Aquila, please do not take this as an argument. I am not arguing. I agree that there is a lot we don't know about the origins of Christianity.
As far as John baptizing in Jordan, Matthew 3:5-6 says that people "were baptized of him IN Jordan, confessing their sins.
As far as the two Messiah thing, there was a belief among Jews that there could be two Messiahs. This was based on two different sets of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. One was identified as Messiah ben Yosef, who would be the suffering Messiah and would be martyred. The other would be Messiah ben David, who would rule from David's throne. We see a hint that John may have believed that or may have considered it in Matthew 11:1-3 when he sent disciples to ask Jesus if He was the One to come or if they should look for another.
As far as I know there is nothing in writing available to tie John the Baptist with the Essene community. From what I understand they were a separatist group who looked down on the established priesthood system in Jerusalem and who were looking for Messiah and His kingdom. Luke 1:80 speaks of John being in the wilderness from some time in his early life until his shewing/manifestation unto Israel. We don't find anything in the Scriptures about his teaching or ministering in the Temple. Instead, he seems to be separate from it.
As far as I know we don't really know how the Jewish mikveh started nor do we really know where John got his idea to baptize people or why Jesus continued the practice. We ASSUME it was the mikveh and Gentile convert thing. Since John practiced it, then Jesus continued it, it just seems to have been carried over into the church as a Jewish practice.
Yes, I can see the symbolism of Jesus being washed/sprinkled by a priest to release Him into the priesthood. And, in Matthew 21:23-27 when Jesus was questioned as to where He got His authority to minister He seems to tie it in with John's baptism.
Your speaking of sprinkling or pouring as water baptism may shake some people up here. We are just so used to insisting on immersion --even complete immersion to the point of rebaptizing someone if a body part is not completely covered the first time. That has become a Pentecostal tradition and insisted on by most Pentecostal groups. My reason for quoting the Didache/Limuda (which some consider only tradition and some consider Scripture) was just to show that possibly even in the days of the Apostles, three fold immersion or pouring were both in use and the traditional FS&HG formula (gasp, shudder) was referenced.
I'm not being contentious or trying to debate. I admit there is a lot we don't know for sure.
__________________
Sam also known as Jim Ellis
Apostolic in doctrine
Pentecostal in experience
Charismatic in practice
Non-denominational in affiliation
Inter-denominational in fellowship
__________________
People who are always looking for fault,can find it easily all they have to do,is look into their mirror.
There they can find plenty of fault.
__________________
People who are always looking for fault,can find it easily all they have to do,is look into their mirror.
There they can find plenty of fault.
__________________
People who are always looking for fault,can find it easily all they have to do,is look into their mirror.
There they can find plenty of fault.
I've excerpted just the baptismal objective and actions from Mat 3:13-16Jesus came to John to be baptized by him, not by Himself. When Jesus was baptized, He came up from the water. Two things: (2) it would seem someone else did the baptizing, aka, the candidate (Jesus) was baptized by John.
Yes, Jesus was baptized by John.
Quote:
(1) it would seem one has to go down into the water, in order to come up from it,
I think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. Jesus may have simply waded out into the water about ankle or waist deep, allowing John pour water over him. Then Jesus simply, "came up from the water", meaning he walked out, up onto dry ground.
And then there are myriads of ancient catacomb paintings dating back to the first century depicting baptism by pouring...
I too think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. The simple sense of that verse would be that Jesus went down into the water, hence came up from it, as opposed to conjecturing what he "may have" done.
As to history:
Perhaps you've read myriad regurgitations of the 1955 Time Magazine account of a baptism around 100 A.D. of Publius Decius. A web page on History of Baptism recites it, and a few years ago it was discussed on FCF (I'm quite sure it was before NFCF).
Quote:
"The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius stepped through the baptistry door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus Vasca the woodseller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him. ‘Credis?’ he asked. ‘Credo,’ responded Publius. ‘I believe that my salvation comes from Jesus the Christ, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I died that with Him I may have Eternal Life.’ Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus’ voice in his ear ---- ‘I baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus’ ---- as the cold water closed over him."
Since all websites quote each other, repetition does not necessarily substantiate.
But, fortunately I found and purchased a December 5, 1955 issue of Time Magazine off Ebay. This was part of an article on Protestant Revivalism.
I too think we need to be careful not to read too much into this statement. The simple sense of that verse would be that Jesus went down into the water, hence came up from it, as opposed to conjecturing what he "may have" done.
As to history:
Perhaps you've read myriad regurgitations of the 1955 Time Magazine account of a baptism around 100 A.D. of Publius Decius. A web page on History of Baptism recites it, and a few years ago it was discussed on FCF (I'm quite sure it was before NFCF).
Since all websites quote each other, repetition does not necessarily substantiate.
