A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[PeaceSerenity]

Matthew 13:55-56 “He’s just a carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, All his sisters live right here among us. What makes him so great?”
Also in Mark 6:3 “He’s just the carpenters son, the son of Mary and brother James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us.”

I know you won’t accept this.

Let me fulfill your expectations

In Jewish usage, brother can indicate any number of relations

• Abram called his nephew Lot, “brother” (Gn 14:14)
• Boaz spoke of his cousin Elimelech as his “brother” (Ru 4:3)
• Joab called his cousin Amasa “brother” (2 Kg 20:9)

It also works with sisters:
In John 19:25 says: “Now there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, and his Mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleopas" …….Jesus’ Mother name is Mary and her sister is also Mary? The sister here is but a first cousin.

We know it is impossible for Mary to have other children of her own because Jesus committed His mother to the care of John at the cross (Jn 19:25-27) which would have been unthinkable if Mary had other children to care for her: “From that moment he took Her to his own”. (John 19:27) means She went and lived with him, that definitely would not have worked out had she had other kids.

Also Evangelist Matthew names a Mary: “James Mother and she is known the other Mary and mentioned after Mary the Magdalene. The Evangelist Mark calls her mother of James the less”. St. John the Evangelist names her husband name the father of her four children, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah who are called by the Evangelist the brothers of Jesus. Though they are called the brothers of Jesus, the Bible identifies their parents, and they are not Mary (the Theotokos) and Joseph.

 

[rev_kevin]

Let me fulfill your expectations

In Jewish usage, brother can indicate any number of relations

• Abram called his nephew Lot, “brother” (Gn 14:14)
• Boaz spoke of his cousin Elimelech as his “brother” (Ru 4:3)
• Joab called his cousin Amasa “brother” (2 Kg 20:9)

It also works with sisters:
In John 19:25 says: “Now there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, and his Mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleopas" …….Jesus’ Mother name is Mary and her sister is also Mary? The sister here is but a first cousin.

We know it is impossible for Mary to have other children of her own because Jesus committed His mother to the care of John at the cross (Jn 19:25-27) which would have been unthinkable if Mary had other children to care for her: “From that moment he took Her to his own”. (John 19:27) means She went and lived with him, that definitely would not have worked out had she had other kids.

Also Evangelist Matthew names a Mary: “James Mother and she is known the other Mary and mentioned after Mary the Magdalene. The Evangelist Mark calls her mother of James the less”. St. John the Evangelist names her husband name the father of her four children, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah who are called by the Evangelist the brothers of Jesus. Though they are called the brothers of Jesus, the Bible identifies their parents, and they are not Mary (the Theotokos) and Joseph.

I have heard all this before but if you look at the context of the verse, His mother AND brothers…And ALL HIS sisters live right here among us. They were his blood brothers and blood sisters his siblings.

 

[elvisman]

Matthew 13:55-56 “He’s just a carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, All his sisters live right here among us. What makes him so great?”
Also in Mark 6:3 “He’s just the carpenters son, the son of Mary and brother James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us.”

I know you won’t accept this.

WRONG.
Show me where the Bible says that Mary had other children.

You are showing me vague references to what could be argued as half-brothers, step brothers, cousins and even fellow countrymen. the Hebrew word, Ach (Adelphos in Greek) could have meant ANY of thos.

So, again - show me where it says that MARY had other children.

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants because if you can’t - then you do NOT have a leg to stand on regarding the Catholic position about households (including infants) being baptized.

**If you can’**t show me explicitly that Mary had other children - why do YOU need explicit evidence that ALL households included infants?
Hmmm???

---

Game. Set. MATCH.

 

[rev_kevin]

WRONG.
Show me where the Bible says that Mary had other children.

You are showing me vague references to what could be argued as half-brothers, step brothers, cousins and even fellow countrymen. the Hebrew word, Ach (Adelphos in Greek) could have meant ANY of thos.

So, again - show me where it says that MARY had other children.

I issue this challenge to ALL Protestants because if you can’t - then you do NOT have a leg to stand on regarding the Catholic position about households (including infants) being baptized.

**If you can’**t show me explicitly that Mary had other children - why do YOU need explicit evidence that ALL households included infants?
Hmmm???

---

Game. Set. MATCH.

You say that I showed you vague references about Mary having other children. And you have given vague evidence about infant baptism.
If you can’t show me, as you said, explicitly where is say infant baptism you, as you said, have no leg to stand on.
Ach- brother, relative, member.
Adelphos-brother. And delphus the womb, a brother
Adelphos-from the word brotherhood meaning, the feeling of brotherliness. fraternity, brethen, brotherhood.

