NationStates Jolt Archive

What age do you think one may be considered a religious believer at? In other words, is there really ever a such thing as a "Christain" baby? I would say not. How much do you have to understand in a religion to be apart of it? etc. discuss.

Dump some holy water on the kid and if a crucifix doesn't burn him/her, a Christian he/she is.

Seriously though, I would say if varies. Some people have all their stuff straight at a younger age than others. Some people constantly revise their beliefs. Neither is inherently better or worse than the other, so it is hard to say when one is a 'believer'. But I would venture to guess one becomes a 'believer' the moment one starts to 'believe'.

As Bann-ed said, the moment one starts to believe, but I'd also add the moment one starts to comprehend the religion they are involved in.

As Bann-ed said, the moment one starts to believe, but I'd also add the moment one starts to comprehend the religion they are involved in.

Ditto.

As Bann-ed said, the moment one starts to believe, but I'd also add the moment one starts to comprehend the religion they are involved in.

Sums up what I believe nicely.

When the person can answer, "why do you belief x" with more than because I was taught to believe it, then they are a believer.

When the person can answer, "why do you belief x" with more than because I was taught to believe it, then they are a believer.

By that standard, there aren't very many religious believers out there. :p

When they're old enough to understand the teaching and question it.

When they're old enough to understand the teaching and question it.

I would go so far as to say when they can lift the sacrificial dagger and are strong enough in its use to pierce several varieties of sternum.

I don't think so. Typically, parents have to spoon-feed their children a watered-down version of Biblical stories - 'Jesus loves me', 'look, Noah and the cute animals on a boat!', 'Joshua blew horns and walls fell down!', and so on. I don't think anyone should be considered an adherent of ANY religion until they can actually read and understand its basis.

Which means there seem to be an assload of adults who profess Christianity, and aren't.

I won't indoctrinate my child into my way of thinking, but I WILL forbid any religious pursuits until he's old enough to read most of the religious texts - which, given most of them have graphic violence and some kind of incest and smiting and so on, will probably be when he's 18.

18, just like everything else except alcohol.

What age do you think one may be considered a religious believer at? In other words, is there really ever a such thing as a "Christain" baby? I would say not. How much do you have to understand in a religion to be apart of it? etc. discuss.

For real comprehending beleaf I would say 8 to 15 years, probably varies from person to person.

I tried comprehending it from about 16 on and have failed pretty miserably since. I usually don't fail to comprehend things when they're explained to me so something is amiss. YYMV.

18.

Alcohol and voting ages here are 18 so the same should be for one to be considered religious believer.

That is the age when society assumes that individual is mature enough to be responsible (take responsibility) for his/her actions in society.

I like how the first responders gave answers, and the later ones gave ages like you should license religious beliefs.

To be a believer, you have to be able to truly understand and question your beliefs. Once you can do that.. hey, power to you. For some people it could be 14, for others it could be 41.

i can't speak for christianity, any branch of it, though i've been there too.

but i do know that for judaism and baha'i, well judaism and catholicism have some things you have to learn and get tested on as a kind of rite of passage to be considered a full member. judaism is called bar mitzvah, and the catholic one i think is called catachism or something like that. for baha'is you join by signing your declairation card. basically before that, as a family member your kind of accepted by whatever your parents are as a sort of associate member or something. i mean like someone who's not ignorant of what its about, but isn't yet relied upon to participate in your belief's local unit, call it a church or a temple or local community or what have you. i think islam proabably has something like that. some or most branches of it. and i think most protestant sects of christianity have some sort of minimum age for choosing to be baptised. there's even been a great deal of controversy in the past in some of them over it.

any way in judaism and baha'i, i know the age is 15. but in neither case is it automatic. it's up to the individual, not their families or anyone else, if THEY WANT TO JOIN, then they declair and sign their card or have their bar mitzvah or catclism or what have you. i think generally the minimum age tends to be somewhere arround a few years after puberty. basically just enough years after puberty to make sure everyone has already gone through that.

i don't know what buddhists or hindus or taoists do. i do know that in most indiginous traditions there are some kinds of tests and rites of passage too.

each belief does it a little different, but there's a general idea of it has to be up to the individual to make the commitment and in the saner sects of most beliefs some effort is made to insure the suplicant is of sufficient competence to make that choice more or less intelligently and have some idea what choice is and what that choice means, to be making it.

but again i can't speak for all, or even most branches of christianity nor for a number of other beliefs about which i may otherwise know a little but not quite for sure that much.

=^^=
.../\...

...and i think most protestant sects of christianity have some sort of minimum age for choosing to be baptised. there's even been a great deal of controversy in the past in some of them over it.

any way in judaism and baha'i, i know the age is 15. but in neither case is it automatic. it's up to the individual, not their families or anyone else, if THEY WANT TO JOIN, then they declair and sign their card or have their bar mitzvah or catclism or what have you.

...

For Judaism, you have your bar/bat mitzvah at 13 (boys) or 12 (girls). For Catholicism (the sect that officially has catechism- never heard it called that in Methodist church), you can get confirmed at around 7 (from the sources I've found in my quick search)- though I think my ex was older when he was. Most Protestants don't have an age, but the idea of believer's baptism- a person must understand and accept Christ before they can be baptized- and usually these groups don't baptize children who don't understand what accepting Jesus means. (Though this leaves me confused sometimes about why people do christenings.)

But, I will say for bar/bat mitzvahs and confirmations... you can SAY it's totally up to the person, but I know a lot of people who were pushed to do it by their parents. A guy I dated a year and change ago is Catholic (on paper), and his parents told him he had to go to church until he got confirmed, then he could do whatever he wanted. And after confirmation.. he quit going. I've heard similar stories about bar mitzvahs. Parents have a lot of influence on you at the ages you'd have those sacraments.

What age do you think one may be considered a religious believer at? In other words, is there really ever a such thing as a "Christain" baby? I would say not. How much do you have to understand in a religion to be apart of it? etc. discuss.

A baby doesn't have to be able to declare it is a Christian. Some Christians believe it is saved through the belief of the parents until it is the age of accountability. Some Christians believe it must be baptized following birth to be protected and 'saved'. Christ taught that all children are innocent of sin and saved through Him.

It differs with different faiths, but basically there isn't an 'age' as we think of in years. But more a development of understanding of what sin is. Once a child knows the difference between right and wrong, sin and repent then the consideration of whether a person is saved or not moves into that person's hands and out of the realm of inncoent "child". Some faiths at certain bilogical age feel that ceremony is important to signify the 'age' of consent has been reached. Again different faiths have different customs.

