Wondering About Faith (Ephesians 2)

[Spockrates]

Very good question!

In order for me to answer, I would have to determine exactly what Jesus meant when He said, "eat the flesh, drink the blood."

Is this a direct reference to the Lord's Supper? Or is this figurative language which means something else ? I think so.

If we look back in the chapter, Jesus calls Himself the bread of life in verse 35.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst.

Sounds like eating the flesh means coming to Jesus and drinking the blood means believing in Him. It is a spiritual eating and drinking, not a physical one.

So my answer to your question is a resounding YES!

Thank you for your answer. So by way of comparison, is this true? When Peter says, "Repent and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38), he is speaking of real water, but when Christ says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:54), he is not speaking of real food and drink?

(Edit: I corrected the quote of Peter.)

 

[katiemygirl]

I don't believe this. This is stating that the person baptizing has the authority or ability to save people. That is outrageous, no offense.

This is either a mistranslation, a misinterpretation. This is an antichrist concept in the fullest extent, the power of the ''church'', taking precedence over that of Jesus.


Again, this is a disturbing infiltration of ''magic'' into the body of Christ, ie Xians or followers of Jesus.

You have misrepresented what I said. The person who lowers another into the water plays no role other than to support his/her body physically.

Jesus baptizes us in the Holy Spirit when we are immersed. This is precisely what John said would happen. "I baptize with water. He will baptize you with the Spirit." We are circumcised without hands. Col. 2:11-13. We are renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:4-7 We receive forgiveness of sins and are given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38. This is what the Scriptures precisely say. There is no magic. I don't know where you get that from. I know I never suggested such a thing.

Your post is borderline offensive, filled with unfound accusations. Magic? Antichrist?

I don't believe that baptism is necessary. Jesus would have stated this explicitly, and emphatically, if this were the case. Jesus never commands baptism, He simply endorsed Johns methodology of introducing people into Xianity, becoming followers of Jesu and dropping their former faiths.

Jesus did explicitly state it. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16

Jesus commanded baptism. Matt. 28:18-20

Luke wrote in 7:29-30 that the Pharisees and teachers of the Law rejected the counsel of God refusing to be baptized.

Baptism is God's plan according to Scripture, not man's.

I would be very careful were I you, teaching people they don't have to be baptized. You directly contradict our Savior.

You can argue necessity with Him.

 

[Spockrates]

...

 

[Spockrates]

KatieMyGirl:

Before you answer, please consider Jesus' words in the very next verse: "For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink," (verse 55).



You see? What I'm asking is this: What reason do we have to believe Jesus was speaking figuratively, but Peter was not using a figure of speach? Or what reason do we have to believe Peter was not speaking figuratively but Christ was?

 

[atpollard]

KatieMyGirl:

Before you answer, please consider Jesus' words in the very next verse: "For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink," (verse 55).



You see? What I'm asking is this: What reason do we have to believe Jesus was speaking figuratively, but Peter was not using a figure of speach? Or what reason do we have to believe Peter was not speaking figuratively but Christ was?

Wouldn't the fact that one act is physically impossible and the other is physically quite possible be some type of clue?
Go ahead take it literally, eat the body and drink the blood of Christ ... you can start the search at either the empty tomb or where he ascended.

(sorry to answer for Katiemygirl ... it just seemed an obvious difference.)

 

[katiemygirl]

Thank you for your answer. So by way of comparison, is this true? When Peter says, "Believe and be baptised for the forgiveness of sins" (Acts 2:38), he is speaking of real water, but when Christ says, "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" (John 6:54), he is not speaking of real food and drink?

That's correct. Peter commands that the Jews repent and be baptized just as Jesus commissioned him and the other disciples to do. Jesus told them to make disciples baptizing them.... Would Jesus have commanded His disciples to baptize with the Holy Spirit? No, of course He wouldn't. No one but Jesus could or can baptize with the Spirit. Peter commanded water baptism. His listeners would have understood that. The language is not figurative in this passage.

The context of John 6 makes it clear that the language is figurative. Jesus did not mean we should literally eat his flesh and drink His blood. I don't know how anyone can take this literally. It would be cannibalism. How silly!

