Debate for "Beliefs on Baptism."

[Darron Steele]

DS:
"1COR 1:15 lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name." (ASV emphasis mine.)

The Corinthians were dividing into factions based upon loyalty to people for their own pride to the disparagement of others. Paul was grateful that none of them could claim baptism by him as a basis for further such activity."


GE: Water-baptism isn't doing any better today than then: Causing division and strife in the Church.

Water baptism is not causing this. What PEOPLE do about water baptism is.

I believe that obeying Jesus Christ's command to baptize, which He intended to be done until the close of the church age at Matthew 28:19-20, is still good and right. I do not believe how some people have handled it negates
1) that the Lord Jesus commanded it, and
2) that we are all under an individual obligation to obey regardless of what others do.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darren Steele:
"Baptism in water is Christian. Jesus made it timeless at Matthew 28:19-20."

GE:
There's no word there of 'water'. The command was: "IN THE NAME ...".

Jesus made the Apostles' baptism temporary; theirs was the beginning of the Gospel. Since they and their baptism had stopped and the Message had been established, it's only the Baptism of Jesus that remains ... as the Baptist prophesied, "I, baptise you with water, BUT HE, WITH FIRE AND SPIRIT". The only difference since the Apostles is that THEY at first exactly SO, baptised; and that since them, the Holy Spirit baptises of its own, just SO -- "IN THE NAME ...".
There' no word of 'water' in there! There's no word to followers (non-leaders) in there.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darren Steele:
"Baptism in water is Christian. Jesus made it timeless at Matthew 28:19-20."

GE:
There's no word there of 'water'. The command was: "IN THE NAME ...".

Jesus made the Apostles' baptism temporary; theirs was the beginning of the Gospel. Since they and their baptism had stopped and the Message had been established, it's only the Baptism of Jesus that remains ... as the Baptist prophesied, "I, baptise you with water, BUT HE, WITH FIRE AND SPIRIT". The only difference since the Apostles is that THEY at first exactly SO, baptised; and that since them, the Holy Spirit baptises of its own, just SO -- "IN THE NAME ...".
There' no word of 'water' in there! There's no word to followers (non-leaders) in there.

GE: I believe your contempt for water baptism is clouding your reading of Scripture. Would we both agree that Holy Spirit baptism is automatic?

Now, read Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.

In the "baptize" here at Matthew 28:19-20, it is WE who baptize. This does not describe baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Now, let us turn to the latter part Acts 8 which describes a Jerusalem congregation member approved by the 12 apostles for special service at Acts 6:1-6, called "Philip the evangelist" (ASV) at Acts 21:8. At Acts 8:35-6 we have "And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (ASV).

Then, Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him" (ASV).

These passages indicate together that the Lord Jesus Christ commanded baptism in water to be done by His followers through the entirety of the church age. I do not believe God needed to spell it out every time, and I believe that He intended for us to take His whole written Word into account.

I understand how one would be preturbed by how people have treated baptism.
1) Some people have trifled with the timing and the mode, believing with sincerity that there is nothing wrong with this.
2) This has caused some people to be unwilling to be baptized in the pattern shown by the New Testament, with the result that some Christians are not willing to accept those Christians -- which I believe is wrong.
3) Among churches in the denominations that I frequent, a typical salvation message will discuss faith only in passing, and spend the majority of the sermon preaching on baptism. This overemphasis is naturally repulsive to those who know that the Bible emphasizes other matters in salvation and want to emphasize what the Bible emphasizes.
4) Among buildings that churches in my denomination/s* associate themselves with, lies are actually told about the beliefs of other Christians, and this has caused inaccurate perceptions within the denomination/s that I frequent.
*Independent Christian/Churches of Christ.
5) In some churches, a specific set of words are required during the ceremony that are designed to be excluding toward other Christians. Baptism is used to promote divisiveness within the Lord's church..

I understand anyone's objection to any of these abuses. Despite this, I believe it is wrong and gravely dangerous to cite these abuses as reason to suggest disobeying a command of Jesus Christ. I believe the Lord's commandments come first, and I believe that we are called to obey Him regardless of the wrongs others do.

 

[mman]

Darren Steele:
"Baptism in water is Christian. Jesus made it timeless at Matthew 28:19-20."

GE:
There's no word there of 'water'. The command was: "IN THE NAME ...".

Jesus made the Apostles' baptism temporary; theirs was the beginning of the Gospel. Since they and their baptism had stopped and the Message had been established, it's only the Baptism of Jesus that remains ... as the Baptist prophesied, "I, baptise you with water, BUT HE, WITH FIRE AND SPIRIT". The only difference since the Apostles is that THEY at first exactly SO, baptised; and that since them, the Holy Spirit baptises of its own, just SO -- "IN THE NAME ...".
There' no word of 'water' in there! There's no word to followers (non-leaders) in there.

No word for water? Have you not read the word baptize?

If I said it is raining outside, even though I did not mention water, surely, even you would understand that water is falling from the sky. Unless something in the context modifies the meaning of "rain", it is always understood to mean water.

The same is true of baptism. Unless something in the context demands otherwise, it is always a submersion in liquid. Biblical baptism is a submersion in water as clearly seen in Acts 8. That was the common meaning of the word and unless something in the text DEMANDS otherwise, it is always understood to mean a submersion in water.

Can you, Gerhard Ebersoehn, baptize others with the Holy Spirit? If not, then you cannot fulfill Matt 28:18-20, if you deny water. Jesus said he would be the one baptizing others with the Holy Spirit. Can you also do what Jesus promised He would do? Why would Jesus say He would do it, if others would actually be doing it.

The command in Matt 28:18-20 is perpetual. It does not end. It is a never ending do-loop. If you contend that it has ended, use the scriptures to show where and how it ended. You cannot.

Teach
Baptize
Teach them all things I have commanded you.

What had he just commanded them? To go teach and baptize.

Therefore, those who were baptized were commanded to go teach and baptize and then teach them to go teach and baptize, thus, a never ending cycle.

Not only was it a never ending cycle, it was a message for all nations. As Mark also states, it is for every created person in the whole world (Mark 16:15-16).

When Philip preached Jesus (Acts 8:35), the first words out of the Eunuch's mouth was, "See, here is WATER, what doth hinder me from being baptized"? Is it not obvious that preaching Jesus includes instructions for water baptism? Only someone wanting to deny this would deny this passage and claim otherwise.

Eph 4:5 states that there is only ONE baptism. Since Matt 28:18-20 is perpetual, and neither you no I can baptize anyone with the Holy Spirit, the one baptism is a baptism in water.

I Pet 3:20-21 also links baptism to water.

Rom 6 shows how water baptism is a form of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Rom 6:3-6,17). With a baptism in water, this makes complete sense, however, the symbology is lost completly if one tries to equate this to a baptism with the Holy Spirit. How is one buried in the Holy Spirit then raised OUT of the Holy Spirit? That would make no sense whatsoever. Furthermore, there is nothing in the text that demands that the word baptism should be understood to mean something contrary to its usual meaning.

You see, Jesus said, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." - Mark 16:16

When Philip did this in Acts 8 and preached the good news about Jesus, it came with instructions to be baptized in water, as we have already seen.

The good news about Jesus has not changed. If your good news about Jesus doesn't include instructions for water baptism, then you are preaching a different message than what Philip preached.

Remember, Philip was hand selected by the Holy Spirit to go teach the Eunuch. Surely he must have been qualified? Do you think he taught him wrong?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

MMan:
"Can you, Gerhard Ebersoehn, baptize others with the Holy Spirit? If not, then you cannot fulfill Matt 28:18-20, if you deny water. Jesus said he would be the one baptizing others with the Holy Spirit. Can you also do what Jesus promised He would do? Why would Jesus say He would do it, if others would actually be doing it."

