Baptism from God's Perspective

[Aquila]

There is only one baptism. However, it is composed of two elements, water and Spirit. Just as you are composed of matter and spirit yet one whole. Both your body and spirit must undergo baptism. Remember... your body will be raised from the dead and thus it must be baptized also.

[stasis]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is only one baptism. However, it is composed of two elements, water and Spirit. Just as you are composed of matter and spirit yet one whole. Both your body and spirit must undergo baptism. Remember... your body will be raised from the dead and thus it must be baptized also.

Oh. I thought we would have spiritual bodies (the body of Christ), not fleshly ones.

[stasis]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is only one baptism. However, it is composed of two elements, water and Spirit. Just as you are composed of matter and spirit yet one whole. Both your body and spirit must undergo baptism. Remember... your body will be raised from the dead and thus it must be baptized also.

It's one baptism, with one element, the living water, which is the blood of Christ.

Blood was called 'living water' by the Jews. Remember when Christ told the woman about drinking the living water? Then told the disciples to drink of the cup which is his blood?

The Jews had a custom or tendency to speak in doubles which referred to the same thing, to solidify their point. "The water and the spirit" is one of many examples in scripture.

Spirit = Blood of Christ = Living Water = Truth

One baptism, one element.

The actual washing with literal water was the Jewish Proselyte Baptism, to be done along with offering of turtle doves and circumcision. This was an ordinance nailed to the cross by christ (a nullified contract), which Christ's disciples later figured out (some were still washing people in water early in their ministries), particularly Paul who stated later that he came not to baptize with water (being adamant that the New Jerusalem Church not be amalgamated into the old Judaism, but which the 'Jews' were constantly demanding), and Peter who (in the actual Greek text) said "The water, forbid!", not "Can any man forbid water?" (as in the poorly translated english passage), to the Egyptian Eunuch who was on the way to Jerusalem to undergo becoming a Jew (the proselyte baptism)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by stasis

Oh. I thought we would have spiritual bodies (the body of Christ), not fleshly ones.

Your body will be raised a spiritual body, changed, transformed. And for those alive and remaining, they shall also be changed... in the twinkling of an eye.

[stasis]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Your body will be raised a spiritual body, changed, transformed. And for those alive and remaining, they shall also be changed... in the twinkling of an eye.

2+2=9 and literal water gives you a spiritual body.

I guess eating a cracker and drinking some grape-juice also brings me into communion with Christ, a tradition of men which Christ neither commanded nor sanctioned, especially in his statements during the last supper regarding eating of this body and drinking of his blood.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by stasis

It's one baptism, with one element, the living water, which is the blood of Christ.

Blood was called 'living water' by the Jews. Remember when Christ told the woman about drinking the living water? Then told the disciples to drink of the cup which is his blood?

The Jews had a custom or tendency to speak in doubles which referred to the same thing, to solidify their point. "The water and the spirit" is one of many examples in scripture.

Spirit = Blood of Christ = Living Water = Truth

One baptism, one element.

The actual washing with literal water was the Jewish Proselyte Baptism, to be done along with offering of turtle doves and circumcision. This was an ordinance nailed to the cross by christ (a nullified contract), which Christ's disciples later figured out (some were still washing people in water early in their ministries), particularly Paul who stated later that he came not to baptize with water (being adamant that the New Jerusalem Church not be amalgamated into the old Judaism, but which the 'Jews' were constantly demanding), and Peter who (in the actual Greek text) said "The water, forbid!", not "Can any man forbid water?" (as in the poorly translated english passage), to the Egyptian Eunuch who was on the way to Jerusalem to undergo becoming a Jew (the proselyte baptism)

There is so much wrong with the above paragraph I'm not sure where to start. My wife's family is half Jewish. The "Jewish Proselyte Baptism" you speak of isn't in the Bible, it's a post-exilic tradition. In addition Jewish mikveh was to be performed nude, none of the baptisms of the Apostles or even the John the Baptist were part of this man made tradition.

