SHOULD I BE WATER BAPTIZED?

[DJT_47]

Paul was not sent to baptize
Nowhere are we commanded to be water baptized
Baptisms were for Israel

Read a couple chapters latter. Paul was tge preacher, the orator, Apollos was apparently doing the physical baptisms.

Read 1 Cor 3:6

6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

It, 1 Cor 1:17, didn't mean he didn't baptize because he says he did, nor does it mean or infer that baptism wasn't necessary, which would contradict a ton of other scriptures. Paul was simply saying his mission was to preach effectively, leaving the task of immersion to others , such as Apollos.

 

[Behold]

Paul was simply saying his mission was to preach effectively,

Paul is making the distinction between "repent and be water baptized".......vs HIS Gospel that has no water baptism in it.

Paul's Gospel is :

"The Gospel of the Grace of God".

"The Preaching of the Cross"...

"We preach Christ Crucifed".

"Justification by Faith" = without works or water baptism.

 

[DJT_47]

You would have to show me the scriptures you are talking about

It's virtually every one you cited and apparently agreed with, but then somehow say they only apply to the Jews.

 

[DJT_47]

It's virtually every one you cited and apparently agreed with, but then somehow say they only apply to the Jews.

Faith only? That's a man made up myth. And baptism is not a work, it's a commandment that we must obey. If you're not baptized for the remission of sins, you'll be lost in them. Paul's gospel is the gospel of Christ to all that choose to believe it. Paul's mission was to the Gentiles, not with a different gospel, but the same, saving one that includes belief, faith, repentance, and water immersion BAPTISM, into Christ.

 

[Gary Mac]

You are not making good sense and your logic can not be understood. Even some of the NT scriptures you quoted are contradictory to the claim you're making. I'm not even sure i understand what it is you're trying to prove. If there is some other way according to scripture to, wash sins and havevthem remitted, become part of the body of Christ, have the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, etc, then where are the scriptures? There aren't 2 gospels, there's one, for yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Also mark 16:15 says

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Go ye into ALL THE WORLD.

And how are new congregations started? How were they started once a base congregation was started like at Corinth? Who carried forth the message and baptized from there, Jews? Was baptism not required there and then?

I don't know what you're talking about nor do I think you do either, unless I'm totally missing the point you're attempting to make, whatever that is.

There is one Lord one faith one baptism.

AND ONE GOSPEL MESSAGE

Is this directed to me? If so -- All that I know is who Jesus said he was in God, doesn't matter what anyone else says about him from their own ideas and beliefs, and no matter what man wrote about him or God, For me Jesus has the better way in the Father that all should be. If that is hard for you to understand then you might try considering that what Jesus said of himself and his God who sent him and that you should have the same as he had from God and stated so, and he prayed to his God for you to have in John 17. Be one in the Father, He in you and you in Him as one just as Jesus was one in Him, read his prayer for you to be in John 17.

For me Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but by me meaning, the same as the Fasthert came to him in Matt 3:16. Not you, not I, nor anyone else is going to the Father any other way than the same way as Jesus did in Matt 3:16 no matter what you think. . If Jesus is not your way that you are supposed to be in the Father then I understand why none of what Jesus said makes any sense to you as you stated.

 

[DJT_47]

Is this directed to me? If so -- All that I know is who Jesus said he was in God, doesn't matter what anyone else says about him from their own ideas and beliefs, and no matter what man wrote about him or God, For me Jesus has the better way in the Father that all should be. If that is hard for you to understand then you might try considering that what Jesus said of himself and his God who sent him and that you should have the same as he had from God and stated so, and he prayed to his God for you to have in John 17. Be one in the Father, He in you and you in Him as one just as Jesus was one in Him, read his prayer for you to be in John 17.

For me Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the Father but by me meaning, the same as the Fasthert came to him in Matt 3:16. Not you, not I, nor anyone else is going to the Father any other way than the same way as Jesus did in Matt 3:16 no matter what you think. . If Jesus is not your way that you are supposed to be in the Father then I understand why none of what Jesus said makes any sense to you as you stated.

Meant for the poster not you

 

[Doug]

Read a couple chapters latter. Paul was tge preacher, the orator, Apollos was apparently doing the physical baptisms.

Read 1 Cor 3:6

6I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

It, 1 Cor 1:17, didn't mean he didn't baptize because he says he did, nor does it mean or infer that baptism wasn't necessary, which would contradict a ton of other scriptures. Paul was simply saying his mission was to preach effectively, leaving the task of immersion to others , such as Apollos.

If water baptism was necessary for us why doesnt Paul command us as Jesus commanded Israel

 

[Doug]

It's virtually every one you cited and apparently agreed with, but then somehow say they only apply to the Jews.

NT passages are scriptual but have to rightly divided. They are true and valid but it must be determined to who they are written to be obeyed.
It's hard to respond since you are so vague in not showing me some examples to know what you are talking about

 

[DJT_47]

If water baptism was necessary for us why doesnt Paul command us as Jesus commanded Israel

It's very simple. You must combine all scripture to get the complete message. There are 4 gospels not one. We piece together what they each say to get the complete message. And likewise, there are also numerous letters written to different groups fur different reasons. Each one had its own respective message for the intended purpose of the writing. Each message to the various aforementioned peoples doesn't repeat the entirety of the complete NT message including salvation, baptism, gifts, church protocol, etc. Each is unique. Why would you think Paul had to repeat every aspect of everything in each writing to these various individual peoples? That make zero sense, and if that's what you think, you need to go back to gospel 101 cuz you're all wet and don't understand scripture, it's timing, intent, audience, etc. Go study. Goodbye

NT passages are scriptual but have to rightly divided. They are true and valid but it must be determined to who they are written to be obeyed.
It's hard to respond since you are so vague in not showing me some examples to know what you are talking about

You are rightly dividing nothing. You are confusing straight forward scripture by some principle that makes no sense. Goodbye. I'll waste no more time with you.

 

[Doug]

Why would you think Paul had to repeat every aspect of everything in each writing to these various individual peoples? That make zero sense,

Paul NOT saying we should be water baptized doesn't mean he really means we must

All the other scriptures outside of Paul about water baptisms was for Israel not us

 

[keithr]

There is nothing in scripture about why he is called a Canaanite but it maybe he was of Galilee and called a zealot and Canaanite for political views

This is the note from the Updated American Standard Version Bible:

Mark 3:18 UASV+

(18) and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean; N6​

N6:

Cananaean, the: (Καναναῖος Kananaios) A term from Aramaic, meaning 'Zealot,' 'the zealous one,' 'enthusiast.' (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18). This was a name used to distinguish the apostle Simon from the apostle Simon Peter. This name is not a geographical reference to Cana or Canaan. These were members who belonged to a Jewish nationalistic party, the Zealots, seeking independence from Rome. Referring to Simon as "the Zealot" or "the zealous one" does not automatically mean that at some point, he was associated with the political group known as the Zealots. The designation may have been related to his character and temperament. Zealot, the: (ζηλωτής zēlētēs) A fervent proponent of Israel's national independence, and enthusiast, adherent, zealot (Ac 21:20; 22:3; 1Co 14:12; Gal 1:14; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 3:13); nationalist, the Zealot. - Lk 6:15; Ac 1:13.​

 

[soberxp]

Of course you should be baptized by water. Action represents your obedience and is a rite of acceptance of the Holy Spirit. When you weren't ready? B: I don't think so.

 

[Doug]

This is the note from the Updated American Standard Version Bible:

Mark 3:18 UASV+

(18) and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean; N6​

N6:

Cananaean, the: (Καναναῖος Kananaios) A term from Aramaic, meaning 'Zealot,' 'the zealous one,' 'enthusiast.' (Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18). This was a name used to distinguish the apostle Simon from the apostle Simon Peter. This name is not a geographical reference to Cana or Canaan. These were members who belonged to a Jewish nationalistic party, the Zealots, seeking independence from Rome. Referring to Simon as "the Zealot" or "the zealous one" does not automatically mean that at some point, he was associated with the political group known as the Zealots. The designation may have been related to his character and temperament. Zealot, the: (ζηλωτής zēlētēs) A fervent proponent of Israel's national independence, and enthusiast, adherent, zealot (Ac 21:20; 22:3; 1Co 14:12; Gal 1:14; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 3:13); nationalist, the Zealot. - Lk 6:15; Ac 1:13.​

Interesting plausible explanation