Baptism by immersion

[YADA]

that is a lie, the earliest baptism fonts found in old roman territory’s, found that the water when up to a candidates knees. hardley enough to immerse someone.

C’mon now … those could not truly be the “earliest” as Christian baptismal fonts found in archeological digs [ie attached to churches - and I have studied these] are all 4th century and later - mostly later … you know after Constitine made Christianity the official religion …

The fact is you can immerse or mostly so … in containers large enough for a person to enter …

I don’t know about the bath tubs in your house but ours are low enough to step into and are bout knee high … people do immerse and bathe in them …

But don’t be so literal … the point is that the Didache covered and allowed for baptisms … from and ocean full of water right down to the small pitcher … from total immersion to partial immersion to pouring over the forehead … hierarchy - heres the best but do what is necessary to get the job done …

and not to forget the fasting by the person being baptzed if possible, the person doing the baptism and as many of the already baptizd as can … being spiritually ready to recieve the baptism by all paricipants is part of the Didache …

According to various scholars they date the Didache fro 70 AD to about 120 or 130 AD … it is one of the earliest extant christian docuemnts we have … it is similar to a combind cathechism and sacramentary combined … being a document to instruct both the basics of the faith plus the liturgies …

The Didache clearly describes baptism in several forms from immersion to pouring … that is a fact and not a lie …

 

[kevangreen]

C’mon now … those could not truly be the “earliest” as Christian baptismal fonts [ie attached to churches - and I have studied these] are all 4th century and later - mostly later …

The fact is you can immerse or mostly so … in contaners large enough for a person to enter … don’t know about the bath tubs in your house but ours are low enough to step into and are bout knee high … people do immerse and bathe in them …

But don’t be so literal … the point is that the Didache covered and allowed for baptisms … from and ocean full of water right down to the small pitcher … from total immersion to partial immersion to pouring over the forehead … hierarchy - heres the best but do what is necessary to get the job done …

and not to forget the fasting by the person being baptzed if possible, the person doing the baptism and as many of the already baptizd as can … being spiritually ready to recieve the baptism by all paricipants is part of the Didache …

According to various scholars they date the Didache fro 70 AD to about 120 or 130 AD … it is one of the earliest extant christian docuemnts we have … it is similar to a combind cathechism and sacramentary combined … being a document to instruct both the basics of the faith plus the liturgies …

The Didache clearly describes baptism in several forms from immersion to pouring … that is a fact and not a lie …

both methods are acceptable
kinds like why bring the cow when you can bring the milk
you get the same whether you bring tho cow or not
there is no one church cause we r saved though faith in him
not by who baptized me and how much water was used

 

[patrick457]

there is a difference between submersion and immersion

Exactly my point.

 

[YADA]

both methods are acceptable
kinds like why bring the cow when you can bring the milk
you get the same whether you bring tho cow or not
there is no one church cause we r saved though faith in him
not by who baptized me and how much water was used

While faith in Jesus is key to our Christian faith . … Scripture points to baptism as a means of entering into relationship with Him and the Church … though of course a baptism of desire suffices if the need arises …

I could hardly imagine someone seeking christian baptism if they failed to have faith in Jesus and the baptism would have no affect if they were attempting to ‘scam’ God. … [this is said recognizing that children are brought into the faith of the church on the witness of and faith of the parents and God-parents] … you know the ritual … Do you renounce Satan and all is lies? … We’ll if you don’t … then …God help you …

There are differences in baptisms that coould make them invalid … it is necessary for the baptism to be “trinitarian” in nature … so some religions could baptize but it would not be “Christian” …

But water whether you have copious quanities or not - is of no avail … nor has it been thus from the earliest days of the church

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you for the ref in Luke 11.38 (also note Mark 7.4). You cite it as an example of baptidzo not always meaning immerse or submerge. If you allow this example it would be the only known exception in all of Greek literature (Christian and non-Christian), and that would be rather unusual. Therefore, I would like you to consider that even here, the meaning of dip, immerse, submerge is not out of place.
“[The Pharisee] marvelled that He had not first ebaptisthe before the dinner.” The Jewish religious ritual referred to is that of washing the hands, not the whole body. In this context it is not unreasonable to let baptidzo retain its universal meaning as dip, plunge, immerse, submerge - since that is what is envisioned here. Not the pouring of water over the hands, but dipping both hands into a bowl of water, thus immersing them.

