Fallacy of Baptism "in Holy Spirit"!

by The Searcher 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  I am coming in late and I have not read much of anything else so forgive me if this has been covered, but I would just like to make an observation. The 'goal' is to attain baptism of fire and spirit, right? The Holy Spirit; the baptism that came at Pentecost.

  If one already has the Holy Spirit, then doesn't that kind of make water baptism moot. So if Cornelius was a gentile, and received the baptism of the Spirit, then doesn't that show that he did not need the baptism of water to begin with?

  That the others went ahead with water baptism for him, does not change that he did not need the water baptism to have received the promised Holy Spirit.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  heathen

  if gentiles didn't need baptism then what about the ethiopian eunich , immediately upon understanding he gets baptized , acts 8;27 -38. My belief tho is that women are not required in baptism since the men would obviously be naked and the whole point was for them to be able to preach the good news before GOD and angels , showing that their conscience was a clean slate in reguard to spiritual and moral beliefs . 1 peter 3:21 IMO
• 

  Nambo

  Now I allways imagined Jesus baptising people in "Fire" could only refer to Jesus hurling them into Gehenna at the judgement at the end of the thousand years.

  How is fire involved if its refering to a Baptism of Christians along with Holy Spirit?

  I even wonder if Jesus baptising in Fire and Holy Spirit means that there are two options only, you either get Baprised in the Holy Spirit, or you get Baptised in the Lake of Fire second death.
• 

  AGuest

  Even so, I respect your right to believe what you want. But as far as I'm concerned, your idea that Cornelius was not a Gentile, and that Gentiles did not need water baptism does not hold water at all.

  You have misunderstood, dear BC (peace to you!). That is not what I stated at all. SOME Gentiles absolutely DID need water baptism and I stated who they were: those non-Jewish Israelites... the Samaritans. I stated that ISRAEL (which would be the Jewish Israelites (Judah and Benjamin) and the non-Jewish Israelites (the other 10 tribes, or “Samaritans”) needed water baptism because of the Law. I stated that this is because they had to demonstrate their repentance and “dying” as TO the Law (I also said that any non-Jewish non-Israelites... i.e., Gentiles who were NOT Israelites might want to as well, if they had been under the Law by means of the religion they followed).

  Cornelius was a Gentile; I never stated different - however, he was ALSO Israel. A “Gentile” is someone who is not a JEW. Not someone who is not Israel. NO other tribes besides Judah and Benjamin were Jews. Jews... descended from Judah and Benjamin... and NOT, from the other10tribes (i.e., Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Naphtali, and Joseph).

  So, what I shared with you is that ALL Jews and SOME Gentiles (those who were Israelites) were to undergo water baptism in symbolization of their repentance and death as to the OLD Law. And that those Gentiles who were NOT Israel (i.e., NOT Jew OR Samaritan) did not.

  The confusion comes when people try to make the “nations” and “Gentiles” the same thing. They are not. Again, Gentiles are those who are not JEWS... which includes the other 10 tribes of Israel. The “nations”... in TRUTH... are those who are not of the nation of ISRAEL... whether Jews OR the Gentile Samaritans.

  Israel as a whole is made up of TWO kingdoms: Judah (the Jews)... and Israel (the Samaritans). My regular scanner is down right now so I had to use my phone but I've created the following flowchart which might might help you:

  

  

  Cornelius and his household were Gentiles because they were not JEWS; however, they were Israelites, because they were Samaritans. However, they were not non-Israelite Gentiles as were those of the "nations”... because they were ISRAEL.

  I hope this helps and, again, peace to you!

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  AGuest

  if gentiles didn't need baptism then what about the ethiopian eunich , immediately upon understanding he gets baptized , acts 8;27 -38.

  The Ethiopian eunuch was not a Gentile, dear heathen (peace to you!). He was a Jew, a Cushite (Ethiopian) from the tribe of Benjamin. I posted about that above.

  My belief tho is that women are not required in baptism since the men would obviously be naked and the whole point was for them to be able to preach the good news before GOD and angels , showing that their conscience was a clean slate in reguard to spiritual and moral beliefs . 1 peter 3:21 IMO

  Did not the women of Israel also pass through the Red Sea... and so get baptized "into Moses"? (1 Corinthians 10:1, 2) Why then would they not also have gotten baptized into Christ (Romans 6:3), who replaced , the mediator of the Old Covenant... as mediator pf the NEW Covenant (1Timothy 2:5;Hebrews 12:24)? Did the women of Cornelius' household not also receive holy spirit (Acts 10:24, 44)? Did not all who did receive holy spirit also get baptized (Acts 10:47, 48)?

  Some things to consider.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  heathen

  i think the the baptism of fire, blood and spirit , is symbolic , fire could mean refined or perhaps given the ability to proclain adverse judgement against GODs eneimies , blood probably means jesus blood and spirit is obviously holy spirit .
• 

  Band on the Run

  I spoke with the Jewish Studies prof at Columbia University about the Samaritans and even researched it in Encyclopedia Judaica, which was available in a small town public library. He suggested that I always start by consulting the Encylopedia Judaica. Samaritans are believed to be a branch of very ancient Jews who believe in Moses. They live near the Mt. Moses ascended. Like the Jews, they claim descent from Abraham.

  Also, there are still Samaritans today. They must have an official website.

  I was fascinated by their culture and history. We always think of ancient Jews through the Bible.

  Honestly, I believe I would recall if Samaritans were merely ancient Israel, separate from Judah.

  One person is certain and has a chart with no source. Another member recalls researching it but can't remember all the details. If you are wary of theologically influenced sites or mainstream Jewish sites, there should be reliable info. on line.

  I believe arguing about baptism by water or holy spirit is looking for a fight. Other issues are so much more relevant. Old white Southern men seem to go for the fire, while Northern ministers go for water. If you can draw such cultural lines, it is a good sign there is no true answer.
• 

  Band on the Run

  One need go no further than wikipedia to refute Shelby's chart. One problem is that ethnic/political divides taint the subject. A Samaritan has one answer. Jews another.

  The scholarship on this must be fascinating.
• 

  AGuest

  How is fire involved if its refering to a Baptism of Christians along with Holy Spirit?

  The fire is to "cleanse" the vessel, dear Nambo (peace to you!), so that God and Christ can dwell in it. Holy spirit (the blood, breath, and seed of God) grant life to the spirit IN the vessel once one has BEEN so cleansed and occupied by God/Christ - Isaiah 6:6, 7; Ezekiel 10:2; John 14:23; John 4:14; 7:37-39; Romans 8:9, 10; Ephesians 2:19-22

  I even wonder if Jesus baptising in Fire and Holy Spirit means that there are two options only, you either get Baprised in the Holy Spirit, or you get Baptised in the Lake of Fire second death.

  It does not. One is "baptized" with both, virtually simultaneously. The fire, then the spirit. Baptism represents a "death" and "resurrection"; however, there is no resurrection from the second death. Unlike the first death, both the body AND the spirit are destroyed at that time.

  I hope this helps.

  Again, peace to you!

  A doulos of Christ,

  SA
• 

  heathen

  I'm going to say it's a package deal . There's no getting out of the water baptism , it is apparent to peter and paul as important yet they seem to differ on the signifigance , I'm inclined to believe that peter was inspired to correct paul ,we are never sin free , we sin in thought and deed but it's a sense of moral obligation to repent and ask forgiveness when it is obvious to ourselves , others love to point out the error of their co believers , some may feel empowered by it but in the end nobody is sinless .