Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[tabcom]

Did you answer my question about why Phillip and the Eunuch were coming up out of the water?

guanphore – you know I don’t run from difficult questions. You also know I reply to posts in an organized fashion. It has taken me this long to express myself clearly on the issue of Col. 2:14, Acts 10:47, MK 10:38, Lk 12:50, the meaning of the word baptizo, and other follow-up points. Because Acts 8 introduces a new verse with respects to baptism, I’m just not caught up to it yet. Hang in there.

 

[clmowry]

Josephus isn’t exactly a “secular” source. Being a Jewish historian of the time he would be interested in this sect that was affecting Judaism.

I still maintain that if you put forth “secular” documentation as the standard for determining what happened in a religious context then you effectively eliminate “all” evidence, because, in general, only “religious” sources are going to be interested in documenting “religious” information.

You might find an exception or two, but they will be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Chuck

I do have documentation. Secular sources of Biblical events is very important for validation of people and events. For instance, it wasn’t until around 110 A. D. that any Roman Empire documentation materialized that identified the Christians separate from the Jews. Anyway, to answer your first question . . .

from Alfred Edersheim’s ‘The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah’,

"The following notice from Josephus (Ant. xviii. 5. 2) is not only interesting in itself, but for the view which it presents of baptism. It shows what views rationalizing Jews took of the work of the Baptist, and how little such were able to enter into the real meaning of his baptism. ‘But to some of the Jews it appeared, that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and, indeed, as a righteous punishment on account of what had been done to John, who was surnamed the Baptist. for Herod ordered him to be killed, a good man, and who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For that the baptizing would be acceptable to Him, if they made use of it, not for the putting away (remission) of some sins, but for the purification of the body, after that the soul had been previously cleansed by righteousness. And when others had come in crowds, for they were exceedingly moved by hearing these words, Herod, fearing lest such influence of his over the people might lead to some rebellion, for they seemed ready to do any thing by his council, deemed it best, before anything new should happen through him, to put him to death, rather than that, when a change should arise in affairs, he might have to repent,’ &c. On the credibility of this testimony see the Article on Josephus, in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Christian Biography,’ vol. iii. pp. 441-460 (see especially pp. 458, 459).
"

 

[clmowry]

**ACTS Chapter 10:47

“Can any one forbid **water **for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

The key reason for selecting this verse was the use of the term “water for baptizing” do you feel that “water” has been incorrectly translated?

I thought this was the subject at hand?

Chuck
**

Regretfully, the limitations of expressing oneself through a medium such as internet forums, restricts my ability to express my disagreement with your conclusion. It would take me much longer to fully explain why I disagree. Nonetheless, I’ll try, knowing that what I’m trying to convey will not be fully understood and will be met with much opposition, if not hostility. I apologize in advance.

 

[tabcom]

ACTS Chapter 10:47

“Can any one forbid **water **for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”

The key reason for selecting this verse was the use of the term “water for baptizing” do you feel that “water” has been incorrectly translated?

I thought this was the subject at hand?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.

 

[DCD]

Peter says, the gentiles have received the Holy Spirit, they have been baptized. Not by water, forbid. But by the Holy Spirit.

I’ve discussed Acts 10:47 back in Post #66.

With respects to how it is used, in the original greek text of the Bible, yes.

A couple questions I’ve been asking myself the past couple days goes like this . . …

What value is water baptism if the Holy Spirit is not present?

If one is baptized by the Holy Spirit and Fire, isn’t water baptism superfluous?

Acts 10:47

This is the only case in Sacred Scripture of the reception of the Holy Spirit before baptism.

Peace,
David

 

[DCD]

What is the definition of the word baptizo?

Thanks,
David

 

[guanophore]

I do appreciate you stating what we agree upon. I wanted to take a moment to note this point.

Now, to address the rest of your post, in order . . .

This is a false statement.

Mt 1:18 -
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Joh 8:58 -
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Pax: before I can proceed to the rest of your post, could you please reply to this very point, that is, Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit when He was water baptized by John, He always had it? If we cannot agree on this very point, there is no value in proceeding.

