All Agree: Infant Baptism is NOT Biblical!
Straight John Bull
Christopher Robin
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> And it never was............
>
And no proof to back up your nonsense.
Christopher Robin
"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
news:qmueuv0stolkt3mu0...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:27 GMT, David <dave...@telesport.com>
> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >spirit of Christianity I will pray he gets well soon.
>
> Bull has simply stated the truth, that there is no scriptural basis
> for infant baptism, and Jesus' final instruction to us command
> believer's baptism.
>
But Jesus' final command doesn't state "believer's baptism". You added
"believer's" to the command.
> We are to be baptized the way our Lord was, by immersion as believers.
>
Except you haven't proven the Lord was immersed.
galia
"Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cyLFb.34628$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>
> But Jesus' final command doesn't state "believer's baptism". You added
> "believer's" to the command.
Christopher, scripture state clearly "believe and be baptist"!
How much clearer could it be?
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> Chris!
>
> Jesus was immersed!
>
Where's the proof - your claim does not make proof, John. Tiger claims to
have been to the Jordan River by Bethany - where the Bible states Jesus was
Baptized, and Tiger claims the water is not deep enough for immersion.
> EVERY instance in the New Testament of baptism was immersion. Paul
> described baptism as symbolic of "being buried with Christ."
>
None of them state immersion. You ASSUME that, but the Bible does not state
that. The Bible makes no specific statement about the method of ANY baptism
in the New Testament.
> In fact, there is NO SINGLE InSTANCE of anyone being sprinkled in the
> New Testament.
>
You cannot prove that, John. The Bible does not state any specific method.
you assume immersion even though there is no specific statement anywhere to
that end.
> And regarding your pre-programmed response "show me where the eunuch
> was baptized in the Jordan", the eunuch was immersed. THAT is the
requirement.
>
Where does the Bible state that he was immersed. I've read the Eunuch
passage, the word 'immerse' doesn't appear anywhere in it. Nor does the
word "immerse" appear when Jesus was Baptized. Again, the word "immerse"
doesn't appear when the Bible speaks of Lydia's household, Cornelius'
household or the Jailer's household.
> And why do you continue to waste our time with this apostate,
> heretical foolishness?
>
Because you continue to claim things are in the Bible that are not.
> YOU will believe as Rome dictates! I will believe as the Bible
> teaches. Believer's immersion!
Where does the Bible teach immersion. The word does not appear with any of
the Baptismal passages.
> We do it how Jesus did it!
In the Jordan River? In a natural water source? By your cousin?
> And why would Jesus be immersed IF IT WERE NOT IMPORTANT?
>
Who says He was immersed? Not the Bible. The word immersed doesn't appear
in that passage.
> Why do you REFUSE to be baptized the way Jesus showed us?
>
I don't. Why do you lie?
jsm
> And it never was............
1. The Catholic Church has had infant baptism from the
begging..from 2000 years ago to the present time.
2. Infant Baptism is not excluded from the Bible.
3. Early Church Fathers speak of Infant baptism.
All above are Catholic.
Christopher Robin
"galia" <ga...@netrover.com> wrote in message
news:RBLFb.166754$PD3.5...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
ujb
>
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:10:59 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
You have no proof John.
> Chris!
>
> Jesus was immersed!
How do you know this?
> EVERY instance in the New Testament of baptism was immersion. Paul
> described baptism as symbolic of "being buried with Christ."
How do you know this?
> In fact, there is NO SINGLE InSTANCE of anyone being sprinkled in the
> New Testament.
So, it's not all written is it?
> And regarding your pre-programmed response "show me where the eunuch
> was baptized in the Jordan", the eunuch was immersed.
How do you know this?
> THAT is the requirement.
Show the requirement.
> And why do you continue to waste our time with this apostate,
> heretical foolishness?
>
> YOU will believe as Rome dictates! I will believe as the Bible
> teaches. Believer's immersion!
"Believer's immersion!" is not in my KJV, what Bible shows
believer's immersion?
> We do it how Jesus did it!
And how was that, and how much water was used John?
> And why would Jesus be immersed IF IT WERE
> NOT IMPORTANT?
Can you show He was immersed, or was He sprinkled as was the
requirement for priesthood?
> Why do you REFUSE to be baptized the way Jesus showed us?
??? did He show us John?
> YOU will believe as Rome dictates! I will believe as the Bible
> teaches. Believer's immersion!
"Believer's immersion", are you adding to the Bible again John?
> John W
galia
of believing. If this is true, is an infant also capable of unbelief?
Akigar
When he had come into the house, the blind men came to him. Yeshua said to
them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They told him, "Yes,
Lord."
Let me write it another way.
When he had come into the house, a young baby came to him. Yeshua said to
them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They told him, "Yes,
Lord."
>
>
Akigar
stumble, it would be better for him that a huge millstone should be hung
around his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depths of the sea."
No age specified. You're not going to tell us that those little ones, those
little Jews or non-Jews the Gospel mentions believed in Him? What would have
been those beliefs? It must be that their parents were believers, no?
Please give us your Baptist interpretation of that verse, in context, the
literalist way?
>
Straight John Bull
He is not lying...as we shall see.
First of all let us take a look at the meaning of Greek word for the English
word, Baptize.
[Strong's Greek Number 0907
BAPTIZE Greek word: baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
1) To dip repeatedly, to Immerse, to Submerge (of vessels sunk)
[Exceptionally precise and clear here then ?]
2) To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water,
to wash one's self, bathe.
[Once again so overwhemingly clear, look "To cleanse by dipping or
submerging" now when one is dipped or submerged such is then 'Washed' or
made "Clean" by such an action. See also *Concordance comment below]
*Not to be conused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the
meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who
lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful
because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle,
the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then
'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the
immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The
second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
3) To Overwhelm.
[Well need we say anymore.
For this sums up everything most wonderfully, in just two words. "TO
OVERWHELM"
Yet AGAIN proving the points regarding baptism that it is by FULL IMMERSION
of the body into water.
Now we will take a look at what the what the Encyclopedias say:
Encyclopedia Britannica: "The word is derived from the Greek baptize, a
frequentive form of baptize, to dip, or wash, which is the term used in the
New Testament when the sacrament is described . . . The usual mode of
performing the ceremony was by immersion . . . The Council of Ravenna in
1311, was the first council of the (Roman Catholic) church which legalized
baptism by sprinkling, by leaving it to the choice of the officiating
minister."
Encyclopedia Americana: "Baptism (that is, dipping, immersing, from the
Greek baptizo) . . . In the time of the apostles, the form of baptism was
very simple. The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel with
the words which Christ had ordered . . ."
New International Encyclopedia: "Baptism . . . was originally by immersion.
The candidates used to descend into fonts or streams, or rivers, and sink
beneath the waters under the pressure of the hands of the minister."
Chamber's Encyclopedia: "Baptism . . . It is, however, indisputable that at
a very early period the ordinary mode of baptism was by immersion . . ."
Nelson Complete Encyclopedia (1937, 24 volumes): "There is little doubt that
the original practice was immersion . . ."
What do Bible Dictionaries say?
Blunt's Theological Dictionary: "That immersion was the ordinary mode of
baptizing in the primitive church is unquestionable."
Catholic Dictionary (by Wm. E. Addis, 1934): "Baptism . . . In apostolic
times the body of the baptized person was immersed, for St. Paul looks on
this immersion as typifying burial with Christ, and speaks of baptism as a
bath . . . for even St. Thomas in the 13th century, speaks of baptism by
immersion as the common practice of his time."
The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary (1941): "Baptism . . . the act of
immersing or washing."
Hook's Church Dictionary: "In performing the ceremony of baptism, the usual
custom was to immerse and dip the whole body."
What do the Religious Encyclopedias say?
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: "Baptism . . . Original
Forms . . . It is an attractive theory, supported by Cyprian's express
statement, that the Jews and the Gentiles in the apostles' time had a
different manner of baptizing; that among the Jewish Christians a single
immersion was the rule, in the name of Christ alone, on the analogy of the
Jewish proselyte baptism, while the threefold immersion in the threefold
name, which has its counterpoint in the heathen lustrations was the rule
among the Gentile Christians."
The Concordia Encyclopedia (1927): "Baptism . . . Nevertheless, it is held
by historians that immersion wholly in water was the prevailing mode of the
first century."
The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Baptism . . . The word baptism derived from the
Greek word means to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that laying
is the essential idea of the sacrament . . . The most ancient form usually
employed was unquestionably immersion. In the Latin (Catholic) church,
immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century."
What do early Christian writers say?
Hermas (in the Commands of Hermas, Book 2, Com. 4, C. 3): "And I said to
him, 'I have even now heard from certain teachers, that there is no other
repentance besides that of baptism; when we go down into the water, and
receive the forgiveness of sins; and after that we should sin no more, but
live in purity!' And he said to me-' Thou host been rightly informed'."
Tertullian, (On Baptism, Chapter 7): "Thus, too, in our ease, the unction
runs carnally, (such as on the body), but profits spiritually; in the same
way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in
water, but the effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from sins."
What do the Roman Catholic Councils say?
Council of Nice, A.D. 325: "He who is baptized descends indeed, obnoxious to
sins, and held with the corruptions of slavery; but he ascends free from the
slavery of sins, a son of God, heir-yea, co-heir-with Christ, having put on
Christ, as it is written, 'As many of you as were baptized into Christ have
put on Christ'."
Fourth Council of Toledo, A.D. 633: "For shunning the schism (trine
immersion) or the use of an heretical practice, we observe a single
immersion in baptism . . . For the immersion in the waters is a descent, as
it were into the grave; and, again, the emersion from the waters is a
resurrection."
Council of Worms, A.D. 868: "While some priests baptized with three
immersions, and others with one, a schism was raised, endangering the unity
of the church "
Council of Tribur, A.D. 895: "Trine immersion is an imitation of the three
days burial, and the rising again out of the water is an image of Christ
rising from the grave."
The Synod of Cologne, A.D. 1280: "He who baptizes, when he immerses the
candidate in water, shall neither add to the words, or take away from them,
or change them."
Council of Ravenna, A.D. 1311: "Baptism is to be administered by tribe
immersion or aspersion."
