(Re: *Didache regarding immersion)
What is the proof that the Didache's allowance of non-immersion baptism when enough water is not available (which would be never, in any place suitable for human habitation) was agreed to by any apostle, or that, at the time that the Didache was written, it was an "established custom" of the Church, and not just the allowance of one didact falsely claiming to speak for "the Lord" Himself and all of "the Twelve Apostles"?
Also, what is the proof that the Didache was written around 70 AD, instead of about 100 AD, or in the early second century AD? And what is the proof that any of the apostles even approved of every part of the Didache, much less that it was taught in its entirety by all of the twelve apostles themselves, as the Didache itself claims in its very first line: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles". If the early Church knew, or even believed, that the Didache was truly: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then why is it not part of the New Testament? And if the early Church determined that the Didache was not truly: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then the Didache starts out with a false claim. And if it starts out with such a serious false claim, then on what basis should we accept everything that it teaches as necessarily being true?
While the Didache includes many good teachings which are in line with what the Bible teaches, some of its teachings are not in line with the Bible. In chapter 1, the Didache makes the claim: "love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy". But the Bible says: "they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love" (Psalms 109:5), which shows that even when we love those who hate us, it is possible that they will remain our enemies. Also, in chapter 12 the Didache says: "receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord". But the Bible shows that even if people come in the name of the Lord, if they deny the true doctrine that Christ is in the flesh, then they are not to be received (2 John 1:7,10).
~
(Re: *Catholic.com regarding immersion)
Chapter 7 of the Didache requires immersion in a river wherever a river is available (this is not required by the Bible), or immersion in other water whenever other water is available. So why would catholic.com want to support what the Didache says? Are adherents of Catholicism immersed in a river wherever a river is available, or immersed in other water whenever other water is available? Also... (See "even the" (Catholic Encyclopedia) in the "Immersion" section of Mark 16:16 above)
Also, why would catholic.com want to support what the Didache says, when the rest of chapter 7 of the Didache (but not the Bible) says: "But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before". Do baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism fast one or two days before baptizing anyone? And are adherents of Catholicism ordered to fast one or two days before getting baptized? Also, chapter 7 of the Didache (but not the Bible) says: "Having first said all these things, baptize". Do baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism say chapters 1 through 6 of the Didache before baptizing anyone? Also, chapter 9 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what is to be said at both the wine and bread of Communion. Do adherents of Catholicism say chapter 9 of the Didache at Communion (Mass)?
Also, chapter 10 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what is to be said after Communion. Do adherents of Catholicism say chapter 10 of the Didache after Communion? Also, chapter 10 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands that after Communion: "permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire". Do adherents of Catholicism permit this? Also, chapter 11 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands: "Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not". Do adherents of Catholicism refuse to hear anyone who teaches anything which effectively nullifies any of the commands in chapters 1 through 10 of the Didache, such as the detailed commands regarding baptism and Communion in chapters 7, 9, and 10?
~
(Re: *Hippolytus, regarding a quote at catholic.com regarding immersion)
Regarding the quoted statement being attributed to chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition", the quoted statement is not found in chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition", at least in the text available at the following website: The Apostolic Tradition. So is the quote actually from some other source? Also, on what authority did the writer of the quote base the allowance given in the quote? Also, regarding what the quote says, why would catholic.com want to support the allowance of non-immersion baptism only "if water is scarce"? Are adherents of Catholicism immersed when water is not scarce? And what is meant by "scarce" in any place suitable for human habitation?
Also, regarding chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition", why would catholic.com want to refer to it when it requires baptism in a river or spring (this is not required by the Bible): "When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water". Are adherents of Catholicism baptized in a river or spring? Also, chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition" (but not the Bible) requires: "At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of Thanksgiving. He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is called the Oil of Exorcism. A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of Thanksgiving and stand on the right". Is this fulfilled when adherents of Catholicism are baptized? Also, chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition (but not the Bible) requires a huge number of other details of exactly what must be said and done at every baptism (see the whole chapter). Are all of these other details fulfilled when adherents of Catholicism are baptized?
Also, regarding attributing the work called "The Apostolic Tradition" to Hippolytus of Rome, "nowaday this attribution is hotly contested" (Wikipedia). Also, regarding attributing a date of 215 AD to "The Apostolic Tradition", "recent scholars (see Bradshaw) believe that it contains material of separate sources ranging from the middle second to the fourth century, being gathered and compiled on about AD 375-400, probably in Egypt or even to Syria. Some scholars also suggest that the Apostolic Tradition portrays a liturgy that was never celebrated" (Wikipedia).
Regarding Hippolytus of Rome himself, why would catholic.com want to quote anything that it thought was written by him, when "He came into conflict with the popes of his time and seems to have headed a schismatic group as a rival bishop of Rome. For that reason he is sometimes considered the first antipope"? And "Starting in the 4th century, various legends arose about him, identifying him as a priest of the Novatianist schism" (Wikipedia).
