Many watery baptisms.

[bling]

Paul was baptized in a standing position. See post #33.

WOW, that is quite a way of translating that verse: In Acts 9, … Paul is struck blind on the Damascus Road. He is led to the house of Judas where for three days he doesn't eat or drink. The Lord comes to Ananias and tells him to go to the house of Judas to restore Paul's sight. He does so and enters the house of Judas."the Lord as has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he stood up (ἀναστὰς) and was baptized;

Yes, Paul was not baptized where he was sitting blind. There is a sequence of events there are two separate acts with an “and” in between meaning separate acts, stood up and was baptized, but that does not mean he was baptized standing up. He could have been standing:

Following the upheaval of the 1967 war, archaeologists were presented with the opportunity to excavate parts of the upper city of Jerusalem, giving a new window into daily life in ancient times. Many of the houses were grand and spacious, with their own water cisterns and ritual baths in the basements.[2] Some houses were found to have had several of these mikva’ot, since it is thought that as well as providing for the household (which could even be up to fifty people) they would have been able to welcome and host pilgrims arriving for the Jewish feasts, catering for many more. Many of this upper city aristocracy were among the priestly class, who would have to stay in a state of ritual purity as much as possible, and so would have to immerse themselves in a mikveh frequently. Archaeologists also believe that the pools of Siloam and Bethsaida could have been used for ritual bathing in the Second Temple period for those visiting Jerusalem for the high holy days.

So immersion in a mikveh was quite common at the time of Yeshua, but the New Testament also describes baptisms taking place not only in rivers, but in any available body of water.
Many of the larger homes had two cisterns one for clean water and the other for bathing water. There have been like 50 found around the temple area in Jerusalem deep walk in tanks fed by running water.

 

[bling]

The baptism of infants and adults is done the same way and provides the same spirituak benefit. It functions noetically, and not intellectually.



Firstly, we don’t know that, secondly, it is implied by Matthew 28:19, since the liturgy calls is “I baptize Thee in the name of the Father (spash) and the Son (splash) and the Holy Ghost (splash). Since baptizo means washing or immersion, a threefold action for each person of the Holy Trinity seemed correct to the Early Church Fathers, and we do this for infants as well as adults (if somone has a medical condition that precludes full immersion, we will work around that).

Also I would note the Orthodox Church does not believe in the Regulative Principle with regards to our liturgies, and neither do most churches, including the Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics and so on. The Regulative Principle is a Calvinist invention. I could ask, for people who use it, where there are Biblical examples of rock-style Praise and Worship music and other departures from solemnity. At any rate, the Orthodox Church is very much like the Anglican Church in that our liturgy constitutes our primary source of dogmatic theology, as opposed to a separate and independent confession of faith; indeed the Nicene Creed is a prominent feature in our liturgy, along with other hymns of a highly dogmatic nature, such as Ho Monogenes, which ensures Christological Orthodoxy.



If the infants are not members of the household, that would be absurd. Furthermore, it is the experience of the Orthodox Church that infants can believe. For example, the Holy Innocents, who were martyred for our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, and are commemorated by the Orthodox Church and all other liturgical churches on December 28th.

Believe and baptism seem to go together.
You added the splashing and there is no pause in the text.
The children of the employee are not considered the employer's responsibility.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

There is a sequence of events there are two separate acts with an “and” in between meaning separate acts, stood up and was baptized, but that does not mean he was baptized standing up. He could have been standing:

Ain't buyin' what your sellin.' The Greek doesn't have an "and" between standing up and being baptized. Nice try but no cigar.

καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐβαπτίσθη
literally "and having stood up he was baptized."

However, the great thing about this conversation is that IT IS ALL FOR NAUGHT do to the fact there is no command whatsoever in Scripture to be baptized in any mode. All baptisms recorded in Scripture are descriptive not prescriptive.

 

[The Liturgist]

Believe and baptism seem to go together.
You added the splashing and there is no pause in the text.
The children of the employee are not considered the employer's responsibility.

That’s all speculation on your part. We baptize by full immersion, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as indicated in Matthew 28:19. Triple immersions seem appropriate in order to recognize each person of the Holy Trinity, since otherwise there could be an implied Sabellianism or Unitarianism.

And once again, the Orthodox reject the regulative principle with regards to our worship services.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The correct way to baptise is the way that the Church uses.

 

[bling]

Ain't buyin' what your sellin.' The Greek doesn't have an "and" between standing up and being baptized. Nice try but no cigar.