 

[elvisman]

You say that I showed you vague references about Mary having other children. And you have given vague evidence about infant baptism.
If you can’t show me, as you said, explicitly where is say infant baptism you, as you said, have no leg to stand on.
Ach- brother, relative, member.
Adelphos-brother. And delphus the womb, a brother
Adelphos-from the word brotherhood meaning, the feeling of brotherliness. fraternity, brethen, brotherhood.

WRONG.
You have not shown that MARY had other children. You have only shown where Jesus had Ach - or Adelphos(oi), which according to the Septuagint can mean brother, cousin, uncle, neighbor, etc.
In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28). In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his uncle Laban.
Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
Do a rudimentary investigation into Biblical linguistics - instead of your own opinions - and you might be surprised.**
SO - if you can’t show me where MARY had other children - then you ALL lose the debate by default.

 

[Dokimas]

Matthew 13:55-56 “He’s just a carpenter’s son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, All his sisters live right here among us. What makes him so great?”
Also in Mark 6:3 “He’s just the carpenters son, the son of Mary and brother James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us.”

I know you won’t accept this.

To be fair to Elvis, those verses doesn’t specifically say they were the offspring of Mary. I think your idea has logical merit, but not conclusive.

 

[Nicea325]

You say that I showed you vague references about Mary having other children. And you have given vague evidence about infant baptism.

Wrong! You are so sure that infant baptisms never happened.

Definition of HOUSEHOLD:

The household is “the basic residential unit in which economic production, consumption, inheritance, child rearing, and shelter are organized and carried out” May or may not be an entire family.

The burden of proof is on you to provide conclusive evidence households in the first century excluded babies.

No Catholic will deny scripture is vague in the sense it does not say EXPLICITLY it was done,hence you assume it is false. Again,you simply want the word household to refer to ONLY those of age capable of reasoning. You are adding to the text, because the text does not EXPLICITLY say it,thus you are guilty of your own charge.
Paul does not hint: I only baptized this household only those of the age who made a decision. No where. All it states is that Paul baptized the entire household,which may include adults,children and even infants.

If you can’t show me, as you said, explicitly where is say infant baptism you, as you said, have no leg to stand on.

I do not think so. Catholics and Orthodoxs have a lot more to stand from the simple term household and then the Baptists position which restricts it to age-reasoning people. Second, Catholics and Orthodoxs also have early church writings outside the NT supporting infans being baptized than your novel position.

**Ach- brother, relative, member.
Adelphos-brother. And delphus the womb, a brother
Adelphos-from the word brotherhood meaning, the feeling of brotherliness. fraternity, brethen, brotherhood. **

U-huh and if that is the case,then why would an orthodox Jew named Jesus not have chosen a BLOOD brother to take care of their mother? Isn’t that the first century Jewish thing to do? Why give her to the care of John?

 

[Dokimas]

Let me fulfill your expectations

In Jewish usage, brother can indicate any number of relations

• Abram called his nephew Lot, “brother” (Gn 14:14)
• Boaz spoke of his cousin Elimelech as his “brother” (Ru 4:3)
• Joab called his cousin Amasa “brother” (2 Kg 20:9)

It also works with sisters:
In John 19:25 says: “Now there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, and his Mother’s sister, Mary, the wife of Cleopas" …….Jesus’ Mother name is Mary and her sister is also Mary? The sister here is but a first cousin.

We know it is impossible for Mary to have other children of her own because Jesus committed His mother to the care of John at the cross (Jn 19:25-27) which would have been unthinkable if Mary had other children to care for her: “From that moment he took Her to his own”. (John 19:27) means She went and lived with him, that definitely would not have worked out had she had other kids.

Also Evangelist Matthew names a Mary: “James Mother and she is known the other Mary and mentioned after Mary the Magdalene. The Evangelist Mark calls her mother of James the less”. St. John the Evangelist names her husband name the father of her four children, James, Joseph, Simon and Judah who are called by the Evangelist the brothers of Jesus. Though they are called the brothers of Jesus, the Bible identifies their parents, and they are not Mary (the Theotokos) and Joseph.

I’m not sure it’s a good idea to compare the OT usage with the NT. They were written in different languages.​

What do you do with the NT in which the SAME Greek word used in Matthew 13 for the relation between Jesus and the others is used for the relationship between Andrew and Peter, between John and James. Were Andrew and Peter cousins; how about John and James? Before you answer this let me remind you that John and James were said to be sons of Zebedee.

 

[rev_kevin]

WRONG.
You have not shown that MARY had other children. You have only shown where Jesus had Ach - or Adelphos(oi), which according to the Septuagint can mean brother, cousin, uncle, neighbor, etc.I’m not wrong. I gave you what the words mean. You choose to pick only one meaning, The one that fits what you want it to fit. But in fact it also means brother and brother only also we get the word delphus which is from the womb, Its in the same definition as the word adelphos.
In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28). In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his uncle Laban.
Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).Correction you mean to use the word adelphotes not adelphos. Adelphotes means brethen, brotherhood.
Do a rudimentary investigation into Biblical linguistics - instead of your own opinions** - and you might be surprised.
SO - if you can’t show me where MARY had other children - then you ALL lose the debate by default.

You can’t show me where it say baptize infants. You lose also.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

You can’t show me where it say baptize infants. You lose also.

Not necessarily. The Bible never says infants should not be baptized, so that means that all you can ever win is that it is okay to wait to baptize children until the age of reason or whatever.

 

[Dokimas]

Not necessarily. The Bible never says infants should not be baptized, so that means that all you can ever win is that it is okay to wait to baptize children until the age of reason or whatever.

And that’s logical, looking at what the Bible says about baptism.

 

[Nicea325]

**You can’t show me where it say baptize infants. You lose also. **

And you have not shown were it was forbidden. And?

Rev what is your problem? So you do not believe infant baptism? Get over yourself and move on.

We do not accept the Baptist position as well many other non-Catholic Christians. The Baptist position is novel and early church historical writings do not support the Baptists position,whether you like it or not. Time to crack open the early church writings outside your precious Bible.

Problem with you is that you believe the Bible must be explicit (a faulty Protestant premise) about everything and it is not. For someone who spent one year at seminary school you seem oblivious to fact that scripture does not teach everything must be explicity taught.

 

[rev_kevin]

You say that I showed you vague references about Mary having other children. And you have given vague evidence about infant baptism.

Wrong! You are so sure that infant baptisms never happened. It hapened I was baptized aa a infant.

Definition of HOUSEHOLD:

The household is “the basic residential unit in which economic production, consumption, inheritance, child rearing, and shelter are organized and carried out” May or may not be an entire family.And this is some sort of suprise.

The burden of proof is on you to provide conclusive evidence households in the first century excluded babies.

No Catholic will deny scripture is vague in the sense it does not say EXPLICITLY it was done,hence you assume it is false. Again,you simply want the word household to refer to ONLY those of age capable of reasoning. You are adding to the text, because the text does not EXPLICITLY say it,thus you are guilty of your own charge.
Paul does not hint: I only baptized this household only those of the age who made a decision. No where. All it states is that Paul baptized the entire household,which may include adults,children and even infants. You want to go that way, Where does it say explicity that Mary was forever a virgin. It don’t. So who’s adding to the text.

If you can’t show me, as you said, explicitly where is say infant baptism you, as you said, have no leg to stand on.

I do not think so. Catholics and Orthodoxs have a lot more to stand from the simple term household and then the Baptists position which restricts it to age-reasoning people. Second, Catholics and Orthodoxs also have early church writings outside the NT supporting infans being baptized than your novel position.

**Ach- brother, relative, member.
Adelphos-brother. And delphus the womb, a brother
Adelphos-from the word brotherhood meaning, the feeling of brotherliness. fraternity, brethen, brotherhood. **Correction on the last adelphos. The word is adelphotes not adelphos.

U-huh and if that is the case,then why would an orthodox Jew named Jesus not have chosen a BLOOD brother to take care of their mother? Isn’t that the first century Jewish thing to do? Why give her to the care of John?Lets see he was dying and none of his blood brothers were present.

 

[PeaceSerenity]

And that’s logical, looking at what the Bible says about baptism.

If you are looking at it from a Bible-only perspective, then yes. The Bible doesn’t take an absolutist view on infant baptism. I honestly don’t understand why this debate has gotten so long. There are biblical reasons to baptize children, but it is doesn’t really address the issue directly or absolutely.

My biggest concern is, make sure the kid gets baptized eventually. Don’t keep putting it off saying, I don’t think he understands yet.

 

[rev_kevin]

**You can’t show me where it say baptize infants. You lose also. **

And you have not shown were it was forbidden. And?

Rev what is your problem? So you do not believe infant baptism? Get over yourself and move on.

We do not accept the Baptist position as well many other non-Catholic Christians. The Baptist position is novel and early church historical writings do not support the Baptists position,whether you like it or not. Time to crack open the early church writings outside your precious Bible.

Problem with you is that you believe the Bible must be explicit (a faulty Protestant premise) about everything and it is not. For someone who spent one year at seminary school you seem oblivious to fact that scripture does not teach everything must be explicity taught.

Look I don’t have a problem. This is a debate do you understand that. What is the title of this thread. So don’t tell me to get over it buddy. I don’t care if you accept the Baptist position or not. YOU get over it because I don’t agree with the Catholic position. I can tell by your posts the you are anti-Protestant. I feel sorry for you. See even though I disagree with some of the teachings of the CC I can tell you for sure that I am not anti-Catholic. You have a smart A attitued towards those who disagree with you. Love your neighbor buddy because I love you.

 

[Nicea325]

If you are looking at it from a Bible-only perspective, then yes. The Bible doesn’t take an absolutist view on infant baptism. I honestly don’t understand why this debate has gotten so long. There are biblical reasons to baptize children, but it is doesn’t really address the issue directly or absolutely.

My biggest concern is, make sure the kid gets baptized eventually. Don’t keep putting it off saying, I don’t think he understands yet.

Exactly! For Protestants everything must be explcitly stated in scripture,if it not is it false. Foolishness! Christianity is not a faith of the book,but of the person Jesus.

It seems at times Protestants are no different than Jews and Muslims are relgions of the book. The Christian Bible is a byproduct of the Apostles and the Church.

 

[Dokimas]

If you are looking at it from a Bible-only perspective, then yes. The Bible doesn’t take an absolutist view on infant baptism. I honestly don’t understand why this debate has gotten so long. There are biblical reasons to baptize children, but it is doesn’t really address the issue directly or absolutely.

My biggest concern is, make sure the kid gets baptized eventually. Don’t keep putting it off saying, I don’t think he understands yet.

I look at it from the authority of the Bible. There is ‘truth’ outside the Bible but it must not contradict (directly or indirectly - whatever that means ) the Bible to be true, IMO.

 

[Dokimas]

Exactly! For Protestants everything must be explcitly stated in scripture,if it not is it false. Foolishness! Christianity is not a faith of the book,but of the person Jesus.

It seems at times Protestants are no different than Jews and Muslims are relgions of the book. The Christian Bible is a byproduct of the Apostles and the Church.

Too many of you forget to give the Holy Spirit THE credit for the Bible!!!

 

[rev_kevin]

Too many of you forget to give the Holy Spirit THE credit for the Bible!!!

 

[guanophore]

You remind me of the atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins that believe those who teach Christian values to children are ‘brainwashing them’ thus abusing them. You seem to think those who do not believe in infant baptism are hurting our children even though we believe Paul who told us to bring up our children in the nurture and admonision of the Lord, which we try to do and I’m sure (name removed by moderator)erfectly, speaking only for myself.

I think all human minds need washed, and the sooner it gets started, the better! I believe that many fervent families among our separated brethren strive to raise their children in the faith. Many of them do a better job than Catholics do!

 Your theology on the issue seems to chase all unbaptized babies away. Kev includes all babies in the Kingdom of Heaven, thus your destortion and misrepresentation of Kev's theology on this issue.

According to what the Apostles believed and taught, there is no need to “chase” anyone away. Everyone born into this world is born into it separated from God through Adam’s sin. This is why Jesus said “He who doesn not believe is condemned already”. We are not in a state of reconciliation with God, but of enmity. All have sinned “in Adam”. The effect of original sin is that we are no longer in right standing with God as a human race.

 It's you who seem to miss it's the Blood of Jesus that cleanses us from sin and NOTHING else.

No, not at all! Baptism is the manner in which we are cleansed by the blood. In baptism, we are buried with Him in His death, united to Him in resurrection. In it, we are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands. We are sealed with the promised HS. All our sins are washed way, as we call upon HIs name.

You and Elvis have many things in common and one of them is misrepresenting or misstating what others are saying or believe.

We are telling you how your position appears from our perspective. I really do want to know how you dispense with the scripture that equates baptism with circumcision.

I have read the reconstruction of Jn. 3 - the fantasy that the water Jesus speaks of there is physical birth. But I have not yet been exposed to how the other scripture is reconstructed. There must be a way to dispense with this!

Col 2:11 in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ;
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he quicken together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses;
Col 2:14 having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross;
Col 2:15 having put off from himself the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

For those who have received the faith of the Apostles, this is understood to mean that in baptism we are joined with Christ in His death. Baptism is how we are separated from the bond of death that was against us. The merits of His once for all sacrifice are made present in our hearts.

Guanophone: “However, since He instructed us to baptize them, we do so.”​

Could you please remind me where Jesus said this?

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost:

Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

All those who are washed with His water are members of His Church.