Christian parents start teaching right from wrong at birth, it generally begins with the parables in the Bible. The ten commandments and the golden rule are base moral values taught to children. Kind of like learning mathematics, you don't start with calculus, you start with learning the numbers. :)

It is building blocks that takes years to fully comprehend. Whether you believe in a religion or not is not something you just one day decide. My parents raised me in the church but didn't make my decision for me. They only exposed me to it and encouraged me to explore it all and make my own decisions. I went through any number of phases of belief and disbelief.

If I didn't expose my children to religion they would have no understanding of the history involved, the development of societies, etc. I wouldn't dream of denying them exposure to religions, it would cripple them intellectually to keep them ignorant of them. Whether they believe or not is their decision, but learning about it is my responsibility as a parent.

7--the age of reason.

you have to be old enough to grasp not just the name of jesus (or whatever you are being taught) but the difference between jesus and a figure like king arthur or harry potter.

the details of theology are not necessary to belief.

What age do you think one may be considered a religious believer at? In other words, is there really ever a such thing as a "Christain" baby? I would say not. How much do you have to understand in a religion to be apart of it? etc. discuss.

Perhaps all infants are treated as believers (see below), and then when they are old enough to learn anything whatsoever they are what their parent/guardian/provider/teacher is until they reach a point of ‘understanding’ and then they must choose for themselves whatever it is that they will believe and be held accountable for that themselves…

While no one can be certain of the fate of unbaptized babies who die, Christians can and should trust that God will welcome those babies into heaven, said members of the International Theological Commission.

"We cannot say we know with certainty what will happen" to unbaptized babies, Father McPartlan said, "but we have good grounds to hope that God in his mercy and love looks after these children and brings them to salvation."

The document "in no way means to lessen the urgency with which the church invites parents to have their children baptized," Father McPartlan said Oct. 6. "What we are trying to do is to say, 'What does the church say when confronted with the situation of an infant who has died without being baptized?' That and that alone is what prompted our document.

"The answer is not a simplistic, 'Oh, don't worry; everything is fine,'" but rather that God's endless mercy, his love poured out in Jesus Christ and his desire to save all people gives a solid basis for hoping those children will be saved despite not having been baptized.

Realizing some people could misinterpret the statement as saying that baptism is unnecessary for infants because they are incapable of sinning, the document reaffirms church teaching about the reality of original sin.

The church believes that with the exception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus, every human being is born marked with the stain of original sin, which distances them from God.

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21542

Baptism isnt nec. for salvation in the Christian faith. Look at the the theif who died on the cross next to Jesus. He wasnt baptised before asking Jesus into his life. Baptism alone wont save you. Baptism is an outward sign to other beleivers that they have accepted Jesus into their life and are clensed from their sins. Faith must come before baptism. as to become a Christian you have to actaully relize on your own what Jesus did for you in your life and you have to be able to actually ask Jesus to forgive you your sins..Ie the lies, stealing...etc... and be able to understand what sin is and why accepting Jesus and giving your life to Jesus is so important. No one can force it on you. Its between you and God. The only thing parents can do is plant the seed and water it and pray that the child will allow God to let it grow. Everyone is diffrent so their is no def. age that you can become a beleiver. I accepted Jesus into my life as a second grader but never fully understood what I did until years later when I actually saw people living their faith. Their is the term aslo of Baby Christians which is a term reffered to new Christians. They are learning and takeing their first steps in faith. Yes their are people who say they are christians but they are not. They give Christianity a bad name. Those people bother me...they dont relize that they can fool everyone else but cant fool God. God looks at the heart while men look at the actions.

<snip>

You know, I'm sure god wouldn't send you to hell for a little correct spelling and the occasional paragraph...

By that standard, there aren't very many religious believers out there. :p

Precisely! Ah... utopia! :D :D :D

In the Mormon church the minimum age for Baptism is 8. In cases where a person might have developmental problems like retardation or Down's Syndrome that age might be adjusted upward until the person is considered to have an equivalent level of comprehension.

In the Mormon church the minimum age for Baptism is 8. In cases where a person might have developmental problems like retardation or Down's Syndrome that age might be adjusted upward until the person is considered to have an equivalent level of comprehension.

And if they don't?

And if they don't?

You mean if they never reach that level of comprehension?

You mean if they never reach that level of comprehension?

Precisely. What if someone demonstrates, despite being relatively "normal", a lack of comprehension regarding religion; or doesn't have any comprehension...

Precisely. What if someone demonstrates, despite being relatively "normal", a lack of comprehension regarding religion; or doesn't have any comprehension...

That's the problem with theologies that conclude that a person has to 'choose to believe' before they are baptized. As if the person was saving themselves through their own belief.

*Cough cough* excuse me, but I don't think Christianity says we can save ourselves, lest we boast. No, it's ALL mercy and grace, and thus, the baptized infants and imbiciles (not to be insulting but descriptive) can be saved too.

That's the problem with theologies that conclude that a person has to 'choose to believe' before they are baptized. As if the person was saving themselves through their own belief.

*Cough cough* excuse me, but I don't think Christianity says we can save ourselves, lest we boast. No, it's ALL mercy and grace, and thus, the baptized infants and imbiciles (not to be insulting but descriptive) can be saved too.


Actually only some sects of Christianity believe you cannot save yourself. Others believe it is a choice. Many Christians do not believe in child baptism at all. Thus the division of the Anabaptists (and all further divisions from them). The Anabaptists believed in re-baptism because they didn't believe that choice could be or should be made for an infant, many believe in only adult baptism. Those who did not support child baptism were also burned regularly by the Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists in the 15-16th centuries. They were considered heretics for such beliefs. Those beliefs survived and are the base foundations for many faiths such as the Mennonites. Anabaptists emerged during the Protestant Reformation, and is the base of many Protestant faiths.

Those who do not follow that infant baptism is necesary also do not believe that children or the mentally incapacitated can sin, therefore they are innocent of sin and saved through Christ. :)

but i do know that for judaism and baha'i, well judaism and catholicism have some things you have to learn and get tested on as a kind of rite of passage to be considered a full member. judaism is called bar mitzvah, and the catholic one i think is called catachism or something like that......

