Christian Forums

Layceers,

No denying those passages you mentioned--all true. But I'll add a perspective not recognized by the Christian worldview later.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 14:33:34
Layceers,

No denying those passages you mentioned--all true. But I'll add a perspective not recognized by the Christian worldview later.

maybe you would like to reply to the many Bible verses on baptism that have been posted.

When the scriptures we have today were translated, "baptize" was an untranslated word.   The Greek writers wrote as "baptizo."  It came from the Koine (common) Greek language of the first century.   When it was later translated the "o" was dropped and they added the "e" and made the English verb baptize.    In Greek, baptizo means to immerse, dip, sink or submerge.   

I think it is doubtful that any of writers of the New Testament would give this verb any other meaning that what was common at that time

Quote from: Layceers on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 11:01:06They are two different baptism in that John was baptizing into repentance and to bear witness to the light.     Christ came and was baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Greetings Sallie~Baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire are within themselves two different baptism~thy are NOT one and the same. The baptism of fire is for the wicked in the lake of fire in that day, it is not for the godly!

QuoteMatthew 3:11,12...Reads~"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

These scriptures spoken by John the Baptist proves that the baptism of fire is a baptism of JUDGMENT in the lake of fire, which is the second death.

Quote Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

These words teaches us what John meant by saying: he shall baptize you "with the Holy Ghost" and "with fire".

Quote from: Layceers on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 14:51:35
When the scriptures we have today were translated, "baptize" was an untranslated word.   The Greek writers wrote as "baptizo."  It came from the Koine (common) Greek language of the first century.   When it was later translated the "o" was dropped and they added the "e" and made the English verb baptize.    In Greek, baptizo means to immerse, dip, sink or submerge.   

I think it is doubtful that any of writers of the New Testament would give this verb any other meaning that what was common at that time

Yes.

Layceers,

What is it you would like me address with your verses? I said I agree totally already.

Covkeeper,

I'm sorry, I was responding to Rella's post.    I'm waiting to learn you insights and how differently you interpret baptism.

Layceers, 

Oh ok. I did see a question that I will answer a little later, still working.

I agree with Covkeeper  maybe on the point of being an X Christian . As he I no longer consider myself a Christian in the sense the word has become so cheap in the modern-day organized traditional church system.  Don't get me wrong I also agree with Chosen that there are many  followers of Christ in the orders. It's the orders that is the problem. Names that divide us into categories of beliefs.  I'm not sure what Cov is wanting to do. I don't count myself as any brain child of the scriptures but I don't consider myself as one who thinks he knows when he actually knows nothing. Still many here can dance circles around me with their  knowledge. What I have been given is a strong and reasonable  understanding having been a believer for thirty five years. I have seen a lot and the Lord has shown me a lot. So just what is your drive Cov that you thing you know that no one else knows. 


So Sorry my reply should have left back on the first page.

RB,

I went back and read your reply again that you may feel I misunderstood. I do agree somewhat with what you said and not at all to say you're wrong about anything, I don't want to pick at your words.

But you asked why Paul re-baptized some of John's disciples. My answer simply is that Jesus commanded it so. We have enough verses to verify that for sure. But for you to say it made the baptism of repentance invalid, you have no verses that expressly say that or verify such a claim. So, because there aren't any verses to compliment your interpretation, I personally have to put it on the shelf somewhere.

Layceers,

I noticed you hit on a Greek definition of baptism. Why would you consult the Greek if baptism for the sake of this discussion is a Hebraic thing? Shouldn't you go with the Hebraic definition (s) of baptism, one of which is MIKVAH?

Because it's written in Greek, and that's the word they chose to use?

That was a pretty good warm up asking what you all believe about baptism. Many of you claim or I am led to believe that many of you would claim to have the Spirit of Truth in you. How is then you don't agree on what "baptism" certain verses are referring to? The Spirit isn't divided in His mind concerning this but some of you are. I'm going to slowly show why that is.

Here's some Biblical rules you all can use from now on in discussions and I promise you'll never go wrong:

1) Consistency rules. If you believe it's true in the NT, it should be consistently true in the FT (first testament), first. Why? Because the first half of the volume is the foundation of the second half.

2) Witnesses. If you believe it's true in the NT, you should be able to produce at least two or three witnesses to verify. You should be able to find witnesses from the FT. It's too easy to put verses together and say 'Ha, this is what it means!'. Not always true at all and we all know this. But the dividing line is: can you produce actual examples to what you claim as a correct interpretation?

If you keep these two rules you can eliminate so many false Christian beliefs and that's exactly what I'm going to do here.

Lastly:

3) My greatest weapon in discussions with Christians is that I will employ common sense, good reasoning, and reality to your study. Common sense is the greatest of the three because no one can win an argument against common sense....tthink about it.

Sooo....

Consistently, from Genesis to Revelation,  there is a definition for what Sin is. Would anyone like to say what that is?

Quote from: LexKnight on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:14:45
Because it's written in Greek, and that's the word they chose to use?

Here's another problem in Christianity.  The word may be Greek but the people aren't thinking Greek when it comes to things that are Hebraic/Jewish in origin or nature. Define baptism from the Hebraic, please.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:31:17

Quote from: LexKnight on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:14:45
Because it's written in Greek, and that's the word they chose to use?

Here's another problem in Christianity.  The word may be Greek but the people aren't thinking Greek when it comes to things that are Hebraic/Jewish in origin or nature. Define baptism from the Hebraic, please.

It doesn't really matter to me right now what it is in Hebrew, because those letters were written to a Greek-speaking people, they would have written in a way for them to understand it. No confusion from God, remember?

Quote from: LexKnight on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:35:19

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:31:17

Quote from: LexKnight on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:14:45
Because it's written in Greek, and that's the word they chose to use?

Here's another problem in Christianity.  The word may be Greek but the people aren't thinking Greek when it comes to things that are Hebraic/Jewish in origin or nature. Define baptism from the Hebraic, please.

It doesn't really matter to me right now what it is in Hebrew, because those letters were written to a Greek-speaking people, they would have written in a way for them to understand it. No confusion from God, remember?

LexKnight,

There's fault with your understanding,  because we know when Jesus spoke in the Gospels about baptism of which ever sort, His audience wasn't Greek. No, they were Hebrews. Do you think those Hebrews were looking for a Greek interpretation to things Hebraic in nature? Of course not. But what's possessing you to think otherwise--a translation? Yes that and of course "Westernized Christianity".

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:43:56

Quote from: LexKnight on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:35:19

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:31:17

Quote from: LexKnight on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 21:14:45
Because it's written in Greek, and that's the word they chose to use?

Here's another problem in Christianity.  The word may be Greek but the people aren't thinking Greek when it comes to things that are Hebraic/Jewish in origin or nature. Define baptism from the Hebraic, please.

It doesn't really matter to me right now what it is in Hebrew, because those letters were written to a Greek-speaking people, they would have written in a way for them to understand it. No confusion from God, remember?

LexKnight,

There's fault with your understanding,  because we know when Jesus spoke in the Gospels about baptism of which ever sort, His audience wasn't Greek. No, they were Hebrews. Do you think those Hebrews were looking for a Greek interpretation to things Hebraic in nature? Of course not. But what's possessing you to think otherwise--a translation? Yes that and of course "Westernized Christianity".

Luke and Acts was written to a Greek audience for sure, and Acts is very big on baptism, part of it is what's being addressed here. So of course, being there's no confusion with God, the accounts and teachings would have been written so the Greek audience would understand them. It's a story among Hebrew people... being retold to a Greek audience. I can't say that any clearer.

Baptizo means immersion, simple.

LexKnight,

Let me put you on the spot and ask what your reservation is against the Hebraic definition of baptism?

So, let me put it in perspective according to your understanding:

If these things were written to an American audience, are we going to tell them the Hebraic understanding still or are we going to change things up a bit so Americans can understand it? I tell you, this is another fault in Christianity. Christianity changed this Hebraic lifestyle into something that isn't Hebraic in nature anymore. Christianity as you know it is something different than what you read about because Westernized Christianity transforms this thing Hebraic in nature into something more acceptable to an American way of thought. Christianity is dying because of this.

Just to clear things up....here is the Hebrew definition of Mikveh.

"The term mikveh in Hebrew literally means any gathering of waters, but is specifically used in Jewish law for the waters or bath for the ritual immersion."

They used the "mikveh" for several reasons, many pertaining to the cleansing rituals they practiced, such as for women after their monthly, etc.

Both "baptizo" and "mikveh" mean immersion in water.

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 18:06:05
I agree with Covkeeper  maybe on the point of being an X Christian . As he I no longer consider myself a Christian in the sense the word has become so cheap in the modern-day organized traditional church system.  Don't get me wrong I also agree with Chosen that there are many  followers of Christ in the orders. It's the orders that is the problem. Names that divide us into categories of beliefs.  I'm not sure what Cov is wanting to do. I don't count myself as any brain child of the scriptures but I don't consider myself as one who thinks he knows when he actually knows nothing. Still many here can dance circles around me with their  knowledge. What I have been given is a strong and reasonable  understanding having been a believer for thirty five years. I have seen a lot and the Lord has shown me a lot. So just what is your drive Cov that you thing you know that no one else knows. 


So Sorry my reply should have left back on the first page.

For myself I dont think that we should ever deny what we are, Christians, just because some who use that name are a bad example. Should I say that I am an 'ex woman' because some women are awful?OR 'ex mother' because there are some terrible mothers out there? it makes no sense at all.

Its up to us to be proud of using the name of Christ and be a GOOD example, and I for one will never ever deny what I am and call myself the weird name of 'ex Christian', especially if its because I think myself 'above' and 'more knowledgeable'  than the rest of Christs body an that they need me to teach them because they have it all wrong.  WHat arrogance  .

He doesnt know what no one else knows, he merely has his own opinions and ideas on what the Bible says, as we all do. Mclee your beliefs and opinions and understandings are just as valid as his, its just that you have far more humility. I have often been impressed by your posts.     

Have you also noticed that he appears to ignore the verses and views from the women here? Maybe he thinks we are not knowledgeable enough for him, and yet Jesus even says 'let the little children come to me for the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these',  so Jesus thinks differently, knowledge to Him means little, He is concerned with our hearts and our love and our  passion for Him, wanting to be near Him and enjoy Him. 

Layceers,

Thank you for the definition. With that we know that baptism really isn't a NT thing. Many Christians are unaware of this.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 22:11:08
LexKnight,

Let me put you on the spot and ask what your reservation is against the Hebraic definition of baptism?

So, let me put it in perspective according to your understanding:

If these things were written to an American audience, are we going to tell them the Hebraic understanding still or are we going to change things up a bit so Americans can understand it? I tell you, this is another fault in Christianity. Christianity changed this Hebraic lifestyle into something that isn't Hebraic in nature anymore. Christianity as you know it something different than what you read about because Westernized Christianity transforms this thing Hebraic in nature into something more acceptable to an American way of thought. Christianity is dying because of this.

In your opinion.

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Sun Nov 29, 2015 - 23:04:26
Let's talk about Water baptism and how Christians define it. Then, I'll show how inconsistent their definition is with how Scripture defines it as.

Before we move on to defining sin, it's your turn.

How do you define water baptism?

Tell me covkeeper, do you meet with other believers as God says we should? Are you an active part of the body of Christ as we are told to be, or are you one of these 'lone wolves' who think they dont need anyone else or that others dont have their understanding therefore arent worth bothering about?   

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 22:12:39

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 18:06:05
I agree with Covkeeper  maybe on the point of being an X Christian . As he I no longer consider myself a Christian in the sense the word has become so cheap in the modern-day organized traditional church system.  Don't get me wrong I also agree with Chosen that there are many  followers of Christ in the orders. It's the orders that is the problem. Names that divide us into categories of beliefs.  I'm not sure what Cov is wanting to do. I don't count myself as any brain child of the scriptures but I don't consider myself as one who thinks he knows when he actually knows nothing. Still many here can dance circles around me with their  knowledge. What I have been given is a strong and reasonable  understanding having been a believer for thirty five years. I have seen a lot and the Lord has shown me a lot. So just what is your drive Cov that you thing you know that no one else knows. 


