It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Baptized
page: 3share:
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Do you believe that deflectively questioning me about the specifics of my beliefs will save you from scriptural misinterpretation?
Do you believe that deflectively questioning me about the specifics of my beliefs will save you from scriptural misinterpretation?
edit on
26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Heresiarch
Scripture says that whoever believes on the Son will have everlasting life. It doesn't say anything about water baptism for salvation.
In Jesus' exchange with Nicodemas, He was drawing a contrast between the TWO BIRTHS: the physical birth is by water, the spiritual birth is by faith.
Why would Jesus draw a contrast between synonymous ideas like spiritual birth and water baptism (outward depicting the inward)?
You don't have to worry about my salvation. I believe in Christ, and have shown it with water baptism (which has absolutely no impact on my salvation).
Salvation by water baptism is salvation by works. It contradicts grace.
Mark 16:16 also contradicts YOUR idea of grace.
Does that mean Jesus is lying about believing and being baptized?
Because you say so?
No, I think not.
a reply to: Heresiarch
Not meaning to be disrespectful or argumentative, here is part of my confusion in baptism.
Jesus said -- Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
I use this as to understand that Jesus preexisted in the celestial realm and was the Begotten of God known as "The Word."
Now when "The Word" came into the flesh and was known as Jesus, are you saying that He was lacking the Spirit of the Father and needed water baptism from His own created source?
I am Christine Jew and I admit that I have much to learn of the Gentile, but I do not understand how the Begotten of God could lose His own Spirit in a substance change. Now being of the Essenes I also believe in the immaculate conception and in order to believe the immaculate conception I must believe that the Christ Yahusha was conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Father. If this is correct then was He not the Christ upon conception and if He was the Christ upon conception then how could He have need from His own creation? I am totally lost in this water and Holy Spirit baptism being needed by the Creator of His own creation.
Was not Yahusha the same spirit in heaven as He was being Jesus? He did say that He had remembrance of seeing Satan fall from heaven so I understand that His spirit was the same on this earth as it was in heaven. Not trying to be aggressive or mean spirited but only confused as to why the need for water baptism in repenting of sin when He was not born into or of sin. If He had need to be baptized then He must have committed sin.
On the other hand if Jesus' purpose was to show that the Judaic sin offering was not valid and that John was showing a new and perfect way of circumventing the Temple authority then I can understand that. When Jesus died and the first Nazarene synagogue was established, we saw the blood sacrifice of creatures of our creation done away with. Was this the forerunner of this new covenant?
God Bless
Text Jesus was baptized with water so he could fulfill his mission and in order to do that he needed the Holy Spirit. Jesus was baptized so he could receive the Holy Spirit, and since his baptism water baptism is no longer for repentance. Now baptism is how you receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is necessary for salvation and baptism is necessary (even was for Jesus) to receive the Holy Spirit. Repentance is the old water baptism. Jesus transformed baptism from a ritual of repentance to one of re-birth.
Not meaning to be disrespectful or argumentative, here is part of my confusion in baptism.
Jesus said -- Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
I use this as to understand that Jesus preexisted in the celestial realm and was the Begotten of God known as "The Word."
Now when "The Word" came into the flesh and was known as Jesus, are you saying that He was lacking the Spirit of the Father and needed water baptism from His own created source?
I am Christine Jew and I admit that I have much to learn of the Gentile, but I do not understand how the Begotten of God could lose His own Spirit in a substance change. Now being of the Essenes I also believe in the immaculate conception and in order to believe the immaculate conception I must believe that the Christ Yahusha was conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Father. If this is correct then was He not the Christ upon conception and if He was the Christ upon conception then how could He have need from His own creation? I am totally lost in this water and Holy Spirit baptism being needed by the Creator of His own creation.
Was not Yahusha the same spirit in heaven as He was being Jesus? He did say that He had remembrance of seeing Satan fall from heaven so I understand that His spirit was the same on this earth as it was in heaven. Not trying to be aggressive or mean spirited but only confused as to why the need for water baptism in repenting of sin when He was not born into or of sin. If He had need to be baptized then He must have committed sin.
On the other hand if Jesus' purpose was to show that the Judaic sin offering was not valid and that John was showing a new and perfect way of circumventing the Temple authority then I can understand that. When Jesus died and the first Nazarene synagogue was established, we saw the blood sacrifice of creatures of our creation done away with. Was this the forerunner of this new covenant?
God Bless
a reply to: Seede
You haven't really brought up anything that conflicts with what I have said. And everything I have said is logically based on scripture. Not complicated either but literal and the most likely meaning of the Words of Jesus.
editby]edit on 26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
You haven't really brought up anything that conflicts with what I have said. And everything I have said is logically based on scripture. Not complicated either but literal and the most likely meaning of the Words of Jesus.
editby]edit on 26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Seede
The new covenant is a term also used by people who practice paganism today. I don't believe in covenants between man and his creator unless both have a say. It's always under duress if the covenant predates your existence. What I mean is, I don't like the word covenant, too witch craft sounding.
The new covenant is a term also used by people who practice paganism today. I don't believe in covenants between man and his creator unless both have a say. It's always under duress if the covenant predates your existence. What I mean is, I don't like the word covenant, too witch craft sounding.
edit on 26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Seede
I am just taking the words of the Bible and applying the most likely meaning of the actual words of Jesus. As close as I possibly can. So I believe that the Holy Spirit is something you receive at baptism because that is what happens to Jesus at his Baptism AND what Jesus literally says " Unless you are born of the water and Spirit..."
I am just taking the words of the Bible and applying the most likely meaning of the actual words of Jesus. As close as I possibly can. So I believe that the Holy Spirit is something you receive at baptism because that is what happens to Jesus at his Baptism AND what Jesus literally says " Unless you are born of the water and Spirit..."
originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Do you believe that deflectively questioning me about the specifics of my beliefs will save you from scriptural misinterpretation?
Why are you dodging my questions? Im trying to understand what you believe, to see how to approach you on these issues.
You're not being very objective.
a reply to: Heresiarch
Mark 16:16 says baptized. It doesnt say by water. What did John the Baptist say? The one who comes after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
Again, you're jumping to false conclusions.
Mark 16:16 says baptized. It doesnt say by water. What did John the Baptist say? The one who comes after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
Again, you're jumping to false conclusions.
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Heresiarch
Mark 16:16 says baptized. It doesnt say by water. What did John the Baptist say? The one who comes after me will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
Again, you're jumping to false conclusions.
I am not jumping to any conclusions. And baptized is the name of the thread, so why are you saying that it says what I said it says?
You are the only one who is jumping to conclusions. Like concluding that it's not correct for me to take the scriptures so literally, or that it's somehow a bad thing to be baptized (yes, born of the water IS synonymous with baptized) and receive the Holy Spirit.
I think being baptized is what scripture says it is. I think receiving the Holy Spirit is achieved through baptism because that is what scripture says. I think entering the Kingdom of God is a good thing. If getting baptized and receiving the Spirit is what it takes to do so I think that is a pretty fair deal. It's not hard at all, and who wouldn't want to receive the Holy Spirit?
I can only testify that it is true for me. That it works if you are willing to let go of the ways of the past and want to know the truth about God. And that it is not at all a bad thing like you're trying to make it sound.
You're welcome to your beliefs, I don't condone intolerance for a person's right to interpret scripture as one wants and actually encourage differences of opinion. It keeps the discussion fresh. And it shows you have some kind of belief in God so I wont critique your particular beliefs, I will just say that I have come to an entirely different conclusion than you after reading the Bible re: baptism.
a reply to: Heresiarch
You are free to have your own opinion too, but if we are going to discuss baptism, it is expected that you provide more support for the claims you are making, when I have challenged them with valid counter-points.
I take the bible both literally and poetically at times, but you're not even being literal here.
Mark 16:16 literally says "baptism". It doesn't say anything about water. Baptism literally means to be submerged. You can be submerged into anything: water, sand, ketchup, milk....
So why ASSume water in Mark 16:16, when John specifically says; I baptize you in water, but Jesus will baptize us with Spirit and Fire.
Jesus does not baptize us with water, so how can Mark 16:16 be about water?
I'll ask again; Do you believe that Jesus died as a payment for our sins?