GE:
Gerhard Ebersoehn CANNOT! Neither you, nor anyone else. And if not, then NNE but an Apostle, can fulfill Matt 28:18-20! And it's not a matter of denying water, because water plays no part in there. Despite the word baptise being read there.
(time's up - till next year, DV!))

 

[mman]

MMan:
"Can you, Gerhard Ebersoehn, baptize others with the Holy Spirit? If not, then you cannot fulfill Matt 28:18-20, if you deny water. Jesus said he would be the one baptizing others with the Holy Spirit. Can you also do what Jesus promised He would do? Why would Jesus say He would do it, if others would actually be doing it."

GE:
Gerhard Ebersoehn CANNOT! Neither you, nor anyone else. And if not, then NNE but an Apostle, can fulfill Matt 28:18-20! And it's not a matter of denying water, because water plays no part in there. Despite the word baptise being read there.
(time's up - till next year, DV!))

So when Jesus said, "teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you" he really didn't meant all? He had just commanded them to go teach and baptize. Therefore, by your own admission, those who were taught and baptized and then taught to obeserve all things (which included going and teaching all nations, baptizing them...) has to be water baptism, since that is the only type of baptizing they could perform.

Since you cannot baptize with the Holy Spirit, then Matt 28:18-20 is obviously water baptism. It was water baptism in Mark 16:16, water baptism in Acts 2:38, water baptism in Acts 22:16, water baptism in Acts 8, it was water baptism in Eph 4:5, it was water baptism in Rom 6, and it was water baptism in I Pet 3:20-21. That was the ordinary meaning of the word as used in the New Testament, that is undeniable, regardless of how long you refuse to accept it.

Philip was not an apostle and he baptized people in water. He preached Jesus which included instructions for water baptism (Acts 8).

Do you peach another gospel that does not include instructions for water baptism?

 

[hillclimber1]

GE: I believe your contempt for water baptism is clouding your reading of Scripture. Would we both agree that Holy Spirit baptism is automatic?

Now, read Matthew 28:19-20 “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.

In brief: This is talking of the Great Commission. Now I know some believe we are directed to do this but. The Great Commission was given to Israel, to go unto the corners of the earth. But God set aside that commission, now for 2K years, and began a program of "The Age of Grace" where not just Israel, but all of mankind's believers in Christ were to make up the Body of Christ. It was appointed to OUR apostle, Paul, to minister to this "new" body. In this new church, baptism as a ritual is not to be practiced, as the Holy Spirit automatically indwells (baptizes) every individual into the body of Christ, when they accept Christ as Savior. Yes we are to evangelize everyone but The Great Commission was not ours to deal with. In carrying out the GC, these signs will follow: serpents. tongues, healings, cast out demons. etc. Mark 16 I think. Those are far from us today.

In the "baptize" here at Matthew 28:19-20, it is WE who baptize. This does not describe baptism in the Holy Spirit.

No this is under the Great Commission and not for us in the Body of Christ.

Now, let us turn to the latter part Acts 8 which describes a Jerusalem congregation member approved by the 12 apostles for special service at Acts 6:1-6, called "Philip the evangelist" (ASV) at Acts 21:8. At Acts 8:35-6 we have "And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (ASV).

Then, Acts 8:38 "And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him" (ASV).

Correct. These baptisms were still being carried out under the Kingdom program, which included water baptism. The Lord was still ready to begin His Kingdom, ruling from David's throne. But we know it did not occur. The Body Church, HIDDEN IN THE FATHER, was instituted instead, because of Israels unbelief, and rejection of their Messiah (Christ).