So Sorry my reply should have left back on the first page.

For myself I dont think that we should ever deny what we are, Christians, just because some who use that name are a bad example. Should I say that I am an 'ex woman' because some women are awful?OR 'ex mother' because there are some terrible mothers out there? it makes no sense at all.

Its up to us to be proud of using the name of Christ and be a GOOD example, and I for one will never ever deny what I am and call myself the weird name of 'ex Christian', especially if its because I think myself 'above' and 'more knowledgeable'  than the rest of Christs body an that they need me to teach them because they have it all wrong.  WHat arrogance  .

He doesnt know what no one else knows, he merely has his own opinions and ideas on what the Bible says, as we all do. Mclee your beliefs and opinions and understandings are just as valid as his, its just that you have far more humility. I have often been impressed by your posts.     

Have you also noticed that he appears to ignore the verses and views from the women here?

In all fairness to the OP,  in his original post he stated that....

"I like to have a friendly talk with only strong Christians who know their bibles
well....."

and

"I'd like to speak with only teachable and humble disciples. ....."



Right from the start he was straight forward about this.

So I believe it has nothing to do with women,  but as an observer of your posts

in this thread so far,  it is very well possible that you don't fit the criteria he laid

out from the start as to who he will engage in speaking to.

Layceers,

Water baptism is a baptism of repentance according to John's baptism. I concur.

We baptise in Christ's name as commanded. It's an outward expression that you are turning from Lawlessness to Lawfulness. It's identifying yourself with the Covenant of God.

chosenone,

I do fellowship and have a congregational home. Why? Are you trying to find something to discredit me on? I won't let that happen.

Layceers,

Give me Scripture's definition of Sin, please.
Let's use both halves of the Book.

As soon as someone rightfully and Scripturally defines SIN, I'll expound on baptism some more. It'll contradict Christianity but no one will be able to deny what's there. I wait patiently.

We're 4 pages of messages in and we still don't know what Covkeeper34 meant when he/she said "I know that  "Westernized Christianity" isn't the same as what we read in the Bible."

I know some of you feel that he/she stepped on some toes when he/she entered with the requirements needed to have dialogue with him/her.   But please try to look beyond what you feel was a slight and allow us to stay on topic.   Or start another thread to address your concerns.     I say this only because I have been in other message boards where topics got completely off track and threads were shut down because other disgruntled posters wanted to disrupt the conversation for their own personal reasons.

I have noticed that there are quite a few people watching this thread, and even if they are not posting, they are showing interest in the topic.  So for myself and any others who are curious, I would like to keep it going and learn what he/she is talking about.

Thank You

It's almost 1:30 AM here.  I will define sin tomm morn.     Have a great night...errr morning everyone.   

Quote from: Covkeeper34 on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 00:00:28
Layceers,

Give me Scripture's definition of Sin, please.
Let's use both halves of the Book.

Unbelief--disobedience

Quote from: doorknocker on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 23:04:39

Quote from: chosenone on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 22:12:39

Quote from: mclees8 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 - 18:06:05
I agree with Covkeeper  maybe on the point of being an X Christian . As he I no longer consider myself a Christian in the sense the word has become so cheap in the modern-day organized traditional church system.  Don't get me wrong I also agree with Chosen that there are many  followers of Christ in the orders. It's the orders that is the problem. Names that divide us into categories of beliefs.  I'm not sure what Cov is wanting to do. I don't count myself as any brain child of the scriptures but I don't consider myself as one who thinks he knows when he actually knows nothing. Still many here can dance circles around me with their  knowledge. What I have been given is a strong and reasonable  understanding having been a believer for thirty five years. I have seen a lot and the Lord has shown me a lot. So just what is your drive Cov that you thing you know that no one else knows. 