~
(Re: *Eusebius/*Novatian, regarding a quote at catholic.com regarding immersion)
Something very similar to that quote is indeed found in book 6 of Ecclesiastical History, in chapter 43. And Eusebius is indeed quoting one of the "epistles of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, of the church at Antioch" (paragraph 3), when chapter 43 says: "Being delivered by the exorcists, he [Novatian] fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. And as he did not receive this, how could he receive the Holy Spirit?” (paragraphs 14-15).
Here Cornelius is first questioning whether Novatian had really received baptism by water, and then is stating that Novatian did not subsequently receive the separate baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6, Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-48). Cornelius does not state or imply in the quote that he believes that "baptism by affusion" is acceptable to God, instead of immersion, in any case except when a Christian "seems about to die". Are adherents of Catholicism immersed when they do not "seem about to die"? Also, on what authority would Cornelius believe that "baptism by affusion" is acceptable to God, instead of immersion, when a Christian "seems about to die"? Why cannot a Christian who seems about to die be carried immediately to where he or she can be immersed, such as in a tub of water, or in the nearest body of water?
Also, there are some notes which accompany chapter 43 at Christian Classics. Note 2128 (linked in paragraph 14) says that there was "objection to Novatian’s ordination, based upon his irregular baptism". And Note 2132 (linked in paragraph 17) says: "Clinic baptism (so-called from [the Greek for] 'a bed') was ordinarily looked upon in the early Church, in which immersion was the common mode of baptism, as permanently debarring a person from the presbyterate, and by many persons it was denied that such baptism was baptism at all". Also, it is curious that Novatian would become "Christianity's second ever antipope", and that Hippolytus of Rome would be "considered by some to be Novatian's teacher" (Wikipedia).
~
(Re: *Mikvah is not the same as baptism, as Christians know it)
That's right.
For it does not seem that there was any regular Jewish practice of "baptism", as Christians know it, before John the Baptist and the first coming of Jesus Christ in the first century AD. But there was a Jewish practice called "mikvah", which was a ritual immersion in water to regain ritual purity under the Mosaic law, after the excretion of certain bodily fluids had made one ritually unclean, such as during menstruation, childbirth, sexual intercourse, nocturnal emission, or from pus-emitting sores or ulcers of the skin. Mikvah can also be employed in some other ways, such as a sign of conversion to Judaism, as a way to ritually prepare a dead body for burial, or in the ritual consecration of priests, ritually dealing with leprosy, or ritually preparing oneself for a sacred holiday.
It does not seem that mikvah was about repentance from sin, in the sense of deciding to turn away from willful, impure actions which one has committed by the lusts of one's own heart. Instead, mikvah seems to be more about washing oneself physically for ritual purification, when one is made ritually unclean under the Mosaic law, in some manner which does not necessarily involve any sin on one's part. And when a sin was committed, it was Mosaic animal sacrifices which ritually purified the flesh (Hebrews 9:13), although never the conscience (Hebrews 9:9, Hebrews 10:4). Just as the New Covenant's (Jeremiah 31:31-34) shedding of Jesus Christ's blood on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28) has forever replaced all of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's animal sacrifices for sin (Hebrews 10), so the New Covenant has entirely replaced the letter of the Mosaic law (Hebrews 7:18-19), with all of its "diverse washings" (Hebrews 9:10), which would include mikvah.
The original Greek word (baptisma: G0908) translated as "baptism" (Matthew 3:7) is derived from "baptizo" (G0907), which means to submerge (Mark 1:5) or wash (Mark 7:4). "Baptizo" is from "bapto" (G0911), which means to dip in a liquid (Luke 16:24, John 13:26, Revelation 19:13). A similar word, "baptismos" (G0909), can refer to either baptism (Colossians 2:12) or washing, as in Hebrews 9:10, which refers to "diverse washings" (baptismos) which Jews practiced under the Mosaic law. In this case, it could be said (as is sometimes done) that "there was a regular Jewish practice of baptism", including mikvah. But not in the sense of a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), which seems to have started with John the Baptist at the time of Jesus Christ's first coming (Mark 1:4-9).
Indeed, the Jews recognized that the particular baptism of John the Baptist was not any regular Jewish practice, but something very special indeed. For "they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" (John 1:25). This suggests that the Jews had some expectation that a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins would come, but that it would be instituted only by the Messiah/Christ Himself, and the returned Elijah (Malachi 4:5), and the special prophet foretold by Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15). While John the Baptist denied being Elijah himself (John 1:21), John the Baptist did come in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). So Jesus Christ said that John the Baptist was a fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the return of Elijah (Matthew 11:14). And, of course, John the Baptist pointed to Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, the Son of God (John 1:34, cf. Mark 14:61-62). Jesus is also the special prophet foretold by Moses (Acts 3:22-26).
So if, based on John 1:25, the Jews were looking forward to the institution of a special baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and they expected it to be instituted by the Christ/Messiah, and the returned Elijah, and the special prophet foretold by Moses, then Christian baptism is that special baptism (Acts 22:16).
--
*Mark 16:17 / *Mk. 16:17 -
Regarding the "devils" part of Mark 16:17a, not every Christian is given the ability to cast out demons, just as, for example, not every Christian is given the ability to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:29-30).
--
*Mark 16:18 / *Mk. 16:18 -
Christians must never test God by purposely, unnecessarily placing themselves in harm's way (Matthew 4:5-7). Just as Christians should never throw themselves off buildings to test Psalms 91:12, so they should never purposely pick up dangerous snakes, or drink poison, to test Mark 16:18. For Mark 16:18 refers to, for example, accidental cases of Christians taking up snakes, such as when picking up a pile of wood (Acts 28:3-6).
--
*Luke 1:41 / *Lk. 1:41 -
(Re: *Abortion)
The Bible shows that even unborn children have consciousness (Luke 1:41), and can be filled with God's Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15).
So how dare anyone murder such a one as these, and for mere convenience?
~
(Re: I know that abortion is wrong, but I am pregnant, and I just cannot do this on my own)
You do not have to do it on your own. There are Christian groups in your area who can help you now, not only up through the time of your giving birth to your precious little baby from God, but also can help you afterward as a young Mom. Please seek these local Christian groups out today, for they are out there just waiting for people like you to call on them and tell them everything that you are worried about.
--
*Luke 1:63 / *Lk. 1:63 -
The name "John" (Ioannes: G2491) is derived from a Hebrew name (Yowchanan: H3110) which means "YHWH-favored" (Yehowchanan: H3076). See Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries.
--
*Luke 1:78 / *Lk. 1:78 -
The original Greek word (anatole: G0395) translated as "dayspring" can refer to dawn.
--
*Luke 2:1 / *Lk. 2:1 -
This verse employs the original Greek word "oikoumene" (G3625) to refer to the Roman "world".
--
*Luke 2:49 / *Lk. 2:49 -
(Re: Will the Antichrist know who he is, and be indwelt by Satan, even as a child?)
Just as Jesus Christ even as a child knew who His Father was (Luke 2:49), so the Antichrist (who could be an adult living today) could have known even as a child who his father was. Just as Christ's mother was impregnated by God Himself (Luke 1:35), so the Antichrist's mother could have been impregnated by Satan himself.
And just as Christ at about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23) received God's Spirit (Luke 3:22), as a human, without measure (John 3:34b), so the Antichrist (who could be much older than thirty today) could have received, at about thirty years of age, Satan's spirit without measure.
~
(Re: Then why has not the Antichrist already taken over the world?)
Because of a powerful, restraining angel of God.
(See 2 Thessalonians 2:6 below)
--
*Luke 3:4-6 / *Lk. 3:4 -
Luke 3:5-6 could have been fulfilled in some figurative way at the time of John the Baptist in the first century AD (Luke 3:2-3), just as Luke 3:4 was fulfilled by him. Also, Luke 3:4-6 does not have to be literal for other prophecies in Isaiah (or elsewhere in the Bible) to be literal (e.g. Isaiah 7:14a, Isaiah 53:5; cf. Matthew 1:22-23; 1 Peter 2:24). Also, Luke 3:5 could have another literal fulfillment on the future, New Earth, as in a new surface for the earth, which will also literally have no sea (Revelation 21:1), which may simply mean no Mediterranean Sea.
~
(Re: Did the *Pharisees end up crucifying Jesus Christ because of their *literalism?)
No, quite the opposite. For they did not understand that the Bible prophesied that Christ would literally be crucified for our sins (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22), and that the Biblical prophecies regarding Christ's future, literal, physical rule over the earth (Isaiah 9:7, Isaiah 2:1-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Psalms 66:3-4) will not happen until His future, literal, physical, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21, Acts 1:11-12).
(See also John 12:15 below)
--
*Luke 3:14 / *Lk. 3:14 -
(Do violence to no man)
See Matthew 5:39 above.
--
*Luke 4:11 / *Lk. 4:11 -
(Re: Does the use here of the original Greek word "epi" mean that the future Antichrist's mark will be "inside" the hand?)
No, for only the surface of the skin of the hands actually touches the one being borne. So the "epi" in Luke 4:11 (Greek, G1909) means "on" their hands. It does not mean that the one being borne will be "inside" their hands, in the sense of him being put under the skin of their hands.
(See Revelation 13:16 below)
--
*Luke 4:18 / *Lk. 4:18 -
Jesus Christ came to preach His saving Gospel not only to the physically poor, but also to those who are physically rich, yet spiritually poor (Revelation 3:17). For even the physically rich can go to hell when they die (Luke 16:19-31, Matthew 16:26).
