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

[ArmyMatt]

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


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



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?

we're not talking about Christ and John, we are talking about the difference between the baptisms of John and Peter.

the word isn't in the Bible, but the teaching is all over the place (Christ commanding us to be perfect, man being in the image and likeness of God, etc.)

well, for one, this is our forum so what you think is appropriate is irrelevant. for two, Godhead doesn't describe "family members." I mean, Scripture says Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. why can't that suffice?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So then he was already deified.

that's not in dispute.

and deified isn't in Scripture, why can't Scripture suffice?

 

[Al Touthentop]

that's not in dispute.

and deified isn't in Scripture, why can't Scripture suffice?

It can. I was using your term because you introduced it. It's superfluous really. Jesus was the source of the efficacy of baptism both before and after he was crucified.

 

[Al Touthentop]

we're not talking about Christ and John, we are talking about the difference between the baptisms of John and Peter.

Its God's baptism. There isn't a difference.

"The baptism of John, was it from men of from God?"

the word isn't in the Bible, but the teaching is all over the place (Christ commanding us to be perfect, man being in the image and likeness of God, etc.)

well, for one, this is our forum so what you think is appropriate is irrelevant. for two, Godhead doesn't describe "family members." I mean, Scripture says Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. why can't that suffice?

It can of course.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It can. I was using your term because you introduced it. It's superfluous really. Jesus was the source of the efficacy of baptism both before and after he was crucified.

so, then why even bring up the point about Trinity or Incarnation not being in Scripture in the first place?

and while of course He is, that doesn't mean there wasn't a change in what baptism can do for man because of Pentecost.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Its God's baptism. There isn't a difference.

"The baptism of John, was it from men of from God?"



It can of course.

sure there is, nowhere by John does it say they put on Christ.

and if it can, according to you, you shouldn't have introduced something that wasn't in Scripture or you should not have brought up that point when I said theosis.

 

[Al Touthentop]

sure there is, nowhere by John does it say they put on Christ.

That was Paul's description to people who had been baptized already. Everyone who taught baptism said it brought remission. If their were different baptisms, why didn't we see the apostles re-baptizing themselves? Also, Paul writes that there is one baptism, not two or several.

and if it can, according to you, you shouldn't have introduced something that wasn't in Scripture or you should not have brought up that point when I said theosis.

I don't recall introducing something that wasn't in scripture.

But since nobody taught anything like theosis in either period as it related to baptism, I don't see how it applies anyway.

 

[Al Touthentop]

so, then why even bring up the point about Trinity or Incarnation not being in Scripture in the first place?

and while of course He is, that doesn't mean there wasn't a change in what baptism can do for man because of Pentecost.

I suppose it's possible, but that's not what Peter preached.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I suppose it's possible, but that's not what Peter preached.

it also doesn't negate the change or that Peter knew that a change happened. absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as it were.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That was Paul's description to people who had been baptized already. Everyone who taught baptism said it brought remission. If their were different baptisms, why didn't we see the apostles re-baptizing themselves? Also, Paul writes that there is one baptism, not two or several.


I don't recall introducing something that wasn't in scripture.

But since nobody taught anything like theosis in either period as it related to baptism, I don't see how it applies anyway.

the Apostles didn't rebaptize themselves since they were in the upper room at Pentecost (aside from Paul).

well, if you look back at this conversation, you did say things in Scripture that aren't actually in there. so yeah, you did.

it does because you are in the Orthodox forum on here. and just because the word wasn't used, that doesn't mean the teaching wasn't.

 

[Al Touthentop]

it also doesn't negate the change or that Peter knew that a change happened. absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, as it were.

Except he didn't preach it. If it were important, you'd think it would be written down.

 

[Al Touthentop]

the Apostles didn't rebaptize themselves since they were in the upper room at Pentecost (aside from Paul).

They were in the temple, not the upper room. You can't fit thousands in the upper room. But, if this were a new baptism that was preached, then when they baptized the 3000 they would have also participated because the old baptism wasn't effective.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Except he didn't preach it. If it were important, you'd think it would be written down.

that's another silly point. by that logic, the prophecy in Matthew that says Christ would be a Nazarene would have been somewhere in the OT, and it's not.

 

[ArmyMatt]

They were in the temple, not the upper room. You can't fit thousands in the upper room. But, if this were a new baptism that was preached, then when they baptized the 3000 they would have also participated because the old baptism wasn't effective.

no, in Acts 2 when the Spirit comes upon the Apostles prior to Peter's sermon, they are in the upper room where they had been in Acts 1. the Apostles were prior to the conversion of the 3000.

 

[Al Touthentop]

that's another silly point. by that logic, the prophecy in Matthew that says Christ would be a Nazarene would have been somewhere in the OT, and it's not.

Two completely unrelated things. That prophecy had nothing to do with doctrine or practice.

 

[Al Touthentop]

no, in Acts 2 when the Spirit comes upon the Apostles prior to Peter's sermon, they are in the upper room where they had been in Acts 1. the Apostles were prior to the conversion of the 3000.

That's just not supported by the text. And you have to go to the end of Luke to discover that after Jesus ascended, the apostles and disciples were in the temple 'continually.'

Luke 24:52-53
"And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen."

In fact, it is highly likely that the selection of Matthias happened in the temple as well. Not even 120 would have fit in the upper room.

"When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting."

The whole house is the whole house of the temple. The upper room was never referred to as a house because it wasn't a house.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Two completely unrelated things. That prophecy had nothing to do with doctrine or practice.

not unrelated concerning your point that something has to be written down to be true.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's just not supported by the text. And you have to go to the end of Luke to discover that after Jesus ascended, the apostles and disciples were in the temple 'continually.'

Luke 24:52-53
"And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen."

In fact, it is highly likely that the selection of Matthias happened in the temple as well. Not even 120 would have fit in the upper room.

"When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting."

The whole house is the whole house of the temple. The upper room was never referred to as a house because it wasn't a house.

it is supported by the text. being continually in the Temple doesn't mean they were there 24/7. and it doesn't say Temple in the beginning of Acts. it says they were gathered in an upper room and in a house.

why doesn't Scripture suffice?

 

[Al Touthentop]

not unrelated concerning your point that something has to be written down to be true.

Not to be true. To be important and instructive. The idea that John's baptism wasn't the same as Christian baptism is reading into the text what isn't there. If it is so importantly different, then we would see the fruit of that doctrine in the actions of the apostles. Since we don't see that, then the alleged difference in the "two" baptisms would be demonstrated. Not only is this not demonstrated, we've got Paul's words which says there is only one baptism.

 

[Al Touthentop]

it is supported by the text. being continually in the Temple doesn't mean they were there 24/7. and it doesn't say Temple in the beginning of Acts. it says they were gathered in an upper room and in a house.

why doesn't Scripture suffice?

It does not say that at all. There is a mention of the upper room. At no point does it say that the 120 were gathered there or the apostles on the day of Pentecost were in the upper room. If says this you can easily show that in the text.