Why were Apostles not baptized again in the name of Jesus?

[FrancesDS]

In a discussion with a non-Catholic about baptism, I commented that we can see Jesus setting an example for us when he was baptized. But my friend brought up to me that, yes, Jesus was baptized with water but this was John the Baptist’s baptism. We discussed how while Jesus was alive, his followers would have received this same type of Baptism (one of repentance). In Acts 1:5 we see how Jesus tells the Apsotles that they had received baptism with water from John the Baptist but then tells them that soon they will receive the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost).
My Protestant friend was saying how since the Apostles were never baptized with water and the spirit as the Catholic Church teaches, this shows that a baptism with the Spirit as he does in his Church is all that is needed.
How would you respond to this?
(I did find this an interesting thought. It is interesting to me that we see the Apostles promoting baptism in the name of Jesus yet they never did this themselves?)

Thank you in advance!
Frances DS

 

[NHInsider]

We do not see the baptisms of the Apostles because it wasn’t recorded in the gospels. Neither were many other things (as John’s gospel tells us). But it is clear that the Apostles understood Christian baptism to be a direct commandment of the Lord (Matt 28:19), believed it to be essential (Acts 9:18 and 22:16, 16:33), and saw it as something distinctly different from John’s baptism (Acts 19:4-5).

Also, if your friend’s church thinks that water baptism isn’t necessary because they believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is all that is necessary, why did Peter baptise the household of Cornelius when they had already received the Holy Spirit?

 

[Robbinson]

In a discussion with a non-Catholic about baptism, I commented that we can see Jesus setting an example for us when he was baptized. But my friend brought up to me that, yes, Jesus was baptized with water but this was John the Baptist’s baptism. We discussed how while Jesus was alive, his followers would have received this same type of Baptism (one of repentance). In Acts 1:5 we see how Jesus tells the Apsotles that they had received baptism with water from John the Baptist but then tells them that soon they will receive the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost).
My Protestant friend was saying how since the Apostles were never baptized with water and the spirit as the Catholic Church teaches, this shows that a baptism with the Spirit as he does in his Church is all that is needed.
How would you respond to this?
(I did find this an interesting thought. It is interesting to me that we see the Apostles promoting baptism in the name of Jesus yet they never did this themselves?)

Thank you in advance!
Frances DS

"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18).

Jesus was explicit in his instruction to the apostles in Mat 28:18 - to baptize all in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

See also: Acts 19:1. " While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. 2 And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. 7 There were about twelve of them in all."

Here again the apostles make clear that John’s baptism of repentance was not enough and they were re: baptized in the name of Jesus after which they were baptized with the Holy Spirit.

The fact that there are not specific references to the apostles themselves being rebaptized builds the case further against sola scriptura - its implied by scripture by the above verses that “all” (including the apostles) would be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit - as was true for those previously baptized only in repentance.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Joe_Kelley]

What was the nature of the baptism that the disciples administered in John 4:1-2

1* Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

What was the nature of the baptism that the disciples administered in John 4:1-2

Quote:
1* Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

This may explain why Baptism is the only sacrament which can be given by anyone. You don’t even have to be Christian. It also explains the importance of individual involvement in this initiatory rite. Perhaps, if Jesus did the baptizing, some would argue that if it was performed by someone other than Our Lord, it would be invalid.

 

[NotWorthy]

What was the nature of the baptism that the disciples administered in John 4:1-2

No different than the Baptisms administered by John the Baptist, for the Holy Spirit hadn’t been poured out on the Apostles yet.

This was simply a Baptism of Repentance. Nothing more.

 

[NotWorthy]

Quote:
1* Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

This may explain why Baptism is the only sacrament which can be given by anyone. You don’t even have to be Christian. It also explains the importance of individual involvement in this initiatory rite. Perhaps, if Jesus did the baptizing, some would argue that if it was performed by someone other than Our Lord, it would be invalid.

I think it was simply to prevent confusion in the Early Church.

“Now, let’s see here… you were baptized BY JESUS, but it wasn’t a valid Baptism like the ones that are baptized IN THE NAME OF JESUS?!?”

 

[PJM]

=FrancesDS;6152670]In a discussion with a non-Catholic about baptism, I commented that we can see Jesus setting an example for us when he was baptized. But my friend brought up to me that, yes, Jesus was baptized with water but this was John the Baptist’s baptism. We discussed how while Jesus was alive, his followers would have received this same type of Baptism (one of repentance). In Acts 1:5 we see how Jesus tells the Apsotles that they had received baptism with water from John the Baptist but then tells them that soon they will receive the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost).

My Protestant friend was saying how since the Apostles were never baptized with water and the spirit as the Catholic Church teaches, this shows that a baptism with the Spirit as he does in his Church is all that is needed.

How would you respond to this?

(I did find this an interesting thought. It is interesting to me that we see the Apostles promoting baptism in the name of Jesus yet they never did this themselves?)

Thank you in advance!
Frances DS

“The baptism with the Holy Spirit is passed. It was fulfilled in the days of the New Testament. Jesus said to his apostles, “For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence”** (Acts 1:5).** Approximately ten days later on the day of Pentecost, the apostles “were all filled with the Holy Ghost and spake with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (Acts 2:4). Later in Acts 10:44, the Spirit also fell upon the household of Cornelius. Peter understood the falling of the Holy Spirit on the household of Cornelius and that of the apostles’ reception of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to be cases of baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44; 11:15-17). These are the only examples of baptism with the Holy Spirit found in the Bible.”

**Acts.1: 1-5 ** In the first book, O The-oph’ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God. And while staying with them he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

John 20: 19 "On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “**Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” **

Acts 2: 3-4 "And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. "

Sacred Tradition Holds that they were Baptized.

"Augustine says (Ep. cclxv), from our Lord’s words:

‘He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet’ (John 13:10), we gather that Peter and Christ’s other disciples had been baptized, either with John’s Baptism, as some think; or with Christ’s, which is more credible. For He did not refuse to administer Baptism, so as to have servants by whom to baptize others.

John 13:"6-11 "He came to Simon Peter; and Peter said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not know now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” **Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you.” **

[11] For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “You are not all clean.”

Quoted from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theologiae III, q. 72, a. 6, ad. 2)"

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[JoeT777]

The reason why Christ was baptized by John was to institute baptism as an entry to the Kingdom of God. The reason for The Twelve not to be baptized by Christ, but by John, was because they had already received a certain grace different from us. Being in the presence of Christ, you might say they were the Shewbread that feed His lambs. Ever wonder why Christ said this to Peter? It’s my opinion that Peter and the others were to feed them knowledge of a hope. We need to be shown the need for hope and understand the promise of hope before we can have hope. [Cf. “bread of the presence (of Yahweh)” (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) “holy bread” (1 Samuel 21:6), “bread of piles” (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), “continual bread” (Numbers 4:7), or simply “bread” (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23)] Not as the manna from heaven, but a different type of food, you might say our first grace, knowledge of Christ.

The reason for Christ’s baptism was to fulfill the Old Testament law and prophesy; as He said, *“I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law". *Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, it’s here we see the reasons for John’s indulgence. It’s here and during Christ’s passion where we see the doors to the Church open, the veil rent, and the Holy of Holies exposed to man. It’s here that The Twelve ‘loaves of proposition” are exposed to the Holy of Hollies.

In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) being described. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. * “And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses” *The bread was exposed to God, remaining there for about a week. Then in at the appropriate time, it was removed and used by the priests for substance.

Offering His self as the manna of life, Christ eclipsed the renewed baptism from merely renovating the Jew’s soul, transforming it to a Baptism of a rebirth in a new spirit as adopted sons of God.* “Not until then, assuredly, ‘were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach’. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” *(St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It’s in this verse of Matthew that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, *“he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." *(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism so that we will become the adopted sons of God in a personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas says that the *“role of The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): ‘What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?’ Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” * In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e., *“hope has no place in them.” *Conversely, given knowledge Christ gives us hope for a future vision of Christ.

JoeT

 

[panevino]

In a discussion with a non-Catholic about baptism, I commented that we can see Jesus setting an example for us when he was baptized. But my friend brought up to me that, yes, Jesus was baptized with water but this was John the Baptist’s baptism. We discussed how while Jesus was alive, his followers would have received this same type of Baptism (one of repentance). In Acts 1:5 we see how Jesus tells the Apsotles that they had received baptism with water from John the Baptist but then tells them that soon they will receive the Holy Spirit (at Pentecost).
My Protestant friend was saying how since the Apostles were never baptized with water and the spirit as the Catholic Church teaches, this shows that a baptism with the Spirit as he does in his Church is all that is needed.
How would you respond to this?
(I did find this an interesting thought. It is interesting to me that we see the Apostles promoting baptism in the name of Jesus yet they never did this themselves?)

