Baptism and its meaning

[tabcom]

Tabcom: In addition . . . .

There are two words in the Greek language that exclusively mean to immerse (kataduo) and sprinkle (rhantizo).

Neither of which can be found associated with baptism in the New Testement.

guanophore: I think that is a BIG jump.

**
How so? I state that kataduo and rhanttizo are not associated with immersing a person in water in the bible. Would you be so kind as to point to us all where either one of these words are used in the bible in association with immersing in water baptism. Your citation of Mark and Acts do not use either greek word for immerse nor to sprinkle.**

 

[tabcom]

Are you saying that this is not true of today’s baptism because it resembles the Proselyte Baptism of the Pharisees, which had no authority from God?

Or that it was done away with because it was ‘nailed to the cross’?

Or that it has a different meaning?

Those are most excellent questions. Within the self imposed rules that I stated in the original post, I decline to answer at this time. But these questions will be discussed later, in a separate thread.

 

[tabcom]

Mark 1:9-11

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; 11 and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

Acts 8:38-39
38 And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more…"

How can you find any other meaning for these, other than “immerse”?

**I can.

It is my intention to discuss these and all other verses in separate threads in the near future. **

 

[tabcom]

Indeed, there are other baptisms taught in Christianity that don’t include water, such as the baptism of fire, and the baptism of suffering, and the baptism of the HS.

**
Thank you.**

:clapping:

 

[guanophore]

Randy-

Why on earth has tabcom completely ignored responding to all these verses referencing water in relation to baptism?

Doesn’t this strike you as odd?

Hope you are well.

He is working his way up to them. It is taking him some time, since he has to start from, and continually defend his original premise that the Baptism of Jesus has nothing to do with water. Don’t get impatient!

 

[guanophore]

OK… I am still not sure where you are going here.

Jesus established a baptism which

1. is a circumcision of the heart
2. where we are washed in the waters of baptism and recieve the spirit to be born again
3. it has the ability to forgive our sins because of his sacrifice on the cross.

Are you saying that this is not true of today’s baptism because it resembles the Proselyte Baptism of the Pharisees, which had no authority from God?

Or that it was done away with because it was ‘nailed to the cross’?

Or that it has a different meaning?

Yes, runandsew, he is saying that water baptism is a tradition of the Jews, and that it was done away with, along with the rest of the Jewish traditions

Col 2:14-15
4 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him. Interestingly, if you look at the verses prior to this one, it is clear that Jesus’ METHOD of cancellation is none other than water baptism!

**
Yes, the disciples were baptized in water. Because they were Jews.
**

Ok, I don’t think you can have it both ways. Jesus is teaching baptism, only because they are Jews? Why would Jesus train them to do something that He tended to abolish? He didn’t do this with any other practice…He changed some practices, but never demonstrated or instructed the disciples in “dead works”!

**
How so? I state that kataduo and rhanttizo are not associated with immersing a person in water in the bible. Would you be so kind as to point to us all where either one of these words are used in the bible in association with immersing in water baptism. Your citation of Mark and Acts do not use either greek word for immerse nor to sprinkle.**

My reference about the “BIG jump” was to your statement:

"Therefore, there is no place in the New Testament where the word baptizo of necessity must mean “immerse.”

not in reference to sprinkling or pouring. I have no arguement that there is more than one kind of baptism. when Paul speaks of “one baptism” he is only referring here to the one water baptism that believers receive for the forgiveness of sins.

I gave you two verses, and asked you how you could find any other way to interpret them EXCEPT by water baptism, since from my point of view, these are at least two places in the NT where the word baptizo of necessity MUST mean “immerse”.

 

[jemfinch]

The disciples were baptized in water, at which time they became open to the reception of the the HS and fire. They did not “receive” it until Pentecost, but it is not separated from the dipping that had occured earlier.

If I had to say, I’d say that they received the gift of the Holy Spirit when Christ said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” I think Pentecost was not the completion of their baptism, but the fufillment of their Christian initiation through the sacrament of Confirmation.

Jeremy

 

[Philthy]

To clearify, one more time, the intent of this thread is to explore what the words bapto, baptizo, en, eip, eis, would have ment to a 1st century jew or gentile.

Understood - finally. Hey, BTW, any chance you might opt for unbolded text - it is a lot easier on the eyes.

---

---

**

tabcom:
By my statement ‘Having precluded water from the topic of baptism’, I am saying, ‘let’s explore other meanings to these words.’ That will only come about if we all leave our theology outside this thread. Randy Carson has listed 13 items that he believes means water baptism. I very much would like to respond to them; in due time, in separate threads. **

This is all perfectly fine. One thing you have not entirely covered, however, is WHY you want such an understanding. The assumption is that you wish to understand NT baptism better through such knowledge. Correct?

 

[tabcom]

Interestingly, if you look at the Col. 2:12, it is clear that Jesus’ METHOD of cancellation is none other than water baptism!

the word ‘water’ is your insertion. It is not in either the orignal greek text, nor any English translations

I gave you two verses, and asked you how you could find any other way to interpret them EXCEPT by water baptism, since from my point of view, these are at least two places in the NT where the word baptizo of necessity MUST mean “immerse”.

I very much would like to discuss these two verses in detail, after this topic of more than one type of baptism existed at the time of Jesus’ Ministry has been generally accepted by all.

 

[tabcom]

I’d say that they received the gift of the Holy Spirit when Christ said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”
Jeremy

I agree with this statement.

 

[guanophore]

Philthy:
Understood - finally. Hey, BTW, any chance you might opt for unbolded text - it is a lot easier on the eyes.

---

---

**

This is all perfectly fine. One thing you have not entirely covered, however, is WHY you want such an understanding. The assumption is that you wish to understand NT baptism better through such knowledge. Correct?

I don’t think so. I think he has made up his mind that NT baptism has nothing to do with water, and all of us who say that it does have “missed the mark”.**

 

[Philthy]

tabcom:
In addition . . . .

There are two words in the Greek language that exclusively mean to immerse (kataduo) and sprinkle (rhantizo).

Neither of which can be found associated with baptism in the New Testement.

There are several places where baptizo (or one of its related terms) cannot mean “immerse”.

Therefore, there is no place in the New Testament where the word baptizo of necessity must mean “immerse.”

This is not a conclusion of necessity. You have not established that “baptizo” must, of necessity, be associated with “kataduo” in order to mean “immerse”.
If you simply mean to say that baptizo CAN mean something other than “immerse”, then that is a valid conclusion. But that has already been established, so the point of you restating it here leads us to believe that you mean more.
What you probably mean to say is that “baptizo” *independent of context *is not, of necessity, required to mean “immerse”.
That also has essentially been established and really doesnt move us forward significantly.
The fact remains however, that there is no where in the NT where “immerse” is excluded as the meaning for “baptizo”. That is simply the equivalent, negative form of your original conclusion - do you agree with it? Or have I misunderstood your original conclusion?

 

[guanophore]

** the word ‘water’ is your insertion. It is not in either the orignal greek text, nor any English translations**

Col 2:9-13
9 For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,

Please explain, then, what “baptism” buried these people, if it was not water? We understand it to be water from the context, as these images and teachings are used in other places where water is specifically mentioned.

** I very much would like to discuss these two verses in detail, after this topic of more than one type of baptism existed at the time of Jesus’ Ministry has been generally accepted by all.**

Can’t we just stipulate to that?

Are we not all in agreement that the scripture is authoritative, and that scripture mentiones more than one kind of baptism?

If you agree that the disciples recieved the HS when Christ breathed upon them, is this what you consider “baptism”?

 

[tabcom]

Understood - finally. Hey, BTW, any chance you might opt for unbolded text - it is a lot easier on the eyes.

I’ll give it a test drive.

One thing you have not entirely covered, however, is WHY you want such an understanding. The assumption is that you wish to understand NT baptism better through such knowledge. Correct?

I appreciate the question. I’ll try to articulate an answer as clearly as possible as a footnote to this thread.

I’m going to monitor this thread until this weekend. At that time, if it is widely agreed that there was more than one type of baptism going on at the time of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Ministry, I’ll start a new thread discussing the 3rd Chapter of Matt.

 

[tabcom]

If you simply mean to say that baptizo CAN mean something other than “immerse”, then that is a valid conclusion.

What you probably mean to say is that “baptizo” *independent of context *is not, of necessity, required to mean “immerse”.

That also has essentially been established and really doesnt move us forward significantly.

The fact remains however, that there is no where in the NT where “immerse” is excluded as the meaning for “baptizo”. That is simply the equivalent, negative form of your original conclusion - do you agree with it?

**Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I do believe that this thread is nearing its intended conclusion.**

 

[Jerry-Jet]

We should all pray for the mentally ill. Even if they aren’t baptized by water they may be baptized with a baptism of desire.

They have a chance at making it to heaven because they don’t know any better. Like children they should be baptized with water and no one should consider their will if it is so deranged that they don’t know any better.

 

[Philthy]

the word ‘water’ is your insertion. It is not in either the orignal greek text, nor any English translations
I

That is because it would be redundant to say so normally. Baptism in a religious context always involved water. There was no need to say “water baptism”. It is redundant. That would be like saying, “I’m going water swimming”. Redundant. No one says that, even though, technically, you could go swimming in, say, pickle juice.

 

[Randy_Carson]

**What strikes me as odd is your need to self reference yourself in the third person. **

**Anyway, onto your question. I haven not ignored responding to your list. It is inapproprated to respond to them within the context of this thread. It is my intention to post a new thread on each and every verse that you have provided in the near future. **

**You silence with regard to what I have posted so far has registered as a silent head nod of approval. **

That will surffice.

My silence on this thread (other than to post all those verses that refute your argument concerning baptism without water) does not imply approval.

To the contrary, I have already provided all the refutation that is necessary, and since you are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you to prove your case.

Until you address these verses, there really isn’t much need for discussion.

 

[Philthy]

I’ll give it a test drive…
.

Much better, and greatly appreciated! :yup:

 

[tabcom]

My silence on this thread (other than to post all those verses that refute your argument concerning baptism without water) does not imply approval.

To the contrary, I have already provided all the refutation that is necessary, and since you are the one making the assertion, the burden is on you to prove your case.

Until you address these verses, there really isn’t much need for discussion.

This post really astonishes me. I can only assume you really haven’t been paying attention to what this thread is about.

Without a doubt, Philthy is going to defend water baptism when the time is appropriate. However, we both agree with this statement . . .

Originally Posted by Philthy
If you simply mean to say that baptizo CAN mean something other than “immerse”, then that is a valid conclusion.

What you probably mean to say is that “baptizo” independent of context is not, of necessity, required to mean “immerse”.

That also has essentially been established and really doesnt move us forward significantly.

The fact remains however, that there is no where in the NT where “immerse” is excluded as the meaning for “baptizo”. That is simply the equivalent, negative form of your original conclusion - do you agree with it?

Randy Carson . . . before you and I can engage in a meaningful discuss about baptism, we must agree on these points. Can I get you to reply back in the affirmative?