On the other hand, in 1 Peter 3, Peter says that just as eight people were saved through water, baptism now saves us. That also is not figurative language.

Peter isn't saying it's the water that saves. Water is the element, the means through which God chose to save us.

We are saved by the mercy of God, the blood of Jesus and the regeneration of the Holy Spirit THROUGH WATER.

Peter makes a comparison between Noah and his family and us. Noah was bought safely through water by means of the ark. We are brought safely through water by means of Jesus Christ, our ark.

That's how I see it. That's how christians saw it from the beginning. It wasn't until Zwingli came along in 1523 A.D.and introduced the idea that baptism was solely spiritual. He took the water out of it, creating two baptisms, one spiritual and one physical, claiming water baptism was for public testimony. Yet the Bible says no such thing. It clearly states it is for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Even the great apostle Paul was told to be baptized and have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16).

Paul said there is ONE baptism. Calvinists teach two baptisms, one in water for the purpose of public testimony, and one spiritual. They contradict Paul.

 

[katiemygirl]

KatieMyGirl:

Before you answer, please consider Jesus' words in the very next verse: "For my flesh is real food, and my blood is real drink," (verse 55).



You see? What I'm asking is this: What reason do we have to believe Jesus was speaking figuratively, but Peter was not using a figure of speach? Or what reason do we have to believe Peter was not speaking figuratively but Christ was?

You have to read the entire chapter. There is no question in my mind that the language is metaphorical.

The soul's true and only food leading to eternal life is the body given and the blood shed by Christ on the cross, hence the soul's true food and drink.

 

[katiemygirl]

"atpollard, post: 4256403, member: 56780"]For what it might be worth, I also do not believe that baptism with water (the act performed by men) is essential to receive justification from God based upon the completed work of Jesus Christ.
I would probably argue that Baptism with the Holy Spirit (an act performed by God) probably is essential to receive justification from God, but that both the spiritual baptism and the justification are part of God being God.

The Bible NEVER calls baptism a work of man. The Bible calls baptism the working of God (Col. 2:11-13).

As far as any baptism that Jesus might directly perform, we have the comments from John the Baptist:

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.​

Jesus does indeed baptize us with the Holy Spirit WHEN we are immersed in water. You'll get no argument from me on that point.

So an argument can be made that Jesus did promise (and deliver) a very real baptism ... of course, it was not a baptism with water.

He did and does follow through with what He promised. He baptizes us with the Holy Spirit when we are immersed in water. There is only ONE baptism, not two. Why would anyone have a problem believing that Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit when we are immersed in water? There is only ONE baptism, not two separate ones.

Ephesians 4:4-5
There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as you were called to ONE hope when you were called; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism;

In addition, there is ...

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.​

... which could very well be Jesus claiming that both the baptism with water (by men) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (by God) are required for salvation/justification (although I have heard reasonable alternative interpretations of this verse).

This is how I see it. ONE baptism. When we are immersed in water, Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit simultaneously. I do not see how the two can be separated and still be ONE baptism.

 

[atpollard]

The Bible NEVER calls baptism a work of man. The Bible calls baptism the working of God (Col. 2:11-13).

I was being VERY literal in my response to 'disciple' ... baptism with water literally involves some man (or woman) physically holding you. I was attempting to distinguish between the literal physical event and any spiritual event that might (or might not) be present. Clearly, it is not literally Jesus hands supporting my body in the water when I was baptized ... a man (named David Brown) did that. That was the only distinction that I was making with "(by man)" and "(by God)".

Jesus does indeed baptize us with the Holy Spirit WHEN we are immersed in water. You'll get no argument from me on that point.

He did and does follow through with what He promised. He baptizes us with the Holy Spirit when we are immersed in water. There is only ONE baptism, not two. Why would anyone have a problem believing that Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit when we are immersed in water? There is only ONE baptism, not two separate ones.

Ephesians 4:4-5
There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as you were called to ONE hope when you were called; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism;

This is how I see it. ONE baptism. When we are immersed in water, Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit simultaneously. I do not see how the two can be separated and still be ONE baptism.

This is why we can have discussions ... if we agreed on everything, it would be a lot of just saying "Yup."

Just as a question on interpretation ... How do you see Acts 2?
Was that 'the Baptism of the Holy Spirit' for the disciples?
... or a second infilling?
... or something else?
[Clearly, they were not 'immersed' in the upper room.]

I do see it as ONE BAPTISM ... the baptism of the Holy Spirit ... that saves (which may or may not occur at the water baptism).
The difficulty that I have (on a purely personal level) with any absolute requirement for water baptism as essential for justification, is that I made a personal decision and underwent a dramatic change almost a decade before I was baptized with water.
Pre-salvation sanctification seems like a very tough sell to me.
Therefore, I have concluded that God accepted my repentance and faith even without the water, justified me with the blood of Jesus, indwelt me with his Holy Spirit and began the transformation process of sanctification ... ten years later, when my accidental shortcoming (never having been water baptized) was brought to my attention, I gladly responded by obedient compliance.
My experience is little different from anyone who is 'saved' while watching a television evangelist or at a Billy Graham crusade ... the question is will God honor Faith and Repentance without physical immersion?
I believe He will and does. (Which does not mean that I am 'hating' on water baptism, I just see God's love as being greater than getting the rituals ... even important rituals ... exactly right.)

 

[Spockrates]

Wouldn't the fact that one act is physically impossible and the other is physically quite possible be some type of clue?
Go ahead take it literally, eat the body and drink the blood of Christ ... you can start the search at either the empty tomb or where he ascended.

(sorry to answer for Katiemygirl ... it just seemed an obvious difference.)

Well, Catholics say no good thing is impossible for God. I agree and suppose you do, too. The question to answer, then is not actually, "Can God make the bread and wine consumed at church Christ's flesh and blood?" The actual question is, "Would God make the bread and wine consumed at church Christ's flesh and blood?"

I'm curious, then. Since it is possible for God, why do you think it improbable Jesus was not using a figure of speech?

 

[atpollard]

Well, Catholics say no good thing is impossible for God. I agree and suppose you do, too. The question to answer, then is not actually, "Can God make the bread and wine consumed at church Christ's flesh and blood?" The actual question is, "Would God make the bread and wine consumed at church Christ's flesh and blood?"

I'm curious, then. Since it is possible for God, why do you think it improbable Jesus was not using a figure of speech?

Matthew 26:

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”​

Jesus said what he said in Matthew 26 ... which was said at a Passover Seder.
So either Jesus was overturning all definitions of what is kosher (people are not), God's previous negative view on human sacrifice, and instituting a new cannibalistic ritual that all of the gospel writers and letter writers failed to fully explain ... or Jesus was speaking symbolically in Matthew 26 and the disciples ate some unleavened bread and drank some wine.

The similarity between the words and potential symbolism of the Last Supper and John 6:54 are too striking to be ignored.

 

[atpollard]

Well, Catholics say no good thing is impossible for God. I agree and suppose you do, too. The question to answer, then is not actually, "Can God make the bread and wine consumed at church Christ's flesh and blood?" The actual question is, "Would God make the bread and wine consumed at church Christ's flesh and blood?"

I'm curious, then. Since it is possible for God, why do you think it improbable Jesus was not using a figure of speech?

Or, just read all of John chapter 6 as a whole.
Looking at the verse in context, Jesus gives the people food to fill their stomachs.
Many people follow Jesus for an eternal 'free lunch'.
Jesus tells them ... forget about the physical bread and look at God!
God has sent me ... not about what I can give you (like a free meal) ... about what I am going to do (soon) ... about my flesh (deeds) and blood (covenant/words/teaching).
My spiritual food will bring you far more life than any mere physical food ever could ... come and get FOOD FOR YOUR SOUL!
In John 6:68-69 Peter gets it ... “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Within the full context of Chapter 6, cannibalism makes no sense, a mystical literal transformation of the elements make no sense (for John 6:54), but a figurative interpretation of Jesus flesh and blood as his works and message does make sense.

I have taken communion at a Catholic Church.
I have eaten the wafer.
It did not taste like human flesh (although I am not sure exactly what human flesh tastes like), it just tasted like a flat dry cracker with no salt.
So I have a very high confidence that whatever is going on at a modern communion, it is not a literal, physical transmutation of one physical substance into another physical substance.