I have to agree with you on this point, tabcom. Jesus was always in union with the other persons of the Trinity. However, I believe that the HS became visibly manifest at Jesus’ water baptism so that it could be demonstrated to people like you that the HS and the water dipping are inseparable.

You also know I reply to posts in an organized fashion. It has taken me this long to express myself clearly on the issue of Col. 2:14, Acts 10:47, MK 10:38, Lk 12:50, the meaning of the word baptizo, and other follow-up points. Because Acts 8 introduces a new verse with respects to baptism, I’m just not caught up to it yet. Hang in there.

Ok. I did not want to move on to something else before we went over that one. Frankly, I am mystified at how you are able to exclude water at all points where it is present during baptism in the NT. I am eager to see how you dispense with the water in that passage as you dispensed with water for the house of Cornelius.

Supposing we were to look at just the first five words of the sentence?

“No one is able to forbid the water”

Do you think everyone present, the whole council of Jerusalem, and all the first and second century Christians misunderstood about baptism? I ask this because they were baptizing with water all the new converts ever since the ministry of John began. At the Great Commission, Jesus specified "in the name of the father, son and HS. It may be that they were baptizing this way before, but it does not give us any specifics of words that were being used.

People came to John and confessed their sins, and were baptized for repentance.

 

[guanophore]

What is the definition of the word baptizo?

Thanks,
David

catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

 

[DCD]

catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

Thanks guanophore,

So in classical Greek usage, baptizo can-but does not necessarily indicate submersion. If we look at the Scriptures we do not explicitly see a particular mode prescribed. In fact we do not see any written instruction until the first century in the document, the Didache.

So how does a “Bible-Only” christian hold to any prescribed mode of baptism, when the first instruction is found outside of their authority? It would seem that this would be a tradition of men.

Peace,
David

 

[Pax]

…
…

Pax: before I can proceed to the rest of your post, could you please reply to this very point, that is, Jesus did not receive the Holy Spirit when He was water baptized by John, He always had it? If we cannot agree on this very point, there is no value in proceeding.

Scripture denies your view. All of the gospels bear witness to Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit when he was baptized. The gospel of John puts it this way:

John 1:32-33
And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’

 

[tabcom]

. **All of the gospels bear witness to Jesus receiving the Holy Spirit when he was baptized. **

John 1:32-33
And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him;

If I understand you correctly, John 1:32 reads:
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 text, nor any English translations of the Bible.

‘All’ of the gospels most certainly does not bear witness to your statement.

Mary was with child, Jesus, by the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18).** An angel of the Lord tells Joseph the Holy Spirit is with Jesus before his baptism by John (Mt 1:20). **Also, when Jesus says “I am”, that is forever (Joh 8:58), hence, Jesus always had the Holy Spirit. Also, Scripture clearly states that the Holy Spirit is present in the Old Testement (Ps 51:11). On top of that, John did not baptize by the Holy Spirit. His baptism was a proselyte baptism. He never claimed that he was baptizing by the Holy Spirit
(Lu 3:16).

Mt 1:18 -
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Mt 1:20 -
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Joh 8:58 -
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Ps 51:11 -
Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Lu 3:16 -
John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Pax: this discussion about whether Jesus had the Holy Spirit before he was baptized by John is a moot point. He did. End of discussion. For the sake of replying to your post #78 in an orderly fashion, please acknowledge this so we can proceed.

 

[tabcom]

Acts 10:47

This is the only case in Sacred Scripture of the reception of the Holy Spirit before baptism.

David, welcome to the discussion.

With respects to your statement, no it is not the only case. Also, how many times does the Bible have to say something in order for it to be true?

What is the definition of the word baptizo?

In addtion to the link that guanophore provided . . .

Baptism; from the greek words baptizo and bapto

Baptizo bap-tid’-zo

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Bapto: bap’-to

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

So how does a “Bible-Only” christian . . . .

What do you mean by “Bible-Only”?

 

[Pax]

If I understand you correctly, John 1:32 reads:
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 text, nor any English translations of the Bible.

‘All’ of the gospels most certainly does not bear witness to your statement.

Mary was with child, Jesus, by the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18).** An angel of the Lord tells Joseph the Holy Spirit is with Jesus before his baptism by John (Mt 1:20). **Also, when Jesus says “I am”, that is forever (Joh 8:58), hence, Jesus always had the Holy Spirit. Also, Scripture clearly states that the Holy Spirit is present in the Old Testement (Ps 51:11). On top of that, John did not baptize by the Holy Spirit. His baptism was a proselyte baptism. He never claimed that he was baptizing by the Holy Spirit
(Lu 3:16).

Mt 1:18 -
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.

Mt 1:20 -
But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.

Joh 8:58 -
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”

Ps 51:11 -
Do not cast me away from Your presence And do not take Your Holy Spirit from me.

Lu 3:16 -
John answered and said to them all, "As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Pax: this discussion about whether Jesus had the Holy Spirit before he was baptized by John is a moot point. He did. End of discussion. For the sake of replying to your post #78 in an orderly fashion, please acknowledge this so we can proceed.

You have got to be kidding me. I have not claimed that Jesus ever lacked the Holy Spirit and neither has anyone else. The fact remains that he also received the Holy Spirit at the time He was baptized. The entire point of this is to demonstrate to you that this was done to show us that we too would receive the Holy Spirit when we are baptized. This latter point is proven by the rest of the NT scriptures that clearly indicate that we receive the Holy Spirit with Trinitarian water baptism.

You are simply being stubborn and a bit obtuse in not recognizing this simple fact. Likewise, you are presenting an irrelevant argument by stating that Jesus already had the Holy Spirit. Although that is true, it changes nothing of what has been said to you.

 

[Philthy]

"guanophore:

Why did Peter say that water should not be withheld?

Peter says, the gentiles have received the Holy Spirit, they have been baptized. Not by water, forbid. But by the Holy Spirit.

I’ve discussed Acts 10:47 back in Post #66.

C’mon tabcom - I went back to your post #66 and you didnt address at all the issue of why Peter made that comment. This makes your answer above a dodge.

Here is post 66 for all to see where you explain why Peter said this:
tabcom post 66:

Regretfully, the limitations of expressing oneself through a medium such as internet forums, restricts my ability to express my disagreement with your conclusion. It would take me much longer to fully explain why I disagree. Nonetheless, I’ll try, knowing that what I’m trying to convey will not be fully understood and will be met with much opposition, if not hostility. I apologize in advance.

1. The English translation of the original greek text is inaccurate.
2. As I stated earlier, the word baptizo means to stain or to dye.
3. There were Jews and Gentiles with Peter
4. v 44 says the Holy Spirit fell on all them that heard the Word.
5. v 45 says the Holy Spirit poured out
6. Jesus’ Baptism = Holy Spirit and Fire
7. Those that heard the Holy Spirit that ‘fell on them’, and ‘poured out onto them’ were ‘stained or dyed’ with the Holy Spirit.
8. Then, after these things happened, Peter says, the gentiles have received the Holy Spirit, they have been baptized. Not by water, forbid. But by the Holy Spirit.
9. ‘in the name of Jesus’ - means in the ‘onoma’ or Authority of Jesus

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, although it may actually take place over a period of time.** In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.**

Are you simply trying to say that he DIDNT say what every modern translation says he said but that YOUR translation is superior to theirs? Please tell me that isnt what your saying.

 

[Philthy]

Pax is correct, of course.

You have made a logical error tabcom. Your logic is demonstrated in the following syllogism:

1. Jesus always had the holy Spirit
2. If you have the holy Spirit, you cannot receive the holy Spirit
3. Therefore Jesus could not have received the holy Spirit when he was baptized.