Have you noted that first trine immersion was called an "heretical
practice," and then accepted. That immersion only was accepted, and then,
for the first time, in 1311 pouring was accepted. The main thing to be noted
is that only immersion was the practice for 1300 years.
Make a note of that folks........
What some preachers had to say:
(From Twentieth Century Christian, 1962)
John Calvin, Presbyterian: "The word baptize signifies to immerse. It is
certain that immersion was the practice of the primitive church."
Martin Luther, Lutheran: "Baptism is a Greek word and may be translated
immerse. I would have those who are to be baptized to be altogether dipped."
John Wesley, Methodist: "Buried with him in baptism-alluding to the ancient
manner of baptizing by immersion."
Wall, Episcopalian: "Immersion was in all probability the way in which our
blessed Savior, and for certain the way by which the ancient Christians
received their baptism."
Brenner, Catholic: "For thirteen hundred years was baptism an immersion of
the person under water."
Macknight, Presbyterian: "In baptism the baptized person is buried under the
water. Christ submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under water."
Whitfield, Methodist: "It is certain that the word of our text, Romans 6:4,
alludes to the manner of baptizing by immersion."
What does the New Testament say?
Acts 8:36: ". . . they came unto a certain water . . ." It is only natural
that a person who intended to be immersed must come to enough water to do
so. Never do we find a single case in the New Testament of water being
brought to a person who was going to be baptized.
Acts 8:38: ". . . and they both went down into the water . . ." It is
necessary for immersion that both the one to be baptized and the one doing
the baptizing go down into the water. This would not be necessary in
sprinkling or pouring.
Acts 8:39: ". . . they came up out of the water . . ." Both must come up out
of the water once having gone into the water. This would not be necessary in
the case of sprinkling or pouring.
Romans 6:4: ". . . buried therefore with him by baptism into death . . ."
Colossians 2:12: ". . . buried with him in baptism, in which you were also
raised with him . . ." Baptism is described in these two verses as a burial.
When something is buried it is completely covered or submerged.
Only immersion can fit the description of a burial. One is not buried in
baptism when water is sprinkled or poured over his head. Then too, only one
who is buried in water can be raised up out of it. No person can be raised
from a few drops of water.
In the study of the many other examples to be found in the New Testament we
find that those who were baptized were immersed. Much water was needed,
going down into the water and coming up out of the water, is very evident.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the baptism of the New Testament is
immersion.
Once again I will rest my case and hope now many will see "Splashings" and
[baby ] "Sprinklings" are not true baptisms at all, for even the Roman
Catholic Church practised "IMMERSION" up until the 13 century.
HTH.
Akigar
reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we will say, 'From heaven,' they will
ask us, 'Why then did you not believe in immersion?' 26 But if we will say,
'From men,' we fear the Baptists on this newsgroup, for all hold immersion
as a command from God.
LOL
>
>
Christopher Robin
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
According to the Bible one can believe from the womb.
Also Luke 1:41-44
41When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and
Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42In a loud voice she exclaimed:
"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43But
why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44As soon
as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped
for joy.
Or are you going to suggest that Elizabeth (FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT) was
incorrect about her baby?
Christopher Robin
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> First of all let us take a look at the meaning of Greek word for the
English
> word, Baptize.
>
> [Strong's Greek Number 0907
> BAPTIZE Greek word: baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
> 1) To dip repeatedly, to Immerse, to Submerge (of vessels sunk)
> [Exceptionally precise and clear here then ?]
> 2) To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water,
> to wash one's self, bathe.
>
And definition 2 - to clean by dipping or submerging. TO WASH, TO MAKE
CLEAN WITH WATER.
> [Once again so overwhemingly clear, look "To cleanse by dipping or
> submerging" now when one is dipped or submerged such is then 'Washed' or
> made "Clean" by such an action. See also *Concordance comment below]
>
And conveniently you skip the 2nd part of the definition which does not
necessarily indicate submersion.
galia
galia
"Akigar" <Akhikar@what*thenews.ca> wrote in message
news:0kTFb.5877$d%1.12...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Will get back to you regarding the other issue tonight
(I am not retired )
akhikar
Nothing to be ashamed of, Jesus was am-ha-arets.
You're not retired. Enjoy yourself while you can because retirement is also
a temporary situation.
>
>
Straight John Bull
>
> "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> English
> > word, Baptize.
> >
> > [Strong's Greek Number 0907
> > BAPTIZE Greek word: baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
> > 1) To dip repeatedly, to Immerse, to Submerge (of vessels sunk)
> > [Exceptionally precise and clear here then ?]
> > 2) To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with
water,
> > to wash one's self, bathe.
> >
> And definition 2 - to clean by dipping or submerging. TO WASH, TO MAKE
> CLEAN WITH WATER.
>
> > [Once again so overwhemingly clear, look "To cleanse by dipping or
> > submerging" now when one is dipped or submerged such is then 'Washed' or
> > made "Clean" by such an action. See also *Concordance comment below]
> >
> And conveniently you skip the 2nd part of the definition which does not
> necessarily indicate submersion.
No-one skipped anything, although you neatly snipped all the references
pointing to the practise of baptism by immersion even by the Catholic
church till the 13th century.
I guess we will have to leave you in your ignorance then....
Horse
"Yea, though I live in the valley by the river and watch the lemming corpses
of my enemy float by.........I fear no Christian mushrooms.......I anoint
their heads with my manure...... I trod over them on my travels to green
pastures......they lay crushed beneath my hooves.....and fertilize the grass
forever"
-Horse-proverb:6913-
"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
news:fj1huvcbcfpjpsn7b...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
> On 22 Dec 2003 16:12:38 -0800, jsm...@yahoo.com (jsm) wrote:
>
> >"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
news:<q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >> And it never was............
> >
> > 1. The Catholic Church has had infant baptism from the
> > begging..from 2000 years ago to the present time.
>
> Lie. The "Catholic Church" is not mentioned in the Bible. Therefore,
> infant baptism was not being used from the "begging" (the beginning).
> There is not one single mention of infants being baptized in the
> Bible, and in fact, Jesus command to go and make disciples precludes
> infant baptism. And all the instances mentioned, for instance, where
> either Peter or Paul preached, indicates those who "believed" were
> "added to the church." When Phillp encountered the eunuch, the
> eunuch "believed" and "asked, here is water, what prevents me from
> being baptized." The man was old enough to understand and request
> baptism.
>
> Baptizing an infant who is unaware is equal to spiritual rape, since
> the infant cannot say "no."
>
> > 2. Infant Baptism is not excluded from the Bible.
>
> Lie. Infant baptism is never ONCE mentioned in the Bible. This
> ridiculous statement is ONLY made by someone who is not a bible
> student, but who is instead a "student" of Roman Catholic heresies.
>
> > 3. Early Church Fathers speak of Infant baptism.
>
> Lie. The 12 and Jesus NEVER spoke of infant baptism. The 12 are the
> "Early Church Fathers". And when you see the concept of infant
> baptism creep into the "church" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, correct!
> It was one of the EARLY gentile/pagan heresies!
>
> A PROPER understanding of the Bible (the 66-book one) shows no infant
> baptism, and no need for infant baptism. Infant baptism presupposes
> that if the 5 day old infant dies for some reason (God forbid) if
> he/she hasn't been baptized, he/she goes to hell. Ridiculous!
> Infants are "innocent" of sin, and therefore, they go to heaven
> AUTOMATICALLY. This is why it's futile (and a TOTAL mis-understanding
> of Christianity and grace to baptize infants the world over, which the
> anti-Christ pagan cult, Roman Catholicism is doing to this very day!)
>
> > All above are Catholic.
>
> Lie! The word "Catholic" appears NOWHERE in the Bible! the
> denominations "Baptist", "Church of Christ", "Christians" and "The
> Way" DO appear in the Bible, but NOT "Catholics" or "Roman Catholics",
> both of which were later 2nd C or 3rd C heresies.
>
>
> You are preaching to Christians who know better! Save your breath!
>
> And post your fecal matter someplace else! These "doctrines" are
> straight out of the pit of hell!
>
>
> Also don't make the mistake of saying "Christian" and "Roman Catholic"
> in the same breath. They are mutually exclusive.
>
> I'll give you an example: Little Johnny Jones is from a good Roman
> Catholic family. When he is 2 days old, he is "baptized". He is now a
> "good Christian headed for heaven." When Johnny is 10, he comes to
> realize he's a homosexual, and he begins active homosexual lifestyle
> at 15. Around 17, he comes to realize that he's an atheist, and he
> never darkens the door of a church of ANY kind again until his death
> at age 70 of AIDS.
>
> Even though Johnny Jones was an open atheist and open homosexual from
> the time he was a teen, when he dies as an AIDS patient (from the
> homosex) at age 70, he's still a "Roman Catholic" and therefore, he
> goes to heaven. And now we have an atheist AIDS patient homosexual in
> heaven, HATING that he ended up in heaven, a place he doesn't believe
> in, hating that he's in God's presence, since he doesn't believe in
> God.
>
> But since he was baptized at 2 days old, he's in heaven anyway!
>
> R I D I C U L O U S !!!
>
> And that is the UTTER absurdity of Roman Catholicism. NO thought, NO
> consideration of how it all fits together, NO understanding of grace!
> Just pronounce those magic words, and drip some water, and make the
> whole world "Catholic."
>
> It doesn't work that way.
>
> I worked for 3 months with a "devout" Roman Catholic. She'd tell you
> in a heartbeat that she was a Roman Catholic, but she only attended
> church about twice a year, she caroused like a pagan, and her two
> favorite words were variations on the "f" word, and her other more
> favorite word was "goddamn".
>
> I finally had my crawful and mentioned her terrible behavior and
> language! "Oh, it's okay! My priest cusses worse than I do! I'll just
> go to Purgatory, and my friends and family will pray me into heaven!
> No sweat!"
>
>
> John W
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
>
Alberich
wrote:
>A PROPER understanding of the Bible (the 66-book one) shows no infant
>baptism, and no need for infant baptism.
And which Bible is that?
>Infant baptism presupposes
>that if the 5 day old infant dies for some reason (God forbid) if
>he/she hasn't been baptized, he/she goes to hell. Ridiculous!
