing to be saved, or there are things we have to do...me saying you have to be baptized for God to grant you remission of your sins through His Grace is no different than you saying that you have to accept Him as your Lord and Saviour to have the same thing happen... both are actions we must take, both are things we must do...

to say one is a work and the other isn't is laughable at best...

 

[The Commish]

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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

Ok...now answer the primary question asked.

who taught me? People who actually taught me what the Bible said about things, not what thier traditions told them about what the Bible said about things...

So by your own admission....humans, like you and me, taught you what was literal and what was symbolic in the Bible? THAT explains A TON to me. Thanks for the info Did you ever stop and ask yourself who taught them?? or who taught them?

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

I have no idea LB. The translations are based on witnessed accounts. It could very well be that every eye witnessed account was one where people were "dunked" in the water. That doesn't mean all other ways are wrong. It just means that's what they saw. It's like me assuming very Italian living in Philly drives an IROC with lights underneath because that's all I have ever seen Italians from Philly drive. Then, going out somewhere, seeing an Italian from Philly driving a BMW and telling them they aren't an Italian from Philly because they don't drive and IROC.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

I would say all the way under, since "emmersion", as far as I know, means that...and I say that baptism means to literally dunk (emmerse) someone in water simply because that's waht the word meant in the Greek when it was said/written.

Like I said, its like me saying "let's play football" and you going and getting a baseball bat. We can call the game we play with that bat "football" all we want, but that doesn't make it football...

Ok...now answer the primary question asked.

who taught me? People who actually taught me what the Bible said about things, not what thier traditions told them about what the Bible said about things...

So by your own admission....humans, like you and me, taught you what was literal and what was symbolic in the Bible? THAT explains A TON to me. Thanks for the info Did you ever stop and ask yourself who taught them?? or who taught them?

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

I have no idea LB. The translations are based on witnessed accounts. It could very well be that every eye witnessed account was one where people were "dunked" in the water. That doesn't mean all other ways are wrong. It just means that's what they saw. It's like me assuming very Italian living in Philly drives an IROC with lights underneath because that's all I have ever seen Italians from Philly drive. Then, going out somewhere, seeing an Italian from Philly driving a BMW and telling them they aren't an Italian from Philly because they don't drive and IROC.

umm... so basically what your saying is that when the Apostles saying there is just one way to God they were lying, right?because if there is truely only one Lord, one faith, & one baptism, then, well, we need to see just that, that there is only one way to baptize people...

 

[The Commish]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...



also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

Are you suggesting that you have to be baptised to get into heaven?? Please explain the bolded.

if baptism = born of the water that is discussed in John chapter 3 then yes, it is required...if it is not the "born of the water" being discussed there, then I think it is on the level that God commanded it and refusal to obey is refusing Him... but would there be ways "around" it then (or more ways)?? I would hope so...

So you don't believe the scripture saying the way to God is through his grace. That it's a gift of God and not of works?? You can't have it both ways.....there is no condition for getting into heaven other than accepting God as your Lord and Savior and asking him to be the focal point of your life. As a matter of fact, earlier in this thread, I am pretty sure you agreed baptism wasn't something required by salvation. This is your problem LB....you get so caught up in having to be right, that you contradict yourself and go back on the things you say. This is why people struggle with you in this board. I think it is fantastic that you are digging into scripture and trying to understand what is required of you. What you have to understand though is, you aren't meant to understand everything 100%. You can't. You will always have questions or contradictions pop up (at least that's been my experience). It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". Regardless of what your religion tells you, it doesn't make you any less of a Christian.

"accepting God as your Lord and Savior" is as much of a work as baptism is, Commish.. you can't have it both ways, either we truely ahve to do absolutely nothing to be saved, or there are things we have to do...me saying you have to be baptized for God to grant you remission of your sins through His Grace is no different than you saying that you have to accept Him as your Lord and Saviour to have the same thing happen... both are actions we must take, both are things we must do...

to say one is a work and the other isn't is laughable at best...

