Fallacy of Baptism "in Holy Spirit"!

by The Searcher 86 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR

    As a JW I got baptized after saying I DO to the following. So I must now be saved.

    ‘Have you repented of your sins and turned around, recognising yourself before Jehovah God as a condemned sinner who needs salvation, and have you acknowledged to him that this salvation proceeds from him, the Father, through his son Jesus Christ?’

    ‘On the basis of this faith in God and his provision for salvation, have you dedicated yourself unreservedly to do his will henceforth as he reveals it to you through Jesus Christ and through the Bible under the enlightening Holy Spirit?’

  • heathen
    heathen

    Now that's a fallacy in it's own right , It should say at the end there do you swear to never question WTBTS interpretations and obey the publishing corporation dictates ?? Forget about as revealed through christ jesus part , you being the great crowd are not considered worthy of having a personal relationship with JC. Some interesting points being made about pre baptism spirit adoption but it really doesn't mean salvation without the water baptism and the public preaching and living the life in accord with GODS will and having a strong moral character .. The article the WTBTS put out was not entirely honest as usual. Wish I kept that issue , maybe someone with the bound version has it . About 4 years old

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    It is dangerous to rely on anyone's personal view.

    Absolutely. So any who claims to "know"... should state the BASIS on which they do. If that basis is holy spirit, then one should certainly "test" the "inspired expression." One cannot test an inspired expression against secular books, however, as such are things of the world... not things of the spirit. To test as to the spirit, there is the Holy Spirit, Christ, himself (one only need to go him and ask him)... and if one doesn't feel able yet to do that... there is love... and if one is still not sure, one can at least read the things cited to support what is being stated.

    Of course, one who has NO knowledge of the Holy Spirit, holy spirit... or what is "written"... wouldn't be able to tell you that... because it is not something they can... or will... do, themselves. There is a saying my Lord once taught me to pay attention to:

    "Beware the naked man who offers you his shirt."

    YOU know whether there is Holy Spirit or not... what is SUPPOSED to occur by him, through him, and as a result of him. You also know, if you are aware of the Spirit... that many FALSE "christs" (false anointed/christians) exist... to mislead, if possible, EVEN the chosen ones. One sign of such false christians are WHO they are directing you TO: Christ himself? Or other men who claim to "know"? If these other man "know"... then how can those who read/study/learn from them... NOT know? Yet, they admit they don't. Because the "water" they receive... is "dead" - there is no LIFE in it... because it isn't coming FROM the Life (John 14:6). Rather, it comes from opinions and speculations and guesses.

    If someone TELLS you they don't know... BELIEVE them ("Look, I don't have a shirt, but I offer YOU one!" - WHOSE "shirt" then, are they offering you, dear ones? What shirt do they have TO offer? If someone else's, is it not perhaps stolen??). Believe them, that they DON'T have a shirt... and think twice before you take the one they "offer"!

    If someone tells you they DO know... and that they do by any means other than holy spirit... they're lying. Because these are things OF the Spirit... and so it is only BY that Spirit that one CAN know.

    If someone tells you they know... by means of holy spirit... TEST the expression! By ALL means! Because not all such expressions originate with God. That doesn't mean that NONE do, though. And so you need to know which do and which don't. But how CAN you know? Again: the Holy Spirit, Christ, himself (one only need to go him and ask him)... and if one doesn't feel able yet to do that... there is love... and if one is still not sure, one can at least read the things cited to support what is being stated.

    If they tell you that it is by means of holy spirit... yet, Christ is either nowhere in the picture... or so overlooked/obscured he might as well not be (because your faces are then pointed toward another/others... ANY other... like, say, a GB/FDS, Pope and Papal hierarchy, Orthodox hierarchy, World Council, First Presidency/Quorums, etc.)... then they are definitely lying. Because there IS no holy spirit... WITHOUT the Holy Spirit... Christ (2 Corinthians 3:16).

