Where is there a scripture stating that a person can’t place faith in Jesus and walk into a river and dunk under and come up on his own? The Leper in the Old Testament dipped seven times to be healed – he dipped himself. Matter of fact, a careful study of Jesus baptism reveals he came up “straightway” out of the water, meaning His body came out as if he squatted down into the water and then back up.

You hear Church of Christ people saying baptism pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. You mean Jesus was painting this prior to the event or was He going through Jewish practices of baptism, fulfilling all righteousness?

There is no BCV stating a person needs someone baptizing them. If God does the work in baptism per Church of Christ teaching, then why is there a need to have someone dunk me under, when I can do that myself?

The baptisms in the Old Testament were just like this – a washing of ones self …and Jewish history bares out the fact they squatted down into the water themselves. Even when Pater preached in Acts 2, the people there most likely entered the water as they always did and squatted down into the water, having faith in Jesus.

I am not saying it is wrong to have someone dunk a person in water for remission of sins, but show me why one cant walk into a body of water and squat down and be baptized. The word means submersed, right?

Next question; Jewish followers who had already been prepared for the Kingdom (repented confessed sins & baptized for remission) need to be baptized again?

johnny,
surely you are not saying these fine folks were born
again?
because they certainly were not.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

you must be BORN AGAIN.
once again for all the slow to hear.
forgiveness of sins is NOT the same thing as being
born again. born again because we were born in sin.
let the fire works begin.
lee

johnny. where are you?

lee’s question:
Where does the Bible show the disciples being baptized in the name of Jesus?

My question:
As you say baptism is the event all people are forgiven why wasn’t it important and significant to record the event of the disciples own baptisms?

Randy’s questions:

Did Peter have a watch on to determine the third hour or was he using the sun? Seems to me that many church of Christ assemblies are not following the sun PATTERN but following their man made-clocks. And doing so, some are having the Lords Supper on Monday and not per the PATTERN of Paul, Peter and others.

Johnny, what authority do you have to change the Lords Supper from a Jewish Calendar pattern to your eastern time zone pattern? Your “first day of the week” begins at 12am – did Paul and Peter use your “first day of the week pattern?”

Johnny, do you believe that the Holy Spirit literally resides in the believer?

Do you consider those within the conservative church of Christ to be false teachers if they hold this view?

Well Johnny?

Petty jibes and incoherent babbling are all that he apparently has in his arsenal of articulation.

So to those who have begun paying attention to Robertson and Oldfield and the local so-called “Church of Christ”, and to those who are already associated with it who are reading this blog and my own:

Is Johnny Robertson the kind of alleged “Christian minister” that you want to be known as being associated with?

Does any serious person honestly believe that Johnny Robertson – who eagerly demonstrates far more cruelty than compassion – is a sincere servant of Jesus Christ?

I just watched There Will Be Blood last night. Robertson has far more in common with the huckster “preacher” in that movie than he does with Thomas Aquinas or Polycarp or the apostle Paul.

“Innocence is a pretense of ignorance, a pretense staged not so much for others as for ourselves. This is what Nietzsche rails against in my epigraph—people who can’t tell good “honest” lies because they don’t have the courage to face what is true and false in themselves. They cannot choose to lie because they lie incessantly and unconsciously to themselves. In the 1950s, Jean-Paul Sartre would elaborate Nietzsche’s insight into the concept of mauvaise foi or bad faith…

Disavowal, by contrast, is the refusal to acknowledge those things of darkness that are ours. I have borrowed the term from psychoanalysis, though I will not always be using it precisely in a psychoanalytic sense.
For Freud, disavowal is one among several ways of suppressing something unbearable. Repression, another of those ways, banishes unwanted knowledge or desires to the unconscious, where they are no longer available to us. Disavowal, by contrast, involves a “splitting” of the self, so that we simultaneously know and don’t know something.

While Freud would not approve, I want to propose an ethical distinction between repression and disavowal. In repression, the conscious mind finds something so objectionable (though also desirable) that it simply expels it and will have no more to do with it. Repression therefore involves, for better or worse, a genuine renunciation. In disavowal, however, consciousness both retains and banishes something. It thereby allows itself to enjoy that forbidden thing on the sly while denying that it enjoys or knows it. Disavowal is not exactly a way of having your cake and eating it too. It’s rather a way of eating your cake and nevertheless being able to deny to yourself, with apparent sincerity, that you ever ate it or had any intention of doing so. Indeed, it’s a way of eating cake while declaring that people who eat cake are disgusting and ought to be locked up. Disavowal is therefore a short-circuiting of ethics, insofar as it refuses to take responsibility for what one already knows or wants or does, engaging instead in childish forms of denial. It substitutes a false conviction of personal purity for a complex engagement with the self and the world as they really are.

While repression divides the self into largely noncommunicating realms of light and darkness, disavowal occupies a murky grey area, neither fully repressed nor fully acknowledged. The philosopher Bernard Williams observed, “One symptom of deep-seated problems of the Freudian kind may be self-deception. But . . . there is a level of self-deception more subconscious than unconscious that can be dealt with by the virtues of accuracy and sincerity. That’s what we have those virtues for.”

Mac is not in fellowship with Todd

what is your real question