I didn't study Catholic Doctrine that closely, but I am pretty sure this is covered in any catechism.
So I wonder if you really have no answers, or if you just like prodding people to see their answers.

 

[katiemygirl]

="atpollard, post: 4256940, member: 56780"]
This is why we can have discussions ... if we agreed on everything, it would be a lot of just saying "Yup."

How true!

Just as a question on interpretation ... How do you see Acts 2?
Was that 'the Baptism of the Holy Spirit' for the disciples?
... or a second infilling?
... or something else?
[Clearly, they were not 'immersed' in the upper room.]

Very good question Arthur. For years, I believed that baptism with the Holy Spirit (BWTHS) was strictly given to the apostles only, and it was nothing more than the Holy Spirit coming upon the apostles and empowering them to speak in foreign languages, and perform all sorts of miracles in order to confirm the word. This is what I was taught, and it seemed plausible to me. But one little thing kept nagging at me about that explanation and that was the words John spoke to ALL of his hearers in Mark 1:8 and in the other gospels as well. "I baptize with water. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

This promise seems to be made to all of John's audience, and not the apostles exclusively. After all, Jesus hadn't even chosen His apostles at this point in time when John spoke, and why would John have bothered to say this to the crowd?.

So anyway, I began to study. It took me a long time to finally realize that what I'd been taught was not accurate. At least I didn't think it was. And for the record, there are not many in my congregation who agree with me. They tend to still believe in the way they were taught, just as I used to.

I think BWTHS was experienced by the 3000 who believed and were baptized on Pentecost. They received the gift or indwelling of the HS just as Peter preached they would in Acts 2:38. And everyone since that day who responds to the gospel message also receives the gift of the HS, which is the indwelling HS in my opinion.

The question I can't answer is when were the apostles BWTHS. I don't know. Was it back when Jesus breathed on them and said "Receive My Spirit?" Was it on Pentecost right along with everyone else who was immersed in water? Were they immersed also? Did they baptize one another? I don't know. The Bible doesn't say.

So that's my conclusion, for what it's worth. Is it possible that I could be wrong? Yes! But it's just as likely that I am right.

I do see it as ONE BAPTISM ... the baptism of the Holy Spirit ... that saves (which may or may not occur at the water baptism).
The difficulty that I have (on a purely personal level) with any absolute requirement for water baptism as essential for justification, is that I made a personal decision and underwent a dramatic change almost a decade before I was baptized with water.
Pre-salvation sanctification seems like a very tough sell to me.
Therefore, I have concluded that God accepted my repentance and faith even without the water, justified me with the blood of Jesus, indwelt me with his Holy Spirit and began the transformation process of sanctification ... ten years later, when my accidental shortcoming (never having been water baptized) was brought to my attention, I gladly responded by obedient compliance.
My experience is little different from anyone who is 'saved' while watching a television evangelist or at a Billy Graham crusade ... the question is will God honor Faith and Repentance without physical immersion?
I believe He will and does. (Which does not mean that I am 'hating' on water baptism, I just see God's love as being greater than getting the rituals ... even important rituals ... exactly right.)

I can't possible say whether you were saved prior to being immersed in water. Only God could determine that. I can only say what I believe the Bible teaches and that is that 1. Jesus commanded baptism,

and 2. The Bible teaches that baptism is for the purpose of forgiveness of sins, to be given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and to be added to the church by the Lord.

There are many people, from all sorts of religions who believe they are saved. That doesn't make it so.

This is why it is so crucial for us to study, to examine everything we have been and are being taught. We need to be like the Bereans.

 

[katiemygirl]

Or, just read all of John chapter 6 as a whole.
Looking at the verse in context, Jesus gives the people food to fill their stomachs.
Many people follow Jesus for an eternal 'free lunch'.
Jesus tells them ... forget about the physical bread and look at God!
God has sent me ... not about what I can give you (like a free meal) ... about what I am going to do (soon) ... about my flesh (deeds) and blood (covenant/words/teaching).
My spiritual food will bring you far more life than any mere physical food ever could ... come and get FOOD FOR YOUR SOUL!
In John 6:68-69 Peter gets it ... “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Within the full context of Chapter 6, cannibalism makes no sense, a mystical literal transformation of the elements make no sense (for John 6:54), but a figurative interpretation of Jesus flesh and blood as his works and message does make sense.