    I realize that walking by faith is HARD, dear ones... but it is only so at the start. Goodness, it was hard, at first, for those who saw and walking with Christ in the flesh - how much more so now that he's a spirit?! Yet, he said it would be those who believe "and do NOT see" who would be "happy." Faith is a fruit of God's (holy) spirit and available to ALL... who WISH it and are THIRSTING for it! That is the BASIS and REASON for the INVITATION... FROM that Spirit... and his Bride, to:

    "COME! Take 'life's water'... THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD... which "water" is poured out from the innermost parts of His Son, HIS Christ, the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit... JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... FREE!"

    He does not charge money for it. There is no donation, contribution, tithe, service hours... or like things that one can use to "pay" for it. All one needs is a mustard seed of faith. But don't assume you HAVE even that much - you don't! I didn't. I THOUGHT I did... and then he told me that I had what he had given me. So don't assume you have a mustard seed's worth... assume you don't... and ASK for a mustard seed's worth!

    You CAN do this. You only need WANT to. But want to means want to - not "think" you want to... or want to "only if" (IF... it doesn't mean you have to undergo any inconvenience, discomfort, persecution, or humility - you probably will... because you are choosing to take up a cross/stake/pole... which comes with such).

    But don't let anyone tell you can't (including those of the WTBTS)... or shouldn't (including some here)... or let anyone's agenda that is toward revering and honoring MEN... rather than revering and honoring God and Christ... MISLEAD you. Knowledge does not lead to life, dear ones. It merely "puffs up". As, if you are paying any attention, you can well see.

    Again, peace to you... and may you be given ears to hear and get the sense of these things... if you so wish them.

    A slave of Christ,

    SA

  • AGuest
    AGuest

    If you have also received the promised holy spirit, perhaps, dear P (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!). Because unless you have... not yet. Even then, you must still make the calling... AND CHOOSING... "sure." As in firm, certain. If you haven't even received the promised holy spirit, which is the "token" that represents the choosing... then you haven't even yet been chosen... and so, not yet "saved." Of course, you may have heard the call... and responded to that by coming forth and being baptized... and even by partaking... but that is not evidence of the CHOOSING. It is the anointing... that constitutes the "choosing." That is the purpose OF the anointing: to indicate you have been chosen.

    There are some for whom the choosing is made "sure" from the start... but given the current [screaming] opposition that is present, I am reluctant to share it. I will, of course, if you... or someone else... wishes me to... because it is on-topic and in line with the discussion. You let me know, though. "Pearls" and all that...

    Again, peace to you... and don't despair if you have NOT yet received this gift. Just ask for it.

    YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

    SA

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    I wanted to comment on three points from page one of this thread:

    (Note that the numbered points 2, 3, and 4 are copied as is)

    2. John (the Baptizer) said that although HE would baptize with water, there was one coming after him, the sandals of whom he wasn't fit to tie, who would baptize in fire and spirit. Matthew 3:1, 11; Mark 1:6-8; Luke 3:16; John 1:19, 25-31

    I think this statement is implying that John baptized with water but Jesus and his disciples did not. But that is not the case:

    (John 3:22-26) . . .After these things Jesus and his disciples went into Ju·de′an country, and there he spent some time with them and did baptizing. 23 But John also was baptizing in Ae′non near Sa′lim, because there was a great quantity of water there, and people kept coming and being baptized; 24 . . . 25 . . . 26 . . . came to John and said to him: "Rabbi, the man that was with you across the Jordan, to whom you have borne witness, see, this one is baptizing and all are going to him.. . .

    (John 4:1, 2) . . .When, now, the Lord became aware that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John- 2 although, indeed, Jesus himself did no baptizing but his disciples did-

    3. Cornelius and HIS household... Israelites (by means of being from among the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel, the "Samaritans", and so not a Jew)... received holy spirit FIRST... and THEN were baptized in water. Acts 10:1-4, 24, 44-48

    This statement, even if accepted as is, contradicts the main point of the post that it was made in. Even if baptized with spirit first, they were baptized in water afterwards.

