The Church That Jesus Founded

[Protector]

zz912;13240183] I wouldn’t read too much into that “go down into the water” and “coming back out of the water”.

Oh I’m not. Like I said, “It’s the action not the method that is important.”

At the place believed to be the place where Jesus was baptized, the river is small, and you have to climb down to get to it. It’s not a wide flat river you can just walk into.

One supposes that the same could be said of the Colorado and the Grand Canyon. 1970 years is a long time in the life of a river.

And don’t forget, over 3,000 men were baptized in ONE day at Pentecost. Even if you were continuously baptizing for 12 hours, that’s 4 people per minute, every single minute, for 12 straight hours. It’s impossible that there were that many people baptized by immersion. Jerusalem doesn’t even have the capacity for such a large public area with that much water. They HAD to be baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

As Jesus said,

“Go ye therefore, and teach **all nations, baptizing them **in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” (Matthew 28:19).

Mind you He did not set a time limit, and hence it is an ongoing process even as I write these words.

Protector.

 

[Protector]

adrift;13242348] This caught my attention as I could not remember it being written that Jesus went down into the water. I read each Gospel and cannot find it saying that Jesus went down into the water.

Very observant of you, however, if Matthew 3:16 has Jesus coming up out of the water, it is a fairly safe assumption that He first went down into the water.

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: " Matt.3:16 KJV

Also,

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4 KJV

Most art, which doesn’t prove anything, I have seen of Jesus baptism is a shell of water being poured over Jesus’ head.

Like you said, it doesn’t prove anything, and as for the “shell” - the River Jordan is no where near the beach. - unless the Dead Sea has shells on its’ shores.

I have never seen a historical description of the practice of a baptism that John would have practiced. Was it the same as we see now with the arms crossed and plunged into the water?

Again, as I said, “It’s the action not the method that is important.”

What words were used.

Jesus told His disciples, “…teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” However, as the Holy Spirit was not given to many at the time that John was baptising his words are not recorded, but the following gives an excellent explanation:-

“John’s purpose was to prepare people for the coming Christ (Matthew 11:10). Paul explained, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus” (Acts 19:4). It wasn’t the same as Christ’s baptism. We see this in Ephesus, because after Paul explained the difference, the men in Ephesus were baptized again, this time into Christ (Acts 19:5).” lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2006/09-13.htmtachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2006/09-13.htm

Although Jordan has a lot of water, was it deep

All we are told is that he baptised in the River Jordan because there was much water.

Protector.

 

[zz912]

So there were no mikva’ot or other similar pools filled with water in Jerusalem which could have been used for baptisms, especially on a big religious holiday when many pilgrims would have been seeking ritual purification? Forgive me, but that just seems very far-fetched.

Mikva’ots are usually small, only one or two persons at a time can use them. The baths that they did have were not very large. There simply wasn’t any pool large enough in Jerusalem that could have held a crowd that large and supported that many immersion baptisms in one day.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Mikva’ots are usually small, only one or two persons at a time can use them. The baths that they did have were not very large. There simply wasn’t any pool large enough in Jerusalem that could have held a crowd that large and supported that many immersion baptisms in one day.

How does only one or two people being able to use a mikvah at a time make baptizing 3000 by immersion in one day impossible? I cannot imagine that it would take more than a minute or two for a person to enter a ritual bath or pool, be baptized, get out, and let the next person in, and with 12 apostles plus others (presumably some or all of the 70/72 disciples would have been present as well) baptizing, I simply do not see how baptizing that many people on a large day of ritual observance would have been that difficult.

 

[adrift]

Very observant of you, however, if Matthew 3:16 has Jesus coming up out of the water, it is a fairly safe assumption that He first went down into the water.

Never said that it wasn’t logical that if Jesus came up He had to go into first that wasn’t what was stated however. It was stated that Scripture stated that He went down into the water. Scripture I would say assumes it but does not state it. As you have stated it doesn’t matter.

Like you said, it doesn’t prove anything, and as for the “shell” - the River Jordan is no where near the beach. - unless the Dead Sea has shells on its’ shores.

It is just an artistic rendition. For the fun of it I searched to see if shell were available and found that in one residence they found murex shells. An interesting article that pertains to this discussion in more than one way.

Again, as I said, “It’s the action not the method that is important.”

I agree but it doesn’t answer the question.

Jesus told His disciples, “…teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” However, as the Holy Spirit was not given to many at the time that John was baptising his words are not recorded, but the following gives an excellent explanation:-

I hope you would agree with me that John’s was a different baptism.

All we are told is that he baptised in the River Jordan because there was much water.

Protector.

Yes but was it deep?

