Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; wmfights; xzins; MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; D-fendr; betty boop
I don't know how this thing works, but it appears that you've been doing some picking and choosing within a much larger arena

Not really. The Crosswalk Greek lexicon also lists baptizo as immerse repeatedly. The issue was not various Bibles but the definition of the word. Clearly, the early Church, which used the same language in which the NT was written,  took it to mean more than once, as the 1st century Didache testifies. And that same early church, when the Apostles still walked the earth baptizes by triple immersion. I think I will stick with the Apostolic Church and its practice.

In fact, as a Baptist, I do not even scream bloody murder at triple dunking. I wouldn't say "that counts as three baptisms, so it's no good", or something like that

Based on what rule? One dip contrary to the meaning of the word?

BTW, as of this post, you haven't addressed the problem that you have explaining away Matt. 3:16

There is nothing in that verse that says He was immersed only once. The word "baptize," by the way, doesn't exist in the Old Testament, so we have to go with Greek meaning. BTW, Christ's own baptism is pointless, since He had nothing to repent of. So, in a way it was an empty ritual. The suggestion that the HS descended on Christ at that moment also makes no sense, given that He was never without the Holy Spirit.

I just want you to think of all the posts of mine that you have previously summarily dismissed because I was "rationalizing", or some such. And then, I'd like you to read the above two paragraphs and tell yourself that they are nothing like that

Sure. Given the dilemma posed by the meaning of the word baptizo the Church looked for a meaningful number of immersions. Or perhaps number three is what the Church was told and it was one of those other things that the Apostles knew and never wrote about it because it had to do with worship. The NT does not tell us how to worship, yet the early Church, along with the Apostles, did worship liturgically, based on Hebrew worship. Since they were all Jews, all practically all, there was no need to specifically write about the liturgical way of worship which was known to all.

Either way, the only meaningful number in the equation is three. The rest would be rationalizations.

5,255 posted on 09/03/2007 8:21:45 AM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5245 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50; wmfights; xzins; MarkBsnr; Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; D-fendr; betty boop; HarleyD; ...
The Crosswalk Greek lexicon also lists baptizo as immerse repeatedly. The issue was not various Bibles but the definition of the word. Clearly, the early Church, which used the same language in which the NT was written, took it to mean more than once, as the 1st century Didache testifies. And that same early church, when the Apostles still walked the earth baptizes by triple immersion. I think I will stick with the Apostolic Church and its practice.

We can disagree on Crosswalk vs. Strong's for multiple vs. once, but the Church practice you speak of includes the NON-IMMERSION form of pouring. You and I both know that pouring does even come close to immersion. Immersion is a total covering. Even in the "bapto"-"baptizmo" distinction, both are covered completely. If you want to hang your hat on the EXACT meaning of the Greek word (which is good), then intellectually, you have to throw out pouring. If 99% of the baptisms are of infants, then no Apostolic Church can look me in the eye and say "Well, we just didn't have a container big enough to hold an infant". :)

FK: "In fact, as a Baptist, I do not even scream bloody murder at triple dunking. I wouldn't say "that counts as three baptisms, so it's no good", or something like that."

Based on what rule? One dip contrary to the meaning of the word?

Based on that the Bible is not explicit on the number of dunks. The texts indicates one dunk, but it is not said openly. Earlier, you were talking about what would make the most sense symbolically. One dunk would be symbolic of one death. We were buried with Christ ONCE, not three times. We rose with Christ ONCE, not three times. That's what Paul talks about specifically.

BTW, Christ's own baptism is pointless, since He had nothing to repent of. So, in a way it was an empty ritual.

Christ's baptism was only pointless if water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. My side holds that Christ's baptism was not pointless. John the Baptist had the same concern as you, and Jesus answered him:

Matt 3:15 : Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

Jesus certainly did not think His own baptism was pointless.

The suggestion that the HS descended on Christ at that moment also makes no sense, given that He was never without the Holy Spirit.

The point of that was to PUBLICLY identify Himself with both the Spirit and the Father. All Three were PUBLICLY present at that scene.

5,432 posted on 09/05/2007 2:57:57 AM PDT by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5255 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson