Josephus' depiction of John's Baptism vs. the Christian understanding of Christian Baptism? (Solved)

[ArmyMatt]

It's a difference in what was taught before and after but the result of the baptism remained the same.

no, because before Pentecost, you couldn't put on Christ as St Paul says, and everything that goes with that. Peter was speaking to people who could be clothed in Christ, John was not.

 

[Al Touthentop]

no, because before Pentecost, you couldn't put on Christ as St Paul says, and everything that goes with that. Peter was speaking to people who could be clothed in Christ, John was not.

Did it result in the remission of sins?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Did it result in the remission of sins?

not in the same way, no.

 

[Al Touthentop]

no, because before Pentecost, you couldn't put on Christ as St Paul says, and everything that goes with that. Peter was speaking to people who could be clothed in Christ, John was not.

And actually, Jesus said this prior to so-called "Christian baptism" as opposed to John's baptism.

"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

Since the kindgom is his, and he said this just before he and his disciples were baptizing at the Jordan, we can see his view on this was that people were baptized into the kingdom and were being born again. He didn't say, "Well, later on this will be the case but right now it's different.'

 

[Al Touthentop]

not in the same way, no.

How not in the same way?

 

[ArmyMatt]

How not in the same way?

because there was no deified Christ to put on for John.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And actually, Jesus said this prior to so-called "Christian baptism" as opposed to John's baptism.

"Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."

Since the kindgom is his, and he said this just before he and his disciples were baptizing at the Jordan, we can see his view on this was that people were baptized into the kingdom and were being born again. He didn't say, "Well, later on this will be the case but right now it's different.'

right, and the Kingdom is inaugurated at Pentecost. He did not need to.

 

[Al Touthentop]

because there was no deified Christ to put on for John.

Was Jesus not already God before he was crucified?

 

[Al Touthentop]

right, and the Kingdom is inaugurated at Pentecost. He did not need to.

He and John preached that the kingdom was "at hand" and then baptized people. That act was what was said to bring remission of sins. What was said to make it effective was the Messiah. John called Jesus, "the Son of God" prior to his crucifixion and told people to believe that he would take away their sins.

Baptism's effect never changed.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Was Jesus not already God before he was crucified?

of course He was.

 

[AMM]

Baptism's effect never changed.

There’s more to baptism than just the remission of sins though

 

[ArmyMatt]

He and John preached that the kingdom was "at hand" and then baptized people. That act was what was said to bring remission of sins. What was said to make it effective was the Messiah. John called Jesus, "the Son of God" prior to his crucifixion and told people to believe that he would take away their sins.

Baptism's effect never changed.I know Calvinism for some reason hates freedom but nevertheless God has given man freedom.

except until Pentecost, there was no theosis for man. man couldn't participate in the Divine Nature. that is a big difference.

 

[Al Touthentop]

except until Pentecost, there was no theosis for man. man couldn't participate in the Divine Nature. that is a big difference.

That part about Calvanism wasn't something I wrote. How'd that get in there?

 

[Al Touthentop]

except until Pentecost, there was no theosis for man. man couldn't participate in the Divine Nature. that is a big difference.

That word isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible and thus its introduction into this discussion isn't at all appropriate.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That word isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible and thus its introduction into this discussion isn't at all appropriate.

well, for one, you introduced St Peter saying the Kingdom of God is at hand in Acts, which he never actually says.

for two, you are in the Orthodox subforum, and theosis is a big part of our theology, so it is very much appropriate and is tied into baptism.

and three, that's a silly point. because Trinity and Incarnation are not in Scripture either, yet I hope no one would say they are in appropriate just because they aren't mentioned.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That part about Calvanism wasn't something I wrote. How'd that get in there?

no idea

 

[Al Touthentop]

There’s more to baptism than just the remission of sins though

OK. It puts you in the kingdom too and Paul later wrote that it put us into Christ. Now why didn't Jesus or John indicate that sometime later, baptism would change its effect? And, why didn't the apostles get baptized again? It would also seem that they didn't go around re-baptizing people who were baptized before the day of Pentecost. The example in Acts is of people who were baptized in that time, after John, and who weren't taught that the Messiah had already arrived and died.

If the intent was that everyone had to be re-gathered and baptized into this "new" baptism, not one word is told about it. What we must deduce from this is that the crucifixion and resurrection completed the work of those previous baptisms. It was promised to happen and then happened.

"Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

 

[Al Touthentop]

well, for one, you introduced St Peter saying the Kingdom of God is at hand in Acts, which he never actually says.

If I made a typo, that's all it was. John and Jesus both preached that the kingdom was at hand.

for two, you are in the Orthodox subforum, and theosis is a big part of our theology, so it is very much appropriate and is tied into baptism.

Where can I find that word in the Bible? Where is it taught?

and three, that's a silly point. because Trinity and Incarnation are not in Scripture either, yet I hope no one would say they are in appropriate just because they aren't mentioned.

I would say they are not appropriate. If God had intended us to use those words in the preaching of the gospel, he would have provided them. Paul used 'Godhead' to describe God and his family members. Why can't that suffice?

 

[Al Touthentop]

of course He was.

So then he was already deified.

 

[AMM]

St Peter talks about partaking of the divine nature. So he may not use the term “theosis” specifically but the concept is stated in scripture.

St Paul discusses it too when he talks about Union with Christ. We believe that is a true union, not merely an expression that means something else