 

[adrift]

How does only one or two people being able to use a mikvah at a time make baptizing 3000 by immersion in one day impossible? I cannot imagine that it would take more than a minute or two for a person to enter a ritual bath or pool, be baptized, get out, and let the next person in, and with 12 apostles plus others (presumably some or all of the 70/72 disciples would have been present as well) baptizing, I simply do not see how baptizing that many people on a large day of ritual observance would have been that difficult.

Most of the mikvahs that have been found were in private homes as such I doubt that they would have been available to the disciples. To estimate that it would only take a minute or two is unrealistic. The pictures I have seen show stairs going into the pool. I guess it might have taken a minute if they were going in one side and out the other but that would not be possible. The question would be did they disrobe at all if they did that would add time. I don’t think it reasonable that they would be baptized fully dressed. It almost begs the question of why did John baptize in the Jordon if there were pool available in Jerusalem?

 

[JonNC]

Very observant of you, however, if Matthew 3:16 has Jesus coming up out of the water, it is a fairly safe assumption that He first went down into the water.

One can do down into the water without ever putting one’s head in the water. My dad used to tell us, as the seashore, we could " go down into the water (from the beach) but only up to your knees."

Jon

 

[Dorothy]

One can do down into the water without ever putting one’s head in the water. My dad used to tell us, as the seashore, we could " go down into the water (from the beach) but only up to your knees."

Jon

 

[Protector]

adrift;13255745] Never said that it wasn’t logical that if Jesus came up He had to go into first that wasn’t what was stated however. It was stated that Scripture stated that He went down into the water. Scripture I would say assumes it but does not state it. As you have stated it doesn’t matter.

Yes, that is correct on all points.

One of the rules that mariners have to obey is:-

“Assumptions should not be made on the basis of scanty information”,

however, I can safely state here that the information in the case in question was not scanty. It should have been stated by me 'though, that “Scripture **inferred **that Jesus went down into the water”. Never-the-less I thank you for correcting me.

“As you have stated it doesn’t matter”

The thing that “doesn’t matter” (to me at any rate), is the method of baptism. However, deriving as it probably did, from the ritual washing of Judaism, total immersion would have been the method employed. Also, if sprinkling, or pouring had been the method in general use it would have made no sense for Paul to write the following to the Romans:-

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Romans 6:4

As John Gill (theologian) puts it:-

"…Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death,… The nature and end of baptism are here expressed; the nature of it, it is a “burial”; and when the apostle so calls it, he manifestly refers to the ancient and only way of administering this ordinance, by immersion; when a person is covered, and as it were buried in water, as a corpse is when laid the earth, and covered with it: and it is a burial with Christ; it is a representation of the burial of Christ, and of our burial with him as our head and representative, and that “into death”;

So, when I say that the action is more important than the method, I am saying that baptism is a public declaration of your faith in Christ, and your total acceptance of His sacrifice as full payment for the sins of the whole world. What more positive display of faith could there be than a public dunking - especially if the person being baptised is a non-swimmer with a morbid fear of deep water - if you catch my drift (pun intended!)

It is just an artistic rendition. For the fun of it I searched to see if shell were available and found that in one residence they found murex shells. An interesting article that pertains to this discussion in more than one way.

Yes, it would be an interesting article I am sure, however were “murex shells” found only in **one **residence?

"It is just an artistic rendition "

Maybe so, but you are using that “scanty information” to cast doubt on my assertion that total immersion was the method of baptism employed by John the Baptist are you not?

I hope you would agree with me that John’s was a different baptism.

Yes I do, as is illustrated by the fact that I supplied a descriptive paragraph to that effect.

Protector: John baptised in the River Jordan because there was much water …

Yes but was it deep?

We are not told, but if it can be accepted that immersion was the method employed then your question is answered in the affirmative. However, as before debating about the method detracts from the act. Can you imagine with what awe John would have been struck when baptising the Lamb of God?

“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” John 1:29

Something further to my stating that baptism by immersion was probably derived from the ritual washing of Judaism (mikvah) the following from travelujah.com

Jordan river represented a perfect mikvah of continuously running water.

Protector.

 

[zz912]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi View Post
How does only one or two people being able to use a mikvah at a time make baptizing 3000 by immersion in one day impossible? I cannot imagine that it would take more than a minute or two for a person to enter a ritual bath or pool, be baptized, get out, and let the next person in, and with 12 apostles plus others (presumably some or all of the 70/72 disciples would have been present as well) baptizing, I simply do not see how baptizing that many people on a large day of ritual observance would have been that difficult.

Most of the mikvahs that have been found were in private homes as such I doubt that they would have been available to the disciples. To estimate that it would only take a minute or two is unrealistic. The pictures I have seen show stairs going into the pool. I guess it might have taken a minute if they were going in one side and out the other but that would not be possible. The question would be did they disrobe at all if they did that would add time. I don’t think it reasonable that they would be baptized fully dressed. It almost begs the question of why did John baptize in the Jordon if there were pool available in Jerusalem?

