Baptism confusion plagues most versions including KJV and Latin Vulgate

[rsc2a]

A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

Where?

Hebrews 9

rantidzo is used in Hebrews 9

There are Greek words for sprinkle and pouring. Were those modes intended, those words would have been used.

http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/9-10.htm

Looking at the entirety of the chapter those washings (baptisms) are explicitly called sprinklings in several other verses.

Again, I'm not arguing that immersion shouldn't be the preferred method...I'm simply pointing out that to say there is no Biblically symbolic meaning for the other two methods is not accurate.

Are you really trying to compare the sprinkling of blood with some type of "baptism"? Really?

I can see "christenings" changing forever now that this little "nugget" been revealed. I'd just like to know who's going to provide the blood?

I'm not trying to do anything but understand the text. The author of Hebrews was comparing the sprinkling of blood to baptism. Your issue is with him, not me.

 

[FSSL]

You are conflating these.

Sprinklings  of the offerings are one thing. That is why rantidzo is used.

The ceremonial washings were the immersion of the hands and utensils in the basins.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A sprinkling is specifically called a baptism.

Where?

Hebrews 9

rantidzo is used in Hebrews 9

There are Greek words for sprinkle and pouring. Were those modes intended, those words would have been used.

http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/9-10.htm

Looking at the entirety of the chapter those washings (baptisms) are explicitly called sprinklings in several other verses.

Again, I'm not arguing that immersion shouldn't be the preferred method...I'm simply pointing out that to say there is no Biblically symbolic meaning for the other two methods is not accurate.

Are you really trying to compare the sprinkling of blood with some type of "baptism"? Really?

I can see "christenings" changing forever now that this little "nugget" been revealed. I'd just like to know who's going to provide the blood?

I'm not trying to do anything but understand the text. The author of Hebrews was comparing the sprinkling of blood to baptism. Your issue is with him, not me.

You making this connection. Not the author. You're saying the author makes this connect and he doesn't. Provide evidence apart from some generic reference to an entire chapter in the book of Hebrews.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You are conflating these.

Sprinklings  of the offerings are one thing. That is why rantidzo is used.

The ceremonial washings were the immersion of the hands and utensils in the basins.

He might was well make the connection the water birthers make based on Hebrews 9:22.

 

[rsc2a]

You are conflating these.

Sprinklings  of the offerings are one thing. That is why rantidzo is used.

The ceremonial washings were the immersion of the hands and utensils in the basins.

Odd since the author specifically mentions this sprinkling cleanses people, and since the thrust of the entire chapter is how people are cleansed by this sprinkling, I'll go with that.

But I get it. I also have a really hard time letting Scripture change my theology vs letting my theology causing me to twist (or simply ignore) Scripture. Personally, I've found "I don't know" and "Maybe the answer is somewhat more broad than my own narrow viewpoint" to be very helpful.

 

[FSSL]

Yep! How else does someone symbolize death, burial and ressurection besides immersion?

 

[FSSL]

rsc2a... There is a reason why Baptidzo is used and rantidzo is used. The language is clear.

Let the language of Scripture drive your conclusions, not a conflation of passages.

 

[rsc2a]

Yep! How else does someone symbolize death, burial and ressurection besides immersion?

Yep! How else does someone symbolize God pouring His spirit on His people besides pouring?

See...I can do that too.

Better yet...how else does someone symbolize the removal of foreskin except by immersion...oh no...maybe symbolism is a bit more complicated than we like to allow it to be.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yep! How else does someone symbolize death, burial and ressurection besides immersion?

Yep! How else does someone symbolize God pouring His spirit on His people besides pouring?

See...I can do that too.

Better yet...how else does someone symbolize the removal of foreskin except by immersion...oh no...maybe symbolism is a bit more complicated than we like to allow it to be.

Boy.... you really get wild sometimes.

Its very odd that you make such connections. The "cutting" of the foreskin has nothing to do with the symbolism of immersion.

 

[rsc2a]

Yep! How else does someone symbolize death, burial and ressurection besides immersion?

Yep! How else does someone symbolize God pouring His spirit on His people besides pouring?

See...I can do that too.

Better yet...how else does someone symbolize the removal of foreskin except by immersion...oh no...maybe symbolism is a bit more complicated than we like to allow it to be.

Boy.... you really get wild sometimes.

Its very odd that you make such connections. The "cutting" of the foreskin has nothing to do with the symbolism of immersion.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God... - Colossians 2:11-12

How very odd that Paul made such connections. He explicitly stated that the symbolism in the cutting of the foreskin has everything to do with the symbolism of baptism. He sure did get wild sometimes.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yep! How else does someone symbolize death, burial and ressurection besides immersion?

Yep! How else does someone symbolize God pouring His spirit on His people besides pouring?

See...I can do that too.

Better yet...how else does someone symbolize the removal of foreskin except by immersion...oh no...maybe symbolism is a bit more complicated than we like to allow it to be.

Boy.... you really get wild sometimes.

Its very odd that you make such connections. The "cutting" of the foreskin has nothing to do with the symbolism of immersion.

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God... - Colossians 2:11-12

How very odd that Paul made such connections. He explicitly stated that the symbolism in the cutting of the foreskin has everything to do with the symbolism of baptism. He sure did get wild sometimes.

LOL.... Sure it does. Only in your mind!!!!

I imagine we can just "sprinkle" the heart...... If we could only get to it without causing a medical emergency....

Paul makes a connection in those being symbolic of something. The symbols themselves do not overlap..... Get a grip man.

 

[FSSL]

Oh well... until rsc2a grabs a lexicon and proves otherwise, Baptidzo can mean whatever he wants it to mean! Why not "party hardy?"!

 

[Ransom]

How very odd that Paul made such connections. He explicitly stated that the symbolism in the cutting of the foreskin has everything to do with the symbolism of baptism. He sure did get wild sometimes.

Read your own Bible verse. He doesn't equate circumcision with baptism:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God... - Colossians 2:11-12

Circumcision <---> putting off the body of the flesh
Baptism <---> burial and resurrection

 

[rsc2a]

Oh well... until rsc2a grabs a lexicon and proves otherwise, Baptidzo can mean whatever he wants it to mean! Why not "party hardy?"!

I'm not really surprised. Like I said, people often want to ignore passages that  conflict with their personal views.

How very odd that Paul made such connections. He explicitly stated that the symbolism in the cutting of the foreskin has everything to do with the symbolism of baptism. He sure did get wild sometimes.

Read your own Bible verse. He doesn't equate circumcision with baptism:

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God... - Colossians 2:11-12

Circumcision <---> putting off the body of the flesh
Baptism <---> burial and resurrection

Yes...one continuous thought. Of course, cutting up passages is as common as ignoring them.



What's so amusing about this is that I am someone who is partial to immersion as the preferred mode of baptism. Of course, I would never say that there is no symbolic meaning behind either sprinkling or pouring, because that's clearly wrong just by a cursory understanding of why other Christian traditions use the other modes.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Yes...one continuous thought. Of course, cutting up passages is as common as ignoring them.

Passages are made up of their respective "individual components". You can't understand the passage without the components. Paul doesn't combine the symbols as if they are one. You're the one doing that.

What's so amusing about this is that I am someone who is partial to immersion as the preferred mode of baptism. Of course, I would never say that there is no symbolic meaning behind either sprinkling or pouring, because that's clearly wrong just by a cursory understanding of why other Christian traditions use the other modes.

No one is ignoring the fact they are symbolic.

Pray tell.... just why do you prefer the immersion method? Is it because the symbolism is more profound or accurate than "sprinkling"..... or are you just making things up as you go?

 

[rsc2a]

Yes...one continuous thought. Of course, cutting up passages is as common as ignoring them.

Passages are made up of their respective "individual components". You can't understand the passage without the components. Paul doesn't combine the symbols as if they are one. You're the one doing that.

Me and a great number of other believers including all Presbys and Lutherans.

What's so amusing about this is that I am someone who is partial to immersion as the preferred mode of baptism. Of course, I would never say that there is no symbolic meaning behind either sprinkling or pouring, because that's clearly wrong just by a cursory understanding of why other Christian traditions use the other modes.

No one is ignoring the fact they are symbolic.

There is no legitimate symbolic meaning with sprinkling and pouring. - FSSL

Pray tell.... just why do you prefer the immersion method? Is it because the symbolism is more profound or accurate than "sprinkling"..... or are you just making things up as you go?

Because I think it is the most correct given both the historical and textual evidence. That doesn't mean I don't think there isn't both historical and textual evidence for the other modes...just that I think that immersion has the more convincing evidence. But then, I'm finding that part of my own learning regarding spiritual humility is acknowledging that I don't have to know everything and that my own views might be in error.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There is no legitimate symbolic meaning with sprinkling and pouring. - FSSL

He wrote in the context of baptism. You can't tell me that you think he wasn't aware of the symbolism of sprinkling/pouring out blood.

We KNOW this is representative of what Christ did at Calvary. An allusion to a future event in which a person THEN might grasp what will be done.

Because I think it is the most correct given both the historical and textual evidence. That doesn't mean I don't think there isn't both historical and textual evidence for the other modes...just that I think that immersion has the more convincing evidence.

Sure it does. You know this.

But then, I'm finding that part of my own learning regarding spiritual humility is acknowledging that I don't have to know everything and that my own views might be in error.

EXCEPT.... when it comes to the symbolism of baptism and discussion here on the forum. Then.... you have absolute knowledge.

 

[FSSL]

He wrote in the context of baptism. You can't tell me that you think he wasn't aware of the symbolism of sprinkling/pouring out blood.

C'mon rsc2a.... you knew that.

Also, it is not my personal view that is the basis... just get yourself a lexicon.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

I have read every word in Hebrews 9 in both English (several different versions) and Greek (three different textforms) and I can't find a single time where the Greek word βαπτισμοις or any form of that word is used to indicate a sprinkling. The one place where the word "sprinkling" is used in the English versions the Greek word is ραντιζουσα (a verb, present, active, participle, nominative case, singular, feminine gender).

So, again, where is βαπτισμοις or any form thereof, used to indicate a sprinkling?

 

[FSSL]

Me and a great number of other believers including all Presbys and Lutherans.

But you said above that our theology should not influence our point. You allow traditions to influence yours.