Based on what you rote, I am not sure I am understanding what you are getting at. I DO see the baptizing of John as something ritualistic and of the coming reality.[the Baptism of the Holy Spirit]However what I am not understanding is what or how ritualistic water pouring was any different than continuing to have men circumcised after receiving the circumcision of the heart?[which we KNOW Paul would have not been preaching]
When Philip baptized the Ethiopian[who had no clue about baptism seemingly] or Paul or Peter baptized men[in ACTS] and often referred to it as seemingly essential, it seems to contradict what Paul later says in his epistles? As a matter of fact, If I remember correctly I think the household of Cornelius[who was not a Jew] that sought out Paul[according to a dream] to give him his sight back, were baptized too. I don't see a testimony to Jews[Israel] in that. At least not directly.
I wonder why they felt any need to 'picture' something that was REAL? To me, from my vantage point[which is so ever expanding! lol], it would be no different than saying 'let's go get our four-skin removed so we can testify to our being circumcised by the Spirit'.
For it IS a ritual. The phrasing by Peter also makes it sound very necessary as well.
I wonder do you see any significant event that released the Apostles[including Paul] from the urgings to be water baptized? Was there something that later came about that I might be missing? Or am I just off in directions based on an unrelated premise? I can do that, and do it alot you know!! lol
arguing it WITH you my friend,
Love,
Adam
PS: I realize it IS possible that the random new believers in the ACTS that were not Jews may have HEARD of the things to come by practicing the Law, but I just don't know if that even matters in the over all picture or not.
Re: Simon the sorcerer
Hello my dear brother,
Based on what you rote, I am not sure I am understanding what you are getting at. I DO see the baptizing of John as something ritualistic and of the coming reality.[the Baptism of the Holy Spirit]However what I am not understanding is what or how ritualistic water pouring was any different than continuing to have men circumcised after receiving the circumcision of the heart?[which we KNOW Paul would have not been preaching]
When Philip baptized the Ethiopian[who had no clue about baptism seemingly] or Paul or Peter baptized men[in ACTS] and often referred to it as seemingly essential, it seems to contradict what Paul later says in his epistles? As a matter of fact, If I remember correctly I think the household of Cornelius[who was not a Jew] that sought out Paul[according to a dream] to give him his sight back, were baptized too. I don't see a testimony to Jews[Israel] in that. At least not directly.
I wonder why they felt any need to 'picture' something that was REAL? To me, from my vantage point[which is so ever expanding! lol], it would be no different than saying 'let's go get our four-skin removed so we can testify to our being circumcised by the Spirit'.
For it IS a ritual. The phrasing by Peter also makes it sound very necessary as well.
I wonder do you see any significant event that released the Apostles[including Paul] from the urgings to be water baptized? Was there something that later came about that I might be missing? Or am I just off in directions based on an unrelated premise? I can do that, and do it alot you know!! lol
arguing it WITH you my friend,
Love,
Adam
PS: I realize it IS possible that the random new believers in the ACTS that were not Jews may have HEARD of the things to come by practicing the Law, but I just don't know if that even matters in the over all picture or not.