ECT DID PAUL BAPTIZE , ARE YOU SURE ??
- Thread starter DAN P
- Start date
Hi and just where does Paul say " BORN AGAIN " and your non-answer shows how CALLOW you are !!
dan p
turbosixx
New member
You do realize they did submit to the rite of water baptism?
Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family.
Paul uses a different word that means the same thing.
"according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5)
Strong's 3824 regeneration
παλιγγενεσία
paliggenesia
pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.
Born again means the same as spiritual rebirth or born again.
Hi and in verse 33 we these things and some not seen !!
#1 The jailer was NOT asked to repent !!
#2, No formula was used, like " in the name of Jesus ".
#3 Verse 33 , says that they were BAPTIZED INSTANTLY , and how was that done , to the Jailer with all ( his ) house ??
#4 It seem to me that the text , the Jailer was a Gentiles !!
#5 Did Paul break his commission NOT TO BAPTIZE , as written in 1 Cor 1:17 ? NO !!
#6 Baptiizo / baptized does not mean WATER / HUDOR , but CLEANSED , he and all his INSTANTLY !!
This is why BAPTIZE is a transliterated word with many meaning !!
dan p
turbosixx
New member
Explain this verse in context and it should harmonize with the passage where Paul actually converted these people.
You're version out of context doesn't agree with Acts 18:8. If Paul was sent NOT TO BAPTIZE, then he disobeyed Jesus and baptized anyway.
Hi and reread post #86 with out PREJUDICE , as you have no answer !!
Or try Acts 19:2-6 IF you can ??
dan p
turbosixx
New member
You can't take a single conversion and use it as the standard. There should be harmony between them all.
You're take on your single verse 1 Cor. 1:17 doesn't harmonize with the rest of scripture!
Use it IN CONTEXT but you can't.
True, Paul wasn't sent to baptize and neither was Jesus.
"Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples)" (John 4:1)
Jesus was responsible for baptizing others and so was Paul.
It may be Paul baptized more people than Jesus.
Hi turbosixx , and will you explain what Acts 1:5 means ??
I also , what is your answer of Acts 19:2-8 ??
Also explain Acts 1:5 a very simple EXPLANATION for babes in Christ ??
If you do NOT than your definition of the Greek word BAPTISM / BAPIIZO is DEFICIENT and need to go back to BIBLE 101 !!
dan p
The holy Spirit was not yet given in John's day.
Why? Because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Hi jamie , and learn where that verse is found , in John 7:39 !!
Look on Wiki why the 2 verbs are in the IMPERFECT TENSE ??
They are SHOULD and WAS , , so why are they in the IMPERFECT TENSE ??
dan p
turbosixx
New member
Acts 1:5.
All we have to do is look and see what happened when these men were actually baptized with the HS.
Acts 2:2 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.
It's obvious the Holy Spirit came directly from God and we see evidence of them receiving the HS by their speaking in tongues.
Acts 19:2-5. We see some differences here. We know Acts 2 was "baptized with the Holy Spirit". Here these men were believers but hadn't received the Holy Spirit. When Paul finds that out, he asks them "into what were you baptized?" Why would he ask that question if they were believers?
The meaning of the Greek word for baptism is simple. Baptizo means to dip or submerge. It's a transliteration and not a translation. I agree, the word itself has nothing to do with water.
JonahofAkron
New member
So, are you saying that we have to speak in tongues for evidence of the Spirit? Interesting thought process.... I'm having trouble following the logic, though, since the point of Acts 2 is the initial gigantic spread of the Gospel into Jewish territories outside of Jerusalem. Also, what happens if the Spirit does not give utterance? Is there something wrong with that person and the Spirit?
Bee1
New member
Here it comes gentlemen, can a man with blood on his hands , baptize anyone in God's name ? Paul was once Saul who "job" it was to kill as many Jews as he can , suddenly finds "God" and repent for all the pain and suffering he inflicted on the Jews , is forgiven and invested with God given power to baptize. Correct...
Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk
Hi and if it that simple , then what it the difference between the 2 Greek words BAPTIZED and BAPTISM in Acts 19:4 !!
dan p
turbosixx
New member
No, but baptism "with" the Holy Spirit was evident by speaking in tongues. The bible tells us that only happened twice, and each was a special situation.
Yes, Acts 2 was the initial spread or outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Other than baptism "with" the Holy Spirit. What does the bible say about how people received "spiritual gifts" (such as tongues, healing, ect.)of the Holy Spirit?