Unbaptized baptizers?

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#123 May 10, 2012
AuldSoul1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The passage says they had NEVER HEARD WHETHER THERE WAS a Holy Spirit. How could ANYONE who did not know about Holy Spirit have been teaching the good news about the Christ when baptism by Spirit is a part of the PRIMARY DOCTRINE about the Christ?
Impossible. Your "argument" borne only of a biased imagination falls flat on that alone..
They were teaching the same thing that the disciples were teaching..... BEFORE Pentecost. They were teaching the same things Apollos was teaching WHO ONLY KNEW OF JOHN'S BAPTISM JUST LIKE THEM. They were teaching with correctness about Jesus being the Messiah just like Apollos. My argument is based on God's word which said they were disciples and became believers. They were believers in Jesus. What my argument is not based on is anti-JW seat of the pants theological rhetoric.
AuldSoul1 wrote:
Read carefully:
IF they WERE baptized before Paul spoke to them, and they were, THEN they WERE NOT UNBAPTIZED.
These men were baptized..
The baptism was not valid. They were baptized in John's baptism after Pentecost and not in the name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit. That was the baptism that was valid after Pentecost. Therefore, they were UNBAPTIZED. This is not difficult to understand unless a person is eat up with hatred for JWs.

Judged:

15

15

15

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#124 May 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
<quoted text>
They were teaching the same thing that the disciples were teaching..... BEFORE Pentecost. They were teaching the same things Apollos was teaching WHO ONLY KNEW OF JOHN'S BAPTISM JUST LIKE THEM. They were teaching with correctness about Jesus being the Messiah just like Apollos. My argument is based on God's word which said they were disciples and became believers. They were believers in Jesus. What my argument is not based on is anti-JW seat of the pants theological rhetoric.
<quoted text>
The baptism was not valid. They were baptized in John's baptism after Pentecost and not in the name of the Father, Son, and holy spirit. That was the baptism that was valid after Pentecost. Therefore, they were UNBAPTIZED. This is not difficult to understand unless a person is eat up with hatred for JWs.
.
. NO.. it isn't easy to understand.. Why or what was the need of the baptism John the baptist.. did ??? I don't recall it ever being addressed ..

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#125 May 10, 2012
Auldsoul claims we are perverting the scriptures trying to deceive. But when examining Auldsoul's claims it is quite clear who is promoting deceptive perversion.

Auldsoul states of the 12 men: "These Paul found in Ephesus were disciples of JOHN, not disciples of JESUS." and he states: "they didn't know Jesus".

Yet Acts 19:1,2 says they were 'disciples' and 'became believers'. In Acts there are over 10 places where the phrase 'became believers' or 'became a believer' is used. In each case it refers to people who became believers of Jesus. Oh but according to Auldsoul, Acts 19:2 is the only place where 'became believers' means believers in someone other than Jesus. Why does Auldsoul insist that 'became believers' means the same in every scripture except Acts 19:2? Because that is the only way to make his anti-JW seat of the pants theology to fit.

For more details on this look here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Next Auldsoul claims that Apollos knew about the baptism of holy spirit. And yet the scripture says of Apollos at Acts 18:25 that he was "acquainted with ONLY THE BAPTISM OF JOHN". I ask a simple question which of course Auldsoul dodged. Here it is again:

If Apollos was "acquainted with only the baptism of John" how is it that he was acquainted with the baptism in Jesus and the holy spirit?

More details here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Then Auldsoul even tries to pretend these 12 unbaptized publishers did not at that time get baptized in water in the name of Jesus stating: "as the account stated they were already baptized in symbol of repentance. They only lacked the baptism of Holy Spirit. They were NOT unbaptized publishers..."

And yet the scriptures once again show Auldsoul to being flying by the seat of his pants at Acts 19:5: "On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." And then the next verse show their baptism with holy spirit: "6 And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came upon them"

Obviously, they were at this time baptized with water by Paul in the name of Jesus then they were baptized with holy spirit when Paul laid his hands upon them. Baptism in water in the name of Jesus in this case came before the receiving of the holy spirit.

Now lets watch as Auldsoul fails to refute the scriptures explained accurately above as he puts forth more seat of the pants anti-JW theology not based on God's word at all.

Judged:

11

11

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#126 May 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
Auldsoul repeatedly proves we are perverting the scriptures trying to deceive.
Yes, indeed I do.

Judged:

13

13

13

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#127 May 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
But when examining Auldsoul's claims it is quite clear who is promoting deceptive perversion.
It is indeed.