But, fortunately I found and purchased a December 5, 1955 issue of Time Magazine off Ebay. This was part of an article on Protestant Revivalism.
My friend forget it anyone who would attempt to defend sprinkling it is not worth the energy and time. But it does prove one error embraces another. Maybe we should say will the last Apostolic posting bring your Bible?
Aquila, please do not take this as an argument. I am not arguing. I agree that there is a lot we don't know about the origins of Christianity.
I agree. And I fully understand your spirit. I'm enjoying the conversation and I too am only wishing to share what I think. No arguing here bro. I love ya.
Quote:
As far as John baptizing in Jordan, Matthew 3:5-6 says that people "were baptized of him IN Jordan, confessing their sins.
It appears that they went to Jordan to be baptized of John because he baptized in the river Jordan...
Mark 1:5
And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.
Quote:
As far as the two Messiah thing, there was a belief among Jews that there could be two Messiahs. This was based on two different sets of prophecies concerning the coming Messiah. One was identified as Messiah ben Yosef, who would be the suffering Messiah and would be martyred. The other would be Messiah ben David, who would rule from David's throne. We see a hint that John may have believed that or may have considered it in Matthew 11:1-3 when he sent disciples to ask Jesus if He was the One to come or if they should look for another.
I don't see John's words reflecting that idea. John is recorded as having sent the question,
Matthew 11:3
And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
It appears that John knew that there would be one Messiah, because he asked if Jesus was "he" that should come. Not "one of them who should come." Certainly John's words, "or do we look for another", indicates that if Jesus wasn't "the one" they'd look for another individual. I don't see a hint that John may have believed in two Messiah's here.
Quote:
As far as I know there is nothing in writing available to tie John the Baptist with the Essene community. From what I understand they were a separatist group who looked down on the established priesthood system in Jerusalem and who were looking for Messiah and His kingdom. Luke 1:80 speaks of John being in the wilderness from some time in his early life until his shewing/manifestation unto Israel. We don't find anything in the Scriptures about his teaching or ministering in the Temple. Instead, he seems to be separate from it.
Yes, back in that day there were many separatist groups because of the Jewish authority's alignment with their Roman conquerors.
The Essenes were very communal. John appears to be a solitary recluse. The Essenes believed in many things that we would recoil at today. In their mysticism there are strong Gnostic influences, a demand for celibacy, belief in two Messiahs, etc. While we agree that John clearly rejected the Temple system and opted for the wilderness, I don't see anything connecting him to the Essenes. The Scriptures directly connect John's heritage to the priesthood. And we can assume that John was raised in and around the Temple, educated in the Temple, and prepared for priesthood. That would mean that John was well accustomed with the Law's requirements of sprinkling and pouring. John may have viewed the unbiblical mikveh tradition with contempt if he was a lover of God's Law.
Quote:
As far as I know we don't really know how the Jewish mikveh started nor do we really know where John got his idea to baptize people or why Jesus continued the practice. We ASSUME it was the mikveh and Gentile convert thing. Since John practiced it, then Jesus continued it, it just seems to have been carried over into the church as a Jewish practice.
I was told by a very knowledgeable Jewish man that the mikveh as we know it began under Ezra. Jewish literature appears to connect it to the cleansing rituals of the Tabernacle and the Temple, however the Law itself requires sprinkling and pouring, no where does it demand immersion. So the mikveh is a tradition of man.
Quote:
Yes, I can see the symbolism of Jesus being washed/sprinkled by a priest to release Him into the priesthood. And, in Matthew 21:23-27 when Jesus was questioned as to where He got His authority to minister He seems to tie it in with John's baptism.
It's very interesting when one thinks about it.
Nobody's ever answered my question. If John was performing a mikveh - a Jewish tradition not found in Scripture - how was John and Jesus "fulfilling all righteousness"??? Clearly Jesus was fulfilling something in the Law. At thirty years of age the only thing that stands out is the consecration of the priests.
Quote:
Your speaking of sprinkling or pouring as water baptism may shake some people up here. We are just so used to insisting on immersion --even complete immersion to the point of rebaptizing someone if a body part is not completely covered the first time. That has become a Pentecostal tradition and insisted on by most Pentecostal groups. My reason for quoting the Didache/Limuda (which some consider only tradition and some consider Scripture) was just to show that possibly even in the days of the Apostles, three fold immersion or pouring were both in use and the traditional FS&HG formula (gasp, shudder) was referenced.
I understand. I find it refreshing that at least you admit that this is an entrenched tradition, that mikveh isn't necessarily biblical, and that sprinkling and pouring were both in use in the days of the Apostles.
Quote:
I'm not being contentious or trying to debate. I admit there is a lot we don't know for sure.
That's cool Bro. Sam, I'm just enjoying the discussion.
Linear Mode