Depends on your interpretation of Judaism. All of them agree that if anyone wants to *convert* to Judaism the bar/bat mitzvah is necessary (as well as a circumcision for men and a ritual bath for both genders). The differences start when you look at people who are born Jewish. Tradition holds that anyone whose mother was a Jew is a Jew, whether or not they profess the belief. It does not matter what your personal beliefs are; if your mother was Jewish you were Jewish from earth. Now, some believe that if you convert to another religion you will no longer be Jewish, but the majority of orthodox and conservative Rabbis still hold with the belief that one who is born a Jew will always be a Jew, whether or not they get their bar mitzvah, or even if they get circumcised.

Precisely. What if someone demonstrates, despite being relatively "normal", a lack of comprehension regarding religion; or doesn't have any comprehension...

Then no Baptism.

The key to Baptism in the Mormon Church is the ability to understand what's going on, because Baptism isn't just a ceremony that involves a bunch of water. It's a commitment, and you can't make a meaningful commitment to anything without understanding it.

Actually only some sects of Christianity believe you cannot save yourself. Others believe it is a choice. Many Christians do not believe in child baptism at all. Thus the division of the Anabaptists (and all further divisions from them). The Anabaptists believed in re-baptism because they didn't believe that choice could be or should be made for an infant, many believe in only adult baptism. Those who did not support child baptism were also burned regularly by the Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists in the 15-16th centuries. They were considered heretics for such beliefs. Those beliefs survived and are the base foundations for many faiths such as the Mennonites. Anabaptists emerged during the Protestant Reformation, and is the base of many Protestant faiths.

Those who do not follow that infant baptism is necesary also do not believe that children or the mentally incapacitated can sin, therefore they are innocent of sin and saved through Christ. :)

And I would add to that that they wouldn't even need salvation through Christ, as they've committed no sin requireing atonement.

And I would add to that that they wouldn't even need salvation through Christ, as they've committed no sin requireing atonement.

Exactly. I only mean through Christ as in He knows there is no sin.

Exactly. I only mean through Christ as in He knows there is no sin.

Gotcha. :)

Actually only some sects of Christianity believe you cannot save yourself. Others believe it is a choice. Many Christians do not believe in child baptism at all. Thus the division of the Anabaptists (and all further divisions from them). The Anabaptists believed in re-baptism because they didn't believe that choice could be or should be made for an infant, many believe in only adult baptism. Those who did not support child baptism were also burned regularly by the Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists in the 15-16th centuries. They were considered heretics for such beliefs. Those beliefs survived and are the base foundations for many faiths such as the Mennonites. Anabaptists emerged during the Protestant Reformation, and is the base of many Protestant faiths.

Those who do not follow that infant baptism is necessary also do not believe that children or the mentally incapacitated can sin, therefore they are innocent of sin and saved through Christ. :)


Thank you for your post and the effort you took in writing it. However, I think that you have just endorsed several non-biblical theologies. The NT specifically says that you can't save yourself, that everyone is in need of salvation and that the the Apostles were incessant baptizers (people didn't have to pass a theology questionnaire before being allowed to be baptized)...

Gotcha. :)

Perhaps you would like to quote the section or verses that say that some people are without sin...

all infants go to heaven, not to worry.

the ones you have to watch out for are 8th and 9th graders... they are virtually universally damned. we have a pretty strict policy excluding members of that age group from heaven if they die. its not that their sins are that great, its just that they are such little monsters at that age... they tend to disrupt things.

the devil is just much better suited to dealing with that age group, what with the regimentation and the torture and the lake of fire, they are really better off there.

Perhaps you would like to quote the section or verses that say that some people are without sin...

Sure I can look them up later when I have more time. For now, suffice it to say the point I will be making is that in order to sin, one must WILLFULLY disobey God. As children lack the understanding to be able to do this, they cannot, by definition, be guilty of sin.

That's why we're told by the Savior that 'the Kingdom of God belongs to such as [children]' Or that to come to him one must be as a little child.

Thank you for your post and the effort you took in writing it. However, I think that you have just endorsed several non-biblical theologies. The NT specifically says that you can't save yourself, that everyone is in need of salvation and that the the Apostles were incessant baptizers (people didn't have to pass a theology questionnaire before being allowed to be baptized)...

Isn't freedom of religion a wonderful thing. :)

Sure I can look them up later when I have more time. For now, suffice it to say the point I will be making is that in order to sin, one must WILLFULLY disobey God. As children lack the understanding to be able to do this, they cannot, by definition, be guilty of sin.

According to you then we are not seperated from God via Adam's fall.

That's why we're told by the Savior that 'the Kingdom of God belongs to such as [children]' Or that to come to him one must be as a little child.

And this is exactly why it is safe and permissible to baptize infants and children and imbiciles, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them anyway...

And this is exactly why it is safe and permissible to baptize infants and children and imbiciles, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them anyway...
If they get an automatic pass into heaven, then why bother with the water treatment; especially when they are not aware of what they are going through?

If they get an automatic pass into heaven, then why bother with the water treatment; especially when they are not aware of what they are going through?

I didn't say they get an automatic pass. (see earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13557208&postcount=20))

If we are to be like children, and we are not to deny the children to come unto Christ, then how is it that we think we are being 'childlike' when we make a bunch of theological rules and a litmus test before we allow people to be baptized?

Jewish infants were not given the option of choosing circumcision, Christian infants don't need to be given the option of choosing baptism.

I didn’t say they get an automatic pass.
My mistake.

Jewish infants were not given the option of choosing circumcision, Christian infants don’t need to be given the option of choosing baptism.
I’d say both should be given that choice when they are old enough to fully comprehend what they are doing. Plus I’d take issue at calling them ‘Jewish children’ or ‘Christian children’. They are children with Jewish or Christian parents, nothing more.

According to you then we are not seperated from God via Adam's fall.


No so. As we are descended from Adam we are born into this world which is, by its nature, separated from Him. (This is the actual meaning of Original Sin, as I understand it.)


And this is exactly why it is safe and permissible to baptize infants and children and imbiciles, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them anyway...

Well certainly it isn't harmful as such to do it, but the fact is when one becomes baptized they are voluntarily taking upon themselves the name of Christ, and committing themselves to follow Him and to live according to His teachings. Therefore to Baptize before the point at which a person can understand this is of no benefit.

I didn't say they get an automatic pass. (see earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13557208&postcount=20))

If we are to be like children, and we are not to deny the children to come unto Christ, then how is it that we think we are being 'childlike' when we make a bunch of theological rules and a litmus test before we allow people to be baptized?