Also Paul never said that he wasn't sent to baptize... you have to read it in context. Let's take a look. To the Corinthians Paul wrote...

I Corinthians 1:11-17
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The issue was that there were contentions among the Corinthians because they were boasting over who baptized them as though it made them more spiritual or more Christian. One was saying I'm of Paul, another, I'm of Apollos, and yet another, I'm of Christ. Paul then indicates that they were not baptized in these names, and definitely not his own because he wasn't crucified for them (an allusion to Jesus name baptism). Then Paul is thankful that out of the Corinthians he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Paul was thankful because none could say he baptized in his own name. Paul then states that Paul was not sent to baptize, meaning to baptize making coverts after himself, but rather to preach the Gospel (which includes baptism - see Acts 2:38) lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

You have to take an entire passage and it's context into consideration. By just reading verse 17 one would think that Paul wasn't sent to baptize period... but in context we see that Paul meant he wasn't sent to baptize to make disciples after himself. We also know that this is an error because we see Paul baptizing new believers in the book of Acts:

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Paul preached the same Gospel that Peter preached on Pentecost. There is only one Gospel message. The only difference is that while Peter was called to preach to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles. Two distinct missional callings.

[stasis]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is so much wrong with the above paragraph I'm not sure where to start. My wife's family is half Jewish. The "Jewish Proselyte Baptism" you speak of isn't in the Bible, it's a post-exilic tradition. In addition Jewish mikveh was to be performed nude, none of the baptisms of the Apostles or even the John the Baptist were part of this man made tradition.

Also Paul never said that he wasn't sent to baptize... you have to read it in context. Let's take a look. To the Corinthians Paul wrote...

I Corinthians 1:11-17
11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

The issue was that there were contentions among the Corinthians because they were boasting over who baptized them as though it made them more spiritual or more Christian. One was saying I'm of Paul, another, I'm of Apollos, and yet another, I'm of Christ. Paul then indicates that they were not baptized in these names, and definitely not his own because he wasn't crucified for them (an allusion to Jesus name baptism). Then Paul is thankful that out of the Corinthians he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. Paul was thankful because none could say he baptized in his own name. Paul then states that Paul was not sent to baptize, meaning to baptize making coverts after himself, but rather to preach the Gospel (which includes baptism - see Acts 2:38) lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

You have to take an entire passage and it's context into consideration. By just reading verse 17 one would think that Paul wasn't sent to baptize period... but in context we see that Paul meant he wasn't sent to baptize to make disciples after himself. We also know that this is an error because we see Paul baptizing new believers in the book of Acts:

(Acts 19:1-6 KJV)
(1) And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, (2) He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. (3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. (4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

Paul preached the same Gospel that Peter preached on Pentecost. There is only one Gospel message. The only difference is that while Peter was called to preach to the Jews, Paul was called to preach to the Gentiles. Two distinct missional callings.

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding scripture.

As far as proselyte baptism being post-exilic, you're admitting it's a Babylonian Heresy, so I guess you're saying you don't believe in water baptism?

Hey, did you ever stop to think about the brasen-sea from which the priests 'cleansed' themselves? Seperate from the proselyte ritual, but nevertheless another instance of a ritual around cleansing by water.

Half-Jewish? So I guess some of her family at least know how ridiculous modern 'christianity' really is... or are they the 'athiest jews' (whatever that even means).

Hey, keep believing in that holy water, enchanted by mystical utterance "In the name of Jesus", and your ecstatic emotional experiences. I'm sure they'll mean a lot when you stand before God Almighty.

[U376977]

Not that Aquila needs me to defend him......but

Anyone who wrote this.....

Originally Posted by stasis

Christ commands me to not believe these men who claim they saw him. Christ says the next time he returns, he will shine from east to west (everyone will see him). If these men truly claimed this, either Christ is a liar, or these men are liars or at best deluded. I'll take Christ's word for it.

Look here. I wouldn't even believe a sweet little old granny who claimed to see Jesus by her bedside. Christ through scripture commands us to not believe such claims of private appearances..

And this......

