This is a take-off on WisdomSeeker's thread in the Baptist-Only section of the board. I had a conversation with my husband's pastor quite some time ago, and in it, I mentioned that I disagreed with his premise that baptism by pouring and sprinkling were as legitimate as choices for baptism as was immersion for the common people (i.e. those without physical limitations). His response to my saying that the only legitimate baptism for these was immersion was to ask where I learned Greek. When I said, "In a Baptist school," he laughed and replied that this was the reason I believed only in immersion. Well, bluntly, I had no leg to stand on. Reasons: </font> I had taken Greek long, long ago</font> I had not kept up with my studies since then</font> Every entity's prejudices effect their teachings</font> So does anyone have any legitimate historical reasons to believe that baptiso did not intend immersion, other than later decisions, after the canonization, by certain church leaders? I believe that if the old Writings, and not merely the Apostolic Writings, had been taken into the equation, when considering whether baptism intended immersion or other means, there would be no question that it intended immersion only.