Infant Baptism
The DataRat
"There are at least 2 household Baptisms
in the NT."
Lydia in Philippi in Acts 16:15...
"Members of her household were
baptized" (NIV)
The jailer in Philippi in Acts 16:33...
"He and ALL his family were baptized"
(NIV)
Also, 1 Corinthians 1:16...
"I also baptized the household of
Stephanas" (NIV)
These folks back then all had huge families,
and usually an extended family living with
them as well. It's virtually impossible that in
these three household baptisms, there
weren't several very small children !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"What is your justification for this statement?"
Until very recently, large families and extended
families were the norm. Still are today in backward
places. Simple anthropological truth. Except
in times of plague or famine, people had huge
households. Probably has something to do with
lack of effective contraceptives in the First Century !
Your Buddy,
The DataRat
ThePhoenix
wrote:
>
>
>"There are at least 2 household Baptisms
>in the NT."
>
>
>
>Lydia in Philippi in Acts 16:15...
>
> "Members of her household were
> baptized" (NIV)
To read infants into that is to invent doctrine out of thin air. "'and
her household'; they were baptized also, being converted at the same
time; these seem to be her menial servants, who came along with her
from her native place upon business, and who attended on her;
accordingly the Ethiopic version renders it, 'and she was baptized
with all her men'; and these were believers and are called the
'brethren', ver. 40, hence this passage will by no means serve the
cause of infant baptism" John Gill.
>
>The jailer in Philippi in Acts 16:33...
>
> "He and ALL his family were baptized"
> (NIV)
Acts 16:31-33 NRSV
31 They answered, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,
you and your household.”32 They spoke the word of the Lord to him and
*to all who were in his house*.33 At the same hour of the night he
took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were
baptized without delay.
If it was spoken to "all who were in his house", it is pretty clear
that all were of age to receive, understand and believe. Then the
entire family was baptized. No reason to see infants in here at all.
>Also, 1 Corinthians 1:16...
>
> "I also baptized the household of
> Stephanas" (NIV)
Again, a household can be a man and servants with no family as far as
children go. Household is literally "house", and the citizens of the
house are a household. The assumption that this *must* include
infants is baseless. If the text does not say it, we have NO right to
read it into the text. What Paul states later indicates they were
adults:
1 Corinthians 16:15 NRSV
15 Now, brothers and sisters, you know that members of the household
of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted
themselves to the service of the saints;
Did infants devote themselves to the service of the saints? <G>
Principles of Interpretation, Clinton Lockhart, 2nd. Ed.
"The true interpreter understands any writer to mean what he says, not
what he does not say."
The following by DataRat is to assume what is NOT said.
>These folks back then all had huge families,
>and usually an extended family living with
>them as well. It's virtually impossible that in
>these three household baptisms, there
>weren't several very small children !
>
>The DataRat
What you have above by DataRat is "traditions of men" because he was
not able to produce it from 'sola scriptura'. He has to go back to
the traditions of Roman Catholicism to find it.
ThePhoenix
David Rea
TigerMan wrote:
> | These folks back then all had huge families,
> | and usually an extended family living with
> | them as well.
>
> What is your justification for this statement?
>
> TigerMan
I second that....& raise... What is your justification for this
statement? + in scripture.
Raul Goulden
> of departure when discussing infant baptism.
>
> Does anyone have anything further to add to these
> statements?
>
> TigerMan
There 100 different ways to go about discussing this.
There is a Scriptural case and a historical case.
I have no idea what the case made was because it didn't
show up on my reader.
I will say this, that to the Christian Jews of the early Church
a covenant that was inferior to the old covenant in which
children would not recieve the sign of the covenant would
have been laghed out of town. From their hundreds and hundreds
of years dealing with God, they would identify such a God to not
have been the YHWH of Abraham. You also end up yanking the
continuity of gospel by having God become a dispensationalist.
The DataRat
"What is your justification for this
statement? + in scripture."
Scripture is not a textbook on
anthropology. You want anthropology,
read anthropological texts. And
-what they'll tell you- is that throughout
antiquity, human families were not 2.4
kids and a stationwagon in the garage !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"For some, the lack of proof positive is
the point of departure when discussing
infant baptism."
You are, of course, correct: The passage
DOESN'T explicitly state that there were
small children in those three households.
It's a logical inference from what we know
about ancient families, however, that at
least one ( and probably all three ) contained
very young children.
Your Pal,
The DataRat
Raul Goulden
Let them also find a place where it explicitly says
women are to partake of the Lord's supper.
GoldRush
> > For some, the lack of proof positive is the point
> > of departure when discussing infant baptism.
> >
> > Does anyone have anything further to add to these
> > statements?
> >
> > TigerMan
>
> There 100 different ways to go about discussing this.
> There is a Scriptural case and a historical case.
>
> I have no idea what the case made was because it didn't
> show up on my reader.
>
> I will say this, that to the Christian Jews of the early Church
> a covenant that was inferior to the old covenant in which
> children would not recieve the sign of the covenant would
> have been laghed out of town. From their hundreds and hundreds
> of years dealing with God, they would identify such a God to not
> have been the YHWH of Abraham. You also end up yanking the
> continuity of gospel by having God become a dispensationalist.
Raul,
Actually having been in all three camps on this subject, we can
understand the views of two . . . The Baptists and the Calvinists . . .
(we leave the dispies in the dust!)
There is a principle established by Scripture, for understanding
all Scripture, particularly when it comes to harmonizing the O.T.
with the N.T.
That is found in Hebrews 9:23&24:
"Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in
the heavenlies should be purified with these, but the heavenly
things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ
has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are
copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the
presence of God for us."
Now, put aside the primary emphasis of this teaching and dig
down further for foundational truths, and you find that actions
recorded in the O.T. traditions in the flesh (tabernacle worship,
offerings, Levitical priesthood, etc) were all "copies" of heavenly
(spiritual) truths fulfilled in the last Adam; Jesus Christ.