Thank you in advance!
Frances DS

john 3:5kjv 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.

water in a christian baptism is shown below - and it is called baptised after they get out of the water.

acts 8:37-38 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

some early church writtings below…

“Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead [Ps. 1:3–6]. Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls” (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10 [A.D. 74]).

“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I [to the Shepherd], ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is’” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2 [A.D. 80]).

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]). Justin Martyr

 

[PJM]

=JoeT777;6186902]The reason why Christ was baptized by John was to institute baptism as an entry to the Kingdom of God. The reason for The Twelve not to be baptized by Christ, but by John, was because they had already received a certain grace different from us. Being in the presence of Christ, you might say they were the Shewbread that feed His lambs. Ever wonder why Christ said this to Peter? It’s my opinion that Peter and the others were to feed them knowledge of a hope. We need to be shown the need for hope and understand the promise of hope before we can have hope. [Cf. “bread of the presence (of Yahweh)” (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) “holy bread” (1 Samuel 21:6), “bread of piles” (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), “continual bread” (Numbers 4:7), or simply “bread” (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23)] Not as the manna from heaven, but a different type of food, you might say our first grace, knowledge of Christ.

The reason for Christ’s baptism was to fulfill the Old Testament law and prophesy; as He said, *“I have come not to destroy, but to fulfill the law". *Paraphrasing St. Chrysostom, it’s here we see the reasons for John’s indulgence. It’s here and during Christ’s passion where we see the doors to the Church open, the veil rent, and the Holy of Holies exposed to man. It’s here that The Twelve ‘loaves of proposition” are exposed to the Holy of Hollies.

In Exodus 40 we see the tabernacle (the residence of God) being described. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 (12 loaves) in the presence of God. * “And Moses did all that the Lord had commanded …And he set the table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses” *The bread was exposed to God, remaining there for about a week. Then in at the appropriate time, it was removed and used by the priests for substance.

Offering His self as the manna of life, Christ eclipsed the renewed baptism from merely renovating the Jew’s soul, transforming it to a Baptism of a rebirth in a new spirit as adopted sons of God.* “Not until then, assuredly, ‘were either the heavens opened, nor did the Spirit make His approach’. Because henceforth He leads us away from the old to the new polity, both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” *(St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It’s in this verse of Matthew that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, *“he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." *(Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism so that we will become the adopted sons of God in a personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas says that the *“role of The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): ‘What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?’ Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” * In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e., *“hope has no place in them.” *Conversely, given knowledge Christ gives us hope for a future vision of Christ.

JoeT

***JoeT, welcome to the FORUM:thumbsup:

Awesome 1st. post; however I’m curious about your source for Apolostolic Baptism by John the Baptist. Yes I know Andrew was aware of John.

Love and prayers,

Pat?***

 

[JoeT777]

***JoeT, welcome to the FORUM:thumbsup:

Awesome 1st. post; however I’m curious about your source for Apolostolic Baptism by John the Baptist. Yes I know Andrew was aware of John.

Love and prayers,

Pat?***

Thanks Pat, I can always us the compliment. I think you’ll understand why when I tell you that I just came from a long stay at a Protestant Forum - ugh.

I’m not sure I understand your question, Andrew who? St. John the Baptist or another John?

I have an old piece on at least two of these themes, Christ’s baptism, and the twelve loaves; I’ll need to look it up or reproduce it. I was writing my first post more or less as a test. Needing something interesting, I happened across this theme and realized that all three images were like vectors crossing at this single point, the baptism of the Church. There are probably dozens of thematic vectors that pass through this point, however these seem obscure while revealing a deep understanding of scriptrue tying the Old to the New. I rely mostly on biblical sources guided by the early doctors and saints (oh yeah, and a hint I heard during a homily from our pastor). If you can add or correct anything I’d be interested in hearing it.

Because there are really three themes I’m a bit confused as to which you’re addressing. If you’re asking about why I think Christ’s baptism was necessary, I think this came from St. John Chrysostom - I’ll look up the reference. As I recall there is a hint in the word ‘fire’ in psalms 29, Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7 or was it Isaiah 40:1-5, 9-11 relating to New Covenant baptism in relationship to Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 3:11, “I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire “. All of which leads us to the understanding that this was a pivotal point in Christ’s ministry where we see the- beginning-of- the-end of the Old Covenant and the beginning (or formation) of the New Covenant.