~
The original Greek word (thrauo: G2352) translated as "bruised" can mean "crushed" (Strong's Greek Dictionary). Also, Jesus Christ was quoting from Isaiah 61:1, where the parallel original Hebrew word ('acar: H0631) is translated as, and can mean, "bound" (Job 36:8).
--
*Luke 4:19 / *Lk. 4:19 -
The acceptable "year" of the Lord does not have to be literal, but could refer to a particular, although undefined (for us), period of time, which could have arrived in the first century AD. It does not have to be the Day of the Lord, but could be the same as the non-literal "day" of salvation which began in the first century AD (2 Corinthians 6:2), and continues on today, based on Jesus Christ's preaching (John 3:16).
(See 2 Thessalonians 2:2 below. Also, see Isaiah 34:8 above)
--
*Luke 5:5-6 / *Lk. 5:5 -
This brings to mind that we are wasting our time doing something if God is not in it (Psalms 127:1, John 15:5b).
(See also section 3 of Luke 11:1 below. But also note Philippians 2:13 below)
And if God is in a work, then it cannot fail, ultimately (Daniel 4:35).
(Compare Luke 10:19 below)
--
*Luke 5:10b / *Lk. 5:10b -
Compare what Matthew 13:47-49 says.
--
*Luke 5:11 / *Lk. 5:11 -
(They forsook all)
See Luke 14:33 below.
--
*Luke 5:20 / *Lk. 5:20 -
(He saw their faith)
He saw it by their actions (James 2:18c) in Luke 5:18-19, which they would not have done unless they had believed that Jesus could heal, like the leper just before had believed (Luke 5:12-13).
(See also the "healing" section of 1 Corinthians 12:8 below. And compare Mark 8:23 above)
--
*Luke 5:21 / *Lk. 5:21 -
And yet they were the ones blaspheming God, by rejecting Jesus, who is God.
(See John 1:1 below. Also, compare Mark 3:29 above)
--
*Luke 5:22 / *Lk. 5:22 -
(Jesus perceived their thoughts)
Compare section 2 of Mark 13:32 above. Also, see paragraph 3 of section 7 of Luke 22:36b below.
--
*Luke 5:26 / *Lk. 5:26 -
(Strange things)
The original Greek word (paradoxos: G3861) translated as "strange things" is made up of two words which can mean "near" (para: G3844) and "glory" (doxa: G1391).
So what the people had seen could be not "strange" things in the sense that we would use that word today, but things which had revealed that God's glory was near to them in the miraculous workings of Jesus Christ. Compare what Luke 10:9, Matthew 12:28, and Luke 11:20 say.
Similarly, our English word "paradox", as in something which we cannot make sense of, can be understood in the light of Isaiah 55:8-9.
(See Isaiah 55:9 above)
Also, note that the people in Luke 5:26 had "fear" (phobos: G5401). For if God's glory was near, then what could happen to them as sinners? Compare the apostle Peter's response in Luke 5:8 to the miracle by Jesus in Luke 5:4-7.
--
*Luke 5:37-38 / *Lk. 5:37 -
(Re: New wineskins)
See Matthew 9:17 above.
--
*Luke 6:11 / *Lk. 6:11 -
The original Greek word (anoia: G0454) translated as "madness" can mean "rage".
--
*Luke 6:19 / *Lk. 6:19 -
(*Power)
The original Greek word (dunamis: G1411) translated as "virtue" can mean "power" (Luke 5:17).
This would be the power of God's Holy Spirit (cf. Romans 15:13, Luke 4:14, Romans 15:19, Acts 1:8, Micah 3:8, Luke 1:35).
(See also Luke 24:49 below)
--
*Luke 6:29 / *Lk. 6:29 -
See Matthew 5:39 above.
--
*Luke 6:32-36 / *Lk. 6:32 -
See Matthew 5:44 above.
--
*Luke 6:40 / *Lk. 6:40 -
(Re: A mistranslation, and Philippians 3:21 below)
The original Greek of Luke 6:40 does not say "trained". So the principle can apply to the perfect, physical resurrection body. That is, Christians' future, physical resurrection bodies "shall be as" their master Jesus Christ's: with a record of any wounds of martyrdom (John 20:25-27, Zechariah 13:6).
(See Philippians 3:21 below)
--
*Luke 6:43-44 / *Lk. 6:43 -
See Matthew 12:33 above.
--
*Luke 6:46 / *Lk. 6:46 -
Christians cannot separate their obedience to Jesus Christ's requirements from their claiming Him as their Lord (Luke 6:46, Matthew 7:21; 1 John 2:4).
--
*Luke 7:4 / *Lk. 7:4 -
The original Greek word (spoudaios: G4709) translated as "instantly" can mean "earnestly" (Strong's Greek Dictionary).
--
*Luke 7:29 / *Lk. 7:29 -
The original Greek word (telones: G5057) translated as "publicans", like the English word, can mean tax collectors.
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 5, 2018
What is the proof that the Didache's allowance of non-immersion baptism when enough water is not available (which would be never, in any place suitable for human habitation) was agreed to by any apostle, or that, at the time that the Didache was written, it was an "established custom" of the Church, and not just the allowance of one didact falsely claiming to speak for "the Lord" Himself and all of "the Twelve Apostles"?
Also, what is the proof that the Didache was written around 70 AD, instead of about 100 AD, or in the early second century AD? And what is the proof that any of the apostles even approved of every part of the Didache, much less that it was taught in its entirety by all of the twelve apostles themselves, as the Didache itself claims in its very first line: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles". If the early Church knew, or even believed, that the Didache was truly: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then why is it not part of the New Testament? And if the early Church determined that the Didache was not truly: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then the Didache starts out with a false claim. And if it starts out with such a serious false claim, then on what basis should we accept everything that it teaches as necessarily being true?
While the Didache includes many good teachings which are in line with what the Bible teaches, some of its teachings are not in line with the Bible. In chapter 1, the Didache makes the claim: "love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy". But the Bible says: "they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love" (Psalms 109:5), which shows that even when we love those who hate us, it is possible that they will remain our enemies. Also, in chapter 12 the Didache says: "receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord". But the Bible shows that even if people come in the name of the Lord, if they deny the true doctrine that Christ is in the flesh, then they are not to be received (2 John 1:7,10).
~
(Re: *Catholic.com regarding immersion)
Chapter 7 of the Didache requires immersion in a river wherever a river is available (this is not required by the Bible), or immersion in other water whenever other water is available. So why would catholic.com want to support what the Didache says? Are adherents of Catholicism immersed in a river wherever a river is available, or immersed in other water whenever other water is available? Also... (See "even the" (Catholic Encyclopedia) in the "Immersion" section of Mark 16:16 above)
Also, why would catholic.com want to support what the Didache says, when the rest of chapter 7 of the Didache (but not the Bible) says: "But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before". Do baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism fast one or two days before baptizing anyone? And are adherents of Catholicism ordered to fast one or two days before getting baptized? Also, chapter 7 of the Didache (but not the Bible) says: "Having first said all these things, baptize". Do baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism say chapters 1 through 6 of the Didache before baptizing anyone? Also, chapter 9 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what is to be said at both the wine and bread of Communion. Do adherents of Catholicism say chapter 9 of the Didache at Communion (Mass)?
Also, chapter 10 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what is to be said after Communion. Do adherents of Catholicism say chapter 10 of the Didache after Communion? Also, chapter 10 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands that after Communion: "permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire". Do adherents of Catholicism permit this? Also, chapter 11 of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands: "Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not". Do adherents of Catholicism refuse to hear anyone who teaches anything which effectively nullifies any of the commands in chapters 1 through 10 of the Didache, such as the detailed commands regarding baptism and Communion in chapters 7, 9, and 10?
~
(Re: *Hippolytus, regarding a quote at catholic.com regarding immersion)
Regarding the quoted statement being attributed to chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition", the quoted statement is not found in chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition", at least in the text available at the following website: The Apostolic Tradition. So is the quote actually from some other source? Also, on what authority did the writer of the quote base the allowance given in the quote? Also, regarding what the quote says, why would catholic.com want to support the allowance of non-immersion baptism only "if water is scarce"? Are adherents of Catholicism immersed when water is not scarce? And what is meant by "scarce" in any place suitable for human habitation?
Also, regarding chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition", why would catholic.com want to refer to it when it requires baptism in a river or spring (this is not required by the Bible): "When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water". Are adherents of Catholicism baptized in a river or spring? Also, chapter 21 of "The Apostolic Tradition" (but not the Bible) requires: "At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of Thanksgiving. He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is called the Oil of Exorcism. A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of Thanksgiving and stand on the right". Is this fulfilled when adherents of Catholicism are baptized? Also, chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition (but not the Bible) requires a huge number of other details of exactly what must be said and done at every baptism (see the whole chapter). Are all of these other details fulfilled when adherents of Catholicism are baptized?
Also, regarding attributing the work called "The Apostolic Tradition" to Hippolytus of Rome, "nowaday this attribution is hotly contested" (Wikipedia). Also, regarding attributing a date of 215 AD to "The Apostolic Tradition", "recent scholars (see Bradshaw) believe that it contains material of separate sources ranging from the middle second to the fourth century, being gathered and compiled on about AD 375-400, probably in Egypt or even to Syria. Some scholars also suggest that the Apostolic Tradition portrays a liturgy that was never celebrated" (Wikipedia).
Regarding Hippolytus of Rome himself, why would catholic.com want to quote anything that it thought was written by him, when "He came into conflict with the popes of his time and seems to have headed a schismatic group as a rival bishop of Rome. For that reason he is sometimes considered the first antipope"? And "Starting in the 4th century, various legends arose about him, identifying him as a priest of the Novatianist schism" (Wikipedia).
