The Heretics Message to the World:Be Baptized to be Saved! (HOF thread)
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
Kevin
New member
cmoore,
This is not saying that water=word. No. This is saying that we are cleansed with the washing of water (baptism) by the word of God.
A classic example is Acts 2:38. After hearing the word of God, they were water baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. So, it was by hearing the word of God that they were led to WATER baptism when Peter commanded it. Had they not heard the word, they wouldn't have been baptized.
The word of God commands baptism. Jesus wasn't kidding when he said he who beleives and is baptized will be saved.
This is not saying that water=word. No. This is saying that we are cleansed with the washing of water (baptism) by the word of God.
A classic example is Acts 2:38. After hearing the word of God, they were water baptized in the name of the Lord for the remission of sins. So, it was by hearing the word of God that they were led to WATER baptism when Peter commanded it. Had they not heard the word, they wouldn't have been baptized.
The word of God commands baptism. Jesus wasn't kidding when he said he who beleives and is baptized will be saved.
freelight
Eclectic Theosophist
born of water.....
born of water.....
)=============Hello all,.............It looks like myself and some others hold that the 'born of water' in John 3:5 refers to natural birth(being born of the flesh). As I have shared...I feel this is most correct interpretation in the immediate context.
There also appears to be those who feel that the 'water' mentioned here refers to the Word of God. Well,.....in some ways such could be apllicable...as we are born again thru the Word of God - however the immediate context does not support this. This interpretation is a collective one taken from the NT as a whole which correlates 'water' to the 'Word'.
Of course we have those here who are quite zealous to have this 'born of water' mean 'water baptism' - but this is not supported by the immediate context either.....as eloborated by myself earlier.
Commenting on kevins last sentence above - this verse in Mark 16:16 - "he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' is a later addition as the earliest manuscript of Mark ch. 16 ends at vs. 8. At a later time,.......2 conclusions to this last chapter appeared - most Bibles have the long conclusion.....but there was a 'short' conclusion as well. I only draw this up to show some 'caution' as to this actually being a correct record of what Jesus said. In any case the emphasis is 'belief'(faith) as the essential of salvation.
Following the thought that later additions and interpolations may have entered into the gospel accounts....we see Matt. 28 - the last chapter vs. 19. This is the notable verse about 'going into all nations baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. - this is thought by some to be an interpolation added to validate the doctrine of the Trinity - also note the inferrence of 'baptism'.
In the gospels of Luke and John.....there is no direct command by Jesus to baptize or be baptized - In the gospel of John.....it does mention that Jesus and his disciples baptized along with John (John 3:22,23)....however later the report of Jesus himself baptizing is denied in 4:2.
The great emphasis by some on Acts 2:38 as a proof text of baptism and its power to remit sins is also subject to review. One is baptized 'because of' the remission sins(this done by the faith-response of those who hear and embrace the gospel and are spiritually renewed and transformed)......- the physical act of baptism in water does not wash away sins...but is an act of obedience - of course.
It is the spiritual-mental act of repentance and faith in Christ (spiritual generation) that remits sin and enables one to walk in newness of Life - its the answer of a good conscience correlating to the resurrection of Jesus that grants new life to the believer.
Whatever is performed (in thought and deed)....it is the Spirit of God giving life thru-out!
O glory!
paul
born of water.....
)=============Hello all,.............It looks like myself and some others hold that the 'born of water' in John 3:5 refers to natural birth(being born of the flesh). As I have shared...I feel this is most correct interpretation in the immediate context.
There also appears to be those who feel that the 'water' mentioned here refers to the Word of God. Well,.....in some ways such could be apllicable...as we are born again thru the Word of God - however the immediate context does not support this. This interpretation is a collective one taken from the NT as a whole which correlates 'water' to the 'Word'.
Of course we have those here who are quite zealous to have this 'born of water' mean 'water baptism' - but this is not supported by the immediate context either.....as eloborated by myself earlier.
Commenting on kevins last sentence above - this verse in Mark 16:16 - "he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned' is a later addition as the earliest manuscript of Mark ch. 16 ends at vs. 8. At a later time,.......2 conclusions to this last chapter appeared - most Bibles have the long conclusion.....but there was a 'short' conclusion as well. I only draw this up to show some 'caution' as to this actually being a correct record of what Jesus said. In any case the emphasis is 'belief'(faith) as the essential of salvation.
Following the thought that later additions and interpolations may have entered into the gospel accounts....we see Matt. 28 - the last chapter vs. 19. This is the notable verse about 'going into all nations baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. - this is thought by some to be an interpolation added to validate the doctrine of the Trinity - also note the inferrence of 'baptism'.
In the gospels of Luke and John.....there is no direct command by Jesus to baptize or be baptized - In the gospel of John.....it does mention that Jesus and his disciples baptized along with John (John 3:22,23)....however later the report of Jesus himself baptizing is denied in 4:2.
The great emphasis by some on Acts 2:38 as a proof text of baptism and its power to remit sins is also subject to review. One is baptized 'because of' the remission sins(this done by the faith-response of those who hear and embrace the gospel and are spiritually renewed and transformed)......- the physical act of baptism in water does not wash away sins...but is an act of obedience - of course.
It is the spiritual-mental act of repentance and faith in Christ (spiritual generation) that remits sin and enables one to walk in newness of Life - its the answer of a good conscience correlating to the resurrection of Jesus that grants new life to the believer.
Whatever is performed (in thought and deed)....it is the Spirit of God giving life thru-out!