    But notice Acts 10:46-48, especially verse 47: ". . .Then Peter responded [after seeing they received holy spirit]: 47 "Can anyone forbid water so that these might not be baptized who have received the holy spirit even as we have?" 48 With that he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. . . ."

    Peter's words themselves indicate that water baptism was normally first. And that spirit baptism of Cornelius and his family made water baptism an obvious follow on. Compare also these translations.

    Additionally, the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17 were baptized with water first. And I don't know of any instances where Jews during the time og Christ and afterwards are singled out due to being of the 10 tribe Northern kingdom.

    4. About 12 men... who had been water baptized ("in John")... did not receive holy spirit until some time later, when they ran into Paul, who "baptized" them by laying his hands on them. Acts 19:1-7

    But again, notice the context:

    (Acts 19:2-7) . . .and he said to them: "Did you receive holy spirit when YOU became believers?" They said to him: "Why, we have never heard whether there is a holy spirit." 3 And he said: "In what, then, were YOU baptized?" They said: "In John's baptism." 4 Paul said: "John baptized with the baptism [in symbol] of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus." 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands upon them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. 7 All together, there were about twelve men.

    They got baptized, then had hands laid on them and received holy spirit.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    They got baptized, then had hands laid on them and received holy spirit.

    You are putting a sequence in events where none is implied nor needed.

    The Water Baptizim is a baptisim for the remission of sins and was viewed as such by the apostles and the 1st generation converts.

    The Baptisim in the Name of Christ annointes the beleiver with the HS.

    The issue , it seems to me, is that people are debating what came first, the HS or the baptisim and it seems that it is a case of BOTH.

    For some, they were baptized with water and then the HS, for others it was at the same time and for others it may have been a case of HS first and then water.

    There is no need to interpret baptizing as being with out water if course and the very term "baptizing" implies the use of water or liquid ( The root word means "washing").

    There is no reason to believe that were the word baptized is used that it means soemthing other than a "washing".

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    I think this statement is implying that John baptized with water but Jesus and his disciples did not.

    That wasn't the implication, dear BC (again, peace to you!). At least it wasn't meant to be but I can see how perhaps that might have come across. Let me clarify: of course the disciples baptized other... those of Israel. Hence, the Ethiopian... Cornelius and his household, etc... which examples I gave. My Lord himself, however, did not baptize ANYONE with water (H2O). As the verses you cite bring out:

    (John 4:1, 2) . . .When, now, the Lord became aware that the Phariseeshad heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John- although, indeed, [Jesus] himself did no baptizing but his disciples did..."

    This was because HIS baptism (Christ's) of folks would be as John had said: "with fire and spirit"... which did NOT occur at that time (John 7:37-39).

    This statement, even if accepted as is, contradicts the main point of the post that it was made in. Even if baptized with spirit first, they were baptized in water afterwards.

    The main point of the post it was made in is that water baptism applies to Israel only, and not the non-Israelite nations. I think I stated that, but will look to see if not.

    Peter's words themselves indicate that water baptism was normally first.

    For Israel, yes. Which is what I stated in the post.

    And that spirit baptism of Cornelius and his family made water baptism an obvious follow on.

    Yes. Did you get the part that Cornelius and his household were Israelites, though?

    Additionally, the Samaritans in Acts 8:14-17 were baptized with water first. And I don't know of any instances where Jews during the time og Christ and afterwards are singled out due to being of the 10 tribe Northern kingdom.

    Jews were never so singled out... and I never stated that, dear one. Jews are of the 2-tribe kingdom of "Judah" (Judah and Benjamin), while Samaritans were those of the 10-tribe kingdom of "Israel". The Jews (Judah and Benjamin)... the "Yehudi"... resided in region that was called "Judea"... and worshipped at the temple in its capital city, Jerusalem. The Samaritans (the other 10 tribes)... resided in the region that was called "Samaria" (where they ended up after being captured by the Assyrians)... before the Jews were captured by the Babylonians/Chaldeans, exiled to Babylon, then returned to Judea). Rather than worship at the temple in Jerusalem, they worshipped at "Bethel", in the mountainous region between Judea and Samaria.