This would therefore include the sign of circumcision. This was
most definitely a sign from God to be observed in the flesh.
(How much more "in the flesh" could it have been?)
What did it signify? It was a mark in the flesh, that the 8-day
male infant of an Israelite was identified with the children of God,
by the cutting away of flesh which was a permanent exhibition
of who that child belonged to (the parents of those within the nation
of Israel). This exhibition of the flesh was only a copy of the
spiritual
identity of a people, the true "Israel' who would be recognized
spiritually
by means of the death of Jesus Christ . . .the church.
So, the church transforms the sign, and is commissioned by God to
practice
the sacrament of baptism for the identical motives of circumcism, only
without
the flesh and blood, but rather, the Spirit.
Baptism is the spiritual sign of the fleshly mark of circumcision,
accomplishing
the same thing. Identifying who are the children of promise; the
children of God.
Infants were circumcised in the O.T. Adults were circumcised in the
O.T.
All when it was necessary and pleasing to identify oneself through
obedience
and faith in God with an outward sign.
Infants can be baptised in the N.T. era as well as adults who desire
to publically identify in the obedience and death of Jesus Christ.
It is Biblical, necessary, and legitimate either way . . .young or old.
It is
only a sign. A new spiritual sign of identification that is better than
the old,
bloody, fleshy copy of the new.
Why do people want to make such a big legalistic fuss over the wonderful
opportunity to publically identify themselves or their children as the
children
of promise? With Jesus Christ? With holiness and Godliness?
Only the enemy would attack the sacraments, like they are attacked . .
.and
what for? To distract from the Christ who put away His potentially
reproductive
flesh, and was baptized unto death for the sins of His people (effecting
cleansing).
Bottom line: Precedent through the copies of the old, allow for infant
baptism.
Precedent through the copies of the old, allow for conversion to God in
adulthood.
Both are Biblical, even if not specifically spelled out (e.g.as is the
doctrine of the Trinity.)
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Raul Goulden
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote in message
news:37DEF25B...@mlode.com...
Ben Hopkins
>
> "Let them also find a place where it
> explicitly says women are to partake
> of the Lord's supper."
>
>
> While we don't want to make runaway
> and unreasonable inferences from Scripture
> ( like the Romanists and other cultists do ),
> we can make reasonable inferences using
> the intelligence and logic God gave us for
> that very purpose.
Good point, Rat! But you didn't answer his question.
Lynn J. Tilmon
Jesus Christ himself was baptized by John the Baptist; and He wasn't a baby.
Lynn
ThePhoenix wrote in message <37e49b4a...@news.infi.net>...
>>These folks back then all had huge families,
>>and usually an extended family living with
TigerMan
| and usually an extended family living with
| them as well.
What is your justification for this statement?
TigerMan
TigerMan
| families were the norm. Still are today in
backward
| places. Simple anthropological truth. Except
| in times of plague or famine, people had huge
| households. Probably has something to do with
| lack of effective contraceptives in the First
Century !
I agree with the generality of family size
diminishing due to contraceptive devices. Also
perceive the history books to be supportive of the
anthropological view as you state.
Further, I agree that it is ~very~ likely that
children were a part of the households baptised in
the NT.
The DataRat
"Let them also find a place where it
explicitly says women are to partake
of the Lord's supper."
Good point, Raul !
While we don't want to make runaway
and unreasonable inferences from Scripture
( like the Romanists and other cultists do ),
we can make reasonable inferences using
the intelligence and logic God gave us for
that very purpose.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Jesus Christ himself was baptized by
John the Baptist; and He wasn't a baby."
So -by your logic- since Jesus Christ was
flogged by the Romans with a whip, we should
be too !
Or, since Jesus Christ was taken to the Temple
in Jerusalem as a young boy, all our male
offspring should be too.
You get the idea. Anyway...
It would be pretty difficult for Jesus to have had
John's baptism as an infant, in as much as John
was the same age and would have been an infant
as well !
Infants baptizing infants ?
The DataRat
ThePhoenix
wrote:
>Infants baptizing infants ?
>
>
>The DataRat
What we are looking to see is DataRat abiding by 'sola scriptura' and
produce where adults baptized any infants in Scripture. Or where it
is instructed to baptize infants. His imaginations, fed by men's
traditions do not substitute for 'sola scriptura'.
ThePhoenix
David Rea
The DataRat wrote:
> "For some, the lack of proof positive is
> the point of departure when discussing
> infant baptism."
>
> You are, of course, correct: The passage
> DOESN'T explicitly state that there were
> small children in those three households.
>
> It's a logical inference from what we know
> about ancient families, however, that at
> least one ( and probably all three ) contained
> very young children.
what about their household pets & thier salvation? I think we need to
start baptising the pets, they are menbers of the houshold (indoor pets,
that is)
>
>
> Your Pal,
>
> The DataRat
David Rea
We can come up with all kinds of wacky things if we base it on "well it
doesn't say"
You know, we should also baptise our dog's & other pets. After all, they
are part of the family... & there are refrences in the NT the the
"houshold" was baptised.
This would indicate only "indoor" pets should be eligable.
So, it is a sin to have an outdoor pet, for if you do, the pet would not
be elegible for baptism & would be damned to hell.
Once we step on the slippery slope - no telling how far we can go!
The DataRat wrote:
> "What is your justification for this
Jason Harris
David Rea wrote in message <37E00B27...@northcascades.net>...
I know you are using sarcasm but your point is valid. Pets have no souls
and have no purpose for being baptised or saved. If you made this point to
show that not all members of a household were proper recipients of baptism,
you are correct. Pets are not humans. However, all humans are sinners in
need of God's grace, regardless of age. Is being a young human equal to
being a subhuman because they haven't made their little decision? Or
perhaps is being a young human equal to being a sinless demigod? Baptism
hinges on the grace of God, not the worthiness of man. It is not for pets,
of course, but humans, even short ones.