Its a simple question and relevant to the discussion. Please answer it.
You are free to have your own opinion too, but if we are going to discuss baptism, it is expected that you provide more support for the claims you are making, when I have challenged them with valid counter-points.
I take the bible both literally and poetically at times, but you're not even being literal here.
Mark 16:16 literally says "baptism". It doesn't say anything about water. Baptism literally means to be submerged. You can be submerged into anything: water, sand, ketchup, milk....
So why ASSume water in Mark 16:16, when John specifically says; I baptize you in water, but Jesus will baptize us with Spirit and Fire.
Jesus does not baptize us with water, so how can Mark 16:16 be about water?
I'll ask again; Do you believe that Jesus died as a payment for our sins?
Its a simple question and relevant to the discussion. Please answer it.
edit on 26-3-2016 by BELIEVERpriest because: typos
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Heresiarch
You are free to have your own opinion too, but if we are going to discuss baptism, it is expected that you provide more support for the claims you are making, when I have challenged them with valid counter-points.
I take the bible both literally and poetically at times, but you're not even being literal here.
Mark 16:16 literally says "baptism". It doesn't say anything about water. Baptism literally means to be submerged. You can be submerged into anything: water, sand, ketchup, milk....
So why ASSume water in Mark 16:16, when John specifically says; I baptize you in water, but Jesus will baptize us with Spirit and Fire.
Jesus does not baptize us with water, so how can Mark 16:16 be about water?
I'll ask again; Do you believe that Jesus died as a payment for our sins?
Its a simple question and relevant to the discussion. Please answer it.
Last time I checked, providing scripture IS providing support for what I am saying.
I have only been using scripture, and I do not live for your expectations.
Saying or typing ASSume only makes you look like the first three letters of the word.
Condemnation is the alternative to believing and being baptized. That is scripture. Everything I have said is scripture. If you believe in scripture then you believe that believing AND being baptized is salvation from condemnation because that is what scripture says.
edit on
26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Now you want to try saying Mark 16:16 doesn't say water when it says baptism, so it doesn't mean in water.
Too bad that baptism is performed in water in scripture so it doesn't have to say water just to satisfy you. The definition of baptism in scripture is to be born of water. Just like they do it in the Bible.
You are REALLY bending over backwards now. Your gonna change the definition of baptism because you don't like it. Go ahead, I'm not you and don't care. Everyone knows that baptism is done with water. Mark 16:16 is the end of Mark and the definition has already been established that baptism is a ceremony that takes place in water. Just because they don't define it every time they say it doesn't change the definition.
Being born of water and the Spirit is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. Not being born of ketchup.
I don't converse with scripture twisters and people who preach false gospels. We are finished.
Now you want to try saying Mark 16:16 doesn't say water when it says baptism, so it doesn't mean in water.
Too bad that baptism is performed in water in scripture so it doesn't have to say water just to satisfy you. The definition of baptism in scripture is to be born of water. Just like they do it in the Bible.
You are REALLY bending over backwards now. Your gonna change the definition of baptism because you don't like it. Go ahead, I'm not you and don't care. Everyone knows that baptism is done with water. Mark 16:16 is the end of Mark and the definition has already been established that baptism is a ceremony that takes place in water. Just because they don't define it every time they say it doesn't change the definition.
Being born of water and the Spirit is necessary to enter the Kingdom of God. Not being born of ketchup.
I don't converse with scripture twisters and people who preach false gospels. We are finished.
edit on 26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no
reason given)
edit on 26-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)
a reply to: Heresiarch
You're being childish and your dodging my questions. There are multiple forms of baptism.
You're being childish and your dodging my questions. There are multiple forms of baptism.
John 3:5 (again)
Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of the water and Spirit.
Water and Spirit necessary to enter the Kingdom? Check
Mark16:16
The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not will be condemned.
Baptism required for salvation? Check.
Being born of the water and Spirit are necessary to enter the Kingdom. Baptism is necessary for salvation. Jesus is baptized in water, at which point he receives the Holy Spirit. Baptism is done in water. Baptism is being born of the water and Spirit.
Simple logic and from the mouth of Jesus. The odds that born of water and of Spirit mean anything other than baptism, when that is exactly how and when Jesus received the Holy Spirit, are astronomically low to the point it is not worth mentioning, nevermind considering.
