Was St. Paul baptized by immersion?

[placido]

No you didn’t. What you tried to claim was that Paul most certainly was not baptized by immersion and that it was not the standard of the time.

If I did not get you wrong (again) you believe in more than one valid method of baptism, am I right? And you believe one method was the “standard” and the others were used only in cases of emergency (so to say)? And Paul’s case … a baptism taking place in a house and administered to someone who is so hungry and so weak, does not qualify as an “emergency”? So we don’t an example of other “valid” methods being used, only the standard one?

placido

 

[placido]

Pouring water on someone is not immersing them, nor is it dipping or washing. The Didache is far enough removed from the apostles that “Baptism” had come to be a noun rather than a verb, taking on its own meanings. These arguments do nothing, however, to establish how Paul was Baptized and it seems wishful thinking to assume it is the modern Roman Catholic method, which though acceptable was not the prefered method. Baptism by sand was also a possibility, yet I hear no one arguing this was what happened.

What I was hoping for is a discussion of whether immersion was probable in Paul’s case. For those who recognize other methods of baptism as valid that poses no problem. The only problem I see here is for those who insist that immersion is the only valid method, when we have cases like this in Acts 9 immersion is not probable – if indeed there were other valid methods at that time.

placido

 

[Nine_Two]

And yours is based on an assumption that he did not depart from the norm. For whatever reason your assumption is acceptable, my assumption is unwelcome.

Okay … okay … I stand corrected.

Don’t forget I was responding to what you said, and what you said is that you don’t think Acts 9 can be used to dismiss the standard methodology to which I said no one is using Acts 9 to dismiss any thing, rather to demonstrate that immersion is not the only valid method of baptism like the Full Gospel pastor is claiming.
Yes, Acts 9 says nothing about how to baptize or what ways are valid. But people like the Full Gospel pastor are forced by their tradition to see “immersion” in Acts 9.

placido

Read what I’ve said again, I’ve said that I believe it is most likely he was baptized through full immersion. I never claimed, that he must have been, as some Catholics are claiming it must have been by pouring, nor did I claim there are other ways he could have been baptized.

Acts 9 was never, and cannot be used to show other possible methodologies because it gives no instruction. Based on Acts 9 alone one could argue just as easily that he was baptized by banging his face into a wall. As I’ve already said though, modern Damascus has modern streams flowing through it not far from there, so depending on what they were like in that day the recommended type may have been possible. As to the house itself we have no description. Given its location I’m going to take a guess to say it was either a villa, or a shared complex, both of these are likely to have had access to a bath. However it is also possible that the place didn’t and therefore there exists a small chance (if both options one and two fail) that the third option of pouring was undergone. I have never denied this in any post, and have in fact admitted it many times. I simply think it to be unlikely. That has always been my argument.

 

[Nine_Two]

If I did not get you wrong (again) you believe in more than one valid method of baptism, am I right? And you believe one method was the “standard” and the others were used only in cases of emergency (so to say)? And Paul’s case … a baptism taking place in a house and administered to someone who is so hungry and so weak, does not qualify as an “emergency”? So we don’t an example of other “valid” methods being used, only the standard one?

placido

The Didache is quite clear on this. It isn’t for emergencies, but for lack of availability. You’re making assumptions as to what was available.

 

[Nine_Two]

What I was hoping for is a discussion of whether immersion was probable in Paul’s case. For those who recognize other methods of baptism as valid that poses no problem. The only problem I see here is for those who insist that immersion is the only valid method, when we have cases like this in Acts 9 immersion is not probable – if indeed there were other valid methods at that time.

placido

Then argue the practice of baptism - the word itself however implies something going completely under. Washing didn’t mean a shower.

I’ve made a case for Paul being baptized by immersion, it was the norm and the utilities to do it would have very likely have been available. Read into scripture what you wish though.

 

[placido]

Read what I’ve said again, I’ve said that I believe it is most likely he was baptized through full immersion.

How? Do you honestly think that was possible under the circumstances? Immersion inside a first century house, really?

I never claimed, that he must have been, as some Catholics are claiming it must have been by pouring, nor did I claim there are other ways he could have been baptized. Acts 9 was never, and cannot be used to show other possible methodologies because it gives no instruction.

I agree, that is why I never claimed it does.

Based on Acts 9 alone one could argue just as easily that he was baptized by banging his face into a wall.

