Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored

[Right Divider]

2-part answer. See my last post.

Why do you continue to EVADE?

Matt 20:22-23 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:22) But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (20:23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.​

How much water do you find in those two verses? (Hint: none).

There was NO re-baptism in Acts.

 

[Right Divider]

Act 19:4 And Paul said, `John, indeed, did baptize with a baptism of reformation, saying to the people that in him who is coming after him they should believe--that is, in the Christ--Jesus;'
Act 19:5 and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus,
- Young's Literal Translation

The division is also made clear by the AND that starts verse 6.

 

[SimpleMan77]

The division is also made clear by the AND that starts verse 6.

I've read after Greek scholars who were Trinitarian, and who would have loved to disprove Jesus' name baptism, but they say that the simple language is evident that the 12 people were re-baptized.

And I'm talking about a lot of scholars that would love to disprove it, but are honest enough to accept it because of how evident it is.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Why do you continue to EVADE?

Matt 20:22-23 (AKJV/PCE)
(20:22) But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. (20:23) And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.​

How much water do you find in those two verses? (Hint: none).

There was NO re-baptism in Acts.

Baptism can be symbolic, as is "fire". However, we understand it because of the natural meaning.

If Paul wasn't referring to water baptism, then Peter wasn't either in Acts 2:38.

However, we know that Philip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in water, so that theory is eliminated.

By your logic we can say that John the Baptist never used water. "John baptized with water" can mean that they were in an area where water was nearby. Maybe they had it for drinking when they got thirsty?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Right Divider]

I've read after Greek scholars who were Trinitarian, and who would have loved to disprove Jesus' name baptism, but they say that the simple language is evident that the 12 people were re-baptized.

And I'm talking about a lot of scholars that would love to disprove it, but are honest enough to accept it because of how evident it is.

Re-baptism is a silly idea. Do you believe that THOUSANDS of Israelite's had to be re-baptized? Without any record of that in the Bible?

Do you believe that John would continue with nameless baptism after he baptized Jesus?

I was very amused by the fact that you cannot see that there are other baptisms like Matt 20:22-23.

 

[Right Divider]

Baptism can be symbolic, as is "fire". However, we understand it because of the natural meaning.

Matt. 20:22-23 is neither water nor fire.

If Paul wasn't referring to water baptism, then Peter wasn't either in Acts 2:38.

However, we know that Philip baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in water, so that theory is eliminated.

By your logic we can say that John the Baptist never used water. "John baptized with water" can mean that they were in an area where water was nearby. Maybe they had it for drinking when they got thirsty?

I wasn't saying that THOSE were not referring to water. Only that YOU were trying to say that baptism IS WATER.

 

[jamie]

Act 19:4 And Paul said, `John, indeed, did baptize with a baptism of reformation, saying to the people that in him who is coming after him they should believe--that is, in the Christ--Jesus;'
Act 19:5 and they, having heard, were baptized--to the name of the Lord Jesus,
- Young's Literal Translation

This has nothing to do with the issue being addressed.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Re-baptism is a silly idea. Do you believe that THOUSANDS of Israelite's had to be re-baptized? Without any record of that in the Bible?

Do you believe that John would continue with nameless baptism after he baptized Jesus?

I was very amused by the fact that you cannot see that there are other baptisms like Matt 20:22-23.

Actually Peter was preaching to a lot of foreigners and a lot of citizens of Judea on the day of Pentecost. What did he say? He said "be baptized, EVERY ONE of you".

Matthew 3:5-6
Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Many Peter preached to on the Day of Pentecost had already been baptized, but he instructed "EVERY ONE OF YOU" to be baptized. That means re-baptism for many.

Sorry, but truth holds up under any kind of scrutiny.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jamie]

Paul said with regard to baptism there is only one baptism, if Paul was right it means there are not two baptisms, there is only the baptism the Father endorsed by sending John to baptize.

Jesus' through his disciples baptized a greater number of people than John, again endorsing the Father's baptism of water.

 

[Right Divider]

Actually Peter was preaching to a lot of foreigners and a lot of citizens of Judea on the day of Pentecost. What did he say? He said "be baptized, EVERY ONE of you".

Of course he did. EVERY ONE of them was JEW or a PROSELYTE.

Acts 2:5-10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (2:6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (2:7) And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? (2:8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (2:9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, (2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, ​

No great wonder why they all needed to be water baptized per ISRAEL's PRIESTHOOD.

Matthew 3:5-6
Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Many Peter preached to on the Day of Pentecost had already been baptized, but he instructed "EVERY ONE OF YOU" to be baptized. That means re-baptism for many.

Sorry, but truth holds up under any kind of scrutiny.

As you've pointed out MOST of THESE people had come TO Jerusalem FROM FOREIGN LANDS. John the baptizer was NOT going into THOSE places to get them wet.

Your "scrutiny" is not very scrutinous.

 

[SimpleMan77]

Of course he did. EVERY ONE of them was JEW or a PROSELYTE.

Acts 2:5-10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (2:6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (2:7) And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? (2:8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (2:9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, (2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, ​

No great wonder why they all needed to be water baptized per ISRAEL's PRIESTHOOD.


As you've pointed out MOST of THESE people had come TO Jerusalem FROM FOREIGN LANDS. John the baptizer was NOT going into THOSE places to get them wet.

