Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
You shall not make to yourselves any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow yourself down to them, nor serve them. For I YHVH your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons to the third and fourth generation of those that hate me, and showing mercy to thousands of those that love Me and keep My commandments.
--Exodus 20:4-6
That was (and is) in fact the claim of the rabbis, who state that their traditions were passed down in an unbroken line direct from the mouth of Moses at Sinai, so you merely cement my point.
But what did Yeshua (Jesus) say about traditions that annul the Word of God?
Uh oh. A religious cartoon. You're gong to start a riot.
Have a nice dinner, and God bless.
Prayer of intercession. Learn what you're talking about before making wild accusations.
Ignorance...so sad to see you display that.
Does the Bible Explicitly Mandate Immersion Baptism?
No. Nowhere does the Bible specifically say that one must be baptized by full immersion. The only Scriptural mandates about the form of baptism are that baptism with Water is necessary, and that baptism is to be conferred in the Triune name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Interestingly, when the Lord gave the apostles specific instructions on how to perform baptisms (Matt. 28:19), He said nothing at all about the necessity of full immersion versus pouring or sprinkling. Obviously, then, the question of immersion versus infusion is an optional and relatively unimportant matter to the Lord.
Now we shall ask ourselves if the Baptist arguments for immersion baptism are founded on faulty inferences alone, or are they based on explicit proof-texts?
But Doesn't the Word 'Baptizo' Always Mean "to Immerse"?
Baptists claim that the only meaning of the word 'baptizo' in the original langauge is "to immerse" (e.g., the Southern Baptist tract "Baptizing them in the Name," Nashville, LifeWay Press, 1999). This is simply untrue.
According to the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon of Greek, the verb 'baptizo' can mean, "to immerse," but it can just as readily mean, "to dip," or even "to draw wine by dipping a cup in the bowl". One who is baptized, in the passive sense of the verb, can be drowned, drunk with wine, deeply in debt, or just in trouble. In Biblical Greek, the verb 'baptizo' can mean "to purify by washing," as when Naaman, at Elisha's direction, "went down and washed ['ebaptisato'] himself seven times in the Jordan" (2 Kgs. 5:14 [Reg. IV 5:14], Septuagint Greek Old Testament). It can also signify a ritual cleansing of eating and cooking utensils (Mark 7:4, 'baptismous'), and other ritual washings established under the Old Covenant (see Hebrews 9:10, 'baptismois').
Most significantly, however, we have in the New Testament a crystal clear use of the verb 'baptizo' in a context that signifies only a partial washing of the body, as opposed to full immersion. In Luke 11:38 the verb 'baptizo' refers to a ritual washing of one's hands before eating: Jesus went to dine with a Pharisee and "the Pharisee was astonished to see that he had not first washed ['ebaptisthe'] before dinner." With this Biblical proof-text as our guide, we can readily see that in the New Testament the verb 'baptizo' signifies a ritual cleansing without any necessary reference to the idea of full immersion.
For all I know, they're Messianic Brethren.
For all I know, they're Messianic Brethren.
You haven't even begun to master the subject you attempt to tackle here. For starters, you complain that, when the Greek Scriptures were translated into the Latin Vulgate, it was a version "which common men could not read for themselves. So men had to rely soley upon the priest to interpret the scriptures for them, which is by the way against the word itself." You do not seem to be aware of the fact that "Vulgate" Latin IS the common-man version of that language. To the extent that common men could read at all, it was a *help*, not a hindrance, to every man in the western Roman EMpire that the Scriptures were so translated. To the extent that many common people were illiterate, yes, the priest DID have to read the Scriptures to them, but there was no "translation" necessary here, as the words were in the plain language of the people in the west, whom St. Jerome had in mind when he undertook the translation project in the first place.
Second, speaking of St. Jerome, your post seems to conflate his efforts with the rise of Constantine and the legitimation of Christianity in the Roman Empire. This is incorrect. St. Jerome translated the Vulgate between 380 and 405 AD. Constantine's Edict of Milan, legalizing Christianity, was promulgated in 313, well before St. Jerome was even born.
Third, the Jews did NOT canonize the Old Testament Scriptures until their Counci of Jamnia (sometimes written Javneh) in the 90's AD. This is not only NOT "long before the Catholic Church existed" as you say, but, indeed, the Council was held in large measure to counter early Christian (Catholic) claims about Scripture and salvation history. To the extent that this council was not convened until 60 years after the birth of the Church at Pentecost, and 20 years after the destruction of the Temple and the sacrificial priesthood of the Jews, one wonders why any Christian - Catholic or otherwise - would invest it with any kind of authority, as the Apostles and their successors had superseded Jewish authority long since. That the early Protestants retroactively invested this council with such legitimacy *precisely* to justify their alteration of the settled Christian OT and NT canon is most telling.
Meantime, the early Church had already settled on the Alexandrian version of the Old Testament in Greek by the early second century (at the latest), and had also largely settled on the New Testament canon by that century's end, when canonical NT writings had circulated well throughout the Church. From 382 to 419, various regional councils in the Church promulgated the New Testament canon we both share, as well as the 46-book Old Testament canon Catholics still embrace. The 39-book OT canon you have is only justified by the Council of Jamnia's decisions, already noted, whose pronouncements are of no notice to Christians, as that Council no longer had authority. Indeed, if consistency were to reign here, you would, on the basis of that Council's decisions, jettison the ENTIRE New Testament, as it specifically rejected all the books cntained therein!
On another recent post, you frankly admitted that you are largely self-taught in the Christian faith. Nothing wrong with that! But the sources you have used on which to base your learning are highly deficient, even in the basics. I urge you to dig deeper.
Correction: The Original Canon of Scripture was in Latin & Greek, which WAS the language of the common people. (350AD or so) You are thinking in terms of the Middle Ages. Your lack of Church History is not good.
Suuuuuure they are.
Holy Tradition = Writings of the Holy Apostles + Oral Teachings + Teachings of the Venerable Fathers of the Church = THE HOLY BIBLE.
One cannot have God as his Father, who does not have the Holy Catholic Church, as his Mother.
St. Cyprian of Carthage
The Bible says not to bow down to statues. Catholics bow down to statues. What has the type of prayer to do with it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.