Which way?

[Jo Smith]

If Jesus meant for the Apostles to say, In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the HolyGhost, when they baptized, I ask you, why did none of them ever do that?

Do you think they just did not understand? or maybe they just decided to do it another way and not listen to Jesus? Is that what you think of the men who wrote the New Testament for us to study and live and learn by and to die by?

If so, then all I can say is, we have no word of God to go by. If I cannot believe what Peter said, then I cannot believe the Word of God. Jesus never wrote one book in the Bible. Peter did. Paul wrote most of them (NT). We have no record of Jesus baptizing anyone. So then all we have is the example the Apostles gave us.

Which one of the said, in the name of the Father? Not one.

Who do you believe? that harlot church and all her harlot daughters, or these Holy men of God, who wrote as the Holy Ghost moved on them?

I believe the man whom Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to, his name is Peter. I also believe Paul. I believe Phillip. I believe all those men who are in the Word of God. I do not believe popes, paid preachers, priests, chalplains, clergy, or such mess.
They are not of God.

Peter was of God.

Jo

[Jo Smith]

Jesus said and I quote the scriptures:

Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be d**ned.

Jesus is saying here, that if you do not believe in baptism you will be d**ned. Whose word are we to take, yours ( salvation without baptism or Jesus word? ( He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved)?

He also said in Luke <NOBR>Lu 24:47</NOBR> And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Now, how do we get our sins remitted? Let look to Acts 2:38 and see what the apostle Peter had to say, and keep in mind that he is the one that has the the keys of the kingdom of heaven: Has things change since that day? Does someone else have the keys?

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. ( Peter said that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is the way to get your sins remitted. Again may I ask whose words are we to take?

Now getting to the thief on the cross:

The thief on the cross was not under the New Testament covenant. Under the OT baptism was not required. Neither was the Holy Ghost because it had not yet been given. There was types and shadows of the true baptism and the Holy Ghost that was poured out on the day of Pentecost. Jesus lived under the Old Testament Law and so did the thief on the cross.

Galatians 4:4- But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

When Jesus died on the cross He removed the Old Testament Law. Paul says, "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.

Hebrews - 9:15 - And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. ( This is something that everyone must see. That Jesus died for the transgression that were under the first testament as well as for the ones under the NT. Without the shedding of the blood of Jesus those OT transgressions were not be ever forgiven. You see those priests had to go in year to year to offer up sacfices for thosem sins. Now that Jesus died they also came in under the blood of Jesus. They also are not no more under the law

9:16- For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. ( If Jesus had not died they nor us could come under the New Testament blood of Jesus but would still be under the blood of bulls and goats
9:17- For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The thief on the cross could be saved without being baptized as Jesus commanded in Mark 16:16 because he did not live and serve under the authority of the New Testament.

And also why Jesus was earth he had the power and the authority to forgive sin.

Luke 7:46-48
7:46- My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.
7:47 - Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.
7:48- And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

Mark 2:5 - When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

Since His death, his will (the New Testament) is "in force" and all must obey the Gospel plan of salvation (the New Testament) in order to become a child of God and be saved.

The thief on the cross was not subject to the New Testament Gospel plan of salvation. Today, you and I are under the New Testament of Christ. Have you obeyed the truth?

Have you obeyed the true plan of salvation? Repentance, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sin. and filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in another tongue?

[Jo Smith]

Isaiah, that is certainly a good message. You sound like the Apostles to me. Preach that truth. In the end, we will reap everlasting life.

Now, let me try to explain to Stephen something here. The reason you cannot see the absolute need for Baptism as a necessary part of NT salvation is because you are still on the wrong foundation.

Without coming to see the true foundation, the ground of truth, no one can see this true NT plan of salvation. But as Isaiah said, no one is permitted in today under the old law covenant. Actually none of them were either. They were only held in a place until the only sacrifice which God ever accepted, the blood of Jesus, was shed for us.

If that had not taken place, not one of those OT saints would have had eternal life. No, not even Abraham or Moses. They all had to come in by the blood of Jesus, and the new Testament plan of salvation.

You might wonder how they could come in by the NT plan. It is simple. Here is what people are missing in the Word:

<NOBR>1Cor 15:20</NOBR> But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
<NOBR>1co 15:21</NOBR> For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
<NOBR>1co 15:22</NOBR> For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
<NOBR>1co 15:23</NOBR> But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
<NOBR>1co 15:24</NOBR> Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
<NOBR>1co 15:25</NOBR> For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
<NOBR>1co 15:26</NOBR> The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
<NOBR>1co 15:27</NOBR> For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
<NOBR>1co 15:28</NOBR> And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
<NOBR>1co 15:29</NOBR> Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now read that carefully. First we see that by man, Adam came death. so that puts everyone into death, until they come into Christ.

V20, Christ was the first one to rise from the DEATH which Adam placed us into. He was the FIRSTFRUITS of those who SLEPT.

See those who died in the OT were the ones sleeping. They had no chance for salvation without the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In Adam, (first man) all die. Everyone who ever lived died in this Adamic flesh. In Christ we are made alive. In Hebrews 11, it names many OT people of faith. then it said that they without us, could not be made perfect.



Without the NT salvation, those OT people of faith would have perished. Without the resurrection of Jesus, and the NT Plan of salvation, none of those people would have had everlasting life.

How did they acquire this benefit? Read again: <NOBR>1co 15:29</NOBR> Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See that is what people have overlooked so long. that early church, which had the complete understanding of the true teachings of Jesus STOOD IN FOR THOSE DEPARTED OT SAINTS.

Now that is truth. Those early Christians were baptized in proxy you might say, or in place of those OT Saints. This is true. They had knowledge of the truth, which the people of today do not have. They did something in those first days of the bringing in of the only True way of salvation, ever given to this world, which no other group of people could have done. And that is why the knowledge of this 'rite' has not been handed down to us.....

They did it! for it had to be done THEN. They were the ones chosen by God to perform this. They were actually baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of the sins of those who died under the old covenant.

That is how important this baptism is. <NOBR>1co 15:28</NOBR> And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
<NOBR>1co 15:29</NOBR> Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
<NOBR>1co 15:30</NOBR> And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If Christ did not arise from the dead, and is bringing all things under him, to then deliver the entire kingdom up to God that we may all be in one kingdom, that we may all be one as they are one, then he said, if the dead rise not at all, why are they being baptized for the dead? what reason is there for them to be baptized for those who are dead, if there were no hope that those dead could then be raised from the dead?

Don't you all see that those early Christians were being baptized for the dead, to give them a hope for the resurrection to life? It is just too plain to miss. Paul was saying then it would just be foolish for them to be baptized for the dead, if those same dead were not given a chance for the resurrection by this baptism? and he said, why are we then allowing ourselves to be in jeopardy every hour?

That early church was persecuted as no one else has been. And this is one of the reasons = their stand so much on this Baptism in Jesus' name being escential for the remissions of everyone's sins, that they were litterally being killed and tortured because of this very teaching and practice of being baptized for the dead OT saints.

They knew those saints could not be made perfect without being brought up into the NT covenant of the blood of Jesus. This is only possible by water baptism, having His Name called over you. See the people today still hate this truth.

<NOBR>Heb 9:15</NOBR> And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See that Jeus died for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament. They had not received the promise of eternal interitance until this death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul said if Christ be not raised, we are yet in our sins.

So that thief on the cross was just sent to the place of waiting, as was all the OT saints. If those early Christians had not believed the truth so much, that they actually went and were baptized for these people, then they would never have had salvation.

They without us shall not be made perfect.

The blood of bulls and goats made nothing perfect.... but the bringing in of a better covenant did. They had to brought into this new covenant to be saved. This was accomplished via the people being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in their place.

This is a great mystery which has been hid for 2,000 years. But is now revealed to the saints in LIGHT.



Jo

[Jo Smith]

From: odailys Sent: 11/22/2006 2:27 PM
Jo, please explain the "Proxy" baptism of the OT saints, and how this was done? The LDS church today use this same teaching even for the dead today, baptising by proxy dead people, as many as they can find the names of. It is the real driving force behind their ansestry services, helping people trace their family trees, and baptising everyone they find on the tree. Is this like what the 1st century christians would do?

Stephen




From: Freeborn551 Sent: 11/22/2006 7:15 PM
Stephen, all I can tell you about this subject is what I already said. I know nothing else about it, for I have not found anything else about it in Scripture.

I do not believe it was practiced after the early days of that first church. I fully believe they were the only ones who had the authority to do this. I believe they knew something about this which was not passed down to us, because we are not the ones to do this.

If God had wanted anyone other than those who personally had the Apostles there to tell them about this, then they would have instructed us in the Scriptures, as they did about our own need to be baptized.

