When the apostles (including Paul) did grasp the whole truth, why didn't they go back and correct what they had specifically said earlier about baptism in water in Jesus's name? e.g. - Acts 2:38-39, 10:47-48, and what Ananias had said Acts 22:16?
Could it be no correction was made because they...
Islam and Mohammed went hand in hand. There was no Islam religion before then.
Thank you for explaining. That does not explain away Saul still being in his sins by the time Ananias reached him Acts 22:16.
2 Corinthians 1:8-9 For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life: [9] But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but...
The issue isn't whether or not Peter got something wrong. If he got that particular thing wrong, and either he or Paul later got it right, where is the book, chapter, and verse that corrects Acts 2:38, 10:47-48? "Baptism in water in Jesus's name is not, in fact, for forgiveness of sins, it...
explicit
[ ik-splis-it ]
adjective
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal:
You have not shared an explicit versus yet. You have shared Theory and deduction, and as you elegantly stated, conjecture.
Where is the book chapter and verse that...
Well for one, they never baptized meats, drinks, and divers in Jesus's name. Baptism in water in Jesus's name was for people.
Acts 2;38 doesn't say
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and baptismos every meat, drink, and diver in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall...
Yes, even though. Because they never referred to "baptismos" in Jesus's name in water, as a shadow of things to come -you did that.
You're transposing meats and drinks, and divers washings, to baptism in Jesus's name, they didn't.
Acts 10:47-48 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be...
You're connecting dots and inferring. It sets the stage, but the actors don't appear. Why did no one in the Bible anywhere confirm this theory that you're suggesting? Why did no-one correct what Peter and Ananias said and did? Anybody can connect dots and make up a theory, it takes a verse that...
Can you think of a scripture that directly connects Jesus's baptism with anyone else's? Anyone in the Bible who made such a comment? Or if you think hard about can you only trace the inception of this idea from people you've known? Is there a reason why no one in the New Testament mentioned...
I think his position is (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) that whenever baptism in water is mentioned after John the Baptist died, those doing the baptizing were messing up. That they were still stuck on the old law and they hadn't learned yet from Paul the way things were supposed to be done.
None of these verses say everyone gets baptized with the Holy Spirit. Luke 3:16 just said He would do it. Acts 1:5 said "you" and the 120 were, not everyone in that crowd.
Acts 2:38-39 says makes baptism in Jesus's name (which is in water Acts 10:47-48) unto you, and to your children, and to all...
If you can find a verse indicating anyone getting baptized to follow Jesus pattern, then ok. But otherwise that's a traditional teaching, not a Biblical one.
rrobs,
For those who were baptized in water Acts 8:36-39, 10:47-48 and more, after the time John's baptism ended, no one in the NT ever wrote anything saying that was mistaken, or bad.
I would agree. And by all means, look up the greek. Being that baptism in Jesus name is established to be in water Acts 10:47-48, then baptism in water in Jesus's name is mentioned more times in the New Testament than the term baptism with the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19 (when Jesus initiated...
It's great that you're looking into this. I will offer one piece of guidance for now. As per Acts 19:1-5. John's baptism did end, and the baptism in water that started being employed after Jesus's resurrection is baptism in Jesus's name Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38-39.