    The terms "Jews" and "Israel" are often confusing to some. Many consider "Jews" to be all of Israel - they are not. They are only 2 tribes. Unfortunately, there is some fallacy out there that the other 10-tribes have been "lost" and so "Jew" now covers them all. While they may be "lost" to those who currently call themselves Jews, they are not lost to God - He knows where Abraham's blood is in the world. Christ certainly knew... which is why HE referred to Israel as "Jews and Samaritans" and said that his disciples would be witnesses of him "in all Judea AND Samaria"... and THEN to the world. Because Israel had to be called FIRST: the Jews (2-tribe kingdom of Judah/Benjamin)... AND the Samaritans (10-tribe kingdom of Israel). Hence, the Samaritan woman at the well... and Cornelius.

    "Israel" is often confusing because it applies to more than one thing and sometimes more than one person/people:

    1. Jacob, the son of Isaac, whose name was changed to "Israel" after he wrestled with an angel and demanded JAH bless him (his name MEANS "contender with God");

    2. The 10-tribe kingdom of Israel that chose to follow Jeroboam and so split from the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah/Benjamin, which chose to stay with "David", by following his grandson, Rehoboam... which kingdom, Israel, did NOT worship at the temple in Jerusalem, but at a "high place" set up at Bethel by Jeroboam... for which HE chose priests... from ANY tribe, not just Levi... resulting in Bethel becoming a center of FALSE worship. Hence, Israel was called the adultress "Oholah" by JAH. For her adultery, she was allowed to be captured by the Assyrians and her people exiled into that land. Her "sister"... the 2-tribe kingdom of Judah... was later named "Oholibah" by JAH... for HER adultery (false worship)... and so allowed to be captured by BABYLON... and HER people exiled there; and

    3. The entire nation of Israel... "Judah" AND "Israel"... which are the Jews AND the Samaritans.

    You CANNOT let yourselves get bogged down with words, dear ones. Again, in ENGLISH... many words that are spelled the same MEAN different things. Like spirit, blood, holy spirit, god, covenant, woman, christ, wisdom, truth, word... and many, many more.

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

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    AGuest:

    I can see that on a couple points I was not understanding how you defined your terms.

    If I understand correctly now, you see -

    Cornelius as an Israelite.

    Samaritans as equivelant to the ten-tribe kingdom.

    And I will say that, IF these definitions were correct, I could see how you could possibly arrive at your conclusion that water baptism was for Israel only. I wouldn't agree with it, but I could see a framework from which you are basing the idea.

    However, I don't see how you are arriving at Cornelius being of Israel, or the Samaritans being the ten-tribes (other than simply occupying their former territory). Certainly, the Jews of the first century didn't seem to include them.

    If I may ask, what evidence do you feel proves this about Cornelius and the Samaritans?

    Take Care

  • AGuest
    AGuest
    the Jews of the first century didn't seem to include them.

    That was the point, dear BC: THEY didn't... but Christ did. (Again, peace to you... if something doesn't make sense because a word missing, misspelled, etc., please overlook and/or ask me and I will clarify!).

    The Jews all but dismissed the other 10 tribes, the Samaritans. And they still do, down to this very day. Who, though, are the "Jews"? The "Jews"... or "Yehudi"... or those who descended from/joined themselves to... is "Judah". "Judah" is those who belong to/descended from the tribe of Judah... and the tribe of Benjamin. Benjamin joined up with Judah for the purpose of preservation, after they were almost completely wiped out by the other tribes when they heinously gang raped a concubine... who died as a result (wait for the opposers who will blame this act on JAH... while completely overlooking the culpability of the men that did it. I digress.).

    Some (including the early Jews) like to say that the Jews are "all of Israel" and/or the other ten tribes were "lost." But that's not entirely true. Because salvation comes THROUGH the Jews... and because the temple was in their capital city (Jerusalem, the capital of the land of the Jews, Judea)... the Jews represent the entire nation [of Israel]... FIRST. But they do not represent ALL of Israel, as they claim.

