"I never knew you: depart from me, you that work inquity."

[bbyrd009]

So we know to take the word baptizo at its literal sense

well, we know ol' FF thinks so, anyway, yes.
wadr i don't think he has much of a clue, at least at the point he wrote that.
Or i'll say strictly baby food, imo

i know the wolves will rush in as soon as i leave, not sparing the flock

 

[bbyrd009]

Humans can administer water baptism

rituals, certainly. And i don't mean that these are valueless, either

John Baptist was of course not a Christian, as they had not been named yet; he was a Nazarite. But Jesus was not a Nazarite. So, as this only comes together slowly, these truths might be searched for a better understanding of the relationship.

if John Baptist were alive today, see, he would be like a Colin Kaepernick on steroids, something like that.
But fwiw "baptizing people in the Jordan" does not mean what we read anyway, or at the very least may be taken in more than one way. this is a parable whose symbologies had to remain relevant over time, and that is strictly the cover story i guess.

"Completely immersing ppl in the spiritual idea of flowing water" would work for a start prolly
"Turn your back on the Swamp" might be another

 

[bbyrd009]

F.F. Bruce

which pls don't get me wrong here ok, i prolly could have put that better.
I'm sure FF is conscientiously doing his very best, and something can be learned from anyone imo

 

[bbyrd009]

"The above mentioned verb βαπτιζω (baptizo), which is really the same verb as the parent but with more dynamic, deliberate or willful action: to do an immersion, to plunge in. This verb is used in the classics to describe the deliberate sinking of ships, the "inundating" of a city by throngs of people, or a being up to the ears in debt. It's used 80 times in the New Testament, SEE FULL CONCORDANCE, but translators should avoid using the verb "to baptize", since in English that verb doesn't do anything other than refer to a relatively modern religious ritual, namely Christianity's ritual of water baptism.

As we describe above, there are quite a few mediums into which one may be immersed, and it's the willful and total immersing that this verb speaks about, not the medium.

At the time when the New Testament was written, this verb referred to the victory over an invisible insidious and merciless killer that lurked in foods and prowled households looking for someone to slay, without reason or explanation. The victory over this hideous threat had been achieved in deep antiquity and although the general gist of the method had been preserved, its effectiveness had abated and folks were once again dying in droves. In the first century it began again to be understood that water does not simply neutralize contaminants but carries them away. Washing has only its life-saving effect when it is done regularly, by full immersion and in living or flowing water.

Since John immersed in water and Jesus in fire and spirit, most of the references to immersal in the New Testament are about immersal in knowledge and social concern. But whatever the medium, the verb clearly speaks of an act that results in a cleansed state. In ACTS 22:16 it appears in tandem with the verb απολουω(apolouo), meaning to wash.

On rare occasions, our verb is used to refer to Jewish immersion rituals (LUKE 11:38, MARK 7:4), which suggests that the authors of the New Testament used a commonly accepted term to explain that not ritualistic immersion (in stagnant water) leads to cleanness but rather immersion in wisdom and love — likewise, Paul had hijacked terms like Son of God and Savior of the World, which originally were epithets of emperor Augustus, and applied them to Jesus, saying that yes indeed there is such a person, and no it's not the political leader of the world..." ibid

and this whole article seems quite insightful imo, fwiw to anyone

 

[Helen]

Thanks for sharing...personal stuff..God Bless you

Well said-
I agree " personal stuff" once in a while does at least remind us all that there is actually a real person behind the post...
I like it...but maybe I am in the minority. Some people are sooooo serious in their postings, as if it is all a matter of life or death.
An occasional post of reality is often quite refreshing.

Bless you...Helen.

 

[bbyrd009]

"The noun βαπτιστης (baptistes), meaning immerser, that is: someone engaged in the activity described by parent verb. Since ritual washing comprised a big part of Jewish life, there were probably professional washers, or scholars specialized in the art of washing (and perhaps elaborating associated spells and methods and such).

This word is used 14 times, SEE FULL CONCORDANCE, only as the familiar epithet of John the Baptist, whom everybody in the original audience of the gospel knew as the Merciful Immerser. This Merciful Immerser was not a theologian in the modern sense of the word, but someone who had reinvented the art of washing. He even had disciples on staff and people came from all over the wider region, so John's immersing probably happened on an industrial scale. His immersing was unlike that of the religious elite, who insisted on immersing in stagnant water, and immersed exclusively in flowing water.