~
(Re: *Eusebius/*Novatian, regarding a quote at catholic.com regarding immersion)
Something very similar to that quote is indeed found in book 6 of Ecclesiastical History, in chapter 43. And Eusebius is indeed quoting one of the "epistles of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, of the church at Antioch" (paragraph 3), when chapter 43 says: "Being delivered by the exorcists, he [Novatian] fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. And as he did not receive this, how could he receive the Holy Spirit?” (paragraphs 14-15).
Here Cornelius is first questioning whether Novatian had really received baptism by water, and then is stating that Novatian did not subsequently receive the separate baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6, Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-48). Cornelius does not state or imply in the quote that he believes that "baptism by affusion" is acceptable to God, instead of immersion, in any case except when a Christian "seems about to die". Are adherents of Catholicism immersed when they do not "seem about to die"? Also, on what authority would Cornelius believe that "baptism by affusion" is acceptable to God, instead of immersion, when a Christian "seems about to die"? Why cannot a Christian who seems about to die be carried immediately to where he or she can be immersed, such as in a tub of water, or in the nearest body of water?
Also, there are some notes which accompany chapter 43 at Christian Classics. Note 2128 (linked in paragraph 14) says that there was "objection to Novatian’s ordination, based upon his irregular baptism". And Note 2132 (linked in paragraph 17) says: "Clinic baptism (so-called from [the Greek for] 'a bed') was ordinarily looked upon in the early Church, in which immersion was the common mode of baptism, as permanently debarring a person from the presbyterate, and by many persons it was denied that such baptism was baptism at all". Also, it is curious that Novatian would become "Christianity's second ever antipope", and that Hippolytus of Rome would be "considered by some to be Novatian's teacher" (Wikipedia).
~
(Re: *Mikvah is not the same as baptism, as Christians know it)
That's right.
For it does not seem that there was any regular Jewish practice of "baptism", as Christians know it, before John the Baptist and the first coming of Jesus Christ in the first century AD. But there was a Jewish practice called "mikvah", which was a ritual immersion in water to regain ritual purity under the Mosaic law, after the excretion of certain bodily fluids had made one ritually unclean, such as during menstruation, childbirth, sexual intercourse, nocturnal emission, or from pus-emitting sores or ulcers of the skin. Mikvah can also be employed in some other ways, such as a sign of conversion to Judaism, as a way to ritually prepare a dead body for burial, or in the ritual consecration of priests, ritually dealing with leprosy, or ritually preparing oneself for a sacred holiday.
It does not seem that mikvah was about repentance from sin, in the sense of deciding to turn away from willful, impure actions which one has committed by the lusts of one's own heart. Instead, mikvah seems to be more about washing oneself physically for ritual purification, when one is made ritually unclean under the Mosaic law, in some manner which does not necessarily involve any sin on one's part. And when a sin was committed, it was Mosaic animal sacrifices which ritually purified the flesh (Hebrews 9:13), although never the conscience (Hebrews 9:9, Hebrews 10:4). Just as the New Covenant's (Jeremiah 31:31-34) shedding of Jesus Christ's blood on the Cross for our sins (Matthew 26:28) has forever replaced all of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's animal sacrifices for sin (Hebrews 10), so the New Covenant has entirely replaced the letter of the Mosaic law (Hebrews 7:18-19), with all of its "diverse washings" (Hebrews 9:10), which would include mikvah.
The original Greek word (baptisma: G0908) translated as "baptism" (Matthew 3:7) is derived from "baptizo" (G0907), which means to submerge (Mark 1:5) or wash (Mark 7:4). "Baptizo" is from "bapto" (G0911), which means to dip in a liquid (Luke 16:24, John 13:26, Revelation 19:13). A similar word, "baptismos" (G0909), can refer to either baptism (Colossians 2:12) or washing, as in Hebrews 9:10, which refers to "diverse washings" (baptismos) which Jews practiced under the Mosaic law. In this case, it could be said (as is sometimes done) that "there was a regular Jewish practice of baptism", including mikvah. But not in the sense of a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), which seems to have started with John the Baptist at the time of Jesus Christ's first coming (Mark 1:4-9).
Indeed, the Jews recognized that the particular baptism of John the Baptist was not any regular Jewish practice, but something very special indeed. For "they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" (John 1:25). This suggests that the Jews had some expectation that a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins would come, but that it would be instituted only by the Messiah/Christ Himself, and the returned Elijah (Malachi 4:5), and the special prophet foretold by Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15). While John the Baptist denied being Elijah himself (John 1:21), John the Baptist did come in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). So Jesus Christ said that John the Baptist was a fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the return of Elijah (Matthew 11:14). And, of course, John the Baptist pointed to Jesus as the Messiah/Christ, the Son of God (John 1:34, cf. Mark 14:61-62). Jesus is also the special prophet foretold by Moses (Acts 3:22-26).
So if, based on John 1:25, the Jews were looking forward to the institution of a special baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and they expected it to be instituted by the Christ/Messiah, and the returned Elijah, and the special prophet foretold by Moses, then Christian baptism is that special baptism (Acts 22:16).
--
*Mark 16:17 / *Mk. 16:17 -
Regarding the "devils" part of Mark 16:17a, not every Christian is given the ability to cast out demons, just as, for example, not every Christian is given the ability to speak in tongues (1 Corinthians 12:29-30).
--
*Mark 16:18 / *Mk. 16:18 -
Christians must never test God by purposely, unnecessarily placing themselves in harm's way (Matthew 4:5-7). Just as Christians should never throw themselves off buildings to test Psalms 91:12, so they should never purposely pick up dangerous snakes, or drink poison, to test Mark 16:18. For Mark 16:18 refers to, for example, accidental cases of Christians taking up snakes, such as when picking up a pile of wood (Acts 28:3-6).
--
*Luke 1:41 / *Lk. 1:41 -
(Re: *Abortion)
The Bible shows that even unborn children have consciousness (Luke 1:41), and can be filled with God's Holy Spirit (Luke 1:15).
So how dare anyone murder such a one as these, and for mere convenience?
~
(Re: I know that abortion is wrong, but I am pregnant, and I just cannot do this on my own)
You do not have to do it on your own. There are Christian groups in your area who can help you now, not only up through the time of your giving birth to your precious little baby from God, but also can help you afterward as a young Mom. Please seek these local Christian groups out today, for they are out there just waiting for people like you to call on them and tell them everything that you are worried about.
--
*Luke 1:63 / *Lk. 1:63 -
The name "John" (Ioannes: G2491) is derived from a Hebrew name (Yowchanan: H3110) which means "YHWH-favored" (Yehowchanan: H3076). See Strong's Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries.
--
*Luke 1:78 / *Lk. 1:78 -
The original Greek word (anatole: G0395) translated as "dayspring" can refer to dawn.
--
*Luke 2:1 / *Lk. 2:1 -
This verse employs the original Greek word "oikoumene" (G3625) to refer to the Roman "world".
--
*Luke 2:49 / *Lk. 2:49 -
(Re: Will the Antichrist know who he is, and be indwelt by Satan, even as a child?)
Just as Jesus Christ even as a child knew who His Father was (Luke 2:49), so the Antichrist (who could be an adult living today) could have known even as a child who his father was. Just as Christ's mother was impregnated by God Himself (Luke 1:35), so the Antichrist's mother could have been impregnated by Satan himself.
And just as Christ at about thirty years of age (Luke 3:23) received God's Spirit (Luke 3:22), as a human, without measure (John 3:34b), so the Antichrist (who could be much older than thirty today) could have received, at about thirty years of age, Satan's spirit without measure.
~
(Re: Then why has not the Antichrist already taken over the world?)
Because of a powerful, restraining angel of God.
(See 2 Thessalonians 2:6 below)
--
*Luke 3:4-6 / *Lk. 3:4 -
Luke 3:5-6 could have been fulfilled in some figurative way at the time of John the Baptist in the first century AD (Luke 3:2-3), just as Luke 3:4 was fulfilled by him. Also, Luke 3:4-6 does not have to be literal for other prophecies in Isaiah (or elsewhere in the Bible) to be literal (e.g. Isaiah 7:14a, Isaiah 53:5; cf. Matthew 1:22-23; 1 Peter 2:24). Also, Luke 3:5 could have another literal fulfillment on the future, New Earth, as in a new surface for the earth, which will also literally have no sea (Revelation 21:1), which may simply mean no Mediterranean Sea.
~
(Re: Did the *Pharisees end up crucifying Jesus Christ because of their *literalism?)
No, quite the opposite. For they did not understand that the Bible prophesied that Christ would literally be crucified for our sins (Isaiah 53, Psalms 22), and that the Biblical prophecies regarding Christ's future, literal, physical rule over the earth (Isaiah 9:7, Isaiah 2:1-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Psalms 66:3-4) will not happen until His future, literal, physical, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Zechariah 14:3-21, Acts 1:11-12).
(See also John 12:15 below)
--
*Luke 3:14 / *Lk. 3:14 -
(Do violence to no man)
See Matthew 5:39 above.
--
*Luke 4:11 / *Lk. 4:11 -
(Re: Does the use here of the original Greek word "epi" mean that the future Antichrist's mark will be "inside" the hand?)
No, for only the surface of the skin of the hands actually touches the one being borne. So the "epi" in Luke 4:11 (Greek, G1909) means "on" their hands. It does not mean that the one being borne will be "inside" their hands, in the sense of him being put under the skin of their hands.
(See Revelation 13:16 below)
--
*Luke 4:18 / *Lk. 4:18 -
Jesus Christ came to preach His saving Gospel not only to the physically poor, but also to those who are physically rich, yet spiritually poor (Revelation 3:17). For even the physically rich can go to hell when they die (Luke 16:19-31, Matthew 16:26).