Since God did not tell us clearly about this practice, but it is only mentioned, to let us know how this was so important, and how by our mercy, they did obtain mercy, then I believe that the people followering that age were not to attempt to do this.

I fully believe it was accomplished fully by them in their day. All the OT Saints were included in the practice that early Apostolic Church did. It was not to be carried over into our day. See, everyone who lived AFTER the death of Jesus, and the Day of Pentecost, is responsible to God to obey this for our own selves.

it was not available before that time. But since it is required for salvation, God allowed them to do this to show that the ones who had served God under that old Covenant, could be brought into the New Covenant of the blood of Jesus, for this is the one and only means by which anyone who ever lived could be saved.

This is one thing which shows and proves conclusively, how very important and NECESSARY the correct Baptism is.

But all who lived since the day of Pentecost must accept and obey this themselves to be saved. No one can take the place of anyone else since that time.

Besides that, the adventist believe in a trinity, and baptize the wrong way, so it would have no effect anyway, not even for themselves. All who scoff at the right way of God, refuse it, believe the lies of satan, and practice the wrong baptism, receive not the Baptism of the Holy ghost exactly as recorded in Acts, will not obtain salvation, as they are trampling the blood of Jesus and doing despite to the Spirit of Grace.

The adventist church is certainly far away from grace, as they are the main ones who work to take people back under the law.
There is no salvation to those who turn from grace and go back to law. There was never salvation by law. and that is why the dead had to be brought into the New Covenant. Jesus actually went and preached to those souls held there in prison.

they were then given a chance to accept and come into the New covenant. Now I do not know much about all of this, for the Scritpure does not tell us much. I cannot say what God did not tell us. I am only telling you the tiny bit I know about this. and that is not much.

But I do know that there is no salvation under law. That is very clear in Scripture. I do know one must repent, be water baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remissions of sins. and that they must be filled with the Holy Ghost according to Acts, with the evidence of speaking in other tongues, as the spirit gives utterance.

This is abundantly clear and abundantly taught in Scripture. There is just no excuse for anyone to be ignorant of this matter. There will be no accepted excuses for refusing to obey this. Only pride and false doctrine keeps anyone from desiring this glory. And it is glory beyond compare.

If the adventist think they can be baptized to save anyone who lived since the Day of Pentecost, they are certainly adding something to Scripture which is not written. They are going beyond anything God told us to do. it is just not there. If you know of any Scripture telling more about this, please advise me as to where it is.

This was ONLY for those who served God under the old covenant, who could not be prefected without us. It was only for them and we know nothing about being baptized for them. It has already been done, and it does not need to ever be done again.
Everyone born since that time, will answer to God for their own acceptance of or rejection of God's chosen plan of salvation. That plan is laid out plainly in the Book of Acts. It is no where else.

All who bring up any other way, are headed for sure destruction, no matter how religious they think they are.

This is not to be ugly to anyone, but to help everyone find the truth about salvation.

Acts 2 is the only way.

Jo

[Jo Smith]

From: odailys Sent: 11/23/2006 6:05 AM
Jo, The LDS I mentioned in the church of Latter Day Saints, otherwise known as Mormons. The Adventists do not have this practice, and preach against it.
Stephen


Reply
Recommend Delete Message 22 of 42 in Discussion

From: Freeborn551 Sent: 11/23/2006 5:32 PM
Oh, OK. thanks for making this correction. I just read it too fast I guess. used to SDA meaning adventist. did not notice it was LDS.

I knew this was something I had never heard that the adventist did or taught.

News to me if either one of them do that. Guess they just do not read the Word close enough.

We are certainly NOT taught to practice this. Indeed we were never told to do it or how to do.
****************************************
Now the thing about Matt. 28:19. Let me show you all something here. God himself said in the mouth of two or three witnessess every word shall be established.

Now we know that anything must be written at least two times in different verses for it to be established as the way of God.

Now since Matt. 28:19 is only written ONE time in Scripture, God did NOT establish this as the way of baptism. Indeed, Jesus was NOT telling us HOW to baptize. He was showing the AUTHORITY by which he gave the command to baptized. It was under the authority of his Father. We are to do it under the authority of Jesus. For Jesus is our head. the Father is the HEAD of Christ.

We do not have the authority to invoke the name of the Father. We do everything we do in the name of Jesus. Those who go over the head of Jesus and attempt to invoke the name or power of the Father, are going somewhere which God forbids.

