St Paul's Apostleship

[jcrichton]

Not necessarily. It was just not mentioned. We don’t know whether Jesus baptized them or not. It is possible that Jesus baptized them (in the Holy Spirit or water Baptism). If Baptism is necessary, then why not the apostles. It was not mentioned probably either because it was taken for granted as a given or indeed they were not baptized at all. However, each possibility was there.

Hi, Reuben!
…we do know that Simon’s brother was John’s disciple (St. John 1:35-42); it would be quite improbable for John the Baptist to take on disciples who would refuse Baptism. Conversely, why would Andrew seek out his brother, Simon, to bring him to the Lord if Peter himself had rejected Baptism?

The problem we have, both Catholic and non-Catholic Believers, is that we want to “believe” not according to Christ (St. John 4:23-24 & 20:29) but according to men, who prescribe to the man-made rule: “if it’s in/not in Scriptures…” We throw away common sense, reason, and even the Holy Spirit in our quest to find “enlightenment” and Truth! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel