Question about Acts 2:38: What about the martyrs?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Please consider this:

I was already aware that Jews understood proselyte conversion (via mikva) was a "new birth" or "born again" experience. Thus Nicodemus couldn't grasp what Jesus was saying about the necessity of being born again, as in Nicky's mind that couldn't apply to him, only heathen converts.

It also shed's light on the "ye must become as a little child" statements as well...

But, Aquila (and possibly votivesoul??) are or were arguing a self administered baptism is biblical, because rabbinic mikvas are self administered, and Christian baptism is simply a mikva. But the syllogism fails because Christian baptism is NOT "simply a Christianized mikva".

The biblical data shows Christians BAPTISING converts, just as John did. Therefore Christian baptism is not self administered.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

The "mikvah" could never give a new birth,
for then would a NEW BIRTH in the New Testament not be necessary. Our baptism is
greater than the washing in the OT: based on greater promises. The washings of the
congregation, Levites, and High Priest correspond to the New Birth today.

"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter in...".

Of course. You must have missed what I posted concerning that very fact.

Originally Posted by TK Burk

THE TRUE MIKVAH

Jesus is the “hope of Israel.”

Jeremiah 17:13
(13) O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken theLORD, the fountain of living waters.

The word HOPE in the Hebrew is the word MIKVAH. It literally says that Jesus will be the “BAPTISM” of Israel!

The DAY of the Messiah was to be a time of cleansing from sins and disobedience.

Zechariah 13:1
(1) In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness.

Baptism, Jewish Encyclopedia.com, by Kaufmann Kohler and Samuel Krauss

To receive the spirit of God, or to be permitted to stand in the presence of God (His Shekinah), man must undergo Baptism (Tan., Meẓora’, 6, ed. Buber, p.46), wherefore in the Messianic time God will Himself pour water of purification upon Israel in accordance with Ezek. xxxvi. 25 (Tan., Meẓora’, 9-17, 18, ed. Buber, pp. 43, 53).

Ezekiel 36:25-27
(25) Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
(26) A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
(27) And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

This is exactly what the scriptures said of Jesus’ purpose.

Matthew 1:21
(21) And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

John 7:38
(38) He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

John 19:34
(34) But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

[mfblume]

I amazes me at the brash careless attitude some can have over what they believe the Spirit is speaking to them, without actual bible precedent. Folks, unless the bible shows someone doing something, we cannot assume the Spirit is telling us to do it, and this is in regards to things that are foundationally doctrinal. People baptizing themselves? Please.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I amazes me at the brash careless attitude some can have over what they believe the Spirit is speaking to them, without actual bible precedent. Folks, unless the bible shows someone doing something, we cannot assume the Spirit is telling us to do it, and this is in regards to things that are foundationally doctrinal. People baptizing themselves? Please.

[Disciple4life]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I amazes me at the brash careless attitude some can have over what they believe the Spirit is speaking to them, without actual bible precedent. Folks, unless the bible shows someone doing something, we cannot assume the Spirit is telling us to do it, and this is in regards to things that are foundationally doctrinal. People baptizing themselves? Please.

Exactly!!!

[TK Burk]

There's a huge difference between no witnesses to see you're baptism and no help from your witnesses when you're baptized.

I believe the first is not biblical and the last to be biblical with the early believers.

Although I do not adhere to all this ministry represents, I believe the following STUDY is worth considering:


How Immersion Was Done

Jewish baptism has never been taken lightly, but in ancient times immersion was to be performed in the presence of witnesses (Yebam. 47b). The person being baptized made special preparations by cutting his nails, undressed completely and made a fresh profession of his faith before the designated "fathers of the baptism" (Kethub. 11a; Erub 15a). This is possibly where churches, sometime later, got the term Godfathers. The individual stood straight up with the feet spread and the hands held out in front. The candidate would totally immerse themselves by squatting in the water with a witness or baptizer doing the officiating. Note the New Testament points out the fact that Jesus came up straightway out of the water (Matthew 3:16).

The earliest drawing of Christian baptism was found on the wall of a Roman catacomb in the second century showing John standing on the bank of the Jordan helping Jesus back to shore after self immersion.

Ancient sages teach that the word mikveh has the same letters as Ko(v)Meh, the Hebrew word for "rising" or "standing tall," therefore we see the idea of being baptized "straightway."

Although it is the Jewish belief that repentance is necessary, purification from defilement is done primarily through water, while other effects of sins are covered by blood (Romans 4:7; note the "almost all things" in Hebrews 9:22). The concept of immersion in rabbinic literature is referred to as a new birth (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b; Mass. Ger. c.ii). Note six other important aspects of ancient Jewish immersion:

1.Immersion was accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides Hilkh. Milah iii.4; Hilkh. Iss, Biah Xiv .6). A convert would reaffirm his acceptance of the Torah by declaring, "I will do and I will hear" which was a phrase from the oath that was originally taken by the priests not to forsake the Torah (Deuteronomy 29:9- 14). This ritual demonstrates the willingness of the convert to forsake his Gentile background and assume his Jewish identity by taking on the status of one who keeps the commandments.