O glory!
paul
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
Um... erm... I would guess not, but if it does, I'll buy your Bible from you if your interested in selling it - it would be a neat trick to show my friends!
All kidding aside, let's look at this verse according to your exegesis. Your position that "water" in Eph. 5: 26 actually means "word". I will substitue "water" with "word", since that's what your exegesis of this verse concludes. Let's see how that looks:
"that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,"
That doesn't even make sense. If water is truly to be interpreted as "word", by bother ending the verse with "by the word"? What's the point?
Secondly, the Greek is certainly in opposition to your conclusion. The word for "washing" in that verse is:
G3067
λουτρόν
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism: - washing.
and the Greek word for "water" in that verse is:
G5204
ὕδωρ, ὕδατος
hudōr hudatos
hoo'-dor, hoo'-dat-os, etc.
From the base of G5205; water (as if rainy) literally or figuratively: - water.
The meaning is quite clear, that a washing takes places, as in to bathe in a bath, with WATER, not "word".
Your context makes no sense ("washing of word by the word" :kookoo: ), and the Greek disagrees with your exegesis.
These people were cleansed by the washing of WATER, exactly as translated. How did they come to be cleansed by water? What led them to this? The word of God. They were cleansed with WATER by the WORD.
Um... erm... I would guess not, but if it does, I'll buy your Bible from you if your interested in selling it - it would be a neat trick to show my friends!
All kidding aside, let's look at this verse according to your exegesis. Your position that "water" in Eph. 5: 26 actually means "word". I will substitue "water" with "word", since that's what your exegesis of this verse concludes. Let's see how that looks:
"that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,"
That doesn't even make sense. If water is truly to be interpreted as "word", by bother ending the verse with "by the word"? What's the point?
Secondly, the Greek is certainly in opposition to your conclusion. The word for "washing" in that verse is:
G3067
λουτρόν
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism: - washing.
and the Greek word for "water" in that verse is:
G5204
ὕδωρ, ὕδατος
hudōr hudatos
hoo'-dor, hoo'-dat-os, etc.
From the base of G5205; water (as if rainy) literally or figuratively: - water.
The meaning is quite clear, that a washing takes places, as in to bathe in a bath, with WATER, not "word".
Your context makes no sense ("washing of word by the word" :kookoo: ), and the Greek disagrees with your exegesis.
These people were cleansed by the washing of WATER, exactly as translated. How did they come to be cleansed by water? What led them to this? The word of God. They were cleansed with WATER by the WORD.
Kevin
New member
Freelight,
Again, Christ is answering a question on how to be born again, which is something that would happen AFTER the natural birth. Therefore, the answer that Christ gave, in immediate context, would be in answer to a birth that happens AFTER natural birth, and therefore destroys the concept that water is speaking of natural birth - which isn't even the question at hand.
It's not like I'm tyring to insert baptism where it shouldn't be, as if it's an alien idea which has no support. On the contrary, many scholars see this as referring to baptism, and rightfully so.
I have shown prallels that support my position, but you can only say "Were talking about what Jesus said... not Paul". Weak argument do to the fact that within the Bible itself, references of other books were often used to clarify meanings or fulfill prophecies. Would you tell Peter when he preached to the Jews in Acts chapter 2 that he should have stuck to the immediate context and not quoted from the prophet Joel?
In fact, look at what this early Christian said about being born of water in the year 203:
"203 AD Tertullian "[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, `Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life'" (Baptism 12:1)."
When did the exegesis of water being natural birth come into play (what year?)
There is a VERY clear reason for this, and this shows that you don't get what baptism is all about. When we are baptized in Christ, we are baptized into His death (Romans 6:3). In those verses that you mentioned above, Christ had NOT died yet, therefore it would be impossible to be baptized into a death that had NOT occurred yet.
That's why AFTER He died, Christ commanded that everybody be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20). And that exactly what the apsotles did, and yes, it uses water.
Ah yes. The common casual 'eis' argument. Funny how all the translations that I've seen do not render Acts 2:38 "because of". Why is that? To prove my point:
1. American Bible Union Version unto the remission of your sins
2. Amplified NT for the forgiveness of your sins
3. Anderson In order to the remission of your sins
4. Authentic (Schomfield) for the forgiveness of your sins
5. Authorized version (KJV) for the remission of sins
6. Berry's interlinear for remission of sins
7. Centenary Translation for the remission of sins
8. Challomer Rheims for the forgiveness of sins
9. Douay for the remission of sins
10. Emphasized version into the remission of sins
11. Emphatic Diaglot for the remission of sins
12. English Revised unto the remission of sins
13. Englishman's Greek NT for the remission of sins
14. Ferrar Fenton for the remission of sins
15. First German Bible for (in order to, unto) the forgiveness
16. French Translation in order to obtain the remission of sins
17. Geneva Bible for the remission of sins
18. German Translation (for, unto) in order to forgiveness of sins
19. Good News for Modern man in order to have your sins forgiven
20. Goodspeed in order to have your sins forgiven
21. Hackett (commentary) in order to the forgiveness of sins
22. Haweis (1795AD) for the remission of your sins
23. Indian Translation in order to the forgiveness of sins
24. Italian Translation into the remission of sins
25. Jerusalem Bible for the forgiveness of your sins
26. Knox to have your sins forgiven
27. Literal Translation (Young) to the remission of sins
28. Living Bible for the forgiveness of sins
29. Living Oracles in order to the remission of sins
30. Macknights Translation in order to the remission of sins
31. Modern English for a release of your sins
32. Modern Speech with a view tot he remission of sins
33. Moffatt for the remission of sins
34. H.B. Montgomery (1924) for the remission of your sins
35. Moulton's Modern Reader's Unto remission of sins
36. New American Standard for the remission of your sins
37. New Catholic Version for the forgiveness of sins
38. New English Bible for the forgiveness of your sins
39. New International version for the forgiveness of your sins
40. New King James Version for the remission of sins
41. New World Translation for the forgiveness of sins
42. NT in the Basic English for the forgiveness of sins
43. Phillips Modern English so that you may have your sins forgiven
44. Revised Standard Version for the forgiveness of your sins
45. Rothermham unto the remission of your sins
46. Spanish Translation for the purpose of remission of your sins
47. Syriac Version for the remission of sins
48. Twentieth Century Translation for the forgiveness of your sins
49. Verkuyl (Burkeley Version) for the remission of sins
50. Warrell's Translation unto remission of your sins
51. Wesley's Translation for the remission of sins
52. Weymouth for the remission of your sins
53. Williams that your sins may be forgiven
54. Wycliffe (1308) into the remission of youre synnes
This was taken from this website:
http://www.bible.ca/baptism-objections-refuted.htm#eisgar
Also, Romans 6, which speaks on baptism, says in verse 7 that it is he who has died who has been freed from sin. That's a conditional verse. Who is freed from sin? Those who have died with Christ. How do you die with Christ? Just skip up a few verses in the "immediate context" to verse 4, and you can clearly see that this is accomplished by baptism. So, those who have died with Christ through baptism are the ones who are free from sin. This further supports what Acts 2:38 plainly says; that baptism is FOR the remission of sins.
