Baptism and its meaning

[Bishopite]

I think he meant Apostles. All the Apostles were Jews. They were baptized because they were Jews. Now, he previously said that baptism was for proselytes, and has not yet conneced how it is that people born Jews were baptized…

But he did make it clear that it is a dead tradition that was nailed to the cross. That raises the question, why did Jesus get baptized, and why did he train his Apostles to baptize, and why did he command baptism after the resurrection?

 

[guanophore]

What tradition was nailed to the cross?

Tabcom is saying that water baptism is one of those referred to in Col 2:4

**Colossians 2:14
obliterating the bond against us, with its legal claims, which was opposed to us, he also removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross;

The elaborate metaphor here about how God canceled the legal claims against us through Christ’s cross depicts not Christ being nailed to the cross by men but the bond . . . with its legal claims being nailed to the cross by God.

The original greek word for ‘legal claims’ is the word dogma.

**

Tabcom has been taught that water baptism is one of those “dogmas”, a legal claim against Christians? Honestly, I don’t know how he came up with that or what type of waterless baptism sect he belongs to, but when you read the OP, you can see that he has a specific agenda.
tabcom;2444106:

To better understand what baptism ment to a 1st century jew or gentile, these five words (bapto, baptizo, eis, epi, en) need to be researched in greater detail. I’m going to do so within this thread.

Now that I’ve established the original topic, I will not engage in off topic discussions about baptism being water. Those topics will be discussed at a later date after I feel like I’ve coverd this topic to my satisfactionn.

It appears that this is the very first study the OP has ever done into the matter of baptism, and especially with water. He has started with the intertestamental period, and is moving forward. He has established that pickles are baptized cucumbers, and that there is more than one kind of baptism.

**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. 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. **

It is obviously an overwhelming topic for the first time.

**
Thank you for the question. I want to know how the pre-christian Church would have viewed baptism. By that I mean, before Acts 2.
**

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.

He needs to deal with the early church fathers indeed;

I agree with you, and I believe he will, but just be patient. He is working his way up to the fathers. At this point, he has his hands full, because he has asserted that proselytites to Judiasm were baptized. He has not cited any source for this assertion,but claims that it was part of a conversion rite. He has not addressed why Jesus was baptized, since He was born a Jew, and the same for the Apostles. He has a full plate already, without the Fathers!

No, I disagree with you, and I’m not out of order and in order to show his “theory” is correct he HAS to show evidence from the early church fathers; there is no way around it. It is to no avail for me to dialogue with someone who keeps ingoring ancient Christian historical evidence i.e., writings of the early church and yet wants others to respect as evidence on baptism from an ancient Greek philosopher for early Christian doctrine. We can give our opinions but what worth is that?

He will get there!

 

[Bishopite]

Tabcom is saying that water baptism is one of those referred to in Col 2:4

Great. Thanks for the information.

It appears that this is the very first study the OP has ever done into the matter of baptism, and especially with water. He has started with the intertestamental period, and is moving forward. He has established that pickles are baptized cucumbers, and that there is more than one kind of baptism.

But more than one kind of baptism? Baptism of blood or desire are both part of the “one” baptism of Eph 4:5.

It is obviously an overwhelming topic for the first time.

I don’t mind his questions at all, what I’m concerned about is his lack of substantive evidence to back his claim.

I agree with you, and I believe he will, but just be patient. He is working his way up to the fathers. At this point, he has his hands full, because he has asserted that proselytites to Judiasm were baptized. He has not cited any source for this assertion,but claims that it was part of a conversion rite. He has not addressed why Jesus was baptized, since He was born a Jew, and the same for the Apostles. He has a full plate already, without the Fathers!

Alright, I see.

He will get there!

Let’s pray that God will give him the grace to come back and that his study will show Catholicism as it is being the keeper of orthodoxy throughout time and NOT as he’s been told, but as it is in all its glory and beauty. How it really IS, the church Jesus established as it is His physical authority on Earth.

 

[tabcom]

This discussion has moved to . . . .

What was the water baptism that John performed? (Part II)

 

[SonOfElias]

Why can’t it mean both a cleansing and immersion? That as we’re baptized we are immersed in water, often used to symbolize the blood of Christ, and are therefore cleansed by it as dictated by scripture. And who’s to say that the apostles were only speaking of washing or dipping one part of their body? What if they were asking if they had bathed? Usually done in a body of water. These aren’t reasons to rule out anything.