Jewish infants were not given the option of choosing circumcision, Christian infants don't need to be given the option of choosing baptism.
what about female circumcision is that equally acceptable, or rite of passage rituals that involve some sort of painful dangerous ordeal... not that i require those of my followers but...

what about female circumcision is that equally acceptable, or rite of passage rituals that involve some sort of painful dangerous ordeal... not that i require those of my followers but...

Female circumcision is not biblical. I know nothing about it's actual origins.

I’d say both should be given that choice when they are old enough to fully comprehend what they are doing. Plus I’d take issue at calling them ‘Jewish children’ or ‘Christian children’. They are children with Jewish or Christian parents, nothing more.

They are given the choice when they are old enough or capable of choosing. The child will leave their parents and choose their own path thereafter.

No so. As we are descended from Adam we are born into this world which is, by its nature, separated from Him. (This is the actual meaning of Original Sin, as I understand it.)

If they are separated from God, via Adam's fall, then they can be prepared for the acceptance of Christ, Like John's baptism was before the Christ was revealed. Baptism prepares the way for a future with God, no reason to deny that benefit to infants, they can always reject it later when they come of their own mind...

Well certainly it isn't harmful as such to do it, but the fact is when one becomes baptized they are voluntarily taking upon themselves the name of Christ, and committing themselves to follow Him and to live according to His teachings. Therefore to Baptize before the point at which a person can understand this is of no benefit.

I would suggest that you are describing the baptism of the holy spirit more than you are describing water baptism. Just a thought.

If they are separated from God, via Adam's fall, then they can be prepared for the acceptance of Christ, Like John's baptism was before the Christ was revealed. Baptism prepares the way for a future with God, no reason to deny that benefit to infants, they can always reject it later when they come of their own mind...


I maintain there is no benefit to infants. Should a child die before reaching the age at which they can be baptized, they would return immediately to the presence of God because they are sinless.

I'm guessing that your point of view refers to Original Sin and that all people must be Baptized to remove that stain, and that you are Catholic. Am I right? (Just curious. I have no ill feeling toward Caholics or anybody else.)


I would suggest that you are describing the baptism of the holy spirit more than you are describing water baptism. Just a thought.

I know what you're saying and why, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit isn't about the remission of sins or acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. Confirmation (receiving the Holy Ghost) is about enabling one to receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (among other things but that's the main part)

They are given the choice when they are old enough or capable of choosing. The child will leave their parents and choose their own path thereafter.
Then referring to them as ‘Jewish children’ or ‘Christian children’ is pointless. It makes no sense to say “my child is a Christian child” if the infant cannot even contemplate the idea of religion.

I maintain there is no benefit to infants. Should a child die before reaching the age at which they can be baptized, they would return immediately to the presence of God because they are sinless.

All separation (sin, or original sin, since you are regarding them as two different things it seems) between us and God can be washed away

Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

In order to be resurrected with Christ one must be baptized with Christ

Romans 6:3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

With that in mind, baptism is a good thing for everyone in my household...

I'm guessing that your point of view refers to Original Sin and that all people must be Baptized to remove that stain, and that you are Catholic. Am I right? (Just curious. I have no ill feeling toward Caholics or anybody else.)

I am not Catholic but for the sake of this topic you can assume that their argument is close enough to mine.

I know what you're saying and why, but the baptism of the Holy Spirit isn't about the remission of sins or acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior. Confirmation (receiving the Holy Ghost) is about enabling one to receive the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (among other things but that's the main part)

Confirmation is a choice a person makes, yes, with that I agree. Even Churches that baptize infants have confirmation ceremonies as well though for when the person is old enough to choose for themselves. Baptism with water does not guarantee the gift of the Holy Spirit later, and neither does the Holy Spirit require water baptism first, but it does what the scripture says it does and we are told not to deny the children to come unto Christ. Coming unto Christ is also coming unto his death through baptism.

Then referring to them as ‘Jewish children’ or ‘Christian children’ is pointless. It makes no sense to say “my child is a Christian child” if the infant cannot even contemplate the idea of religion.

Who says perfect understanding is required for salvation?

When one has truly chosen a religion. Complete understanding is not neccessary - just the choice.
That means one must have explored several others as well - which is pretty hard to do if you are very young and have not had much time yet.

Then again, perhaps most "believers" would not be believers at all if we used this criterium.

All separation (sin, or original sin, since you are regarding them as two different things it seems) between us and God can be washed away


Yes, I do regard them as different. There may be a terminology issue here. If I understand you correctly, you're using the terms 'separation' and 'sin' synonymously. I don't. Sin is the deliberate disobedience against God, thus preventing us from being in His presence. When I say we're separated from Him here on Earth, I mean it literally. We are physically not in His presence here precisely because of sin.

However, a child, being sinless, could be in His presence but because they are here on Earth, they are not.


Acts 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

In order to be resurrected with Christ one must be baptized with Christ

Romans 6:3
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

With that in mind, baptism is a good thing for everyone in my household...


Good verses, but again there seems to be a difference in the way you and I are using terms. In order to have one's sins washed away, they must first have committed sin. As a child cannot commit sin, they have none to be washed away.


I am not Catholic but for the sake of this topic you can assume that their argument is close enough to mine.


Okay.


Confirmation is a choice a person makes, yes, with that I agree. Even Churches that baptize infants have confirmation ceremonies as well though for when the person is old enough to choose for themselves. Baptism with water does not guarantee the gift of the Holy Spirit later, and neither does the Holy Spirit require water baptism first, but it does what the scripture says it does and we are told not to deny the children to come unto Christ. Coming unto Christ is also coming unto his death through baptism.

Two items I'd discuss here (although I do agree with most of it.)

First, Confirmation cannot take place without Baptism as the Holy Spirit will not reside in an impure vessel. One must be purified through Baptism first.

Second, I wouldn't agree that 'coming unto Christ' = 'Baptism.' When jesus says 'let the little children come to me' He meant it literally at the time, when children wanted to go to Him but the adults held them back because they thought the children would be troublesome. He then said 'for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.' which means two things: First, they are pure and free from sin, which is what the Atonement does for all of us and second, children trust in their teachers and learn, which is how we must be in order to receive the Gospel.

Yes, I do regard them as different. There may be a terminology issue here. If I understand you correctly, you're using the terms 'separation' and 'sin' synonymously. I don't. Sin is the deliberate disobedience against God, thus preventing us from being in His presence. When I say we're separated from Him here on Earth, I mean it literally. We are physically not in His presence here precisely because of sin.

However, a child, being sinless, could be in His presence but because they are here on Earth, they are not. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (everyone requires Mercy and Grace, including infants and children etc.,... )


Two items I'd discuss here (although I do agree with most of it.)

First, Confirmation cannot take place without Baptism as the Holy Spirit will not reside in an impure vessel. One must be purified through Baptism first.

That's what the first Christians thought too, but Peter found out otherwise...

Acts 10:44-48
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

They were baptized by the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water.

Second, I wouldn't agree that 'coming unto Christ' = 'Baptism.' When Jesus says 'let the little children come to me' He meant it literally at the time, when children wanted to go to Him but the adults held them back because they thought the children would be troublesome. He then said 'for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.' which means two things: First, they are pure and free from sin, which is what the Atonement does for all of us and second, children trust in their teachers and learn, which is how we must be in order to receive the Gospel.

Children trust in their teachers to learn AND God entrusts the Children's parents to bring the children unto him too.

Bring your children unto Christ, do not withhold it from them. It seems that the Holy Spirit is glad to reside in them. So baptize them and lead them in the way of the spirit so that God and Christ can grow in them...

Perhaps you would like to quote the section or verses that say that some people are without sin...


1 John 2:1

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.


1 John 2:12-13

12) I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
13) I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

Also,

1 Corinthians 7:14

14) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean but now are they holy.


While one verse says they sin not, another says their sins are forgiven (with no requirement of baptism), the last one I posted states they are saved through a parent. The main point to me in all instances is that children are not forsaken from God....baptized or not.

For my personal interpretation, (and isn't that all we all can offer really?), baptism is a ceremony that requires repentence of sin. An acknowledgement that one is a sinner and a promise that one will continually strive to not sin and live a better life. A child cannot give such promises if it has no knowledge of the meaning of sin and repentence.

1 John 2:1

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

1 John 2:12-13

12) I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.
13) I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

Also,

1 Corinthians 7:14

14) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean but now are they holy.

While one verse says they sin not, another says their sins are forgiven (with no requirement of baptism), the last one I posted states they are saved through a parent. The main point to me in all instances is that children are not forsaken from God....baptized or not.

I'm not arguing that they must be baptized. I'm arguing that they should be be baptized. As to your verses though.

1 John 2:1 ... This verse is not describing them as sinless, it is asking that they live without sin, to not perform sins...

1 John 2:12-13 ... This verse says their sins are forgiven, thus, they had sins that needed to be forgiven...

1 Corinthians 7:14 ... This verse DOES say that the children become holy by their parents actions. Thus, their parents are right for Baptizing them and marking them as children of Christ and baptizing them into Christiandom...

For my personal interpretation, (and isn't that all we all can offer really?), baptism is a ceremony that requires repentance of sin. An acknowledgement that one is a sinner and a promise that one will continually strive to not sin and live a better life. A child cannot give such promises if it has no knowledge of the meaning of sin and repentence.

If a child needed to promise to strive to not sin and live a better life, then they could not become Holy through their parents action until they do, but as you just showed the verses yourself that is not the case. They do become Holy through their parents actions, and as such, they can and should be baptized into the resurrection through Christ...

I'm not arguing that they must be baptized. I'm arguing that they should be be baptized. As to your verses though.

1 John 2:1 ... This verse is not describing them as sinless, it is asking that they live without sin, to not perform sins...

1 John 2:12-13 ... This verse says their sins are forgiven, thus, they had sins that needed to be forgiven...

1 Corinthians 7:14 ... This verse DOES say that the children become holy by their parents actions. Thus, their parents are right for Baptizing them and marking them as children of Christ and baptizing them into Christiandom...



If a child needed to promise to strive to not sin and live a better life, then they could not become Holy through their parents action until they do, but as you just showed the verses yourself that is not the case. They do become Holy through their parents actions, and as such, they can and should be baptized into the resurrection through Christ...

Sorry I don't agree at all with your interpretation, as you don't mine. And as I said that is the beauty of freedom of religion.

I could never feel that children should be baptized, they are not sinners and cannot be sinners. My point with the different verses is not to position any particular verse as more correct than the other as it is the general message that children do not sin and are not held as sinners in the same respect as an adult who can determine right from wrong. I believe that it is a choice we make when we are old enough to make it with understanding of the full implications.

I do agree that there is no harm in baptizing a child, but that ceremony is for the parent's benefit not the child.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (everyone requires Mercy and Grace, including infants and children etc.,... )



That's what the first Christians thought too, but Peter found out otherwise...

Acts 10:44-48
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

They were baptized by the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water.



Children trust in their teachers to learn AND God entrusts the Children's parents to bring the children unto him too.

Bring your children unto Christ, do not withhold it from them. It seems that the Holy Spirit is glad to reside in them. So baptize them and lead them in the way of the spirit so that God and Christ can grow in them...

Again, great verses but you and I see different meanings here. I will elaborate as promised when I have some time a little later, but for now I offer this as clarification on exactly how we know that children needn't be baptized:

Moroni 8:8-10
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach-repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

I think little kids are more trusting in God, and God reveals himself to them more. Kids are so pure and belive alot sooner. My brother was sitting on the stairs when he was little (like 3) and was talking to some one, but no on was there. My mom asked him who he was talking to and he said "an angel" and he firmly firmly belived it to be such. So I think when you are born you are a believer because God is inside of you, and you are so much purer that he grows so much more in a heart of a child. Another example is this little toddler when she was playing out side would get up in the middle of what she was doing and go an talk (well as much as a baby can) to the Virgin Mary statue. Its pretty remarkable. So if you have a since of God you are a believer, so I think when you are a kid you can be.

I think little kids are more trusting in God, and God reveals himself to them more. Kids are so pure and belive alot sooner. My brother was sitting on the stairs when he was little (like 3) and was talking to some one, but no on was there. My mom asked him who he was talking to and he said "an angel" and he firmly firmly belived it to be such. So I think when you are born you are a believer because God is inside of you, and you are so much purer that he grows so much more in a heart of a child. Another example is this little toddler when she was playing out side would get up in the middle of what she was doing and go an talk (well as much as a baby can) to the Virgin Mary statue. Its pretty remarkable. So if you have a since of God you are a believer, so I think when you are a kid you can be.

Or what he was talking to was just a figment of his imagination, or was A fravashi that he incorrectly identified as an angel because he had already been indoctrinated into christianity.

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (everyone requires Mercy and Grace, including infants and children etc.,... )



That's what the first Christians thought too, but Peter found out otherwise...

