Dip is a derivative of the whole root baptizo.. Bapto is dip.. baptizo is a complete immersion or placing into. Revelation tells us when Jesus returns he will come with his robes dipped (bapto) in blood. If it was immersed in blood, the write would have said he came with it baptized in blood.
either way your right about the defenition. your error is always adding water to the word.
romans 6 says we were immersed into the death and burial of Christ, it says nothing about being immersed in water, your adding to the defenition and to the word.
enough said.
The water brings us to the blood - I Jn 5:8. any serious student of the Bible knows that baptism is in water, unless otherwise stated.
John was the baptizer because he went around immersing in water. Philip preached to the Eunch Christ, and what happened he said "here is water what hinders me from being baptized" showing in the preaching of Christ, the gospel, water baptism is a part of it. If not taught then not the gospel.
And here you go. You say I used a strawman, yet Paul in romans tells us exactly what we were baptized into. Baptize is the nound, death and burial is the subject of the noun. yet for some reason you want to add water.
Seriiouly? this argument makes no sense. Because baptism is the noun, and burial the subject it must be spirit? This is an attempt to confuse people, think about, what is the argument here? There isnt one. this proves nor refutes either side, it is a pointless statement.
I was baptized INTO CHRIST by the HS, not into water
How? Did an Apostle have to lay his hands on you like in Acts 8, and 19?
John? He told us, water was the subject of his baptism. He also told us Jesus would baptise with the spirit and fire.
what does that have to do with what Paul said about being baptized INTO death, burial and body of Christ? not to mention Christ himself.
Abousutly nothing. It has to do with John's baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, Johns baptism was not valid forever, Read Acts 19, Paul rebaptized in water, those who were baptized under John's baptism. Has nothting to do with being baptized in the name of Christ.
For as many of us who have been baptized INTO CHRIST, (not water) etc
Your the one forcing water not me!
Really cuz it you inserting the parenthetical statements that are not in the passage.
if the interpretors would have interpreted the greek word, instead of transliterating it, we would not be having this conversation. Man took a foriegn word, and made a religious ceremony out of it. I was baptized into Christ by the HS. I later was baptized in water in abeyance of my saviors command.
If you would quit rejecting Acts 2:38 we would not be having this discussion, plain and simple.
John baptized only people he knew repented. He refused to baptise jerish religious leaders, and demanded proof they had repented proves this.
What is your point with this?
He did not baptist to give someone repentance, he baptized people who had already repented.
Really? Then why is it referred to the baptism UNTO repentance instead of the baptism of those who repented?
Let me guess unto (eis) means because of somewhere in the world, but we dont have a shred of evidence for that.
It was the ANOINTING of the HS. Of course it followed the fact that they were also the first men BAPTIZED by the hs. The HS can not enter a person until the person is first washed. Washing comes before anointing always
the Apostles were promised the HS in Jn 14, and 16, and then told to wait in Jerusalem till the promise come, Acts 1.
Then without the laying on of hands, the HS fell on them Acts 2, and they spoke with tongues.
In acts 8, the Samaritans
believed and were baptized in the name of Christ, yet they did not receive the HS until Peter and John came and layed their hands on them.
Acts 8:14: Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Acts 8:15: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Acts 8:16: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
Acts 8:17: Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
So were they not saved until Peter and John came and gave them the HS? Or did they receive him before this event?
Since EG said he will not answer, this is for any who advocate the same as he does.
As with all new things, God used different signs to prove it was from God, he used it to jump start his church, It did nto always happen that way, If it was required, it would always have to be that way, the fact that God used different things to show these men were from God proves that it was not always required but signs.
Nope, we are just cleansed. All gifts come from the fact the Holy Spirit enters us, nothing to do with baptism of the spirit. The baptism just gives us spiritual cleansing.
the question was, why did Peter and John have to come and lay their hands on them before the received the HS? this is no way answers that question.
Where they saved before Peter and John came?
If the Samaritian believed and were baptized, but did not receive the HS until Peter and John came, when were they saved?
How come they needed the Apostles to receive the HS if the we can have the baptism of the HS today as the Apostles did in Acts 2? There was no laying on of hands in Acts 2, the spririt fell on them. Why not in Acts 8?
In Acts 10 the HS falls on the Gentiles, and Peter remembers the Lord "would baptize with the HS", this is not promised to us.
If not when did the HS fall on you EG? and why you but not the Samaritans? Philip had the HS he could perform miracles, yet he could not lay his hands on them, why?
Like I said EG said he is done, so anyone who would like to answer these are welcome.