What if....another Baptism question

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Sam

A couple of centuries BC some Jews started the mikveh ritual.
It was a self-immersion done three times.
It was common at the time of John the Baptist among groups looking for a Messiah so when he came practicing it at the Jordan river it was not a rare sight.
Some disciples of John left him and began to follow Jesus but we have no record of their being re-baptized when they became disciples of Jesus.
The ritual was carried over and became part of the first century church.
Based on references from history, original "Christian" baptism was ideally a three-fold self immersion in running water but standing water could be used if running water was not available, and water could be poured on the head three times if enough water for immersion was not available.

The Roman Catholic church, based on pagan cleansing rituals, turned simple self-immersion into a ritual which became necessary for eternal life and according to the Douay Bible the "birth of water" of John 3:5. But , it was only effective if performed by an authorized person and in the authorized manner.

Sam, it would seem that the baptism of John wasn't self immersion:
Matthew 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
etc


right?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I can't believe I'm reading people bicker over what name to pronounce over a believer at baptism. This demonstrates that baptism doesn't have a "formula".

If you want to baptize like the Apostles, lead the believer in prayer, calling on the name of the Lord Jesus together. Then baptize them. It can be completely silent and still effectual. Do you really think YOU can call on the name of Jesus for someone else to have their sins remitted?

Amen & Amen.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Sam, it would seem that the baptism of John wasn't self immersion:
Matthew 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
etc


right?

It is my understanding that to be baptized "in the name of" someone meant that person witnessed the baptism. In other words, Jesus was baptized "in the name of John" because John was the witness who saw that He self-immersed. We assume it was a self-immersion because it was in or at a river, but the Old Testament ritual washings/baptisms of the priests (which this fulfilled) were by pouring water over the hands or feet.

[freeatlast]

The word FORMULA has always irked me.

The thought that God is goig to disqualify someones salvation on a technicality seems ludicrous to me.

There is NO clear patern demonstating the apostles had one iron clad verbage that was repeated in baptism.

Acts 2:38 name of Jesus Christ
Acts 8:16 name of Lord Jesus
Acts 10:48 name of Jesus Christ
Acts 19: name of the lord Jesus
Acts 22:16 name of the Lord

3 different variations here and then we look at the words Mathew recorded in 28:19, in the name of the Father son and holy ghost.

Mathew wrote words that Jesus spoke.

You call it the way you see it, but I will not go so far as to say that one is not right with God over what the preacher recited when they were baptized.

I will give God the benefit of the doubt, that He is smart enough to know who it is that is being refered to when even the "titles" are all hat is called over the person being baptized.
__________________

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

A couple of centuries BC some Jews started the mikveh ritual.
It was a self-immersion done three times.
It was common at the time of John the Baptist among groups looking for a Messiah so when he came practicing it at the Jordan river it was not a rare sight.
Some disciples of John left him and began to follow Jesus but we have no record of their being re-baptized when they became disciples of Jesus.
The ritual was carried over and became part of the first century church.
Based on references from history, original "Christian" baptism was ideally a three-fold self immersion in running water but standing water could be used if running water was not available, and water could be poured on the head three times if enough water for immersion was not available.

The Roman Catholic church, based on pagan cleansing rituals, turned simple self-immersion into a ritual which became necessary for eternal life and according to the Douay Bible the "birth of water" of John 3:5. But , it was only effective if performed by an authorized person and in the authorized manner.

How do you know that Mikveh was introduced into Apostolic Christianity? This is of concern because Mikveh isn't a biblical tradition, it's largely a Jewish tradition that began around the time of Ezra.

Please note, there were regular biblical "washings" taking place in the tabernacle and then in the Temple long, long, long before the Mikveh tradition. Why not consider that Christian baptism is a carry over from these more biblical customs?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Sam, it would seem that the baptism of John wasn't self immersion:
Matthew 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
Mark 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
etc


right?

Excellent point missourimary. This illustrates another manner in which Christian baptism differs from Mikveh.

[Aquila]

Apostolic baptism appears to more reflect a prayer than a "formula". The believer is "calling on the name of the Lord." I think men love the idea of a "formula" because it gives them a sense of control and authority. Certainly, they think, Jesus isn't going to act unless they say the right words. This is an example of how we as human beings often find ourselves trying to get our hands all over the glory.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Sam

It is my understanding that to be baptized "in the name of" someone meant that person witnessed the baptism. In other words, Jesus was baptized "in the name of John" because John was the witness who saw that He self-immersed. We assume it was a self-immersion because it was in or at a river, but the Old Testament ritual washings/baptisms of the priests (which this fulfilled) were by pouring water over the hands or feet.

Don't forget that the catacombs depict Christ's baptism with John and Jesus standing in the Jordan while John takes a vessel and pours water over Christ's head and shoulders.

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by Sam

It is my understanding that to be baptized "in the name of" someone meant that person witnessed the baptism. In other words, Jesus was baptized "in the name of John" because John was the witness who saw that He self-immersed. We assume it was a self-immersion because it was in or at a river, but the Old Testament ritual washings/baptisms of the priests (which this fulfilled) were by pouring water over the hands or feet.

Thanks, hadn't heard that perspective before.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Aquila

How do you know that Mikveh was introduced into Apostolic Christianity? This is of concern because Mikveh isn't a biblical tradition, it's largely a Jewish tradition that began around the time of Ezra.

Please note, there were regular biblical "washings" taking place in the tabernacle and then in the Temple long, long, long before the Mikveh tradition. Why not consider that Christian baptism is a carry over from these more biblical customs?

You and I have talked about this before.
I don't KNOW that Christian baptism is a carryover from the Mikveh.
That is an assumption usually made.
The mikveh was one of the Jewish "washings" during that first century.
It is usually assumed that John came from the Essene community which practiced multiple mikveh washings in order to prepare for the coming Messiah and that John carried that over to the crowds as he preached the coming of Messiah and the kingdom. John also seems to allude to the fact that just being physical descendants of Abraham was not enough, those folks needed the mikveh just like Gentiles needed the mikveh when they came to the Lord.

I'm not arguing. I think we see this from a little different perspective.