There was no "Jesus". That is a 16th century word pronounced as "hey Zeus" in Spanish, and the vocalization in Latin means "earth pig". The English form of Yeshua, is Joshua, and means YHWH saves. Best described in Matthew 5:17.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Comparing Catholic Beliefs with the Teachings of Jesus in Scripture
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
There was no "Jesus". That is a 16th century word pronounced as "hey Zeus" in Spanish, and the vocalization in Latin means "earth pig". The English form of Yeshua, is Joshua, and means YHWH saves. Best described in Matthew 5:17.
Dude, do you even know where St. Athanasius of Alexandria was from? He was an Egyptian bishop from Alexandria. Hence his name, Athanasius of Alexandria. He was not part of the Roman Church, he was part of the Alexandrian church.
The Paschal letter he wrote in 367 was addressed to his flock in Alexandria. The Coptic Church is the Church of Alexandria. You don't even understand the key people in this discussion of history. How can you possibly draw a conclusion when you don't even know the geography or the people involved? For the love of God, at least look these people up on Wikipedia before you try and debate things about them.
On what basis? He left the Roman Church. If he wanted to take things out of the NT canon, there was no one above him to tell him no.
Clearly, hence why they split over such things as how many buttons a men's shirt should have.
Apostolic Succession is based off all the Apostles, not just Peter, hence why it's called "Apostolic Succession" and not "Petrine Succession".
You can keep your Guess Who version of Biblical "interpretation". You're in great company with every pastor who spends the entirety of their ministry doing nothing but preaching about conspiracy theories, what Revelation means and predicting the end times.
If Eusebius was making that up, Constantine would have called him out on it. Why would the emperor let deliberate lies about him spread? They ordered massacres of civilians for far less.
Sources?
Then why wouldn't Constantine have set the record straight? Why did he legalize Christianity and later convert to it if it was thanks to a completely different deity that he won that battle?
Correction: The English "Jesus" is derived from French Jesus of the same pronunciation, which is in turn derived from Latin Iesus/Jesus (pronounced "Yesoos", and that is a Romanized version of the Greek Ιησούς ("Iesous"). It is the Greek version of His name that we find in the manuscripts of the New Testament, including all 4 Gospels, Acts, the Epistles and Revelation.
The letter "J" was a 16th century invention. There was no name of "Jesus" prior to that. And Yeshua spoke Aramaic not French. And Yeshua's name in English is Joshua, which also means YHWH saves, or YHWH is salvation.
The letter J was created as a way to differentiate the consonantal quality of the letter I (a semivowel in Latin that could either be pronounced as "y" or "i" depending on its place in the word) from the vocalic quality. Originally it was seen merely as a modified form of the letter I before it came to be viewed as a letter in its own right.
Cool, no one's said otherwise.
And "Joshua" is simply another transliteration from a Semitic language into English. Why does the exact pronunciation of Jesus' name matter? The pronunciations of names generally change from language to language. We all know the etymology of the name "Jesus". Insisting on calling Him "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus" is just pedantic.
You need to get your stories straight. First you say Constantine exiled Athanasius, because he didn't follow Arius, before he let him back in, and now you say, he wasn't part of the Roman church. Constantine was the Pontifex Maximus, and "Alexandria" was simply a city in the Roman empire, which included East and West. Athanasius was simply a bishop, whose flock was in Alexandria, but whose Pontifex Maximus, was the Roman emperor Constantine. The pope got his title of Pontifex Maximus by way of the Augustus Caesars, who got it from Julius Caesar, who got it from the head pagan priests. Athanasius towed the line, or he was squashed like everyone else. The Easter festal letter, containing the canon, was presented on Easter, the pagan holiday prescribed by means of Constantine's Counsel of Nicaea in 325 AD, a Roman church holiday.
Well as your false prophet Paul says you are required to call on the name of the Lord to be saved, I would think getting the name right might be helpful (Romans 10:13). In general, it really doesn't matter, because those that call "Lord, Lord" will be told "I never knew you.... you who practice lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23). And the original quote of calling on the name of the "LORD" is from Joel 2:31, and is directed to those "on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem", which would pretty well preclude the Roman church, which is on a time line to "fall" (Matthew 7:24-27) & (Matthew 13:39-42) & (Isaiah 22:25).
I don't think you understand. The name "Roman Church" does not refer to the Church as found throughout the Roman Empire. The "Roman Church" refers to the regional Church centered in Rome and the Western Roman Empire--AKA, those areas under the ecclesiastical omophorion of the Bishop of Rome, hence why it's also often called the Latin Church, and why members of the Church of Rome are called the Latins. This is why, in early Christian writings and in histories of Christianity, you see references to "the Church of Rome", "the Church of Alexandria", "the Church of Constantinople", etc. Each of these were regional spheres of influence within the universal (Catholic) Church. The Pope of Alexandria was not under the control of the Pope of Rome, neither was the Patriarch of Antioch, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Patriarch of Armenia, or the Patriarch of Constantinople. These were regional churches with their own jurisdictions, their own disciplinary canons, and their own synods of bishops. The Bishop of Rome didn't call the shots for the entire Church in the early days. It wasn't until the 800's or 900's when the Roman Popes started amassing serious ecclesiastical and secular power. And their kingship wouldn't be absolute until they schismed from us Orthodox and had nobody left to check their power.
