Tico
New member
No. Lots of people received measures of the Spirit that were not Christian baptized: all the O.T. Prophets, the twelve Luke 9 , the 72 Luke 10, and John 20:22 (not sure who all).
Then please don't use Acts to defend your point of view.
That is interesting, so if you have a faith like those of the first century you can raise the dead?
To what extent have you seen the measure lately?
I have seen some individuals I consider extremely Spiritual or Spirit filled but they are not healing people with their shadow. Do we or can we have apostles today?
From Acts 8: 18 said Simon saw the miraculous level of the Holy Spirit coming with the laying on of the Apostles hands.
Reread Romans 12. It specifies which gifts we are talking about.
.
We both can not take this at face value, my interpretation is that the visual outward sign of the Holy Spirit (a different measure) came with the laying on of the Apostle hands Acts 8 and Acts 19 or by the Spirit breathing on them. The reason it would be referred to as just “receiving the Spirit” is the fact it was visual and outward. The laying on of the Apostles hands to receive the Spirit is not called Baptism. These two situations sound just alike with laying on to receive the miraculous power of the Spirit coming after they were baptized. What scripture words are you using to show they are totally different steps?
I haven't referenced Acts 8 nor 19 in support of my position.
I do not understand what you are saying here?
The baptism into Moses was figurative. Moses was dead at that moment. The baptism of John was real.
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God.
Do you believe any of the Ephesians at the time of Paul’s letter had been water baptized?
Sure, but there weren't being baptized when it was written because there was only one baptism at that historical point.
I do not interpret it that way, so we might be both prejudice in our interpretations.
That's fair.
I am just talking about those in Ephesus at the time of the letter. How would they have understood “one baptism”. If some there had experienced two baptisms then it would be confusing. Hebrew’s talks about meatier matter being lessons on Baptisms plural, so what might that be?
The baptism in or by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13) by whom they were sealed (Eph. 1:13-14).
You are right I was going from memory it was two days and not three: John 4: 39Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I ever did." 40So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41And because of his words many more became believers.
Does two day instead of three make a difference in the message?
I'm sorry, I forgot the point. I'm not being sarcastic, I just really forgot. Thanks.
Are there two kingdoms or is it the message that is divided?
How many gospels are there actively working in the NT? Gal. 2:7-9 says 2.
Tico said:
Jesus did baptize--John 3:26.
That is exactly what John’s disciples said and the Pharisees heard, but John who was right there with Jesus said: John 4:1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
Thanks for correcting me. It doesn't do much to counter my position, however.
Paul says in 1 Cor. 1: 17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—
You use that as your support for not Baptizing, but he is not making any distinction between baptizing Jews or gentiles. Paul was thankful he did not baptize more people 1 Cor 1: 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, ( and later Stephanas and Household and many be some others). That says He could have but was glade he did not. You are telling me, there was a righteous and good reason to baptize Jewish Christians at this time, so why did Paul feel it was good not to baptize more Jew Christians?
He goes on to say that he was not called to baptize, but to preach the cross.