Your "scrutiny" is not very scrutinous.

MOST of them (according to you) were from afar, but NOT ALL were. Peter said they ALL (locals and pilgrims) needed to be baptized, which means at least a portion of them were instructed to be re-baptized.

You said, and I quote, "re-baptism is a silly idea".

It obviously wasn't silly in Acts 2:38. Peter made sure he followed up his command for baptism with the words "every one of you", which alludes to the fact there may have been questions among them whether or not it was a commandment for all of them. That question makes sense if some of them had already been baptized by John.




Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Is M.A.D. a dangerous heresy? It demands much scripture to be ignored

Of course he did. EVERY ONE of them was JEW or a PROSELYTE.

Acts 2:5-10 (AKJV/PCE)​

(2:5) And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (2:6) Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (2:7) And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? (2:8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? (2:9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, (2:10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, ​

No great wonder why they all needed to be water baptized per ISRAEL's PRIESTHOOD.


As you've pointed out MOST of THESE people had come TO Jerusalem FROM FOREIGN LANDS. John the baptizer was NOT going into THOSE places to get them wet.

Your "scrutiny" is not very scrutinous.

Btw it plainly states that there were Judeans there, who according to Matthew 3:5 definitely had already been baptized.

And he said specifically and deliberately for "every one of you" to get baptized in Jesus' name. This let's me know 2 things:

1) those who were baptized by John had not been baptized in Jesus' name. Otherwise, there would be no reason to baptize them again in the same name.

2) your blanket statement that "re-baptism is a silly idea" is totally wrong, and not even close to rightly dividing the word of truth.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[steko]

This has nothing to do with the issue being addressed.

Oh.

 

[jamie]

Oh.

I had made the comment: "The head of the body of Christ assigned each of the Twelve to a tribe of Israel which were scattered among Gentiles. Paul was not given a tribe of Israel, he got what was left."

 

[steko]

I had made the comment: "The head of the body of Christ assigned each of the Twelve to a tribe of Israel which were scattered among Gentiles. Paul was not given a tribe of Israel, he got what was left."

I don't find that anywhere in Scripture.....contextually.

 

[jamie]

I don't find that anywhere in Scripture.....contextually.

OK.

 

[Angel4Truth]

[MENTION=13987]Angel4Truth[/MENTION]

If I believed as a young man, then grew bitter and decided I hated God and everything He stood for, would God abduct me against my will, and force me to spend eternity with Him?


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Yes IF (thats a huge if, God knows your heart and future) you were saved. You will bend your knee and confess Him as Lord, even if you are an atheist when you stand before Him.

I believe when a believers usefulness to His purposes are complete, that is when we die physically.

I personally believe that is what happened to Sam Kinison to be honest, i certainly could be wrong on that, but thats what i think.

 

[SimpleMan77]

While we're on the subject of people being water baptized explain this!

Acts 10:43-47

TLDR: Gentile believers believe in Jesus and get saved by the apostles preaching. The apostle told the jewish believers that they shouldnt stop them from getting baptized too cause they got the same spirit they all had. so they ordered the new believers to be water baptized. WHAT I MEAN IS, these people were saved prior to water baptizing. Ephesians 1:13 show that having the holy spirit is basically a guarantee of your inheritance.

Being "saved" is a term that is overused. A lot!

The reason is that if we choose to quit following Jesus and walk away from Him we become unsaved. There is no such thing as "once saved, always saved".

If we decide we don't want Him or His ways, even after we've previously believed, He will try to win us back, but if we insist He will allow us to walk away. He will not abduct us against our will and take us to heaven.

So the question isn't "were the Gentiles saved after receiving the Holy Ghost, and before being baptized"...

...the question should be "could they have continued to be saved if they would have decided to not obey Peter when he commanded them to get baptized".


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[SimpleMan77]

Yes IF (thats a huge if, God knows your heart and future) you were saved. You will bend your knee and confess Him as Lord, even if you are an atheist when you stand before Him.

I believe when a believers usefulness to His purposes are complete, that is when we die physically.

I personally believe that is what happened to Sam Kinison to be honest, i certainly could be wrong on that, but thats what i think.

Sorry, but that's just not Bible. If you read 1 Cor 5, you'll find that a member of the church who was saved had started fornicating with his father's wife. Paul said to break off fellowship with him and turn him over to Satan for the destruction of his body so that his spirit could BE SAVED.

He started out saved, became unsaved because he chose to live sin more than God, and through his actions forsook God. Thankfully he repented, and Paul instructed the church in 2 Corinthians to forgive him, and said that he himself forgave the man "in the person of Christ".

In the middle of that situation, a few verses later, was where Paul made the statement that fornicators shall not inherit the kingdom of God.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Angel4Truth]

Being "saved" is a term that is overused. A lot!

Cornelius was saved before being water baptized.(Acts 10:44-48)

Only a believer is indwelt with the Spirit of God.

Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

John even said it:

Matthew 3:11 "As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Which is what happened to Cornelius.

Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Not water.

1 Corinthians 1:16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not remember baptizing anyone else. 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with eloquent words of wisdom, lest the cross of the Christ be emptied of its power. 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.…

For something sooo important as you say, why didn't Paul need to not hinder them from being water baptized the moment they received Christ?