JoeT

 

[JoeT777]

I’ll start my support of the Baptism of the Apostles with my basic understanding of just what baptism is, how it came to be for Catholics (or the first Christians), and then how this seems to tie into the showbread of the Apostles. My position isn’t altogether orthodox, but I think it should fit well within her confines.

As I’m sure you’re aware, baptism wasn’t new, the Jews of Chrit’s day would have immediately connected the waters of baptism to “Mikvah” (MIK-vuh) the Jewish cleansing ritual “ A Liturgical gathering at a ritual bath used for spiritual purification. It is used primarily in conversion rituals and after the sexual separation during a woman’s menstrual cycles, but many Chasidim, a branch of Orthodox Judaism, immerse themselves in the mikvah regularly for general spiritual purification. See Mikvahand Mikveh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is one other Jewish ritual that has both spiritual and hygienic purposes not to mention a unique marking of the male body. To the Jew in Abraham’s time, Moses’ time and the Jew in Christ’s time it’s a physical mark of a spiritual connection with God. Brit milah was an obligation both for the father and for the child. Not only was the child to be circumcised on the eighth day of the child’s life, but failing to properly execute the ritual the father and child suffered a spiritual separation. The child would continue to suffer spiritual excision. It left both father and child (unable to enter the Kingdom of God to COME – one of the most server punishments in the Jewish culture, at least until as an adult the child could be circumcised. I’m told the ritual that accompanies the brit milah is a solemn occasion with prayers and blessings recited with the child receiving his Hebrew name. The Jew did not take circumcision lightly; it marked them spiritually and physically as a member of the Jewish community and a future member of the Kingdom of God. It joined their manhood to God. (Cf. If there is interest Judaism Judaism 101: Birth and the First Month of Life) Consequently, we can view baptism as another form of circumcision, a spiritual connection with Abraham, the Father of the Jews, with Moses, with David, with Christ, thereby becoming eligible to receive the Divinely promised salvation. The result isn’t a NEW religion, but rather an entrance, a door with a universall doormat, open to all, to the promised Kingdom of God to be presented by Christ to God.

To walk through the door of the Kingdom of God we are required to be baptized, there are no exceptions indicated in the verse – there is no “less and except” so to speak; there is no “figuratively” spoken clause. * unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. (John 3:5) * This isn’t the door to the building down the street where they took the corpus off the cross; this is the door to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Kingdom of God. Acts chapter 2, verse 38 speaks clearly of the remission of sins; in Acts 22:16 Be baptized, and wash away thy sins: in Acts 5:25 sqq. Because "Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water in the word of life: that he might present it to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.“ Not a spot or wrinkle, not actual sin or original sin. In baptism all sin is washed away to be made holy: an infusion of supernatural graces that renders the recipient an adopted son of God. This dosn’t require a bifurcation of man, body and soul may be divided for some short time, but will be eventually united in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Look into the very last chapter of Matthew. What’s said there? This Chapter tells us of Christ’s last few words before ascending to His Kingdom in Heaven. Christ warrants and commissions the Apostles with powers vested only in Him, “teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

Focus the entire story of Christ on the moment of His baptism, the spirit descends, the heavens open…; you know it as well as I do. This singular point in time is where we see the focal point of the beatitudes, communion, confession, His sermon on the mount, His healing miracles, and His very last words to the Twelve Princes of His Kingdom on Earth. What does he say – “have a nice day”? “It’s not really necessary but I want you to traipse around the county dunking people? “ OH! NO! He said, “baptize them in the NAME of the “Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” WHY!! Why would Christ say such a thing? Surly, you’ve got to see some importance here? Wouldn’t you think baptism is a little more than a ‘good thing’ given what he told Nicodemus (Cf. John 3:3)? Well I think I do, I think there is HOPE in those words, more than self sacrifice. I’m not taking away anything from Christ’s sacrifice when I say that I’ve seen Marines sacrifice themselves in a similar uncommon valor as the hanging of a sinless man on a tree. I’ve heard tell of men who gave their lives for their family. While uncommon in the history of man, it is not all together unheard of. So why did He expose His Glory to these Twelve? Could it be for sacrificial bread of hope? But which loaf?

I realize that I’m not a very good writer, so just in case you don’t know it, you’re supposed to be chomping at the bit for more. I’ll try to explain the significance of hope we have in THE TWELVE next time I write.

