Were the apostles ever baptized in Jesus' name?

[MawMaw]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Yep, they all were! You say "no", I say "Yes".

Because the Bible is silent on that particular matter, and, because Mark 16 links Baptism to salvation, then I have to say "YES".

Furthermore, all the Apostle, excluding Judas, were there in Acts 2 when Pete preached and supported him in his preaching of Acts 2:38.

The preponderance of evidence will support the saying of "YES" to the question asked.

Jesus was baptized under John's ministry so it goes to say that he was baptized unto John's baptism. Jesus was not baptized for remission of sins but was beng Baptized for:

1- Example
2- The washing into the office of the Priest

I agree with you.

[snicker1986]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Was Jesus baptized in Jesus' Name?

My children atteneded a vacation bible school a number of years ago, where a skit portraying the life of John the baptist was performed. The pastor was playing John the Baptist, and a young man portrayed Jesus in the scene where Jesus comes for baptism.

The pastor took the "Jesus" into an imaginary river, pretended to put him down, and said (without thinking ahead), "Jesus, I baptize you in the name of.... (and here he got flustered for a moment).....YOU!"

Even funnier...it was at a trinitarien church!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Yes, but pel's post you quoted quite nailed what I have been trying to say. No matter what all we have is speculation.

Now I also want to say this, baptism in Jesus' name is supposed to be at the very least a symbolic act related to Christ's death, burial and resurrection (or just one of these things if you prefer, it doesn't matter for the point I am about to make). At the most it's supposed to actually be when Christ's blood is applied to our lives.

You want to say it doesn't make sense that Jesus didn't baptize them. But I say that it doesn't make sense that they could have been baptized into a Christian baptism before Christ's death because of either the symbolism or actual application of the blood that baptism is supposed to serve. I say that it makes just as little sense to think that anyones baptism could have been the same before Christs death. If it was then there would have been either no symbolism or no application of the blood for those baptisms before his death, and thus the ones after wouldn't be about those things either. Therefore it seems that any baptism which happened before Christs death is in fact a much different kind than what the apostles baptized people into in the book of Acts

In my posts I said this is my opinion.

BTW What is a Christian baptism? The bible makes it clear that the Apostles were baptizing and it was not John's baptism but Jesus's baptism.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Right it is my opinion. But the point is they were disciples. WHose? John. Baptism is part of the act of making disciples (See Mat 28:19) and so when they heard they were to believe on Jesus they were baptized in Jesus name.

If the 12 were students of the master, I am assuming they too were baptized by the master and commissioned therefor to do the same.

Yes Jesus did not do the baptizing...again who did? The disciples. It makes sense that Jesus baptized them first as part of making them disciples and the disciples then baptized everyone else. The context in which this verse appears does not necessarily mean no other time before that did he also not baptize.

Well, the Bible clearly does state that John the Baptist spent a lot of time getting people wet. Add this fact to the fact that most, if not all of the Twelve were already long time followers of John, and we then don't have to "surmise" about baptisms that simply are never described as having ever taken place. We have a sufficient number of baptisms clearly mentioned in Scripture to see that the Twelve had the remission of sins, a revelation of Who Jesus is, and "the Promise of the Father" (the Holy Ghost).

The disciples of John in Ephesus including Apollos (many years later Acts 18 and Acts 19) had to be rebaptized because they were not around when Jesus came to John in the Jordan and thus never had the Savior pointed out to them nor had they even heard of the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:2).

The apostles were there (John 1:29-51). Thus, they had (1) The remission of sins via John's baptism, (2) A revelation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and their need to follow Him, (3) The promise of the Father which was to be given after Jesus was glorified - the Holy Ghost.

I guess they became "Three Steppers" right there on the banks of the Jordan that day.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Yes, but pel's post you quoted quite nailed what I have been trying to say. No matter what all we have is speculation.

Now I also want to say this, baptism in Jesus' name is supposed to be at the very least a symbolic act related to Christ's death, burial and resurrection (or just one of these things if you prefer, it doesn't matter for the point I am about to make). At the most it's supposed to actually be when Christ's blood is applied to our lives.

You want to say it doesn't make sense that Jesus didn't baptize them. But I say that it doesn't make sense that they could have been baptized into a Christian baptism before Christ's death because of either the symbolism or actual application of the blood that baptism is supposed to serve. I say that it makes just as little sense to think that anyones baptism could have been the same before Christs death. If it was then there would have been either no symbolism or no application of the blood for those baptisms before his death, and thus the ones after wouldn't be about those things either. Therefore it seems that any baptism which happened before Christs death is in fact a much different kind than what the apostles baptized people into in the book of Acts

Abraham was counted righteous and an inheritor of God's covenants and blessings even before he was circumcised. It is not necessary to "wait" for the shedding of the Savior's blood to see the application of the New Testament in the lives of the apostles and First Century disciples.

Old Testament circumcision was the blood that "sealed the deal" or established the covalent in those times (Genesis 17:10-14). The blood of Jesus Christ is the blood that "seals the deal" or establishes the New Testament covalent (Matthew 26:28).

This is only a condition of Dispensationalism and a dispy mindset.

1). Abraham believes God and it is accounted unto him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).

2). Abraham receives "the Promise of the Father" - the promised blessing of land and the promise of offspring and a nation springing fro his loins.

3). Genesis 17:23-27, the "deal" is sealed with the shedding of blood (circumcision).

Notice, Abraham had the promises and righteousness itself was imputed upon him based simply upon his faith in God and God's determination to bring it all to pass (Romans 4:17 and its context).

John's baptism was "for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77-79, Luke 3:3).

This is the identical phrasing as we see in Acts 2:38 - "for (eis) the remission of sins..."

Whatever you want "for" (Greek "eis") to mean in Acts 2:38, it means the same exact thing in Mark 1:4 and all of the rest.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Brother David

Well, the Bible clearly does state that John the Baptist spent a lot of time getting people wet. Add this fact to the fact that most, if not all of the Twelve were already long time followers of John, and we then don't have to "surmise" about baptisms that simply are never described as having ever taken place. We have a sufficient number of baptisms clearly mentioned in Scripture to see that the Twelve had the remission of sins, a revelation of Who Jesus is, and "the Promise of the Father" (the Holy Ghost).

The disciples of John in Ephesus including Apollos (many years later Acts 18 and Acts 19) had to be rebaptized because they were not around when Jesus came to John in the Jordan and thus never had the Savior pointed out to them nor had they even heard of the Holy Ghost (Acts 19:2).

The apostles were there (John 1:29-51). Thus, they had (1) The remission of sins via John's baptism, (2) A revelation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ and their need to follow Him, (3) The promise of the Father which was to be given after Jesus was glorified - the Holy Ghost.

I guess they became "Three Steppers" right there on the banks of the Jordan that day.

Baptism was part of the process of making people disciples.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 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,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Baptism was part of the process of making people disciples.

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Mat 28:19 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,
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

Then Jesus was John's disciple.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Then Jesus was John's disciple.

that may not necessarily be the case.

First of all baptism is connected with discipleship, I can prove that.

So a disciple WILL be baptized.
But being baptized does not necessarily mean one is a disciple.

However in the case of Jesus the reason he was baptized was not to become John's disciple but to fulfill all righteousness.

[robogreg_2000]

You are 100% correct !!!!!