According to a number of Jewish sages, mayim, which is the Hebrew word for water, shares the same root as the word "mah", meaning "what." This teaching points out that when a person immerses in water, he is nullifying the fleshly ego and is asking, "what am I?" in the same manner that Moses and Aaron did in Exodus 16:7 when they said to the Lord, "we are what?"

2. The Jewish baptism candidates were often immersed three times. The idea of total immersion comes from the Scripture in Leviticus 15:16 when it says, "he shall wash all his flesh in the water." One reason it was customary to immerse three times was because the word mikveh occurs three times in the Torah.

3. According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Dr. William LaSor in the Biblical Archaeology Review says apparently the Biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.

4. The immersion candidate was not touched by the baptizer in Jesus' day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," Judaism stresses that the entire body must come in contact with the water of the mikveh. To insure the immersion was valid, no clothing or individuals could touch the candidate. Any such intervention that prevented the water from reaching a part of the body was known as Chatzitzah and rendered the immersion invalid. Although the mikveh was more spiritual than physical, often the bath had two sets of steps, one entering and another leaving so as not to defile what had been purified.

5. The baptismal water (Mikveh) in rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. As the convert came out of these waters his status was changed and he was referred to as "a little child just born" or "a child of one day" (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b). We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as "born anew," "new creation," and "born from above." According to Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum rabbinic literature uses the term "born again" to refer to at least six different occurrences. Note each of these life changing experiences: (a) When a Gentile converts to Judaism. (b) When an individual is crowned king. (c) At age 13 when a Jewish boy chooses to embrace God's covenant and be numbered with the believers. (d) When an individual gets married. (e) When an individual becomes a rabbi. (f) When an individual becomes the head of a rabbinical school.

6. Jewish law requires at least three witnesses made up of qualified leaders to be present for certain immersions (Yebam 47b). Ordinarily a member of the Sanhedrin performed the act of observing the proselytes immersion, but in case of necessity others could do it. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I amazes me at the brash careless attitude some can have over what they believe the Spirit is speaking to them, without actual bible precedent. Folks, unless the bible shows someone doing something, we cannot assume the Spirit is telling us to do it, and this is in regards to things that are foundationally doctrinal. People baptizing themselves? Please.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

There's a huge difference between no witnesses to see you're baptism and no help from your witnesses when you're baptized.

I believe the first is not biblical and the last to be biblical with the early believers.

Although I do not adhere to all this ministry represents, I believe the following STUDY is worth considering:

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I amazes me at the brash careless attitude some can have over what they believe the Spirit is speaking to them, without actual bible precedent. Folks, unless the bible shows someone doing something, we cannot assume the Spirit is telling us to do it, and this is in regards to things that are foundationally doctrinal. People baptizing themselves? Please.

Amen.

[votivesoul]

Here's the thing that's bothering me:

It seems some are doggedly asserting that unless another person's hands are upon the person being baptized, God doesn't consider it legit, i.e. it's not a Biblical baptism.

How technical are we going to get?

What if a person only uses one hand instead of two? What if a person's foot comes up out of the water when they are baptized? What if a person pushes them down by their head as opposed to leaning them back with their arms? How legalistic do we need to get before a baptism is considered okay? Immersion is immersion is immersion.

Some insist you have to add Lord and/or Christ to the name of Jesus or it's no good.

Some think they have to quote "for the remission of sins" a la Acts 2:38 or it's no good.

Some think that baptism can only be in "living water" from a lake, stream, sea, or ocean, as opposed to a man-made baptistery, or it's no good.

Some think the whole church or at least 2/3's need to be present, or it's no good.

Some think only a licensed minister can immerse or it's no good.

Some think only men can immerse or it's no good.

None of this has to do with the faith and commitment to Jesus Christ of the person being immersed.

Ananias, grammatically speaking, only indicated that Paul needed to get himself baptized while calling on the name of the Lord when doing it. Acts 22:16 does not read that Ananias performed the immersion. So how did Paul follow through with it? Acts never says. To make a case otherwise is an argument from silence.

In Acts 2, the 3,000 received the word and were baptized, but it does not read that each were placed into an apostle's hands and physically submerged by one of them, one at a time.

Yes, there are other indicators that a person was in fact immersed by another person, literally speaking.

But other passages are completely silent on the issue. We just know that an immersion or immersions took place in the name of Jesus. We don't even have a quote in which it reads that the name of Jesus was spoken out loud, whether by the person being baptized or by the one performing the baptism. We can only (and I think correctly) assume that it happened, even though the texts in question don't actually indicate it's so.

And besides, it's not like the name of Jesus is a charm that remits sins apart from Jesus Himself doing the actual remitting, by His blood.

So for all those who say a person can't be by themselves in order to immerse themselves, I ask: Isn't Jesus present and there as a witness to confirm the immersion in His name when He (and not just His name) actually forgives a person and remits their sins? If He is being invoked in faith, doesn't He show up to answer?