JoeT

 

[PJM]

=JoeT777;6189634]Thanks Pat, I can always us the compliment. I think you’ll understand why when I tell you that I just came from a long stay at a Protestant Forum - ugh.

I’m not sure I understand your question, Andrew who? St. John the Baptist or another John?

I have an old piece on at least two of these themes, Christ’s baptism, and the twelve loaves; I’ll need to look it up or reproduce it. I was writing my first post more or less as a test. Needing something interesting, I happened across this theme and realized that all three images were like vectors crossing at this single point, the baptism of the Church. There are probably dozens of thematic vectors that pass through this point, however these seem obscure while revealing a deep understanding of scriptrue tying the Old to the New. I rely mostly on biblical sources guided by the early doctors and saints (oh yeah, and a hint I heard during a homily from our pastor). If you can add or correct anything I’d be interested in hearing it.

Because there are really three themes I’m a bit confused as to which you’re addressing. If you’re asking about why I think Christ’s baptism was necessary, I think this came from St. John Chrysostom - I’ll look up the reference. As I recall there is a hint in the word ‘fire’ in psalms 29, Isaiah 42:1-4, 6-7 or was it Isaiah 40:1-5, 9-11 relating to New Covenant baptism in relationship to Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 3:11, “I indeed baptize you in water unto penance, but he that shall come after me, is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire “. All of which leads us to the understanding that this was a pivotal point in Christ’s ministry where we see the- beginning-of- the-end of the Old Covenant and the beginning (or formation) of the New Covenant.

JoeT

***Hi Joe,

I’m curious about your source for he Baptism of the Apostles by John The Baptist, and wether or not you think they were “baptized in the Spirit?” I’m OK with he Baptism of Christ.***

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[JoeT777]

***Hi Joe,

I’m curious about your source for he Baptism of the Apostles by John The Baptist, and whether or not you think they were “baptized in the Spirit?” I’m OK with he Baptism of Christ.***

Love and prayers,

Pat

Pat, et al;

I see now – little slow sometimes – maybe it’s the cold.

In my opinion the Baptism of the Apostles by John the Baptist was “not of the Spirit” – in the sense that a Protestant might ask. And it’s the “bread of the presence” that makes it so. I’ll explain later when I write about THE TWELVE, but there was both form and matter in their baptism. But first I need to establish a metaphoric connection between the Shewbread and the Apostles. I thought I did it in part in my first Post, I didn’t see it as being a unique idea – maybe different, but not unique.

I haven’t found any recognized source that alludes to the connection of the the Twelve and “bread of the presence of God” in connection to their baptism. I can’t say that I’ve looked for it, as I said it just came to me while trying to decide what to post. There are hints in some writings, I’ll need to look them up later; they hint at the “bread of the presence” and a connection to The Twelve (at least I recall a few). If I can find them they will be in the first and second century writings of the early Church Fathers. And of course there are those hints in Scripture that I’ve already alluded to. But, you’ve got to recall, that the move away from the Jewish culture took place within 50 to 100-years after the ascension, so we shouldn’t expect to see much.

JoeT

 

[PJM]

=JoeT777;6192067]Pat, et al;

I see now – little slow sometimes – maybe it’s the cold.

In my opinion the Baptism of the Apostles by John the Baptist was “not of the Spirit” – in the sense that a Protestant might ask. And it’s the “bread of the presence” that makes it so. I’ll explain later when I write about THE TWELVE, but there was both form and matter in their baptism. But first I need to establish a metaphoric connection between the Shewbread and the Apostles. I thought I did it in part in my first Post, I didn’t see it as being a unique idea – maybe different, but not unique.

I haven’t found any recognized source that alludes to the connection of the the Twelve and “bread of the presence of God” in connection to their baptism. I can’t say that I’ve looked for it, as I said it just came to me while trying to decide what to post. There are hints in some writings, I’ll need to look them up later; they hint at the “bread of the presence” and a connection to The Twelve (at least I recall a few). If I can find them they will be in the first and second century writings of the early Church Fathers. And of course there are those hints in Scripture that I’ve already alluded to. But, you’ve got to recall, that the move away from the Jewish culture took place within 50 to 100-years after the ascension, so we shouldn’t expect to see much.

JoeT

Hi Joe,

Now yo have realy piqued my interest. The Euccharit is my favorite topic

In fact I just completed ***Saint Jullian Emyard’s ***Book on The Eucharist, which I had read several times before, nd am now reading Saint Augstine’s The Eucharist

Joe I stil have not seen yor evidence that the Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist?