καὶ ἀναστὰς ἐβαπτίσθη
literally "and having stood up he was baptized."

However, the great thing about this conversation is that IT IS ALL FOR NAUGHT do to the fact there is no command whatsoever in Scripture to be baptized in any mode. All baptisms recorded in Scripture are descriptive not prescriptive.

He could stand to be baptized in a basement cistern. he just needed to move from where he was sitting blind.
We have lots of examples of people being water baptized.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

He could stand to be baptized in a basement cistern. he just needed to move from where he was sitting blind.

Yes, Yes, Yes. The "Coulda', Woulda', Shoulda' rules for interpreting Scripture....comes right out of the typical immersionist playbook. This is a textbook example.

I have no patience for this malpractice on your part.

 

[bling]

Yes, Yes, Yes. The "Coulda', Woulda', Shoulda' rules for interpreting Scripture....comes right out of the typical immersionist playbook. This is a textbook example.

I have no patience for this malpractice on your part.

You are the one saying he could not have, I only have to show he could have. The cisterns discovered were deep.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You are the one saying he could not have, I only have to show he could have. The cisterns discovered were deep.

Next you will be probably saying Jewish homes had modern indoor plumbing with heated baths and swimming pools.

I have had enough with this kind of fabrication. I am accessing your account and hitting the ignore button, and block your posts to me. Enough is enough.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Would anyone like to discuss how we interpret these connections?

Jesus underwent baptism by John the Baptist and received the Holy Spirit, and in Matthew 21:25, He challenged the Pharisees about the authenticity of John's baptism. However, in Acts 19:4, Paul stated that John's baptism was not appropriate. Despite this, in John 3:26 and 4:1-2, Jesus never intervened to stop John the Baptist from continuing to baptize others while His disciples were also baptizing. Additionally, there's a notable point in the Bible indicating that Jesus never personally baptized anyone; rather, it was His disciples who performed baptisms. Considering this, should John, who believed in Jesus, have baptized others in Jesus's name, similar to Jesus' disciples? Why do you think Jesus never stopped John? Or did John never baptize in Jesus' name? What's going on?

Ref:​

Matthew 21:25 [Jesus said] "From where was the baptism of John? From heaven, or from men?"​

Acts 19:4 [Paul answered] “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the One coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”​

John 3:26, 4:1-2​

So John’s disciples came to him and said, “Look, Rabbi, the One who was with you beyond the Jordan, the One you testified about—He is baptizing, and everyone is going to Him.”... ...When Jesus realized that the Pharisees were aware He was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John (although it was not Jesus who baptized, but His disciples),​

 

[Fervent]

I understand why Catholics and others who view baptism as affecting what it symbolizes would argue over proper administration, but I can't for the life of me understand why baptists who argue that it is just a symbol would bother arguing over what the correct way to administer it would be.

Though really, the whole argument over when and how to properly administer baptism to me seems to be almost superstitious in nature.

 

[The Liturgist]

Next you will be probably saying Jewish homes had modern indoor plumbing with heated baths and swimming pools.

The Romans almost had that, but Jerusalem was not Rome, and my understanding is that the Jews took a dim view of Roman bathing. I suspect the closest place to Jerusalem where one might find a Roman bath with all the amenities, including the brothels, the heated pools, the cold pools, etc, would be in Caesarea or Alexandria.

I find it highly unlikely that the Jews, even wealthy Jews, except perhaps a few Hellenized merchants living in Rome and provincial capitals, would have access to such luxury. The cisterns @bling alludes to were probably for water storage given Jerusalem’s status as an elevated city in a dry region. They also might date from the Byzantine epoch, so really, we can’t just assert what they were for.

Scripture is clear that St. John was the Baptist, not one of many, and he baptized people who came to him for that purpose, in the Jordan, and not a Mikvah.

Hence the Orthodox greeting during the season of Epiphany:

“Christ is baptized!”
“In the Jordan!”

 

[Dan Perez]

That’s all speculation on your part. We baptize by full immersion, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as indicated in Matthew 28:19. Triple immersions seem appropriate in order to recognize each person of the Holy Trinity, since otherwise there could be an implied Sabellianism or Unitarianism.

And once again, the Orthodox reject the regulative principle with regards to our worship services.

You BAPTIZE by full immersion , since that is what you wrote , you must have a verse in the BIBLE showing that ?/

Your thoughts , Please ??

dan p

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Would anyone like to discuss how we interpret these connections?

Let me take a stab at this.

Jesus calls John the greatest of all prophets (Mt. 11:11) Why? The angel Gabriel told John's father Zacharias, "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:15). All other prophets of the OT, the Holy Spirit is seen as working primarily from the outside, temporarily coming upon certain individuals for specific tasks or purposes. John was the only OT prophet permanently filled with the Holy Spirit somewhat akin to the "indwelling of the Spirit" today in the lives of Christians everywhere. What makes John different than Christians today is John had the "spirit and power" of Elijah. (Luke 1:17).

The reference to Elijah is significant as he had the ability to grant a double portion of the Spirit to Elisha. However, when John baptizes Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes to Jesus in the form of a dove which is far more than a double portion.

John knows the mission of Jesus before he baptized Jesus. "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

One of the duties of OT prophets was to anoint kings and prophets into their specific offices, as did Elijah did in II Kings 2. When John baptizes Jesus this serves has His anointing by the greatest of all prophets. In other words, Jesus enters the Jordan unanointed and exits anointed or better yet: Jesus enters the Jordan river as Jesus and exits the Jordan as Jesus the Christ. As Psalm 45 states:

6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your fellows.

Just after Jesus time in the desert, he goes to Nazareth opens up the scroll of Isaiah and reads in Luke 4:18:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.

With John's baptism we see Jesus entering the "the office of the Christ," the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Today, we might think of John's baptism of Jesus like ordination. The man becomes a pastor after ordination not before. Or man in marriage, after the pronouncement he is no longer just a man but also a husband.

When Jesus was cleaning out the temple, the chief priests and elders asked Jesus by which authority do these things. It was by John's authority as the greatest prophet full the the Holy Spirit (Mt. 21:25) giving Jesus the authority to be the Messiah. Jesus work now is to be the sin bearer to the world....or better...the takes up the office of sin bearer. During His three year ministry, he is gathering the sins of the world unto Himself, and on the Cross he bears them as the sinless sacrifice.

John's baptism of Jesus shows Himself enter the Office of Public ministry....or in the words of St. Paul, For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Or did John never baptize in Jesus' name?

Correct. John's baptism is not Christian baptism. We don't know if John used any formula in baptizing much less the Trinune formula. Plus, the fact in John 19, John's disciples never heard of the Holy Spirit was is an indication, they had to under go Christian baptism. Probably, the inclusion of John's disciples being baptized answers the question on what to with all the disciples of John. Did they all have to be baptized into the Trinune formula? Yes.

Christian baptism according to Romans 6 is to be united with Jesus' death and resurrection....an intense divine mystery. Jesus work as sin bearer was not finished until his resurrection. John's baptism was in preparation for Christian baptism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Considering this, should John, who believed in Jesus, have baptized others in Jesus's name, similar to Jesus' disciples?

Here is a quote from ViaCrucis here at CF. This is a pretty good synopsis.

This confuses some people because we see "in Jesus' name" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" used in the Acts of the Apostles.

Is this a contradiction?

Well, no, I don't think so. If we understand that "in the name of Jesus" (and variations of this) not as a formula, but rather as a way of speaking about Christian baptism (as opposed to what John the Baptist was doing, or to the various ritual washings of Jewish religion) it's consistent. It's a way of demarcating Christian baptism, which was instituted by Jesus, by His authority, and thus done in His name. Whereas the Church sees in Christ's own institution of baptism, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" as the language we use when we baptize. We can see this from very early on. There's an ancient Christian work known as the Didache, the earliest example of what are called "church manuals", or basic instructions on certain manuals, like basic Christian morality, how to perform baptism, how to celebrate the Lord's Supper, or how to deal with certain issues. The Didache is the earliest example of these sorts of things, and is believed to have been written as early as 60 AD, though it could be as late as 120 AD; though the general consensus is that it was written sometime in the first century.