These passages indicate together that the Lord Jesus Christ commanded baptism in water to be done by His followers through the entirety of the church age. No, this was for Israel and her converts only, not into the Church age. I do not believe God needed to spell it out every time, and I believe that He intended for us to take His whole written Word into account. I agree wholeheartedly

I understand how one would be preturbed by how people have treated baptism.
1) Some people have trifled with the timing and the mode, believing with sincerity that there is nothing wrong with this.
2) This has caused some people to be unwilling to be baptized in the pattern shown by the New Testament, with the result that some Christians are not willing to accept those Christians -- which I believe is wrong.
3) Among churches in the denominations that I frequent, a typical salvation message will discuss faith only in passing, and spend the majority of the sermon preaching on baptism. This overemphasis is naturally repulsive to those who know that the Bible emphasizes other matters in salvation and want to emphasize what the Bible emphasizes.
4) Among buildings that churches in my denomination/s* associate themselves with, lies are actually told about the beliefs of other Christians, and this has caused inaccurate perceptions within the denomination/s that I frequent.
*Independent Christian/Churches of Christ.
5) In some churches, a specific set of words are required during the ceremony that are designed to be excluding toward other Christians. Baptism is used to promote divisiveness within the Lord's church..

I understand anyone's objection to any of these abuses. Despite this, I believe it is wrong and gravely dangerous to cite these abuses as reason to suggest disobeying a command of Jesus Christ. I believe the Lord's commandments come first, and I believe that we are called to obey Him regardless of the wrongs others do.
Baptism will be divisive as long as people don't see the distinction between the Kingdom Church (future) and the Body Church (today).

The Lord's own ministry was to Israel, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, ONLY. There are many things we take out of it and can claim for this age but water baptism is definitely not one. I haven't time to reference the above. I have to go to LA now, but I can if anyone's interested later

 

[Darron Steele]

Words were added to my quote that were not originally there.

My post ended at "regardless of the wrongs others do."

 

[hillclimber1]

Words were added to my quote that were not originally there.

My post ended at "regardless of the wrongs others do."

The bold additions are my comments to your text. I believe it to be an appropriate way to respond. If not, please advise.

 

[Darron Steele]

The bold additions are my comments to your text. I believe it to be an appropriate way to respond. If not, please advise.

Easy: when you quote me, do not put your words in mine.

Write "QUOTE" and "/QUOTE" in brackets without the quotation marks when you want to break into excerpts. Or, indicate what formatting you will have your words in that are not mine.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Darron Steele]

Hillclimber1: I find your scenario to be highly speculative. I also find it difficult to believe that the Lord's ministry was only to the Jews. Also, according to Acts 15:8-11, Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. According to Galatians 3:28, as far as one's standing before the Lord, Jews and Gentiles are the same. The "wall of separation" between Jews and Gentiles was done away with by Jesus Christ:

"EPH 2:11 Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands;
EPH 2:12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
EPH 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.
EPH 2:14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
EPH 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;
EPH 2:16a and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross," (ASV).

What comes after Mark 16:8 has been shown and accepted in most circles to be a forgery, per archaeological evidence of surving ancient manuscripts, medieval manuscripts, and copies of ancient translations.

Also, might I add the following: nowhere in Scripture is it ever taught that any command of Jesus is annulled. Ever. Further, Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 1:10-1:13 that we are not to identify more closely with Paul than Peter or vice versa.

You are going to need a lot of Scripture to convince me, and hopefully most Christians, that anything Jesus Christ commanded us to do is actually something that we are not to do. If I were you, I would be afraid of suggesting disobedience to the last spoken words of the Lord Jesus Christ on grounds of this highly speculative system. Do you not realize that the Lord Jesus Christ will send people to Hell?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Darron Steele: What comes after Mark 16:8 has been shown and accepted in most circles to be a forgery, per archaeological evidence of surving ancient manuscripts, medieval manuscripts, and copies of ancient translations.

HP: I do not understand just what you are referring to as coming 'after Mark 16:8.' Could you clarify that for the listener? Thanks.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Mark 16:9 further is said to be Mark's second ending. I accept it was added later - no one can deny. But I don't find any necessity in there why it cannot be 'genuine' - part of the 'canon', or in the last analysis, why it cannot be accepted as 'inspired', or, 'word of God'.

The trouble begins - just as with water-baptism - when people start claiming everything said in there for themselves. Those 'miraculous' things promised were for the Apostles and their own generation only - not for any later followers. They were not meant for 'ordinary' believers, but for the authorised beginners of the Christian Faith, the Apostles: they only needed it; we today still have all the 'proof' of the Gospel, preserved in the New Testament. We just believe, and that makes us true Christians.

Many claim better, and thereby invariably expose themselves for fakes and liars. So I think Mark 16:9 on serves a very practical end to the benefit of the Church, and needs be acknowledged for its worth and authenticity.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darron Steele: What comes after Mark 16:8 has been shown and accepted in most circles to be a forgery, per archaeological evidence of surving ancient manuscripts, medieval manuscripts, and copies of ancient translations.

GE:
You create an over-simplified one-sided impression, without much evidence, I can see, as anyone else reading you, would. Now I have made a little study of this issue, and can report back, there isn't much more than in your claim above, in any other. Mostly these claim consist of no more than suppositions.
But as I have posted just now, I accept it must be a later addition to the first ending of Mark on grounds and reasons though that are clear for everyone reading Mark, themselves. They need not to be scholars.

This is something obvious in all the Gospls; they are compilations of various (older) sources. Luke makes no secret of it where he explains how wrote Acts. Even a document like the Revelation consists in great part of quotes from the Old Testament. It's no reason to deny the 'inspiration' of any document if it contained newer and older source-materials.

 

[hillclimber1]

Hillclimber1: I find your scenario to be highly speculative. I also find it difficult to believe that the Lord's ministry was only to the Jews. Why did Christ come? Ultimately to die on the Cross, but first to offer Himself to Israel as their long awaited Messiah. His mission was to establish His long promised Kingdom. He and others state many times that He is ministering to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. See his reluctance in dealing with the woman at the well, as an example. It is after He has ascended, He calls Paul to be his apostle to the whole world. It should be noticed that until Paul comes on the scene, God's dealings were with Abraham's called out people. (Israel) Also, according to Acts 15:8-11, Jews and Gentiles are saved the same way. According to Galatians 3:28, as far as one's standing before the Lord, Jews and Gentiles are the same. The "wall of separation" between Jews and Gentiles was done away with by Jesus Christ: Exactly so. But this new revelation that was hid in the Father, was revealed through Paul. Eph 3:9 This new entity we call the Body Church, or the Body of Christ. It is made up of all believers of Christ today, period.

"EPH 2:11 Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands;
EPH 2:12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. This is precisely the condition of all (people) outside Israel, during Christ's earthly ministry.
EPH 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ. Oh yes
EPH 2:14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, Oh yes
EPH 2:15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;
EPH 2:16a and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross," (ASV). And there you have it. The declaration that there is no longer Jews and all others. All in one body now, having no distinction between people. We have done away with that old nemesis, the law, and are now under Grace. New creatures in Christ, Jew and Gentile in one body.

What comes after Mark 16:8 has been shown and accepted in most circles to be a forgery, per archaeological evidence of surving ancient manuscripts, medieval manuscripts, and copies of ancient translations. I don't know anything here

Also, might I add the following: nowhere in Scripture is it ever taught that any command of Jesus is annulled. Ever. Further, Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 1:10-1:13 that we are not to identify more closely with Paul than Peter or vice versa. Well I certainly wouldn't put it that way, but Paul specifically confronts Peter, to his face in opposing Peters reluctance to give up old habits, that were steeped in the law.

You are going to need a lot of Scripture to convince me, and hopefully most Christians, that anything Jesus Christ commanded us to do is actually something that we are not to do. If I were you, I would be afraid of suggesting disobedience to the last spoken words of the Lord Jesus Christ on grounds of this highly speculative system. Were I you, I would be also. Because as yet you do not understand the Word, rightly divided. So I see your concern and thank you for it.Do you not realize that the Lord Jesus Christ will send people to Hell? Of course I do. I only look like a heretic to you, but I'm not one.

I know this is a huge issue, and I wish others on here that understand it more clearly than I, and have a better command of words, could/would present it more clearly. This knowledge alone, opens up a whole new world of Bible knowledge, in God's dealings with each of us today.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darron Steele: What comes after Mark 16:8 has been shown and accepted in most circles to be a forgery, per archaeological evidence of surving ancient manuscripts, medieval manuscripts, and copies of ancient translations.

GE:
You create an over-simplified one-sided impression, without much evidence, I can see, as anyone else reading you, would. Now I have made a little study of this issue, and can report back, there isn't much more than in your claim above, in any other. Mostly these claim consist of no more than suppositions.
But as I have posted just now, I accept it must be a later addition to the first ending of Mark on grounds and reasons though that are clear for everyone reading Mark, themselves. They need not to be scholars.

This is something obvious in all the Gospls; they are compilations of various (older) sources. Luke makes no secret of it where he explains how wrote Acts. Even a document like the Revelation consists in great part of quotes from the Old Testament. It's no reason to deny the 'inspiration' of any document if it contained newer and older source-materials.

I did not want the thread to be derailed. Hence, I kept the discussion of the forgery simple. The text at "16:9" indicates that it was not an independent earlier document, but was intended to be considered a continuation of Mark. If it is a forged addition, in my opinion, it could not be Scripture because forgery is deception.

Therefore, when I read the Gospel of Mark, I place absolutely no credence to anything after the authentic end at Mark 16:8.

 

[Darron Steele]

Hillclimber1: I believe that Mman addressed the matter you are bringing up better than I would have:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=911927&postcount=46

Let me make a post similar to his. Matthew 28:19-20 reports Jesus saying:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.

Let us notice the parts in color. The purple commands that PEOPLE baptize. This is not Holy Spirit baptism. It is water baptism.

Now, Jesus told His hearers to teach disciples to obey EVERYTHING He taught. This includes His command to baptize. Jesus commanded this of all people, including those who lived in areas where there were no Jews at all. Jesus mandated that His commands were to be taught and obeyed.

Now, some thoughts of my own:
Paul taught the same things that Jesus did. He indicated this at 1 Corinthians 4:17 when mentioning “principles of behavior| in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church” (NBV|ESV). What Paul taught and what Jesus taught were the same, and they should not be set against each other.

Peter was rebuked for improper behavior. He was never rebuked for his teaching. Therefore, when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1:9-11

“Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be |knit together| in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been signified unto me concerning you, my brethren, by them that are of the household of Chloe, that there are |quarrels| among you. Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ” (ASV|BishB|NASB|ASV)​

he rebuked the Christians at Corinth for claiming loyalty to any one of these ministers or Jesus Christ Himself at the disparagement of the others. Hence, I believe it is unbiblical to take Paul's teachings and put them above Peter's, or Peter's above Paul. I take the whole New Testament.

Paul baptized people. At 1 Corinthians 1:14 he wrote “I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one could say that you were baptized | in my name” (TNIV|ESV). Paul did baptize, and because Holy Spirit baptism is automatic, this means the water baptism that people can administer. Paul should not be used as a reason to set aside Jesus' command to baptize in water.

I believe that it is simply best to obey the Lord's command to baptize, and as a disciple, be baptized by another disciple.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Darren Steele:
"Therefore, when I read the Gospel of Mark, I place absolutely no credence to anything after the authentic end at Mark 16:8."

GE:
Mark used more than one older sources to compile the second ending - or someone else did. It changes nothing of its authenticity, in fact having been older manuscripts, it confirms authenticity - it does not cancel it out.
Nevertheless, Mark also used 'newer' sources, or at least one, namely John. That gives one an idea of the time of its origin - origin of compilation that is. It was quite late, maybe after the second century had started, because John was written near the end of the first century.

Now if you reject the second ending's genuineness, you must also reject John's anecdote from which Mark borrowed, the anecdote of Jesus' apppearance "to Mary Magdalene first, early on the First Day of the week".

There's nothing wrong with anything said in the second ending, if only one would keep in mind about whom some of those things was written, namely the Apostles. It is not tenable to reject the second ending of Mark because of the things based on Apostolic authority, but to accept Matthew 28 with its things based on Apostolic authority, as genuine or authentic.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

DS:
"Let us notice the parts in color. The purple commands that PEOPLE baptize. This is not Holy Spirit baptism. It is water baptism."

GE:
No, It's not 'PEOPLE' 'commanded to baptize' - it's THE (ONLY) APOSTLES 'commanded to baptize'.
And they are not commanded to baptise in water or with water, but to "baptise IN THE NAME ...". When an embassador is presented before a monarch of another kingdom he introduces himself 'in the name of ...' his own king. Only the embassodor may speak for his monarch. No one of us lesser 'people' have the authority the Jesus hereby gave His Apostles. It would be audacious.

 

[Darron Steele]

G. E.: The forged addition to Mark adds "Now when Jesus was risen" (KJV) to start. Mark may have included other sources when he wrote, but I do not believe anyone was in a position to add to what Mark wrote on behalf of God. A forgery is deception, and God does not approve of lying. It is on that principle alone that the forgery should be disregarded. If you want to continue to debate the status of the forgery after Mark 16:8, please start another thread.

Hillclimber1: I believe that Mman addressed the matter you are bringing up better than I would have:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=911927&postcount=46

Let me make a post similar to his. Matthew 28:19-20 reports Jesus saying:
“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, | enseñad = teach| them to obey everything I have told you| ; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
---NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|ICB|NASB.

Let us notice the parts in color. The purple commands that PEOPLE baptize. This is not Holy Spirit baptism. It is water baptism....

DS:
"Let us notice the parts in color. The purple commands that PEOPLE baptize. This is not Holy Spirit baptism. It is water baptism."

GE:
No, It's not 'PEOPLE' 'commanded to baptize' - it's THE (ONLY) APOSTLES 'commanded to baptize'.
And they are not commanded to baptise in water or with water, but to "baptise IN THE NAME ...". When an embassador is presented before a monarch of another kingdom he introduces himself 'in the name of ...' his own king. Only the embassodor may speak for his monarch. No one of us lesser 'people' have the authority the Jesus hereby gave His Apostles. It would be audacious.

Evidently not. As you have repeatedly refused to address from both myself and from Mman, there was a deacon of the Jerusalem congregation named Philip, introduced in Acts 6

"ACTS 6:2 And the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables.
ACTS 6:3 Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
ACTS 6:4 But we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the word.
ACTS 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus a proselyte of Antioch;
ACTS 6:6 whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them" (ASV).
​

Clearly, Philip was not an apostle.

Now, at Acts 8, Philip converted an Ethiopian official.

"ACTS 8:35 And Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached unto him Jesus.
ACTS 8:36 And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and the eunuch saith, Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" (ASV).​

By now, Philip had told the official about baptism, and the new convert knew water was necessary to do this.

"ACTS 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.
ACTS 8:39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, for he went on his way rejoicing.
ACTS 8:40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached the gospel to all the cities, till he came to Caesarea" (ASV).​

Philip was not an apostle. At Acts 21:8, he is called "Philip the evangelist" (ASV). The Holy Spirit supernaturally sped up Philip's trip to evangelize after he had administered water baptism; evidently, the Lord approved of the job Philip was doing.

Mman and I have repeatedly pointed this character out to you. You have never responded about this matter.

You insist upon defending what is widely recognized to be a forgery, yet passages of Scripture that are undisputably authentic you disregard.

As far as "audacious" as you put it, I believe that it is audacious to tell Christians not to obey a spoken command of the Lord Jesus Christ -- and to do so on such speculation that disregards relevant portions of the Word of God refuting that speculation.