Acts 10:44-48
While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

They were baptized by the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water.


Now for a little more detail since I have a little more time now to formulate my reply :)

This isn't the same as indwelling. The Spirit certainly can and does manifest to people who haven't yet been baptized. That's how they're converted in the first place, by hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit assuring them of the truth.

But that doesn't mean that they're suddenly churchmembers. Those verses you quoted are demonstrating how the Spirit testifies of the truth to those who do not yet believe, who would then come forth for Baptism. Not the same thing.

It's difficult to pinpoint, because there's so many different traditions and customs to take into consideration (all of which hold different ages for "entry"). Besides, how do you determine "participation"? Does that mean that parents can't teach their children about religion (since that can be construed as participation)?

In theory, yeah, there should be a "minimum entrance age", applicable when a person can comprehend the religion in order to take part. However, I just don't see how you can do something like that without stepping on too many toes.

Or what he was talking to was just a figment of his imagination, or was A fravashi that he incorrectly identified as an angel because he had already been indoctrinated into christianity.

Fravashi did come first.

My imaginary friends were Jesus and some one eyed weird crazy looking spirit when I was growing up. The later stuck around longer. Reminds me of one of those enemies from that videogame Pocky and Rocky.

Now for a little more detail since I have a little more time now to formulate my reply :)

This isn't the same as indwelling. The Spirit certainly can and does manifest to people who haven't yet been baptized. That's how they're converted in the first place, by hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit assuring them of the truth.

But that doesn't mean that they're suddenly churchmembers. Those verses you quoted are demonstrating how the Spirit testifies of the truth to those who do not yet believe, who would then come forth for Baptism. Not the same thing.

Your interpretation would be plausible IF Peter didn't go on to describe the event again in the next chapter. Other circumcised men who hadn't witnessed the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles came to accuse Peter of doing wrong and they thought like you do, that the gentiles couldn't really have been acceptable to the Holy Spirit ~ So Peter set them straight and said that what they got was the same as what the circumcised and baptized Christians had received...

Act 11:14-17
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"

And what he is talking about (the same as on us) is this description:

Acts 2:1-4
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

The gentiles had the same, not a different, experience. That's why the circumcised believers were surprised. IF your interpretation was correct, that the gentiles were simply spoken to not filled by the spirit, then there would have been nothing to be surprised about. But the gentiles had the Holy Spirit poured on them the same as the baptized Christians AND we know that they were filled by the spirit because the Spirit spoke through them. Thus, clearly, the spirit was in them, not just witnessing to them.

Clearly the spirit was IN them, acts 10:46 "For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. "

I always appreciate having a discussion like this with a knowledgeable person because it gives me a motivation to go and study my Scriptures to improve my own knowledge and understanding.

Your interpretation would be plausible IF Peter didn't go on to describe the event again in the next chapter. Other circumcised men who hadn't witnessed the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles came to accuse Peter of doing wrong and they thought like you do, that the gentiles couldn't really have been acceptable to the Holy Spirit ~ So Peter set them straight and said that what they got was the same as what the circumcised and baptized Christians had received...

Act 11:14-17
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"


Just out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible are you using? (I'm using the KJV.)

One thing that's important to keep in mind in the book of Acts is that this is where Christianity was officially spread from only Jews to Gentiles as well. What we're seeing in the verses that you're quoting is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit to those people, converting them to Christianity as well as showing the already existing members that the Holy Spirit did indeed testify the truth to them. More on that in a second:



And what he is talking about (the same as on us) is this description:

Acts 2:1-4
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

The gentiles had the same, not a different, experience. That's why the circumcised believers were surprised. IF your interpretation was correct, that the gentiles were simply spoken to not filled by the spirit, then there would have been nothing to be surprised about. But the gentiles had the Holy Spirit poured on them the same as the baptized Christians AND we know that they were filled by the spirit because the Spirit spoke through them. Thus, clearly, the spirit was in them, not just witnessing to them.

Clearly the spirit was IN them, acts 10:46 "For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. "

Actually the surprise came from the fact that it was from Gentiles.

The real question is: How DOES one baptize by the Holy Spirit? In other words, what confers the Holy Spirit on a person on a permanent way that we would think of as Confirmation?

The answer is in Acts 8:15-17
15 Who, when [Peter and John] were come down, prayed for them, that [the Samaritans] might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them:only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.


Note that in verse 16 we learn that they had already been baptized by water only, but lacked the Holy Spirit. It was necessary for these Apostles to come and lay hands on them to confer upon them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This is the process by which one receives the Holy Ghost fully and permanently.

Further example:

Moroni 2:2,3

2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.
3 Now Christ spake these words unto them at the time of his first appearing; and the multitude heard it not, but the disciples heard it; and on as many as they laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost.

Also, did you see my last post regarding baptizing children?

Just out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible are you using? (I'm using the KJV.)

May I ask why ? The KJV is a politically motivated translation in archaic English. Even if you can understand what the words say, assuming the translation is accurate is silly. The translators after all wanted to further their agenda, not provide an accurate translation of the word of God.

May I ask why ? The KJV is a politically motivated translation in archaic English. Even if you can understand what the words say, assuming the translation is accurate is silly. The translators after all wanted to further their agenda, not provide an accurate translation of the word of God.

It's the Bible. The end of Revalation clearly tells you not to alter it. I doubt people in a that age would've dared.

I would say that someone could be called part of a religion when they can understand the tenets of that religion and AGREE with them. And argue for and against them. And question them...............

Ah,no, sorry. that's the thing you're not allowed to do in religion, innit? Question stuff. In case you find out it's all fairy stories.

It's the Bible. The end of Revalation clearly tells you not to alter it. I doubt people in a that age would've dared.So when the KJV was first translated that was no change of text? Ridiculous.

May I ask why ? The KJV is a politically motivated translation in archaic English. Even if you can understand what the words say, assuming the translation is accurate is silly. The translators after all wanted to further their agenda, not provide an accurate translation of the word of God.

Quite frankly, ANY translation of the Bible is politically motivated. However, the KJV is about as good as it gets in terms of accuracy. Not perfect, but then, none is.

It's the Bible. The end of Revalation clearly tells you not to alter it. I doubt people in a that age would've dared.

That's an admonishment not to alter the book of Revelation itself. It was written 300 years before anything like the Bible appeared.

May I ask why ? The KJV is a politically motivated translation in archaic English. Even if you can understand what the words say, assuming the translation is accurate is silly. The translators after all wanted to further their agenda, not provide an accurate translation of the word of God.Not entirely true. The translators where incredibly humble and admitted that they were but one link in a long chain of revisors of the "Biblical Truth". In their case "further their agenda" and "provide an accurate translation of the word of God" were the same.

Quite frankly, ANY translation of the Bible is politically motivated. However, the KJV is about as good as it gets in terms of accuracy. Not perfect, but then, none is.Which one of the three KJV's is better than the modern revisions that are based on Hebrew or Aramaic texts as opposed to only Greek ones?

Which one of the three KJV's is better than the modern revisions that are based on Hebrew or Aramaic texts as opposed to only Greek ones?

Are you suggesting there's no politics involved in the ones you're refering to?

However, the KJV is about as good as it gets in terms of accuracy.Not at all. The KJV is one of the worst translations available.

I always appreciate having a discussion like this with a knowledgeable person because it gives me a motivation to go and study my Scriptures to improve my own knowledge and understanding.

Always good to get other points of view, especially if everyone is trying to back them up with the 'whys' and 'why nots'.

Just out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible are you using? (I'm using the KJV.)

I'm using the English Standard Version (ESV), published in 2001. I use and own many versions as I like to compare and look for different ways of saying the same thing and I came across this version about a year ago... The ESV says about itself;

"Each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or over-looking any nuance of the original text...

The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer ... In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture."

And according to Leonard J. Greenspoon's Bible Buyer's guide (the source for the above and below information), written for the Biblical Archaeological Society in 2005, he said: The translators of the ESV readily acknowledge their debt to the KJV and other earlier versions. It could be said that the ESV stand in the KJV tradition without being part of the family. Thus, for example, the KJV (and the Hebrew originals) reliance on "and ... and ... and" is largely retained, while an effort is made to distinguish in English varying styles among Old and New Testament writers. In this way, its English style and vocabulary may be considered appropriately "biblical" and constitute a very sensible and sensitive balance between concern for the ancient originals and for modern readers.

One thing that's important to keep in mind in the book of Acts is that this is where Christianity was officially spread from only Jews to Gentiles as well. What we're seeing in the verses that you're quoting is the manifestation of the Holy Spirit to those people, converting them to Christianity as well as showing the already existing members that the Holy Spirit did indeed testify the truth to them. More on that in a second:
Yes...

Actually the surprise came from the fact that it was from Gentiles.
I agree that the main issue for Acts 10, was the question of them being gentiles, uncircumcised and unbaptized gentiles. The question between you and I was whether or not the Holy Spirit could reside in someone before water baptism, or not. Thus, the scenario answers that question when it answered the gentile question.

The real question is: How DOES one baptize by the Holy Spirit? In other words, what confers the Holy Spirit on a person on a permanent way that we would think of as Confirmation?

The answer is in Acts 8:15-17
15 Who, when [Peter and John] were come down, prayed for them, that [the Samaritans] might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them:only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.


Note that in verse 16 we learn that they had already been baptized by water only, but lacked the Holy Spirit. It was necessary for these Apostles to come and lay hands on them to confer upon them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This is the process by which one receives the Holy Ghost fully and permanently.

It is clear that the laying on of hands can induce the reception of the Holy Ghost, I do not dispute it one bit. However, the laying on of hands is clearly not essential either, as Peter distinctly says, "As I began to speak," the Holy Spirit was poured out on them... Peter didn't 'lay on hands them' and attempt to pour the Holy Spirit out on them intentionally, the Holy Spirit chose to do it without the laying on of hand...

Further example:

Moroni 2:2,3

2 And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles.
3 Now Christ spake these words unto them at the time of his first appearing; and the multitude heard it not, but the disciples heard it; and on as many as they laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost.

Also, did you see my last post regarding baptizing children?

Yes, I read the earlier post and then this part of this one too. I read the earlier post and decided to let it pass without comment the use of the Book of Mormon in this debate. As to the authority of the Book of Mormon to change/alter/interpret the Bible I think is an entirely different debate, nothing to do with Children or the interpretation of when the Holy Spirit can reside in a person... It does however, and very clearly mind you, explain your point of view and the position you are taking. And in that way it's very helpful.

Not at all. The KJV is one of the worst translations available.

Nonsense. Everyone should have a copy of the KJV, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, adherents of other religions and non-believers too, it is the English classic... It should not be the only version they read though.

Not at all. The KJV is one of the worst translations available.

UB, coming from you, that opinion means absolutely nothing. You've made your opinions and position on religion in general clear enough.

Always good to get other points of view, especially if everyone is trying to back them up with the 'whys' and 'why nots'.

I'm using the English Standard Version (ESV), published in 2001. I use and own many versions as I like to compare and look for different ways of saying the same thing and I came across this version about a year ago... The ESV says about itself;

"Each word and phrase in the ESV has been carefully weighed against the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to ensure the fullest accuracy and clarity and to avoid under-translating or over-looking any nuance of the original text...

The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer ... In each case the objective has been transparency to the original text, allowing the reader to understand the original on its own terms rather than on the terms of our present-day culture."

And according to Leonard J. Greenspoon's Bible Buyer's guide (the source for the above and below information), written for the Biblical Archaeological Society in 2005, he said: The translators of the ESV readily acknowledge their debt to the KJV and other earlier versions. It could be said that the ESV stand in the KJV tradition without being part of the family. Thus, for example, the KJV (and the Hebrew originals) reliance on "and ... and ... and" is largely retained, while an effort is made to distinguish in English varying styles among Old and New Testament writers. In this way, its English style and vocabulary may be considered appropriately "biblical" and constitute a very sensible and sensitive balance between concern for the ancient originals and for modern readers.


Thanks. I haven't heard of that particular translation before. In my church we generally use the KJV but there's no rule that would prohibit the use of others.


I agree that the main issue for Acts 10, was the question of them being gentiles, uncircumcised and unbaptized gentiles. The question between you and I was whether or not the Holy Spirit could reside in someone before water baptism, or not. Thus, the scenario answers that question when it answered the gentile question.


I think it might be useful for me to clarify my position a little, since as I read over my previous posts I realize I may have given the wrong impression.

I don't mean to suggest that the Holy Spirit cannot or will not touch the unbaptized or unrepentant. As you've pointed out, clearly it is possible. In fact, I'd also point out that one cannot have a true conversion experience to Christianity without it, as it is the testinony of the Holy Spirit in our heart that lets us know the truth about the Savior.

