Raf

Belle, We are not in agreement on that issue. We agree that it was promoted, condoned, practiced, etc.

==== Mark, it's clear we're not going to persuade each other. Care to move on to something else?

Because Paul was not sent to baptize! The immediate context is entirely in keeping with the remote context. Your shock is utterly misplaced. The fact that Christ sent him not to baptize explains why he did not baptize so many of these people. People were using "who baptized whom" as evidence of some kind of greater spirituality, and Paul is telling them that the person performing the baptism is of no importance. Why? He wasn't even SENT to baptize! They were putting the emphasis on the physical, the carnal, rather than the Christ, who performed baptisms on none of these people. He was putting the focus back on Christ and taking it away from the ritual.

Paul writes, "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Now, if baptism is sooooo integral to the salvation experience that one cannot be saved without it, then Christ DID send Paul to baptize. Else, what good would preaching the gospel do without the subsequent required baptism? Ah, but Paul did perform water baptisms. He just seems to have put it in its proper place: a good outward expression of inner faith, but not a salvation experience in and of itself. It's by grace we are saved through faith. See it? Not of works, lest any man should boast. What meaning could these words have? If someone has faith, he will do what God asks of him, but it is not the doing that leads to salvation: it is the FAITH. Water is no more necessary for salvation than hyssop. Thank you for proving my point. The water has ALWAYS been symbolic of what was taking place within.

Had baptism been a requirement for salvation, those men would not have received the holy spirit prior to the water cleansing. James says I will show you my faith by my works, but the works he refers to do not include baptism! Why would that be? Simple: James is not making the case that we are actually saved by works, but rather that a person of faith will exhibit works. It's still the faith that saves, but we have people walking around saying "I have faith" while still doing nothing to exhibit it. What kind of faith is that? The absence of works can easily lead one to question faith, but the presence of works does not guarantee the presence of faith. Can you be baptized without faith? Sure you can! Ask any Catholic infant. To me, faith without baptism is no more unusual (or recommended) than having faith and then ceasing in fellowship, or Bible reading, or witnessing.

"So clearly we can see that baptism was forecast throughout the Old Testament..." Clearly? Hardly. You cited ONE verse, and it has to do with the end. You could make the argument that it was referring to the present time, but even then, you haven't made the argument that it is anything more than symbolic. "I will sprinkle clean water upon you..." Jesus Christ promises living water, and delivers holy spirit. If anything, you may have just undermined your case. The scripture does compare Noah's flood to baptism, so be my guest. But it's still a symbolic representation. Other people don't die when you're baptized. It's a symbolic comparison, which further undermines your case. Can I show any scripture that says it's an optional extra? Sure I can. The Romans Peter witnessed to were saved before they were baptized in water.

Oh goodie. Now it looks like it's coming apart. Thank God. Of course, same thing happened to another TD earlier this year. It reorganized and became Katrina.

Great. The damn thing's going to head north. Sigh.

It's a game. I thought you knew that. Oh! That's a quote! Hmmmmmm.....

Night of the Golden Gloveless Girl From Holland. But no fair submitting porn titles.

Obviously. You are correct. Both quotes are exchanges between Frodo and Aragorn at their first meeting.

Nothing conclusive? I agree. Nor do I see any conclusive proof that they should be accepted. I certainly wouldn't use them as proof texts. Luke 23:47 does not say what you say it says. You're thinking of a different verse. Luke 24:47. One chapter off. No biggie. A little running start: He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." You can add water, if you'd like. But you're not adding substance. Isn't that the point? That it's our faith and love for God that counts on this matter, not the physical act of immersion or standing under a hot shower, or a cold one? You've turned the act of baptism from a voluntary act of loving worship to a compulsory ritual. And you're missing the beauty of it. What the Hey: One could take your information and come to the conclusion that both John and Jesus were pagan influenced in using water for baptism.

Reviews look good.

YES!

"What do you want?" "A little more caution from you, that is no trinket you carry." "I carry nothing." "Indeed."

And make them one thread, please.

It's one of those movies where practically every quote is a giveaway.

Nope.

"Are you frightened?" "Yes." "Not nearly frightened enough. I know what hunts you."

Fisher King?

And there may not be a verse that says that either. Do a bit of research into the conclusion of Mark 16. I am not convinced it belongs in the Bible (nor am I convinced it does not).

Under the Rainbow Jerry Maren The Wizard of Oz :)

so familiar...

Everything wrong so far. Don't bother with Johnny Damon's name. I'm not even looking at him.