"Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

[RestlessSoul]

Duty to die? As I said, I've never understood why his death might be necessary. As you've said, neither have you.

Strange, hey?

Death is inevitable. What has necessity got to do with it? Death isn't a choice, though the manner of it, and the manner in which we face it, may be. In the midst of life, we are in death.

Yes, it's strange.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

Sorry COC, you are reading way too much into the texts. There are only two passages in Acts where water is explicitly stated as used in Baptism: Cornelius and the Ethiopian eunuch. All the rest, you assumed that baptism means water. The verses that I showed was enough to elucidate the fact that there were more than one type of baptisms.
Water baptism is not required for salvation, you also read into the text that it was - the examples of water baptism were descriptive, not prescriptive.

You were egregiously incorrect by stating that both Acts 19:3-6 and Ephesians 4:4-6 denote any usage or implication, of water in the intent of the author.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

Unless otherwise stated or implied by context, you should always understand a word to have the most obvious meaning. Since the word means to immerse or to be in over your head, that's what it should usually be taken to mean. Ascribing other meanings where there is no textual evidence for it damages the meaning of the text, and this would be true for ANY book.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

Using this reasoning we can say that anything exists or occurred which is a faulty foundation to rest our worldview on, which is why absence of evidence is SO important to build our knowledge on.

Before 1922, there was no evidence for the existence of an Egyptian pharaoh named Tutankhamun. But the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence, and in November of that year, the first step into his tomb was discovered, leading to the most famous archaeological discovery ever. In other words, just because you haven't found something yet doesn't mean you won't, or that even if you don't it isn't real.

 

[exchemist]

Remember, this is from the Sumerian texts. There was no concept of a 'world' as we know it.
The 'world' to these guys reached down to the horizon.
The world to Rome was their empire - not the barbarians, Africans or Parthians - just their empire.

OK, so when in post 87 you said "worldwide flood", you didn't mean worldwide flood, you meant a flood that extended to the horizon, or something.

That's a lot more reasonable.

 

[Clara Tea]

After Peter delivered his first sermon to those gathered for the celebration of Pentecost in Jerusalem, convicting them of the murder of Jesus and convincing them that He was the Messiah, they asked him this question (Acts 2:37). He then tells them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) Why then do so many deny that either repentance or baptism are requirements of salvation? (Scripture quoted from NKJV.)

If I understand your post, you are saying that in the bible, Peter accused Jews of murdering Jesus, who, at the time, was considered, by some, to be the Messiah. You are not seeking revenge, but you are seeking salvation of Jews through repentance or baptism.

The bible says that 144,000 Jews will go to heaven end the end times (which, I believe, we are in, due to the recent war in Iraq which God told us not to do in Revelation). The bible breaks it down to 12,000 of each of the 12 extant tribes of Israel (not counting the lost 13th tribe). Of course, by the time Jews go to heaven, much of the world's population (of Jews and others) will be wiped out. Perhaps 144,000 represents every living Jew at that time. First we have to have seven plagues (according to Revelation 15) as punishment for defying God and attacking Iraq.

Romans are to blame for death of Jesus - The Source - Washington University in St. Louis

According to the link above, from Frank Flinn, "Had the Jewish authorities been directly involved, Jesus would have been stoned, as Stephen was in Acts 7. .."Only Roman authorities could authorize crucifixions and they often did so on a gruesome, massive scale."

Lets remember that the Vatican is surrounded by Italy (though technically not a part of Italy), and Roman popes ruled it for almost 2000 years. Surely the Romans could have rewritten the bible to make it appear that Jews, rather than Romans, killed Jesus.


Antisemitism Uncovered: Myth – Jews Killed Jesus

According to the link above, "Pope Paul VI finally discredited the notion of Jewish deicide in 1964 in its “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” (Nostra aetate), published by the Second Vatican Council. In no uncertain terms, the Declaration states that the crucifixion of Jesus “cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."......"the Qur’an explicitly states that Jews did not kill Jesus [Qur’an 4.157]"

Pope Benedict: Jewish people not guilty for Jesus death

According to the link above (from BBC), Pope Benedict XVI said that the Jewish people are not guilty for Jesus's death. "The Catholic Church officially repudiated the idea in 1965.

Jewish deicide - Wikipedia

Hypertext link above says:

"the charge having been made as early as the 2nd century by Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis.[3] The accusation that the Jews were Christ-killers fed into Christian antisemitism[4] and spurred on acts of violence against Jews such as pogroms, massacres of Jews during the Crusades, expulsions of the Jews from England, France, Spain, Portugal and other places, torture during the Spanish and Portuguese inquisitions and the Holocaust."

Wikipedia also says "In his 2011 book, Pope Benedict XVI, besides repudiating placing blame on the Jewish people, interprets the passage found in the Gospel of Matthew which has the crowd saying "Let his blood be upon us and upon our children" as not referring to the whole Jewish people."

Wikipedia also says: "Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians: Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out"

It should be obvious that no human is powerful enough to kill the son of God. God could vaporize them with a glance."

Wikipedia also says: "Pope Benedict XVI also repudiated the Jewish deicide charge in his 2011 book Jesus of Nazareth, in which he interpreted the translation of "ochlos" in Matthew to mean the "crowd", rather than the Jewish people.

CONCLUSION:

Jews don't need baptism because they have their own religion, one that is acceptible to God.

Jews don't need to repent because modern Jews didn't have anything to do with it, and even ancient Jews might not have been involved, despite what the biblical interpretations say. Pope Benedict XVI might be right about ochlos meaning crowd, rather than the Jewish people.

 

[Clara Tea]

Death is inevitable. What has necessity got to do with it? Death isn't a choice, though the manner of it, and the manner in which we face it, may be. In the midst of life, we are in death.

Yes, it's strange.

He wasn't talking about our deaths, he was talking about the death of Jesus (son of God). Perhaps he inherited daddy's eternal life?

 

[Clara Tea]

OK, so when in post 87 you said "worldwide flood", you didn't mean worldwide flood, you meant a flood that extended to the horizon, or something.

That's a lot more reasonable.

Gets my rubber ducky.

 

[RestlessSoul]

He wasn't talking about our deaths, he was talking about the death of Jesus (son of God). Perhaps he inherited daddy's eternal life?

Whatever we may believe about the Divine nature of the Living Christ, Jesus was the Son of Man, and the son of man is mortal

Matthew 20:28

 

[Samael_Khan]

Before 1922, there was no evidence for the existence of an Egyptian pharaoh named Tutankhamun. But the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence, and in November of that year, the first step into his tomb was discovered, leading to the most famous archaeological discovery ever. In other words, just because you haven't found something yet doesn't mean you won't, or that even if you don't it isn't real.

That doesn't mean that you must assume that something is real. At best, we should be agnostic about it. If the existing evidence weighs against it then it is most likely that it never occurred.

Nothing can be proven or disproven by resting ones hopes on evidence of absence. Otherwise we might as well believe anything that we want.

Imagine if I claimed that Jesus performed miracles with the help of aliens and that he sired a child with Mary Magdalene. No evidence whatsoever, but then I think it is true because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. See how useless such a line of reasoning is?

 

[Clara Tea]

Before 1922, there was no evidence for the existence of an Egyptian pharaoh named Tutankhamun. But the absence of evidence was not evidence of absence, and in November of that year, the first step into his tomb was discovered, leading to the most famous archaeological discovery ever. In other words, just because you haven't found something yet doesn't mean you won't, or that even if you don't it isn't real.

Tut's dad, (possibly) Akhenaton (aka Amenhotep IV), changed Egypt's religion from polytheism to monotheism. He "ought notn" be changing religion. Tut changed it back.

 

[DNB]

Unless otherwise stated or implied by context, you should always understand a word to have the most obvious meaning. Since the word means to immerse or to be in over your head, that's what it should usually be taken to mean. Ascribing other meanings where there is no textual evidence for it damages the meaning of the text, and this would be true for ANY book.

Not at all COC, the word Church has several meanings and usages, just as the word 'Word' or expression 'Word of God' does. Context is king in Biblical interpretation, and you have not applied it correctly. We can go on forever with the double meaning of many words, and how the alternate meanings have been used throughout Scripture.
God is a rock, Peter was called a rock, a mountain or stone is a rock.
Baptize with fire, does not mean baptize with water, despite equaling using the word baptize. Baptize is analogous to cleansing one's conscience, therefore it is used in several senses.

Matthew 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Good works, perhaps?

Good charity is invaluable.

 

[PruePhillip]

OK, so when in post 87 you said "worldwide flood", you didn't mean worldwide flood, you meant a flood that extended to the horizon, or something.

That's a lot more reasonable.

I wrote, tongue in cheek, "Wot happened in 1650 BC might have been the end of a world wide flood
of Canaanite - Semite refuges into Egypt and the otherthrow of Lower Egypt."

Egypt faced its own immigration problem back then - the nation collapsed completely in the same
year (aprox) as the calamity in Canaan. I suggest it could be due to a much larger influx of refugees
who overwhelmed Egypt.

 

[InChrist]

Well, I certainly don't think this is the only passage which references salvation, nor is it the only passage that references baptism for the purpose of salvation. I've mentioned several at other places in this thread. But perhaps the most telling of them all is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus. He met Jesus on the road to Damascus and was there convicted of his sins against Jesus and His people. Jesus told him to go on to Damascus and that he would be told what to do there. He spent three days weeping and praying. He was certainly a believer. He was certainly penitent. He was praying fervently and without ceasing! He was almost certainly (I infer this from how I would react) freaking out! If he was saved, he certainly didn't know it! But Ananias then came to him and told him what to do to be saved. In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts that Ananias told him, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Calling upon the name of the Lord was a way worship was often referred to in the Bible in both Testaments.)

So are saying you believe in baptismal regeneration? Do you believe that a person is not saved by faith/ belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but that they must be baptized to actually have salvation?

If baptism is required for salvation why did Paul say this...


I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
1 Corinthians 1:14-17

Why did the great Apostle Paul who preached the Gospel everywhere he went, baptize so few, if baptism is necessary for salvation?

I don’t see any examples in the scriptures of Jesus baptizing anyone, at all. Though He did say...

...that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:15

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
John 3:16

..Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. John 6:47

 

[exchemist]

I wrote, tongue in cheek, "Wot happened in 1650 BC might have been the end of a world wide flood
of Canaanite - Semite refuges into Egypt and the otherthrow of Lower Egypt."

Egypt faced its own immigration problem back then - the nation collapsed completely in the same
year (aprox) as the calamity in Canaan. I suggest it could be due to a much larger influx of refugees
who overwhelmed Egypt.

Ah so it was tongue in cheek. I see.

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

So are saying you believe in baptismal regeneration? Do you believe that a person is not saved by faith/ belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but that they must be baptized to actually have salvation?

If baptism is required for salvation why did Paul say this...


I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
1 Corinthians 1:14-17

Why did the great Apostle Paul who preached the Gospel everywhere he went, baptize so few, if baptism is necessary for salvation?

"lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name." Paul isn't saying that baptism isn't required, he's saying that they were putting emphasis where it shouldn't be, namely on who was doing the preaching, and trying to divide the church up based on those names. They were trying to start denominations, and he WASN'T HAVING IT! But he's not saying here that baptism is not required for salvation. He's saying it should be in the name of Christ, that the name of Christ is the one you should be wearing. It should not be the church of Paul or the church of Peter or the church of Apollos, but the church of Christ, and please leave my (Paul's) name out of it.

A better question would be, "Why was Paul not told that since he now believed he was saved?" If belief is alone enough to save a man, why didn't Jesus, who was standing right in front of him, tell him that? Why instead send Paul to a place where he would be told what he must do? Why send him Ananias to tell him, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

 

[metis]

A better question would be, "Why was Paul not told that since he now believed he was saved?"

And Paul said that he didn't know if he were to be saved because of his "innermost thoughts".

 

[CrochetOverCoffee]

And Paul said that he didn't know if he were to be saved because of his "innermost thoughts".

??

 

[metis]

??

I Corinthians 4[3] But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself.

Romans 7[15] I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.