Raul Goulden
> So, .... No scriptural basis. Lets base doctrin on that!
>
> We can come up with all kinds of wacky things if we base it on "well it
> doesn't say"
>
> You know, we should also baptise our dog's & other pets. After all, they
> are part of the family... & there are refrences in the NT the the
> "houshold" was baptised.
>
> This would indicate only "indoor" pets should be eligable.
>
> So, it is a sin to have an outdoor pet, for if you do, the pet would not
> be elegible for baptism & would be damned to hell.
You disrespect yourself, do a little reading and find
out WHY some of the greatest theologians to ever tread
sod here on planet earth believe in covenant baptism.
Take some time, do some reading, and when you want to
pose some questions (instead on simplistic sound bites) we'll chat.
http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/journals/v2n3.htm
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/baptism.htm
some additional thoughts-
John Calvin tells us that Baptism is the sign of the initiation by
which we are received into the society of the church, in order that,
engrafted in Christ, we may be reckoned among God’s children. (Calvin,
Institutes Book IV Chapter 16) Calvin believed that baptism is a sign that
lets us know that we have been sealed to God and it is an outward witness to
others that we are Christians. Baptism contributes three things to our
faith. First it is a sign that the blood of Christ has purified us. In this
Calvin tells us that through baptism we are cleansed for our whole life.
Secondly it is a sign of our death in Christ and our rebirth and new life in
Christ. So through baptism we share in the death and resurrection f Christ.
Thirdly baptism is a token of our union with Christ, through baptism we
share in all of the blessings of Christ. Christ was baptized himself to show
his unity with us.
Baptism is an outward sign that acts as a confession to the world that we
are people of God. It is the mark that tells the world and us that we belong
to God, and that we worship the same God in one faith with all Christians.
Calvin tells us that baptism is a sign of the Christian covenant with God.
In the chapter 16 of book 4 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion
Calvin looks at infant baptism and lays out an argument as to why it is
alright. He says that before baptism God's people had circumcision as the
sign of the covenant with God. The promise given to the patriarchs in
circumcision is the same as that given to us in baptism. It is a sign that
that represents the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh.
The only difference is in the external form. Circumcision was the sign for
the Jews of their first entry into the church. It was the sign that assured
them of their adoption as children of God. We are consecrated to God through
baptism. Calvin tells us that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as
the sign of the covenant with God. Infants are part of the Kingdom of God.
They participate fully in God's promises. So if they are indeed participants
in the covenant why would we deny them the symbol of the covenant? The
benefits that flow out of infant baptism flow to the parents, the
congregation and to the child. In infant baptism parents present their child
to God and take a vow that they will raise the child in Christ. The
congregation participates in this vow also. Their baptism will become
effective when they are able to reflect on it. A child will be able to
reflect on their baptism through the parents and the members of the
congregation that have promised to raise the child in the knowledge of God
and the Christian faith. So infant baptism is not meaningless unless the
promises are not fulfilled.
As to Biblical reference, I believe that Mark 2: 1-12 gives us a good
example of what effect the faith of others can have on an individual. In the
story of the paralytic we can see how Jesus responds to the faith that the
four friends have in him. As Jesus enters Capernaum word spreads that he has
come back to town. He enters a house maybe of a friend or a family member
and the crowds mob the place. The house is full and the courtyard is also.
Four friends come bringing a paralytic lying on a bed and they see that they
cannot get into the house because of the crowd. So they get on the roof and
make a hole in it. They then lower their paralytic friend down into the
house in front of Jesus. Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic
child your sins are forgiven. Well there are some scribes in the house
sitting and debating among themselves as was their custom. They see this and
immediately start questioning Jesus' words to the paralytic. They ask why is
he speaking like this is he blaspheming? Isn't it true that only God can
forgive sins? Jesus moved by the Spirit says to them, why are you
questioning like this? What is an easier thing to do say your sins are
forgiven or rise take up your bed and walk? And then to show his authority
on earth Jesus tells the paralytic to get up and walk. In front of everyone
the paralytic stands up takes his bed and walks out. We are told that
everyone was astonished because they had never seen anything like this. So
who were these scribes and what were they doing?
This story illustrates the fact that the faith of others can have an effect
on someone's life. I feel that this story from Mark gives us the best reason
to baptize infants. When a family brings an infant to be baptized they
reaffirm their own faith saying that they will bring up the child as a
Christian. So I believe that there is a good scriptural reason to baptize
infants. Through infant baptism a child is brought up with a connection to
the church that others might not have. The burden of responsibility falls
upon the parents and the congregation.
Kevin & Amy
It is my husband's and my view that to exclude children from the new
Covenant is to radically misunderstand not only the nature of Covenantalism
but one of the primary contentions in the early church which Paul
continually wrestled with the Judaizers over!
Covenantalism is representative and inclusive, especially as the family is
concerned. An acceptance of the Covenant's terms does not guarantee that all
who thereby claim the name of Christ are necessarily IN Christ. Furthermore,
even under the weaker shadow of the old Covenant whole households (including
servants!) were included as a result of the family representative's (the
father and patriarch) acceptance of the Covenant. Again, this outward
profession of faith was never a guarantee of inward regeneration.
Now we are under a new and better Covenant -- one which exceeds the old in
glory and greatness, but not in essential substance (otherwise, we would
fall into the error of dispensationalism). Paul continually rebuked the
Judaizers who stubbornly continued to remain satisfied with the shadows,
rejecting Christ in the process. Things were so much better, greater and
more inclusive now since Christ has fulfilled all that the old Covenant
pictured. No longer was the Covenant primarily restricted to one race, one
nation. Now those from ALL nations, the Gentiles, were included in the
Covenant of Grace! Now there is neither Jew nor Greek! The change from
circumcision to water baptism as the initiatory Covenant rite even signified
this greater glory by applying to females as well as males -- there is
neither male nor female!