    How does do 10 whole tribes of people go missing? When they are exiled by and to an enemy (here, Assyria)... and then take up existence in a land/area other than Judea (here, Samaria, where they returned once their exile and capitivity ended)... AND, most importantly... don't worship at the temple built and via the system established... by their mutual forefather of ALL of the tribes, BOTH Israel AND Judah... Solomon, the son of their greatest king... David. Hence, then the 10-tribe kingdom of Israel was captured by Assyria... and subsequently exiled... the tribe of JUDAH was pretty glad about that! Why? Because they considered their own brothers, the tribe of Israel... their enemies!

    Why were these two enemies? It goes back to the split under Rehoboam, Solomon's son. Under Rehoboam, Israel was greatly oppressed. Rehoboam was advised to lighten up. Instead, he took offense (he was Solomon's son after and who were these upstarts to tell HIM, the KING of Israel, what to do?!)... and became even harsher. And so the kingdom divided. Under the leadership of Jeroboam, 10 tribes ("Israel") seceded from the kingship of "David." Out of loyalty to David, though, two tribes ("Judah") stayed with Rehoboam.

    Judah... continued worship at the temple in Jerusalem, the capital of Judea... by mean of the sanctioned priesthood (rendered by the few priests from the tribe of Levi who stayed with Judah). Israel, however, took another course: rather than travel to Jerusalem as their forefathers had, they now considered Judah... and anything in relation thereto... as enemies. So, Jeroboam set up worship for THEM at Bethel... the capital of Samaria. But, in violation of the Law... he chose priests from among any of the 10 tribes and not just Levi. The result of this was that, after awhile, false worship became rampant in Bethel. Rather than worship as established under Aaron, they began to worship according to the nations. So they built "high places"... which does not refer to the altitude of the mountainous region in which they worshipped... but the ALTARS (the higher the better, folks thought!) upon which they conducted their worship and sacrifices.

    These high places/altars, however, were often built for and used to worship OTHER gods... while also being used as a pretense to worship JAH. And in this way, their worship constituted "spiritual adultery." This "adultery" was the impetus for their capture by the Assyrians and exist into Assyria. In the sight of JAH, they were fornicators and adulterers. He referred to them as "Oholah."

    Rather than come to their aid, however... out of brother LOYALTY, if nothing else... the 2-tribe kingdom was quite glad to see their "enemy"... even though such were also their brothers... get their come uppance. And so they stood by and let it happen. They considered what was happening to Israel merely recompense for that nation's false worship. Problem is... Judah turned to doing the exact same thing, even worse. They began taking on the customs and traditions... and then engaging in the worship of the gods... of the nations around them. Eventually, they went ever FURTHER with their fornication/adultery than Samaria ever thought of: they allowed such false worship to take place even in the temple (hence, Ezekiel's visions and proclamations as to what the "shepherds" and priest were doing IN THE TEMPLE. As a result, they (Judah) were constituted as the harlot "Oholibah"... and allowed to be captured and exiled by the Babylonians (Chaldeans).

    While Judah (who, Biblically referred to themselves as "Israel" by this time... because they no longer recognized the other 10 tribes) was exiled in Babylon, Assyria released Israel (the 10 tribes) who returned to Samaria. However, Judah (who now called themselves "Israel") never again recognized them as part of the nation. As far as Judah was concerned, THEY were "all Israel," because, their position was that JAH had "dealt" with Israel and pretty much wiped THEM (the 10-tribe kingdom) off the face of the earth. He had not.

    So, when Judah (the Jews, who now called themselves "Israel") was released from Babylon... and returned to Judea... their haughtiness would not permit them to recognize or associate with their brothers, Israel... now residing again in Samaria. Because, to add insult to injury, not only were these NOT wiped off the earth... BUT THEY STILL ENGAGED IN WORSHIP AT BETHEL... refusing to worship in Jerusalem. And so the two continued their long-standing rivalry and considered one another as enemies. As it states, "Jews had nothing to do with Samaritans". However, the feeling wasn't entirely mutual... which is why my Lord used a Samaritan in the account of the "Good" Samaritan. There, he gave the lesson of who truly is one's "neighbor" by showing how a Samaritan... a stated enemy of the Jews... gave of himself to help a Jew who had fell among robbers... when the Jews own tribal men (one a Jew, another a Levite priest) WOULDN'T help him.

