Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[po18guy]

**1224 **
Our Lord voluntarily submitted himself to the baptism of St. John, intended for sinners, in order to "fulfill all righteousness."19 Jesus’ gesture is a manifestation of his self-emptying.20 The Spirit who had hovered over the waters of the first creation descended then on the Christ as a prelude of the new creation, and the Father revealed Jesus as his "beloved Son."21It has been explained to me that Christ sanctified baptism by submitting to it. Before, it was a symbolic turning from sin, of repentance. After sanctification by Christ, it cleansed sin.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t understand what"Baptism of the Holy Spirit" is. There is only only baptism: with water, and “in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.

Almost sounds like postwriter is speaking of the Charismatic movement, where the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is the laying on of hands for the release of the gifts of the Spirit. It is not an actual baptism, but is also known as being “slain in the Holy Spirit” BUT, those gifts were already received in Confirmation - at least for Catholics. Dunno where postwriter got this alternate definition of baptism.

 

[po18guy]

Please read the gospel accounts of Jesus baptism by John. Then refer to paragraph 438 of the CCC.

Paragraph 438 says:

"438 Jesus’ messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name ‘Christ’ implies ‘he who anointed’, ‘he who was anointed’ and ‘the very anointing with which he was anointed’. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.’"His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, "that he might be revealed to Israel"as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as “the Holy One of God”.

I agree with both the gospel accounts and the Catechism. Please be advised that I have never claimed that John’s baptism was Trinitarian baptism. I fully acknowledge that John’s baptism was the baptism of repentance.

OK, how about this: It was Jesus’ human nature that received the HS as His Divine nature already possessed it? Just wondering…

 

[mgrfin]

exuse me if this has been said…

When we read

Luke 1:5

Birth of John the Baptist Foretold

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

The fact that he was a priest and Elizabeth being from Aaron’s decendents makes any son of her’s a priest.

Exodus 40

13"You shall put the holy garments on **Aaron and anoint him **and consecrate him, that he may minister as a priest to Me.

14"You shall bring **his sons **and put tunics on them;

15and you shall **anoint them even as you have anointed their father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a perpetual priesthood throughout their generations." **

So John the Baptist is a priest. And what do priest do?They annoint.

1 Kings 1:39
**Zadok **the priest then **took **the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon Then they blew the trumpet, and all the people said, " Long live King Solomon!"

I believe Zadok was from the tribe of Levites,Aaron’s children,but only because of this…

2 Samuel 15:24
Now behold,** Zadok also came, and all the Levites with him **carrying the ark of the covenant of God And they set down the ark of God, and Abiathar came up until all the people had finished passing from the city.

So the baptism of John the Baptist is really a priest anointing the new King! Fullfilling all rightousness.

**485 **
The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son. The Holy Spirit, “the Lord, the giver of Life,” is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

The Holy Spirit came and made holy the womb of Mary and placed God the Son there.

**486 **
The Father’s only Son, conceived as man in the womb of the Virgin Mary, is “Christ,” that is to say, anointed by the Holy Spirit, from the beginning of his human existence, though the manifestation of this fact takes place only progressively: to the shepherds, to the magi, to John the Baptist, to the disciples.123 Thus the whole life of Jesus Christ will make manifest “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power.”

Anointed with the Holy Spirit from the begining of His existence.

Christ’s Baptism

1223
All the Old Covenant prefigurations find their fulfillment in Christ Jesus. He begins his public life after having himself baptized by St. John the Baptist in the Jordan.17 After his resurrection Christ gives this mission to his apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."18

**1224 **
Our Lord voluntarily submitted himself to the baptism of St. John, intended for sinners, in order to "fulfill all righteousness."19 Jesus’ gesture is a manifestation of his self-emptying.20 The Spirit who had hovered over the waters of the first creation descended then on the Christ as a prelude of the new creation, and the Father revealed Jesus as his "beloved Son."21

I hope my understanding of this helps:blush:

The Catachism of the Catholic Church
usccb.org/catechism/text/entiretoc1.htm

Where does it say that John the Baptist was a priest?

Of the House of Levi?

peace

 

[mercygate]

Where does it say that John the Baptist was a priest?

Of the House of Levi?

peace

Bingo!

 

[Pax]

OK, how about this: It was Jesus’ human nature that received the HS as His Divine nature already possessed it? Just wondering…

Works for me except for one thing. It was the person of Jesus that received the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, it is better to say that the person of Jesus received the Holy Spirit for the benefit of His human nature, for our good, and for the fulfilment of all righteousness. Just a thought.

 

[guanophore]

It has been explained to me that Christ sanctified baptism by submitting to it. Before, it was a symbolic turning from sin, of repentance. After sanctification by Christ, it cleansed sin.

Christ’s peace.

Yes, that is how it was explained to me also. By entering the waters, Christ sanctified them for the sacrament. When the sign of the spirit descended, His annointing as Christ was made manifest to all who were present.

1 Cor 6:10-11
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Now the waters of baptism are able to wash away sins, and sanctify in His name.

 

[guanophore]

Almost sounds like postwriter is speaking of the Charismatic movement, where the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is the laying on of hands for the release of the gifts of the Spirit. ’

This baptism is not really “separate” from water baptism, but when scripture speaks of the HS and fire. Charismatics speak of the manifestation of the gifts of the spirit as a “baptism” such as that which occurred to the Apostles on Pentecost. When the tongues of flame appeared, water was not involved.

Matt 3:11
“I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”

It is not an actual baptism, but is also known as being “slain in the Holy Spirit” BUT, those gifts were already received in Confirmation - at least for Catholics. Dunno where postwriter got this alternate definition of baptism.

These are not necessarily the same thing. People who are baptized in the Spirit (such as those in the house of Cornelius)
may not yet have had water baptism, but they manifest the Pentecostal gifts. None of the gifts mentioned in Corinthians or elsewhere in scripture is “slain in the HS”, but this is a common manifestation in Charismatic circles.

 

[guanophore]

Where does it say that John the Baptist was a priest?

Of the House of Levi?

peace

Yes, his father was from the division of Abijah, so that makes John from a priestly clan.

Luke 1:5
here was a priest named Zechari’ah, of the division of Abi’jah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth."

 

[Philthy]

You did ask for Scripture that connects-the-dots to Christ always having the Holy Spirit.

No I didnt - I asked why you believed Christ was incapable of receiving the holy Spirit in a unique way at his Baptism.

I have even less faith that anyone would even bothered to look-up the verses after I cited them.

More than likely this is because you subconsciously knew that no one had asked for them.

Thank you. There is no need to split hairs over this point any further.

I dont disagree

To all that have been following this thread, I am approaching my intended conclusion on this topic. And I promise, there will not be a single Scriptural citation in the statement.

I hope you don’t forget to include your credentials/educational degrees for commenting on Greek and for relegating every modern translation of Acts 10:47 inferior to your own. You asked for mine first which I expediently provided, but I’m still waiting for yours and I sense you are getting antsy to leave. It is critically important to your position regarding “waterless” baptism as that verse undeniably refers to baptism with water, undeniably refers to the significance of baptism with water. Everyone, including yourself, realizes that your position is very, very, difficult - if not impossible - to maintain if Peter was referring to water baptism. Every translation I have read translates it similarly, with one exception: yours. In order for me to give substantial consideration to your position, I need a reason to believe you. Your recognized expertise by an accredited institution would be a solid foundation for me to use to begin to consider your position. So what say you, tabcom? I have given you my humble academic credentials, is it not your turn?

 

[po18guy]

Works for me except for one thing. It was the person of Jesus that received the Holy Spirit. Perhaps, it is better to say that the person of Jesus received the Holy Spirit for the benefit of His human nature, for our good, and for the fulfilment of all righteousness. Just a thought.

Exactly. Where some of these other ideas come from I dunno…

 

[po18guy]

Yes, that is how it was explained to me also. By entering the waters, Christ sanctified them for the sacrament. When the sign of the spirit descended, His annointing as Christ was made manifest to all who were present.

1 Cor 6:10-11
11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Now the waters of baptism are able to wash away sins, and sanctify in His name.

Christ’s baptism never made sense to me from scripture until it was explained to me in this way. After that, I realized that only by submitting to baptism could he grace it with Holy power and authority.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[tabcom]

For as much scrutiny I receive for what and how I say it, even my critics have to admit that there appears to be an inaccurate translation into the English of paragraph 438 of the CCC.

Paragraph 438 (as presented within this thread):

1. "438 Jesus’ messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name ‘Christ’ implies ‘he who anointed’, ‘he who was anointed’ and ‘the very anointing with which he was anointed’.

Regardless of the English translation and bad punctuation, this statement makes sense to me.

1. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.

Understood.

'3. "His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, "that he might be revealed to Israel"as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as “the Holy One of God”.

It is this run on sentence that needs to be collaborated with either the original source, or another translation of CCC 438. By the way, what are all those quotation marks referring to anyway?

Some have interperted this to mean that John 1:32-33 should read:

And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him **(AT THE TIME HE WAS BAPTIZED BY JOHN).
**
Bold print and Caps not in the original Greek text, nor any English translations of the Bible.

In addition, my Catholic Bible, in its footnotes, makes no mention of Christ receiving the Holy Spirit at the time John Baptized Him. And finally, no one within this thread has argued that John did not see the Holy Spirit when Jesus arrived. However, there is disagreement amongst the posters that Jesus received the Holy Spirit when He was Baptized. I believe, the point of contention lies within the English translation of CCC 438. At this time, I’m precluding CCC 438 as a valid document.

With respects to CCC 438, item #3, I have no idea what it means in its present English translation.

 

[tabcom]

No I didnt (ask for Scripture) - I asked why you believed Christ was incapable of receiving the holy Spirit in a unique way at his Baptism.

The question you asked me in Post #94 . . . .

I disagree with your second premise (If you have the holy Spirit, you cannot receive the holy Spirit).

Perhaps you can point to Scripture to tell us where you learned this particular fact?

After providing an answer to the original question, only to be told that is not what you asked to begin with, I’m not sure which way to proceed.

 

[tabcom]

(Acts 10:47) is critically important to your position regarding “waterless” baptism

There is a point being discussed within this thread that is critical to my position, but it is not what you are assuming.

I sense you are getting antsy to leave.

That sensation may be weather related – I don’t know.

I do intend to stick to this topic to the very end. Also, participating within this forum is a great educational resource for me. I do value the (name removed by moderator)ut of all that contribute to it.

 

[mercygate]

'3. "His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, "that he might be revealed to Israel"(36)as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as “the Holy One of God”.(37)

It is this run on sentence

Read carefully, it is not a run-on sentence

that needs to be collaborated with either the original source, or another translation of CCC 438. By the way, what are all those quotation marks referring to anyway

?
36 Acts 10:38; Jn 1:31.

37 Mk 1:24; Jn 6:69; Acts 3:14.

 

[tabcom]

'3. "His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”,

“that he might be revealed to Israel”(36)

36 Acts 10:38; Jn 1:31.

as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as “the Holy One of God”.(37)

37 Mk 1:24; Jn 6:69; Acts 3:14.

. . . . . mercygate, thanks for the clarification. I’m still unclear about a couple things. For instance, the open quotation mark ("His eternal . . .) doesn’t have a corresponding close quotation mark. Also, what Scripture does “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power” refer to?

With respects to if this whole statement is a run-on or not, run-on sentences join two or more complete sentences with no punctuation.

How to spot run-on sentences.

 

[guanophore]

1. "438 Jesus’ messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name ‘Christ’ implies ‘he who anointed’, ‘he who was anointed’ and ‘the very anointing with which he was anointed’.

Regardless of the English translation and bad punctuation, this statement makes sense to me.

1. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.

Understood.

'3. "His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, "that he might be revealed to Israel"as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as “the Holy One of God”.

It is this run on sentence that needs to be collaborated with either the original source, or another translation of CCC 438. By the way, what are all those quotation marks referring to anyway?

They are quotations from scripture.

Some have interperted this to mean that John 1:32-33 should read:

And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him **(AT THE TIME HE WAS BAPTIZED BY JOHN).
**
Bold print and Caps not in the original Greek text, nor any English translations of the Bible.

God had sent John baptizing with water for repentance to prepare Israel to receive Her King. He also was sent to identify and testify to the Annointed One. God had revealed to John that, the One upon whom the Spirit would descend and remain, that One was the Christ.

In addition, my Catholic Bible, in its footnotes, makes no mention of Christ receiving the Holy Spirit at the time John Baptized Him. And finally, no one within this thread has argued that John did not see the Holy Spirit when Jesus arrived. However, there is disagreement amongst the posters that Jesus received the Holy Spirit when He was Baptized. I believe, the point of contention lies within the English translation of CCC 438.** At this time, I’m precluding CCC 438 as a valid document**.

My, my. You are simply amazing. You have made yourself His Holiness, the Supreme Pontiff!

With respects to CCC 438, item #3, I have no idea what it means in its present English translation.

I can see why there would be confusion about Christ “receiving” the HS. Since He is in communion with the other persons of the Trinity at all times, what “reception” could He have? However, scripture is clear that the HS “decends upon and remains” with Him from that time.

 

[mercygate]

‘3. "His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, TYPO! This is a statement. The open quote would be from taking the quote from the Catechism but not closing it using "CC’xxx’ '" quotation marks.

 

[clmowry]

Original Greek text is as follows . . .

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a352/tabcom/acts1047.jpg

Parsing the greek word baptizo, as it is used in this passage:

vn - verb - infinitive mood
Aor - Aorist tense = past
Pas - passive voice

Aorist Tense
The aorist is said to be “simple occurrence” or “summary occurrence”, without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the ‘punctiliar’ tense. ‘Punctiliar’ in this sense means ‘viewed as a single, collective whole,’ a “one-point-in-time” action. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.

Ok all that’s fine and dandy but what does it have to do with the “water of baptism” not being the “water of baptism”?

Chuck