It's not told by the evangelists but modern understanding of the Jewish immersing habits leaves little doubt that the popularity of the Merciful Immerser was at least partly due to the fact that his customers had an unusually high survival rate, whereas the customers of the religious elite kept keeling over from diseases. That irritated the religious elite then as much as a successful scientific theory irritates the religious elite today, because to the religious elite, religion is more important than either God's truth or the survival of the flock (MATTHEW 3:7-12)..." ibid
man, fools ride and princes walk, i guess; this author is working on an oil rig right now to make ends meet!
of course asking anyone for money or donations never occurred to him lol,
and he has no tax deal with the government or anything

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

well, we know ol' FF thinks so, anyway, yes.
wadr i don't think he has much of a clue, at least at the point he wrote that.
Or i'll say strictly baby food, imo

i know the wolves will rush in as soon as i leave, not sparing the flock

It is proper exegesis words are to be taken literally, as baptizo, unless the context shows otherwise.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

rituals, certainly. And i don't mean that these are valueless, either

John Baptist was of course not a Christian, as they had not been named yet; he was a Nazarite. But Jesus was not a Nazarite. So, as this only comes together slowly, these truths might be searched for a better understanding of the relationship.

if John Baptist were alive today, see, he would be like a Colin Kaepernick on steroids, something like that.
But fwiw "baptizing people in the Jordan" does not mean what we read anyway, or at the very least may be taken in more than one way. this is a parable whose symbologies had to remain relevant over time, and that is strictly the cover story i guess.

"Completely immersing ppl in the spiritual idea of flowing water" would work for a start prolly
"Turn your back on the Swamp" might be another

Mark 1:5 "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

John 3:23 "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized."

I do not see how these verses can be viewed as anything other than a literal immersion in water, especially after Jesus used the word "water" in Jn 3:5 referring to water baptism. "Water" in Jn 3:5 would be just as literal as "Spirit" with neither water or Spirit being used in some figure sense referring to some other than literal water and literal spirit. Then a few verses later we are told John was baptizing Aenon because there was much (literal) water there same "water" in Jn 3:5.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

"The noun βαπτιστης (baptistes), meaning immerser, that is: someone engaged in the activity described by parent verb. Since ritual washing comprised a big part of Jewish life, there were probably professional washers, or scholars specialized in the art of washing (and perhaps elaborating associated spells and methods and such).

John's baptism was for the remission of sins and there had never been any Jewish ritual washing that would remit sins.

 

[bbyrd009]

Mark 1:5 "And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins."

John 3:23 "And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized."

I do not see how these verses can be viewed as anything other than a literal immersion in water, especially after Jesus used the word "water" in Jn 3:5 referring to water baptism. "Water" in Jn 3:5 would be just as literal as "Spirit" with neither water or Spirit being used in some figure sense referring to some other than literal water and literal spirit. Then a few verses later we are told John was baptizing Aenon because there was much (literal) water there same "water" in Jn 3:5.

so then living waters have been literally flowing from you since you got 'baptised,' right?
You know the verse, i don't have to go dig it up i guess.

 

[bbyrd009]

John's baptism was for the remission of sins and there had never been any Jewish ritual washing that would remit sins.

Ernest, you might ask yourself why Christ never baptised...but you don't have to, ok. What you believe right now is fine with me. But i would suggest that you look into Dialectic Reasoning in Scripture, because i'm pretty sure that is how It was written, and not in the Logical style that we are accustomed to now. There's a thread around on it somewhere. Dialectic Reasoning was acknowledged to have been raised to an art form by the authors of Torah, which i am putting in here so (you) will have phrases to search.

And you aren't going to like what you find, ok, let me just be up front about that. I mean the Dialectic part is not hard to swallow, but the conclusions will be hard. But what i can tell you is that Scripture will resolve, and you won't have anything substantial to debate in the Bible any more. But neither will you have to avoid certain passages bc they interfere with your beliefs.

You might accept as a working premise--iow i don't know if this is true for you, might not be, but God won't zap you for seeking a better understanding--that Paul's "wolves" are the ones you have learned Scripture from, and everything you know about Scripture is wrong. Unless you followed Paul's path, and spent the first three years avoiding the other Apostles, in study on your own?

fwiw learning the Book from wolves is not the put-down you are reading, either, you have got a valuable education in Scripture already, see, i can refer to "living waters flowing from you" in a manner that i could not with a brand new seeker, etc, even if we disagree on what that really means at the moment.

 

[bbyrd009]

plus, being literal and all, you were 'baptised' in flowing water, right, a river or a stream or something?

 

[VictoryinJesus]

plus, being literal and all, you were 'baptised' in flowing water, right, a river or a stream or something?

Your post yesterday had me thinking about flowing water vs how you shared research on stagnant water can actually cause disease. Which left the question: where does one go to find flowing water to wash in? Is one river better than another? Where should one go to be baptized(washed) in flowing water? When I was baptized in the church in my twenties it was like a pool where every one stepping in that day, shared.

I do enjoy your post. (A better word would be appreciate; I appreciate your post). You asked a question that has been on my mind for some time: why still the baptizing of water as “you do this or you are not saved”. Isn’t it the same as Catholics with the wine and bread from heaven? The other side believes Jesus is in a literal river and that is the only way to be washed?? Confusion. Confusion. Mine, not theirs.