Any proffessed Christian who tries to downplay the importance of, AND change the meaning, of baptism, is not a true Christian and does not have the Spirit. As far as I am concerned. Jealousy is the only reason to try and talk down about someone else's spirituality and baptism itself especially when you are not even provoking them, and are just discussing the Bible passages about baptism with no ill intention whatsoever.
Baptism of ketchup. You are ridiculous Priest.
Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God unless they are born of the water and Spirit.
Water and Spirit necessary to enter the Kingdom? Check
Mark16:16
The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not will be condemned.
Baptism required for salvation? Check.
Being born of the water and Spirit are necessary to enter the Kingdom. Baptism is necessary for salvation. Jesus is baptized in water, at which point he receives the Holy Spirit. Baptism is done in water. Baptism is being born of the water and Spirit.
Simple logic and from the mouth of Jesus. The odds that born of water and of Spirit mean anything other than baptism, when that is exactly how and when Jesus received the Holy Spirit, are astronomically low to the point it is not worth mentioning, nevermind considering.
Any proffessed Christian who tries to downplay the importance of, AND change the meaning, of baptism, is not a true Christian and does not have the Spirit. As far as I am concerned. Jealousy is the only reason to try and talk down about someone else's spirituality and baptism itself especially when you are not even provoking them, and are just discussing the Bible passages about baptism with no ill intention whatsoever.
Baptism of ketchup. You are ridiculous Priest.
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
YOU are being childish. Not to mention argumentative and adversarial. And of all things baptism. What should be a laid back discussion will turn ugly if I don't cease responding to your messages.
Consider this the last.
YOU are being childish. Not to mention argumentative and adversarial. And of all things baptism. What should be a laid back discussion will turn ugly if I don't cease responding to your messages.
Consider this the last.
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
YOU are being childish. Not to mention argumentative and adversarial. And of all things baptism. What should be a laid back discussion will turn ugly if I don't cease responding to your messages.
Consider this the last.
YOU are being childish. Not to mention argumentative and adversarial. And of all things baptism. What should be a laid back discussion will turn ugly if I don't cease responding to your messages.
Consider this the last.
a reply to: Heresiarch
I'd just like you to support what you said with more than assumptions. I don't see what the big deal is.
I'd just like you to support what you said with more than assumptions. I don't see what the big deal is.
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Heresiarch
I edited my post above to support my statements. You made accusations about my faith, and false claims about water baptism. I think the responsible thing for you to do would be to provide me with some support for your claims. As a representative of Christ on earth, it is your responsibility to answer the questions of a potential non-believer seeking the truth. You brought my faith into question, I think you owe me an explanation.
Leviticus 26, beginning with verse 40, is the confession Israel would be called upon to make. Israel would also have to accept the remainder of her punishment, that failure under the law contract would call for and that would be the seven year tribulation. When John the Baptizer came along, had anything new begun? He simply called upon Israel to change their minds about their righteousness.
John the Baptizer came in connection with Yahweh’s earthly nation Israel and in accordance with an offer to confess their failure under the law contract in order to gain their promised land. That confession itself would be considered a fruit of righteousness in the eyes of Yahweh. The focus during John the Baptizer’s ministry was still Israel and the issue continued to be the land. Nothing had changed except that Israel was being offered the opportunity to confess their failure under the law contract. Israel continued to be the focus and the land continued to be the issue.
a reply to: newnature1
I think believing and being baptized is a pretty fair deal and not asking a lot of the followers of Christ.
It's benefits of salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit far outweigh any negativity one would attempt to attach to it. Calling it a work of law or not in line with the doctrine of grace is a fallacy and deprives one of the benefits of the Holy Spirit
I don't know if that is in line with what you believe or not. But that is what I believe.
I think believing and being baptized is a pretty fair deal and not asking a lot of the followers of Christ.
It's benefits of salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit far outweigh any negativity one would attempt to attach to it. Calling it a work of law or not in line with the doctrine of grace is a fallacy and deprives one of the benefits of the Holy Spirit
I don't know if that is in line with what you believe or not. But that is what I believe.