Again, Christ is answering a question on how to be born again, which is something that would happen AFTER the natural birth. Therefore, the answer that Christ gave, in immediate context, would be in answer to a birth that happens AFTER natural birth, and therefore destroys the concept that water is speaking of natural birth - which isn't even the question at hand.
It's not like I'm tyring to insert baptism where it shouldn't be, as if it's an alien idea which has no support. On the contrary, many scholars see this as referring to baptism, and rightfully so.
I have shown prallels that support my position, but you can only say "Were talking about what Jesus said... not Paul". Weak argument do to the fact that within the Bible itself, references of other books were often used to clarify meanings or fulfill prophecies. Would you tell Peter when he preached to the Jews in Acts chapter 2 that he should have stuck to the immediate context and not quoted from the prophet Joel?
In fact, look at what this early Christian said about being born of water in the year 203:
"203 AD Tertullian "[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, `Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life'" (Baptism 12:1)."
When did the exegesis of water being natural birth come into play (what year?)
There is a VERY clear reason for this, and this shows that you don't get what baptism is all about. When we are baptized in Christ, we are baptized into His death (Romans 6:3). In those verses that you mentioned above, Christ had NOT died yet, therefore it would be impossible to be baptized into a death that had NOT occurred yet.
That's why AFTER He died, Christ commanded that everybody be baptized (Matt. 28:19-20). And that exactly what the apsotles did, and yes, it uses water.
Ah yes. The common casual 'eis' argument. Funny how all the translations that I've seen do not render Acts 2:38 "because of". Why is that? To prove my point:
1. American Bible Union Version unto the remission of your sins
2. Amplified NT for the forgiveness of your sins
3. Anderson In order to the remission of your sins
4. Authentic (Schomfield) for the forgiveness of your sins
5. Authorized version (KJV) for the remission of sins
6. Berry's interlinear for remission of sins
7. Centenary Translation for the remission of sins
8. Challomer Rheims for the forgiveness of sins
9. Douay for the remission of sins
10. Emphasized version into the remission of sins
11. Emphatic Diaglot for the remission of sins
12. English Revised unto the remission of sins
13. Englishman's Greek NT for the remission of sins
14. Ferrar Fenton for the remission of sins
15. First German Bible for (in order to, unto) the forgiveness
16. French Translation in order to obtain the remission of sins
17. Geneva Bible for the remission of sins
18. German Translation (for, unto) in order to forgiveness of sins
19. Good News for Modern man in order to have your sins forgiven
20. Goodspeed in order to have your sins forgiven
21. Hackett (commentary) in order to the forgiveness of sins
22. Haweis (1795AD) for the remission of your sins
23. Indian Translation in order to the forgiveness of sins
24. Italian Translation into the remission of sins
25. Jerusalem Bible for the forgiveness of your sins
26. Knox to have your sins forgiven
27. Literal Translation (Young) to the remission of sins
28. Living Bible for the forgiveness of sins
29. Living Oracles in order to the remission of sins
30. Macknights Translation in order to the remission of sins
31. Modern English for a release of your sins
32. Modern Speech with a view tot he remission of sins
33. Moffatt for the remission of sins
34. H.B. Montgomery (1924) for the remission of your sins
35. Moulton's Modern Reader's Unto remission of sins
36. New American Standard for the remission of your sins
37. New Catholic Version for the forgiveness of sins
38. New English Bible for the forgiveness of your sins
39. New International version for the forgiveness of your sins
40. New King James Version for the remission of sins
41. New World Translation for the forgiveness of sins
42. NT in the Basic English for the forgiveness of sins
43. Phillips Modern English so that you may have your sins forgiven
44. Revised Standard Version for the forgiveness of your sins
45. Rothermham unto the remission of your sins
46. Spanish Translation for the purpose of remission of your sins
47. Syriac Version for the remission of sins
48. Twentieth Century Translation for the forgiveness of your sins
49. Verkuyl (Burkeley Version) for the remission of sins
50. Warrell's Translation unto remission of your sins
51. Wesley's Translation for the remission of sins
52. Weymouth for the remission of your sins
53. Williams that your sins may be forgiven
54. Wycliffe (1308) into the remission of youre synnes
This was taken from this website:
http://www.bible.ca/baptism-objections-refuted.htm#eisgar
Also, Romans 6, which speaks on baptism, says in verse 7 that it is he who has died who has been freed from sin. That's a conditional verse. Who is freed from sin? Those who have died with Christ. How do you die with Christ? Just skip up a few verses in the "immediate context" to verse 4, and you can clearly see that this is accomplished by baptism. So, those who have died with Christ through baptism are the ones who are free from sin. This further supports what Acts 2:38 plainly says; that baptism is FOR the remission of sins.
c.moore
New member
Kevin is the word of God sometime called the water, or the bread, or the milk??