Only if banging the face into the wall was one of the valid ways of baptism at the time. So far, however, we agree only on three modes – immersion, sprinkling and pouring.

As I’ve already said though, modern Damascus has modern streams flowing through it not far from there, so depending on what they were like in that day the recommended type may have been possible.

Paul’s baptism happened IN THE house … unless you are claiming there was a stream IN that house. And that would be doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing: reading something into the text.

As to the house itself we have no description. Given its location I’m going to take a guess to say it was either a villa, or a shared complex, both of these are likely to have had access to a bath.

Well, that is your GUESS, yet you don’t allow other to guess …

However it is also possible that the place didn’t and therefore there exists a small chance (if both options one and two fail) that the third option of pouring was undergone.

The third option … oh, there was a third option, but you try by all means to exclude that option.

I have never denied this in any post, and have in fact admitted it many times. I simply think it to be unlikely. That has always been my argument.

Let us agree to disagree then. You think it to be unlikely; I think it to be likely.

placido

 

[placido]

The Didache is quite clear on this. It isn’t for emergencies, but for lack of availability.

Lack of availability is what I mean by emergency. So we agree.

You’re making assumptions as to what was available.

You ]guess and make assumptions freely, but you deny that right to me, oh no!

placido

 

[placido]

Then argue the practice of baptism - the word itself however implies something going completely under.

Something going completly under can be hands, feet, etc … like the case where Jesus and His apostles were accused of eating without first baptizing their hands.

I’ve made a case for Paul being baptized by immersion, it was the norm and the utilities to do it would have very likely have been available.

You made a case based on assumption … soon or later you will have to admit that. But I suppose you don’t like assumptions …

placido

 

[Nine_Two]

How? Do you honestly think that was possible under the circumstances? Immersion inside a first century house, really?

Have you ever been in a first century house? I’ve been in several. Like modern day houses they come in all shapes and sizes, and some have pools.

I agree, that is why I never claimed it does.

I disagree.

Only if banging the face into the wall was one of the valid ways of baptism at the time. So far, however, we agree only on three modes – immersion, sprinkling and pouring.

Based on Acts 9 alone, you can’t show he didn’t. That’s my point, Acts 9 gives no information of its own and cannot be used to prove anything. If you have to bring in another document, then you can’t claim Acts 9 shows anything.

Paul’s baptism happened IN THE house … unless you are claiming there was a stream IN that house. And that would be doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing: reading something into the text.

It doesn’t say that, it says he got up and was baptized and then had some food. It doesn’t say he was baptized in the house. I’m reading nothing into the text. You’re the one who has decided it says “He got up and was baptized in the house”.

Well, that is your GUESS, yet you don’t allow other to guess …

It’s an educated “guess” and eisegesis. That area of damascus didn’t have shacks. Others are welcome to make assumptions, as long as they are reasonable.

The third option … oh, there was a third option, but you try by all means to exclude that option.

I have never tried to exclude that option and have said over and over again that it is a possibility, I have simply said it is unlikely. You have done nothing to show me it might be likely other than assuming that everyone in Damascus lived in squaler and never washed or anything like that.

Let us agree to disagree then. You think it to be unlikely; I think it to be likely.

You want it to be likely, you have done nothing to prove your position.

You guess and make assumptions freely, but you deny that right to me, oh no!

I have not guessed and made assumptions freely. I’ve studied the living conditions of the period, I’ve looked at maps. I have assumed based on what I know and what I have seen. Your own assumptions are based on ideals.

Something going completly under can be hands, feet, etc … like the case where Jesus and His apostles were accused of eating without first baptizing their hands.

Yep, and this isn’t pouring. When they washed or “baptized” their hands, they immersed their hands in a tub of water. They didn’t run it under a sink or anything.

You made a case based on assumption … soon or later you will have to admit that. But I suppose you don’t like assumptions …

Once again, there is a difference between an “assumption” which you have done, reading words into scripture, and an “assumption” which I have done, looking at the lay of the land, having an understanding of what a first century home looked like, and what was likely to be built in such a central area.

 

[vsedriver]

Paul was baptized as he was baptized. How: I don’t know. That wasn’t my point. I must do a better job conveying my point. Sorry.

We have the Bible. We have some understanding of the words used. Words have meanings. To understand, we need to apply meanings, don’t we?

You need to apply the right meaning. Sacred Tradition tells us which meaning is correct to use.

The Church has spoken on what is a valid Baptism. The only way to disagree with the Church is to prove the Church has no authority to declare what is valid and what isn’t. But if the Church is in error than you put Sacred Scripture at risk of being in error, for it was the Church which pronounced which scripture is divinely inspired (valid) and which is not.

Paul could have been Baptized by immersion or by sprinkling. Either is a valid Baptism and that is the only part that really counts.

 

[Dokimas]

You need to apply the right meaning. Sacred Tradition tells us which meaning is correct to use.

The Church has spoken on what is a valid Baptism. The only way to disagree with the Church is to prove the Church has no authority to declare what is valid and what isn’t. But if the Church is in error than you put Sacred Scripture at risk of being in error, for it was the Church which pronounced which scripture is divinely inspired (valid) and which is not.

Paul could have been Baptized by immersion or by sprinkling. Either is a valid Baptism and that is the only part that really counts.

That would be fine advise if I was a catholic. I’m a non-catholic Christian.

Thanks.

 

[placido]

Have you ever been in a first century house? I’ve been in several. Like modern day houses they come in all shapes and sizes, and some have pools.

Have you been to Judas’s house too? No!
But you have to assume it had a pool (or maybe a stream) because that would fit well with what want to believe.

placido

 

[placido]

Based on Acts 9 alone, you can’t show he didn’t.

And based on Acts 9 alone, you can’t show he did.

That’s my point, Acts 9 gives no information of its own and cannot be used to prove anything. If you have to bring in another document, then you can’t claim Acts 9 shows anything.

Uh! Is this a case of obtuseness where Nine-Two simply refuses to see my arguments? Did I ever claim that Acts 9 gives information? Or did I argue exactly the opposite?

It doesn’t say that, it says he got up and was baptized and then had some food. It doesn’t say he was baptized in the house. I’m reading nothing into the text. You’re the one who has decided it says “He got up and was baptized in the house”.

Oh, he was in the house, stood up, went outside the house, was baptized outside the house, then returned and was given food to eat …
That would fit well with what you want to believe, but the Bible say no such a thing.

Placido

 

[placido]

It’s an educated “guess” and eisegesis. That area of damascus didn’t have shacks. Others are welcome to make assumptions, as long as they are reasonable.

And you are the one to determine what is reasonable. Amazing!

I have never tried to exclude that option and have said over and over again that it is a possibility, I have simply said it is unlikely.

And I am saying it is both possible and likely. And now?

You have done nothing to show me it might be likely other than assuming that everyone in Damascus lived in squaler and never washed or anything like that.

I was under the impression that, since you complain when I “assume” something in your statement, you would be more careful not make the same mistake. But I was wrong again. You see me assuming that “everyone in Damascus lived in squaler and never washed”.

You want it to be likely, you have done nothing to prove your position.

And you want it to be unlikely, but did nothing to prove your position.

I have not guessed and made assumptions freely. I’ve studied the living conditions of the period, I’ve looked at maps. I have assumed based on what I know and what I have seen. Your own assumptions are based on ideals.

Yours are assumptions and they remain just that. But that is apparently not enough for you. You had to assume that I know nothing about the area; that I did not study the living conditions of the period; that I did not look at the maps; that my assumptions are based on ideals. All that, without knowing me personally.

Once again, there is a difference between an “assumption” which you have done, reading words into scripture, and an “assumption” which I have done, looking at the lay of the land, having an understanding of what a first century home looked like, and what was likely to be built in such a central area.

And you are sure – 100% sure — I did not look at the lay of the land; do not understand what a first century home looked like, and what was likely to be built in such a central area?
And you still expect me to take your assumptions seriously?

placido

 

[placido]

Yep, and this isn’t pouring. When they washed or “baptized” their hands, they immersed their hands in a tub of water. They didn’t run it under a sink or anything.

So, baptism can be any thing. It can be dipping or immersing one’s face, or fingers, or feet, or the head, or the whole body, etc … as long as it is not pouring.
But did you not tell us pouring was also a valid way of baptizing? Or have you thrown your copy of Didache away yet?

placido

 

[vsedriver]

That would be fine advise if I was a catholic. I’m a non-catholic Christian.

Thanks.

Then what does it matter what others believe? As a non-Catholic you can make up your own truths as you have authority over your interpretation. Without Sacred Tradition and Sacred Teaching Authority anyone can say what a piece of scripture means. So even though there is written 1st century documentation that both immersion and sprinkling/pouring were acceptable to early Christians they must have gotten it wrong and had no clue as to how to understand a valid sacrament.

It is interesting that some insist that full immersion is the only valid Baptism yet have no problem using grape juice instead of wine for a ‘valid’ Last Supper remembrance.

 

[Dokimas]

As a non-Catholic you can make up your own truths as you have authority over your interpretation.

That’s not fair or accurate. But who am I to tell you what to believe. You are welcome to your own opinion, even if it is wrong.

It is interesting that some insist that full immersion is the only valid Baptism yet have no problem using grape juice instead of wine for a ‘valid’ Last Supper remembrance.

I NEVER said that immnersion was the only way.

As for wine, it’s the fruit of the vine and there’s two forms: fermented and unfermented. I’ll take unfermented, thank you. BTW, if you are not a priest, when was the last time you actually had wine as part of your mass? I’ve been to several masses and I’ve NEVER seen the average person going up for communion partake in the ‘wine’. The priest was the only one to partake of the wine. Very confusing if following the Biblical form!!!

 

[placido]

That’s not fair or accurate. But who am I to tell you what to believe. You are welcome to your own opinion, even if it is wrong.

I hope you are not implying that whoever disagrees with you it is because he/she is wrong. And you always judge yourself always right. How convenient to be one’s own judge!

As for wine, it’s the fruit of the vine and there’s two forms: fermented and unfermented.

Was that the case in 33 AD? And you are 100% sure of your facts?

I’ll take unfermented, thank you. BTW, if you are not a priest, when was the last time you actually had wine as part of your mass?

Maybe not every Sunday but still more than an average Protestant per year.

I’ve been to several masses and I’ve NEVER seen the average person going up for communion partake in the ‘wine’.

Don’t give up. Continue attending the Holy Mass. And if Catholics are not complaining I wonder why you do.

The priest was the only one to partake of the wine. Very confusing if following the Biblical form!!!

Yes, that is confusing for those who, instead of trying to understand the reasons behind a practice or a doctrine, they ascribe to it an un-Biblical (if not malicious) reason.
And don’t forget: Dokimas is always right and those who disagree with Dokimas are always wrong …

placido

 

[fermat]

That’s not fair or accurate. But who am I to tell you what to believe. You are welcome to your own opinion, even if it is wrong.

That is fair and accurate. If you accept the bible as the sole source of authority, you are by definition making yourself the authority. This becomes a conflict when what you believe contradicts the teaching of Apostles. If you reject things like apostolic succession and the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (just throwing out possible examples), then you reject what Jesus taught His followers who were charged with teaching us.

I bring this up in the context of this discussion because here we can clearly see a need for some kind of authority to tell us what all this means. Where did Jesus tell us to take our disputes?

As for wine, it’s the fruit of the vine and there’s two forms: fermented and unfermented. I’ll take unfermented, thank you. BTW, if you are not a priest, when was the last time you actually had wine as part of your mass? I’ve been to several masses and I’ve NEVER seen the average person going up for communion partake in the ‘wine’. The priest was the only one to partake of the wine. Very confusing if following the Biblical form!!!

That, my brother, is a whole other thread.

 

[Dokimas]

I hope you are not implying that whoever disagrees with you it is because he/she is wrong. And you always judge yourself always right. How convenient to be one’s own judge!

It’s not good to ‘read’ into what people say that is NOT there.

Was that the case in 33 AD? And you are 100% sure of your facts?

Sure, the best I know.

Maybe not every Sunday but still more than an average Protestant per year.

My wife grew up catholic. She said she NEVER was given wine; only the host.

Don’t give up. Continue attending the Holy Mass. And if Catholics are not complaining I wonder why you do.

Is observation complaining? Not the last time I looked. The observation comes because ‘you’ tell ‘us’ how important obeying Jesus’ Words on the ‘communion’ issue when He said to ‘eat His Body and drink His Blood’; if you don’t partake in the wine, you are following Jesus, are you?

Yes, that is confusing for those who, instead of trying to understand the reasons behind a practice or a doctrine, they ascribe to it an un-Biblical (if not malicious) reason.

A bit of a judgemental attitude???

And don’t forget: Dokimas is always right and those who disagree with Dokimas are always wrong …

placido

Wow. I’m glad to realized God’s got a helper and her/his name is Placido. Nice to meet you, helper.