-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
what does being baptised mean?
- Thread starter .lava
- Start date
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
Hi, are you refering to the water baptism?
The total immersion water Baptisim as it pertains to the christian faith is an outward show of ones inward faith in Jesus Christ to mankind/the world. It is the first public Work of the obedient believer.
The total immersion water Baptisim as it pertains to the christian faith is an outward show of ones inward faith in Jesus Christ to mankind/the world. It is the first public Work of the obedient believer.
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
True, millions of Hindu get baptised in the river Gangees annually, so much so that environmentalists are worried about the damage being done to poor mother Gaia. However the Hindu believes that this act of self baptism washes away the sins and they do it annually . Some smoke mega amounts of Ganga aswell, this apparently washed away sins too. Stoned on ganga in the river Gangees. Gotta love it.
The (biblical) Christian baptism is not about this and it is done once only.
Anywho, the question was directed to Christians who say they are baptised - in a christian thread. Why the need to throw in the concept of universal baptism outside of Christianity? Further more, what do you mean it is a sign of the covenant? What Covenant?
Just curious.
Acts 8:36 - 37 KJV And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
This latter verse is the requirement for a Christian Baptism.
Incidently Verse 37 has been removed from the ALL "new improved" perversions of the scripture. I wonder why? Because it is fundamental to the Christian Faith, and the new improved per-versions have been written by the enemies of the true biblical Christian faith.
The (biblical) Christian baptism is not about this and it is done once only.
Anywho, the question was directed to Christians who say they are baptised - in a christian thread. Why the need to throw in the concept of universal baptism outside of Christianity? Further more, what do you mean it is a sign of the covenant? What Covenant?
Just curious.
Acts 8:36 - 37 KJV And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
This latter verse is the requirement for a Christian Baptism.
Incidently Verse 37 has been removed from the ALL "new improved" perversions of the scripture. I wonder why? Because it is fundamental to the Christian Faith, and the new improved per-versions have been written by the enemies of the true biblical Christian faith.
Last edited:
hii sometimes see people mention they are baptised. i am curious why they say that. aren't all Christians baptised? is it a ritual that has to be performed when one converts to Christanity?
.
It all depends on the type of Christian. Each group has its own take on things.
I was raised Baptist, and we viewed it pretty close to what IKNOWNUFFINK posted; we were baptized as a formal declaration of faith and to follow the command to be "baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). I was taught to see it as the fulfillment of a commandment that was separate from being saved or any other act of faith.
A co-worker of mine, however, sees baptism as the process of being saved.
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
Hi Tarheeler:
Do you mean by being raised a baptist that your parents led you to a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? .
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
While I'm not Christian, I was raised Christian and was not baptized. My father felt it would be something for me to decide; he didn't see baptism as anything necessary for a child. I think there are many modern Christians who feel the same.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
My favorite line of this whole scene, is when after the baptism and being told that all the man's sins had been washed away, Clooney says, "What are you talkin' 'bout, Delmar, we got bigger fish to fry."
[youtube]IXcuqdgOgz8[/youtube]
YouTube - O Brother Where Art Thou?
[youtube]IXcuqdgOgz8[/youtube]
YouTube - O Brother Where Art Thou?
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
In my humble opinion men are not intitled to interperet what God has to say about the baptism. The scripture syas that the words are not opne to interpretation.
The Bible is crytal clear on what it is, so how an why all manner of so called "professing Christians" conclude that it means something else is cool with me, but dont call it Christianity and we will all get on famously.
The Bible is crytal clear on what it is, so how an why all manner of so called "professing Christians" conclude that it means something else is cool with me, but dont call it Christianity and we will all get on famously.
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
This is a perfect case in point of just how the Hollywood machines pervert the true meaning of scripture. IE Inferring that Baptism washes away sins. Quite satanic - Nice post. The blood of Christ washes away sins.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
With all due respect, how does anything, machines from Hollywood included, "pervert the true meaning of scripture"?
Actually, in the scene, Pete says that, "Delmar done been saved," indicating to me that Delmar's salvation, which included the washing of sins, came before the baptism. Perhaps the baptism in water was just symbollic.
