Because you have proven yourself a hack who has yet bothered to study out water baptism in the Old Testament :chuckle:
ECT "Wash Away Thy Sins"
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Because you have proven yourself a hack who has yet bothered to study out water baptism in the Old Testament :chuckle:
Hi and just look at the many divisions because of water baptism and no one can agree !!
The formula that is used in the Gospels is more than one and then the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and then when the Greek ARTICLE " THE " is used OR not used is confusion to all !!
Have 10 people read Acts 22:16 is different from Acts 9:6 and Acts 26:13-19 and have not the Holy Spirit in showing and believeing what has happened !!
And can not see how Paul was saved in Acts 9:6 and explain what verse 17 and explain what 1 Cor 12:3 means in Paul's salvation !!
dan p
Last edited:
Yes, one would think we would be guided by the Father's commendation of Jesus' baptism.
marhig
Well-known member
Well our spirit lives after we die and God will judge everyone. And only he truly knows the heart.
Revelation 20
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Last edited:
marhig
Well-known member
And what does it say there? He gave them power to be sons of God. Power comes from God, through Christ by the holy spirit. And we're not sons and daughters of God until we receive the holy spirit. Then we are not born of the will of the flesh, nor of man but of God. And we do the will of God and we can't do this without the spirit and without the power to overcome!
Luke 4
And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about
2 Timothy 1
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
1 Corinthians 2
And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
It is the spirit that brings us life. You can tell those who are born of God by their fruits, and they have the power of the spirit, to speak, to bare witness to the truth the power overcome the flesh and they have understanding and wisdom. All at different degrees and strengths but all of God and not of themselves, and all belong to God and they have the spirit of Christ in their hearts and you will see his life and love in them.
turbosixx
New member
I understand the OT, but this has nothing to do with the OT, this is about Christ.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of
What is he told to do to get rid of his sins? Believe? Say sinners prayer?
16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.'
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
I don't base truth on what people agree on! I believe the bible.
This is what 1 Cor. 12:13 means. These people were water baptized and guess who added them?
Acts 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
What books?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
The Highway Patrol records. :chuckle:
If you understood the OT than you would understand that MML&J were still OT ground.
The OT's Prophesied King showed up; His signs and wonders: an evidence of that fact, and thus, evidence that THEIR Propheised Kingdom was at hand.
But the order of that - as Prophesied - had been both houses of Israel FIRST, followed by THEIR witness to the Nations.
He even told them they would not complete THAT MUCH TIL His return.
He then promised to empower them towards that, returned unto the Father, and as He ascended, and those two angels once more reminded them He would return towards the above and right there: the very place He had just ascended from.
Put your ideas away and at the very least read all of Isaiah; all of Ezekiel and all of Daniel; and all of Zechariah.
Then, reread Matthew through Early Acts (Acts 1-7).
Then, Romans 2 & 3 and 9 thru 11.
Only then, revisit the end of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Acts 1 and 2.
Only then do you and I even have some things to compare notes on.
Just do that. Forget your ideas. And forget the commentraries of men - the vast majority of whom approach all that from within those commentaries supposedly about all that they themselves were weaned on and are now merely parroting in their own.
Can you do that?
Can you Acts 17:11-13?
If not, then you and I have very little to compare notes on, on a same level.
Might as well be talking to you about what is on another side of a wall that you have either never walked over and looked at, or did so, so long ago, and without thought to all detail that was there, that you are now merely going on your own udeas.
Fact is the so called great commission was not only Prophesied, but never picked up the steam it is Prophesied it will pick up - exactly as Prophesied: both houses of Israel first, after His return, then their witness to the nations...at which point He will reign until He makes all His enemies His foostool.
Your responsibility is to Acts 17:11-13 all that - not gainsay it because it does not fit your three thirds-empty basis.
turbosixx
New member
If you understood the OT than you would understand that MML&J were still OT ground.
The OT's Prophesied King showed up; His signs and wonders: an evidence of that fact, and thus, evidence that THEIR Propheised Kingdom was at hand.
But the order of that - as Prophesied - had been both houses of Israel FIRST, followed by THEIR witness to the Nations.
He even told them they would not complete THAT MUCH TIL His return.
He then promised to empower them towards that, returned unto the Father, and as He ascended, and those two angels once more reminded them He would return towards the above and right there: the very place He had just ascended from.
Put your ideas away and at the very least read all of Isaiah; all of Ezekiel and all of Daniel; and all of Zechariah.
Then, reread Matthew through Early Acts (Acts 1-7).
Then, Romans 2 & 3 and 9 thru 11.
Only then, revisit the end of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and Acts 1 and 2.
Only then do you and I even have some things to compare notes on.
Just do that. Forget your ideas. And forget the commentraries of men - the vast majority of whom approach all that from within those commentaries supposedly about all that they themselves were weaned on and are now merely parroting in their own.
Can you do that?
Can you Acts 17:11-13?
If not, then you and I have very little to compare notes on, on a same level.
Might as well be talking to you about what is on another side of a wall that you have either never walked over and looked at, or did so, so long ago, and without thought to all detail that was there, that you are now merely going on your own udeas.
Fact is the so called great commission was not only Prophesied, but never picked up the steam it is Prophesied it will pick up - exactly as Prophesied: both houses of Israel first, after His return, then their witness to the nations...at which point He will reign until He makes all His enemies His foostool.
Your responsibility is to Acts 17:11-13 all that - not gainsay it because it does not fit your three thirds-empty basis.