In the face of all this expansion, inclusiveness and overall greater glory,
for the children to be suddenly EXcluded from the Covenant would have caused
a considerable stir and would doubtless have been quite a trump card for the
Judaizers! Are we to believe that this marvelous new Covenant would extend
to include those from every tribe and tongue and yet would now EXclude those
who were members of our own household? "Good news! The Gentiles are allowed
in but the family is out!" This is contradictory and shameful.
Amy
-- "Grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone"
----------
In article <37DEF25B...@mlode.com>, GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
> Raul Goulden wrote:
>
>> > For some, the lack of proof positive is the point
>> > of departure when discussing infant baptism.
>> >
>> > Does anyone have anything further to add to these
>> > statements?
>> >
>> > TigerMan
>>
Kevin & Amy
idea of continuity between the OT and NT. Under the terms of the OT
covenant, infants were included in the covenant, the act of covenant was
done to them, they had no way of showing faith in Christ or the covenant
made on their behalf, and there are parallels between what the sign of
circumcision signified and what the term of baptism signifies. If, under the
old covenant, infants were included in the covenant, on what basis are they
excluded under the terms of the new? I know of no scripture that suggests
that they are to be excluded. If the new covenant is a better covenant than
the old one, how is this possible if the children are excluded? Remember,
being in the covenant *community* in the OT was no guarantee that the child
was one of the elect. I believe this is true of the new covenant community
as well.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a Jewish Christian who was saved at the
time of the apostles and you are listening to Peter preach on the day of
Pentecost, what presupposition do you think you would have about the place
of your children in the new covenant when Peter says in Acts 2:39 "this
promise is to you and to your children"? Does that sound like children are
to be excluded from this covenant? What does it mean in I Cor. 7:14 that the
children of even one believer in the home are clean? There is nothing to
suggest that only some of the children are clean, or even that they are
saved.
The argument in favor of, or against paedo-baptism based on the examples of
household baptism are arguments based on speculation, no matter what side of
the argument you come down on.
----------
In article <U5yD3.17420$ei1....@newsfeeds.bigpond.com>, "TigerMan"
<c6447...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> | Until very recently, large families and extended
> | families were the norm. Still are today in
> backward
> | places. Simple anthropological truth. Except
> | in times of plague or famine, people had huge
> | households. Probably has something to do with
> | lack of effective contraceptives in the First
> Century !
>
>
> I agree with the generality of family size
> diminishing due to contraceptive devices. Also
> perceive the history books to be supportive of the
> anthropological view as you state.
>
> Further, I agree that it is ~very~ likely that
> children were a part of the households baptised in
> the NT.
>
The DataRat
"what about their household pets &
thier salvation?"
The Calvinist Rodent has killfiled people
for less stupid comments.
DR
David Rea
> You disrespect yourself, do a little reading and find
> out WHY some of the greatest theologians to ever tread
> sod here on planet earth believe in covenant baptism.
> Take some time, do some reading, and when you want to
> pose some questions (instead on simplistic sound bites) we'll chat.
>
> Baptism is an outward sign that acts as a confession to the world that we
> are people of God. It is the mark that tells the world and us that we belong
> to God, and that we worship the same God in one faith with all Christians.
> Calvin tells us that baptism is a sign of the Christian covenant with God.
> In the chapter 16 of book 4 of the Institutes of the Christian Religion
I looked & looked for this reference in my Bible... But alas could not find it.
> Calvin looks
Was Calvin an inspired prophet?The Pope said some crazy things to, & is VERY
educated...
Are we looking @ Man's idea's of Gods?
> at infant baptism and lays out an argument as to why it is
> alright. He says that before baptism God's people had circumcision as the
> sign of the covenant with God. The promise given to the patriarchs in
> circumcision is the same as that given to us in baptism. It is a sign that
> that represents the forgiveness of sins
You don't belive in baptismal regeneration do you? Where is the scriptural ref
for that?
> and the mortification of the flesh.
> The only difference is in the external form. Circumcision was the sign for
> the Jews of their first entry into the church. It was the sign that assured
> them of their adoption as children of God. We are consecrated to God through
> baptism. Calvin tells us
I want to know what GOD TELLS US, no offense, but I don't worship Calvin.This
post is not suprisingly VOID of scripture....
> that baptism has taken the place of circumcision as
> the sign of the covenant with God. Infants are part of the Kingdom of God.
> They participate fully in God's promises. So if they are indeed participants
> in the covenant why would we deny them the symbol of the covenant? The
> benefits that flow out of infant baptism flow to the parents, the
> congregation and to the child.
There is a basis for a baby dedication, but not a baby baptism....
> In infant baptism parents present their child
> to God and take a vow that they will raise the child in Christ. The
> congregation participates in this vow also. Their baptism will become
> effective when they are able to reflect on it. A child will be able to
> reflect on their baptism through the parents and the members of the
> congregation that have promised to raise the child in the knowledge of God
> and the Christian faith.
> So infant baptism is not meaningless unless the
> promises are not fulfilled.
> As to Biblical reference, I believe that Mark 2: 1-12 gives us a good
> example of what effect the faith of others can have on an individual.
OK, set up a doctrin, w/ no support, but refrence "faith", then use this verse
to justify it....
> In the
> story of the paralytic we can see how Jesus responds to the faith that the
> four friends have in him.
then they baptised some babies right?, oh, uh ... no they didn't... Hum... So
any doctrin I can think up & link with the need to faith is good doctrin -
right?
> As Jesus enters Capernaum word spreads that he has
> come back to town. He enters a house maybe of a friend or a family member
> and the crowds mob the place. The house is full and the courtyard is also.