Why do you believe "O' Brother Where Art, Thou" is Satanic?
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
This is a perfect case in point of just how the Hollywood machine perverts the true meaning of scripture. Nice post.
IE Inferring that Baptism washes away sins. Quite satanic - Nice post. The blood of Christ washes away sins.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Through his blood has been removed from the so called "New Improved" Per-versions.
IE Inferring that Baptism washes away sins. Quite satanic - Nice post. The blood of Christ washes away sins.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Through his blood has been removed from the so called "New Improved" Per-versions.
Last edited:
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
To imply that salvation is gained through baptism is a satanic lie. Yes.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Thats not to say that I cant or didn't enjoy Clooneys performance in this movie.
Through his blood has been removed from the so called "New Improved" Per-versions.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Which versions omit "through his blood"?
Nope, not at all.
As my heading says, I'm leaning towards Judaism. I haven't considered myself a Christian for a very long time.
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
Which would lead me on to my next point - Christians are not raised by human beings. Yes it is a Godly Christian parents role to lead their children to a saving faith in Christ, but you said you where raised a baptist, Im really sure what that is supposed to mean.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ah, I looked that up. This is a question of textual theory. "Through his blood" doesn't appear in the earliest texts, but in many later texts.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Bible Question: Why is Acts 8:37 not in the most modern translations?
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Bible Answer: [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Acts 8:37 reads as follows,
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (NASB) Acts 8:37 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]This verse occurs in the middle of a section of scripture that describes the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. This verse has been either eliminated or retained with an explanation that the verse does not appear in the best ancient manuscripts.
The verse did not occur in the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament. The verse did not appear until about 500-600 A.D. in a manuscript now known as Codex Laudianus. This passage was apparently inserted by a scribe who wanted to explain why the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized. It is clear from the rest of scripture the eunuch was not saved by being baptized.
Scripture does not include every word that was spoken by a person or between people. It does not even try. If scripture did include everything the Bible would be either huge or contain many volumes. Listen to the apostle John,
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. (NASB) John 21:25 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Scripture does not try to explain every detail and event. Scripture seeks to communicate to us a message. [/FONT]
Why is Acts 8:37 not in the most modern translations?
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Bible Answer: [/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Acts 8:37 reads as follows,
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (NASB) Acts 8:37 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]This verse occurs in the middle of a section of scripture that describes the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch. This verse has been either eliminated or retained with an explanation that the verse does not appear in the best ancient manuscripts.
The verse did not occur in the earliest and best manuscripts of the New Testament. The verse did not appear until about 500-600 A.D. in a manuscript now known as Codex Laudianus. This passage was apparently inserted by a scribe who wanted to explain why the Ethiopian eunuch was baptized. It is clear from the rest of scripture the eunuch was not saved by being baptized.
Scripture does not include every word that was spoken by a person or between people. It does not even try. If scripture did include everything the Bible would be either huge or contain many volumes. Listen to the apostle John,
[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written. (NASB) John 21:25 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Scripture does not try to explain every detail and event. Scripture seeks to communicate to us a message. [/FONT]
Why is Acts 8:37 not in the most modern translations?
IKNOWNUFFINK
Active Member
This a question of truth and lies. We are saved by the blood of Christ shed on the cross, anything else is a lie.
I do sincerely hope I am not under your radar as a threat to be gotten rid of?
If I am please advice how I may avoid that, as I like nothing more than to debate religious issues.
Its just that when I see staff members engaging in direct debate with me, especially staff members who appear to be directly disgreeing and or being pendantic with everything I say, I tend to get the gitters, should I be concered? Am I off the party line in here or what?
I do sincerely hope I am not under your radar as a threat to be gotten rid of?
If I am please advice how I may avoid that, as I like nothing more than to debate religious issues.
Its just that when I see staff members engaging in direct debate with me, especially staff members who appear to be directly disgreeing and or being pendantic with everything I say, I tend to get the gitters, should I be concered? Am I off the party line in here or what?
Last edited: