Water baptism

It seems clear to me that John and Jesus were drowning folks that volunteered to surrender their lives through faith that they would be reborn. Whats the point if that was the case? It was a momentary separation of the body and soul that through the faith of GOD it would allow ones sin debt to be cleansed allowing one to live without all the negative spiritual influences and secure ones place beside the father. In my view the scriptures spell this out for us without directly saying it. I challenge all to disprove my stance with scripture please.

reply to post by deadeyedick


How about "thou shalt not kill"...

Kinda ruins that idea eh...

reply to post by Akragon


Are you sure that your definition of killing and death has merit to the kingdom of GOD in this case?

Originally posted by deadeyedick
reply to post by Akragon

 

Are you sure that your definition of killing and death has merit to the kingdom of GOD in this case?

You just accused Jesus and john of drowning people...

Which has no place in any kingdom... God's or otherwise...

reply to post by Akragon


I used the term drowning folks to get the picture in ones mind as to what was taking place then i defined what i meant by that statement by telling the reader that it was a voluntary act of faith and they were not actually forcefully taking lives but aiding in an act of faith in GOD that can cleanse one of the debt and influence that sin has on ones life that has not been saved. It is not killing if everyone lived and there was an absence of malice replaced by faith. Do you see any correlation between what i have said and all the scripture on the subject?

well, i can't think of any scripture that tells us anything interesting about baptism, but i did find this on the internet...
link

The fact that the Devil practiced the ritual of Baptism over 2000 years before it was even used in Christianity has truly amazed historians!

reply to post by deadeyedick


It's not scripture, but it's easy enough to verify:

Pagan water purification rituals were used in the archaic Near East and are written about in the Old Testament. Homer mentions the washing of hands before prayer, and the purification of an entire army with water [Iliad, 1.313].

The Greeks even had priests, kathartai, who specialized in purification with water. Mithra's followers celebrated the sacrament of taurobolium—baptism in the blood of a bull, with the result of "Salvation." Pagans at Gerasa celebrated the Maioumas, rites in which women bathed and were purified in a sacred pool outside town.


New members into the Mysteries of Isis / Osiris began their initiation with a sprinkling of purifying waters brought from the Nile. The result of the baptism and initiation? Salvation

www.pocm.info...

In short, baptism is not a Christian tradition. They merely adopted it.

reply to post by tinhattribunal


HA! Okay. That makes sense, considering the modern depictions of "Satan" are usually based on Pan or Baphomet, the gods of wisdom and fertility. Both the trident and the horns are classic pagan symbols representing life and the trinitarian ideal that so many religions have featured throughout our history. In any other case, such a tool would be considered a sign of divinity. But that would require confessing to having stolen pagan mythology in order to give Christianity the meat it needed to hold up its poorly assembled bones. Now it's a hulking beast whose exterior obscures the truth of its soul.

reply to post by deadeyedick

I take it you don't mean people were literally being killed, but rather they were going through something which symbolised experiencing death.
That would be Paul's take on it;
"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death?"- Romans ch6 v3
Of course the symbolism comes in two stages- everyone who goes into the water comes up out of the water again, so these are the symbols of death and of new life.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


None of that is worth a squirt of piss if they do not have faith in Jesus since he mastered the secrets of GOD. To me that is what most fail to realize is that any power wielded now or in the future will only be givin by Jesus in order to save or deceive. These pagan deities have already lost the battle because the cross was the price of the kingdom. Put your faith in false bs and your faith will be in vain.

reply to post by DISRAELI


Your view of the symbolic side of it is the most accepted but i am suggesting that there was real death and new life involved and this may have been hidden by rome and such.

reply to post by deadeyedick

None of that is worth a squirt of piss if they do not have faith in Jesus since he mastered the secrets of GOD. To me that is what most fail to realize is that any power wielded now or in the future will only be givin by Jesus in order to save or deceive. These pagan deities have already lost the battle because the cross was the price of the kingdom. Put your faith in false bs and your faith will be in vain.

I don't see the point of posting in these forums if all you want is for people to agree with you and suck up to your beloved god.

To hell with your god. He should be in the top ten of his book of judgment. I dearly hope he is, and if he isn't, then I will gladly offer him my seat in the burning abyss that he designed for the children he loves so much. That is my personal stance on the matter. You should check out my thread when you have a chance, and we can discuss the matter at length.