When the bible is called this do we now take a bath in milk??
do we now also be baptized in bread?
How do we get our instruction to walk a christian walk, and how do we get to know who God is and about HIM??
How does the bible become life to us only by reading it, or does it come alive for us because it is a living bible, and the bible is like seeds for us so we need to water the seed with what H2O??
How does seeds grow, and do they need water?
then what kind of seeds are in the parable of the sower Matt 13:23
Is this also baptism water in the Greek?
Joh:4:13: Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh:4:14: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Joh:4:15: The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
God Bless
When the bible is called this do we now take a bath in milk??
do we now also be baptized in bread?
How do we get our instruction to walk a christian walk, and how do we get to know who God is and about HIM??
How does the bible become life to us only by reading it, or does it come alive for us because it is a living bible, and the bible is like seeds for us so we need to water the seed with what H2O??
How does seeds grow, and do they need water?
then what kind of seeds are in the parable of the sower Matt 13:23
Is this also baptism water in the Greek?
Joh:4:13: Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again:
Joh:4:14: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
Joh:4:15: The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.
God Bless
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
Sure, but can you show me an any of those verses were it repeats it'self unecessarily and makes no sense?
Take the milk for example:
1Cor. 3:2
2) I have fed you with milk and not with solid food, for you were not yet able to bear it; nor are you able even now.
Notice how it does not say "I have fed you with milk by milk", or "I have fed you with milk using milk"? Makes no sense, does it?
Now let's take a look at the bread:
Joh 6:35
35) And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes on Me shall never thirst.
Notice how is does not say "And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life by bread". Does that make sense? He just told us that He IS the bread of life, so why would He need to add "by bread"? It's not in there because the declaration has already been made and it wouldn make sense to add "by the bread".
And now, the water:
John 4:1414) but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. [/color]
Why does that verse not say "but whoever drinks of the water by the water that I shall give him shall never thirst...". Again, It's alredy been declared that Christ's water bring eternal life, and also because with "by the water" added in there, it makes no sense.
SO...... going back to Ephesians 5:26, according to your rendering of that verse, it should say:
"that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,"
According to your exegesis, if Christ has ALREADY delcared that the person is cleansed by the washing of the word, why would He continue with "by the Word"? We ALREADY would know that by Him declaring that we are cleansed by the washing of the word! Your rendering makes no sense.
If that verse didn't end with "by the word", then you might have an argument to stand on. But "the word" is already spoken of seperately in that verse from the washing of WATER. As bad as you want water in the context of this verse to mean "word", it just doesn't, due to the fact that it is revealed at the end of the verse that the washing of WATER comes by THE WORD. There are two seperate things being addressed in this verse as opposed to ONE thing being addressed in the water, milk, and bread verses.
The Bible becomes "alive" to us depending on the condition of our heart and its willingness to accept and believe what is says... which does indeed included being water baptized for the remission of sins.
Let's look at Matt. 13:23 -
But that sown on the good ground is this: he who hears the Word and understands; who also bears fruit and produces one truly a hundredfold; and one sixty; and one thirty.
Notice how this verse does NOT say "He who hears the Word by the Word"... "who also bears fruit by fruit"? That's because ONE thing in each case is being spoken of and has already been declared, not to mention it doesn't make sense with the additions.
Ephesians 5:26 mentions water and the word, two serperate things in the same verse, and you want them to say the same thing, even though two are mentioned. Your context of that verse just doesn't make sense. Just look at it again:
"that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,"
So we are washed through the washing of word by the word. :think: Isn't it enought to know that we are washed by the word? It already would say that... so why tell us AGAIN that it's by the word. Your exegesis makes zero sense.
We are cleansed by the WASHING of WATER by the WORD.
Sure, but can you show me an any of those verses were it repeats it'self unecessarily and makes no sense?
Take the milk for example:
1Cor. 3:2
2) I have fed you with milk and not with solid food, for you were not yet able to bear it; nor are you able even now.
Notice how it does not say "I have fed you with milk by milk", or "I have fed you with milk using milk"? Makes no sense, does it?
Now let's take a look at the bread:
Joh 6:35
35) And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes on Me shall never thirst.
Notice how is does not say "And Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life by bread". Does that make sense? He just told us that He IS the bread of life, so why would He need to add "by bread"? It's not in there because the declaration has already been made and it wouldn make sense to add "by the bread".
And now, the water:
John 4:1414) but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst, but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. [/color]
Why does that verse not say "but whoever drinks of the water by the water that I shall give him shall never thirst...". Again, It's alredy been declared that Christ's water bring eternal life, and also because with "by the water" added in there, it makes no sense.
SO...... going back to Ephesians 5:26, according to your rendering of that verse, it should say:
"that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,"
According to your exegesis, if Christ has ALREADY delcared that the person is cleansed by the washing of the word, why would He continue with "by the Word"? We ALREADY would know that by Him declaring that we are cleansed by the washing of the word! Your rendering makes no sense.