>Infants are "innocent" of sin, and therefore, they go to heaven
>AUTOMATICALLY.
What do you say to Rom 5:12 et seq.?
>I'll give you an example: Little Johnny Jones is from a good Roman
>Catholic family. When he is 2 days old, he is "baptized". He is now a
>"good Christian headed for heaven." When Johnny is 10, he comes to
>realize he's a homosexual, and he begins active homosexual lifestyle
>at 15. Around 17, he comes to realize that he's an atheist, and he
>never darkens the door of a church of ANY kind again until his death
>at age 70 of AIDS.
>
>Even though Johnny Jones was an open atheist and open homosexual from
>the time he was a teen, when he dies as an AIDS patient (from the
>homosex) at age 70, he's still a "Roman Catholic" and therefore, he
>goes to heaven.
Wrong.
>And now we have an atheist AIDS patient homosexual in
>heaven, HATING that he ended up in heaven, a place he doesn't believe
>in, hating that he's in God's presence, since he doesn't believe in
>God.
>
>But since he was baptized at 2 days old, he's in heaven anyway!
Wrong.
>R I D I C U L O U S !!!
Indeed. You lack of knowledge about the Bible is seemingly outweighed
only by your self-importance and lack of knowledge of the Roman
Catholic Church.
>And that is the UTTER absurdity of Roman Catholicism. NO thought, NO
>consideration of how it all fits together, NO understanding of grace!
>Just pronounce those magic words, and drip some water, and make the
>whole world "Catholic."
>
>It doesn't work that way.
For once, we agree.
>her two
>favorite words were variations on the "f" word, and her other more
>favorite word was "goddamn".
Sounds like a poster in this very forum...
>I finally had my crawful and mentioned her terrible behavior and
>language!
I suppose you thanked her for teaching you?
Alberich
Alan Ferris
wrote:
>
>Proof? No proof penetrates your brick hard Roman Catholic skull,
>Chris!
>
>Jesus was immersed!
Question:
Jesus was also buried in a vault in a cliff face. Are all good
christians to be similarly buried? If not why not?
--
Alan "Ferrit" Ferris
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
jhalley
"not what goes into the mouth defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a person."Matthew 15:11
"what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a person."
Matthew 15:18-20
Jesus utters these words when the Pharisees
questioned him about why his disciples were going against tradition and the law
when they did not wash their hands before eating. Jesus promptly calls them
hypocrites.
Jesus has a wonderful way of putting things in perspective for people. Here,
the Pharisees are all worked up because the disciples ate with unwashed hands.
Jesus uses their petty observances of the letter of the law to remind
them of what is really important. It's not what we put into our
mouths that makes us sinners, it's what comes out of our mouths and our
hearts. Because just a reminder that baptism is from
one heart to God! Grace and Peace, jack
what we utter, the words
we use and say, reveal what is really in our hearts.
zayton
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:10:59 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> Chris!
>
> Jesus was immersed!
Doesn't say so. Just that he was Baptized. He was, by the way, baptized not
in a Christian Baptizm, but in John's baptism, which was a baptism for the
repentance of sins.
>
> EVERY instance in the New Testament of baptism was immersion. Paul
> described baptism as symbolic of "being buried with Christ."
Again, it never says so. Being buried would suggest dirt, rather than water.
>
> In fact, there is NO SINGLE InSTANCE of anyone being sprinkled in the
> New Testament.
Nor of them being immersed. the method is never discussed.
>
> And regarding your pre-programmed response "show me where the eunuch
> was baptized in the Jordan", the eunuch was immersed. THAT is the
> requirement.
Documantation please.
>
> And why do you continue to waste our time with this apostate,
> heretical foolishness?
>
> YOU will believe as Rome dictates! I will believe as the Bible
> teaches. Believer's immersion!
> We do it how Jesus did it! And why would Jesus be immersed IF IT WERE
> NOT IMPORTANT?
It never says that he was.
>
> Why do you REFUSE to be baptized the way Jesus showed us?
>
> YOU will believe as Rome dictates! I will believe as the Bible
> teaches. Believer's immersion!
>
Christopher Robin
Christopher Robin
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> I guess we will have to leave you in your ignorance then....
>
Nope... I just snipped your strawman - I'm well aware that some Catholic
Churches still baptize by immersion. My point is that immersion is not the
ONLY valid form.
Straight John Bull
We are talking about baby/infant baptims being Biblical, and they are not...
Baby sprinkling is not an accepted form of baptism as belief has to come
before baptism takes place.
That is what Christ states...
> > I guess we will have to leave you in your ignorance then....
> >
> Nope... I just snipped your strawman -
Popycock!
> I'm well aware that some Catholic
> Churches still baptize by immersion. My point is that immersion is not
the
> ONLY valid form.
It was during the first 12 centuries of Christian practices.
Christopher Robin
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
household. Nothing about anyone in the household being excluded. Similarly
Cornelius & the Jailer. The ENTIRE household was baptized. No
restrictions, no exclusions given.
Take it up with the Christians in the first 200-300 years. They saw things
differently than you.
> > > I guess we will have to leave you in your ignorance then....
> > >
> > Nope... I just snipped your strawman -
>
> Popycock!
>
> > I'm well aware that some Catholic
> > Churches still baptize by immersion. My point is that immersion is not
the
> > ONLY valid form.
>
> It was during the first 12 centuries of Christian practices.
>
You would be incorrect. Go read the Didache.
Chapter 7
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these
precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if
thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
See 7:3 - POUR WATER. It also recommends cold running water (like a river).
Irenaeus (around 185) in Against Heresies II 22:4 writes:
For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through
Him are born again to God -infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and
old men.
Hippolytus (215): And they shall baptize the little children first. And if
they
can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their
parents answer or someone from their family. And next they shall baptism the
grown men; and last the women. (Apostolic Tradition 21.3-5)
Origen (mid 200s): I take this occasion to discuss something which our
brothers often
inquire about. Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of what
kinds? Or when did they sin? But since "No one is exempt from stain," one
removes the stain by the mystery of baptism. For this reason infants are
baptized. For "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter
the kingdom of heaven." (Homily on Luke 14:5).
[After quoting Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:4] These verses may be adduced when it
is asked why, since the baptism of the church is given for the remission of
sins, baptism according to the practice of the church is given even to
infants; since indeed if there is in infants nothing which ought to pertain
to forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be superfluous. (Homily
on Leviticus 8:3).
[After quoting Leviticus 12:8 and Psalm 51:5] For this also the church had a
tradition from the apostles, to give baptism even to infants. For they to
whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were given knew that there is in
all persons the natural stains of sin which must be washed away by the water
and the Spirit. On account of these stains the body itself is called the
body of sin. (Commentary on Romans 5:9)
Cyprian: In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be
baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of
ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is
just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we
all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you
thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the
mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man...
Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision... we
ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not
sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has
contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who
approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the
forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the
sins of another" (Letter 58 to Fidus).
Augustine (mid 400s): For from the infant newly born to the old man bent
with age, as
there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does
not die to sin. (Enchiridion; ch. 43)
ujb
>
> I guess you and Tiger BOTH missed the news story last week about the
> singer (her name escapes me), married to Bobby Brown. She said the
> high point of her life was going to Jersusalem and being BAPTIZED IN
> THE JORDAN RIVER. She actually had it videotaped, and it was shown on
> the news. You missed it since your eyes are so tightly squinched shut!
> There was a metal staircase designed for that purpose, and she and the
> pastor and some others had climbed down into waist deep water, and she
> was BAPTIZED in the Jordan River! Tiger either went to the wrong
> spot, or he is lying! I saw the baptism with my own eyes!
That's really a strong endorsement after all the other things
your mind has conjured up for our enjoyment! :)
jimmy
ujb
>
> x-no-archive:yes
> Chris, who is not interested in any POV but Rome's.
>
> John W
It looks like he's interested in the truth, so you'd be of little
help John.
jimmy
ujb
>
> x-no-archive:yes
> did, Chris?
Are you saying Jesus said the "sinner's prayer"?
jimmy
>
> If you haven't followed our Lord's example, your words are H O L L O W
> !!
>
> John W
>
> >
> >
> >> I guess we will have to leave you in your ignorance then....
> >>
> >Nope... I just snipped your strawman - I'm well aware that some Catholic
> >Churches still baptize by immersion. My point is that immersion is not the
> >ONLY valid form.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________
Tiger
What he fails to mention, is that the site he's referring to was in
Galilee, where the Sea of Galilee empties into the Jordan. He also
doesn't know or doesn't understand that said site was constructed
*just for the purpose* of performing baptism by immersion. They have
a gift shop there, as well as bleachers! I've baptized people there
myself.
What he *also* fails to mention is that John baptized "near Bethany
in Judea." Anyone got a Bible atlas? Find Bethany and see how close
it is to the Sea of Galilee.
--
Tiger
"All intelligent faith in God has behind it a background of humble
agnosticism."
- Harry Emerson Fosdick
Iconoclast
"Tiger" <Ti...@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns945B6D0673...@24.25.9.41...
> ujb <u...@bigfot.com> wrote in news:3FE9AC1A...@bigfot.com:
>
> > "John W
> >>
> >> I guess you and Tiger BOTH missed the news story last week about
> >> the singer (her name escapes me), married to Bobby Brown. She
> >> said the high point of her life was going to Jersusalem and being
> >> BAPTIZED IN THE JORDAN RIVER. She actually had it videotaped,
> >> and it was shown on the news. You missed it since your eyes are
> >> so tightly squinched shut! There was a metal staircase designed
> >> for that purpose, and she and the pastor and some others had
> >> climbed down into waist deep water, and she was BAPTIZED in the
> >> Jordan River! Tiger either went to the wrong spot, or he is
> >> lying! I saw the baptism with my own eyes!
> >
> > That's really a strong endorsement after all the other things
> > your mind has conjured up for our enjoyment! :)
> > jimmy
> >
>
> What he fails to mention, is that the site he's referring to was in
> Galilee, where the Sea of Galilee empties into the Jordan. He also
> doesn't know or doesn't understand that said site was constructed
> *just for the purpose* of performing baptism by immersion. They have
> a gift shop there, as well as bleachers! I've baptized people there
> myself.
