C
- Status
A
amber_lux
Guest
Ever heard of the Yellowknife NWT “Freezing for a reason” plunge? Held in March due to a lack of water before then.
In Northern China there are accounts of monks deliberatly jumping into icy water, fully clothed, for the sole purpose of proving that they can dry their clothes thru their own body heat.
In Norway, and Sweden, there are accounts of skinny dipping in the lakes in mid-winter, after a sauna.
So no, cold water is not a barrier. Furthermore, the Didache suggests that cold water be used, if living water can not be found. Living water usually is cold, but not freezing.
A
amber_lux
Guest
Looks to be the usual size of a Mikvah. Which is used for immersion.
A
amber_lux
Guest
- 1311: Council of Ravenna
- 1284: Council of Nemours
- 250: Eusebius described it in Ecclesiastical History,
C
campeador
Guest
I was kinda hoping for links. Not that I’m lazy, just busy.
R
Rocky
Guest
I suppose it could be a mikveh, but from what I can see it has no steps to go into. It just seems to be a square tank. How would people enter and exit? It seems it would be quite uncomfortable to go into it. Baptism by immersion is quite fine, but to put the emphasis on whether one is immersed or not to be a valid baptism seems quite too much.
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
It seems you are** projecting your beliefs on what the Lord’s Supper is on Baptists.***** <—To a degree, that’s true. But if Baptists are getting their beliefs from the Bible, that should be a safe thing to do. When I presume they belief Christ was crucified, I’m also projecting my beliefs onto them.*** They do not see the Bible as saying that you need the Lord’s Supper for life. <—Christ says in John 6 that you DO and there is no symbolic language in that passage. Symbolism may have made what Christ was saying acceptable to the people but instead of explaining that He was speaking symbolically Christ became more insistent on the literal interpretation, saying that His flesh and blood were meat and drink INDEED, not symbolically. You can take issue with their interpretation of Scripture, but it is their interpretation. The BF&M says clearly:
If two Christians (Catholic and SBC) both believe in the Bible they should both be able to do lots of “belief-projecting” back and forth without any problems. There are passages which can be disagreed on by two objective, honest people but most of the Bible is too straightforward for that…as in the case of John 6. It’s CLEARLY and SELF EVIDENTLY an argument from Christ Himself for Real Presence and an HONEST reading of that passage is all one needs to figure that out. It’s not vague and it’s not rocket science…it just “is what it is” and some people don’t want to believe it.
From what I hear from former SBC’s and non Catholics, you’re right…they DON’T “see the Bible as saying that you need the Lord’s Supper for life.” From what I’m hearing though the reason they don’t see it that way is because that passage doesn’t get talked about, do they even read it? Is it just ignored completely just because it contradicts their man-made religionistic beliefs?
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience<—If SBC’s belief it’s an act of obedience, AND not technically required by God, who are they being obedient to? Their religion?!I asked you this once already
L
ltwin
Guest
Obviously, obedience to Christ is the point of the statement. He tells the disciples to do this in remembrance of me. I didn’t think I needed to point that out.If two Christians (Catholic and SBC) both believe in the Bible they should both be able to do lots of “belief-projecting” back and forth without any problems. There are passages which can be disagreed on by two objective, honest people but most of the Bible is too straightforward for that…as in the case of John 6. It’s CLEARLY and SELF EVIDENTLY an argument from Christ Himself for Real Presence and an HONEST reading of that passage is all one needs to figure that out. It’s not vague and it’s not rocket science…it just “is what it is” and some people don’t want to believe it.
From what I hear from former SBC’s and non Catholics, you’re right…they DON’T “see the Bible as saying that you need the Lord’s Supper for life.” From what I’m hearing though the reason they don’t see it that way is because that passage doesn’t get talked about, do they even read it? Is it just ignored completely just because it contradicts their man-made religionistic beliefs?
The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience<—If SBC’s belief it’s an act of obedience, AND not technically required by God, who are they being obedient to? Their religion?!
Please don’t roll your eyes at me. You were the one saying, and I quote
You were accusing them of denying life, but that is not what they are doing. I was giving perspective, Baptists do believe the elements are only grape juice and bread-not the very and real body and blood of Jesus Christ. So, if they deny someone communion, they are not denying life, they are only denying someone the chance to consume bread and grape juice, albeit in a most meaningful and holy way. Yes, communion has great importance for Baptists and I was not disparaging that.
L
luckysealy
Guest
As a Baptist I had to question immersion only. They say that is the way it must be done because that is the example given to us, but when the have communion they use grape juice. I was puzzled by this
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
Obviously, obedience to Christ is the point of the statement. He tells the disciples to do this in remembrance of me***<—
Please don’t roll your eyes at me. You were the one saying, and I quote
John 6 makes it very clear that Christ wanted people to consider his flesh and blood to be REAL food and drink, not symbolic food and drink. If SBC doesn’t do that, then obviously they aren’t very worried about being obedient to Christ. Aside from that if they WERE worried about people being obedient to Christ they wouldn’t be denying them the Last Supper, especially over Baptism since they don’t think it necessary. Thirdly, if they were worried about being obedient to Christ, they wouldn’t think Baptism isn’t necessary in the first place…
It appears they only worry about obedience when it lines up with their own man made, religion
- Status