Auldsoul claims that persons who were baptized in the baptism of John are NOT unbaptized persons.

Thirdwitness argues otherwise.

But that is because Thirdwitness is a cultist.

The rest of his blather is moot, I trust readers to see that.

Judged:

12

12

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#128 May 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
Now lets watch as Auldsoul fails to refute the scriptures explained accurately above as he puts forth more seat of the pants anti-JW theology not based on God's word at all.
And he did just as predicted.
FutureMan

Brisbane, Australia

#129 May 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
Obviously, they were at this time baptized with water by Paul in the name of Jesus then they were baptized with holy spirit when Paul laid his hands upon them. Baptism in water in the name of Jesus in this case came before the receiving of the holy spirit.
Now lets watch as Auldsoul fails to refute the scriptures explained accurately above as he puts forth more seat of the pants anti-JW theology not based on God's word at all.
However in this next case Holy Spirit being activated or poured out came before "water baptism"

Acts 10
4 ¶ As Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the Word.
45 And the faithful of the circumcision were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also.
46 For they heard them speaking in languages and magnifying God. Then Peter answered,
47 Can anyone forbid the water that these not be baptized, who the Holy Spirit received, even as we also?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
[LITV]

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#130 May 11, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
And he did just as predicted.
Is someone baptized if they are baptized in the baptism of John?

If so, my point is proved from the Scriptures YOU USED.

If not, you deny the Scriptures YOU USED.

Choose, Deceiver.
diogenes

United States

#131 May 11, 2012
AuldSoul1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is someone baptized if they are baptized in the baptism of John?
If so, my point is proved from the Scriptures YOU USED.
If not, you deny the Scriptures YOU USED.
Choose, Deceiver.
You do realize that you are starting to undermine your original argument right? That jw's require newly interested ones to become "unbaptized publishers" for a short period of time. Since by far most newly interested ones come from christendom, then naturally they would have been baptized in their former church. JW's believe this former baptism is invalid since they were baptized believing in a pagan Christ (according to jw beliefs).

Early christians considered John's baptism to be invalid, which is why they had to be re-baptized. Since you argue that people are baptized whether or not their baptism was valid, then you need to amend your original argument to newly interested ones that were never baptized. For instance jw's don't believe that Catholics that were baptized as infants to be a valid baptism since a baby could not possibly demonstrate that they are believers. But it appears that Auldsoul considers these children to be baptized, regardless of its validity.

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#132 May 11, 2012
diogenes wrote:
Since by far most newly interested ones come from christendom, then naturally they would have been baptized in their former church.
By FAAAAAAR most unbaptized publishers are children of Jehovah's Witnesses, Deceiver.

Deny that fact if you wish, I invite you to tell that bold of a lie and thoroughly prove yourself what we BOTH know you are.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#133 May 11, 2012
diogenes wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize that you are starting to undermine your original argument right? That jw's require newly interested ones to become "unbaptized publishers" for a short period of time. Since by far most newly interested ones come from christendom, then naturally they would have been baptized in their former church. JW's believe this former baptism is invalid since they were baptized believing in a pagan Christ (according to jw beliefs).
Early christians considered John's baptism to be invalid, which is why they had to be re-baptized. Since you argue that people are baptized whether or not their baptism was valid, then you need to amend your original argument to newly interested ones that were never baptized. For instance jw's don't believe that Catholics that were baptized as infants to be a valid baptism since a baby could not possibly demonstrate that they are believers. But it appears that Auldsoul considers these children to be baptized, regardless of its validity.
Yes it is a most silly argument that Auldsoul is presenting. It is nothing but trouser talk of course.
diogenes

United States

#134 May 11, 2012
AuldSoul1 wrote:
<quoted text>
By FAAAAAAR most unbaptized publishers are children of Jehovah's Witnesses, Deceiver.
Deny that fact if you wish, I invite you to tell that bold of a lie and thoroughly prove yourself what we BOTH know you are.
I said NEWLY INTERESTED which is the exact term you used in your original post.

With respect to the children of christians, I suspect most of them are unbaptized (unless you are catholic). Are your children baptized? If not then do you forbid them from proselytizing since they are not yet baptized?

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#135 May 11, 2012
AuldSoul1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is someone baptized if they are baptized in the baptism of John?
If so, my point is proved from the Scriptures YOU USED.
If not, you deny the Scriptures YOU USED.
Choose, Deceiver.
*** Matt 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Were those who were baptised by John baptised "in the name of the son"?