If that verse didn't end with "by the word", then you might have an argument to stand on. But "the word" is already spoken of seperately in that verse from the washing of WATER. As bad as you want water in the context of this verse to mean "word", it just doesn't, due to the fact that it is revealed at the end of the verse that the washing of WATER comes by THE WORD. There are two seperate things being addressed in this verse as opposed to ONE thing being addressed in the water, milk, and bread verses.
The Bible becomes "alive" to us depending on the condition of our heart and its willingness to accept and believe what is says... which does indeed included being water baptized for the remission of sins.
Let's look at Matt. 13:23 -
But that sown on the good ground is this: he who hears the Word and understands; who also bears fruit and produces one truly a hundredfold; and one sixty; and one thirty.
Notice how this verse does NOT say "He who hears the Word by the Word"... "who also bears fruit by fruit"? That's because ONE thing in each case is being spoken of and has already been declared, not to mention it doesn't make sense with the additions.
Ephesians 5:26 mentions water and the word, two serperate things in the same verse, and you want them to say the same thing, even though two are mentioned. Your context of that verse just doesn't make sense. Just look at it again:
"that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,"
So we are washed through the washing of word by the word. :think: Isn't it enought to know that we are washed by the word? It already would say that... so why tell us AGAIN that it's by the word. Your exegesis makes zero sense.
We are cleansed by the WASHING of WATER by the WORD.
Freelight,
The immediate context, in fact looking at the context of the entire Gospel of John, John 3:5 can in no way be construed so as to say Jesus was speaking of natural birth. Look at the immediate context. Jesus is shocked that Nicodemus doesn't understand what He's talking about, particularly because Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel. And being a teacher of Israel, Jesus knew Nicodemus should have been familiar with Ezekiel 36 where God says He will sprinkle the people with clean water to remove their sins, and instill a new heart and a new spirit within them. That is what Jesus is talking about when He said 'born of water and Spirit.' Take a look:
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Nicodemus should have recognized what Jesus was talking about when He said 'born of water and Spirit.'
The larger context also fails to support your claim Jesus was talking about natural birth. What does Jesus do immediately following the Nicodemus discourse? He goes into Judea with the disciples and there they spend time baptizing:
22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
Your claim, when considered in the immediate context, or in the broader context of the Gospel of John, seems nonsensical. You would have us believe Jesus was using an analogy of being born of water to refer to natural birth, then immediate proceed into Judea to baptize the people in water? Your argument falls flat.
Look at how the theme of water throughout the Gospel of John. We see it at the wedding at Canaa where the water becomes wine, at Jacobs well where it serves as a catalyst to His discourse with the Samaritan woman and as an analogy of the indwelling of the Spirit, the healing waters in the pool at Bethseda, Jesus walking on the water, the blind man cured when he washed in the waters of the pool at Siloam, and the washing of the apostles feet. In all these cases Jesus reveals Himself to those around Him through the use of water. The argument that John 3:5 is talking about water baptism fits with these other examples perfectly. The idea that Jesus is talking about natural birth dosn't fit at all.
God Bless,
Francisco
What does 'immediate context' mean to you? Maybe you really mean John 3:5 refers to natural birth if you take that one verse out of it's immediate context and apply your own preconceived notion that it speaks of 'natural birth.'
The immediate context, in fact looking at the context of the entire Gospel of John, John 3:5 can in no way be construed so as to say Jesus was speaking of natural birth. Look at the immediate context. Jesus is shocked that Nicodemus doesn't understand what He's talking about, particularly because Nicodemus was a teacher of Israel. And being a teacher of Israel, Jesus knew Nicodemus should have been familiar with Ezekiel 36 where God says He will sprinkle the people with clean water to remove their sins, and instill a new heart and a new spirit within them. That is what Jesus is talking about when He said 'born of water and Spirit.' Take a look:
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
Nicodemus should have recognized what Jesus was talking about when He said 'born of water and Spirit.'
The larger context also fails to support your claim Jesus was talking about natural birth. What does Jesus do immediately following the Nicodemus discourse? He goes into Judea with the disciples and there they spend time baptizing:
22After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized.
Your claim, when considered in the immediate context, or in the broader context of the Gospel of John, seems nonsensical. You would have us believe Jesus was using an analogy of being born of water to refer to natural birth, then immediate proceed into Judea to baptize the people in water? Your argument falls flat.
Look at how the theme of water throughout the Gospel of John. We see it at the wedding at Canaa where the water becomes wine, at Jacobs well where it serves as a catalyst to His discourse with the Samaritan woman and as an analogy of the indwelling of the Spirit, the healing waters in the pool at Bethseda, Jesus walking on the water, the blind man cured when he washed in the waters of the pool at Siloam, and the washing of the apostles feet. In all these cases Jesus reveals Himself to those around Him through the use of water. The argument that John 3:5 is talking about water baptism fits with these other examples perfectly. The idea that Jesus is talking about natural birth dosn't fit at all.
God Bless,
Francisco
c.moore
New member
Hello Kevin
thank you for your response to my questions.
I don`t see it like you do about the scriptures , but I am not trying to put you on the spot , I just want to look at both sides of the fence.
I must say your understanding is very interesting and in the flesh it makes sense but in the the spirit it looks like you missed the mark.
I will give you my understanding , and maybe we can compare were we miss each other.
BTW do you have an msn messenger on your computer with netmeeting???
So now here I go from my side of the fence praise God.