Originally Posted by stasis

In fact the word 'apostle' means 'first letter carrier', ie, the first messenger to receive a letter or message (in this case, from Christ) to be delivered by chain relay to a specific party (in this case, the gentiles). So, it's also impossible for Hagin and Hensley, or anyone else today to be apostles. Apostles of Christ no longer exist, by the very definition of the word.

In fact, I'll add this. The only 'Apostles' that could exist today would not be apostles of Christ, but rather apostles of the 'other Jesus' mentioned by Paul, leaders of the apostate church which infects the world with false doctrine (apostate is the Greek word apo-stasis - apo-to cast off, stasis-cross or upright. Apostate means casting off the cross, teaching against the daily cross and against suffering for Christ's namesake), TEACHING ANOTHER BAPTISM which doesn't involve BEARING A DAILY CROSS. A baptism that makes one FEEL good (like a person who is drunk on scorpion venom), and makes one think "I'm okay" instead of convicting one of their sinful nature.
.

Has no room to say this.....!!!!

Originally Posted by stasis

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding scripture.

[stasis]

Hey Aquila! I finally figured it out!

After reading your post more thoroughly, I now realize the Baptism Christ spoke of!

Matt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Matt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! (The following day Christ was crucified)



He was actually saying "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straightened till it be accomplished being dunked in some water".

and

"Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to get dunked in some water, the baptism that I am baptized with? It's really difficult, do you think you're capable of getting dunked in some water and have an emotional experience?!"

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by stasis

You have no idea what you're talking about regarding scripture.

As far as proselyte baptism being post-exilic, you're admitting it's a Babylonian Heresy, so I guess you're saying you don't believe in water baptism?

Stasis, why do you speak with such venom? Oh well... I'll try to answer your question but it's obvious that you're bitter. Just relax and pray.

The post-exilic proselyte baptism known as mikveh is a tradition of men that began among rabbinical theologians around the time of Ezra. Prior to this ceremonial washings were conducted by pouring and sprinkling. You can find this throughout the Law of Moses from the ordination of the Levites to the cleansing of lepers. I do indeed believe in water baptism, however, I believe it is biblically administered by effusion (pouring and sprinkling). For example God "poured" out the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, why shall we not pour out water baptism? In Ezekiel 36 we see a prophecy of Pentecost where God promises to sprinkle the people with clean water to cleans them of their sin. How else do you think Peter and the Apostles baptized 3,000 people in the streets of the lower quarter of the Upper City of Jerusalem?

Hey, did you ever stop to think about the brasen-sea from which the priests 'cleansed' themselves? Seperate from the proselyte ritual, but nevertheless another instance of a ritual around cleansing by water.

Amen. Again administered through pouring upon the priests, not immersion.

Half-Jewish? So I guess some of her family at least know how ridiculous modern 'christianity' really is... or are they the 'athiest jews' (whatever that even means).

You're making no sense. A few are Conservative Jews and the rest are Reformed Jews. Rabbi Kopmar is a dear friend who shares a Jewish perspective when I bounce various Scriptures off of him.

Hey, keep believing in that holy water, enchanted by mystical utterance "In the name of Jesus", and your ecstatic emotional experiences. I'm sure they'll mean a lot when you stand before God Almighty.

I think you're definitely in need of much prayer my beloved. Listen, it doesn't matter what a person says over you when you're water baptized. The issue isn't what some preacher says... the issue is... what are you saying? Are you calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation? Notice, Ananias didn't use a mystical utterance of the name. Ananias told Paul to call on the name of the Lord himself to wash away his sins at his water baptism:

(Acts 22:16 KJV)
(16) And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

You see, modern day Apostolics are making the same error as Trinitarians. We've codified the name of Jesus into a "formula" to be spoken by a minister at the moment of water baptism. We've missed it entirely. The issue isn't what someone is saying over you when your baptized, the issue is that water baptism is the moment NT Christians had converts call on the name to be saved. Baptism isn't a time for formulas... it's a time to prayerfully call upon the name of the Lord, asking that your sins be washed away; just as Paul was told.