Thanks for taking the time to write this up. I don't have the time right now to make sure I understand what you're saying but I will soon. Thanks again.
Just so we're clear, turbo...
We read the following in...
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Some point after which Paul goes up the road to Berea and repeats the above from.verses 2 & 3.
The response to which is that...
17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
Here those people are, some years after Christ died, rose again, and ascended back unto the father.
Sometime after which a tradition is fully in place by then: that Jesus had not been Israel's Prophesied Messiah or "Christ" v. 3.
Do they do as you have been doing - gainsay it because it does not match their tradition?
No.
Instead, they...
1 - received the word with all readiness of mind, and...
2 - searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
3 Therefore many of them believed...the word of God was being preached.
Until you do all that in light of the portions of Scripture I mentioned, all you are asserting is your own ideas about Matthew thru John as being the so called by men "New Testament."
Fact is, those four books in Scripture often point back to the other books in Scripture that I cited as being their basis.
Those four books often cite aspects of those other books as being their basis.
Add in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and then you might havd something concrete to say about water baptism.
Lol - in short, quit doing the twist.
Do instead, the Acts 17:11...
We read the following in...
Acts 17:1 Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, 17:3 Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. 17:4 And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few. 17:5 But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
Some point after which Paul goes up the road to Berea and repeats the above from.verses 2 & 3.
The response to which is that...
17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 17:12 Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.
Here those people are, some years after Christ died, rose again, and ascended back unto the father.
Sometime after which a tradition is fully in place by then: that Jesus had not been Israel's Prophesied Messiah or "Christ" v. 3.
Do they do as you have been doing - gainsay it because it does not match their tradition?
No.
Instead, they...
1 - received the word with all readiness of mind, and...
2 - searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
3 Therefore many of them believed...the word of God was being preached.
Until you do all that in light of the portions of Scripture I mentioned, all you are asserting is your own ideas about Matthew thru John as being the so called by men "New Testament."
Fact is, those four books in Scripture often point back to the other books in Scripture that I cited as being their basis.
Those four books often cite aspects of those other books as being their basis.
Add in Leviticus and Deuteronomy and then you might havd something concrete to say about water baptism.
Lol - in short, quit doing the twist.
Do instead, the Acts 17:11...
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
A person's sins are taken away in regard to salvation when he believes:
"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43).
However, any sins committed after believing effects our fellowship with the Lord:
"But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear" (Isa.59:2).
Today a person must confess those sins to have them forgiven and to be restored to fellowship with the Lord:
" If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 Jn.1:9).
In the past dispensation when water baptism was in order that rite served the same purpose of 1 John 1:9:
"In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand...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" (Mt.3:1-2,5-6).
Hi and in Acts 22:16 mean that WATER cleanse SINS , and here I thought it is the THE BLOOD that takes away sins !!
Are you saying that what is written in Heb 9:22 That with OUT the shedding of BLOOD there is no REMISSION !!
You mean than the WATER can WASH away sin ??
HERESEY is what I see , what say you ??
So who are the Nation that had to Repent and be BAPTIZED , you know who they are !!
dan p
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
If you will read my initial post on this thread you will know that I said that the words "washing away sins" did not refer to water baptism.
turbosixx
New member
Ok, I’ve read over it and I will continue to dwell on it but I have a question that could be the basis of our disagreement.
Did Jesus establish his kingdom in the 1st century?
Did Jesus establish his kingdom in the 1st century?
I don’t read commentaries much at all and really don’t give them any credence.
turbosixx
New member
John's baptism was in the dispensation BEFORE Jesus' D,B&R which is why it didn't have the power of his blood to cleanse sins but it was used to prepare the way for when baptism would be backed by the blood of the Christ.
Look at what we are told about baptism "in the name of Jesus"after his sacrifice not before:
It makes us HIS disciples, Matt. 28:19 by being baptized "IN THE NAME OF JESUS"
It washes away our sins Acts 22:16 because it makes us disciples by calling on his name.
It's how we are circumcised, Col. 2:11 which signifies we are God's people.
It saves us, 1 Pt. 3:21 because it's how we become disciples given access to Christ's blood.
It's how we die with him, Rom. 6:5.
It's how we are placed into Him by being baptized into his name and thus clothed with Christ, Gal. 3:27
If you will notice your use of Acts 10, they were commanded to be baptized "into the name of Jesus". That's what makes us his and under his name.
Jesus' D,B&R is the foundation of Christianity. Baptism is how we partake in that sacrifice and then by taking communion we continually remember that sacrifice.
That's why in 1 Cor. 10:1-6, when Paul wants to use the Israelites as an example he draws as close a parallel with them and the Corinthians as he can and what does he say? They were baptized into Moses by being covered with water of the cloud and the sea and that they ate and drank Christ.
Hi Jerry and this is what I see , and you added these wordds " turn away from your evil course " emphasis yours !!
In Phil 3:6 it reads concerning the Righreousness which is of the LAW , HAVING BECOME FAULTLESS !!
Your 1 Cor 6:11 the first verb is in the Greek IMPERFECT TENSE which just means that in the past we in sin , BUT that stopped when we were saved !!
From your last paragraph you believe in Water baptism , and correct me if I am wrong ?
Just I can understand , do you believe in WATER BAPTISM ?
Do you believe that Paul was WATER BAPTIZED with a verse !!
Can you show HOW Paul was saved ??
I say that you are an Acts 2 Pentecostal believer , is the yes or no !!
Since Paul does say that there is ONLY ONE BAPTISM But the Greek word is BAPTISMA , will you explain that meaning ?
dan p