So Sorry my reply should have left back on the first page.

For myself I dont think that we should ever deny what we are, Christians, just because some who use that name are a bad example. Should I say that I am an 'ex woman' because some women are awful?OR 'ex mother' because there are some terrible mothers out there? it makes no sense at all.

Its up to us to be proud of using the name of Christ and be a GOOD example, and I for one will never ever deny what I am and call myself the weird name of 'ex Christian', especially if its because I think myself 'above' and 'more knowledgeable'  than the rest of Christs body an that they need me to teach them because they have it all wrong.  WHat arrogance  .

He doesnt know what no one else knows, he merely has his own opinions and ideas on what the Bible says, as we all do. Mclee your beliefs and opinions and understandings are just as valid as his, its just that you have far more humility. I have often been impressed by your posts.     

Have you also noticed that he appears to ignore the verses and views from the women here?

In all fairness to the OP,  in his original post he stated that....

"I like to have a friendly talk with only strong Christians who know their bibles
well....."

and

"I'd like to speak with only teachable and humble disciples. ....."



Right from the start he was straight forward about this.

So I believe it has nothing to do with women,  but as an observer of your posts

in this thread so far,  it is very well possible that you don't fit the criteria he laid

out from the start as to who he will engage in speaking to.

You are probably right, women tend to be much better at picking up on pride and arrogance, even though in this case it was glaringly obvious.      However we have also typed up Biblical verses in answer to him, which were of course ignored.

Maybe I need to get my husband on here who is a doctor, a scientist and a researcher, and who also reads his bible a LOT and who has been a Christian for 53 years since he was 5,  but I know what he would say if I explained the situation, he would laugh and say  "WHy do you waste you time on people like that?". Probably very wise.

MY concern is ALWAYS here that impressionable maybe newish believers will be taken in by it or totally confused by it. We have what we need with God and the Bible, its all there and not hard to understand(no matter if we are 'experts' or not) whether its what baptism is about or what sin is, or whatever else. We do not need a new 'revelation' from someone who seems ashamed to use the name of Christ to describe Himself. 

Quote from: Layceers on Tue Dec 01, 2015 - 00:13:26
We're 4 pages of messages in and we still don't know what Covkeeper34 meant when he/she said "I know that  "Westernized Christianity" isn't the same as what we read in the Bible."

I know some of you feel that he/she stepped on some toes when he/she entered with the requirements needed to have dialogue with him/her.   But please try to look beyond what you feel was a slight and allow us to stay on topic.   Or start another thread to address your concerns.     I say this only because I have been in other message boards where topics got completely off track and threads were shut down because other disgruntled posters wanted to disrupt the conversation for their own personal reasons.

I have noticed that there are quite a few people watching this thread, and even if they are not posting, they are showing interest in the topic.  So for myself and any others who are curious, I would like to keep it going and learn what he/she is talking about.

Thank You

The problem that I dont think he will tell you/us what he means, he will go round and round and round the houses, asking us leading questions, then showing us that we are all apparently wrong and that only HE has the correct interpretations and answers.

Layceers, good for you that you are even willing or wanting to engage with an 'ex Christian', but we have had SO many just like him here over the years, claiming that only 'they' have all the answers, they come and they go, they come and they go some more, and us normal Christians remain to carrying on fellowshipping and discussing as equals, as brothers and sisters who are actually proud to have the name of Christ in the name we use to describe who we are and who we follow. 

chosenone,

Here's the thing, I'm publicly and respectfully asking that you respect my Post by saying nothing except related to the Bible. Keep me out of your mouth, please. If you cannot keep your focus on Bible solely here, it's best that you go and create a Post where you can vent about people you've never met but seem to think you have figured out.

Now as asserted in my opening post, because you sound immature, at this point you are being ignored. Please post no more replies that embarrass good Christian manners.

Honestly, by the things you've said, it looks like you're begging for my attention. It looks like you feel ignored

Don't take it personal but, I'm really just responding to people who've sparked my interest. I feel people out to see who's patient and who's not. You don't possess that quality. You seem easily agitated.