O.K. YOU have baptized others there. Have you ever seen a baby baptizing
anyone anywhere?
We have preacher baptism
We have Preist baptism
We have layman baptism
Infant baptism?
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 23:58:00 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:27 GMT, David <dave...@telesport.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >x-no-archive: yes
> >> >
> >> >Christopher Robin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > And it never was............
> >> >> >
> >> >> And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >spirit of Christianity I will pray he gets well soon.
> >>
> >> Bull has simply stated the truth, that there is no scriptural basis
> >> for infant baptism, and Jesus' final instruction to us command
> >> believer's baptism.
> >>
> >
> >But Jesus' final command doesn't state "believer's baptism". You added
> >"believer's" to the command.
>
> This has been proved REPEATEDLY. That you continue to harp simply
> means you don't get it!!!
>
And as usual, John, being a coward runs from the discussion.
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 21:46:27 GMT, David <dave...@telesport.com>
> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive: yes
> >
> >"John W
> >>
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:26:27 GMT, David <dave...@telesport.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >x-no-archive: yes
> >> >
> >> >Christopher Robin wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> >> > And it never was............
> >> >> >
> >> >> And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >The guys a nut case. His name says it all.................BULL. In a
> >> >spirit of Christianity I will pray he gets well soon.
> >>
> >> Bull has simply stated the truth, that there is no scriptural basis
> >> for infant baptism, and Jesus' final instruction to us command
> >> believer's baptism.
> >>
> >>
> >> John W
> >>
> >>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> >> Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
> >> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source
<><><><><><><><>
> >>
> >
> >
> >juice and bread? Do you think God would deny heaven to one who was
> >baptized by sprinkling? See, this is the stuff Jesus talked
> >against..................arguing the law. I'm almost sure there will be
> >no one at Heaven's gate checking how you were baptized. I figure they'll
> >be checking what's in you heart.
>
> You have missed the point.
No, actually, you did.
> And if infant baptism isn't CRITICALLY important to a Roman Catholic,
> why do you travel the world "baptizing infants".
We don't 'travel the world' baptizing infants.
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> exceptions.
>
Kinda like your assumption that all baptisms were immersion.
>
> John W
>
>
> >
> >Take it up with the Christians in the first 200-300 years. They saw
things
> >differently than you.
>
> How do YOU know, Chris? Were you there?
> >
I've read their writings. The writings I quoted down below.
> >
> >> > > I guess we will have to leave you in your ignorance then....
> >> > >
> >> > Nope... I just snipped your strawman -
> >>
> >> Popycock!
> >>
> >> > I'm well aware that some Catholic
> >> > Churches still baptize by immersion. My point is that immersion is
not the
> >> > ONLY valid form.
> >>
> >> It was during the first 12 centuries of Christian practices.
> >>
> >You would be incorrect. Go read the Didache.
>
> ALWAYS go looking for exceptions, to excuse your defiance.
>
LOL... the writings of the Early Christians aren't exceptions, John. They
are the facts of what the Early Christians did.
Read them - I left them below.
> John W
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
Chris?
>
Where's the "sinner's prayer" in the Bible, John?
Where in the Bible does it say Jesus was immersed, John?
> If you haven't followed our Lord's example, your words are H O L L O W
> !!
>
Did Jesus pray the "sinner's prayer"?
I've followed the Lord's COMMAND. I've been Baptized in the name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:38:36 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
>
I snipped the strawman that was built regarding the Catholic Church using
immersion. To this day, in some Catholic Churches immersion is used. I've
never doubted the validity of an immersion baptism.
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:03:37 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
> >news:ldueuvg7tahc2knqc...@4ax.com...
> >> x-no-archive:yes
> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:10:59 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> >> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> >> And it never was............
> >> >>
> >> >And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> >>
> >> Proof? No proof penetrates your brick hard Roman Catholic skull,
> >> Chris!
> >>
> >> Jesus was immersed!
> >>
> >Where's the proof - your claim does not make proof, John. Tiger claims
to
> >have been to the Jordan River by Bethany - where the Bible states Jesus
was
> >Baptized, and Tiger claims the water is not deep enough for immersion.
>
> singer (her name escapes me), married to Bobby Brown. She said the
> high point of her life was going to Jersusalem and being BAPTIZED IN
> THE JORDAN RIVER.
But over by Galilee... not by Bethany, where John was baptized.
Elizabeth Bonello
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
You misspelled "until the late 20st century". I am witness to this, as DS
was baptized in 1993 (at age 3 weeks since he was born during Lent) by
immersion. He was none too happy about that cold water going over his head.
You might want to learn something before you display your ignorence.
> I guess we will have to leave you in your ignorance then....
PKB
--
LittleBit
It is wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon
insufficient evidence.
W. K. Clifford
ujb
>
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:09:14 -0500, ujb <u...@bigfot.com> wrote:
>
> You may as well stop writing your cute/nasty little comments, Jim. I
> don't read them.
>
> John W
Good, and thank you for the liberty pal.
jimmy
> _______________________________________________________________________________
ujb
> posting history, why should anyone believe YOU,
>
> LIAR???
>
> And who says John only baptized in one place?
>
> I also note that NONE of what you are claiming was mentioned in the
> news story. It what you are saying were true, SURELY the news media
> would have reported it that way.
>
> And you lie AGAIN!
>
> But Merry Christmas anyway, you pathological liar!
>
> John W
You are so funny JohnW. Tiger has been shown creditable, you've
been shown the liar.
No one cares what you think of Tiger pablum boy. In fact I can't
think of anyone who cares what you think about anything in the
Baptist group.
jimmy
Straight John Bull
"Elizabeth Bonello" <ebonell...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_xxGb.3851$Bv....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com...
Such Dummy type baptisms are a waste of time and are useless, belief is
essential before baptism, you may have just as well thrown him in the sink
at home for all the good it has not done him.
galia
"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
walks...@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc
in a flurry of crossposting John W <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> 25 Dec 2003 15:45:06 GMT
>
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:49:32 -0600, "zayton" <zay...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
> >news:ldueuvg7tahc2knqc...@4ax.com...
> >> x-no-archive:yes
> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:10:59 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> >> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> >> And it never was............
> >> >>
> >> >And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> >>
> >> Proof? No proof penetrates your brick hard Roman Catholic skull,
> >> Chris!
> >>
> >> Jesus was immersed!
> >
> >Doesn't say so.
> MT 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized
> by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be
> baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
Pretty good fiction, we have one version, a critical to the myth version of a
historical figure desireing to be baptised by a non-historical fiction. Mythology
holds some weird beliefs dear.
> MT 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to
> do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
> MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the
> water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
And so, is he still in the river at the the Bethany crossing? Or does, as the passage
imply, it mean he simply got out of the water. Or, do you really have a
comprehension problem that is so bad that you can't read in context
& make up your own mind.
As to the heaven opening, this ford was a fairly well traveled one, why didn't anyone
else notice this evet & talk about it? As to this spirit, well, lets just say that people high on
mythology see a lot of things others say aren't there.
In case yo missed the obvious john w, nowhere in the above passage does it
say the lad was immersed. That is simply a refelecrtion of your desires & their
desires of your teachers.
> descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven
> said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
Well, I guess its all right to be number 2 son. Mine never had a problem with it. But
still, if this is true, then it begs tyhe question, who trimned the boyo for adulthood, who
gave him his ethics & morals. Yaweh, or the dupe joseph? The one that for Jesus to be of the line
of David would have had to impregnate Mary.
> John W
> Just that he was Baptized. He was, by the way, baptized not
> >in a Christian Baptizm, but in John's baptism, which was a baptism for the
> >repentance of sins.
> >> EVERY instance in the New Testament of baptism was immersion. Paul
> >> described baptism as symbolic of "being buried with Christ."
You just quoted one that was not, & yet you claim it was. You might want to go take a lay down,
certainly the members of the groups you are posting to could use the relief.
> >Again, it never says so. Being buried would suggest dirt, rather than water.
> Funny, ha ha.
Snip
walksalone who notes that once again asserts his view is the only possibly
correct one, yet the text he quotes does not concur.
walks...@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc
in a flurry of crossposting just to prove he hadn't a clue John W <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> 25 Dec 2003
15:28:01 GMT
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:14:26 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
> >news:ig9juvogh7khopflg...@4ax.com...
> >> x-no-archive:yes
> >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:20:31 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> >> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:nlZFb.14$v64....@newsfep2-gui.server.ntli.net...
> >> >> "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:MWUFb.37171$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> >> >> > "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
Snip
> >Did Jesus pray the "sinner's prayer"?
> >I've followed the Lord's COMMAND. I've been Baptized in the name of the
> >Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
>
> When were you immersed like Jesus was Chris?
Jesus who, you have to be known to exist if you expect people t4o believe what unkown peoiple claim about you. Or is
that thought more than you can deal wirth john w.
> MT 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized
> by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be
> baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
> MT 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to
> do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
> MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the
> water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
> descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven
> said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
>
> As soon as Jesus was baptized, He WENT UP OUT OF THE WATER (meaning
No, what that means is he left the river, he left the water behind & returned to dry land. Bapatism is a hindu custom,
why was John the Baptiser using it in Israel?
> when He was baptized, He was DOWN IN the water).
As in he entered the water, well of course, but your problemn with that obvious piecce iof information is strong
indeed. He can go down in the by simply stepping into it. What is so hard to understand about that?
> When were you immersed like Jesus, Chris?
Won't & can't speak for Chris, wouldn't want to, but I have been baptised in a sbc, it didn't take. I've also been
baptised by fire. & you? You claim to be a Veit Nam Vet, so when did you get baptised?
> John W
IOW, we must accept your claims even though you have not thought them out,
you don't even know where the custom comes from but you are the expert. No
wonder your posting history indicates that your word is not to me taken at face
value.
walksalone who notes that john w does not have anything of his own to say, & continues to quote a source thatis know
to be flawed. Nothing new there.
Mark and Bev Tindall
########################################################
POSTING GUIDELINES FOR alt.christnet.christianlife
1. ACC IS A PUBLIC UNMODERATED FORUM
2 ACC = alt.christian.christianlife which BY ITS TITLE is dedicated to
ANYTHING which comes up during CHRISTIAN LIFE.
