Latest activity
-
-
-
Water baptism for a members of the body of Christ. Pros: Permissible. Cons: Completely unnecessary Causes confusion (eg.. one...
-
The assumption is that Paul is NOT referring to water baptism, not that he was doing so! The natural reading would be for the original...
-
It means that we are assuming water. That's just a statement of the commonly held position. I'd say that the "natural idea" comes from...
-
So, "not water" is not an argument. It's just a statement of your position. Having said that, my quoting the passages wasn't an argument...
-
-
-
-
Clete replied to the thread Mid-Acts water baptism.The assumption is that Paul is NOT referring to water baptism, not that he was doing so! The natural reading would be for the original... -
Clete replied to the thread Mid-Acts water baptism.So, "not water" is not an argument. It's just a statement of your position. Having said that, my quoting the passages wasn't an argument...
-
-
Have you noticed that most people who identify as Christians almost always see "water" whenever they see any of the "bapt*" words? We've...
-
ok doser replied to the thread A little comedy break.....
-
-
This is so incoherent that it staggers one's ability to believe that anyone could hold such a view long enough to have typed it all out...