I am glad you were truthful and admitted that the bible is known as the "Water" praise God.
yes I can show you and I`ll use your favorite verse from your water baptismo doctrine which you stand on so strong , and let`s take a look at it.
M'r:16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
look at believeth, and of course the opposite of believing is not believing automatically , and even the bible say`s who is not for me is against me, and John §:16 say who belöieve shall have eternal life but even in John 3:16 don`t say who believeth not has no eternal life, untill you read futher down in verse 18.
We continue are not washed just once and for all by the washing of the Word it is a process and a dairly growth and renewal of the mind with the Word of God which is our spritual water according to Ro:12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Ro:12:3: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
So how do we get this measure of faith Ro:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
so the reson I think you see this not making no sense is because you don`t know this is a continueing cleaning process in the word of God, not a one time act like a water baptism ritual or circumcission.
Do you say the same with Mark 16:16, and say believing is already spoken of seperately in that verse from baptism???
If this analogy you claimed above is correct them the same must be for your doctrine scripture in Mark 16:16 believeth and baptism is two different thing so you don´t make sense either, so there is confussion here do you think so?
This doesn`t fit at all because reading this that way makes it look like you have drained water from the bible and you are now using the water h20 fron the Words that turned into water to be cleans unless you think the bible is a magic show fron David carperfield.:kookoo: :nono:
God Bless
thank you for your response to my questions.
I don`t see it like you do about the scriptures , but I am not trying to put you on the spot , I just want to look at both sides of the fence.
I must say your understanding is very interesting and in the flesh it makes sense but in the the spirit it looks like you missed the mark.
I will give you my understanding , and maybe we can compare were we miss each other.
BTW do you have an msn messenger on your computer with netmeeting???
So now here I go from my side of the fence praise God.
I am glad you were truthful and admitted that the bible is known as the "Water" praise God.
yes I can show you and I`ll use your favorite verse from your water baptismo doctrine which you stand on so strong , and let`s take a look at it.
M'r:16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
look at believeth, and of course the opposite of believing is not believing automatically , and even the bible say`s who is not for me is against me, and John §:16 say who belöieve shall have eternal life but even in John 3:16 don`t say who believeth not has no eternal life, untill you read futher down in verse 18.
We continue are not washed just once and for all by the washing of the Word it is a process and a dairly growth and renewal of the mind with the Word of God which is our spritual water according to Ro:12:2: And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Ro:12:3: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
So how do we get this measure of faith Ro:10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
so the reson I think you see this not making no sense is because you don`t know this is a continueing cleaning process in the word of God, not a one time act like a water baptism ritual or circumcission.
Do you say the same with Mark 16:16, and say believing is already spoken of seperately in that verse from baptism???
If this analogy you claimed above is correct them the same must be for your doctrine scripture in Mark 16:16 believeth and baptism is two different thing so you don´t make sense either, so there is confussion here do you think so?
This doesn`t fit at all because reading this that way makes it look like you have drained water from the bible and you are now using the water h20 fron the Words that turned into water to be cleans unless you think the bible is a magic show fron David carperfield.:kookoo: :nono:
God Bless
Kevin
New member
c.moore,
Indeed... the history of this thread will attest to that.
By all means, C.Moore, put me on the spot. :up:
I'm not so sure you understand what it means when compring the flesh to the Spirit. I can assure you I am born of the Spirit, not of the flesh, or I would be of the world and practice worldly things (which I don't). Baptism serves an extremely important spiritual purose. It's the means chosen by God that allows us to have remission of our sins and walk in the newness of life. Only a spiritually minded person who is seeking God will undergo baptism.
Just because baptism happens to be done with water, you somehow equate that with being of the flesh, just because water is a phyical substance. Would you say the born again Christians in the New Testament were of the flesh because they were baptized with water? I would hope not.
Sounds good.
Heh, no I don't. You'd think I would though, considering my profession (Information Technology) and love for computers. It's amazing how many ways we humans can come up with to communicate with one another.
By the way, just as a side comment, while at work, I noticed that somebody has actually make a sticker that says "Beelzebub", and put it onto their monitor. What is this world coming to?!
Anyway.... back to the discsussion at hand.
First of all, I don't lie and have no reason to, so of course what I tell you will be honest. Lying doesn't do anybody anygood. People might fool man... but not God.
Secondly, you must also admit that that everytime the Bible uses water, it does not refer to the word of God.
I'm sorry my friend, but I don't see what your are trying to prove with Mark 16:16. That verse is quite clear, and doesn't have the abnoralities that I'm speaking of. It doesn't say anything like "those who believe by belief and are baptized by baptism will be saved by salvation, and those who don't believe by belief will be condemned by condemnation", which is the case with your rendering of Eph. 5:26 (washing of word by the word). The verse is a clear statement of the requirements of salvation and also address that those who don't believe will be damned.
Now, if I were to come accross "that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,", I would wonder why the author was thinking. The author would be telling us that we cleansed with the washing of the word. Right there, just from and statment, I would know that I was cleansed by washing of the word. But the author goes on to say "BY the word.", which clearly indicates that whatever we are cleansed by (which is WATER) is done BY THE WORD.
So, it makes zero sense, seriously, to render that verse washing of word by the word. What, did Paul need to remind us the second after telling us that we are cleansed with the washing of word..... that is was BY the word?! Makes zero sense. Zero.
Let's take another look at the word washing in the Greek:
G3067
λουτρόν
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism: - washing.