3. ALL Christians from ALL denominations are welcome on this NG - Catholic,
protestant, orthodox, seventh day adventists, fundamentalists, liberals,
whatever!!!!
4. Please adhere to basic NG etiquette.
5. There are NO LEADERS of this unmoderated forum. All are equal.
###################################################################
CharliePFL
> 3. ALL Christians from ALL denominations are welcome on this NG - Catholic,
> protestant, orthodox, seventh day adventists, fundamentalists, liberals,
> whatever!!!!
What about atheists and agnostics?
bluskie
You will be plonked accordingly. Praise the lord Jesus!
Mark and Bev Tindall
> > 3. ALL Christians from ALL denominations are welcome on this NG -
Catholic,
> > protestant, orthodox, seventh day adventists, fundamentalists, liberals,
> > whatever!!!!
>
> What about atheists and agnostics?
Welcome as well. Join in the discussion.
zayton
"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
news:ig9juvogh7khopflg...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 01:20:31 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> did, Chris?
>
Jesus prayed a sinner's prayer? Well that's going to come as a shock to a
lot of people!
Joe
zayton
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:14:26 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
>
> by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be
> baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
>
> MT 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to
> do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
>
> MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the
> water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
> descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven
> said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
>
> As soon as Jesus was baptized, He WENT UP OUT OF THE WATER (meaning
If he waded into an inch deep stream for the baptism, he was going down to
the water, and if he waded b ack out, he was going up out of the water.
There is no indication of immersion here.
>
> When were you immersed like Jesus, Chris?
Christians are not baptized into John's baptism of repentance; and there is
no indication that Jesus was immersed when he was.
Joe
>
>
> John W
>
> >
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
Stormin Mormonn
bapitzed.
Can't say as I've ever seen infant baptism in the Holy Bible or any other
book of scripture.
--
Christopher A. Young
Jesus: The Reason for the Season
www.lds.org
www.mormons.com
bam
"Stormin Mormonn" <cayo...@hotmail.com.remove> wrote in message
news:bsko1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> LDS church teaches that a child needs to be at least 8 years old to be
> bapitzed.
>
> Can't say as I've ever seen infant baptism in the Holy Bible or any other
> book of scripture.
Did you see 8 year old baptism in the Bible?
What about people over 90?
What about black people?
What about Chinese people?
BAM
oz
In article <bmtouvg26pd5g7rtb...@4ax.com>, John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Although your heart is obviously as hard and cold as rock, I forgive
> you, galia.
>
> John W
>
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:14:26 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
>
> MT 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized
> by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be
> baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
>
> MT 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to
> do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
>
> MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the
> water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
> descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven
> said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
>
> As soon as Jesus was baptized, He WENT UP OUT OF THE WATER (meaning
> when He was baptized, He was DOWN IN the water).
>
up out of the water. Does that mean Philip was immersed?
38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch
WENT DOWN INTO THE WATER and Philip baptized him. 39WHEN THEY CAME UP OUT OF
THE WATER, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch
did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
>
> When were you immersed like Jesus, Chris?
>
The Bible doesn't say Jesus was immersed. Nor does the Bible say that the
only valid Baptism was immersion. When was the thief on the Cross immersed,
John?
You forgot to point out where the "Sinner's Prayer" is in the Bible.
Christopher Robin
"Stormin Mormonn" <cayo...@hotmail.com.remove> wrote in message
news:bsko1...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> bapitzed.
>
> Can't say as I've ever seen infant baptism in the Holy Bible or any other
> book of scripture.
>
I'm curious, where is the requirement for being at least 8 years old in the
Holy Bible?
Have you read Acts 16, and considered the meaning of the phrase "entire
household"?
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:15:26 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> Yet you CONTINUE to defy Christ as to when immersion baptism is to take
place.
>
Nope... I'm not defying Christ at all. Christ never mandated immersion
baptism.
>
> MT 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized
> by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be
> baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
>
> MT 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to
> do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
>
> MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the
> water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
> descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven
> said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
>
Yep... and Philip & the Eunuch came up out of the water in Acts 8 - doesn't
mean Philip was immersed.
>
> #1 Go
> #2 Preach
> #3 baptize. (the converts)
>
Perhaps you should learn some English grammer
Matthew 28:19-20:
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to
obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to
the very end of the age."
Baptizing & teaching are different verb tenses than the primary clauses' GO
& MAKE . Therefore, Baptizing & Teaching are dependent clauses - explaining
the concept of GO & MAKE DISCIPLES. And Baptizing comes before Teaching
there.
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 19:16:07 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
>
And John runs from the facts that refute him. Yet again.
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
> On 24 Dec 2003 14:37:18 GMT, John W <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >x-no-archive:yes
> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:03:37 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> ><anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
> >>news:ldueuvg7tahc2knqc...@4ax.com...
> >>> x-no-archive:yes
> >>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:10:59 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> >>> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> >>> >news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >>> >> And it never was............
> >>> >>
> >>> >And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> >>>
> >>> Proof? No proof penetrates your brick hard Roman Catholic skull,
> >>> Chris!
> >>>
> >>> Jesus was immersed!
> >>>
> >>Where's the proof - your claim does not make proof, John. Tiger claims
to
> >>have been to the Jordan River by Bethany - where the Bible states Jesus
was
> >>Baptized, and Tiger claims the water is not deep enough for immersion.
> >>
> by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be
> baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
>
> MT 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to
> do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
>
> MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the
> water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
> descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven
> said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
>
>
> He had gone down INTO the water, to be immersed!
You ASSUME "to be immersed"
In Acts 8, Philip & the Eunuch went UP OUT OF THE WATER... that doesn't mean
Philip was immersed.
Christopher Robin
> x-no-archive:yes
>
> >
> >"John W @yahoo.com>" <john_weatherly47<no> wrote in message
> >news:ldueuvg7tahc2knqc...@4ax.com...
> >> x-no-archive:yes
> >> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:10:59 GMT, "Christopher Robin"
> >> <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> >> >> And it never was............
> >> >>
> >> >And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> >>
> >> Proof? No proof penetrates your brick hard Roman Catholic skull,
> >> Chris!
> >>
> >> Jesus was immersed!
> >
>
> MT 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized
> by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be
> baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
>
> MT 3:15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to
> do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.
>
> MT 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the
> water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God
> descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven
> said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
>
mean Philip was immersed.
Straight John Bull
"oz" <cante...@england.com> wrote in message
news:canterbury-29...@ppp227.dyn12.pacific.net.au...
> Please remember to turn the light off when you leave
Yes Columbo....
stone
> "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > And it never was............
> >
> And no proof to back up your nonsense.
Mr. Robin. If you desire a real Christian baptism, then go to a
baptist church and have a talk with the pastor. If you really believe
Jesus is the son of God, and have accepted Him as your Lord and
Saviour and repented of sin, then you are a candidate for a real total
immersion baptism. [note: The definition of baptize, from the Greek
means total immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism.]
Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead.
Buried by total immersion under the water!
Christopher Robin
"stone" <stone...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:5cfa0b68.04010...@posting.google.com...
> "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<D5JFb.34446$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> > news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > And it never was............
> > >
> > And no proof to back up your nonsense.
>
> Mr. Robin. If you desire a real Christian baptism, then go to a
> baptist church and have a talk with the pastor.
S'OK... I"ve already had a REAL Christian Baptism.
> If you really believe Jesus is the son of God, and have accepted Him as
your Lord and
> Saviour and repented of sin, then you are a candidate for a real total
> immersion baptism. [note: The definition of baptize, from the Greek
> means total immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism.]
>
I do believe, I have repented and I've already been baptized. And I wasn't
sprinkled.
> Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
> risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
> raised him from the dead.
>
> Buried by total immersion under the water!
Nowhere does the Bible state that immersion is required.
zayton
news:<D5JFb.34446$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> > news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > And it never was............
> > >
> > And no proof to back up your nonsense.
>
> Mr. Robin. If you desire a real Christian baptism, then go to a
> baptist church and have a talk with the pastor. If you really believe
> Jesus is the son of God, and have accepted Him as your Lord and
> Saviour and repented of sin, then you are a candidate for a real total
> immersion baptism. [note: The definition of baptize, from the Greek
> means total immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism.]
The Greek _root_ on which the term baptize is probably based (the word in
this form appears only in the New Testament where it's meaning is unclear)
means to dip or to wash.
>
> Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
> risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
> raised him from the dead.
>
> Buried by total immersion under the water!
No.
Chris
?????????
sunthapto?
soon-thap'-to
From G4862 and G2290; to inter in company with, that is, (figuratively)
to assimilate spiritually (to Christ by a sepulture as to sin): - bury with.
Nowhere in the Greek form does it say "total immersion", I'm sorry the
Baptist theologians like to twist it to match what they want it to say.
Sorry the Catholics have it right, just ask Mr. Frodo :)
Stephen Korsman
>
> "stone" <stone...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> news:5cfa0b68.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<D5JFb.34446$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> > > news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > > And it never was............
> > > >
> > > And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> >
> > Mr. Robin. If you desire a real Christian baptism, then go to a
> > baptist church and have a talk with the pastor.
>
> S'OK... I"ve already had a REAL Christian Baptism.
>
> > If you really believe Jesus is the son of God, and have accepted Him as
> your Lord and
> > Saviour and repented of sin, then you are a candidate for a real total
> > immersion baptism. [note: The definition of baptize, from the Greek
> > means total immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism.]
> >
> I do believe, I have repented and I've already been baptized. And I
wasn't
> sprinkled.
Catholics do not baptise by sprinkling. This shows how much they really
know about what we teach and do.
Catholic Encyclopedia on Baptism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm
God bless,
Stephen
--
--
Stephen Korsman
skor...@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za/adventism
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
Christopher Robin
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotokos.co.za> wrote in message
news:bteqce$q9p$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nQbJb.122230$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
> >
> > "stone" <stone...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
> > news:5cfa0b68.04010...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<D5JFb.34446$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
> > > > "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
> > > > > And it never was............
