Bible Discussion Thread

Alex comments on water baptism but John Who gave us water baptism, Preached behold the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world i have need to be baptised of him ( Jesus ) Its not water baptism that made us Clean, its only by the blood of the lamb that we are made Clean not h20 . After that Christ had shed his blood on the Cross were we made Clean which was the ULTTMATE BAPTISM AND NOTHIN CAN BE ADDED TO IT ABSOLUTLY NOTHIN . But Peter a Godly man was commanding water baptism after that God Almighty had baptised them with the H.G. That resulted from the blood of the lamb ( WHO CAN FORBID WATER ETC) Thats when God gave Peter that vision in a trance of a GREAT SHEET knit at the 4 corners with all the unclean animals which was the Church ( Humanity ) That God made Clean by the blood of the LAMB not water baptism that Peter was commanding, Thats y the lord was so upset with Peter as Peter was inessence saying the blood was insufficient they needed water baptism Then after that Peter had understood the vision he says then remembered I the WORDS OF OUR LORD, JOHN BAPTISED YOU WITH WATER BUT I WILL BAPTISE YOU WITH THE H.G. N FIRE NO WATER MENTIONED . Nothin can be compared to his blood or added to his sacrifice on th Cross Thats y Paul said i thank God that i baptised none of you, Paul knew that water baptism wd make the CROSS th BLOOD OF NO EFFECT thats y the lord was so upset with Peter he was making the blood of no effect by commanding water baptism in essence saying the Blood was insufficient . It was a slap in the face of God and the lamb of God to command water baptism after the CROSS. Peter should have been preaching behold the lamb of God that taketh away the SINS of the world not water baptism after that God had washed them with the ULTIMATE baptism of his blood the greatest event to ever grace planet earth. Unto him that has loved us and has washed us from OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD . Even in th O.T. WITHOUT THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD NO REMISISON OF SINS.

You wrote, "Thats y the lord was so upset with Peter as Peter was in essence saying the blood was insufficient they needed water baptism". The Lord 'was upset' not because Peter negated the efficacy & sufficiency of Christ's Blood sacrifice, but that Peter had rejected the fact that Gentiles could also be partakers of the Holy Ghost, & the vision was to show that "what God had cleansed, that call not thou common". Nothing to do with water baptism. He then clarified this in Acts 11 to the other apostles & believers in Jerusalem & they together "When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life". (11:18).

You wrote, "Thats y Paul said i thank God that i baptised none of you, Paul knew that water baptism wd make the CROSS th BLOOD OF NO EFFECT". If you read the passage again, Paul was upset that there were cliques forming as certain folk followed after some of the big names. So Paul said what he said, in case some would think that he was so great that water baptism was being done in Paul's name & by his authority & not what Jesus had prescribed. ( 1 Corinthians 1:12-16).

If you deny the necessity of water baptism, post Cross & post reception of the Holy Spirit, you have to deny what Jesus ordained in Matthew 28:19 & what all the apostles believed was necessary as shown in many Scriptures. I'm unsure from where you develop your ideas: there are definite Truths in what you write, but it seems that your interpretations which clearly are outside the revealed Scriptures, formulate your ideas. And that is a dangerous practise.