John 4:10-12
[10] Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. [11] The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? [12] Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?

John 7:38
[38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Revelation 7:17
[17] For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

Where on earth do you go to find this living water??

 

[bbyrd009]

nice

i suggest following Jesus' directions literally for that, but how many "literal" believers will be walking out their front doors and going to another town flat broke with no extra clothes today, on purpose? Leaving the world is really hard. Personally, i have not run out of towns yet!

 

[Heb 13:8]

Matt 7:15-23 is to be read together and not separately. The KJV has it read together which is correct. Man has separated them by subtitles in the NIV and that is incorrect. Scripture is comparing sheep (believers) and wolves (nonbelievers) by works salvation. The wolves were the ones who were preaching works salvation, Matt 7:22. Nowhere in these passages will you find the word "disciple", and yet man felt it necessary to add "disciple" to the subtitles. God bless

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

so then living waters have been literally flowing from you since you got 'baptised,' right?
You know the verse, i don't have to go dig it up i guess.

John 3 and and John 4 are two different contexts and because 'water' is used figuratively in one text does not mean it is used that way in all texts.
in the more immediate context of Jn 3 we find literal water in verses John 3:22-23 and see what Christ meant by water in the context of Jn 3.


From the context of John 3 we find Nicodemus had not been born again. Who's fault was that?

If Jn 3:5 refers to water baptism, then Nicodemus is culpable for not being born again for his own failure in refusing to be water baptized by John. (Luke 7:30). Then he could be justly rightly condemn for not being born again.

If Jn 3:5 refers to some type of baptism with the HS then it could not be Nicodemus' culpability he had not been born again. He could not be held accountable for what was out of his control and 100% controlled by God.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest, you might ask yourself why Christ never baptised...but you don't have to, ok. What you believe right now is fine with me. But i would suggest that you look into Dialectic Reasoning in Scripture, because i'm pretty sure that is how It was written, and not in the Logical style that we are accustomed to now. There's a thread around on it somewhere. Dialectic Reasoning was acknowledged to have been raised to an art form by the authors of Torah, which i am putting in here so (you) will have phrases to search.

And you aren't going to like what you find, ok, let me just be up front about that. I mean the Dialectic part is not hard to swallow, but the conclusions will be hard. But what i can tell you is that Scripture will resolve, and you won't have anything substantial to debate in the Bible any more. But neither will you have to avoid certain passages bc they interfere with your beliefs.

You might accept as a working premise--iow i don't know if this is true for you, might not be, but God won't zap you for seeking a better understanding--that Paul's "wolves" are the ones you have learned Scripture from, and everything you know about Scripture is wrong. Unless you followed Paul's path, and spent the first three years avoiding the other Apostles, in study on your own?

fwiw learning the Book from wolves is not the put-down you are reading, either, you have got a valuable education in Scripture already, see, i can refer to "living waters flowing from you" in a manner that i could not with a brand new seeker, etc, even if we disagree on what that really means at the moment.

John 4:1 there was a sense in which Christ did baptize. By giving His authority to the disciples to baptize in His name is the same sense Christ is baptizing. And when I read a verse as 1 Cor 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized.." The Spirit baptizes the same way as Christ, not baptizing anyone personally but by the authority to baptize given in the Holy Spirit's word.

Dialectic Reasoning does not change what God has plainly spoken. Are people using dialectic reasoning [or other man made philosophies] to find ways to get around things God has said that they personally do not like?

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Matt 7:15-23 is to be read together and not separately. The KJV has it read together which is correct. Man has separated them by subtitles in the NIV and that is incorrect. Scripture is comparing sheep (believers) and wolves (nonbelievers) by works salvation. The wolves were the ones who were preaching works salvation, Matt 7:22. Nowhere in these passages will you find the word "disciple", and yet man felt it necessary to add "disciple" to the subtitles. God bless

The ones Christ never knew were the one NOT DOING what the Father has said. It therefore was their LACK of obedient works as to why Christ did not know them.

 

[bbyrd009]

Dialectic Reasoning does not change what God has plainly spoken.

i would argue that it is a different thought process entirely, and would necessarily predicate a different interpretation, as long as it was authored dialectically at least?

Are people using dialectic reasoning [or other man made philosophies] to find ways to get around things God has said that they personally do not like?

imo Logic is the man-made philosophy, and produces its own dialectic, the Hegelian or "satan's" dialectic, an implied winner and loser, but maybe you could punch some holes in that

Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates and dried up its water to prepare the way for the kings from the east.

 

[bbyrd009]

The Spirit baptizes the same way as Christ, not baptizing anyone personally but by the authority to baptize given in the Holy Spirit's word.

well, i'm big into baptising Ernest, so imo do it however seems best to you. I would even baptize someone in a Catholic church on Sunday if that is what they wanted lol. With sprinkles. Not to be nit-picky, but the Spirit only speaks what He hears i guess