This is separate from what we would think of as the permanent presence of the Holy Spirit within us. Clearly our positions are different on this, as (if I understand you correctly) you see no disparity between the two wheras I do. I assert that to be baptized of the Holy Spirit one must recieve the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands by one who is authorized to do so. This must take place after water baptism.


It is clear that the laying on of hands can induce the reception of the Holy Ghost, I do not dispute it one bit. However, the laying on of hands is clearly not essential either, as Peter distinctly says, "As I began to speak," the Holy Spirit was poured out on them... Peter didn't 'lay on hands them' and attempt to pour the Holy Spirit out on them intentionally, the Holy Spirit chose to do it without the laying on of hand...


And in accordance with what I noted above, these Gentiles were indeed touched by the power of the Spirit, but had yet to have it conferred upon them. These events opened the door for Gentiles to be baptized into membership in the Church.


Yes, I read the earlier post and then this part of this one too. I read the earlier post and decided to let it pass without comment the use of the Book of Mormon in this debate. As to the authority of the Book of Mormon to change/alter/interpret the Bible I think is an entirely different debate, nothing to do with Children or the interpretation of when the Holy Spirit can reside in a person... It does however, and very clearly mind you, explain your point of view and the position you are taking. And in that way it's very helpful.

I'm glad. It's the reason I included those verses. Naturally I am aware that you (and most people reading this thread) would not consider the Book of Mormon to be canonical, but I can no more explain my point of view without it than you could reasonably be expected to explain yours without the New Testament.

Are you suggesting there's no politics involved in the ones you're refering to?Are you missing the point?

Why is the particular KJV you read a good choice, despite the fact that it's a translation of a translation and more original sources have turned up since then? How would the politics involved in more up to date translations be inherently worse than Anglican Divine Right of Kings agendas?

Are you missing the point?

Why is the particular KJV you read a good choice, despite the fact that it's a translation of a translation and more original sources have turned up since then? How would the politics involved in more up to date translations be inherently worse than Anglican Divine Right of Kings agendas?

I'm not missing the point, I'm making a counter point.

I understand what you're saying and that you're trying to get me to either defend this particular translation or to concede that it isn't best and thus cripple my credibility when using it.

My counter point is that any translation can be slanted according to the intent or assumptions of the translater, regardless of the age of the sources. After all, what's an original source? One that's sufficiently old?

No such translation is perfect. We can argue all day about which is better but ultimately even if one can be shown to edge another, it doesn't matter. You'll notice I didn't criticize the other debater for not using the KJV, I simply asked out of curiosity and I haven't disputed its usefulness in comparison with mine.

And since a debate over which translation is most useful would be a threadjack, I'm not interested.

I'm not missing the point, I'm making a counter point.'cept you were dodging the question. It's like being asked why you steal and answering by asking why I jaywalk.
I understand what you're saying and that you're trying to get me to either defend this particular translation or to concede that it isn't best and thus cripple my credibility when using it.Nah, I'm trying to teach you the simple fact that the King James Versions aren't as good as it gets.
My counter point is that any translation can be slanted according to the intent or assumptions of the translater, regardless of the age of the sources. Indeed. Why bother with versions translated exclusively by scholars adhering to one single denomination as opposed to many? The most likely slant in the King James Versions is highly unlikely to be a beneficial one.
After all, what's an original source? One that's sufficiently old?How about one that's in the original language that it was written in, as opposed to a Greek translation?
No such translation is perfect. We can argue all day about which is better but ultimately even if one can be shown to edge another, it doesn't matter. You'll notice I didn't criticize the other debater for not using the KJV, I simply asked out of curiosity and I haven't disputed its usefulness in comparison with mine. And yet you made the erroneous statement that the KJVs are as good as they get.
And since a debate over which translation is most useful would be a threadjack, I'm not interested.Meh.

'cept you were dodging the question. It's like being asked why you steal and answering by asking why I jaywalk.

Actually, no. I'm telling you why I opt out of the debate.

Why do people seem to have this idea that just because they disagree wi th someone that somehow thay have a right to trigger a debate over it?


Nah, I'm trying to teach you the simple fact that the King James Versions aren't as good as it gets.

In your opinion. So noted.


Indeed. Why bother with versions translated exclusively by scholars adhering to one single denomination as opposed to many? The most likely slant in the King James Versions is highly unlikely to be a beneficial one.

In your opinion. No noted.


How about one that's in the original language that it was written in, as opposed to a Greek translation?


You're making a few assumptions here about the authenticity of the source and the number of times it may have been copied from copies.


And yet you made the erroneous statement that the KJVs are as good as they get.
Meh.

Actually, I expressed an opinion. You disagree with that opinion. Duly noted.

<snip>You're confusing "I like the KJVs" with "the KJVs are the bestest". The first one is not debateable, the second one can be proven or disproven. You, however choose to use definition number one as an excuse for holding on to definition number two, and have made it abundantly clear that you will stick to that delusion.

Quite frankly, ANY translation of the Bible is politically motivated. However, the KJV is about as good as it gets in terms of accuracy. Not perfect, but then, none is.

True, but some strived to be better than others.
Why not simply use several translations next to eachother?

You're confusing "I like the KJVs" with "the KJVs are the bestest". The first one is not debateable, the second one can be proven or disproven. You, however choose to use definition number one as an excuse for holding on to definition number two, and have made it abundantly clear that you will stick to that delusion.

So now you're judging me for refusing to debate you over which translation is best, to the point of making personal jabs about delusions...

Just for the record, there *IS* no objective basis for comparison. What would one use? Historical Accuracy? Spiritual value? Readability? Literary precision? Proof of Origin? Difficult to have it all, I'd say, to the point of impossibility since there are always idiomatic patterns and figures of speech that simply can't translate 1:1. One also can never be sure of the veracity of the source material however old. So if you want to get mad at me for declining a useless debate in which we'd each have different ideas on what constitutes a "good" translation then knock yourself out.

True, but some strived to be better than others.
Why not simply use several translations next to eachother?

Who says I don't? ;)

At home I have a NIV (I think I still have it) along with a Catholic Edition and one that I'm not sure what translation it is but it was published in 1832. Cross-comparisons are very illuminating at times.

Nonsense. Everyone should have a copy of the KJV, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, adherents of other religions and non-believers too, it is the English classic... It should not be the only version they read though.Well, while it may be interesting in linguistic aspects, it is not an accurate rendition of the ancient texts that are supposed to make up the bible.