~
The original Greek word (thrauo: G2352) translated as "bruised" can mean "crushed" (Strong's Greek Dictionary). Also, Jesus Christ was quoting from Isaiah 61:1, where the parallel original Hebrew word ('acar: H0631) is translated as, and can mean, "bound" (Job 36:8).
--
*Luke 4:19 / *Lk. 4:19 -
The acceptable "year" of the Lord does not have to be literal, but could refer to a particular, although undefined (for us), period of time, which could have arrived in the first century AD. It does not have to be the Day of the Lord, but could be the same as the non-literal "day" of salvation which began in the first century AD (2 Corinthians 6:2), and continues on today, based on Jesus Christ's preaching (John 3:16).
(See 2 Thessalonians 2:2 below. Also, see Isaiah 34:8 above)
--
*Luke 5:5-6 / *Lk. 5:5 -
This brings to mind that we are wasting our time doing something if God is not in it (Psalms 127:1, John 15:5b).
(See also section 3 of Luke 11:1 below. But also note Philippians 2:13 below)
And if God is in a work, then it cannot fail, ultimately (Daniel 4:35).
(Compare Luke 10:19 below)
--
*Luke 5:10b / *Lk. 5:10b -
Compare what Matthew 13:47-49 says.
--
*Luke 5:11 / *Lk. 5:11 -
(They forsook all)
See Luke 14:33 below.
--
*Luke 5:20 / *Lk. 5:20 -
(He saw their faith)
He saw it by their actions (James 2:18c) in Luke 5:18-19, which they would not have done unless they had believed that Jesus could heal, like the leper just before had believed (Luke 5:12-13).
(See also the "healing" section of 1 Corinthians 12:8 below. And compare Mark 8:23 above)
--
*Luke 5:21 / *Lk. 5:21 -
And yet they were the ones blaspheming God, by rejecting Jesus, who is God.
(See John 1:1 below. Also, compare Mark 3:29 above)
--
*Luke 5:22 / *Lk. 5:22 -
(Jesus perceived their thoughts)
Compare section 2 of Mark 13:32 above. Also, see paragraph 3 of section 7 of Luke 22:36b below.
--
*Luke 5:26 / *Lk. 5:26 -
(Strange things)
The original Greek word (paradoxos: G3861) translated as "strange things" is made up of two words which can mean "near" (para: G3844) and "glory" (doxa: G1391).
So what the people had seen could be not "strange" things in the sense that we would use that word today, but things which had revealed that God's glory was near to them in the miraculous workings of Jesus Christ. Compare what Luke 10:9, Matthew 12:28, and Luke 11:20 say.
Similarly, our English word "paradox", as in something which we cannot make sense of, can be understood in the light of Isaiah 55:8-9.
(See Isaiah 55:9 above)
Also, note that the people in Luke 5:26 had "fear" (phobos: G5401). For if God's glory was near, then what could happen to them as sinners? Compare the apostle Peter's response in Luke 5:8 to the miracle by Jesus in Luke 5:4-7.
--
*Luke 5:37-38 / *Lk. 5:37 -
(Re: New wineskins)
See Matthew 9:17 above.
--
*Luke 6:11 / *Lk. 6:11 -
The original Greek word (anoia: G0454) translated as "madness" can mean "rage".
--
*Luke 6:19 / *Lk. 6:19 -
(*Power)
The original Greek word (dunamis: G1411) translated as "virtue" can mean "power" (Luke 5:17).
This would be the power of God's Holy Spirit (cf. Romans 15:13, Luke 4:14, Romans 15:19, Acts 1:8, Micah 3:8, Luke 1:35).
(See also Luke 24:49 below)
--
*Luke 6:29 / *Lk. 6:29 -
See Matthew 5:39 above.
--
*Luke 6:32-36 / *Lk. 6:32 -
See Matthew 5:44 above.
--
*Luke 6:40 / *Lk. 6:40 -
(Re: A mistranslation, and Philippians 3:21 below)
The original Greek of Luke 6:40 does not say "trained". So the principle can apply to the perfect, physical resurrection body. That is, Christians' future, physical resurrection bodies "shall be as" their master Jesus Christ's: with a record of any wounds of martyrdom (John 20:25-27, Zechariah 13:6).
(See Philippians 3:21 below)
--
*Luke 6:43-44 / *Lk. 6:43 -
See Matthew 12:33 above.
--
*Luke 6:46 / *Lk. 6:46 -
Christians cannot separate their obedience to Jesus Christ's requirements from their claiming Him as their Lord (Luke 6:46, Matthew 7:21; 1 John 2:4).
--
*Luke 7:4 / *Lk. 7:4 -
The original Greek word (spoudaios: G4709) translated as "instantly" can mean "earnestly" (Strong's Greek Dictionary).
--
*Luke 7:29 / *Lk. 7:29 -
The original Greek word (telones: G5057) translated as "publicans", like the English word, can mean tax collectors.
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 5, 2018