    And this estranged relationship is why the NT often records my Lord involved in matters related to "Jews and Samaritans" and "Judea and Samaria"... versus, say, "Jews and Egypt" or "Judea and Syria", etc.

    Now, for Cornelius. Cornelius was the first NON-Jew to receive the promised holy spirit. This is because he was the first of the OTHER 10 tribes, the Samaritans. Because the way opened to the NATION of Israel first... Jews (Judah), then Samaritans (Israel)... and THEN to the non-Israelite nations. Where folks get confused is as to what constitutes "the nations" and/or "Gentiles." Here is how that works:

    1. The FULL nation of Israel is made up of 12 tribes

    2. JEWS constitute only TWO of those tribes, Judah and Benjamin (although they CLAIM to be the entire nation... from their return from Babylon... and their scribes continued this falsehood when writing the Septuagint)

    3. Anyone who is not a JEW (Judah or Benjamin... and a smidgen of Levites who went with them due to service in the temple) is a "Gentile"

    4. Thus, along with people who are not Israel by ANY means, people of the 10-tribe kingdom (Israel, which includes the lion's share of Levi) are "Gentiles"

    So, then, the "good news"... that was for Jews... AND Gentiles... was to be preached:

    1. "In all Judea" (and thus, to the JEWS, Judah/Benjamin);

    2. "AND Samaria" (and thus, to the SAMARITANS, Israel); and

    3. "To the distant parts of the earth" (the nations who are NOT Jews (Judah) OR Samaritans (Israel)

    Those who are Israel... either Jew or Samaritan... who accepted Christ... were the "holy ones" and "brothers" that Paul and others referred to in [the opening of] their letters. The non-Israelites nations are "fellow citizens" of the holy ones.

    Now, where is all of this written? Virtually everything I shared here is in the Bible; however, much of it can also be found in secular writings as to Israel's (the WHOLE nation) history and particularly its kingships. This division is what is often confusing for some... for instance, when they read of the kings of Judah... and the kings of Israel (many believe these to be the same - they were NOT).

    Rather than give you the verses, I will let you research it yourself first. Start with the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam. Read everything you can about Jeroboam. Look into Samaria... and particularly "Bethel."

    Once you've done that, re-read the account of the conversation between my Lord and the Samaritan woman. Think of that fact that Jews "had nothing to do with Samaritans" and then ask yourself, why was this woman at JACOB'S well? A hint: Jacob was the patriarch of the nation of Israel, the nation being named after HIM: Jacob aka Israel, the name he as given after wrestling with an angel. Why would a Samaritan woman be drawing water at JACOB's well? Where WAS Jacob's well... and why was Christ there... and talking to HER? Ask yourself, "Why would he tell HER that SHE could have received "living water" from him... but tell a Phoenician woman that it wasn't for HER... that he had only been sent to "the lost sheep of ISRAEL?"

    Then, again, consider Cornelius, an army officer who lived in Ceasarea (look up where Ceasarea is). Then consider the army he served. Many believe and teach that he was a ROMAN army officer - he was NOT. He was an officer "of the Italian band." Italia... was NOT Rome. Rome had its own army (hence, he would been said to have been a Roman army officer. Consider what was Rome back then... and what was Italia... and how the regions were governed. A hint: Rome was a city state, not a city in Italy as it is now. Although Jerusalem was under control of and occupied by Rome, Italia was its own region, not yet under Roman rule (it was coming, though). But look into that, too: Italia, Italian army band, etc.

    Start with that and then, if you need, I will share scripture, verses, chapters, etc. But to do so right now... there is WAY too much. Indeed, the entire account of the books of Kings, after Solomon, is about a great deal of this. Unfortunately, most of it is told from the point of view of Judah... because, again, Israel wasn't recognized after their capture and exile.

    If you want an EASY way to understand all of this... indeed, even SEE it... then I would exhort you to go to the One who shared it all with me: the HOLY One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah). Because all of this had bearing on HIM and HIS arrival. It was critical for folks to KNOW... so that could RECOGNIZE Messiah when he arrived. Fortunately, some did. Unfortunately, many did not.

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

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    AGuest:

    I'm going to focus only on Cornelius. The reason being, if he is a Gentile, it dismantles the whole idea that water baptism is not for Gentile converts (even if Samaritans were considered Jews).

    Here are some excerpts from the New American Commentary on Acts (John B. Polhill, 249-251) This is an academic commentary and its comments are this topic are typical of other commentaries.

    These first few paragraphs are an initial summary of the pericope:

    The Gentile mission was not an easy step for the Jewish Christians to take. It involved two major issues. One was the question of whether Gentiles had to become Jews in order to become Christians, i.e., should they undergo Jewish proselyte procedure when they were converted to Christianity? This would have required the circumcision of male converts and the adoption for all converts of such Jewish legal distinctives as the kosher food laws. Because God granted the gift of the Spirit to the Gentiles in Cornelius's home without their proscribing to proselyte procedure, Peter became convinced that such Jewish conversion procedures were not necessary for the Christian mission to the Gentiles (cf. 15:7-11).The second major issue involved the question of table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Since Gentiles did not follow kosher practices, Jewish Christians like Peter were exposed to a real situation of compromise when they associated with them. It is not by chance that Peter's vision at Joppa involved the question of clean and unclean foods. His association with the Gentiles in Cornelius's home raised that question acutely. Both questions were answered for Peter in the experience with Cornelius because he was convinced that God accepted Gentiles without circumcision and that he could himself in good faith enjoy table fellowship with his Gentile-Christian brothers and sisters. . .

    Acts 10:1-11:18 is the longest singl narrative in all of Acts. This is itself witnesses to the great importance Luke placed on the incidentThe narrative begins with the vision of Cornelius (10:1-8) and immediately follows with a corresponding vision of Peter (10:9-16). The two visions link together and rsult in Peter's journey to Cornelius's home (10:17-23). Three scenes take place at Cornelius's house. Peter's initial encounter with Cornelius involved their sharing their visions with each other (10:24-33). This was followed by Peter's sermon to Cornelius and his associates (10:34-43). The sermon was broken off by God's intervention when he sent the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles (10:44-48). The final scene takes place in Jerusalem, where Peter defended his conduct with Cornelius before the Christians there and convinced them of God's intention to reach the Gentiles for Christ (11:1-18). There is considerable duplication between the scenes. Cornelius's vision is told four times (10:3-6, 22, 30-32; 11:13-14). Peter's vision is given in detail twice (10:9-16; 11:4-10). In fact, all of 11:3-17 is basically a summary of chap. 10.

    This device of repitition serves a two-fold function. First, it makes for a vivid narrative; it is related in dialogue, which gives the reader a sense of "being there." Second, and more significantly, it underlines the importance of the event. It will be repeated yet a final time in Peter's testimony at the Jerusalem Conference (15:7-11).

    Polhill continues a little further stating that "Cornelius was clearly a Gentile who worshiped God and supported the Jewish religious community."

    The whole narrative, its length, its repitition, Peter's having to explain himself (11:1-17) in which he describes the man as a Gentile, all of this proves beyond any doubt that Peter considered Cornelius a Gentile.

    Instead of trying to go way out in left field to assemble some obtuse evidence that he was somehow not a Gentile, you should try to stick with the context within which Cornelius is spoken of. Peter and the Jewish Christians that he had to explain himself to all took Cornelius and his household as Gentiles.

    I know it is hard to let go of possibly cherished ideas. But those ideas are hindering you, like roadblocks, from gaining increased understanding of God's will.

    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.

    Take Care AGuest

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit