- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Irene said:
Quote Jesus was Baptized in a River and John submerged Him all the way under the water. Irene,
How do you know John submerged Jesus? Were you there? It simply says that Jesus went into the water. It does not say that He went under the water. Going into water does not imply submersion. Acts 8 says that both Philip and the Ethopian eunuch went into the water. Did the eunuch submerge Philip?
No! Philip did the baptizing. Yet it says that Philip went into the water too. Therefore, “into” does not imply submersion.Both John and Jesus stepped into the water and then John sprinkled Jesus with a hyssop branch according to the law of Moses.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,09:53) Hi TT,
You have no written proof of this sprinkling yet you chide Irene for the same thing?
King David said, “Baptize me with hyssop and I shall be clean.” The hyssop branch was used to apply the water. This excludes submersion and pouring cannot be done with a branch. Moses required sprinkling and Moses was still in effect when Jesus was baptized.thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,10:52) Hi TT,
So is was not recorded as such but you assumed?
Then chide Irene for her similar actions?
Nick! That's O.K. I have a wide Shoulder, I can take it.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
That can't be true can it?But if it were, it would sure explain a lot.
Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,14:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
That can't be true can it?But if it were, it would sure explain a lot.
David When my Husband and I belonged tot he Catholic Church we never read the Bible. It was when Georg was watching T.V. and He listened to Mr. Armstrong is when we started to read the Bible. He used to say dust of your Bible and start reading it. So we did and we never were the same old Catholics. We left that Church and did join the W.W.Church of God and we learned so much, but unfortunately after Mr,Armstrong died they went back to believing in the trinity. So we have been staying Home since 1994. Since then God has revealed so many new truths to us. One big one being the preexisting of Jesus.
I am forever thankful to God, and that I have said so many times now, and I will say it again.
Peace and Love IreneDavid IT is so ironic that the Catholic Church does not understand that we are under grace and not under the old testament law/
Ephesians 2:8″ For by grace to have been saved, through faith and that not of yourselves; it is a free gift from God
verse 9 not of works, lest any should boast.
verse 10 For we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus For good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.Awesome God that we have.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,07:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret…well at least it's a secret to non-Catholics:It is a mortal sin to knowingly and intentionally fail to meet your Sunday obligation. So those “Catholics” who only go on Christmas and Easter are (according to the teaching of the Church) probably in the state of mortal sin. Of course I must exclude invalids and the insane and such.
Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,07:34) Quote I have been in Catholic countries trying to convert Catholics away from the church. Was it frustrating when they kept saying that tradition was all that really mattered.
Like me, they didn't actually say that. So no.But it was truly annoying to be treated with so much love from people who were supposed to be the queen of the cults.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
But alas you are mistaken.Why do I get the feeling that you are reveling in you utter ignorance of the Catholic church? Let me guess, you are a mainline denominational Protestant?
Let me give you an example of our exegesis of Scripture. This is from Haydock's Bible Commentary on 2 Pet. 1:20,21:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Quote (Cindy @ Sep. 03 2009,16:15) Quote (david @ Sep. 03 2009,14:33) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Sep. 03 2009,07:55) Quote (david @ Sep. 02 2009,15:32) Quote I was the founding pastor for two different congregations. Finally. I knew it.
The average Catholic would have left after the first minute, after someone started using the Bible.:D
Seriously, you are nowhere near the average Catholic. The average Catholic, or the average person who claims to be Catholic does not really care too much about these things. They go to church, or maybe they only go on Christmas and Easter. But that's it.
Hi DavidIf I am not mistaken the Catholics are not allowed to discuss scriptures for there is “no private interpretation” and only the “infallable Pope” or Priest can exegete scripture properly!
WJ
That can't be true can it?But if it were, it would sure explain a lot.
David When my Husband and I belonged tot he Catholic Church we never read the Bible. It was when Georg was watching T.V. and He listened to Mr. Armstrong is when we started to read the Bible. He used to say dust of your Bible and start reading it. So we did and we never were the same old Catholics. We left that Church and did join the W.W.Church of God and we learned so much, but unfortunately after Mr,Armstrong died they went back to believing in the trinity. So we have been staying Home since 1994. Since then God has revealed so many new truths to us. One big one being the preexisting of Jesus.
I am forever thankful to God, and that I have said so many times now, and I will say it again.
Peace and Love Irene
David The Catholic Church does not understand that we are under grace and not under the Old Testament Law'
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is a free gift from God.
verse 9not of works, lest anyone should boast.
verse 10 For we are His workmanship in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
What an awesome God we have/
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Cindy @ Sep. 03 2009,12:34) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,10:52) Hi TT,
So is was not recorded as such but you assumed?
Then chide Irene for her similar actions?
Nick! That's O.K. I have a wide Shoulder, I can take it.
Peace and Love Irene
Irene,
What are you and Nick talking about? All I did was ask you how you know John submerged Jesus seeing that you were not there and that the scriptures do not say that Jesus was submerged.I hope you are big enough to take a fair question. Why Nick would call it chiding is beyond me.
thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,10:52) Hi TT,
So is was not recorded as such but you assumed?
Then chide Irene for her similar actions?
Numbers 19:17-18 says that baptism occurred by sprinkling with the hyssop branch. Jesus said that not jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. So John could not have submerged Jesus or else he was breaking the law of Moses.thinker
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,20:12) Hi TT,
You should establish what you say from Scripture.
no mention of Hyssop at the Jordan..
Did anything in the law change when Jesus was baptized?thinker
Hi TT,
So the sprinkling of the tent and those present with a dead man is good enough as a precedent for you?
Any idea why John stood in the Jordan?Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,20:12) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,10:52) Hi TT,
So is was not recorded as such but you assumed?
Then chide Irene for her similar actions?
Numbers 19:17-18 says that baptism occurred by sprinkling with the hyssop branch. Jesus said that not jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. So John could not have submerged Jesus or else he was breaking the law of Moses.thinker
thinker The reason I belied that Jesus was submerged is, what purpose would it be if Jon the Baptist stood in the river and then just take a hand full of Water and put it over Jesus head? For that He did not have to stand in the River and Baptize. Common sense tells me, that Jesus was submerged. Also since the bible says that Baptizing according to Scripture is submerging, you don't belief that John the Baptist did according to Scripture? You can belief what you want, but that is what I think howJohn the Baptist Baptized Jesus.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,20:46) Hi TT,
So the sprinkling of the tent and those present with a dead man is good enough as a precedent for you?
Any idea why John stood in the Jordan?
Nick I thought about this last night, and that is what I came up with too. Great minds think alike, heh.
IreneQuote (thethinker @ Sep. 03 2009,20:12) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 03 2009,10:52) Hi TT,
So is was not recorded as such but you assumed?
Then chide Irene for her similar actions?
Numbers 19:17-18 says that baptism occurred by sprinkling with the hyssop branch. Jesus said that not jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. So John could not have submerged Jesus or else he was breaking the law of Moses.thinker
That was no law.But if it was, he broke it.
Mark 1:9, 10: “Jesus . . . was baptized [“immersed,” ED, Ro] in the Jordan [River] by John. And immediately on coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being parted.”
John selected a location in the Jordan Valley near Salim to baptize, “because there was a great quantity of water there.” (Joh 3:23)
The Ethiopian eunuch asked to be baptized when they came to “a body of water.” They both “went down into the water.” Afterward they came “up out of the water.” (Ac 8:36-40) All these instances imply, not a small ankle-deep pool, but a large body of water into and out of which they would have to walk. Further, the fact that baptism was also used to symbolize a burial indicates complete submersion.—Ro 6:4-6; Col 2:12.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. II, p. 56) states: “It is evident that Baptism in the early Church was by immersion.”
DOES the account in Numbers 19 where they splattered the water with the dust upon the tents, have any mention of baptism?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