Jesus is the only one in that place. He is the only one who has the authority to invoke the power or name of the Father. We were told to do everything in the name of Jesus Christ. I just wonder why almost all churches resent this, and attempt to baptize under the authority of the Father?

But just look how many times Jesus Name Baptism is mentioned in Scripture. At least four times. That purely ESTABLISHES it as the way to baptize. Yet just look how many churches and people resent this way and refuse to obey it.

The pity of it is that the church which does see this as the right way of Baptism, still does not know the right foundation and therefore teach the reason for this Jesus Name Baptism wrongly. Therefore, it has never come clear to anyone.

Their mixed up doctrine of Jesus only, has blocked others from seeing the real reason for Baptism in Jesus name.

Those, like yourself, who know that Jesus is different from the Father, therefore, do not believe these others could have the right way of Baptism.

But just forget them and go by the Scripture. We will all be judged by the Written Scripture. You know that the Book of Acts proves that this Jesus Name Baptism is the ONLY way the early and only true Church baptized. And they did do it for the remission of sins as the Word teaches.

I am telling you all one more time, IT IS THE ONLY MEANS OF REMITTING YOUR SINS. IF YOU REFUSE IT, YOUR SINS REMAIN.

Jo

[Jo Smith]

Baptizing for the dead has no second witness in Scripture. therefore it was NOT established as something we should do.

Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost also has no two witnesses, so it was not established as the way for us to baptize.

This is so important to knowing how to rightly divide the Scriptures.

We are only told about those early Christians being baptized for the dead, to let us know that those OT Saints had to be brought up into the NT in order to be saved.

This was the means of doing it. This was the way that they received mercy through the NT Churches mercy. Through mercy, they were baptized for those dead saints, to remit their sins, the one and only way God has provided for any of us.

People are so mixed up on Scripture, that they teach, almost without exception, that God turned away from the Jews and they have not had access to salvation all these years. This is nothing but lies of satan.

The Word makes it very clear that NT savation was for any and all peoples, going FIRST to those Jews.
peter clearly said, this promise is for YOU, and your children, and all who are afar off.

This has never changed. Every person who ever lived since that day, has had the opportunity to obey the gospel and be converted and saved.

All who refused the way God chose, Acts 2, were cut off. It made no difference what nationality they were of.

The door of salvation opened up to this entire world. That door is still open to this entire world. and every soul who has ever lived since then, is responsible to God to obey His Word.

Those Jews are no exception. They are no different for any one else, since Calvary.

Paul said over and over, there is no difference.

That early practice of being baptized for the dead OT saints, was where our mercy reached them and gave them mercy. There was no mercy under law.

It is not a future event. God regathered Israel on the Day of Pentecost.

Only Paul turned to the Gentiles, for that was his calling. to be the Apostle to the Gentiles.
But why does every church overlook the FACT THAT PETER WAS STILL THERE BEING THE APOSTLE TO THOSE JEWS?

The rest of the apostles were ministering to the Jews.
God has not forbidden anyone to have salvation by the blood of Jesus. It is and has always been for everyone.

This seperation stuff of Jews and others, is of the devil. It is just not true. They are no more to God than anyone else. Neither did God cut them out of a chance for savation. If they were cut off, they did it to themselves by their unbelief and hardness of heart.

I hope this truth can come clear to many of you.
Tell it to all you meet. Get this truth out to people....the people of FAITH IN JESUS ARE GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, AND THERE ARE NO OTHERS.

Glory to God. We are the Israel of God. We are the Jews. We are the children of Abraham. We are the children of JEsus Christ.

jO

[Jo Smith]

So few people have ever realized about the requirement for two or more witnessess to establish a thing as true. Now Matt 28:19 is true, but it was never established as the way to baptize. Jesus was only telling them that the Father and the Holy Ghost are in total agreement with this need to be baptized to be saved.

Jesus is the one who said, He that believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved.

People jump all over where Paul said believe in your heart and you SHALL BE SAVED.......and they close down on that as if it is the total of salvation. Yet what Jesus said is flat denied.

I just wonder why this is? Yet we find that Paul certainly did include Baptism in Jesus name as part of salvation.

People need to learn that every single thing we need was not written in one place. It is all over the Word. Part of the plan of salvation was mentioned by paul in Romans....but that is NOT the entire plan. It is only a part.

The entire plan is only in the Book of Acts.