I think you have the wrong image of ritual cleansing. Let’s look at the wedding in Cana where "there were 7 stone jars each holding 20-30 gallons of water". If the Jews simply dipped their hands in the jars, it wouldn’t take long before “there were 7 stone jars of muddy water”. That isn’t very cleansing. And after several events such as this wedding, there would be enough silt and dirt that would settle at the bottom of the jars, that there would simply be no hope of cleansing in them.

Hence, to cleanse oneself, the water was dipped out and poured over the hands.

If you look at the symbolism behind the ritualistic cleansing, you can understand further why they didn’t dip their hands in the water. Prior to Jesus, that which was unclean would spoil that which was clean. So if a Jew put their unclean hands in clean water, the “uncleanliness” would stain the entire jar of water, rendering it “unclean”.

Jesus, when He healed the leper by touch, was the first to show that in the New Covenant Church, the power of faith and mercy overcome the power of evil and can cleanse that which is unclean.

For that reason, and at the risk of beating a very dead horse, I hold that baptizo (although often meaning complete immersion) also means pouring or sprinkling.

 

[fbl9]

. I would not grieve the Catholic Church for its forms of Baptism, especially since some fundamentalists and Pentecostals no longer believe that baptism is even necessary! That is 100% anti-biblical, and 100% against Christ. (Matthew 28:19)

Christ’s peace be with you.

from St.Paul’s epistle to Titus3:5"…He saved us through the BATH of REGENERATION and renewal by the Holy Spirit:"

 

[jcrichton]

from St.Paul’s epistle to Titus3:5"…He saved us through the BATH of REGENERATION and renewal by the Holy Spirit:"

*…I am confused… are you saying that Baptism is not necessary?

Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[fbl9]

*…I am confused… are you saying that Baptism is not necessary?

Maran atha!

Angel*

does the scripture quoted imply that??no it doesn’t…the scripture quote states that baptism is indeed regenerational

 

[P10]

I think you have the wrong image of ritual cleansing. Let’s look at the wedding in Cana where "there were 7 stone jars each holding 20-30 gallons of water". If the Jews simply dipped their hands in the jars, it wouldn’t take long before “there were 7 stone jars of muddy water”. That isn’t very cleansing. And after several events such as this wedding, there would be enough silt and dirt that would settle at the bottom of the jars, that there would simply be no hope of cleansing in them.

Hence, to cleanse oneself, the water was dipped out and poured over the hands.

If you look at the symbolism behind the ritualistic cleansing, you can understand further why they didn’t dip their hands in the water. Prior to Jesus, that which was unclean would spoil that which was clean. So if a Jew put their unclean hands in clean water, the “uncleanliness” would stain the entire jar of water, rendering it “unclean”.

Jesus, when He healed the leper by touch, was the first to show that in the New Covenant Church, the power of faith and mercy overcome the power of evil and can cleanse that which is unclean.

For that reason, and at the risk of beating a very dead horse, I hold that baptizo (although often meaning complete immersion) also means pouring or sprinkling.

Thank you for your insight. I am content to acknowledge the two exceptions. I should know better than to use absolute language like ALWAYS, NEVER, etc., since there are always exceptions that prove the rule. The old nag is dead from her beatings.

 

[NotWorthy]

Thank you for your insight. I am content to acknowledge the two exceptions. I should know better than to use absolute language like ALWAYS, NEVER, etc., since there are always exceptions that prove the rule. The old nag is dead from her beatings.

Great! Horse Tacos for everyone!!!

BTW, I agree with the ALWAYS and NEVER insight.

 

[jcrichton]

does the scripture quoted imply that??no it doesn’t…the scripture quote states that baptism is indeed regenerational

…sorry… I did think that your reply was that a Baptism of regeneration did not require an acutal Baptism of water–some non-Catholic Christians seem to support the idea that water Baptism is mainly symbolic and is not necessary as salvation can be received through the acceptence of Christ (this of course varies from a simple prayer to joining this particular group or the other…).

Thank you for clarifying!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[fbl9]

…sorry… I did think that your reply was that a Baptism of regeneration did not require an acutal Baptism of water–some non-Catholic Christians seem to support the idea that water Baptism is mainly symbolic and is not necessary as salvation can be received through the acceptence of Christ (this of course varies from a simple prayer to joining this particular group or the other…).

Thank you for clarifying!

Maran atha!

Angel

sorry i was short whith you…i thought because i had the word (bath) in caps would have shown that indeed a baptsm with water was necessary and does cause the regeneration…

 

[jcrichton]

sorry i was short whith you…i thought because i had the word (bath) in caps would have shown that indeed a baptsm with water was necessary and does cause the regeneration…

…apparently it was overlooked by me as I targeted the word “regeneration” and saw what amounts to a non-catholic dogma centered on the transmission of the Holy Spirit by the laying of the hands–basically, a short-cut to Salvation: no Baptism (of water), no Holy Tradition, no Catholic Church.

…this exchange is an example of how easily misunderstandings arise; it is also an excellent example on how misunderstandings can be leveled!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi everyone! Thanks for all your help! I have yet another question.

First of all, I was baptized when I was a baby. I was told that I was baptized so young to rid my soul of the stain of original sin. I know there are many religions out there that won’t let babies or children be baptized because they do not know what it means to be baptized or why they are being baptized (Jehovah’s Witnesses for an example…I think). Is there anything wrong with this?

 

[NotWorthy]

Hi everyone! Thanks for all your help! I have yet another question.

First of all, I was baptized when I was a baby. I was told that I was baptized so young to rid my soul of the stain of original sin. I know there are many religions out there that won’t let babies or children be baptized because they do not know what it means to be baptized or why they are being baptized (Jehovah’s Witnesses for an example…I think). Is there anything wrong with this?

Is there anything wrong with being baptized as a baby? No!!! You are following the example that the Church has done for nearly 2000 years!

The “Tradition of Man” that only adults can be baptized is a far younger tradition.

 

[pnewton]

First of all, I was baptized when I was a baby. I was told that I was baptized so young to rid my soul of the stain of original sin… Is there anything wrong with this?

There is nothing wrong with baptizing adults, of course. There is also nothing wrong with baptizing infants or children either, as this has been the consistent teaching of the Church and all Christendom until the time of the Anabaptists. The Bible does not record the name of infants baptized or mention it directly. It only mentions whole households being baptized, which occurs in several places. This happens frequently enough as to be highly probable that young children and infants were baptized. One can not document any first or second controvery over this issue. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the first century Church departed from the teaching of the apostles in this area immediately and without a peep. What is more likely is simply that the Bible did not mention infants by name being baptized, because it was not material. It would be unheard of to the Jewish mindset, who entered into the covenant via circumcision as an infant, to deny baptism to the little ones.

 

[NotWorthy]

One can not document any first or second controvery over this issue. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the first century Church departed from the teaching of the apostles in this area immediately and without a peep.

I would beg to differ. In the Roman Catacombs, there is clear evidence of 1st century baptisms.

On page 94 of the following e-book: books.google.com/books?id=s-YCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA94&lpg=PA94&dq=Achillia+baptism&source=web&ots=_dEdprvdNl&sig=TBWE3_RoYlLDcg8p-OBrCEd6HyA#PPA94,M1

And here:

And, finally, archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: **“Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.”**Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. . [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

 

[pnewton]

I would beg to differ. In the Roman Catacombs, there is clear evidence of 1st century baptisms.

If it makes you feel better you are not differing with me. I said there was not a controversy over infant baptisms, not that they didn’t happen in the first centrury. In fact, it was an accepted part of Christianity, as your quotes show.

 

[fbl9]

Hi everyone! Thanks for all your help! I have yet another question.

First of all, I was baptized when I was a baby. I was told that I was baptized so young to rid my soul of the stain of original sin. I know there are many religions out there that won’t let babies or children be baptized because they do not know what it means to be baptized or why they are being baptized (Jehovah’s Witnesses for an example…I think). Is there anything wrong with this?

do you mean is it wrong NOT to baptise infants?if that is the question?then my answer would be yes it is wrong not to baptise infants…Christ said let the children come to Him…

 

[zach_dunn]

Hi,

I guess I didn’t word that post as well as I could have, sorry.

I was asking if it is ok to only baptize adults (I certainly don’t think so) because only they fully understand what it means to be baptized. When I heard this, I thought it was stupid because the purpose of baptism is to get rid of original sin right?