Submersion Baptism

[brb3]

Scripture says Paul was baptized while standing up in the house of Judas

Paul probably was kneeling, since it says “he rose up”. It doesn’t say he was “baptised while standing”.

Yet, the position is NOT THE IMPORTANT FACTOR. Here’s why … Go to Matt 3:16 “And when Jesus was baptized, he went UP immediately FROM THE WATER …”

Here we see what N.T. 1st Century Baptism entailed. One walks into the river [or pool], and STANDS [or kneels] before being SUBMERGED beneath the water surface [buried in death to RISE in NEWNESS of Life]. The early church practiced three successive immersions … as you well know.

Now, I grant you for a newborn baby … pouring water over the head may well be considered most appropriate. But, for adults, the 1st Century Christians practiced IMMERSION, just as Christ had taught them — and Catholics should ideally do the same, for ADULTS.

I can well accept Acts account of Paul rising up [standing up] to undergo his baptism. Think about this my friend. If they were gonna Baptize Paul with sprinkling or pouring … WHY ask him to stand up ? Just pour the water over his head — while he was in the kneeling position he was already in. But, NO … Paul was asked to STAND …and was forthwith taken to a nearby water pool in house of Judas, or nearby synagogue.

All synagogues had water pools … and look at subsequent verses 19-20 "For several days Paul was with the disciples at Damascus. And in the synagogues IMMEDIATELY he proclaimed JESUS, saying “He is the Son of God”.

So NOW WE KNOW THE FULL CATHOLIC STORY on Paul’s conversion. Read again my friend.

To summarize the scriptures : Paul received H.S. by laying on of hands, received his SIGHT so he could walk to the nearby synagogue where he was baptized in pool by immersion, then he Received the EUCHARIST [gaining him strength], and IMMEDIATELY he Glorified Jesus as Lord.

CONFIRMATION, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST … BAM, BAM, BAM !!! Testimony to the Catholic Church’s Sacraments.

 

[ryanoneil]

Paul probably was kneeling, since it says “he rose up”. It doesn’t say he was “baptised while standing”.

Yet, the position is NOT THE IMPORTANT FACTOR. Here’s why … Go to Matt 3:16 “And when Jesus was baptized, he went UP immediately FROM THE WATER …”

I agree the position is not the important factor.

Here we see what N.T. 1st Century Baptism entailed. One walks into the river [or pool], and STANDS [or kneels] before being SUBMERGED beneath the water surface [buried in death to RISE in NEWNESS of Life]. The early church practiced three successive immersions … as you well know.

I won’t argue with you there, but when there wasn’t sufficient water they poured or sprinkled. Did you know there is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in the area of Peter’s first sermon, when 3,000 were baptized?

Now, I grant you for a newborn baby … pouring water over the head may well be considered most appropriate. But, for adults, the 1st Century Christians practiced IMMERSION, just as Christ had taught them — and Catholics should ideally do the same, for ADULTS.

I can well accept Acts account of Paul rising up [standing up] to undergo his baptism. Think about this my friend. If they were gonna Baptize Paul with sprinkling or pouring … WHY ask him to stand up ? Just pour the water over his head — while he was in the kneeling position he was already in. But, NO … Paul was asked to STAND …and was forthwith taken to a nearby water pool in house of Judas, or nearby synagogue.

except there is no evidence Paul went to a nearby pool or synagogue.

All synagogues had water pools … and look at subsequent verses 19-20 "For several days Paul was with the disciples at Damascus. And in the synagogues IMMEDIATELY he proclaimed JESUS, saying “He is the Son of God”.

This happened immediately after he was baptized, ate, and regained his strength.

So NOW WE KNOW THE FULL CATHOLIC STORY on Paul’s conversion. Read again my friend.

I did!

To summarize the scriptures : Paul received H.S. by laying on of hands, received his SIGHT so he could walk to the nearby synagogue where he was baptized in pool by immersion, then he Received the EUCHARIST [gaining him strength], and IMMEDIATELY he Glorified Jesus as Lord.

CONFIRMATION, BAPTISM, and EUCHARIST … BAM, BAM, BAM !!! Testimony to the Catholic Church’s Sacraments.

I never heard that Paul recieved the Eucharist at that time. I thought he was getting substantial food after not eating for three days (Acts 9:9) That would be awsome if he was infact recieving the Eucharist.

 

[brb3]

Did you know there is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in the area of Peter’s first sermon, when 3,000 were baptized?

except there is no evidence Paul went to a nearby pool or synagogue.

Paul recieved the Eucharist at that time. I thought he was getting substantial food after not eating for three days (Acts 9:9) That would be awsome if he was infact recieving the Eucharist.

What’s the Arch. proof that Immersion would not of been possible on Pentecost ?

What evidence for Paul not receiving immersion Baptism … Archeological or scriptural ?

The Jews always had wine with meals, and bread was a 100 % certainty for the meal Paul received. Ananias was undoubtedly the head disciple in Damascus. That suggests to us that he had been ordained a priest by the 12 Apostles. He had valid authority to celebrate the Eucharist, and had access to the Tabernacle where it would be kept.

I’m not saying that the only food Paul received was the Eucharist. But, it is reasonable to believe that Ananias would of celebrated the Eucharist for Paul … especially having been appointed by Christ to Confirm, Baptize, and provide wine/bread to Paul.

Would Ananias deny giving Paul the Holy Presence … after being led of Christ to bring about Paul’s redemption via the Church Sacraments ? Holy Orders … probably not til later, but certainly the Eucharist was in order and an essential for all Catholics immediately upon our Confirmation. I know … it happened to me just last Easter, when priest brought me into the Catholic fold.

 

[ryanoneil]

What’s the Arch. proof that Immersion would not of been possible on Pentecost ?

scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-IV

Here is the claim. If he answers my email about the proof, I’ll share it with you.

What evidence for Paul not receiving immersion Baptism … Archeological or scriptural ?

If we take scripture at face value, it doesn’t mention Paul leaving the house.

The Jews always had wine with meals, and bread was a 100 % certainty for the meal Paul received. Ananias was undoubtedly the head disciple in Damascus. That suggests to us that he had been ordained a priest by the 12 Apostles. He had valid authority to celebrate the Eucharist, and had access to the Tabernacle where it would be kept.

I’m not saying that the only food Paul received was the Eucharist. But, it is reasonable to believe that Ananias would of celebrated the Eucharist for Paul … especially having been appointed by Christ to Confirm, Baptize, and provide wine/bread to Paul.

Would Ananias deny giving Paul the Holy Presence … after being led of Christ to bring about Paul’s redemption via the Church Sacraments ? Holy Orders … probably not til later, but certainly the Eucharist was in order and an essential for all Catholics immediately upon our Confirmation. I know … it happened to me just last Easter, when priest brought me into the Catholic fold.

First of all, congratulations!

I never heard that the Eucharist was celebrated there , but if it was that would be very cool.