> Four friends come bringing a paralytic lying on a bed and they see that they
> cannot get into the house because of the crowd. So they get on the roof and
> make a hole in it. They then lower their paralytic friend down into the
> house in front of Jesus. Jesus seeing their faith says to the paralytic
> child your sins are forgiven. Well there are some scribes in the house
> sitting and debating among themselves as was their custom. They see this and
> immediately start questioning Jesus' words to the paralytic. They ask why is
> he speaking like this is he blaspheming? Isn't it true that only God can
> forgive sins? Jesus moved by the Spirit says to them, why are you
> questioning like this? What is an easier thing to do say your sins are
> forgiven or rise take up your bed and walk? And then to show his authority
> on earth Jesus tells the paralytic to get up and walk. In front of everyone
> the paralytic stands up takes his bed and walks out. We are told that
> everyone was astonished because they had never seen anything like this. So
> who were these scribes and what were they doing?
> This story illustrates the fact that the faith of others can have an effect
> on someone's life. I feel that this story from Mark gives us the best reason
> to baptize infants.
So even though baptism is NEVER ONCE mentioned. It gives us "best reason
to baptize infants." You expect me to buy this?
Look at when baptism was done & who was baptised - Not what you, Calvin, or the
Pope thinks..
The Damer
The DataRat wrote in message <37DE331F...@home.com>...
>
>
>"There are at least 2 household Baptisms
>in the NT."
>
>
>
>Lydia in Philippi in Acts 16:15...
>
> "Members of her household were
> baptized" (NIV)
>
>The jailer in Philippi in Acts 16:33...
>
> "He and ALL his family were baptized"
> (NIV)
>
>Also, 1 Corinthians 1:16...
>
> "I also baptized the household of
> Stephanas" (NIV)
>
>These folks back then all had huge families,
>and usually an extended family living with
Stephen Bayzik
>Dear Readers:
>Jesus Christ himself was baptized by John the Baptist; and He wasn't a
baby.
Good Lord; enough example of the paucity of knowledge regarding religious
practices within the Bible Babbling crowd!
The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene) portrays him as
performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which developed
later within the Christian milieu.
Does being dunked in some swimming pool behind a Baptist assembly hall cause
that much damage to one's mental capabilities?
David Rea
Stephen Bayzik wrote:
> Lynn J. Tilmon wrote in message <7rng54$gga$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> >Dear Readers:
>
> >Jesus Christ himself was baptized by John the Baptist; and He wasn't a
> baby.
>
> Good Lord; enough example of the paucity of knowledge regarding religious
> practices within the Bible Babbling crowd!
>
> The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene) portrays him as
> performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
> Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which developed
> later within the Christian milieu.
when was this "sacrament" talked about in the Bible?
TigerMan
you? Where is the scriptural ref
| for that?
So why don't you point us all to your version of
Scripture that supports baptismal regeneration.
TigerMan
SJS
news:FBaE3.4056$UL5....@quark.idirect.com...
<clip>
> The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene)
Speculation at best.
> portrays him as
> performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
> Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which developed
> later within the Christian milieu.
<clip>
We have documentation of baptisms being conducted in the church in the 1st
century (didache).
God bless,
Scott
Jason Harris
>> >what about their household pets & thier salvation? I think we need to
>> >start baptising the pets, they are menbers of the houshold (indoor pets,
>> >that is)
>>
>> I know you are using sarcasm but your point is valid. Pets have no souls
>> and have no purpose for being baptised or saved. If you made this point
to
>> show that not all members of a household were proper recipients of
baptism,
>> you are correct. Pets are not humans. However, all humans are sinners
in
>> need of God's grace, regardless of age.
>
>
I will answer both questions with one passage. Psalm 51:5-7
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived
me. Surely you desire truth in the inner parts;......."
As humans we are born sinful and in need of God's grace. It has been this
way since the curse of adam. God desires to fix this problem and that is
why He sent His Son.
>My 2 month old does not have the ability to "accept the salvation msg"
>
"........you teach me wisdom in the inmost place. Cleanse me with hyssop,
and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow."
The stain of all our sin can only be removed by God. It has nothing to do
with our will or intellegence, but God's action in which God washes and
regenerates us because He is God and only God can do it. A decorated
scholar with a 247 IQ has not nearly enough wisdom to understand or accept
anything important without God's gift of faith. The gospel is foolishness
and a stumbling block to those without faith. A baby is in the exact same
category as me, you, or an Einstein. Glory to God alone.
David Rea
TigerMan wrote:
> | You don't belive in baptismal regeneration do
> you? Where is the scriptural ref
> | for that?
>
> So why don't you point us all to your version of
> Scripture that supports baptismal regeneration.
I don't buy off on that dotrin. I was using a HEAVY does of
sarcasam.... :)
>
>
> TigerMan
H. J. Heeren - Hummel
membership scrolls, :-).
If you reason with wild speculations like " "John the Baptist" (who BTW was
an Essene)" in a one-sentence BTW it certainly won't give credit to your
viewpoints.
BTW I am not aware that the "ablutionary rite of the Mikvah" is a public
happening.
Henriette.
Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in
FBaE3.4056$UL5....@quark.idirect.com...
> Lynn J. Tilmon wrote in message <7rng54$gga$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> >Dear Readers:
>
> >Jesus Christ himself was baptized by John the Baptist; and He wasn't a
> baby.
>
>
> Good Lord; enough example of the paucity of knowledge regarding religious
> practices within the Bible Babbling crowd!
>
> The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene) portrays him as
> performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
> Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which developed
> later within the Christian milieu.
>
TigerMan
do
| > you? Where is the scriptural ref
| > | for that?
| >
of
| > Scripture that supports baptismal
regeneration.
|
| I don't buy off on that dotrin. I was using a
HEAVY does of
| sarcasam.... :)
And of course it was so heavy that I failed to
pick it up.
Apologies if misconstrued.
TigerMan
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>news:FBaE3.4056$UL5....@quark.idirect.com...
>> The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene)
>Speculation at best.
Of course it is speculation; but nonetheless a reasonable characterization
of this Biblical character.
>> portrays him as
>> performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
>> Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which
developed
>> later within the Christian milieu.
>We have documentation of baptisms being conducted in the church in the 1st
>century (didache).
Indeed it does. But just one minor correction, the Didache (Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles) was a catachisimal book which appeared in the second
century - not the first. For those who have never read the Didache:-
CHAPTER 7
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these
precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if
thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized
fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him
who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
Notice the requirement of "running water". It would appear that "Baptism"
derived historically from the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah (what
John was doing.
Again for those who don't know what is the ablutionary rite of the Mikvah:-
Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the
creation of man. The Midrash relates that after being banished from Eden,
Adam sat in a river "that flowed" from the garden. This was an integral part
of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his
original perfection. Before the revelation at Sinai, all Jews were commanded
to immerse themselves in preparation for coming face to face with God. In
the desert, the famed;well of Miriam served as a mikvah. And Aaron and his
sons' induction into the priesthood was marked by immersion in the mikvah.
In Temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished entry into the
House of God had first to immerse in a mikvah. On Yom Kippur, the holiest of
all days, the High Priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies, the
innermost chamber of the Temple, into which no other mortal could enter.This
was the zenith of a day that involved an ascending order of services,each of
which was preceded by immersion in the mikvah.
The primary uses of Mikvah today are delineated in Jewish Law and date back
to the dawn of Jewish history. They cover many elements of Jewish life.
Mikvah's an integral part of conversion to Judaism.
Again notice the term "flowing water" and, that the Mikvah was used as an
integral part of "conversion" to Judaism.
Pax/Shalom
Stephen Bayzik
>John the Baptist was BTW no Essene. His name was not written on the
>membership scrolls, :-).
>If you reason with wild speculations like " "John the Baptist" (who BTW was
>an Essene)" in a one-sentence BTW it certainly won't give credit to your
>viewpoints.
True, but this "opinion" is held by many scholars; and even if one disagrees
with it the said "opinion" it is common scholastic knowledge.
As to a wee bit more detail:- :-)
1. "John the Baptist" conducted his "baptismal mission" in the region which
surrounds the River
Jordan which empties into the Dead Sea. The "monastery of the Essenes
was located about
two miles south, on the western shore of the Dead Sea. The Matthewian
Gospel calls this
this region "the Desert of Judea". The Lucinain Gospel on the other
hand just uses the phrase
"in the Desert" (Luke 3:2). Pliny the Elder noted (Natural History V,
17) that the said desert
was not just any old desert but one planted with palm trees and
watered by springs.
2. All four Evangelistic Gospels apply the words of Isaias (40:3) to "John
the Baptist" - "the
voice of one crying in the desert; Prepare yea the way of the Lord
(Hashem), make straight in
the wilderness the paths of our God (Hashem). The same text had been
applied by the
Essenes to themselves twice in the Manual of Discipline: "When such
things come to pass
in the community of Israel, the men of Israel should remove themselves
from the society of
wicked men in order to go to 'the desert' and there prepare the way,
as it is written; Prepare yea
the way of the Lord (Hashem), make straight in the wilderness the
paths of our God (Hashem).
VIII, 12-14 and IX, 20.
3. "John the Baptist" came from the priestly family, Zachary and Elizabeth,
descended from
Abia and Aaron (Luke 1:5); hence the name which they are called in the
Scrolls; ie. "the sons
of Zadok.
I could go on; but it is not my intent to educate the Bible Babblers;
however your questioning was one of a reasonable individual so I tried to
give you some reasoning regarding my use of the phrase "BTW John the Baptist
was an Essene".
>BTW I am not aware that the "ablutionary rite of the Mikvah" is a public
>happening.
Ah but it is Henriette. I have repeated a part of the following in another
post to this newsgroup, but here is an expanded version.
Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the
creation of man. The Midrash relates that after being banished from
Eden,Adam sat in a river that flowed from the garden. This was an integral
part of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his
original perfection. Before the revelation at Sinai, all Jews were commanded
to immerse themselves in preparation for coming face to face with God. In
the desert, the famed;well of Miriam served as a mikvah. And Aaron and his
sons' induction into the priesthood was marked by immersion in the mikvah.
In Temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished entry into the
House of God had first to immerse in a mikvah. On Yom Kippur, the holiest of
all days, the High Priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies, the
innermost chamber of the Temple, into which no other mortal could enter.This
was the zenith of a day that involved an ascending order of services,each of
which was preceded by immersion in the mikvah.
The primary uses of Mikvah today are delineated in Jewish Law and date back
to the dawn of Jewish history. They cover many elements of Jewish life.
Mikvah's an integral part of conversion to Judaism. Mikvah's used,
thoughtless widely known, for the immersion of new pots, dishes, and
utensils (purchased or obtained from a non few) before they are used by a
Jew. The Mikvah concept is also the focal point of the Taharah, the
purification rite of a Jew before the person is laid to rest and the soul
ascends on high. The manual pouring of water in a highly specific
manner-over the entire body of the deceased serves this purpose. Mikvah is
also used by men on various occasions; with the exception of conversion,
they are all customary.
Anyway Henriette I am not Jewish (I'm a Roman Catholic Goyem ;-) ), so I
don't speak with the authority of a Rabbi; which would be a better source
for information on this subject of the Mikvah.
Shalom/Pax
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>> Lynn J. Tilmon wrote in message
<7rng54$gga$1...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>...
>> >Dear Readers:
>> >Jesus Christ himself was baptized by John the Baptist; and He wasn't a
>> baby.
>> Good Lord; enough example of the paucity of knowledge regarding religious
>> practices within the Bible Babbling crowd!
>> The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene) portrays him as
>> performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
>> Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which
developed
>> later within the Christian milieu.
>when was this "sacrament" talked about in the Bible?
Scripture is a poor place to find doctrines and "sacraments"; for one thing
we are trying to "read back" into a conglomerate of liturgical stories
which, though historical as stories, should not be taken as defacto
recording of historical events. That having been said one can find a "seed"
(if you wish) of a developing "baptism" in the Lucinian Acts (in the arrival
of Paul in Ephesus) re: 19:1-7.
Veritas
Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>
> SJS wrote in message <7rtcvv$1eq$3...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>
> >Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:FBaE3.4056$UL5....@quark.idirect.com...
>
> >> The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene)
>
> >Speculation at best.
>
> Of course it is speculation; but nonetheless a reasonable characterization
> of this Biblical character.
>
> >> portrays him as
> >> performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
> >> Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which
> developed
> >> later within the Christian milieu.
>
> >We have documentation of baptisms being conducted in the church in the 1st
> >century (didache).
>
> Indeed it does. But just one minor correction, the Didache (Teaching of the
> Twelve Apostles) was a catachisimal book which appeared in the second
> century - not the first. For those who have never read the Didache:-
>
> CHAPTER 7
> 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these
> precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> Spirit, in running water;
> 7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if
> thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
> 7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the
> name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
> 7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized
> fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him
> who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
>
> Notice the requirement of "running water". It would appear that "Baptism"
> derived historically from the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah (what
> John was doing.
>
> Again for those who don't know what is the ablutionary rite of the Mikvah:-
>
> Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the
> creation of man. The Midrash relates that after being banished from Eden,
> Adam sat in a river "that flowed" from the garden. This was an integral part
> of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his
> original perfection. Before the revelation at Sinai, all Jews were commanded
> to immerse themselves in preparation for coming face to face with God. In
> the desert, the famed;well of Miriam served as a mikvah. And Aaron and his
> sons' induction into the priesthood was marked by immersion in the mikvah.
>
> In Temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished entry into the
> House of God had first to immerse in a mikvah. On Yom Kippur, the holiest of
> all days, the High Priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies, the
> innermost chamber of the Temple, into which no other mortal could enter.This
> was the zenith of a day that involved an ascending order of services,each of
> which was preceded by immersion in the mikvah.
>
> The primary uses of Mikvah today are delineated in Jewish Law and date back
> to the dawn of Jewish history. They cover many elements of Jewish life.
> Mikvah's an integral part of conversion to Judaism.
>
> Again notice the term "flowing water" and, that the Mikvah was used as an
> integral part of "conversion" to Judaism.
>
> Pax/Shalom
SJS
> SJS wrote in message <7rtcvv$1eq$3...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
> >Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
<clip>
> >We have documentation of baptisms being conducted in the church in the
1st
> >century (didache).
> Indeed it does. But just one minor correction, the Didache (Teaching of
the
> Twelve Apostles) was a catachisimal book which appeared in the second
> century - not the first. For those who have never read the Didache:-
I was going on memory, but if I remember correctly, many date the book to
about the same time as 1 Clement, towards the end of the 1st century. One
web site states, "While some of the material might go back before the year
100, the current form of the document is probably mid-second century at
earliest."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/christian-history.html
At the very least, it reflects traditions that go back to the first century.
> CHAPTER 7
> 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all
these
> precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy
> Spirit, in running water;
> 7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and
if
> thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
> 7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the
> name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
> 7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized
> fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command
him
> who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
> Notice the requirement of "running water". It would appear that "Baptism"
> derived historically from the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah (what
> John was doing.
Notice, however, that the author appears to be relatively unconcerned about
the mode of baptism, listing priorities of modes, not one absolutely
necessary mode of baptism.
God bless,
Scott
David Rea
TigerMan wrote:
> | > | You don't belive in baptismal regeneration
> do
> | > you? Where is the scriptural ref
> | > | for that?
> | >
> | > So why don't you point us all to your version
> of
> | > Scripture that supports baptismal
> regeneration.
> |
> | I don't buy off on that dotrin. I was using a
> HEAVY does of
> | sarcasam.... :)
>
> And of course it was so heavy that I failed to
> pick it up.
>
> Apologies if misconstrued.
>
> TigerMan
None needed...
DR
Stephen Bayzik
>There is no example of baptizing any infant in the New Testament.
Obvious my friend, in "de New Testament" you are seeing the rite of the
Mikvah performed. And the Mikvah is not administered to children. The
closest one has to a "baptism" is the actions of Paul as described in the
Lucinian Acts. And naturally Paul was attempting to gather "converts" and
children don't make for "converts", they have to be circumcised first if
they be male and it's some time before they do their Bar Mitzvah, while
little girls have to wait for their first menstruation period.
But if you do not wish to "baptize" infants, go ahead, be the odd man out
and do your thing in the backyard pools of the Baptist Fellowship Clubs. No
harm done. :-)
Stephen Bayzik
>Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>> >We have documentation of baptisms being conducted in the church in the
>1st
>> >century (didache).
>> Indeed it does. But just one minor correction, the Didache (Teaching of
>the
>> Twelve Apostles) was a catachisimal book which appeared in the second
>> century - not the first. For those who have never read the Didache:-
>I was going on memory, but if I remember correctly, many date the book to
>about the same time as 1 Clement, towards the end of the 1st century. One
>web site states, "While some of the material might go back before the year
>100, the current form of the document is probably mid-second century at
>earliest."
Hey, no problen Scott; we're dealing with one ancient past. I have 140 CE
for the Didache. And I always get the two figures of Clement of Alexandria
(patriarch) and Clement of Rome mixed up.
>At the very least, it reflects traditions that go back to the first
century.
>> CHAPTER 7
>> 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all
>these
>> precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
>Holy
>> Spirit, in running water;
>> 7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and
>if
>> thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
>> 7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the
>> name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
>> 7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized
>> fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command
>him
>> who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
>
>> Notice the requirement of "running water". It would appear that "Baptism"
>> derived historically from the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah (what
>> John was doing).
>Notice, however, that the author appears to be relatively unconcerned about
>the mode of baptism, listing priorities of modes, not one absolutely
>necessary mode of baptism.
Good observation Scott. I'm still at a loss to explain the formula "in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", and how it
relates to the two century plus later formulation of the hypostatic union
worked out in the first few Ecumenical Councils.
And why the "need for fasting" prior to receiving "Baptism"?
Pax/Shalom
BTW, my rather crude and sarcastic style of answering (or challenging)
certain persons has a purpose outside of the apparent madness. :-)
SJS
<clip>
I'm not sure. Was this part of the Mikvah? If not, perhaps this is part of
the rite was a result of the increasing popularity of ascetic practices in
the early church (note that I'm not saying that all fasting is ascetic, only
that an emphasis on fasting is consistent with one who has accepted
asceticism). If it is true that, as the website I quoted from earlier
stated, that the Didache in its current form may not be the same as its
original form (if it underwent some development), this may reflect a later
practice of asceticism in the church. In short, I don't know.
BTW, the website where I got the previous quote is:
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/christian-history.html
<clip>
God bless,
Scott
vince garcia
>
> SJS wrote in message <7rtcvv$1eq$3...@winter.news.rcn.net>...
>
> >Stephen Bayzik <sba...@idirect.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:FBaE3.4056$UL5....@quark.idirect.com...
>
> >> The story of "John the Baptist" (who BTW was an Essene)
>
> >Speculation at best.
>
> Of course it is speculation; but nonetheless a reasonable characterization
> of this Biblical character.
>
> >> portrays him as
> >> performing the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah on the character of
> >> Jesus Christ. Nothing to do with the sacrament of Baptism, which
> developed
> >> later within the Christian milieu.
>
> >century (didache).
>
> Indeed it does. But just one minor correction, the Didache (Teaching of the
> Twelve Apostles) was a catachisimal book which appeared in the second
> century - not the first. For those who have never read the Didache:-
>
> 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these
> precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
> Spirit, in running water;
> 7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if
> thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
> 7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the
> name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
> 7:4 But before the baptism, let him who baptizeth and him who is baptized
> fast previously, and any others who may be able. And thou shalt command him
> who is baptized to fast one or two days before.
>
> Notice the requirement of "running water". It would appear that "Baptism"
> derived historically from the Jewish ablutionary rite of the Mikvah (what
>
> Again for those who don't know what is the ablutionary rite of the Mikvah:-
>
> Immersion in the mikvah has offered a gateway to purity ever since the
> creation of man. The Midrash relates that after being banished from Eden,
> Adam sat in a river "that flowed" from the garden. This was an integral part
> of his teshuvah (repentance) process, of his attempt at return to his
> original perfection. Before the revelation at Sinai, all Jews were commanded
> to immerse themselves in preparation for coming face to face with God. In
> the desert, the famed;well of Miriam served as a mikvah. And Aaron and his
> sons' induction into the priesthood was marked by immersion in the mikvah.
>
> In Temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished entry into the
> House of God had first to immerse in a mikvah. On Yom Kippur, the holiest of
> all days, the High Priest was allowed entrance into the Holy of Holies, the
> innermost chamber of the Temple, into which no other mortal could enter.This
> was the zenith of a day that involved an ascending order of services,each of
> which was preceded by immersion in the mikvah.
>
> The primary uses of Mikvah today are delineated in Jewish Law and date back
> to the dawn of Jewish history. They cover many elements of Jewish life.
> Mikvah's an integral part of conversion to Judaism.
>
> Again notice the term "flowing water" and, that the Mikvah was used as an
> integral part of "conversion" to Judaism.
>
> Pax/Shalom
good post.
As a point of interest, the footnotes in the New Jerusalem Bible date
the Diadache to the end of the 1st century. Dr Brent Walters, dean of
the College of Early Christian Studies dates it even earlier.
v
Stephen Bayzik
>I'm not sure. Was this part of the Mikvah? If not, perhaps this is part
of
>the rite was a result of the increasing popularity of ascetic practices in
>the early church (note that I'm not saying that all fasting is ascetic,
only
>that an emphasis on fasting is consistent with one who has accepted
>asceticism). If it is true that, as the website I quoted from earlier
>stated, that the Didache in its current form may not be the same as its
>original form (if it underwent some development), this may reflect a later
>practice of asceticism in the church. In short, I don't know.
Who really does know Scott? However, you bring up some interesting
reflections. Perhaps a route to seek a solution would be to attempt a
comparison between the "ascetic practices of the Essenes and the later
Christian sect which we call the Ebionites. Some time ago the French Jesuit
scholar, Jean Danielou, speculated with some similarities between the
Ebionites (the poor ones - and heretics in post developed Christianity) and
the Essene communities surrounding the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unfortunately, he
was unable to ascertain any concrete evidence of what in fact were the
"ascetic" practices of the Ebionite/Therapeudic Christian communities and
hence the link to the two mainstream Judaic groups (ie. Pharisees and
Sadducees); though he did make mention of early Syraic Christianity as
possibly having a vestige of the ascetic practices of the Essenes and a
possible link to Jewish asceticism.
>BTW, the website where I got the previous quote is:
>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/christian-history.html
Thanks for the reference; I'll make it a point of visititing this site.
Pax/Shalom
Stephen Bayzik
.
>Stephen Bayzik wrote:
>good post.
>As a point of interest, the footnotes in the New Jerusalem Bible date
>the Diadache to the end of the 1st century. Dr Brent Walters, dean of
>the College of Early Christian Studies dates it even earlier.
Thanks Vince. I checked it out and indeed that is the case. Normally I use
the Knox Bible as I don't want to get in trouble with the Jerusalem Bible if
I need to quote my source; too many anti-Papist ready to jump on me with
that one. ;-)
Pax/Shalom