Who's authorized to baptize whom?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Prove it. When you quote and use it out of context and are shown what context is and are asked to provide your response in true, you don't show.

Let's do this and see if that's correct or not?

Hey Shazeep?

What do you think about the Apostle Paul?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Pointing to abusers who will be lost with the devil and his hordes, in spite of the intentions of the purpose of such things and the myriads of people that are honest and do it for the right reasons is disingenuous.

i suggest that it is not, because knowing is supposed to = knowing, not "getting it right most of the time."

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Prove it. When you quote and use it out of context and are shown what context is and are asked to provide your response in turn, you don't show.

Let's do this and see if that's correct or not?

ok, let's. What context would you provide for

Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hey Shazeep?

What do you think about the Apostle Paul?

actually i think he gets a bad rap from my crowd sometimes--but i see why this is at least as much perceived as meant; notice that my statement did not denigrate Paul in any way, but was pointed at those who imo reconcile Christ with Paul.

To answer your question, i think Paul was a freak; left a six figure job with power and position, a mansion, massages, and babes, to follow Christ, with a price on his head, surely. And i would not dismiss any of his writings; but i would reconcile them with Christ, even where it is hard.

Some of It may have been topical to the time; i noticed a minute ago that the beginning of Romans 7, his description of the requirements a widow must follow, no longer apply, so it isn't like we don't have precedent. Doesn't mean Paul is wrong, but he lived in a transitional moment.

i think it should also be considered that maybe a choice needed to be given, even for Grace, so that men would reveal their hearts, and a zealot is the perfect guy to write it, perhaps. But Paul was living a completely different life from...ha, practically everyone else on the planet; his definitions of those terms that we are so confident that we understand the definitions of are likely not our definitions.

After all, what is your proof that Paul ever got baptized, the way you understand it? Allow me to present Paul's "baptism," for consideration:

16 So what are you waiting for? Get up and get yourself baptized, scrubbed clean of those sins and personally acquainted with God.' 17 "Well, it happened just as Ananias said. After I was back in Jerusalem and praying one day in the Temple, lost in the presence of God, 18 I saw him, saw God's Righteous Innocent, and heard him say to me, 'Hurry up! Get out of here as quickly as you can. None of the Jews here in Jerusalem are going to accept what you say about me.' 19 "At first I objected: 'Who has better credentials? They all know how obsessed I was with hunting out those who believed in you, beating them up in the meeting places and throwing them in jail. 20 And when your witness Stephen was murdered, I was right there, holding the coats of the murderers and cheering them on. And now they see me totally converted. What better qualification could I have?' 21 "But he said, 'Don't argue. Go. I'm sending you on a long journey to outsider Gentiles.'" 22 The people in the crowd had listened attentively up to this point, but now they broke loose, shouting out, "Kill him! He's an insect! Stomp on him!" 23 They shook their fists. They filled the air with curses.

read some Paul, and voila.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ok, let's. What context would you provide for

Love your neighbor; this fulfills the law.

Bait and switch.

I already explained context of that. Let's deal with the other and we can then proceed to this, because you've proved it's a waste of time explaining context to you since you will not respond with verse by verse study of context when give contextual explanations. I'd be wasting more hours with this if you won't demonstrate you will respond in kind with the other.

[shazeep]

? um, what? so, you did it once, please briefly do it again, if you would. bait and switch? lol

[shazeep]

i'm guessing, what, you need several thousand words to "explain" the context for me here? just copy/paste it, if you have to. Could you please put Chapter headings on it tho sorry couldn't help it. i mean please.

[shazeep]

and i hope you understand that i have always maintained that for all i know you guys are largely right; this is what i mean when i say that i am besting you in debate simply because you are clinging to the illusion of certainty. doesn't mean you aren't correct in some ways. I got baptized. Spoke in tongues, the whole bit. Well, glossololia--the xenoglossy didn't come until later.

But a point here is that we can't read of Paul's baptism the flowing robes, and angelic choir, down at the Jordan river; in fact we quite plainly read "and what Ananias said is just what happened...i got baptized all right, with the Spirit, and then with fire" paraphrased.

So i have to ask, you who hold that some guy in a tie, with a piece of paper, is required for baptism; did you, at any time, give the man that told you that any money?

[shazeep]

it is a fair question.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Well, looky here we have an Apostle Paul hater in our midst.

That's new little buddy, I didn't know who were one of those Paul dissenters?

The more you post, the more you toast.

I disagree, while I don't agree with everything Shazeep says, he does have valid points that you guys don't seem to want to recognize. It is MPO that baptism has been twisted to become something that was never intended. You can try to force John 3:5 "born of water" to mean baptism but the rest of the context of the passage refutes this.

The whole context of John 3 deals with being born of the spirit, not one word on baptism. Only when you force "born of water to mean baptism", which I don't believe is the meaning of "born of water". The final words and qualifications of being born of the spirit, are, "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness". Those in Moses time did NOTHING but look upon the serpent to be saved.

Followed by, "for God sent not his son to condemn the world, but that whosoever believe in him shall be saved".

I feel the biggest problem with religion is the misdirection of the understanding of what baptism meant in those days.