Here, however, I have provided proof that your baptism is not Christian. It is far older then Christianity. The Egyptians did it, the Greeks did it. I would hazard a suggestion that the Native Americans and Aztecs and Nordics did it too. Try Googling it, see if I'm wrong. None of the Abrahamic or Judaic or Christian faiths have any monopoly over baptism and the use of sanctified water, so your point is invalid. You asked for us to prove you wrong - albeit it with scripture, but that's cheating. You want us to prove you wrong using the same materials you used to make your point. I prefer to think outside the book, as it were.

And so here you have it.

reply to post by deadeyedick

I think that if there was genuine death and rebirth, the gospels would have said so.
The resurrections of Lazarus and Jairus' daughter are frankly described, to show the power of God at work.
If the same thing had been happening in baptism, it would not have been concealed, for the same reason.
In any case, a power which could belong only to Jesus would not have been evident in the acts of John the Baptist, and Jesus himself did not baptise (John ch4 v2).

You can't use "Rome" as a get-out clause for the absence of evidence, because "Rome", in that sense, did not exist at the time. In fact "Rome" has never dominated the church as a whole, only the western church

.

reply to post by deadeyedick

It seems clear to me that John and Jesus were drowning folks that volunteered to surrender their lives through faith that they would be reborn.

Are you claiming then that John and Jesus were actually Ironborn, followers of the Drowned God?

"Since the Dawn Age, the ironborn have followed the Drowned God, who plucked fire from the sea, and made us to reave and sack, and carve our names in blood and song."
―Yara Greyjoy[src]

Resurrection figures prominently in the religion, in the form of being revived from drowning. The Drowned God itself is said to have drowned in the sea, for the sake of the ironborn, but returned to life "harder and stronger". However, drowning is also employed as a method of sacrificing enemies to the Drowned God.
Game of Thrones wiki - Drowned God

reply to post by pthena


Haha. So deadeyedick is a heretic. Welcome to the fold!

reply to post by pthena


I am suggesting that none of that is relevant to today because Jesus the son of GOD won all power in these matters on the cross. He has written the ending and we should follow his lead.

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by deadeyedick

 

I think that if there was genuine death and rebirth, the gospels would have said so.
The resurrections of Lazarus and Jairus' daughter are frankly described, to show the power of God at work.
If the same thing had been happening in baptism, it would not have been concealed, for the same reason.
In any case, a power which could belong only to Jesus would not have been evident in the acts of John the Baptist, and Jesus himself did not baptise (John ch4 v2).

You can't use "Rome" as a get-out clause for the absence of evidence, because "Rome", in that sense, did not exist at the time. In fact "Rome" has never dominated the church as a whole, only the western church

.

edit on 7-6-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

Doesn't Lazarus story make this verse hard to understand? And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: In Lazarus case it was Jesus faith that restored him. With water or fire baptism it is the one that will receive the gift that has to have faith in GOD in order to be saved.

reply to post by deadeyedick

I am suggesting that none of that is relevant to today because Jesus the son of GOD won all power in these matters on the cross. He has written the ending and we should follow his lead.

Why post on this forum, for all to see and discuss, if you are not even willing to consider an alternative opinion or viewpoint? You are suggesting that you don't care what anyone has to say, you have your story and you're sticking to it. Why is this matter even up for discussion, then?

Originally posted by deadeyedick
]Doesn't Lazarus story make this verse hard to understand? And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I don't see how producing an argument against the Lazarus event helps your case.

The decisive point against your theory is this- the total absence of any evidence.
If it had happened that way, there is no earthly reason why the gospels should not have said so.

Maybe a better question would be if you was there and witnessed this act in the name of GOD with the son of man watching would you have enough faith in GOD to let go of the flesh or would you rebuke the son of GOD as your savior and join the stick parade?

reply to post by DISRAELI

John 4:2
American Standard Version
(although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples),

I've read this passage in a few different translations, sometimes I get the impression that it's saying "Jesus baptized only his disciples"

In the Greek, is it ambiguous as to whether it should mean "only the disciples baptized" or "baptized only his disciples"?