In the Didache it briefly describes how Christian baptism should be done,

"The procedure for baptizing is as follows. After repeating all that has been said, immerse in running water ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’. If no running water is available, immerse in ordinary water. This should be cold if possible; otherwise warm. If neither is practicable, then pour water three times on the head ‘In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’. Both baptizer and baptized ought to fast before the baptism, as well as any others who can do so; but the candidate himself should be told to keep a fast for a day or two beforehand." - Didache, ch. 7. Translation by Maxwell Staniforth

There's a couple things we can learn from this, for example early Christians weren't legalistic about the mode of baptism. There is a preference for immersion in cool running water (e.g. a river), but any water source is acceptable, including pouring on top of the head. But we can note that while the mode isn't all that important, what is important is that it is in the three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

From very early on the Christian Church understood that using the name of the Trinity--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--was very important. Not as though the formula were a kind of "magic" but rather because of what is being communicated. Scripture speaks of being baptized "into Christ", but also speaks of being baptized in the Spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12:13), and that by our union to Christ in baptism makes us born of God the the Father as sons and daughters (John 3:3-5, Galatians 4:6). So throughout Scripture we see that baptism involves and incorporates the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. So that when we are baptized, when we are joined to Christ (Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:21) we are, in Christ, brought into fellowship with the Father and the Spirit as well--we receive the Spirit (Acts 2:38) we are made children of the Father (Romans 8:15-17).

So it's not a matter of semantics, but rather a matter of intent.

Additionally, in the early centuries of Christianity, there arose several major theological controversies. And in response to these controversies Christians came together to work through issues, often choosing to refine certain words, terms, and language--being more strict in what kind of language we use so as to avoid potentially leading people astray. So while the goal isn't to be overly strict or be legalistic, certain things became more important when it became a matter of preserving truth against error. When, for example, some began teaching strange doctrines, the Church responded by saying "No, we do not believe that" and putting what we believe into action--in how we do things--how we baptize, how we do church services, what hymns we sing, etc.

As a result of this, the generally accepted position is that if a baptism is done using any other formula other than "in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" it is not considered a valid baptism.



2) "In the name of Jesus" (and variations thereof) is not intended to contradict Christ's instructive words in Matthew 28:19, or lead us to incorrectly think that "Jesus" is the name intended by "the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"; but rather to demonstrate and demarcate the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Christian baptism. The Church does not baptize by her own authority, but by Christ's authority--He told His Church to baptize, so she does so by His command, His authority, His will. This baptism is a uniquely Christian baptism, for it bears the authority of Christ, and it is intended for specific and distinctively Christian meaning and purpose--thus it cannot be conflated with or confused with any other "baptism", such as the baptism of John the Baptist which was "for repentance" (looking forward to the coming of the Messiah), or with the various "baptisms" (i.e. ritual washings) of Jewish religion. Instead this uniquely Christian baptism is the sign and seal from God concerning one's location within the New Covenant of Christ, as one of Christ's own, as a member of the Body, and with all which such things signify--new birth, union with Christ, forgiveness of our sins. Such that this baptism is a vehicle of--a means of--divine grace which grants to us God's promise and work which is in Christ.

Thus "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" preserves not only the explicit instruction of Christ to us; it also ensures that we do not accidentally convey error.

 

[Cornelius8L]

Let me take a stab at this.

Jesus calls John the greatest of all prophets (Mt. 11:11) Why? The angel Gabriel told John's father Zacharias, "he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:15). All other prophets of the OT, the Holy Spirit is seen as working primarily from the outside, temporarily coming upon certain individuals for specific tasks or purposes. John was the only OT prophet permanently filled with the Holy Spirit somewhat akin to the "indwelling of the Spirit" today in the lives of Christians everywhere. What makes John different than Christians today is John had the "spirit and power" of Elijah. (Luke 1:17).

The reference to Elijah is significant as he had the ability to grant a double portion of the Spirit to Elisha. However, when John baptizes Jesus, the Holy Spirit comes to Jesus in the form of a dove which is far more than a double portion.

John knows the mission of Jesus before he baptized Jesus. "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

One of the duties of OT prophets was to anoint kings and prophets into their specific offices, as did Elijah did in II Kings 2. When John baptizes Jesus this serves has His anointing by the greatest of all prophets. In other words, Jesus enters the Jordan unanointed and exits anointed or better yet: Jesus enters the Jordan river as Jesus and exits the Jordan as Jesus the Christ. As Psalm 45 states:

6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever;
A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
7 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of joy above Your fellows.

Just after Jesus time in the desert, he goes to Nazareth opens up the scroll of Isaiah and reads in Luke 4:18:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.

With John's baptism we see Jesus entering the "the office of the Christ," the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

Today, we might think of John's baptism of Jesus like ordination. The man becomes a pastor after ordination not before. Or man in marriage, after the pronouncement he is no longer just a man but also a husband.

When Jesus was cleaning out the temple, the chief priests and elders asked Jesus by which authority do these things. It was by John's authority as the greatest prophet full the the Holy Spirit (Mt. 21:25) giving Jesus the authority to be the Messiah. Jesus work now is to be the sin bearer to the world....or better...the takes up the office of sin bearer. During His three year ministry, he is gathering the sins of the world unto Himself, and on the Cross he bears them as the sinless sacrifice.

John's baptism of Jesus shows Himself enter the Office of Public ministry....or in the words of St. Paul, For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Hi, thank you for your insightful perspective. While I underwent baptism long ago, allow me to explore an opposing perspective.

1. John's acknowledgment in Matthew 3:11, "I baptize with water, but he who is coming after me... will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire," illustrates his inability to baptize with the Holy Spirit.
2. Jesus, having been born of the Spirit from the outset, exhibited wisdom from a young age. If baptism symbolizes the anointing of kings, it follows that John would not have requested Jesus to baptize him. Additionally, while John baptized others, only Jesus received the Spirit.

Additional note: Later in his ministry, John displayed uncertainty, questioning whether Jesus was the Messiah, despite Jesus acknowledging John as Elijah (Matthew 11:3-4).​

Although I didn't receive your answer regarding why Jesus didn't intervene to stop John from baptizing others while both were actively baptizing (Not Jesus, but His disciples, John 4:1-2), here are my thoughts:

Reflecting on Jesus' baptism and the descent of the Holy Spirit, I'm reminded of King Solomon dedicating the temple through prayer (2 Chronicles 7:1), an act similar to Jesus' prayer during baptism (Luke 3:21). Just as fire descended upon Solomon's temple, Jesus, being the temple (John 2:21), was filled with the Spirit. In connection to this, King David desired to build a house for God, although it was not requested by God (2 Samuel 7:7). King Solomon, David's son, however, recognized that God does not dwell in houses built by men (2 Chronicles 6:18), yet he fulfilled his father's wish. Similarly, while John's ceremonial washing wasn't heavenly ordained as confirmed by Paul (Acts 19:4), Jesus still fulfilled it, though not repeating the act afterward, despite his capability (for instance, He could wash the disciples' feet, John 13:5).

Although the Bible presents Jesus as the New Adam, New Moses, and New Solomon, He is termed the Son of David, rather than a new David. Jesus, through fulfilling customary practices, brought about their culmination and transformation, as evidenced by John's declaration that Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire, not water. Whenever Jesus addressed baptism, He alluded to spirit and fire baptism (Luke 12:50, Mark 10:38), suggesting a deeper significance beyond water baptism alone.

Therefore, when Jesus stated, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." (Mark 16:16), He was referring to spirit and fire baptism, which encompass everything necessary for salvation, unlike water baptism alone, which cannot ensure salvation.

Regarding why the apostles continued with water baptism after Jesus' resurrection, Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 13:10-12 and James 5:17 indicate their partial understanding. They acknowledged their incomplete knowledge and awaited fuller revelation, as indicated by Paul's instruction to discard partial knowledge when the perfect comes.

None of the examples provided in the New Testament letters relating water baptism, such as Noah or Moses, indicate that the individuals involved physically touched the water during the process. Furthermore, the New Testament later emphasizes the spiritual aspect of baptism whenever it is discussed.

In summary, while some argue against the necessity of water baptism, the transformative nature of baptism into spirit and fire, as exemplified by Jesus, suggests a deeper significance that encompasses salvation.

I would appreciate it if you could refute this ideology. (Oh dear, I can already see a barrage of guns aimed at my post for donning the black hat!)

Responding to my own question about why Jesus didn't intervene to halt John from baptizing others while they were both actively baptizing (Not Jesus, but His disciples, John 4:1-2), I believe Jesus simply chose to ignore it, as He did in many other instances.​

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I would appreciate it if you could refute this ideology. (Oh dear, I can already see a barrage of guns aimed at my post for donning the black hat!)

You have more than enough knowledge and horsepower in your head.... read and study your way though this. God's blessings.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Which watery baptism do you reckon is "valid"?

 

[Cornelius8L]

Which watery baptism do you reckon is "valid"?

In the Mosaic law, intricate instructions were provided regarding what to do and what not to do, down to the finest details. Given this level of specificity, why doesn't Scripture provide clear guidance on how baptism should be performed? It's similar to marriage; the Scripture doesn't prescribe a specific method for conducting a marriage ceremony, yet it recognizes the validity of marriage when it occurs. Therefore, I believe there isn't a strict requirement for how baptism must be carried out. If the Bible doesn't provide specific instructions, then those teachings are merely human rules. (Matthew 15:9)