I have read [don’t recall where] that Sacred tradition holds that Christ Baptized Peter, who in turn Baptized Andrew, James and John, who in turn Baptized the other Apostles?

 

[JoeT777]

All:

This is not the post to show the significance of hope we have in THE TWELVE. It’s just a side note to help explain who or what THE TWELVE signify. Here is one example of how the objects called the ‘Bread of Proposition’ can increase the depth of scriptural understanding. I beleive this can be done with all the objects of Moses’ Temple.

My somewhat limited contact with people of the Jewish faith has led me to believe that they tend towards metaphors or allegories to convey deeper meaning than the surface script may signify. I think this was truer in antiquity than it is today. A simple example is the saying “there but by the grace of God go I.” This can be taken at least two different ways: negatively – that God made him that way because of some sin; positively - in the sense that Divine providence fell on me, instead of him thus God chooses me over him. I hope I didn’t get tongue tied and ge it backwards - but I think you get the idea.

With this in mind turn your attention to Luke 6:1-5 where on the Sabbath Christ and the Apostles picked the leftovers out of the fields, what we might call gleaning. I think the Jewish word is ‘Tzedakah.’ This is in part a charity, a custom in Judaism with emphases on the sustenance for life, you might say justice for the poor. The fields would be picked, usually not so clean along the borders, and then the poor would be allowed to pick the remaining corn for sustenance. Christ and the Apostles rubbed their hand against the corn to loosen it from the stem to release the grain into the palm – in short they worked on the Sabbath - not good, especially with a bunch of nosey Pharisees standing around. I’m not sure, but had they not rubbed their hands but ate strait off the stem it wouldn’t have been considered ‘work’. The Pharisees, a thing especially spiritually starving and spiritually poor, want to make a big deal out of this. In fact the scriptures on the whole paint a picture of all of Judaism being a spiritual desert, completely lacking in sustenance. So, Christ explains to the lunkheads that David did the same thing, “when himself [David] was hungry and they that were with him… went into the house of God and took and ate the **bread of proposition ** and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests.” Uh oh, Jesus is telling them that everybody should eat on the Sabbath, not just the Priests - this would be hard to digest. So, we should be allowed to work, right?

It’s true, these verses are most always used to show how it’s acceptable to work on the Sabbath. But, I’m not so sure that was the only intent here; there seems a much deeper meaning. Luke was a Jewish physician, its very likely there was another meaning under these verses. Christ was telling the Pharisees something that would get caught in the throat and spit out had it been said straight out. Could it be that Christ telling these bright prodigies of Abraham and David that they were the ones who were spiritually poor? It was the Pharisees (the Princes of Judaism) that needed sustenance and like David should “eat the bread of proposition” that stands in the presence of God (Jesus), who feeds the high priest the word of God - I love to point out Divine irony BUT all Twelve loaves were standing directly in front of them.

This wouldn’t have gone unnoticed by the Pharisees as it does with us and, at least in part, explains the high priests’ hatred for Christ. But, more importantly, it identifies who in the New Covenant signifies the bread of proposition.

JoeT

 

[PJM]

All:

This is not the post to show the significance of hope we have in THE TWELVE. It’s just a side note to help explain who or what THE TWELVE signify. Here is one example of how the objects called the ‘Bread of Proposition’ can increase the depth of scriptural understanding. I beleive this can be done with all the objects of Moses’ Temple.

My somewhat limited contact with people of the Jewish faith has led me to believe that they tend towards metaphors or allegories to convey deeper meaning than the surface script may signify. I think this was truer in antiquity than it is today. A simple example is the saying “there but by the grace of God go I.” This can be taken at least two different ways: negatively – that God made him that way because of some sin; positively - in the sense that Divine providence fell on me, instead of him thus God chooses me over him. I hope I didn’t get tongue tied and ge it backwards - but I think you get the idea.

With this in mind turn your attention to Luke 6:1-5 where on the Sabbath Christ and the Apostles picked the leftovers out of the fields, what we might call gleaning. I think the Jewish word is ‘Tzedakah.’ This is in part a charity, a custom in Judaism with emphases on the sustenance for life, you might say justice for the poor. The fields would be picked, usually not so clean along the borders, and then the poor would be allowed to pick the remaining corn for sustenance. Christ and the Apostles rubbed their hand against the corn to loosen it from the stem to release the grain into the palm – in short they worked on the Sabbath - not good, especially with a bunch of nosey Pharisees standing around. I’m not sure, but had they not rubbed their hands but ate strait off the stem it wouldn’t have been considered ‘work’. The Pharisees, a thing especially spiritually starving and spiritually poor, want to make a big deal out of this. In fact the scriptures on the whole paint a picture of all of Judaism being a spiritual desert, completely lacking in sustenance. So, Christ explains to the lunkheads that David did the same thing, “when himself [David] was hungry and they that were with him… went into the house of God and took and ate the **bread of proposition ** and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests.” Uh oh, Jesus is telling them that everybody should eat on the Sabbath, not just the Priests - this would be hard to digest. So, we should be allowed to work, right?

It’s true, these verses are most always used to show how it’s acceptable to work on the Sabbath. But, I’m not so sure that was the only intent here; there seems a much deeper meaning. Luke was a Jewish physician, its very likely there was another meaning under these verses. Christ was telling the Pharisees something that would get caught in the throat and spit out had it been said straight out. Could it be that Christ telling these bright prodigies of Abraham and David that they were the ones who were spiritually poor? It was the Pharisees (the Princes of Judaism) that needed sustenance and like David should “eat the bread of proposition” that stands in the presence of God (Jesus), who feeds the high priest the word of God - I love to point out Divine irony BUT all Twelve loaves were standing directly in front of them.

This wouldn’t have gone unnoticed by the Pharisees as it does with us and, at least in part, explains the high priests’ hatred for Christ. But, more importantly, it identifies who in the New Covenant signifies the bread of proposition.

JoeT

Well done Joe, and quite interesting:thumbsup:

 

[JoeT777]

Now you have really piqued my interest. The Eucharist is my favorite topics. In fact I just completed ***Saint Jullian Emyard’s ***Book on The Eucharist, which I had read several times before, nd am now reading Saint Augustine’s The Eucharist

I haven’t read Saint Peter Julian Eymard. But one of my favorites is ST. Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John, Tractate 25, 26 and 27.

For my flesh, says He, is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. For while by meat and drink men seek to attain to this, neither to hunger nor thirst, there is nothing that truly affords this, except this meat and drink, which does render them by whom it is taken immortal and incorruptible; that is, the very fellowship of the saints, where will be peace and unity, full and perfect. Therefore, indeed, it is, even as men of God understood this before us, that our Lord Jesus Christ has pointed our minds to His body and blood in those things, which from being many are reduced to some one thing. For a unity is formed by many grains forming together; and another unity is effected by the clustering together of many berries. St. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John Tractate 26, 17

Joe I still have not seen your evidence that the Apostles were baptized by John the Baptist?

I’ve got’a work sometime. I’m building up the suspense - well ok, I’m slow at typing. I’m getting to it soon.

Here’s a big hint. Any Sacrament takes both matter and form. The matter can be ‘Proximate, i.e.to immerse, to ‘laver or ‘Remote’ that is since baptism means to wash, or laver, then water is remote to that process. (I haven’t got a clue what happens to the soap! Must’ve been an odoriferous crowd.) The form is “I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” (Cf. Matt 28). After these things are done certain permanent and efficacious graces are granted, and too, the person baptized becomes a member of the Church. You might say a ‘door is opened’. Most important, all sins are forgiven, made sinless; at least until concupiscence takes a hold. Isn’t being made sinless to be made holy? Do you know anybody sitting in the presence of God that can withstand the Glory of God, that can sit in His presence and not be holy? From this you might be able to see where I’m heading.

I have read [don’t recall where] that Sacred tradition holds that Christ Baptized Peter, who in turn Baptized Andrew, James and John, who in turn Baptized the other Apostles?

I think I’ve heard of the this tradition (small ‘t’) but I don’t think it ranks up there with ‘Sacred’ Tradition (that with a Capital T) But, I could be wrong.

JoeT

 

[JoeT777]

My opinion isn’t widely held view and I’m still working on the syllogism so no doubt there’s work yet to be done. I’ll offer it up here to see how well it is received. I feel that the Jew in the day of Christ would have understood the symbolism. I hold that the Apostles were the “loaves of proposition.” Unlike the Leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, these twelve were the only loaves that the Son of David, The Messiah, found within his temple. (Cf. 1 Sam 21:6). Recall that David went to the high priest Achimelech for bread. The only bread was the “proposition loaves.” These loves were unleavened, uncommon bread; the holy bread to be consumed for subsistence only by the high priests.

In the way of a reminder we find this unique offering in Moses’ Temple; the “bread of the presence (of Yahweh)” (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.), also called “holy bread” (1 Samuel 21:6), “bread of piles” (1 Chronicles 9:32; 23:29), “continual bread” (Numbers 4:7), or simply “bread” (Hebrew Version, Exodus 11:23). ’ártoi tês prothéseos, “loaves of the setting forth” (Exodus 35:13; 39:35, etc.) which the Latin Vulgate also adopts in its uniform translation panes propositionis, whence the English expression “loaves of proposition”, as found in the Douay and Reims versions (Exodus 35:13, etc.; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4). The Protestant versions have “shewbread” which literally means ‘bread of the face’ and is used by Josephus the historian to describe the loaves. The loaves of bread spoken of here formed an important sacrificial offering prescribed by the Mosaic Law. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Loaves of Proposition

Like many, when I first considered the Shewbread I thought it prefigured the Eucharist. But, this conflicted with scriptue where, for example, Christ said in John 6:55 “For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed.” And in Paul’s letter to the Hebrews where he speaks of a flesh sacrifice with blood. Old Testament sacrifices were of two forms, real and spiritual. The spiritual were the offering of prayers, and the like, as a form of sacrifice. The real was animal sacrifice of meat. I’m told that most always the more efficient was taken to be the animal sacrifice; therefore Old Testament writers distinguished the two by with the reference to the adjoining blood sacrifice. Consequently, we can see that Christ was referring to a real sacrifice on Passover to be made first born (the New Adam and High Priest) of Him as ‘meat’ and blood. Elsewhere, we are told that He is the perfect sacrificial lamb. While every Protestant that ever protested would definitely protest, this is what Catholics believe. The conflict with the 12 loaves should be obvious, bread is bread and meat is meat. Christ would be prefigured as the sacrificial lamb in the Temple of Moses. Thus we can scratch at least one object off of the list of items in Moses’ Tent; Christ is the perfect sacrificial lamb seen in the Tabernacle.

Examining Exodus 40 we see the Tabernacle (the residence of God on earth) was established for the first time. A veil or curtain separates the ark from the priests. Loaves of bread were stacked on a table in front of the curtain in two stacks of 6 for a total of 12 loaves in the presence of God (Cf. Lev. 24:8). Each loaf “shall take also fine flour …two tenths [of an ephah] shall be in every loaf.” (Lev 24:5-6). An ‘ephah’ is approximately equal to a 10-gallon dry measure bushel. Each loaf was made with 2-gallons of sifted flour which of course excluded all the tars – the purest of breads. The bread was unleavened and oven backed; it’s my understanding that the baking occurred in special ovens. Then each loaf was sprinkled with pure frankincense. The loaves were placed on a “table in the tabernacle of the testimony, at the north side, without the veil, Setting there in order the loaves of proposition, as the Lord had commanded Moses” (Cf. Ex. 40:20,21). The 2 rows of bread were a “memorial of the oblation of the Lord.” (Cf. Lev 24:7). Each Sabbath the bread was removed and replenished with twelve new loaves. Aaron and his priests (only those spiritually clean – presumably through the spiritual purification Mikvah) eat the loaves which made them spiritually pure to teach the God’s Law, God’s Word. Likewise, the twelve Apostles were the loaves “in the presence of God,” exposed to the Logos. These men became the holiest of sacrifices in New Covenant; bread made of sieved wheat with the absence of tars, pure and spiritually purified as a teaching memorial of Christ’s perfect sacrifice.

If we hold that Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament then each and everything he did should be related to the temple. So, we see the 12 Apostles “in the presence of God;” the holiest of sacrifices in the temple; bread made of wheat sieved multiple times, i.e. separation of wheat and tars, priests on the order of Aaron. Holding the bread Christ said “this is my body,” the twelve holy loves were present – facing God, “face bread.” In Matthew is the appearance of the loaves first time (the Apostles) in the presence of God who unveils Himself; “who do you say that I am.” These loaves were to be consumed by the people each and every time they preached; they nourish the faithful with the knowledge of the real flesh and blood of Christ. At the end of their time on earth new freshly baked loaves replace them, the succession of their office.

It’s my opinion this adds a new dimension to standing before the tabernacle at church. When we partake of the “real presence,” the body, soul and Divinity of Christ, we are participating in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant; hope revealed to us by the Apostles.

JoeT