It's quite clear that is word is to indicate a bath or washing. When you take a bath, what do you wash with... water (which is what the verse says in Greek or in context) or the word? The fact is, if Paul meant "water" to mean "word", he would not have followed it up with "by the word", which inidcates a difference to what was previously spoken - WATER.
Yeah... and this has what do to with my argument? By context alone, your arguement in Eph 5:26 doesn't make any sense.
If I told you "Hey c.moore, I think you need to wash your hands by your hands.", would you look at me just a little funny? I would hope so, and that's exactly what you're trying to to with Eph. 5:26. You just can't realize that TWO things are spoken of there, not one.
Yes, I know this. How does this relate to my argument? That verse makes perfect sense. Notice it doesn't say "So then faith cometh by hearing by hearing, and hearing by hearing by the word of God by the word of God?
No, it makes no sense because you are trying to take two things that Paul spoke of and make them one. The fact of the matter is that Paul is speaking of two things in that verse:
When the Jews were washed with WATER in Acts 2:38, by what means did this happen? BY THE WORD OF GOD. Simple.
??? Believing and baptism are two different things... which is why Christ stated both in the requirements for salvation. He then goes on, speaking on condemnation. You are misunderstanding what my point is if you think the very clear verse compares to your erroneous rendering of Eph. 5:26. I've already commented above on how Mark 16:16 would look accrording to your method of rendering... take a look again and tell me if it makes sense.
Again, see above. Eh... I'll show you again:
"those who believe by belief and are baptized by baptism will be saved by salvation, and those who don't believe by belief will be condemned by condemnation". That's what you are trying to do with Eph. 5:26 (washing of word by the word). Makes no sense. Mark 16:16 is broken down into two different things (salvation and condemnation), and nothing in that verse is butchered the way you rendered Eph. 5:26.
Do you dry yourself off with a towl, by a towel? See what I mean?
Well of course it doesn't fit they way you're looking at it. It's certainly not saying that water comes out of the Bible (that they didn't even have then). Look at verses 25 and 26:
Eph 5:25-26
25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it,
26) that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word,
When it says "that He might sanctify and cleanse it", what do you think "it" is referring to??? His church (see above).
Who is His chruch? WE ARE.
How are we cleansed? By being WATER baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
How did all this take place? BY the WORD OF GOD.
The church (us) is cleansed by the washing of WATER (Acts 2:38), BY the word of God, which is what Peter spoke to them.
Indeed... the history of this thread will attest to that.
By all means, C.Moore, put me on the spot. :up:
I'm not so sure you understand what it means when compring the flesh to the Spirit. I can assure you I am born of the Spirit, not of the flesh, or I would be of the world and practice worldly things (which I don't). Baptism serves an extremely important spiritual purose. It's the means chosen by God that allows us to have remission of our sins and walk in the newness of life. Only a spiritually minded person who is seeking God will undergo baptism.
Just because baptism happens to be done with water, you somehow equate that with being of the flesh, just because water is a phyical substance. Would you say the born again Christians in the New Testament were of the flesh because they were baptized with water? I would hope not.
Sounds good.
Heh, no I don't. You'd think I would though, considering my profession (Information Technology) and love for computers. It's amazing how many ways we humans can come up with to communicate with one another.
By the way, just as a side comment, while at work, I noticed that somebody has actually make a sticker that says "Beelzebub", and put it onto their monitor. What is this world coming to?!
Anyway.... back to the discsussion at hand.
First of all, I don't lie and have no reason to, so of course what I tell you will be honest. Lying doesn't do anybody anygood. People might fool man... but not God.
Secondly, you must also admit that that everytime the Bible uses water, it does not refer to the word of God.
I'm sorry my friend, but I don't see what your are trying to prove with Mark 16:16. That verse is quite clear, and doesn't have the abnoralities that I'm speaking of. It doesn't say anything like "those who believe by belief and are baptized by baptism will be saved by salvation, and those who don't believe by belief will be condemned by condemnation", which is the case with your rendering of Eph. 5:26 (washing of word by the word). The verse is a clear statement of the requirements of salvation and also address that those who don't believe will be damned.
Now, if I were to come accross "that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of word by the Word,", I would wonder why the author was thinking. The author would be telling us that we cleansed with the washing of the word. Right there, just from and statment, I would know that I was cleansed by washing of the word. But the author goes on to say "BY the word.", which clearly indicates that whatever we are cleansed by (which is WATER) is done BY THE WORD.
So, it makes zero sense, seriously, to render that verse washing of word by the word. What, did Paul need to remind us the second after telling us that we are cleansed with the washing of word..... that is was BY the word?! Makes zero sense. Zero.
Let's take another look at the word washing in the Greek:
G3067
λουτρόν
loutron
loo-tron'
From G3068; a bath, that is, (figuratively) baptism: - washing.
It's quite clear that is word is to indicate a bath or washing. When you take a bath, what do you wash with... water (which is what the verse says in Greek or in context) or the word? The fact is, if Paul meant "water" to mean "word", he would not have followed it up with "by the word", which inidcates a difference to what was previously spoken - WATER.
Yeah... and this has what do to with my argument? By context alone, your arguement in Eph 5:26 doesn't make any sense.
If I told you "Hey c.moore, I think you need to wash your hands by your hands.", would you look at me just a little funny? I would hope so, and that's exactly what you're trying to to with Eph. 5:26. You just can't realize that TWO things are spoken of there, not one.
Yes, I know this. How does this relate to my argument? That verse makes perfect sense. Notice it doesn't say "So then faith cometh by hearing by hearing, and hearing by hearing by the word of God by the word of God?
No, it makes no sense because you are trying to take two things that Paul spoke of and make them one. The fact of the matter is that Paul is speaking of two things in that verse:
- WHAT we are washed by - water
- HOW this happens - by the word of God (hearing or reading)
When the Jews were washed with WATER in Acts 2:38, by what means did this happen? BY THE WORD OF GOD. Simple.
??? Believing and baptism are two different things... which is why Christ stated both in the requirements for salvation. He then goes on, speaking on condemnation. You are misunderstanding what my point is if you think the very clear verse compares to your erroneous rendering of Eph. 5:26. I've already commented above on how Mark 16:16 would look accrording to your method of rendering... take a look again and tell me if it makes sense.
Again, see above. Eh... I'll show you again:
"those who believe by belief and are baptized by baptism will be saved by salvation, and those who don't believe by belief will be condemned by condemnation". That's what you are trying to do with Eph. 5:26 (washing of word by the word). Makes no sense. Mark 16:16 is broken down into two different things (salvation and condemnation), and nothing in that verse is butchered the way you rendered Eph. 5:26.
Do you dry yourself off with a towl, by a towel? See what I mean?
Well of course it doesn't fit they way you're looking at it. It's certainly not saying that water comes out of the Bible (that they didn't even have then). Look at verses 25 and 26:
Eph 5:25-26
25) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it,
26) that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word,
When it says "that He might sanctify and cleanse it", what do you think "it" is referring to??? His church (see above).
Who is His chruch? WE ARE.
How are we cleansed? By being WATER baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
How did all this take place? BY the WORD OF GOD.
The church (us) is cleansed by the washing of WATER (Acts 2:38), BY the word of God, which is what Peter spoke to them.
freelight,
To continue from my last post:
Your inference that Jesus didn't baptize, just the disciple did, falls flat. Jesus was clearly with the disciples in Judea and so must have endorsed their baptism ministry. And as I said in my earlier post, the mention of this baptism ministry in Judea comes immediately after the Nicodemus discourse to clarify exactly what Jesus meant when He said born of water and Spirit.
An even more concrete witness to early Christian belief in baptism for the forgiveness of sins can be found in nearly all the writings of the early Christians, beginning while most of the apostles were still alive, and written in some cases by close friends and disciples of the apostles. First, look at what Barnabas says in 74 A.D.:
"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).
Hermas, Paul's friend and co-worker who is mentioned in Romans 16:14 wrote:
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 78]).
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who studied directly under the apostle John. John taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus. That seems to be a very short 'chain of custody' of the Christian teachings of the apostles. This is what Irenaeus wrote:
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 170]).
There is no doubt the early church, within the lives of the apostles and their immediate students, believed in the forgiveness of sins through baptism.
There is also no doubt the belief is scriptural and causes it's detractors to 'explain away' many scriptures like the ones you have attempted to discredit above. I understand you do this to support your preconceived notions about baptism, but why would you rather make scripture fit your idea rather than find the truth of what scripture teaches us?
God Bless,
Francisco
To continue from my last post:
It is true most scholars agree the verses after Mark 8 were added to the Gospel of Mark after the original version was completed. However, this should not reduce the importance of what the additional verses say. After all, these verses have been accepted as canonical since the original canon of the bible was approved. Also, due to the quotations of these verses by the early church fathers, we know these verses were appended at a very early date, probably during the lifetime of Mark. Some scholars believe disciples of Mark added these verses to clarify and bolster Christian belief in the resurrection of Jesus.
This verse is in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts and has also been accepted as canonical and quoted in Christian literature since the late first century. While there is little doubt this verse constitutes the clearest validation of Trinitarian doctrine in scripture, only non-trinitarian apologists have ever claimed this verse was added. If you have any opinion from a credible scholar to the contrary, please share that with us.
And in the Gospel of John there is no direct command to repent, but we all know that is necessary, and so did the audience John wrote his Gospel to. Many teachings are assumed by the authors of the scriptures to be clearly understood by their audiences and so are not re-hashed by the author. The writings served as reinforcement of the primary method of proclaiming the Gospel orally.
Your inference that Jesus didn't baptize, just the disciple did, falls flat. Jesus was clearly with the disciples in Judea and so must have endorsed their baptism ministry. And as I said in my earlier post, the mention of this baptism ministry in Judea comes immediately after the Nicodemus discourse to clarify exactly what Jesus meant when He said born of water and Spirit.
If Acts 2:38 was the only place that scripture mentioned baptism for the forgiveness of sin you might have an argument. But Romans 6 mentions the same concept, that through baptism sin is put to death. Collosians 2 speaks to the same concept, and so does 1 Peter 3:21.
An even more concrete witness to early Christian belief in baptism for the forgiveness of sins can be found in nearly all the writings of the early Christians, beginning while most of the apostles were still alive, and written in some cases by close friends and disciples of the apostles. First, look at what Barnabas says in 74 A.D.:
"Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls" (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).
Hermas, Paul's friend and co-worker who is mentioned in Romans 16:14 wrote:
"‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’" (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 78]).
Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who studied directly under the apostle John. John taught Polycarp who taught Irenaeus. That seems to be a very short 'chain of custody' of the Christian teachings of the apostles. This is what Irenaeus wrote:
"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 170]).
There is no doubt the early church, within the lives of the apostles and their immediate students, believed in the forgiveness of sins through baptism.
There is also no doubt the belief is scriptural and causes it's detractors to 'explain away' many scriptures like the ones you have attempted to discredit above. I understand you do this to support your preconceived notions about baptism, but why would you rather make scripture fit your idea rather than find the truth of what scripture teaches us?
God Bless,
Francisco