Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[DCD]

tabcom,

I have no problem with Nicodemus alluding to natural birth. However Jesus uses this thought of Nicodemus as a starting point to clarify his first statement.The new birth was to be accomplished by water and the Spirit.

In Mark 1:8 a contrast is drawn between the baptism of water and that of the Spirit, but here Jesus unites the two; water will be the external sign of that which the Spirit effects internally. There is the definiton of sacrament. Even in the very first verse of Genesis water and spirit are united. Our Lord is drawing a contrast between birth in the flesh and birth in the spirit. Jn.1:13 and St. Paul says 1 Cor.2 :14), the flesh is incapable of understanding the things of the spirit. Also Titus 3:5-7 baptismal regeneration, water external sign = renewal in the Holy Spirit. St. Paul again in (1Cor. 6:11) “washed” is not refering to Corinthian bathing practices, because justification and sanctification are not dependent on hygiene.

The Church Fathers are unanimous on the Catholic Teaching of Baptism (necessity). I think part of the problem is that the word, baptizo is a highly nuanced word that cannot be regarded as always indicating a literal, physical submersion. The Scripture commands us to baptize and provide us with several descriptions of the effects of Baptism, they do not provide any instructions as to how to actually baptize. And the other part of the problem is that it comes down to authority. It is The Church that is “the pillar and support of the truth”.

Jesus was baptized because he was doing the will of The Father(obedience). We have to be obedient to Christ and His Church. It always comes full circle back to authority.

Peace,
David

 

[DCD]

I am still not sure why you are saying that “born from above by water and spirit” is an improper translation.
EK can be translated as: out of, from, by, away from

And if it is the improper translation, then why do all of the english translations translate it that way?
**
KJV - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

**NKJV - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

NLT - Jhn 3:5 -
Jesus replied, "The truth is, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit.
Footnote:
Or spirit. The Greek word for Spirit can also be translated wind; see 3:8.

**NIV - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

**ESV - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

**
NASB - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

RSV - Jhn 3:5 -
Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

ASV - Jhn 3:5 -
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God!

**Young - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, `Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born of water, and the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the reign of God;

**Darby - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except any one be born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

**Webster - Jhn 3:5 - **
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say to thee, Except a man be born of water, and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

**HNV - Jhn 3:5 - **
Yeshua answered, "Most assuredly I tell you, unless one is born of water and spirit, he can’t enter into the Kingdom of God!

And even if it is translated “born out of water”, that doesn’t mean that it is referring to the water of your birth, it could mean that you are born out of the waters of baptism and born of the spirit of baptism.

And as for 2Co 4:16 : I have to say that you are really reading things into scripture which are not there.
Why don’t we stick to what scripture actually says instead of inserting our own personal footnotes.

savedsinner,

It is not an improper translation. The greek word has a twofold meaning: “again” and “from on high.” It is used in the latter sense Jn.3:31. Nicodemus used it in the first sense thus his response.

Peace,
David

 

[agangbern]

savedsinner,

It is not an improper translation. The greek word has a twofold meaning: “again” and “from on high.” It is used in the latter sense Jn.3:31. Nicodemus used it in the first sense thus his response.

Peace,
David

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that subject translation was not accurate. Then what would tabcom like to say? Would he say that baptism is not through the use of water? Did the early Christians not baptize using water?

 

[postwriter]

Agangbern, I like the picture you displayed on your last post.

 

[guanophore]

Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that subject translation was not accurate. Then what would tabcom like to say? Would he say that baptism is not through the use of water? Did the early Christians not baptize using water?

Yes. I think that tabcom’s position is that baptism is of the Holy Spirit - “with fire”. He rejects completely any use of water in this procedure. I have followed his posts for many months, and he works hard to reinforce his conception that water baptism does not apply to Christians. If you search “tabcom and baptism” you will find his threads where he attempts to demonstrate that Jesus was baptized with water because any Jew born outside of Jerusalem had to have a “proselyte” baptism in order to be accepted.

He also translated scripture independently, and rejects any and all authoritative versions in favor of his own. As such, he has translated Acts 8 that Peter was advocating withholding water from the house of Cornelius, since they had already rec’d the HS. “water-forbid anyone”.

 

[agangbern]

Yes. I think that tabcom’s position is that baptism is of the Holy Spirit - “with fire”. He rejects completely any use of water in this procedure. I have followed his posts for many months, and he works hard to reinforce his conception that water baptism does not apply to Christians.

Maybe Mathew 3:11 has overwhelmed him so much as to be obsessed about it to the point of trying to dismiss historical records which shows that the early Christians used water in the rite of baptism.

If you search “tabcom and baptism” you will find his threads where he attempts to demonstrate that Jesus was baptized with water because any Jew born outside of Jerusalem had to have a “proselyte” baptism in order to be accepted.

And he thinks that the baptism performed by John the Baptist’s is such “proselyte” baptism also performed upon Jesus! That belief would be very incredible because then, before John the Baptist arrived, there would have been no “proselyte” baptism.

He also translated scripture independently, and rejects any and all authoritative versions in favor of his own. As such, he has translated Acts 8 that Peter was advocating withholding water from the house of Cornelius, since they had already rec’d the HS. “water-forbid anyone”.

Good for him! But then one would have to wonder: Who appointed or authorized him to do such very delicate undertaking? The Lord said, “Apart from me, you can do nothing.”

 

[agangbern]

Agangbern, I like the picture you displayed on your last post.

postwriter, thanks for the compliment! Actually, that picture appears in all my posts because it is part of my signature.

 

[tabcom]

Dr. T.J. Conant (a Baptist) did a study and of 175 uses of baptizo in ancient Greek he found the english word “dip” only ten times.

David, well done. I do appreciate your approach to examining the word baptizo. I think you will be interested in the following that I posted earlier with respects to how the word is used in ACTS Chapter 10:47. . .

Parsing the greek word baptizo

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

Infinitive Mood
A verbal noun.
An example would be, ‘I went swimming before work’. Swimming is an infinitive – it is a noun with a verbal mood.

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.**

greek verb tense defined.

What you insightful post have shown me is that the simple, and often times crude nuances of the English language translations of the Greek is ambiguous and cannot be trusted on its face value to fully appreciate what is written in the Scriptures.

Hats off to you . . . :tiphat:

 

[tabcom]

Good for him! But then one would have to wonder: Who appointed or authorized him to do such very delicate undertaking?

agangbern . . . argumentative statements such as this causes my finger to instinctively press the ‘Page Down’ key to advance to the next post.

 

[tabcom]

thanks, tab – does it say when the idea originated? I’m pretty sure that it was earlier than 1997 (but expect it was not before 1850).

Alfred Edersheim first published his book in 1883. He has extensive historical records through out the book – its over 1000 pages long!

Rereading the passage about Nicodemus, There is an interesting footnote on p. 264 regarding the original of the idea of ‘born of water’. If you are interested, PM me and I’ll try to scan the footnote and send it to you. I warn you though – the book is so big that I’m not sure if it will scan properly.

 

[tabcom]

. . . the descriptions used to describe physical fleshly birth do not include water.

The following question is off topic – sort of.

Can anyone cite where the expression ‘she broke her water’ came from? I know when my wife’s water breaks in three months, we’ll be off to the delivery room at the hospital.

 

[agangbern]

agangbern . . . argumentative statements such as this causes my finger to instinctively press the ‘Page Down’ key to advance to the next post.

That is simply an exercise of ones freedom to do whatever he likes with his fingers. But that would not change the fact that baptism, in the manner taught by the Church, is still necessary.

 

[tabcom]

And if it is the improper translation, then why do all of the english translations translate it that way?

google: ‘dr. abbott tubingen school’.

To summarize the google search, Dr. Abbott would argue that the Gospel of John was written after the Christian Church was established and water baptism was instituted.

 

[mercygate]

Alfred Edersheim first published his book in 1883. He has extensive historical records through out the book – its over 1000 pages long!

Rereading the passage about Nicodemus, There is an interesting footnote on p. 264 regarding the original of the idea of ‘born of water’. If you are interested, PM me and I’ll try to scan the footnote and send it to you. I warn you though – the book is so big that I’m not sure if it will scan properly.

Alfred Edersheim, 1883. You are the first person who has been able to give me even that much information. Thanks for the reference. Is it a lengthy footnote – say 500 words or more? Does it cite earlier references? Anything from the early Church?

I really appreciate this.

 

[mercygate]

google: ‘dr. abbott tubingen school’.

To summarize the google search, Dr. Abbott would argue that the Gospel of John was written after the Christian Church was established and water baptism was instituted.

So he rejects the references in Acts?

This theory proposes that the Church, around 120 A.D. (at the latest) wrote or corrupted a Gospel that contradicts Our Lord. It would be saying,that the Church set up this baptisma system that Jesus never intended and is completely useless, and decided to put this in the Gospel to shore up the point.

IOW: Scripture is neither inspired nor inerrant. Many people believe that, of course. Go check out the Jesus seminar. :bigyikes:

Without having explored Abbott’s hypothesis for myself, on the face of it, it will not wash (heh heh).

That’s taking the Great Apostasy theory to an extreme that wipes out the historical underpinnings of Christianity. Moreover, it wilts under newer manuscript evidence with a recovered a fragment of John’s Gospel dating from 90 A.D.

 

[mich2]

The following question is off topic – sort of.

Can anyone cite where the expression ‘she broke her water’ came from? I know when my wife’s water breaks in three months, we’ll be off to the delivery room at the hospital.

Hello Tabcom:

I am new to this thread, and so I might be re-introducing elements already discussed. I did, however, read many of the posts. First, I personally agree with a statement you’ve made
concerning catholics being christians and vice-versa, since I also view catholicism as being the universal Church in terms of being Christ’s body, as opposed to simply a church denomination.
As for your view of baptism being singularly the baptism of the Holy Spirit, wherein water baptism, having been introduced by the Baptist, as not having been performed by the early christians, I have a problem with.
The essence of baptism being One is viewed in the same manner as the Holy Trinity being One. It would be viewed as one in terms of unity and not singularity. The Baptist did mention a baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit. While I would agree the fire is seen as a manifestation, or embodiment of the Holy Spirit, I would disagree as to it being the Holy Spirit as such.
My problems with the practice of water baptism not being found among the early christians would be as follow.

1. John 4:1-3 reads:

" The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee. "

Would this be interpreted as the disciples continuing the practice of John? I personally would not have any problems as long as it is connected to the baptism of Jesus, where we read the Heaven’s were opened and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him. Would not this be the baptism found in Acts 8:15 ?

" When they (Peter and John) arrived they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them ; they had simply been baptized into the name of Jesus."

Since you accept baptism as only that of the Holy Spirit,
what would baptism in the name of Jesus mean to you?
Also, since the Ethiopian was baptized by Philip in water, why would you be incredulous in the christian practice of water baptism?

Andre

 

[savedsinner]

google: ‘dr. abbott tubingen school’.

To summarize the google search, Dr. Abbott would argue that the Gospel of John was written after the Christian Church was established and water baptism was instituted.

I am not quite understanding what the point you are trying to make here.

Are you saying that the church existed before the bible?

Are you saying that since the Gospel of John was written after the church was established and water baptism instituted, that the Gospel of John is not inspired by God, to say what God wanted to say?

Are you saying that we can pick and choose different passages that fit our own personal beliefs?

 

[DCD]

David, well done. I do appreciate your approach to examining the word baptizo. I think you will be interested in the following that I posted earlier with respects to how the word is used in ACTS Chapter 10:47. . .

Parsing the greek word baptizo

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

Infinitive Mood
A verbal noun.
An example would be, ‘I went swimming before work’. Swimming is an infinitive – it is a noun with a verbal mood.

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.**

greek verb tense defined.

What you insightful post have shown me is that the simple, and often times crude nuances of the English language translations of the Greek is ambiguous and cannot be trusted on its face value to fully appreciate what is written in the Scriptures.

Hats off to you . . . :tiphat:

tabcom,

I can’t take any credit. I have access to good resources. I will go back and look at your post (66). I have been considering buying the book by Edersheim for sometime now. When my wife ask me where the extra money has gone I will just blame it on you.

Peace,
David

 

[Philthy]

I am still not sure why you are saying that “born from above by water and spirit” is an improper translation…
And as for 2Co 4:16 : I have to say that you are really reading things into scripture which are not there.
Why don’t we stick to what scripture actually says instead of inserting our own personal footnotes.

I addressed this issues several pages ago, offering tabcom the opportunity to present his qualifications for interpretation (education, degrees, etc) so that we could determine the reasonableness of accepting his personal translation over every single other interpretation generated by mainstream scholars both Protestant and Catholic.
philthy post 94:

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?

He replied by requesting that I share my qualifications first. I did, and he has conveniently ignored the repeated request to discuss his level of expertise. Im must say that I am shocked…
It is safe to assume that he has no recognized,objective qualifications to be speaking on the topic. It is patently ridiculous when you think about it, but what can you do other than gently point it out to him, and then be sure others are aware as well…

 

[mercygate]

I am not quite understanding what the point you are trying to make here.

Are you saying that the church existed before the bible?

Whether the Church existed before the New Testament was written is not the point. It did. When the flames descended upon those gathered in the Upper Room – the point most Christians agree is the “birthday of the Church” – not a syllable of the New Testament had yet been penned. But that is why tabcom’s position is so hard to understand. Baptism is associated all over the NT with water, not just in the Nicodemus passage.

Are you saying that since the Gospel of John was written after the church was established and water baptism instituted, that the Gospel of John is not inspired by God, to say what God wanted to say?

That is the only conclusion that could be derived from saying that baptism with water is a late insertion into the text.