I have taken communion at a Catholic Church.
I have eaten the wafer.
It did not taste like human flesh (although I am not sure exactly what human flesh tastes like), it just tasted like a flat dry cracker with no salt.
So I have a very high confidence that whatever is going on at a modern communion, it is not a literal, physical transmutation of one physical substance into another physical substance.

I didn't study Catholic Doctrine that closely, but I am pretty sure this is covered in any catechism.
So I wonder if you really have no answers, or if you just like prodding people to see their answers.

Excellent post!

 

[atpollard]

How true!


Very good question Arthur. For years, I believed that baptism with the Holy Spirit (BWTHS) was strictly given to the apostles only, and it was nothing more than the Holy Spirit coming upon the apostles and empowering them to speak in foreign languages, and perform all sorts of miracles in order to confirm the word. This is what I was taught, and it seemed plausible to me. But one little thing kept nagging at me about that explanation and that was the words John spoke to ALL of his hearers in Mark 1:8 and in the other gospels as well. "I baptize with water. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

This promise seems to be made to all of John's audience, and not the apostles exclusively. After all, Jesus hadn't even chosen His apostles at this point in time when John spoke, and why would John have bothered to say this to the crowd?.

So anyway, I began to study. It took me a long time to finally realize that what I'd been taught was not accurate. At least I didn't think it was. And for the record, there are not many in my congregation who agree with me. They tend to still believe in the way they were taught, just as I used to.

I think BWTHS was experienced by the 3000 who believed and were baptized on Pentecost. They received the gift or indwelling of the HS just as Peter preached they would in Acts 2:38. And everyone since that day who responds to the gospel message also receives the gift of the HS, which is the indwelling HS in my opinion.

The question I can't answer is when were the apostles BWTHS. I don't know. Was it back when Jesus breathed on them and said "Receive My Spirit?" Was it on Pentecost right along with everyone else who was immersed in water? Were they immersed also? Did they baptize one another? I don't know. The Bible doesn't say.

So that's my conclusion, for what it's worth. Is it possible that I could be wrong? Yes! But it's just as likely that I am right.


I can't possible say whether you were saved prior to being immersed in water. Only God could determine that. I can only say what I believe the Bible teaches and that is that 1. Jesus commanded baptism,
and 2. The Bible teaches that baptism is for the purpose of forgiveness of sins, to be given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and to be added to the church by the Lord.
There are many people, from all sorts of religions who believe they are saved. That doesn't make it so.

This is why it is so crucial for us to study, to examine everything we have been and are being taught. We need to be like the Bereans.

We agree on Acts 2 as well ... I don't know.
Jesus clearly could have granted the holy spirit prior to Pentecost ... He was with them for years.
Or at Pentecost ... it sure sounds a lot like what John promised.
If we don't find out before then, we can ask when we get to Heaven.

If I am honest, even I can't say with certainty when I was 'saved'.
It has been a long process of rapid changes followed by periods of slow and steady growth.
I just know that who and what I was when I first cried out is VERY different from what I was just before immersion, so I can see evidence of the fruit.
While I am being honest about it, my immersion was followed by another period of rapid growth and change ... so I must admit that baptism appears to have done me a great deal of good.
I can only stand on my own personal experience and trust God to lead others along their own series of personal experiences.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have misrepresented what I said. The person who lowers another into the water plays no role other than to support his/her body physically.

Jesus baptizes us in the Holy Spirit when we are immersed. This is precisely what John said would happen. "I baptize with water. He will baptize you with the Spirit." We are circumcised without hands. Col. 2:11-13. We are renewed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Titus 3:4-7 We receive forgiveness of sins and are given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38. This is what the Scriptures precisely say. There is no magic. I don't know where you get that from. I know I never suggested such a thing.

No, Jesus may or may not baptize someone at that point. It is not a given, and in fact because people do not have the authority to baptize as Jesus, is simply incorrect to assume.

Your post is borderline offensive, filled with unfound accusations. Magic? Antichrist?