I agree with your first premise.
I disagree with your second premise. Perhaps you can point to Scripture to tell us where you learned this particular fact?
Having a faulty premise in your syllogism leads to your erroneous conclusion.
Perhaps you could reflect on the degree to which Christ experienced the holy Spirit and the Father during his Crucifixion. Didn’t Christ sense abandonment?

And, BTW, your contention that all of Christianity mistranslated Acts - and you have discovered it - is perhaps the most absurd thing I have ever heard on these forums. I reiterate Pax’s exacerbation, “You have got to be kidding me”
But just so I dont merely rely on my own ignorant assessments would you mind sharing with us what,exactly, your qualifications for translating Greek are? Do you have a degree from an acredited institution, and if so, what is it?

 

[tabcom]

You have made a logical error tabcom. Your logic is demonstrated in the following syllogism:

1. Jesus always had the holy Spirit
2. If you have the holy Spirit, you cannot receive the holy Spirit
3. Therefore Jesus could not have received the holy Spirit when he was baptized.

I agree with your first premise.
I disagree with your second premise. Perhaps you can point to Scripture to tell us where you learned this particular fact?

Holy Spirit = Truth (John 14:16,17- John 15:26 – John 16:13- I John 5:6)
Doing Truth = coming to the Light (John 3:21)
Those that are in the Light where predestinated (1 John 1:5-7)
Those that were predestinated; God foreknew (Rom 8:29)
That foreknowledge occurred before birth (Rom 9:11)

 

[DCD]

David, welcome to the discussion.

With respects to your statement, no it is not the only case. Also, how many times does the Bible have to say something in order for it to be true?

In addtion to the link that guanophore provided . . .

Baptism; from the greek words baptizo and bapto

Baptizo bap-tid’-zo

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

Bapto: bap’-to

The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
What do you mean by “Bible-Only”?

tabcom,

Thank you for the welcome.

Could you give me the scripture references for recieving the Holy Spirit before baptism. I am familiar with the one in Acts.

“Bible-Only” Sorry for not being clear. Someone who only uses scripture to interpret scripture and not the authority of The Church.

The Bible is inspired and inerrant so I can give it a big Amen even in one case.

Peace,
David

 

[tabcom]

The fact remains that (Jesus) also received the Holy Spirit at the time He was baptized.

Once again, I disagree with this statement. According to the footnotes of

New American Bible United States Conference of Catholic Bishops., quoted here . . .

24 [John 1:32] Like a dove: a symbol of the new creation (Genesis 8:8) or the community of Israel (Hosea 11:11). Remain: the first use of a favorite verb in John, emphasizing the permanency of the relationship between Father and Son (as here) and between the Son and the Christian. Jesus is the permanent bearer of the Spirit.

Also, from the Nelson’s NKJV Study Bible:

'God had given John a sign by which he would know the Messiah, namely, the descending of the Holy Spirit as a dove (John 1:31).

With respects to the “You have got to be kidding me”, "being stubborn, “a bit obtuse”, and “irrelevant” statements, I feel that I am nearing the end of the very point that I wished to make from the beginning.

Pax:

Do you agree with guanophore when he says:

I believe that the HS became visibly manifest at Jesus’ water baptism so that it could be demonstrated to people like you

A simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer is all I’m looking for.
A reply in the affirmative will greatly assist me in proceeding to my conclusion regarding this topic.

 

[tabcom]

Could you give me the scripture references for recieving the Holy Spirit before baptism.

Here are several to start with . . . .

Holy Spirit = Truth (John 14:16,17- John 15:26 – John 16:13- I John 5:6)
Doing Truth = coming to the Light (John 3:21)
Those that are in the Light where predestinated (1 John 1:5-7)
Those that were predestinated; God foreknew (Rom 8:29)
That foreknowledge occurred before birth (Rom 9:11)

I can provide many more if interested.

 

[tabcom]

. . . would you mind sharing with us what,exactly, your qualifications for translating Greek are? Do you have a degree from an acredited institution, and if so, what is it?

I do appreciate your inquiry.

I’ll be happy to show you my cards, if you would be so kind as to show us yours first . . . .
:coffeeread: