Search results

@Enoch111 Let's try and not get into "Protestantism vs Catholicism" please.

@Illuminator Yes, my only point is that sprinkling of the waters of the ashes of the red heifer is distinct from water baptism.

@Enoch111 @Illuminator Baptism was a separate and distinct rite in the Law.

Also @Enoch111 Ezekiel doesn't refer to baptism. The sprinkling there sounds like the sprinkling of the ashes of the red heifer which cleansed the defilement of death which was required for a priest to reenter the Temple complex.

It's a stipulation in the Law though.

I didn't realize you were discussing with that user, all I saw was a link to "Catholicism versus Protestantism" material.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Deuteronomy 4:30 "return" = "repent" ("repent" was the Hebrew "shuv" or "teshuva" which meant to "return" or "turn away from and back to") .

No, you posted a link. The discussion is not to be about Catholicism versus Protestantism. If you want to bring a REASON we should see it your way that does not drag us into "Catholicism versus Protestantism", fine.

There's a difference between the Word and the Spirit and yet they are tightly bound to one another. That was my point.

This is actually seemingly related to the phrase "not in the flesh but in the spirit"--the flesh in which we were has died and we are now free to "marry" the spiritual body of Christ ("the last Adam became a life giving spirit" 1 Corinthians 15) in which there is not "the law of sin and death"...

This is such an excellent point--there is no difference between "Spirit" and "fire" in the phrase "Spirit and fire", and so the precedent is set for reading the same here (though I think the "water" refers to the Word which is tightly bound with the Spirit--"full of truth and grace").

Actually she's not entirely wrong. I don't want to get into it though because she hasn't shown how it's on topic.

Provide proof. You're not free to make claims without providing substantiation or to then put others to work to prove your claims for you. You have to substantiate your claims. It's not my job to go fishing for your information. You have to present your substantiation for your claim here. I'm...

Like I said, you objected that you never said water baptism was born again and I misunderstood your claim as having meant that.

You are off-topic. You are not free to commandeer any and every thread to bring this same material.

The "parallel" we need to read is between John 3 and John 1 "but whoever did believe He gave the right to become children of God--not born of men nor will of flesh but of God". This doesn't apply to Jews only but ALL who believe. It's not about Jews. There is no "parallel" to be found between...

Please go on and explain the relevance this has to the topic.

Part of the process of understanding what He's saying has to do with figuring out what He isn't saying I think--then it sorta leads you to what He must have been saying. I mean, I leave room for correction, but for now I don't see a better way.

When you claimed the Gentile converting to Judaism constituted a "born again" experience, I thought you meant "because he had to be baptized". If you didn't mean to say that I take it back.