I'm merely speaking what has to be truth. The alternative, is in the magic category, and therefore antichrist in nature. I'd like to think the early church was not directly going against Jesus, and trying to claim power through their earthly church, using His name.

Jesus did explicitly state it. "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved." Mark 16:16

Jesus commanded baptism. Matt. 28:18-20

This is text specific. Not a command for all Xians to be baptized, by any means.

Luke wrote in 7:29-30 that the Pharisees and teachers of the Law rejected the counsel of God refusing to be baptized.

The Pharisees were correct on this one; they may have recognized the inherent flaw in religious acts, ceremony, having that 'saving' effect. This is a really bad example, but they didn't follow Jesus anyway.

Baptism is God's plan according to Scripture, not man's.

This is just incorrect. Jews aren't baptized, are they going to hell? What about people like Buddhists, etc, are they headed for hell?

I would be very careful were I you, teaching people they don't have to be baptized. You directly contradict our Savior.

Nope, baptism is an introduction into the Xian church, Jesus is the one who baptizes, and ultimately, that is the only baptism that counts.

You can argue necessity with Him.

I simply do not need, nor either believe that anything necessarily ''happens'', at baptism. Your logic is akin to saying that people must wear crosses, as a symbol that they have taken up the cross. in following Jesus. You are conflating an 'act', or symbolic action, with Jesus saving, and that is the whole point, you can't do this with one thing, and then not others. Xians are commanded to:
-Take communion
-change their faith, let us just say baptism, although this is not really equitable
-Take up the cross, as a follower of Jesus.
I have asked Xians if they wear crosses, many don't, are they therefore not going to be saved? why not? Why is wearing a cross purely symbolic, yet baptism is necessary? What constitutes, 'Communion'' to you? A ceremony specified by a specific church? That ceremony wasn't even around at the time of Jesus's teachings, are those people going to hell?

Scripture forbids magic acts; Do you really think Jesus was going against the traditional Jewish teachings on this? I really doubt it.

 

[katiemygirl]

We agree on Acts 2 as well ... I don't know.
Jesus clearly could have granted the holy spirit prior to Pentecost ... He was with them for years.
Or at Pentecost ... it sure sounds a lot like what John promised.
If we don't find out before then, we can ask when we get to Heaven.

If I am honest, even I can't say with certainty when I was 'saved'.
It has been a long process of rapid changes followed by periods of slow and steady growth.
I just know that who and what I was when I first cried out is VERY different from what I was just before immersion, so I can see evidence of the fruit.
While I am being honest about it, my immersion was followed by another period of rapid growth and change ... so I must admit that baptism appears to have done me a great deal of good.
I can only stand on my own personal experience and trust God to lead others along their own series of personal experiences.

Amen! And like you, I am a work in progress. I have experienced immense growth at times since I was baptized, and I've lost ground at other times.

I'm not so sure we will be judged by how we view different passages in the Bible, but how we live our lives, how we treat others. God wants us to study but I doubt He expects us to understand His word perfectly. Even the most intelligent and devoted christians I know disagree on the meaning of different passages.

 

[Spockrates]

Matthew 26:

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”​

Jesus said what he said in Matthew 26 ... which was said at a Passover Seder.
So either Jesus was overturning all definitions of what is kosher (people are not), God's previous negative view on human sacrifice, and instituting a new cannibalistic ritual that all of the gospel writers and letter writers failed to fully explain ... or Jesus was speaking symbolically in Matthew 26 and the disciples ate some unleavened bread and drank some wine.

Is human sacrifice also condemned in the Old Testament?

 

[Spockrates]

The similarity between the words and potential symbolism of the Last Supper and John 6:54 are too striking to be ignored.

How do you know Jesus' words at the Last Supper are symbolic?

 

[katiemygirl]

="disciple, post: 4257299, member: 41066"]No, Jesus may or may not baptize someone at that point. It is not a given, and in fact because people do not have the authority to baptize as Jesus, is simply incorrect to assume.

I have not seen any verse in the Bible that says man has the power to baptize with the Holy Spirit. As far as I can tell, only Jesus has this power.

Paul wrote that there is only ONE baptism. Not two separate ones, one physical, one spiritual. There is only ONE.

I'm merely speaking what has to be truth. The alternative, is in the magic category, and therefore antichrist in nature. I'd like to think the early church was not directly going against Jesus, and trying to claim power through their earthly church, using His name.

No, you are not speaking truth. You are deliberately misrepresenting my view. There are other alternatives. I gave you one, and instead of considering it, you make unfounded accusations. I don't nor have I ever suggested magic in the water. That is a classic strawman.

The early church claimed no magic power as you suggest, and neither do I. I don't know where you get this idea from.

This is text specific. Not a command for all Xians to be baptized, by any means.

Jesus commanded ALL of His followers to be baptized. You deny this? You deny Jesus commanded baptism? And fyi....a person doesn't become a christian until he/she is baptized.

The Pharisees were correct on this one; they may have recognized the inherent flaw in religious acts, ceremony, having that 'saving' effect. This is a really bad example, but they didn't follow Jesus anyway.

The Pharisees were right? Oh my!! Please go read Luke 7. The pharisees REFUSED GOD'S PLAN FOR THEM? They refused "the counsel of God," and you say the Pharisees did the right thing? You have to be joking! How can refusing God's counsel ever be the right thing to do?

This is just incorrect. Jews aren't baptized, are they going to hell? What about people like Buddhists, etc, are they headed for hell?

Unless Jews, Muslims,Buddhists, etc. accept Christ, they are lost. Jesus is the ONLY way to God.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Nope, baptism is an introduction into the Xian church, Jesus is the one who baptizes, and ultimately, that is the only baptism that counts.

Where in the Bible does it say, "
baptism is an introduction into the Xian church?"

Here is what the Bible teaches. One is added to the ekklesia (a spiritual institution) by the LORD when he/she obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:41, 47

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

"Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

One does not JOIN the church. We are added to the church by the Lord when we believe and are baptized.

Jesus does the baptizing (a circumcision made without hands) when we are immersed in water. That is the ONE baptism.

I simply do not need, nor either believe that anything necessarily ''happens'', at baptism. Your logic is akin to saying that people must wear crosses, as a symbol that they have taken up the cross. in following Jesus. You are conflating an 'act', or symbolic action, with Jesus saving, and that is the whole point, you can't do this with one thing, and then not others. Xians are commanded to:
-Take communion
-change their faith, let us just say baptism, although this is not really equitable
-Take up the cross, as a follower of Jesus.
I have asked Xians if they wear crosses, many don't, are they therefore not going to be saved? why not? Why is wearing a cross purely symbolic, yet baptism is necessary? What constitutes, 'Communion'' to you? A ceremony specified by a specific church? That ceremony wasn't even around at the time of Jesus's teachings, are those people going to hell?

Jesus did not command that we wear a cross. Surely, you understand what Jesus meant when He said , "Take up your cross and follow Me.

Our baptism is symbolic only in the sense that it pictures the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. When we are buried in the water, we participate in the death of Jesus. We die to sin. We are buried with Him. When we are raised out of the water, we are raised to walk in a new life, just as Jesus was raised. See Romans 6.

You don't HAVE to believe anything. But you can't toss out what the Bible says either.

You say nothing happens at baptism? Read your Bible.

Forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16)
Added to the church by the Lord (Acts 2:41, 47)
Put on Christ (Gal. 3:27)
Set free from sin (Rom. 6:7)
Regenerated, born again (John 3:5, Titus 3:4-7)
Salvation (Mark 16:16)
Walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:4)

If this belief is actually what Jesus taught, the necessity of water baptism, then He was incorrect, as Scripture forbids magic acts; that's what this is, if it isn't symbolic. Do you really think Jesus was going against the traditional Jewish teachings on this? I really doubt it.

Jesus didn't teach that baptism was a magic act and neither do I. If you wish to continue to misrepresent my view of baptism, then I would prefer to end the conversation now. I have explained my view. You don't have to agree with it, but please do not misrepresent it. That is dishonest!

One more time...
When we are immersed in water, Jesus baptizes us with the Holy Spirit. It's ONE baptism, not two separate ones.

John 3:5

Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit.

1 Cor. 12:13
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.