hypocritical christians

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
your point about a physical baptism and a spiritual baptism are disproven in the verse I quoted in my previous post, stating there is only one baptism.

Then why does the Bible talk about two? The baptism of the spirit where christ washes you clean and awakens your spirit at the point that you accept Christ as your personal lord and savior, and the physical baptism such as what Jesus did?

Oh, do you mean what John did? as in John the Baptist?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
please find a verse separating baptism into two parts, a physical and spiritual. I'm intrigued. I've always thought of it as one.

I don't carry my Bible to work with me and I don't know it well enough to be able to quote the idea that I have from what I've read.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
Ah yes, I also recommend Christnotes.org for lookup of verses and recommend the King James Version.

edit: oh yes, and please reply...I tend to be the thread killer of such topics.

 

[Jfur]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Jfur
Early Christianity was a powerful social and political revolution -- in the small Early Christian communities, physical baptism was a rite of passage into small (sometimes gnostiic communities; they were very different from what you have today, and many of them would be rejected by modern Christians as being pagan).

I'm not quite sure if you're proving my point or not on that one. Yes, traditionally one joined a church by being baptised into that church, but the bible teaches there is just one baptism into the Lord's church, not a local congregation.
Ephesians 4:4-7
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.

I'm saying that you must interpret the text in its historicity. It makes less sense unless you see the social and political significance of baptism in social cohesion, entrance into the occult, gnostic world at the time. Baptism by the holy spirit or fires of God (as a concept) came from some branches of Early Christianity, perhpas even as a countermovement to other Early Christian developments (and certainly to Roman rule and certianly some aspects of Judaism at the time).

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

:Q Sweet! Thanks! Also, I just found BibleOnTheWeb.com

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

but am i correct in assuming the two baptisms you are separating is the physical baptism by John the Baptist and a separate spiritual baptism from Christ?

I present Matthew Chapter 3

Matthew 3
1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Mark 11:30 suggests that there are two baptisms; one of God, and one of men.

Like 3:3 suggests a baptism of repentance.

Acts 19:4 confirms a baptism of repentance.

Romans 6:4 says baptism into death. If there's only one baptism, and we do it (physical), why do we not then die?

See? There's lots of different baptisms.

 

[Jfur]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
but am i correct in assuming the two baptisms you are separating is the physical baptism by John the Baptist and a separate spiritual baptism from Christ?

I present Matthew Chapter 3

Matthew 3
1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: 12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Some of the Early Christians would have argued that -- but again, look at the context in which the movement arose. For example, there was a sect called the Carpocratians who felt that the only way to be initiated was to ingest menstrual blood and semen (blood and body) to enter the gnostic community :Q There were many DIFFERENT Christian sects at the beginning (and actually today, too). The gospel authors and Early Christians in general did not like the reality in which they lived, they wanted to turn the world "on its head", to reestablish a new social and political order that was was counter (direct opposite) to the values of prevailing society at the time. Baptism was a way to be initiated into sometimes secret orders. For some, the physical act was very important because it was a "death" of sorts and rebirth into a new life. The "kingdom of God" was, FOR SOME, intiation into these gnostic powers. By the way, I am not just making all this up -- there is a well-documented body of academic literature that suggests these things

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Jfur

Some of the Early Christians would have argued that -- but again, look at the context in which the movement arose. For example, there was a sect called the Carpocratians who felt that the only way to be initiated was to ingest menstrual blood and semen (blood and body) to enter the gnostic community :Q There were many DIFFERENT Christian sects at the beginning (and actually today, too). The gospel authors and Early Christians in general did not like the reality in which they lived, they wanted to turn the world "on its head", to reestablish a new social and political order that was was counter (direct opposite) to the values of prevailing society at the time. Baptism was a way to be initiated into sometimes secret orders. For some, the physical act was very important because it was a "death" of sorts and rebirth into a new life. The "kingdom of God" was, FOR SOME, intiation into these gnostic powers. By the way, I am not just making all this up -- there is a well-documented body of academic literature that suggests these things

Stick it to the man, Jfur!

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Mark 11:30 suggests that there are two baptisms; one of God, and one of men.

Taken in context...
30The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. 31And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? 32But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. 33And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

It was a ploy by Jesus to confirm that John's baptism was of heaven.

Like 3:3 suggests a baptism of repentance.

Yes, John's baptism was for the remission of sins..but it did not save.