If not, then they were NOT baptised according to Jesus Christ's instructions for the Christian congregation.

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#136 May 11, 2012
diogenes wrote:
I said NEWLY INTERESTED which is the exact term you used in your original post.
I also used the word “require” in my original post, and I did not use the term “newly interested” to refer to whether they are PERMITTED by the Bible to preach to others, which is how you attempted (rather pathetically) to recast my use of it.

I wrote:

“Jehovah's Witnesses require that newly interested ones go through a lengthy process that can take some months, or even years, prior to being deemed ready for baptism. One of the required steps is ‘qualifying’ to become an ‘unbaptized publisher.’”

There is no such REQUIREMENT to be found ANYWHERE in the Bible. The Bible PERMITS much that it does not REQUIRE. In fact, the Bible EXPLICITLY permits much that your cult explicitly forbids.

I did not say that the entire POST applied to newly interested ones, nor the entire thread. Only the extra-Biblical added prerequisite for cult baptism is applied to newly interested ones.

Later in that post, I mentioned “newly interested ones” again:

“Therefore, assuming for the moment that this commission OUGHT to apply even to people who are not baptized Christians themselves, do Jehovah's Witnesses hold equally true that the newly interested ones should become qualified as unbaptized baptizers?”

See? Nothing here conflicts with anything I have written in this thread. Snippets out of context can easily create false impressions. I suspect you properly understood my post the first time you read it.
diogenes wrote:
With respect to the children of christians, I suspect most of them are unbaptized (unless you are catholic).
Jehovah's Witnesses is not a Christian religion; its religious leaders lie about the nature of the religion.

However, you would be correct that unbaptized children of Christians do not proselytize. They might canvass with pamphlets or invitations, but they do not proselytize, they do not preach, and they are not teachers of others.

There REMAINS no instance of anyone in the New Testament of someone preaching the good news about the Christ without having first been baptized.

You cultists are hilarious the way you try to play "gotchya" with someone who KNOWS better than to overstep the inspired word of God. You guys are trouncing all over what the Bible SAYS, in favor of supporting a false doctrine of your cult leadership. It is a false doctrine based on TRADITION that is found NOWHERE in the inspired Word of God, and which violates both the specific commands of Jesus and the easily discovered example of the first century Christians.

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#137 May 11, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
Were those who were baptised by John baptised "in the name of the son"?

If not, then they were NOT baptised according to Jesus Christ's instructions for the Christian congregation.
And?

I didn't come up with the false doctrine of qualifying as an unbaptized publisher being a requirement for Christian baptism (which technically has not occurred among Jehovah's Witnesses since 1985).

An unbaptized publisher is a publisher who has not been baptized.

How could they possibly have been teaching the good news about the Christ without even KNOWING the primary doctrine about the Christ? Anyone can see that would be unreasonable.

Hebrews 6:1-2
For this reason, now that we have left the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.

The FOUNDATION was absent from the men at Ephesus. They could not even teach others the PRIMARY doctrine about the Christ; they didn't KNOW it.

“thirdwitness.com”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#138 May 11, 2012
AuldSoul1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The FOUNDATION was absent from the men at Ephesus. They could not even teach others the PRIMARY doctrine about the Christ; they didn't KNOW it.
Then please explain how Apollos taught "with correctness the things about Jesus" when he was "acquainted with only the baptism of John".(Acts 18:25)

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#139 May 11, 2012
READERS NOTE CAREFULLY:

Forum defenders of the cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses are trying to use two conflicting definitions for what an unbaptized publisher actually is.

Is an unbaptized publisher ...

[1]... a disciple of Christ who does not know the good news about the Christ (whatever THAT would be!) and who has not yet been baptized in water, at all?

[2]... a disciple of Christ who knows the good news about the Christ and who has not yet been baptized in water in the name of Jesus?

[3]... a publisher of the good news about Christ who has not been baptized with water?

[4]... a publisher of the good news who has not been baptized in water in the name of Jesus?

[5]... a publisher of the good news who has not been baptized with Spirit—which is the only baptism that the BIBLE says QUALIFIES someone to preach the ministry of reconciliation; i.e. the good news about Christ?

[6]... a publisher of the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses who never publicly identified themselves as 1) having repented of their sins, 2) having dedicated their self to Jehovah to do his will, 3) having understood that their dedication and baptism identify them as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses in association with God’s spirit-directed organization and been baptized as a cultist?

They want to use definition #2, that is the person they want to say needs to "qualify" as an unbaptized publisher. UNLESS they are referring to newly interested ones, most of whom HAVE been baptized in water in the name of Jesus, THEN they want to SWITCH their definition to definition #6.

Deceitful manipulators of what is true, these filthy and perverse cultists are not true to anything they teach, especially if what their cult ACTUALLY teaches makes their cult correctly appear contrary to the inspired Word of God.

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#140 May 11, 2012
AuldSoul1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And?
I didn't come up with the false doctrine of qualifying as an unbaptized publisher being a requirement for Christian baptism (which technically has not occurred among Jehovah's Witnesses since 1985).
An unbaptized publisher is a publisher who has not been baptized.
How could they possibly have been teaching the good news about the Christ without even KNOWING the primary doctrine about the Christ? Anyone can see that would be unreasonable.
Hebrews 6:1-2
For this reason, now that we have left the primary doctrine about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation again, namely, repentance from dead works, and faith toward God, the teaching on baptisms and the laying on of the hands, the resurrection of the dead and everlasting judgment.
The FOUNDATION was absent from the men at Ephesus. They could not even teach others the PRIMARY doctrine about the Christ; they didn't KNOW it.
This has already been answered:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...

Jesus said to make disciples by teaching them all the things he commanded. Publishing the 'good news' is something Jesus commanded, thus it is something interested ones need to be TAUGHT as part and parcel of making disciples of them leading up to baptism.

*** Matt 28:19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

*** Matt 28:20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

And to be clear, we are NOT talking about John's baptism but baptism IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#141 May 11, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
Then please explain how Apollos taught "with correctness the things about Jesus" when he was "acquainted with only the baptism of John".(Acts 18:25)
What he knew about the Christ, he taught correctly. He was also already baptized in the baptism of John; in symbol of repentance, having requested a cleansed conscience. His knowledge was insufficient and needed expansion, but he was already baptized in the baptism of John.

Acts 18:26
And this [man] started to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him into their company and expounded the way of God more correctly to him.

Unlike those (roughly) 12 men at Ephesus discussed in the following paragraph, at Acts 19:1-7, there is no mention of Apollos being baptized again.

You are attempting to argue a POSITIVE from what is ABSENT from the text, which is blatantly fallacious reasoning. You can correctly argue a negative claim from absence without it being a logical fallacy, by noting the absence of proof in favor of a previously stated positive claim. A positive CLAIM must be supported by positive EVIDENCE.

There is no positive evidence for the two positive arguments you made from these two paragraphs in Acts.

“All the best to you, in life!”

Since: Oct 07

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#142 May 11, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
Jesus said to make disciples by teaching them all the things he commanded. Publishing the 'good news' is something Jesus commanded, thus it is something interested ones need to be TAUGHT as part and parcel of making disciples of them leading up to baptism.
Gareth, your stupidity is showing again.

The THREAD is about whether teaching Jesus' command at Matthew 28:19-20 includes TEACHING UNBAPTIZED PEOPLE TO BAPTIZE OTHER PEOPLE.

That is obviously HALF of the Great Commission.

Since the cult known as Jehovah's Witnesses claims that the Great Commission is applicable even to unbaptized persons AS A REQUIREMENT OF ALMIGHTY GOD (not merely as something PERMISSIBLE), then the Great Commission (the ENTIRE commission) applies even to unbaptized persons, which would logically result in qualified unbaptized baptizers.

You cultists are trying to apply ONE HALF as REQUIRED of unbaptized persons and the OTHER HALF to be forbidden to the VAST MAJORITY even of BAPTIZED Jehovah's Witnesses!

I am simply showing up your illogical idiocy and perversions of the truth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Love=Eternal Torture - CHURCHianity 19 min Revisedcode 291
TOPIX posters and their malicious, slanderous, ... (Nov '12) 46 min For Real 2,487
God's Name WAS in the Original NT!!! 1 hr sonny 122
Rape 2 hr Tony Price 77 65
The true Word of God 2 hr jwtotruth 17
A Thousand Year Reign of Peace 2 hr Tony Price 77 11
The God and Father of Christ Jesus- the TRUE God! (Oct '07) 2 hr PrufSammy 1,852
Fist face transplant patient dies 2 hr PrufSammy 139
I want to aplogize to NR, EE, JWF` (Sep '11) 3 hr Caciques a liar 2,535
Do JW's believe homosexuals will go to hell?.. 3 hr Tony Price 77 77
TPMP you liar (Dec '10) 4 hr Caciques a liar 829
More from around the web