As I noted earlier, for 3000 people to be baptized in one day, you would need to baptize 4-5 people every MINUTE, for at least 12 hours, with no breaks. For full-immersion baptisms, you would need a HUGE pool, where you could have 50 or so people baptizing all at once, and doing so for the entire day. There simply wasn’t a pool like this in Jerusalem at the time.

 

[Protector]

adrift;13242379] Just 12 baptizing would be 250 a piece but where?
Probably more than just the apostles baptized. I don’t see that as a problem but where would they baptize?
There were some pools around but would they have been accessible for a an immersion type of baptism? Just where did these baptisms take place? Where did they get the water

A tiny bit of research produced the following:-

christiancourier.com/articles/1062-what-about-baptism-on-the-day-of-pentecost

Protector.

 

[adrift]

Yes, that is correct on all points.

One of the rules that mariners have to obey is:-
however, I can safely state here that the information in the case in question was not scanty. It should have been stated by me 'though, that “Scripture **inferred **that Jesus went down into the water”. Never-the-less I thank you for correcting me.

I wasn’t correcting you but trying to ascertain if I was skipping a scripture that you were quoting.

The thing that “doesn’t matter” (to me at any rate), is the method of baptism. However, deriving as it probably did, from the ritual washing of Judaism, total immersion would have been the method employed. Also, if sprinkling, or pouring had been the method in general use it would have made no sense for Paul to write the following to the Romans:-

As John Gill (theologian) puts it:-

So, when I say that the action is more important than the method, I am saying that baptism is a public declaration of your faith in Christ, and your total acceptance of His sacrifice as full payment for the sins of the whole world. What more positive display of faith could there be than a public dunking - especially if the person being baptised is a non-swimmer with a morbid fear of deep water - if you catch my drift (pun intended!)

Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

We aren’t baptized into Jesus’ death because we have been submerged but because we have obeyed Jesus and become part of His family.

Didache(70-100 AD)
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Yes, it would be an interesting article I am sure, however were “murex shells” found only in **one **residence?

Maybe so, but you are using that “scanty information” to cast doubt on my assertion that total immersion was the method of baptism employed by John the Baptist are you not?

No I am not. I stated and you acknowledged that I didn’t think it meant much.
I was just musing that artistic paintings show water being poured over Jesus which I stated didn’t mean anything. It would be like saying Jesus is Chinese because an artisan presented Him that way.

We are not told, but if it can be accepted that immersion was the method employed then your question is answered in the affirmative. However, as before debating about the method detracts from the act. Can you imagine with what awe John would have been struck when baptising the Lamb of God?

Something further to my stating that baptism by immersion was probably derived from the ritual washing of Judaism (mikvah) the following from travelujah.com

Protector.

It isn’t an either or but both. I do believe immersion was practiced as was pouring and both were acceptable.

 

[adrift]

A tiny bit of research produced the following:-

christiancourier.com/articles/1062-what-about-baptism-on-the-day-of-pentecost

Protector.

1.The Scriptures do not specify how many were immersed on Pentecost. The 3,000 (Acts 2:41) may embrace the number baptized; it is also possible, however, that the 3,000 figure may have included disciples immersed earlier by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1ff), and the Lord’s disciples (John 4:1-2) — these being set in the church automatically on that day.

It has already been established that if they had been baptized by John they were rebaptized.
The scripture states

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.

That day does not mean previously and I don’t agree that scripture doesn’t state how many were baptized.

2.Nothing in New Testament doctrine demands that the apostles themselves did all of the immersing that day. Others may have been involved as well.

I agree that others probably were baptizing. I have already addressed this.

3.If only the apostles did the immersing, and supposing further that the full complement of 3,000 were immersed, the chore could have been accomplished in just over four hours, if each baptism consumed only a minute or so.

This also has been addressed. It is unrealistic that it would take only “a minute or so”
even if they were already at a body of water and undressed.

Pools in Jerusalem might have accommodated a large crowd but there are problems It was in one day, you might try to fudge that but it still says in a day. The pools that might have been used were not close by and my question which has not been answered is why did John baptize in the Jordan if a large amount of people could be easily baptized in Jerusalem.
To suggest that it would only take a minute per baptism assumes that a large crowd goes to a pool stands in line and orderly moves through the pool. Just ask anyone how long it take to move tourist on a bus from place to place. It really would have been a logistic nightmare.
To quote Cavaradossi

Forgive me, but that just seems very far-fetched.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Why would an ascetic who lives in the wilderness, eats locusts and honey, and wears a shirt of camel hair, baptize in the river Jordan rather than in a large city? The answer seems obvious doesn’t it? Besides, the argument basically amounts to an argument from silence. Since St. John did X and not Y, obviously Y was not feasible (the deduction logically does not follow). Archaeologically though, we know that to be quite untrue (Jerusalem possessed several very large pools of water), so I find no compelling reason why we should accept the idea that St. John baptized in the River Jordan because there was no place to baptize people in Jerusalem—indeed, I must reiterate my initial point that he was an ascetic who lived in the wilderness.

 

[Cavaradossi]

To quote Cavaradossi

Honestly, I don’t like how my words have been misappropriated. I find it quite feasible that the converts on Pentecost were baptized in pools of water by immersion. I find the arguments against it to be far too weak to disprove it.

 

[zz912]

Archaeologically though, we know that to be quite untrue (Jerusalem possessed several very large pools of water),

It doesn’t have anywhere near the size of pools needed to fully-immerse baptize that many people in a spontaneous, uncoordinated event. Even to be feasible, they would have to leave the city (which is not noted in Scripture) and go down to the Kidron Valley and completely take over the city water system, and proceed to baptize upwards of 10-20 people per minute (the amount increases because of the travel time and confusion involved to going down into the valley) which is simply not possible.

Peter is giving his speech in Jerusalem, and baptisms were performed there. They were either pouring or sprinkling baptisms because of the logistics involved. Anyone who is open to the truth and rational thought (and has dealt with large crowds before) knows this is true.

 

[IGotQuestions]

Great answers.
Thanks everyone.

 

[Protector]

Originally Posted by Protector
Never-the-less I thank you for correcting me.

adrift;13262997]I wasn’t correcting you but trying to ascertain if I was skipping a scripture that you were quoting.

“Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?” Romans 6:3 Douay/Rheims

adrift posted: We aren’t baptized into Jesus’ death because we have been submerged but because we have obeyed Jesus and become part of His family.

It’s just an analogy. As Paul the Apostle in his epistle, and John Gill, Matthew Henry, et al say in their excellent commentaries,

"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death…"……The nature and end of baptism are here expressed; **the nature of it, it is a “burial”; **and when the apostle so calls it, he manifestly refers to the ancient and only way of administering this ordinance, by immersion; when a person is covered, and as it were buried in water, as a corpse is when laid in the earth, and covered with it: and it is a burial with Christ; it is a representation of the burial of Christ, and of our burial with him as our head and representative, " (John Gill)

" Baptism teaches the necessity of dying to sin,** and being as it were buried **from all ungodly and unholy pursuits, and of rising to walk with God in newness of life." (Matthew Henry)

adrift posted:
Didache(70-100 AD)
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

From Wikipedia we learn,

"The first line of the Didache treatise is

**“Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles (or Nations) by the Twelve Apostles”[2]
**

But from Matthew we learn:

**"These twelve Jesus sent: commanding them, saying: **Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, ****and into the city of the Samaritans enter ye not. " Matthew 10:5

And again,

"A Gentile woman who lived there came to him, pleading, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! For my daughter is possessed by a demon that torments her severely”.(23)Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us. (24) And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.” Matthew 15:22-24

So then, from whence cometh this teaching?

"Teaching of the Lord to the Gentiles "

It isn’t an either or but both. I do believe immersion was practiced as was pouring and both were acceptable.

I was baptised by immersion, but like I have said before (twice?) - “It’s the act not the method that is of most importance.”.
However, in order to assist you to make your (valid) point re-method I offer the following:-

new-life.net/growth/baptism/what-is-the-proper-way-to-baptize/

With, however the following note:-

N.B. re- the Didache

.“The work was considered by some of the Church Fathers as part of the New Testament[3] but rejected as spurious or non-canonical by others,[4] eventually not accepted into the New Testament canon.” Wiki.

Protector.

 

[adrift]

However, in order to assist you to make your (valid) point re-method I offer the following:-

new-life.net/growth/baptism/what-is-the-proper-way-to-baptize/

With, however the following note:-

N.B. re- the Didache

Protector.

This answers pretty much all of my questions. I thought I had heard once that where John baptized wasn’t deep enough but I did not know if it was valid. Scripture does state "Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. " but not referring to the Baptism of Jesus. As the article points out, it does not prove immersion nor disprove it.

As to the Didache your link states
The Didache was written to teach new converts about the faith. It is variously dated as being written between A.D. 80 – 200. It was the first catechism as such it would not be scripture but it does show us what was believed and practiced.

 

[Protector]

adrift;13273582] This answers pretty much all of my questions. I thought I had heard once that where John baptized wasn’t deep enough but I did not know if it was valid. Scripture does state "Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. " but not referring to the Baptism of Jesus. As the article points out, it does not prove immersion nor disprove it.

That settles that then*!*

As to the Didache your link states
The Didache was written to teach new converts about the faith. .

That is all that matters I say.

Thank you for your posts “adrift”

Protector.