Jo

[Jo Smith]

Hi Tweety,
You may post anything you wish to these threads. I am always glad to hear what any of you have to say.

And I am glad you showed here what Dakes said about this. I will now use the entire subject on this matter, which Paul said in 1Cor 15 about this, and show you how Dakes missed this truth, by inserting his own thoughts.

See when people read Scripture, they will be reading in their own minds, the thing they already 'think' the Scripture teaches. This blinds them to what is really being said. Dakes made that mistake here.

Since Dakes already accepted the false teaching that Baptism is NOT escential to salvation, he had to find a way to make this be wrong also.

I say anyone who teaches that Baptism is not escential to salvation is actually calling Jesus, Peter, Paul, and Phillip a lie.
When the people asked Peter, what must we do, he said be baptized....when the household of Cornelius asked him how to be saved, he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. So it is outright calling Peter a LIE.

Jesus said, He that believeth AND is baptized SHALL BE SAVED.

Now why do people go around this statement, and claim that baptism is not meant here? and yet when Paul said to believe and you shall be saved, and they claim this statement is true? when is actuality Paul told that he himself was baptized WASHING AWAY HIS SINS.!

He also told people who had received baptism only by John, that they must be re-baptized in the name of the Lord. and yet these 'scholars' whom so many put their soul's eternal destination into their hands, comes right out and disputes this!

I ask how then are they true 'scholars' of Scripture? they are just self-appointed scholars. If they had been TRUE disciples of the Word, they would know they are NOT to add their own words to Scripture.

Anyone who dares to insert their own words right into the Scripture, is an enemy of God to start with. He is very much the enemy of the souls of all who read that Book with his words telling them what to believe.

I say this for the spiritual benefit of all who read such books. It will destroy your soul, for it causes you to believe lies.

I do not know of one single 'scholoar' who was on the right foundation, and if one is on the wrong foundation, it is IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE.

All truth depends upon that right foundation in order to be understood.

Since I have already written a good bit, I will send this and do the study on another reply.

read on:

[Jo Smith]

NOBR>1co 15:11</NOBR> Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
<NOBR>1co 15:12</NOBR> Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
<NOBR>1co 15:13</NOBR> But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
<NOBR>1co 15:14</NOBR> And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
<NOBR>1co 15:15</NOBR> Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
<NOBR>1co 15:16</NOBR> For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
<NOBR>1co 15:17</NOBR> And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
<NOBR>1co 15:18</NOBR> Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
<NOBR>1co 15:19</NOBR> If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
<NOBR>1co 15:20</NOBR> But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
<NOBR>1co 15:21</NOBR> For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
<NOBR>1co 15:22</NOBR> For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
<NOBR>1co 15:23</NOBR> But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
<NOBR>1co 15:24</NOBR> Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
<NOBR>1co 15:25</NOBR> For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
<NOBR>1co 15:26</NOBR> The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
<NOBR>1co 15:27</NOBR> For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
<NOBR>1co 15:28</NOBR> And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
<NOBR>1co 15:29</NOBR> Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
<NOBR>1co 15:30</NOBR> And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
<NOBR>1co 15:31</NOBR> I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
<NOBR>1co 15:32</NOBR> If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now I say anyone who will read the above verses with an open mind can easily see that it was not the question of the Corinthians making a mistake of baptizing for the dead.

It was a question of there being no resurrection. that is the entire subject of what Paul is saying in these verses.

So look at it. v12. How say some of YOU that there is no resurrection? See the error was in listening to the teaching that there is no resurrection. it was not the fact that some of them were baptized for the dead. this is not the question in this passage.

v13--IF there be no resurrection, then Christ is not risen...

v14 and if Christ be not risen, our faith is in vain.

v15... and we are false witnesses because we testified that Christ rose from the dead. (see it is not saying we are false for we baptized for the dead) that is not the question here.

v16--IF the dead rise not then Christ is not raised.

v17--IF Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, and you are yet in your sins.

<NOBR>1co 15:18</NOBR> Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See His entire discourse led up to this one statement...that IF THE DEAD RISE NOT then they which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

See, without this resurrection from the dead, there would have been no salvation for anyone. Not the living, and not those already asleep.

So no one obtained salvation BEFORE that resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Then he goes on to speak of how things will end up, with the son himself being subject to God that God may be all in all, ....then he says ELSE what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, why are they doing this, being baptized for those dead if the dead will not rise anyway, why do it? That is what he is asking....... and why are we in jeopardy every hour IF THE DEAD RISE NOT. He said then just live it up, eat and party, for we will just die and stay dead anyway. Why live for God? why baptize for those dead saints? They are not going to rise anyway?

People that is what is being said here! You have to totally make-over this passage to say anything else!



Now all I can say is, if anyone can find something in these verses which was in question, other than the fact of being resurrected, as some taught, then I say you are reading something OTHER THAN THESE ABOVE VERSES.

Not one word was said here about the Corinthians being in error with this practice. Not one word was said about this being a wrong thing to do. They were NOT rebuked for being baptized for the dead. They were only told that if there is no resurrection from the dead, then why do this? If would have been of no value IF THE DEAD RISE NOT....

Then that clearly, at least to me, shows that the very purpose for this being baptized for the dead, was to insure that those already fallen asleep in Christ BEFORE NT Baptism was available, before NT salvation was available, WAS TO GIVE THEM THIS MERCY. TO INSURE THAT THESE SLEEPING SAINTS WERE BROUGHT INTO NT SALVATION.

To me this solidly PROVES BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that Baptism of is more importance than anyone could possible imagine. It was so important and necessary to salvation, that God made a way for those saints of that day to stand in for those departed saints of the OT times. (and I suppose this is why this teaching is being blacked so much....because people seem to HATE the fact of having to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins!)

And that is why it was NOT ESTABLISHED by two witnesses for us today. BECAUSE WE ARE NOT IN THE POSITION TO DO THIS.

It was completed in their day. No one can baptized for anyone who lived SINCE THEN AND REJECTED NT SALVATION.



I SAY ALL WHO SAY THAT BAPTISM IS NOT A NECESSARY PART OF SALVATION ARE MISSING SALVATION JUST AS SURELY AS THOSE OT SAINTS WOULD HAVE, FOR YOU ARE REJECTING GOD'S OWN WORDS ABOUT HOW SALVATION comes about.

I say you all would do well for yourselves to FORGET what your little church or 'scholar' said or says, and get into the Word for yourself, and believe what is written and reject what is not written.

Show me one single verse stating that baptism has nothing to do with receiving salvation. Just one. And if it is not there, then how do you dispute all those which says it is part of salvation? How can you call Peter a lie?

How can you call Jesus a lie? Paul? Phillip? and you have not one verse saying baptism is only a confession of an outward show, or anything of that nature, which your false teachers claim, who say baptism is not escential to salvation.

The word says it is.

You must also call Ananias a lie, for here is what he told Paul:

<NOBR>Ac 22:11</NOBR> And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
<NOBR>Ac 22:12</NOBR> And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
<NOBR>Ac 22:13</NOBR> Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
<NOBR>Ac 22:14</NOBR> And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
<NOBR>Ac 22:15</NOBR> For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
<NOBR>Ac 22:16</NOBR> And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See that Ananias was a devout man. He was a Christian. He told Paul arise and BE BAPTIZED, AND WASH AWAY THEY SINS, CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD.

Now you must call all five of these Holy Men a lie to keep saying that baptism is not part of salvation.....the part which actually washes away, or REMITS your sins. there is no other way mentioned in Scripture to remit your sins.

if you say there is, show it to me.

[Jo Smith]

The Baptismal Formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to using the titles by the Roman Catholic Church in the Second Century. The 11th edit. Vol. 3 of the Britannica Encyclo. Pg. 365 - 366 tell part of this story. Britannica Encyclo. Vol. 3 Pg. 82 tells everywhere, in the oldest sources, that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Cannery Encyclo. of Rel. Pg. 53 tells the early church always baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus until development of Trinity doctrine in the Second Century. Catholic Encyclo. Vol. 2, Pg. 263 tells Catholic's acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. Hastings Encyclo. of Rel. Vol. 2, Pg. 377 tells Christian baptism was administered using the words, " in the name of Jesus." Page 378 tells the use of a Trinitarian Formula of any sort was not suggested in the early church history. Page 389 tells baptism was always in the name of the Lord Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr when Triune Formula was used. New International Encyclo. Vol. 22, Pg. 477 tells the term Trinity was originated by Tertullian, a Roman Catholic Church father. [your message]

(p.s. the above is something someone else wrote on a 'jesus-only' group. My answer follows:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Triune Formula?"

Where did that come from? Certianly not from Scripture. So then, what does this mean>>.

Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mt 28:19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First look at this.... all power is GIVEN UNTO ME. Why did it have to be given to the resurrected Jesus? Who gave it?

No matter what you all believe, or think of me, these are legitimate questions, which need and have Scriptural answers.

Now, verse 19 (if the KJV is correct, and I FULLY BELIEVE IT IS).... IS THE VERY WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST. Agree?

So are you suggesting by the above quotes that Jesus gave his disciples a command to go baptize in some trinity formular? Is that what you all really believe? If so, why would he do that?

Think? ask questions. Seek the answers. Run to the ROCK OF TRUTH FOR YOUR SOULS' SAFETY AND SALVATION. flee man's made up doctrines.

First you all say, this is a trinity formular, which we reject. Then you say, no, it is really just titles, which we also reject.

some say, no it is really just offices of the one God.

So now which of these did Jesus mean? Since he is the one who said the above verse, what did he mean? Why would he tell them to go baptize in a trinity formula?

And If this is not what Jesus meant, why carry this false message?

Do you all really, deep down in your hearts, believe that Jesus told them some trinity formular, but did not really mean for them to obey it?

Why do the paid hirelings of the Jesus-only churches continually harp this lie? that Jesus told them to baptize in a trinity formular? I say it is because they do not have the true understanding of God's Word, and that they do not have the anointing teaching them, they have not studied and searched for the truth, they simply follow the already-mapped out false doctrine, to get paid to scream and hollow and run the isles of some church, yet starving the sheep of God to death, with their false teachings.

Now that is strong, but I tell you in the name of the Lord Jesus, IT IS THE PURE TRUTH.

else why do they harp this lie? That Jesus gave us a trinity formula, but did not intend for us to use it...and he said use titles, but he did not mean that either, and he talked about offices of the one god, but he did not mean this either, as the Apostles, knew, that he did not mean it, so they disobeyed it and used the name of the Holy Child of Mary instead.

Now that is what you are trying to give the world.! That is what you are all teaching and believing. that is what Jesus-only preachers are hounding to you.

But I ask you, what is the true answer to this?

p.s. I wrote this on a Jesus-only group to something they had going on.

[Jo Smith]

(The last two posts, I wrote on a Jesus-only group, to something they had going.)


Let me ask you a serious question. Now understand that I fully agree with Baptism in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remissions of sins. >>>.BUT.
Do you agree with all Scripture?

Have you ever wondered why Jesus would tell the disciples to go and baptize in the name of some titles? why? Why would Jesus do that? There has to be a TRUE reason and answer for Matt. 28:19, Don't you agree? (I mean after all, IT IS THE WORDS OF JESUS, UNLESS YOU WISH TO CALL Matthew a false book?)

Where did ANY Scripture call the Father or the Holy Ghost or the son , titles? (learn to search the Scriptures for these answers, as Jesus told us to do, instead of just accepting some man's made up answers.) Father is not a title. Holy Ghost is not a title. son is not a title.
And JESUS is NOT the name of the Father. JESUS is the name of Mary's child. JESUS is NOT the name of the Holy ghost. I have never seen the Holy Ghost called anything except Holy Ghost, have you?

That is not the answer to this. Neither are these offices, as some folks claim (out of ignorance) Neither are they different manifestations of the same person. None of this is taught in Scripture.

Where did this 'interpretation' of what JESUS CHIRST HIMSELF TOLD HIS DISCIPLES TO GO DO, come from?

Matthew 28:19 is NOT a 'trinity' formular for baptism, as some ignorant folks claim. It is not a formular for baptism. (Some body, who did not fear to add to God's Word, made this lie up.)

Neither is the name, Jesus, a formular for baptism.
Where does the Word use this term, 'formular'?
This word, 'formular' is not mentioned in the NT. Baptism is strictly a NT act. So why is 'formular' not in the NT?
Matter of fact, this word is not in the OT either. So it is a made up doctrine. It is not of God, for it is not once written in God's Word.

How long will you all hold to man-made doctrines, instead of searching the Word of God, as Jesus told us to do, to find the TRUTH, which will set us free?

I did a study and wrote a message called, Title or Name. In doing this research of SCRIPTURE, (all I use) I saw that there is no such thing in Scripture as a 'title' of or for God.
So then, this cannot be the true reason or interpretation for what our Saviour told us to do. Agree?

I will give you the Scripural answer later. Study and think on this for now.
Jo