What exactly is the "work" in that?? And I am pretty confident the word "work" is translated into actual labor in greek. What is the labor we have to perform by praying and asking God to come into our lives?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

Baptizo is a verb. You should be concerned with the whole predicate. The question is what should you be baptized in. The answer is the Spirit.

 

[larry_boy_44]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...



also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

Are you suggesting that you have to be baptised to get into heaven?? Please explain the bolded.

if baptism = born of the water that is discussed in John chapter 3 then yes, it is required...if it is not the "born of the water" being discussed there, then I think it is on the level that God commanded it and refusal to obey is refusing Him... but would there be ways "around" it then (or more ways)?? I would hope so...

So you don't believe the scripture saying the way to God is through his grace. That it's a gift of God and not of works?? You can't have it both ways.....there is no condition for getting into heaven other than accepting God as your Lord and Savior and asking him to be the focal point of your life. As a matter of fact, earlier in this thread, I am pretty sure you agreed baptism wasn't something required by salvation. This is your problem LB....you get so caught up in having to be right, that you contradict yourself and go back on the things you say. This is why people struggle with you in this board. I think it is fantastic that you are digging into scripture and trying to understand what is required of you. What you have to understand though is, you aren't meant to understand everything 100%. You can't. You will always have questions or contradictions pop up (at least that's been my experience). It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". Regardless of what your religion tells you, it doesn't make you any less of a Christian.

"accepting God as your Lord and Savior" is as much of a work as baptism is, Commish.. you can't have it both ways, either we truely ahve to do absolutely nothing to be saved, or there are things we have to do...me saying you have to be baptized for God to grant you remission of your sins through His Grace is no different than you saying that you have to accept Him as your Lord and Saviour to have the same thing happen... both are actions we must take, both are things we must do...

to say one is a work and the other isn't is laughable at best...

What exactly is the "work" in that?? And I am pretty confident the word "work" is translated into actual labor in greek. What is the labor we have to perform by praying and asking God to come into our lives?

what is the "work" required in getting yourself dunked in some water???There is just as much work needing to be done to pray and ask God something as there is to be dunked by someone else...

 

[ElGatoLoco]

... It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". Regardless of what your religion tells you, it doesn't make you any less of a Christian.

It is beyond Larry's capability to do this.

 

[larry_boy_44]

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

Baptizo is a verb. You should be concerned with the whole predicate.

??? It still is talking about emersion either way...

 

[ElGatoLoco]

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

Baptizo is a verb. You should be concerned with the whole predicate.

??? It still is talking about emersion either way...

in the Spirit.

 

[The Commish]

umm... so basically what your saying is that when the Apostles saying there is just one way to God they were lying, right?

because if there is truely only one Lord, one faith, & one baptism, then, well, we need to see just that, that there is only one way to baptize people...

Why do I have this feeling that you are just spewing and this has turned into a huge fishing expedition? I can't find a single sentence that would lead a logical person to ask the questions you have here. I can say, I have learned a lot in the last couple days and been exposed to many problems. All I can say is that I will pray for you LB. That's the best I can do.

 

[larry_boy_44]

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

Baptizo is a verb. You should be concerned with the whole predicate.

??? It still is talking about emersion either way...

in the Spirit.

you are mixing the two parts up...baptism and the infilling of the Holy Spirit are seperate things...

 

[popeye.]

Larry_boy,

I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace. In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law. Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar. So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up. Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

 

[ElGatoLoco]

so, what does "baptizo" mean and why did Jesus use it if He intended for people to be sprinkled?? Why not just tell them to sprinkle people in the first place?

Baptizo is a verb. You should be concerned with the whole predicate.

??? It still is talking about emersion either way...

in the Spirit.

you are mixing the two parts up...baptism and the infilling of the Holy Spirit are seperate things...

Nope. I'm correct.

 

[larry_boy_44]

umm... so basically what your saying is that when the Apostles saying there is just one way to God they were lying, right?

because if there is truely only one Lord, one faith, & one baptism, then, well, we need to see just that, that there is only one way to baptize people...

Why do I have this feeling that you are just spewing and this has turned into a huge fishing expedition? I can't find a single sentence that would lead a logical person to ask the questions you have here. I can say, I have learned a lot in the last couple days and been exposed to many problems. All I can say is that I will pray for you LB. That's the best I can do.

when the apostles said there was only one baptism, and they baptized people in a certain way in all places (whether desert or rainforest), why do we assume that we can just change EVERY PART OF IT (they emersed in Jesus' name, modern churches sprinkle in the titles) and it still be the same, valid baptism?it isn't like we had a water shortage and couldn't afford to baptize people thorugh emersion, we just don't feel like it...

that couples with the change from JEsus' name to the titles should be more htan enough to tell any modern person who is willing to get past thier dogma and think about it that something is up with the way that baptism is done and a lot more study and thought needs to be put into it and maybe we should be going back to emerssing people in JEsus name...

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Another question. When I wipe it is usually front to back, but after reading through all these pages I am beginning to wonder if I am doing it wrong. Should I be wiping back to front or is either technique acceptable?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Another question. When I wipe it is usually front to back, but after reading through all these pages I am beginning to wonder if I am doing it wrong. Should I be wiping back to front or is either technique acceptable?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry_boy,

I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace. In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law. Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar. So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up. Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

 

[Limp Ditka]

Another question. When I wipe it is usually front to back, but after reading through all these pages I am beginning to wonder if I am doing it wrong. Should I be wiping back to front or is either technique acceptable?

Whatever you do, don't stand

 

[popeye.]

Another question. When I wipe it is usually front to back, but after reading through all these pages I am beginning to wonder if I am doing it wrong. Should I be wiping back to front or is either technique acceptable?

 

[The Commish]

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.

"Holy Water"??? No such thing (except in Catholic dogma)...Holy Spirit is capitalized because the Holy Spirit is a part fo God (well, is God, but whatever)... water is not capitalized because it is just plain old water (that or it is talking of child-birth... either way, it is not something that should be capitalized)

have you ever thought that being baptized in water is PART of being baptized in the spirit? I mean, it is only a symbolic ceremony (even when "Baptism" actually meant to dunk someone like the word actually means)...



also, remember, one who is not born of the water AND the Spirit cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, it doesn't matter if one was capitalized or not, if you don't have both, you aren't getting in...

Are you suggesting that you have to be baptised to get into heaven?? Please explain the bolded.

if baptism = born of the water that is discussed in John chapter 3 then yes, it is required...if it is not the "born of the water" being discussed there, then I think it is on the level that God commanded it and refusal to obey is refusing Him... but would there be ways "around" it then (or more ways)?? I would hope so...

So you don't believe the scripture saying the way to God is through his grace. That it's a gift of God and not of works?? You can't have it both ways.....there is no condition for getting into heaven other than accepting God as your Lord and Savior and asking him to be the focal point of your life. As a matter of fact, earlier in this thread, I am pretty sure you agreed baptism wasn't something required by salvation. This is your problem LB....you get so caught up in having to be right, that you contradict yourself and go back on the things you say. This is why people struggle with you in this board. I think it is fantastic that you are digging into scripture and trying to understand what is required of you. What you have to understand though is, you aren't meant to understand everything 100%. You can't. You will always have questions or contradictions pop up (at least that's been my experience). It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know". Regardless of what your religion tells you, it doesn't make you any less of a Christian.

"accepting God as your Lord and Savior" is as much of a work as baptism is, Commish.. you can't have it both ways, either we truely ahve to do absolutely nothing to be saved, or there are things we have to do...me saying you have to be baptized for God to grant you remission of your sins through His Grace is no different than you saying that you have to accept Him as your Lord and Saviour to have the same thing happen... both are actions we must take, both are things we must do...

to say one is a work and the other isn't is laughable at best...

What exactly is the "work" in that?? And I am pretty confident the word "work" is translated into actual labor in greek. What is the labor we have to perform by praying and asking God to come into our lives?

what is the "work" required in getting yourself dunked in some water???There is just as much work needing to be done to pray and ask God something as there is to be dunked by someone else...

Seriously??

 

[The Football Freak]

Emersed = Rising above the surface of water.

Immerse = To baptise by submerging in water.

I just couldn't take it any more. And no this doesn't prove your case Larry.

 

[popeye.]

Larry_boy,

  I'm certain others have tried, so as we part ways I wish that one day you will better understand grace.  In a nutshell here's how it works;

1) God LOVES people, even Smoo

2) God loves people so much that he wanted to do what they could not, save them from themseleves and restore the fellowship God wants

3) Jesus came to fulfill all the requirements of the law.  Heck in the book of Matthew we read that even raised the bar.  So high, in fact that no one, not you, me or even Smoo could ever measure up.  Jesus did this purposefully to show you, me and even Smoo have to rely on Him, and the Grace that is offered to any who would ask for it.

  Most of the other stuff simply shows how far we are, and will ever be from reaching where we need to be.

  Good luck and peace to you,

Popeye

what if God considers being baptized (and doing it properly) is part of asking for it?

must refrain from temptation to reply . . . . . . . . . . the force is strong with this one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ARGHHHHH . . . tempting so very very tempting . . . . . . . . must reply, but can't get into debate that serves no purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Larry_boy God loves you - enjoy it and allow others to enjoy their relationship with Him as well.

 

[larry_boy_44]

what is the "work" required in getting yourself dunked in some water???

There is just as much work needing to be done to pray and ask God something as there is to be dunked by someone else...

Seriously??

yes... you really think there is "work" involved in hopping in some water and letting someone put you under it for a second in Jesus' name???I mean, really... that isn't work...

building a homeless person a house, that's work... giving money to the poor is work in that you had to work for the money to give to them... helping the sick and orphaned and widowed, that is work...

getting dunked? Absolutely not...

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Emersed = Rising above the surface of water.

Immerse = To baptise by submerging in water.

I just couldn't take it any more. And no this doesn't prove your case Larry.

Thank you.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Emersed = Rising above the surface of water.

Immerse = To baptise by submerging in water.

I just couldn't take it any more. And no this doesn't prove your case Larry.

I know I"ve been spelling it wrong... I just haven't felt like looking it up as I have to leave in a few mintues and I wanna say what I ahve to say...

 

[The Football Freak]

Emersed = Rising above the surface of water.

Immerse = To baptise by submerging in water.

I just couldn't take it any more.  And no this doesn't prove your case Larry.

I know I"ve been spelling it wrong... I just haven't felt like looking it up as I have to leave in a few mintues and I wanna say what I ahve to say...

It only takes a second to look it up on the web Larry. It hurts your myriad arguments when you take no note of the little things.

 

[The Commish]

when the apostles said there was only one baptism, and they baptized people in a certain way in all places (whether desert or rainforest), why do we assume that we can just change EVERY PART OF IT (they emersed in Jesus' name, modern churches sprinkle in the titles) and it still be the same, valid baptism?

it isn't like we had a water shortage and couldn't afford to baptize people thorugh emersion, we just don't feel like it...

that couples with the change from JEsus' name to the titles should be more htan enough to tell any modern person who is willing to get past thier dogma and think about it that something is up with the way that baptism is done and a lot more study and thought needs to be put into it and maybe we should be going back to emerssing people in JEsus name...

This seems relatively obvious to me and is what I have said all along, because the essence of the baptism had nothing to do with the physical dunking of the person and everything to do with the act of cleansing...whether that cleansing was demonstrated by dunking, pouring a cup over the person's head or sprinkling.My experience tells me that if God wants something done a certain way, he's very good about telling us how to do it. If it doesn't really matter HOW we do it, just that we do it, he leaves things for us to figure out and become comfortable with what works for us as it fits with our relationship with him.