What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is baptism essential to salvation?

Such words and terms as spirit, breath etc. are used in the scripture in various ways. Context usually decides. I find no scriptural support for your position however.
 
Webb said:
Such words and terms as spirit, breath etc. are used in the scripture in various ways. Context usually decides. I find no scriptural support for your position however.
Click to expand...

Have you looked for the "missing" scriptural support or are you perhaps dismissing the idea because it stands against what you hold as true?
Let me be fair here and admit that the term spirit has various meaning in scripture and as you stated, context is key in helping to decide which meaning should be applied. Now, I ask you; What scriptural support do you find for the idea that Jesus' "committing his spirit" into the hands of the Father is any different from how spirit was used by Solomon in Ecclesiastes or by Moses in Genesis?
 
FrustratedForumer said:
Amen!

[COLOR=#22222]Did Jesus Go to Hell?

More specifically, did Jesus go to hell between His death on Good Friday and His resurrection on Easter Sunday? The Apostles' Creed states that Jesus, "was crucified, dead, and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead." The Athanasian Creed, speaking of Jesus, asserts, "Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead." Therefore, two of the three great ancient creeds affirm that Jesus "descended into hell" sometime between His crucifixion and resurrection. But is that what the Bible teaches?

The short answer to this question is: "No." The biblical authors were more accurate in their use of words than some of our Bible translators or creed writers. There are two Greek words for the abode of the dead. (Greek is the language in which the New Testament of the Bible was originally written.) Hell (Geenna in Greek, also called the lake of fire and the eternal fire) was made for the Devil and his minions (Matthew 25:41) and will be occupied by all the unrighteous after the last judgement (Revelation 19:20-21 and 20:10-15). There is no biblical evidence that anyone has gone there or will go there until after Jesus' Second Coming (Revelation 19:11-16). This includes Jesus Himself.

The other Greek word is Hadas (from which we get the English word Hades). This is the region of the dead. Before Jesus' ascension, the spirits of all people went to Hades. After His ascension, only the spirits of unbelievers go to Hades, while the spirits of believers go directly to be with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1-8). It is into this region that Jesus entered after His crucifixion (Acts 2:25-31 in which Peter quotes from Psalm 16:9-10). Ephesians 4:8-10 says that Jesus, "had descended into the lower parts of the earth." This may also speak of Jesus' visit to Hades before His ascension. Finally, Romans 10:7 refers to Jesus in "the abyss" while He was among the dead. After the final judgment, Hades will be cast into Hell (Revelation 20:14). Therefore, the longer answer is: "Yes, Jesus descended into Hades but not into Hell."

So, how did the idea of Jesus descending into Hell get incorporated into the church creeds? The early church taught that Jesus descended into Hades. The Old Roman form of the Apostles' Creed (about A.D. 140) did not have the phrase, "He descended into Hell", and it did not appear in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 325). It seems to have been a late addition (perhaps around A.D. 390). The phrase first appeared in the Creed of Aquileia, (4th century, in the Latin words descendit in inferna - descended into Hades). In addition, the Athanasian Creed, which does contain the phrase, may not have been written until the time of Charlemagne (8th century). So, why the addition? One possible explanation is that at the end of the fourth century (around A.D. 381) the church was battling the teachings of Apollinaris. He taught that Jesus was not fully human - He had a human body and soul, but a divine spirit. The church, on the other hand, taught that Jesus had to be fully human for His death to be a true death and an effective sacrifice for sin. To demonstrate that Jesus was fully human, with a human spirit, the church may have added the Latin phrase from the Creed of Aquileia to the more popular Apostles' Creed. By the time of the Middle Ages, the words Hell and Hades had become confused and Jesus was thought to have descended into Hell.

Did Jesus Go to Hell?
[/COLOR]
Click to expand...


Aheim...

Not to be nit picky or anything :lol

As you spell it, "Geenna" has it's roots in Hebrew, not the greek. While it has spiritual significance due to what occurred there which is recounted in the OT, it is a physical location that if you wish, you can visit today if you like.

Hades was actually a greek God, the brother of Zeus, and his abode was the under world. Often Hades was spoken in terms of his realm, thus Hades, the underworld.

Within the deepest caverns of his abode was Tartaros to which it was said only the wicked of the wicked were sent.

I believe I posted common, and accepted Jewish belief on "Geenna" with Psalms 84:7. Why would a Jew believe that a Rabbi could go to hell and take souls out with him?

Continue :wave
 
"The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works."

Hades sounds like a form of temporary hell.
 
Hell is a word derived from the Norse which the KJ translators used to describe Ghenna, Hades and Tartous.

Hades was the greek word used to describe the idea behind the Hebrew word Ghenna which carried an expanded, and older idea found in the word Sheol.

They all pretty much carry the same idea... It's not a place you would want to spend eternity in, and in the passage you just posted, both death and hell will one day be gone forever, cast into the lake of fire.

Anyway, I just looked up and saw the title of this thread... "Is baptism essential to salvation". I think we're starting to vere off track a little. :oops
 
warfrog said:
"The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works."

Hades sounds like a form of temporary hell.
Click to expand...

Is not Hades as mentioned in this scripture the same as Sheol, which was understood by the Jews to be the grave? So couldn't Hades giving up the dead that were in it simply mean the graves being opened?
 
TRUTH over TRADITION said:
Is not Hades as mentioned in this scripture the same as Sheol, which was understood by the Jews to be the grave? So couldn't Hades giving up the dead that were in it simply mean the graves being opened?
Click to expand...

Im not sure, personally i would think Death itself would pertian to the grave and Hades the place in which the dead go, so Death being destroyed also makes Hades destroyed considering through Death Hades has no place, no purpose so it is cast into the lake of fire.

Stove has a point though, this isnt the proper thread lol, why doesnt someone just create a new one if they would like to continue in this discussion?
 
StoveBolts said:
Hell is a word derived from the Norse which the KJ translators used to describe Ghenna, Hades and Tartous.

Hades was the greek word used to describe the idea behind the Hebrew word Ghenna which carried an expanded, and older idea found in the word Sheol.

They all pretty much carry the same idea... It's not a place you would want to spend eternity in, and in the passage you just posted, both death and hell will one day be gone forever, cast into the lake of fire.

Anyway, I just looked up and saw the title of this thread... "Is baptism essential to salvation". I think we're starting to vere off track a little. :oops
Click to expand...
My understanding of ghenna is that outside of the city, they burnt their refuse, so it was an on-going fire, called ghenna.

To stay on topic:
Jesus was baptised, should we not ALL follow Him?
Anything less, would be to go off on our own and make our own rules.
 
Truth over Tradition, I hope I am not "dismissing" anything "because it stands against what you ( I ) hold as true." Such has never been my intention.

I find threads such as these are without dicipline and lack co hesion and become a hodgepodge of ideas, opinions, error and truth. If you so wish, make arrangements for us to have a "private study" and if our definitions of terms and conditions are agreeable to us both I shall be happy to engage.
 
I read that as they (saints) recieved the Holy Spirit after the resurrection of the Christ, it is either povided or commanded and done immediatly following the reception in all cases, Saul/Paul, the Apostles and the roughly 3,000 at pentecost, the people at Corneliuses when Simon
Peter was sent there for the Gentiles in the Lord Jesus and so on.

So then my case personally, why was neither case presented?
I saw the Lord, He spoke to me even as I was presently in doubt of Him and in persecution to Him and His and I beleived in Him that moment as i stood among the poor in that food house, confessed my sins and believed that He was the Christ, dead and raised for the sins of man, the only way to the Father.
But noone present baptised me, nor was it commanded. God orcastrates all of the examples and in all of His, now if His desire was to present a vision of the Son before me that I may beleive and speak to me, in which, I beleived from that point onwards, why then did He not create nor produce the action of water baptism at that present time, nor afterwards?

Look at all the examples in the Word, each one God produces that result upon them through the saints as I have described above, yet for me personally it was not so then and there on that day God revealed the Son to me, that Jesus is the Christ.

Now you may say it has to be done, i do not defrentiate on that either way, however it has always, always, been in my faith in Christ, that God orcastrates His desire and provides in all things in His grace, and as it was done in all examples within the Word, why was it not done in that same accord regarding me?
That is why I say to all of you, it is my faith that God's will be done, He will present and provide water baptism as He wills upon me in His accordance as He has done for all of His in the examples provided through scripture, I am in no way shape or form saying I refuse to be water baptised, i am saying His will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

If i am to be baptised in water also, it will be done as He sees fit, not you, or I, His will be done. He will present it as He has for all of His.
 
FrustratedForumer said:
Why all the Jewish emphasis?
Click to expand...

Jesus was a Jew and those he reached out to were in fact Jews and Isrealites so the Jewish perspective is essential in understanding the NT scriptures because the NT stands upon the foundation laid by the Hebrew scriptures and would prove difficult if not impossible to properly understood without the guidance proved by the OT.

--was that a run-on sentence or what?
 
This is a slight digression, but nonetheless a very important question to consider.

Is your faith in your beliefs stronger than your desire for truth? And on the same note, how willing are we to question our own faith to insure that it is in fact in line with God's truth?
 
FrustratedForumer said:
Or What! J/K!

I know He was a Jew and that was whom He was talking, but I'd rather focus on how it concerns us today.
Click to expand...

What we may have to realize it that much of what was said in scripture was not directed at us today and even the parts that are, are not addressed specifically and exclusively to the 'us' of the twentieth century and must be viewed through the prism of the author's time frame with views of the customs and understanding of that time in mind.
 
This is a slight digression, but nonetheless a very important question to consider.
Click to expand...
Ok, I am officially not following. Digression from?

Not directed at us today? Is that really how you see it? I totally disagree with that. The Bible was written for the past, today, and tomorrow. I believe that every situation in the bible can be made to parallel any situation of the 21st century.

As for my faith? It lies totally in the guidance of God through the Holy Spirit. I am always open to correction, if I am proven wrong.
 
FrustratedForumer said:
Not directed at us today? Is that really how you see it? I totally disagree with that. The Bible was written for the past, today, and tomorrow. I believe that every situation in the bible can be made to parallel any situation of the 21st century.

As for my faith? It lies totally in the guidance of God through the Holy Spirit. I am always open to correction, if I am proven wrong.
Click to expand...

That is not what I would like to believe nor is it what I once believed, but based on what my studies have shown me to be true, it is what I now believe.

We must recall that the Bible was not even fully compiled and circulating as a unit until the 3rd century, and up until recently the masses of humanity have been illiterate rendering the Bible useless to them.
 
Only Noah was told to build an ark. Yet Rom.15:4 reads:'FOR WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORETIME WERE WRITTEN FOR OUR LEARNING, THAT WE THROUGH PATIENCE AND COMFORT MIGHT HAVE HOPE" ETC. We learn such things as faithfulness, obedience, patience, hope etc. from such scripture.
 
Eric: Then yoru must argue with Jesus, Peter and Paul and the Holy Spirit who inspired Peter and Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top