Acts 19:4 confirms a baptism of repentance.

Yup

Romans 6:4 says baptism into death. If there's only one baptism, and we do it (physical), why do we not then die?

This of the pool of baptism as a tomb. We go into it, our old self dies, we come out a new person.

See? There's lots of different baptisms.

Just John's and Jesus's baptisms, which I wasn't talking about before and neither were the verses stating one baptsim.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Originally posted by: Jfur
Some of the Early Christians would have argued that -- but again, look at the context in which the movement arose. For example, there was a sect called the Carpocratians who felt that the only way to be initiated was to ingest menstrual blood and semen (blood and body) to enter the gnostic community :Q There were many DIFFERENT Christian sects at the beginning (and actually today, too). The gospel authors and Early Christians in general did not like the reality in which they lived, they wanted to turn the world "on its head", to reestablish a new social and political order that was was counter (direct opposite) to the values of prevailing society at the time. Baptism was a way to be initiated into sometimes secret orders. For some, the physical act was very important because it was a "death" of sorts and rebirth into a new life. The "kingdom of God" was, FOR SOME, intiation into these gnostic powers. By the way, I am not just making all this up -- there is a well-documented body of academic literature that suggests these things

Blood and semen eh? For the blood and body of Jesus that we are supposed to take as a rememberence of his spilt blood and torn body on the cross? Pretty sure Jesus's example of bread and wine takes care of that.

I'm still not getting a complete thought from what you're typing. I think you're saying...well, I just don't know. Put a sentence in between...

The gospel authors and Early Christians in general did not like the reality in which they lived, they wanted to turn the world "on its head", to reestablish a new social and political order that was was counter (direct opposite) to the values of prevailing society at the time. Baptism was a way to be initiated into sometimes secret orders.

so I can better respond.

 

[Jfur]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: Jfur
Some of the Early Christians would have argued that -- but again, look at the context in which the movement arose. For example, there was a sect called the Carpocratians who felt that the only way to be initiated was to ingest menstrual blood and semen (blood and body) to enter the gnostic community :Q There were many DIFFERENT Christian sects at the beginning (and actually today, too). The gospel authors and Early Christians in general did not like the reality in which they lived, they wanted to turn the world "on its head", to reestablish a new social and political order that was was counter (direct opposite) to the values of prevailing society at the time. Baptism was a way to be initiated into sometimes secret orders. For some, the physical act was very important because it was a "death" of sorts and rebirth into a new life. The "kingdom of God" was, FOR SOME, intiation into these gnostic powers. By the way, I am not just making all this up -- there is a well-documented body of academic literature that suggests these things

Blood and semen eh? For the blood and body of Jesus that we are supposed to take as a rememberence of his spilt blood and torn body on the cross? Pretty sure Jesus's example of bread and wine takes care of that.

I'm still not getting a complete thought from what you're typing. I think you're saying...well, I just don't know. Put a sentence in between...

The gospel authors and Early Christians in general did not like the reality in which they lived, they wanted to turn the world "on its head", to reestablish a new social and political order that was was counter (direct opposite) to the values of prevailing society at the time. Baptism was a way to be initiated into sometimes secret orders.

so I can better respond.

there were many different types of Christians. Some did baptisms in the flesh to become spirit or enter secret communities. Others focused only on the spiritual meaning of baptism. btw, the Jews did do, too, in their interpretation of atonement (sacrifice of a physical entity vs. sacrifice of the heart/spirit). In both cases, there was **great** social and political upheaval going on, and many things that happened in Judaism and Christianity (which was a type of Judaism that saw the Messiah in Jesus) were reactions to the "wrongness" of the world around them, i.e. who was in power (read the Qumran scrolls?), how the social order was (Early Christianity was VERY egalitarian for its time), etc. In the gospels you see differnt interpetations of baptism -- it is not entirely consistent -- there is one form, physical, which occurred as an initiation rite; but also the idea (as in Jewish atonement and sacrifice AT THAT SAME TIME) that the outside motions one takes (think Pharisees) may look holy but are not. This was an internal and somewhat subversive grasping of power and was also directly a criticism of the socio-political environment in which it occurred. The "truth" or "Truth" make not *look* holy, but by entering the secret (gnostic) community one sees that what is powerless is powerful, weak is strong, etc. That's in the NT, too, as I'm sure you know

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: weezergirl
Kranky thanks for your post. I forgot what it said but I remember it was thought provoking. I think it had something to do with a lady at your church...well my thoughts on that is that she was not a true christian until she DID change her ways. Then, did she really accept God into her life. Or at least at the point when during that lifestyle she was extremely depressed and knew what she was doing was wrong and was working to change to what she has become now.

I'm glad you came back to read the rest of the thread.

We'll have to disagree on whether the lady was a true Christian until she quit smoking crack and screwing strangers. I think she was. She accepted Christ as her savior. She was trying to be stop doing those things. But it was beyond her abilities to do it overnight. You've heard the saying, "With God, all things are possible"? Some would say that she could have stopped doing those things instantly if she truly believed in God, because "with God, all things are possible." I say she did stop - and is it appropriate for me to put a time limit on how quickly it happens? Does it take away from what she's done because it didn't happen fast enough to suit some people?

People who drink, people who get high, people who sleep around - I think you can find Christians in any group. They may not be proud of certain things they do, and they may want to quit, and some may feel there isn't anything wrong with it in the first place. I believe if they accept Christ, and try to learn what God wants from them, they are Christians. God will sort it out. God will guide them, and hopefully they can find a church who will help them if they want to change.

To me, there's a maturing process that goes along with Christianity. In college, it's very difficult to resist peer pressure. Having been there myself, I understand why people do things they wouldn't ordinarily do. I doubt if anyone would have looked at me as a "good Christian" at that time in my life. I had a long way to go, and still do.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: weezergirl
how do christians get drunk, get high, have premarital sex, are homosexuals, swear on a regular basis, cheat, etc and still manage to call themselves christians and go to church every sunday?

not saying i disagree with everything listed up there but then again, I DONT' CALL MYSELF CHRISTIAN. i would say more than 50% of the christians i know at my school (a college) do one or more of those things on a regular basis and then they have the nerve to try and convert me? from what i've heard, even if you BELIEVE in God...if you do any of these things on a regular basis with no attempts to change then you haven't really accepted God or the christian way of life...and nope! you ain't going to heaven either.

WTF. somebody explain it to me, preferrably a christian that does one of these things!

Yup, you pegged it, every last one of us just sit around taking it from behind from a same sex partner we arent married to behind our spouses back, toking up cursing up a storm....you got us dead on....

This thread is so stupid and pathetic it's not worth the time to refute your claims....the fact you even pose this question shows exactly how little you know.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Mark 11:30 suggests that there are two baptisms; one of God, and one of men.

Taken in context...
30The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. 31And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? 32But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. 33And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

It was a ploy by Jesus to confirm that John's baptism was of heaven.

Like 3:3 suggests a baptism of repentance.

Yes, John's baptism was for the remission of sins..but it did not save.

Acts 19:4 confirms a baptism of repentance.

Yup

Romans 6:4 says baptism into death. If there's only one baptism, and we do it (physical), why do we not then die?

This of the pool of baptism as a tomb. We go into it, our old self dies, we come out a new person.

See? There's lots of different baptisms.

Just John's and Jesus's baptisms, which I wasn't talking about before and neither were the verses stating one baptsim.

So you do acknowledge the different baptisms?

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Beast1284

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: Beast1284
Also, I will bet you that most of these people you are talking about believe that if they believe in god, they will go to heaven. If they truly knew what it meant to be a Christian I don't think they would call themselves that. It is basically the sad case of parents making their kids go to Church but never actually teach them what it actually means, because churches today don't teach about what it means to be a Christian, they teach the basic stories in the Bible and leave it at that.

All churches? Have you been to every one of them and observed? Why generalize so much?

I have sat in on Methodist, Protestant, Church of Christ, Baptist, Catholic, and Christ United services. Multiple times for each, and I have never heard one sermon about what it really takes to get into heaven. Most services I have been too follow the same structure. A few hymns, the meat of the sermon, pass the money bin, some more hymns on the way out. Did anyone learn anything other than a moral lesson? Nope.

What I'm getting at is that I agree partly. There are some "churches" that don't preach the whole truth of the gospel, but then again you can't say "because churches today don't teach about what it means to be a Christian, they teach the basic stories in the bible and
leave it at that." You are lumping every church into that mold and that's just not accurate at all.

If you don't believe me come down to southwestern Arkansas sometimes and I'll show you one that does.

Jim

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

So you do acknowledge the different baptisms?

John's baptism is different than being baptised into Christ.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

So you do acknowledge the different baptisms?

John's baptism is different than being baptised into Christ.

According to your view, there is only one baptism. The bible says that there's only one baptism, that means there's only one baptism. From your literal attitude (not trying to be derogatory) in this thread, that means there's only one baptism. How can there be more than one baptism if the bible says that there is only one!? Unless... *gasp* unless I'm right.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

There is one baptism that saves. I've already stated that John's baptisms did not save (he didn't have the power to do so, he himself admitted that there was one coming greater than he...so by logic, if his baptism saves, what could be greater than that? therefore his baptism did not save)

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

but then again it also says there is only one God, but we know Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God and there is God the Father, so that makes three Gods, right? no? there is only one God, so they are all the same. Doesn't quite make sense, does it.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
There is one baptism that saves. I've already stated that John's baptisms did not save (he didn't have the power to do so, he himself admitted that there was one coming greater than he...so by logic, if his baptism saves, what could be greater than that? therefore his baptism did not save)

The "saving" baptism that you are talking about is the spiritual baptism that I'm talking about that happens when you get saved. Whether it is required that you go through water baptism in order to be saved or not is what I am arguing about.

Maybe we should stop arguing if we're talking about different things.

And about the GodHead... yeah, I don't get it either, but something tells me that my thoughts are so far below His that it doesn't matter.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

Whether it is required that you go through water baptism in order to be saved or not is what I am arguing about.

I thought that was what you were arguing about here...

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you CANNOT be saved without being baptised. If you think that, I'd suggest reading up on legalism.

No? B/c if I'm getting your point correctly, the baptism you are refering to is the unseen grace of God saving you when you confess your life to him...

Confused...but I think at some point you were arguing about both.

I suppose the argument would be now whether Christ's baptism is to be taken literally or not. But we can continue that discussion some other time. I've already lost most of the day today on here. (planned on studying for finals today :Q )

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX

Whether it is required that you go through water baptism in order to be saved or not is what I am arguing about.

I thought that was what you were arguing about here...

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that you CANNOT be saved without being baptised. If you think that, I'd suggest reading up on legalism.

No? B/c if I'm getting your point correctly, the baptism you are refering to is the unseen grace of God saving you when you confess your life to him...

Confused...but I think at some point you were arguing about both.

I suppose the argument would be now whether Christ's baptism is to be taken literally or not. But we can continue that discussion some other time. I've already lost most of the day today on here. (planned on studying for finals today :Q )

What I meant to say was that nowhere in the Bible does it say that I have to go down and get wet in order to be saved. By all means, cleansing and awakening spiritually is necessary.

 

[udonoogen]

Originally posted by: weezergirl
I'd just like to reiterate that I'm not trying to say that Christians are supposed to be PERFECT, but I would have more respect for a christian that at least ATTEMPTS to live the christian lifestyle rather than one that just accepts God and that's all there is to it.

Kranky thanks for your post. I forgot what it said but I remember it was thought provoking. I think it had something to do with a lady at your church...well my thoughts on that is that she was not a true christian until she DID change her ways. Then, did she really accept God into her life. Or at least at the point when during that lifestyle she was extremely depressed and knew what she was doing was wrong and was working to change to what she has become now.

And I agree, I haven't read the bible, and a lot of people are attacking me for this because maybe I don't know what christianity is all about. But from what I DO know is that first and foremost fact about christianity is about accepting God into your heart. But I also know there are certain "advice", not necessarily RULES, in the Bible that is accepted as a christian way of life. I just think that if one was a christian and fully believed in God that he would at least TRY to follow that "advice"?

And a lot of christians are attacking me because they feel that I'm attacking them. I'm attacking the christians that do not feel any remorse for their actions and feel that what they are doing are not wrong. Comments such as "Boy, after this final i'm gonna get f*cking drunk this weekend" from a christian does not make me feel that they have truly accepted God into their life...but you're right...who am I to judge.

labels are only as good as the people that carry the labels. along the same lines, i could call myself a college student and flunk every class i have (similar to what i'm doing now). it would be true but i'm not really doing the best i can, am i.

also, anyone can call themselves anything they want. however, it doesn't make them so. they could still be lost and think they're christians, though. they could be not trusting Jesus Christ completely for their salvation. this situation is perhaps even more dangerous that not claiming to be a Christian and not knowing ... because it's a sense of false security.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

It's called being human. There isn't one single person on earth who is 100% trusting in Christ 100% of the time.