 |
|
|
The Government knows you by a number. Your most universal number is now your Social Security Number. Quite conceivably it could be the Mark
-- Salem Kirban, Satan's Mark Exposed, 1978
|
|
| |
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Baptism: Is It Still Required (Score: 1)
 by paul (freebird@comcast.net) on Saturday, July 01 @ 16:50:49 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Dear Richard,
The reasoning of many of us, as I am confident that you are probably more aware than I am, is derived from the "covenantalist" perspective. Do you see Christians as Abraham's kids?
You invested a great deal of work. I plan to re-read what you wrote. (I am reliant, at this point in my journey, on the English language, with only the use of Greek concordances for the extra help of getting the sense, pre-translation, of the inspired Word of God).
God bless. We would fully agree that the sooner everyone realizes that satan is history, the better!
Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
dadprs@hotmail.com
Waxahachie Texas 75165 |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Baptism: Is It Still Required (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Saturday, July 01 @ 17:18:39 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | A few years ago I wrote an article titled "Water Immersion after AD 70" - it may shed some more light on this discussions.
Read it here: Water immersion after A.D. 70 |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Baptism: Is It Still Required (Score: 1)
 by psychohmike (imapreterist before the @ and gmail.com after it) on Sunday, July 02 @ 10:12:30 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Here's a thought.
Baptism is the symbol of the new covenant.
Circumcision is the symbol of the old covenant.
Circumsicion was done while the old covenant was still in effect(Timothy).
Shouldn't the sign of the new covenant still be done during while the new covenant is still in effect(everlasting).
Come to think of it. The sign of the old covenant was done to infants born into a covenant family.
Is there any reason to think that the sign of the new covenant shouldn't also be done to children(The household's of Lydia and Stephanos).
Hmmmm...I always wondered about the dedication and adult baptism thingy. It just never made sense to me. At least not scripturally.
Any thoughts would be great. Thanks |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by paul on Tuesday, July 04 @ 11:58:53 PDT
Re: Baptism: Is It Still Required (Score: 1)
by jmarvin on Sunday, July 02 @ 13:33:19 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Thank you for posting this article and your article about the Lord's Supper. I very much enjoy dialogue dealing with the subject of what is "binding today and what is not" under the Preterist paradigm. I would be very interested to hear from others about how they determine what is or is not binding on us believers today. For instance, in I Corinthians 1: 2 we have this statement: "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sactified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, thier Lord and ours...." This applies to the other "churches" of Paul's day as well as it seems to believers past the 70AD mark. In view of the practical issues that the book of I Corinthians presents how do we determined what instructions given by Paul are still binding on us today? (going to court, head-coverings, married or single due to the present distress, etc. Thank you for your responses in advance.....
jmarvin |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Are: Baptism, The Bible, And A Modern Beast All Passé Post 70 AD? (Score: 1)
 by chrisliv on Monday, July 03 @ 22:20:27 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Well,
New Covenant Baptism is a Declaration of New Citizenship, much like it was in the Old Covenant when someone wanted to convert out of the Gentile nations and become a member of the Nation and Congregation of Israel.
That's what John the Baptist was declaring to those 1st Century Jews, that Messiah had arrived, and that even they must repent from and renounce their Old Israel Citizenship, just as if they were a dirty Gentile, and then have a public baptism as the ceremony of Citizenship in Messiah's New Kingdom and Non-Geographical Israel.
Of course, that was unimaginable for a haughty Pharisee, which is why John the Baptist undoubtedly asked them why they came around to see what he was doing?
For the non-Jewish new believers, baptism is still a Citizenship Change. But it probably signifies an exit from hostile State Citizenship to a political-separatist, Heavenly Citizenship. And that is undoubtedly why the early Christians, for 250 years, were persecuted (for their separatism and refusal of allegiance to the State) and had a literal and figuratively underground existence, until the Clergy convinced them to pledge obedience to Caesar Constantine in 312 AD, and they began to then perform military killings against the enemies of Caesar and the Roman Empire.
So, sure, baptism is still kosher, even after 70 AD. But the Bible clearly demonstrates that baptism was never salvific, even before 70 AD, since the Book of Acts give a example of unbaptized converts exercising gifts from the Holy Spirit, and then Peter appropriately gets them baptized.
The Bible never suggests that Baptism had a shelf-life that expired as soon as the coming destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished. That's almost as silly as how a couple of Preterists have suggested that the Beattitudes and the Sermon on the Mount are also passé post-70 AD, so as to justify statist overseas mass-murder by a modern Beast and the so-called Christians who suggest that blind obedience to a hostile State is somehow obedience God.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Baptism: Is It Still Required (Score: 1)
 by Kyle Peterson (peterson.kyle@gmail.com) on Wednesday, July 05 @ 05:21:34 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | I too am struggling/researching the application of these two events in a post-parousia world.
One of the passages that sticks out to me is the passage in 1 Peter 3:21: Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you - not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience".
Perhaps water baptism was required in the first century - a seal that actually saved them from judgment in the lake of fire. This would explain why Christians were being baptized on behalf of the dead (in Hades).
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Baptism: Is It Still Required (Score: 1)
by leslie on Wednesday, July 05 @ 11:00:06 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Will Richards Web Site be back up and usable?
Les |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Baptism: Is It Still Required (Score: 1)
by mazuur on Thursday, July 06 @ 07:57:48 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Yes it is. Of course this is just my opinion.
Rich |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by leslie on Thursday, July 06 @ 10:16:30 PDT
- by mazuur on Friday, July 07 @ 10:18:01 PDT
- by Kent on Saturday, July 08 @ 18:58:11 PDT
- by leslie on Tuesday, July 18 @ 13:11:04 PDT
- by Kent on Tuesday, July 18 @ 13:56:31 PDT
- by leslie on Tuesday, July 18 @ 14:08:58 PDT
- by Kent on Wednesday, July 19 @ 12:43:04 PDT
- by leslie on Wednesday, July 19 @ 13:56:27 PDT
| 
|