> > > > >
> > > > And no proof to back up your nonsense.
> > >
> > > Mr. Robin. If you desire a real Christian baptism, then go to a
> > > baptist church and have a talk with the pastor.
> >
> > S'OK... I"ve already had a REAL Christian Baptism.
> >
> > > If you really believe Jesus is the son of God, and have accepted Him
as
> > your Lord and
> > > Saviour and repented of sin, then you are a candidate for a real total
> > > immersion baptism. [note: The definition of baptize, from the Greek
> > > means total immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism.]
> > >
> > I do believe, I have repented and I've already been baptized. And I
> wasn't
> > sprinkled.
>
> Catholics do not baptise by sprinkling.
> This shows how much they really know about what we teach and do.
>
As usual.
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
By DEFINITION, whenever the Bible uses the words stemming from the
word "baptize," it MEANS submerge.
NOWHERE N THE BIBLE is anyone ever sprinkled or poured in baptism.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>
>"Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nQbJb.122230$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
>>
>> "stone" <stone...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
>> news:5cfa0b68.04010...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<D5JFb.34446$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
>> > > "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> > > > And it never was............
>> > > >
>> > > And no proof to back up your nonsense.
>> >
>> > Mr. Robin. If you desire a real Christian baptism, then go to a
>> > baptist church and have a talk with the pastor.
>>
>> S'OK... I"ve already had a REAL Christian Baptism.
>>
>> > If you really believe Jesus is the son of God, and have accepted Him as
>> your Lord and
>> > Saviour and repented of sin, then you are a candidate for a real total
>> > immersion baptism. [note: The definition of baptize, from the Greek
>> > means total immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism.]
>> >
>> I do believe, I have repented and I've already been baptized. And I
>wasn't
>> sprinkled.
>
>Catholics do not baptise by sprinkling. This shows how much they really
>know about what we teach and do.
>
and the Bible does not "baptize" either way.
the DEFINITION OF THE WORD is to "plunge under."
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>
>"stone" <stone...@cheerful.com> wrote in message
>news:5cfa0b68.04010...@posting.google.com...
>> "Christopher Robin" <anony...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:<D5JFb.34446$031....@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
>> > "Straight John Bull" <StraightJohnBull@.com> wrote in message
>> > news:q7HFb.367$Eu.4...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>> > > And it never was............
>> > >
>> > And no proof to back up your nonsense.
>>
>> Mr. Robin. If you desire a real Christian baptism, then go to a
>> baptist church and have a talk with the pastor. If you really believe
>> Jesus is the son of God, and have accepted Him as your Lord and
>> Saviour and repented of sin, then you are a candidate for a real total
>> immersion baptism. [note: The definition of baptize, from the Greek
>> means total immersion. Sprinkling is not baptism.]
>
>The Greek _root_ on which the term baptize is probably based (the word in
>this form appears only in the New Testament where it's meaning is unclear)
>means to dip or to wash.
>
The ROOT word is:
911 bapto {bap'-to} • a primary word; TDNT - 1:529,92; v • AV - dip
3; 3 • 1) to dip, dip in,
immerse 2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour
907 {bap-tid'-zo} • from a derivative of 911; TDNT - 1:529,92; verb
• AV - baptize (76),
wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80 • 1) to dip repeatedly, to
immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with
water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to
overwhelm
To wash is NOT part of it. IMMERSE is the definition, dip under, dip
into dye.
There is NO LEGITIMATE WAY you can claim the word means to sprinkle or
to pour.
>>
>> Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are
>> risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
>> raised him from the dead.
>>
>> Buried by total immersion under the water!
>
>No.
>
No? No? According to who? You?
Not an authority worth listening to, I think.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>G4916
>?????????
>sunthapto?
>soon-thap'-to
> From G4862 and G2290; to inter in company with, that is, (figuratively)
>to assimilate spiritually (to Christ by a sepulture as to sin): - bury with.
>Nowhere in the Greek form does it say "total immersion", I'm sorry the
>Baptist theologians like to twist it to match what they want it to say.
> Sorry the Catholics have it right, just ask Mr. Frodo :)
911 bapto {bap'-to} • a primary word; TDNT - 1:529,92; v • AV - dip
3; 3 • 1) to dip, dip in,
immerse 2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour
907 baptizo {bap-tid'-zo} • from a derivative of 911; TDNT -
1:529,92; verb • AV - baptize (76),
wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80 • 1) to dip repeatedly, to
immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with
water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to
overwhelm
Strongs.
Try again. You don't know what you are talking about.
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>
Sorry, but you are SO funny!
How do you COME UP OUT OF THE WATER if you do not start DOWN IN the
water?
Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
No pouring there! (G)
Christian
zayton
<chri...@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:eefm4097vtuvodkon...@4ax.com...
The root is used to indicate dipping or washing. It does not necessarily
mean or even imply to put under water.
bam
<chri...@velocitus.net> wrote
> NOWHERE N THE BIBLE is anyone ever sprinkled or poured in baptism.
>
> Christian
Is this rubric (immersion) necessary for Baptism to be valid?
If so, defend your position.
Is this rubric (immersion) necessary for salvation?
If so defend your position.
Also, does "baptizo" *only* mean "immerse"?
In Luke 11:38 the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash
[baptizo] before dinner." (see below)
Luk 11:38 And the Pharisee began to say, thinking within himself, why he was
not washed before dinner.
Luk 11:38 Pharisaeus autem coepit intra se reputans dicere quare non
baptizatus esset ante prandium
Did they expect Jesus to go underwater before eating?
BAM
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>
that make your definition look foolish. I even quoted from Strong's.
But you would rather stick with your made-up definition, I know.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>
><chri...@velocitus.net> wrote
>> NOWHERE N THE BIBLE is anyone ever sprinkled or poured in baptism.
>>
>> Christian
>
>Is this rubric (immersion) necessary for Baptism to be valid?
Since Baptism is not required for salvation its "validity" is not an
issue. Whether or not you are obeying the command of Jesus to be
"baptized" or not is between you and God. The DEFINITION of the word
involves IMMERSION. It does NOT INCLUDE ANYWHERE IN ITS DEFINITION,
"pour" or "sprinkle." The practice of doing those things began in
about the fourth century when they decided to do them to the sick
people who might die if they were immersed.
>
>If so, defend your position.
I just did.
Strong's:
907 baptizo {bap-tid'-zo} • from a derivative of 911; TDNT -
1:529,92; verb • AV - baptize (76),
wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80 • 1) to dip repeatedly, to
immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with
water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to
overwhelm
911 bapto {bap'-to} • a primary word; TDNT - 1:529,92; v • AV - dip
3; 3 • 1) to dip, dip in,
immerse 2) to dip into dye, to dye, colour
Do you "dip" your folks into the water, or do you "sprinkle" or "pour"
water onto them? Are you afraid you might get wet?
>
>Is this rubric (immersion) necessary for salvation?
Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
>
>If so defend your position.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority
has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to
the end of the age." Amen.
1. Go
2. Make disciples (disciples are SAVED folks, followers of Jesus
through FAITH).
3. Baptize.
We are baptized BECAUSE we are saved, not to BECOME saved.
If you have no faith (BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED) before you are baptized,
then what are you AFTER you have been baptized? Just wet!
Ephesians 2: 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and
that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
Works are things that WE do. Our salvation is something HE did. HE
SAVED US. We didn't. We don't. Not by being baptized, by going to
church, by going to a "pastor's class," or anything else.
Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and
it was accounted to him for
righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as
debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the
ungodly, his faith is accounted for
righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God
imputes righteousness apart from
works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins
are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."
FAITH is counted as righteousness, NOT BAPTISM.
>
>Also, does "baptizo" *only* mean "immerse"?
It NEVER means "pour" or "sprinkle."
>
>In Luke 11:38 the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash
>[baptizo] before dinner." (see below)
>
>Luk 11:38 And the Pharisee began to say, thinking within himself, why he was
>not washed before dinner.
>Luk 11:38 Pharisaeus autem coepit intra se reputans dicere quare non
>baptizatus esset ante prandium
>
>Did they expect Jesus to go underwater before eating?
>
907 baptizo {bap-tid'-zo} • from a derivative of 911; TDNT -
1:529,92; verb • AV - baptize (76),
wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80 • 1) to dip repeatedly, to
immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with
water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to overwhelm
FIRST definition: to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of
vessels sunk).
EXACTLY WHERE do you see "pour" or "sprinkle" in the definition?
It simply is not there.
In Christ Jesus,
Christian
Alberich
Immersion only?
Some Protestants argue that "baptizo" in the New Testament means
"immersion" and that any Baptism that doesn't include immersion is not
a true Baptism. While "baptizo" does mean "immersion," it also means
"washing," as is evident in this verse:
Luke 11 38
And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first
washed [baptizo] before dinner.
Trust me, first century Jews didn't immerse themselves before dinner,
and Ezekiel's prophecy mentioned above also not only includes, but
specifically mentions "sprinkling":
Ezekiel 36:25
[Prophecy] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I
cleanse you.
The verses mentioned above that describe St. Paul's baptizing people
in their households -- houses without swimming pools in them --
indicates "washing" rather than "immersion." Paul himself was baptized
not only in a house, but standing up:
Acts 9:17–18
And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his
hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared
unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately
there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight
forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Baptism by immersion was a very common practice in the early Church -
the most common practice, in fact; but it wasn't the exclusive
practice, as the Bible attests. Most Catholic churches had
baptisteries in which the catechumen would stand and either be
immersed (if the size of the baptistery allowed) or have water poured
over his head, but all three methods -- immersion, pouring, or
sprinkling -- were used. The earliest extra-Biblical writing we have
on the topic is the Didache, a 1st c. document known as "The Teachings
of the Twelve Apostles." On the topic of Baptism, it reads:
But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all
these precepts [i.e., all that is included in the Rite of Baptism],
baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize
in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm
water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head,
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But
before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast
previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him
who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
DOC
chri...@velocitus.net sez in this lil' ole news'froup...!
water.........
--
============================
JESUS-IS-THE-ROCK
============================
Alberich
Please, answer the above question as well as you can without posting
from your lexicon again...that doesn't answer the question.
Alberich
bam
<chri...@velocitus.net> wrote
> Since Baptism is not required for salvation its "validity" is not an
> issue.
What a stupid answer.
I asked you three questions - and this is what you respond.
BAM
Mike Tennyson
quantity of water? What is needed is desire to be pabtized, water, and the
proper formula..In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hold
Spirit. By the way, you may be surprised to know that the Catholic Church
does accept a Baptism done in a Baptist church as valid, although the
reverse is not true. Some Churchs sprinkle but the Catholic Church "pours".
<chri...@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:eefm4097vtuvodkon...@4ax.com...
DOC
mikete...@bellsouth.net sez in this lil' ole news'froup...!
> By the way, you may be surprised to know that the Catholic Church
> does accept a Baptism done in a Baptist church as valid, although the
> reverse is not true. Some Churchs sprinkle but the Catholic Church "pours".
>
Sorry, but that's wrong. Baptists DO accept a roman catholic baptism as
valid IF the one so baptized is old enough to know the meaning of it, and
who and what it represents. It does not hold to infant baptism, not
recognize it as valid. However, it is nowhere as arrogant as the roman
religion, and it would not refuse membership if the person provided a
detificate of said baptism, even if it was 'baptism'[ as an infant. They
do, however, storngly recommend true baptism as an adult.
--
============================
JESUS-IS-THE-ROCK
============================
Mike Tennyson
the contrary, you only have to look at the sign of the Old Covenant to see
that the objection to infant baptism is without merit. Baptism is the sign
of the the covenant, circumcision was the sign of the old. All male Jewish
children were circumcised on their eighth day after birth. No concern about
"age of accountability".
Mike Tennyson
<chri...@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:eefm4097vtuvodkon...@4ax.com...
chri...@velocitus.net
YES, his hands were expected to go underwater. Duuuh!
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
post.
I will respond to them again, BY CUTTING AND PASTING from my previous
answer:
**************************************************
>Is this rubric (immersion) necessary for Baptism to be valid?
Since Baptism is not required for salvation its "validity" is not an
I just did.
**********************************************************
AGAIN, there are your answers. So don't whine that I didn't answer
before. . .this stuff was CUT AND PASTE from my previous post that YOU
SNIPPED MOST OUT OF to make it look like I hadn't answered.
Why are you being dishonest about this? Don't you LIKE my scriptural
positions?
Christian
DOC
chri...@velocitus.net sez in this lil' ole news'froup...!
>
> No BAM, I responded with three answers, WHICH YOU SNIPPED to make this
> post.
>
That's bam's SPECIALTY........ cutting posts and running from the truth!!
What else is new?
--
============================
JESUS-IS-THE-ROCK
============================
chri...@velocitus.net
AGAIN. . .UNLESS YOU WANT TO REDEFINE THE WORD, you must call it
"immerse" or "plunge under. READ YOUR LEXICONS.
>
>Luke 11 38
>And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first
>washed [baptizo] before dinner.
>Trust me, first century Jews didn't immerse themselves before dinner,
>and Ezekiel's prophecy mentioned above also not only includes, but
>specifically mentions "sprinkling":
No, but they DID plunge their hands under the water. SAME DEFINITION.
>
>Ezekiel 36:25
>[Prophecy] Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be
>clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
The word "bapto" or its derivatives is not used there. Sorry, Jesus'
blood cleanses us, not water. It is the blood of Christ that is being
prophesied about here, not baptism.
>The verses mentioned above that describe St. Paul's baptizing people
>in their households -- houses without swimming pools in them --
>indicates "washing" rather than "immersion." Paul himself was baptized
>not only in a house, but standing up:
Not IN their households, but AND their households, meaning the
baptizing the PEOPLE of those households.
>Acts 9:17–18
>And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his
>hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared
>unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest
>receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately
>there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight
>forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
And where do you get the nonsense about Paul being baptized in a house
standing up? The same place you got his donkey being baptized in the
house standing up? It is not in the Bible. It says he was baptized,
but not where or in what position. It says he "arose and was
baptized," but it does NOT say WHERE he did it, or that he was
baptized while still standing. You have to read it into the text; it
is not there.
>
>Baptism by immersion was a very common practice in the early Church -
>the most common practice, in fact; but it wasn't the exclusive
>practice, as the Bible attests.
The Bible does NOT "attest" to any other form of baptism. If you
THINK it does, SHOW ME where it does. It certainly does not show
pouring, sprinkling, splashing, or using green Jello for baptism in
THAT passage.
>Most Catholic churches had
>baptisteries in which the catechumen would stand and either be
>immersed (if the size of the baptistery allowed) or have water poured
>over his head, but all three methods -- immersion, pouring, or
>sprinkling -- were used.
They still do. But the rcc didn't exist in the first centuries of the
church. The practice actually started in about the 3rd century.
>The earliest extra-Biblical writing we have
>on the topic is the Didache, a 1st c. document known as "The Teachings
>of the Twelve Apostles." On the topic of Baptism, it reads:
>
>But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all
>these precepts [i.e., all that is included in the Rite of Baptism],
>baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
>Spirit, in running water; but if thou hast not running water, baptize
>in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm
>water; but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head,
>in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But
>before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized fast
>previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him
>who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
>
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this
way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But
if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you
cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither,
pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and
Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and
the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized
to fast one or two days before.
"Since it was discovered in a monastery in Constantinople and
published by P. Bryennios in 1883, the Didache or Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles has continued to be one of the most disputed of early
Christian texts. It has been depicted by scholars as anything between
the original of the Apostolic Decree (c. 50 AD) and a late archaising
fiction of the early third century."
Jonathan Draper writes (Gospel Perspectives, v. 5, p. 269):
You might want to read more about this disputed document by going to
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
It is a pretty good presentation, including several translations of
the document.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>And you think the power of the Holy Spirit will be held back due to the
>quantity of water?
Nope. Since the Power of the Holy Spirit has already HAPPENED when
you are baptized (or you just come out of the water wet, not really
baptized), there is no problem. Not even if there is NO WATER AT ALL!
Baptism is NOT required for salvation.
>What is needed is desire to be pabtized, water, and the
>proper formula..In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hold
>Spirit. By the way, you may be surprised to know that the Catholic Church
>does accept a Baptism done in a Baptist church as valid, although the
>reverse is not true. Some Churchs sprinkle but the Catholic Church "pours".
Typo! The "Hold Spirit?" "Pabtized?"
:-)
"In the Name of Jesus" would also be fine, of course.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>No where is sacred scripture is there anything against infant baptism.
Nowhere in scripture is there anything against drunk driving either.
But both are scripturally wrong.
>On
>the contrary, you only have to look at the sign of the Old Covenant to see
>that the objection to infant baptism is without merit. Baptism is the sign
>of the the covenant, circumcision was the sign of the old. All male Jewish
>children were circumcised on their eighth day after birth. No concern about
>"age of accountability".
And according to scripture:
Acts 8: 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this
Scripture, preached Jesus to him.
36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the
eunuch said, "See, here is water.
What hinders me from being baptized?"
37 Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may."
And he answered and said, "I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and
the eunuch went down into the water,
and he baptized him.
IF YOU BELIEVE WITH ALL YOUR HEART, YOU MAY.
Infants cannot do that.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:19:57 -0500, "Mike Tennyson"
><mikete...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> and jw replied
>>No where is sacred scripture is there anything against infant baptism. On
>>the contrary, you only have to look at the sign of the Old Covenant to see
>>that the objection to infant baptism is without merit. Baptism is the sign
>>of the the covenant, circumcision was the sign of the old. All male Jewish
>>children were circumcised on their eighth day after birth. No concern about
>>"age of accountability".
>>Mike Tennyson
>
>meaning you are speaking in the flesh. That means I don't trust the
>spirit that's whispering in your ear.
Hello John,
Tsk tsk tsk. You accuse him of not quoting passages, then you don't
quote them either! I agree with your post, but you SHOULD do what you
claim HE SHOULD do. After all, fair is fair.
Christian
>
>Jesus DID direct us VERY specifically to convert ONLY those capable of
>understanding.
>Peter and Paul BOTH reported, as well as the authors of the gospels,
>that ONLY those who BELIEVED were admitted into church membership.
>
>Paul says SEVERAL times, "and those who believed were baptized into
>church membership, and that day we had over 2,000 new converts, and
>their families" or words to that effect.
>
>Meaning that if you are unable to find or read or understand those
>CRYSTAL clear passages where it's in black and white for anyone who
>can read and understand, then you are under demonic oppression.
>
>You are spiritually blind, sir.
>
> I recommend that you get to a non=RCC church and consult with a
>pastor ASAP. A church like a non-denominational. Ask the pastor if
>he's born again, non-pentecostal.
>
>
>I'll be praying for you.
>
>jw
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>
bam
<chri...@velocitus.net> wrote> >
> No BAM, I responded with three answers, WHICH YOU SNIPPED to make this
> post.
>
> I will respond to them again, BY CUTTING AND PASTING from my previous
> answer:
>
> **************************************************
> >Is this rubric (immersion) necessary for Baptism to be valid?
>
> Since Baptism is not required for salvation its "validity" is not an
> issue.
I didn't ask you what's the issue. Can't you respond to the question?
>Whether or not you are obeying the command of Jesus to be
> "baptized" or not is between you and God.
You mean like "take and eat; this is my body" ?
>The DEFINITION of the word
> involves IMMERSION. It does NOT INCLUDE ANYWHERE IN ITS DEFINITION,
> "pour" or "sprinkle." The practice of doing those things began in
> about the fourth century when they decided to do them to the sick
> people who might die if they were immersed.
So what does this mean? Does it mean we cannot obtain eternal life unless
we're immersed? If not, who gives a hoot?
> Baptism is not necessary for salvation.
Then who cares about immersion dunking or sprinkling?
> >If so defend your position.
>
> Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority
> has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
> 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
> them in the name of the Father and of the
> Son and of the Holy Spirit,
> 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you;
> and lo, I am with you always, even to
> the end of the age." Amen.
>
> 1. Go
> 2. Make disciples (disciples are SAVED folks, followers of Jesus
> through FAITH).
> 3. Baptize.
>
> We are baptized BECAUSE we are saved, not to BECOME saved.
This thought process defies comprehension. Where does the Bible say that?
How old is this interpretation? Where are the historical witnesses to your
interpretation? Or did you just make this up?
> If you have no faith (BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED) before you are baptized,
> then what are you AFTER you have been baptized? Just wet!
But what are you afterward? You're reducing baptism to nothingness, and then
criticising Catholics for not doing nothing right. You daon't make any
sense.
> Works are things that WE do. Our salvation is something HE did. HE
> SAVED US. We didn't. We don't. Not by being baptized, by going to
> church, by going to a "pastor's class," or anything else.
St. Paul said that charity is greater than faith. So somehwere you
misinterpreted the power of faith. (either that or you just don't believe
St. Paul)
> AGAIN, there are your answers. So don't whine that I didn't answer
> before. . .this stuff was CUT AND PASTE from my previous post that YOU
> SNIPPED MOST OUT OF to make it look like I hadn't answered.
>
> Why are you being dishonest about this? Don't you LIKE my scriptural
> positions?
You don't have any right to interpret the BIble or even read it. The Bible
belongs to the Catholic Church which was the one true Church founded by
Christ.
BAM
chri...@velocitus.net
> and jw replied
>> Hello j w <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com>,
>>you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:19:57 -0500, "Mike Tennyson"
>>><mikete...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> and jw replied
>>>>No where is sacred scripture is there anything against infant baptism. On
>>>>the contrary, you only have to look at the sign of the Old Covenant to see
>>>>that the objection to infant baptism is without merit. Baptism is the sign
>>>>of the the covenant, circumcision was the sign of the old. All male Jewish
>>>>children were circumcised on their eighth day after birth. No concern about
>>>>"age of accountability".
>>>>Mike Tennyson
>>>
>>>I note with interest that you quote no passages in EITHER Testament;
>>>meaning you are speaking in the flesh. That means I don't trust the
>>>spirit that's whispering in your ear.
>>
>>Hello John,
>>
>>Tsk tsk tsk. You accuse him of not quoting passages, then you don't
>>quote them either! I agree with your post, but you SHOULD do what you
>>claim HE SHOULD do. After all, fair is fair.
>
>got me. My answer is, "You're right. I ought to quote more. I'm
>frankly lazy, but I also have good reasons. You don't need to know
>them; they work for me.
>
>However, this wasn't supposed to be a treatise with 10 quotes and 5
>comments, but a brief injection of, " I think you forgot something."
>No quibble over his point, but a "where is that?"
>
>
>Thanks for the comment. It's always nice to get a friendly, fresh
>POV.
>
>If I may ask a quick question about your name, is it your name or a
>moniker?
>
>"Christian"
>
>???
>
>jw
It is neither. It is my way of life. I use it as a pseudonym because
in the mailbox I have under it I receive about 75 virus emails daily.
I simply see that they have been killed and remove their headers
So I need a pseudonym. Christian is what I am.
Christian
Alberich
Why not? I just read about people accepting fully the Lord Jesus at
the ripe ol' age of 3.
Alberich
chri...@velocitus.net
A three-year-old is by definition a toddler, not an infant.
My wife and I teach two and three-year-olds Sunday School. It is true
that some three-year-olds love Jesus. I have no problem with that.
Christian
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 07:13:33 GMT, Alberich <Albe...@NoSpam.com>
>wrote:
>talked for a year or more, to say, "I believe Jesus loves me." And is
>capable of believing just that much.
>
>It's a totally other to think that the infant can BELIEVE that 'Jesus
>loves me", much LESS say it. I have heard of few people who have
>memories from their infancy.
>
>You truly have left your sense of logic FAR behind and you are using
>any flimsy non-rational argument.
>
>THE ISSUE IS, "what does the BULK of related scripture say on the
>subject?" NOT, "can I find some obscure verse that seems to say..."
>There certainly are exceptions where one verse DOES prove the point,
>but this is not one of those situations.
>
>Everything in scripture says, "believe and you shall be saved."
>
So John, let me ask you this: Do you believe that three-year-old
toddler is saved or not?
In Christ Jesus,
Christian
DOC
Albe...@NoSpam.com sez in this lil' ole news'froup...!
>
> Why not? I just read about people accepting fully the Lord Jesus at
> the ripe ol' age of 3.
>
> Alberich
>
>
Alberich--- but not in the case of an infant under 12 months old, let
alone even 24.
--
============================
JESUS-IS-THE-ROCK
============================
duke
>>No where is sacred scripture is there anything against infant baptism. On
>>the contrary, you only have to look at the sign of the Old Covenant to see
>>that the objection to infant baptism is without merit. Baptism is the sign
>>of the the covenant, circumcision was the sign of the old. All male Jewish
>>children were circumcised on their eighth day after birth. No concern about
>>"age of accountability".
>>Mike Tennyson
>I note with interest that you quote no passages in EITHER Testament;
>meaning you are speaking in the flesh. That means I don't trust the
>spirit that's whispering in your ear.
John 3
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God
unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Lk 18:15, Mt 19:14, Heb 2:14
>
>Jesus DID direct us VERY specifically to convert ONLY those capable of
>understanding.
>Peter and Paul BOTH reported, as well as the authors of the gospels,
>that ONLY those who BELIEVED were admitted into church membership.
>
>Paul says SEVERAL times, "and those who believed were baptized into
>church membership, and that day we had over 2,000 new converts, and
>their families" or words to that effect.
>
>Meaning that if you are unable to find or read or understand those
>CRYSTAL clear passages where it's in black and white for anyone who
>can read and understand, then you are under demonic oppression.
>
>You are spiritually blind, sir.
>
> I recommend that you get to a non=RCC church and consult with a
>pastor ASAP. A church like a non-denominational. Ask the pastor if
>he's born again, non-pentecostal.
>
>
>I'll be praying for you.
>
>jw
>
>>
>_______________________________________________________________________________
>Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
> <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
>
duke-
*****
Thank God for the almost 99% of
priests that are good priests.
*****
chri...@velocitus.net
you posted in alt.religion.clergy :
>On 9 Mar 2004 18:24:19 GMT, j w <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>No where is sacred scripture is there anything against infant baptism. On
>>>the contrary, you only have to look at the sign of the Old Covenant to see
>>>that the objection to infant baptism is without merit. Baptism is the sign
>>>of the the covenant, circumcision was the sign of the old. All male Jewish
>>>children were circumcised on their eighth day after birth. No concern about
>>>"age of accountability".
>>>Mike Tennyson
>
>>I note with interest that you quote no passages in EITHER Testament;
>>meaning you are speaking in the flesh. That means I don't trust the
>>spirit that's whispering in your ear.
>
>John 3
>
>5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God
>unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
There are reasons to believe He is talking of the "water" of natural
childbirth.
After all, where does he say you must be born THREE times? (natural
childbirth, baptism, spirit)????? He doesn't.
>
>Lk 18:15, Mt 19:14, Heb 2:14
>
Luke 18:15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch
them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, "Let the little children
come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.
17 "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of
God as a little child will by no means enter it."
NOT ONE WORD ABOUT BAPTISM HERE! Little children came to Jesus WITH
NO BAPTISM AT ALL! Some could have been GENTILE children and not
circumcized either!
This is NOT about infant baptism or any other kind of baptism. READ
THE TEXT, OBSERVE THE _CONTEXT_.
Matthew 19: 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their
mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were
made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it,
let him accept it."
13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His
hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, "Let the little children come to Me, and do not
forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."
15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.
Again, NOT ONE WORD ABOUT BAPTISM HERE! Little children came to Jesus
WITH NO BAPTISM AT ALL!
Again, this scripture says NOTHING AT ALL ABOUT BAPTISM, infant or
otherwise.
>>
>>Jesus DID direct us VERY specifically to convert ONLY those capable of
>>understanding.
>>Peter and Paul BOTH reported, as well as the authors of the gospels,
>>that ONLY those who BELIEVED were admitted into church membership.
>>
>>Paul says SEVERAL times, "and those who believed were baptized into
>>church membership, and that day we had over 2,000 new converts, and
>>their families" or words to that effect.
>>
>>Meaning that if you are unable to find or read or understand those
>>CRYSTAL clear passages where it's in black and white for anyone who
>>can read and understand, then you are under demonic oppression.
>>
>>You are spiritually blind, sir.
>>
>> I recommend that you get to a non=RCC church and consult with a
>>pastor ASAP. A church like a non-denominational. Ask the pastor if
>>he's born again, non-pentecostal.
>>
>>
My statement still stands true. There is NOT ONE PLACE IN SCRIPTURE
in which people are "poured," "sprinkled," or "splattered" as forms of
baptism. They are always immersed, and they are always adults.
Christian
Raymond
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:8gm65058pet46ean1...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Mar 2004 18:24:19 GMT, j w <john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>No where is sacred scripture is there anything against infant baptism.
On
> >>the contrary, you only have to look at the sign of the Old Covenant to
see
> >>that the objection to infant baptism is without merit. Baptism is the
sign
> >>of the the covenant, circumcision was the sign of the old. All male
Jewish
> >>children were circumcised on their eighth day after birth. No concern
about
> >>"age of accountability".
> >>Mike Tennyson
>
> >I note with interest that you quote no passages in EITHER Testament;
> >meaning you are speaking in the flesh. That means I don't trust the
> >spirit that's whispering in your ear.
>
> John 3
>
> 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of
God
> unless he is born of water and the Spirit.
Baptism is not born of water, born of water is birth from the water in the
womb. Read the verse before and after verse 5. The question was asked in
verse 4 and verse 6 tells why he said what he did in verse 5. So your verse
here means nothing about baptism. Letter in John 3 we do find people were
baptized. Next time when you see JESUS ANSWERED post the Question asked
Jesus and all of his reply. To give only a part of the whole makes for
misinformation, and untruth. The whole should be supplied to find the whole
to them question that was answered started in verse five.
> Lk 18:15, Mt 19:14, Heb 2:14
Why use only one verse each when the context may not agree when put into
place? Why not post the whole verse so one can reply without having to get
the bible and read that verse out of context?
>
> duke-