Constantine didn't occupy a formal role within the Church. The fact that he could enforce laws and enforce the decrees of synods was important, but in the years following Nicaea that worked just as much in the favor of the Arians as it did in the favor of the Orthodox.
St. Athanasius "toed the line"? Dude, he was the champion of Nicene Orthodoxy. He pretty much singlehandedly rallied the Church against Arius and his heresy. And when Arius came back into Constantine's favor, it was St. Athanasius who paid the price. He was no coward and he feared no man, but God alone.
1: Easter isn't pagan, and it's one of if not the oldest Christian holidays there is. This myth has been debunked over and over again and I'm happy to do so once more.
2: Despite the Council of Nicaea's ruling on how to calculate the date for Easter, the method of calculating it can and has changed. The Irish Church, for instance, had a different date of Easter than the Church of Rome and kept that tradition for centuries, well into the Viking Age. Rome itself has changed the method of reckoning Easter, hence why the Romans and the Orthodox now celebrate Easter on different dates.
The Apostles were just fine calling Jesus "Lord", as were those who asked Him to save them. I really don't think Jesus is a stickler for pronunciation. Or do you think He looked at people seeking His grace and said "Sorry, but you didn't get my name right" and hung them out to dry?
Whatever makes you feel warm and fuzzy, dude. Keep grasping at whatever esoteric straw you can to cast aspersions on the Roman Church. There are actual good arguments to be made against the Roman church. You are not using any of them.
Last edited:
Could you elaborate on that a bit more please? What is "popular Marian piety through the ages" as opposed to "actual belief"?
Lets use Acts 16:31-34 and the account about the jailer....
"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. 34 He brought them up into the house and set food before them; and he and his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God." (NRSVACE)
Now from the Greek Interlinear....
"And de they ho said legō, “ Believe pisteuō in epi the ho Lord kyrios Jesus Iēsous, and kai you will be saved sōzō, you sy and kai · ho your sy household oikos.” 32 And kai they spoke laleō the ho word logos of the ho Lord kyrios to him autos, along syn with all pas who ho were in en · ho his autos house oikia. 33 And kai taking paralambanō them autos in en that ekeinos · ho hour hōra of the ho night nyx, he washed louō their ho wounds plēgē; then kai he was baptized baptizō at once parachrēma, he autos and kai · ho all pas his autos family. 34 And te when he had brought anagō them autos up into eis his ho house oikos, he set paratithēmi food trapeza before them; and kai he rejoiced agalliaō, having placed his faith pisteuō in ho God theos along with his entire household panoikei.
You can see three different words there....one means his "family" who were baptized, and the other two mean his "entire household"....whoever lived under his roof.
If I was going to instruct the people in a household with a life saving message, would I expect an infant or even a toddler to comprehend anything I said?
Since the Bible stresses that one has to make a decision to serve God for themselves, that would not include infants who cannot yet speak or comprehend the message. It would only include those who were mature enough to make that decision. It doesn't say in that account that the jailer had any infants in his household anyway. Unlike Jews, who were born into a dedicated nation, Christ's disciples had to choose to follow him and publicly demonstrate that decision before witnesses by getting baptized.
No one was 'born' a Christian but had to choose to become one when of age.
So how does God view infants who are not baptized? Would he send them to "hell" or "Limbo" if they died, as was once believed? Is it the act of baptism that makes one a Christian...or the choice to become one.....? What does the Bible say about unbaptized children?
I did not choose the image...it came from the Catholic website I used to supply the images. Its on the front cover of their book.
Looking at that scripture from the Greek Interlinear we see not a halo but but a "rainbow" strangely enough.
From the NRSVA Catholic Edition...."And I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven, wrapped in a cloud, with a rainbow over his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs like pillars of fire." John was obviously having difficulty putting into human terms what he was witnessing.
The Greek word is "iris" and we find it in only one other place....Revelation 4:3...."And He who was sitting was like a jasper stone and a sardius in appearance; and there was a Rainbow (iris G2463) around the throne, like an emerald in appearance."
So the only mention of this "halo" was around the head of an angel as well as around the throne upon which God apparently sat.
Halos are not really biblical, but found in ancient pagan religious art....often used to symbolize sun worship.
So what does it symbolize in Catholic worship?
Last edited:
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I suspect the first Catholic was actually mentioned in the bible.
Diotrephes was born to a prominent pagan family. He opposed
John and took his church away from the Apostolic church. He
might be recorded as the first Bishop Diotrephes.
You mean St. Clement of Rome, mentioned as a companion of Paul in Philippians 4:3?
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
I understand that the first Bishop was one Diotrephes.
Without looking into his doctrine, it might be that Clement
was of the Apostolic Church.
The difference between this church and the early Catholic
was subtle. The Apostles and author of Hebrews warned
about apostate practices, such as observing holy days,
laws, religious liturgy, new symbols etc..
At a later stage the Catholic Church was essentially
unrecognizable to the Apostolic Church as it assumed
temporal power, riches and glory.
Have you had no discussions with your wife about her beliefs? Or is it best not to go there?
Ah yes, I am aware of their view of scripture. It isn't Jesus' view of scripture though unfortunately. When confronted by his foremost opposer who quoted scripture to him in an effort to make him compromised his obedience to God, Jesus countered with another scripture with the words "it is written", so the word of God was apparently his final authority....I believe it should be ours too.
Yes, that seems to be their attitude, but I believe that they are fooling themselves if they claim it as their own, especially when they ignore a good portion of it's teachings.
I can assure you that not a single word in the Bible was written by a Catholic. Nothing written after the apostolic period made it into the canon.
The question is...does God judge the Catholic church on the Bible alone? If Jesus based all his teachings on scripture, then shouldn't all Christians do that too?
If they have mistaken Jesus' words to Peter and there is no apostolic succession, then the Pope is not the head of the church....Jesus is. When Catholicism departed from the teachings of the Christ, I believe that he left the building.
Ummm, I'm not sure that I understand "papal bull" in quite the same way as they do.
LOL
On the night of the Passover Jesus broke the bread and handed it to his disciples. It was no particular shape. So why is the Catholic wafer round?
I suspect for the same reason that the Sabbath was moved to Sunday, rather than sticking with the Jewish equivalent of Saturday.
Sun worship was strong in Rome and Catholic statuary and art reflect a fondness for the sun. I have had it explained (or should I say excused) that because Jesus is called "the sun of righteousness" in the Bible, they say this excuses the use of sun symbols in Catholic worship. What I don't understand is how it excuses the obelisk in the middle of a Babylonian sun wheel in St Peter's Square....
This obelisk was not constructed by the church, but transported from Egypt where it represented the sun god Ra.
Right there in the supposed center of Christian worship is a symbol of pagan sun worship. I wonder how God feels about that?
When Israel introduced articles of false worship into their temple, he punished them.
There's the round "square" in which the obelisk is located....and it matches a lot of other "round" things associated with Catholic worship.....the wafer, the halo, St Peter's "Square" where the Pope gives his addresses, the dome and floor of the Sistine Chapel and the Vatican Museum floor......and a fountain as well by the looks.
Symbols of the sun appear to be everywhere....
Christmas is coming up too.....another reminder of sun worship since the date and much of the customs were already celebrated by the pagan Romans prior to Catholicism being made the state religion by the Emperor.
The birthday of the sun god was held on December 25th to honor the sun, not Jesus Christ.
Not much has changed except the name. Those pagan Roman festivals were held at year’s end, about the time of the winter solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. They included the Saturnalia, in honor of Saturn, god of agriculture, and the combined festivals of two sun gods, the Roman Sol and the Persian Mithra. Both birthdays were celebrated on December 25, the winter solstice according to the Julian calendar. So it has nothing to do with Jesus....who btw never celebrated his own birthday due to its pagan origins and customs.
Last edited:
Thank you for your contribution Shiranui.
Since there is not a single scripture that mentions any of that, where did this idea come from?
Joseph and Mary went to the temple to offer a sin offering, the two turtledoves were the offering of the poor.
The law stated..."When the days of her purification for a son or a daughter are completed, she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to the priest." (Leviticus 12:6)
That is what Mary and Joseph did....Luke 2:24..."And they offered a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of Jehovah: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
Leviticus 12:8..."But if she cannot afford a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”
Nowhere in the Bible will I find that Mary was sinless or that she was taken to heaven body and soul. Actually, Pope John Paul II said at the General Audience at the Vatican on June 25, 1997..... “The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. . . . The opinions that wish to exclude her from death by natural causes seem groundless.”
Considering what the scriptures say, as well as this statement from the Pope, it appears that Mary must have been just like us. She was favored by God to bear the Messiah, but since Jesus had to be born of a Jewish mother, and he came through Mary but not from her, there was no need for her to be sinless. God conceived him sinless. Besides, someone had to have the role. Joseph was also an excellent choice as Jesus' adoptive father.
The Bible mentions a jailer and his household being baptized, but no mention is made of infants. Baptism is a choice, not a ritual. No one can be baptized who has not heard the message and consented personally to become a disciple of Christ. There is not a single Christian in the Bible who didn't choose to become one of their own volition after hearing the Christian message.
In the case of young Samuel, his mother made a vow to God to dedicate him to God's service as part of her gratitude for him giving her a child after so long a time wanting to be a mother. Its not the same at all. In her faith, she did not know if he would be her one and only but still she surrendered him for temple service. God blessed her with more children and Samuel served his God well all his life.
Did you know that Paul stated that parents are responsible for the spiritual condition of their children up until they reach an age where they can make their own choice? Even if only one parent is a Christian, the child is "sanctified" (or made holy) because of the faithful parent. (1 Corinthians 7: 14)
That certainly beats relegating these little children to 'hell' if they should die before baptism. It was also incentive for the believing parent to stay faithful because of their minor children.
Why do you think it is a mainly Catholic practice?
Historian Will Durant made this comment in his book, "The Story of Civilization: Part III—Caesar and Christ."....
“The Church took over some religious customs and forms common in pre-Christian [pagan] Rome—the stole and other vestments of pagan priests, the use of incense and holy water in purifications, the burning of candles and an everlasting light before the altar, the worship of the saints, the architecture of the basilica, the law of Rome as a basis for canon law, the title of Pontifex Maximus for the Supreme Pontiff, and, in the fourth century, the Latin language . . . Soon the bishops, rather than the Roman prefects, would be the source of order and the seat of power in the cities; the metropolitans, or archbishops, would support, if not supplant, the provincial governors; and the synod of bishops would succeed the provincial assembly. The Roman Church followed in the footsteps of the Roman state.”
Since there is not a single scripture that mentions any of that, where did this idea come from?
Joseph and Mary went to the temple to offer a sin offering, the two turtledoves were the offering of the poor.
The law stated..."When the days of her purification for a son or a daughter are completed, she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to the priest." (Leviticus 12:6)
That is what Mary and Joseph did....Luke 2:24..."And they offered a sacrifice according to what is said in the Law of Jehovah: “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
Leviticus 12:8..."But if she cannot afford a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”
Nowhere in the Bible will I find that Mary was sinless or that she was taken to heaven body and soul. Actually, Pope John Paul II said at the General Audience at the Vatican on June 25, 1997..... “The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. . . . The opinions that wish to exclude her from death by natural causes seem groundless.”
Considering what the scriptures say, as well as this statement from the Pope, it appears that Mary must have been just like us. She was favored by God to bear the Messiah, but since Jesus had to be born of a Jewish mother, and he came through Mary but not from her, there was no need for her to be sinless. God conceived him sinless. Besides, someone had to have the role. Joseph was also an excellent choice as Jesus' adoptive father.
The Bible mentions a jailer and his household being baptized, but no mention is made of infants. Baptism is a choice, not a ritual. No one can be baptized who has not heard the message and consented personally to become a disciple of Christ. There is not a single Christian in the Bible who didn't choose to become one of their own volition after hearing the Christian message.
In the case of young Samuel, his mother made a vow to God to dedicate him to God's service as part of her gratitude for him giving her a child after so long a time wanting to be a mother. Its not the same at all. In her faith, she did not know if he would be her one and only but still she surrendered him for temple service. God blessed her with more children and Samuel served his God well all his life.
Did you know that Paul stated that parents are responsible for the spiritual condition of their children up until they reach an age where they can make their own choice? Even if only one parent is a Christian, the child is "sanctified" (or made holy) because of the faithful parent. (1 Corinthians 7: 14)
That certainly beats relegating these little children to 'hell' if they should die before baptism. It was also incentive for the believing parent to stay faithful because of their minor children.
Why do you think it is a mainly Catholic practice?
Historian Will Durant made this comment in his book, "The Story of Civilization: Part III—Caesar and Christ."....
“The Church took over some religious customs and forms common in pre-Christian [pagan] Rome—the stole and other vestments of pagan priests, the use of incense and holy water in purifications, the burning of candles and an everlasting light before the altar, the worship of the saints, the architecture of the basilica, the law of Rome as a basis for canon law, the title of Pontifex Maximus for the Supreme Pontiff, and, in the fourth century, the Latin language . . . Soon the bishops, rather than the Roman prefects, would be the source of order and the seat of power in the cities; the metropolitans, or archbishops, would support, if not supplant, the provincial governors; and the synod of bishops would succeed the provincial assembly. The Roman Church followed in the footsteps of the Roman state.”
In Bible time it was lamps, not candles. According to the historian quoted above, Catholicism borrowed a fair bit from her pagan counterparts.
It isn't bread or rolls. Its unleavened bread....flat and crisp, denoting the sinless state of of Christ's body. It breaks into pieces of no particular shape. The whole point of the bread was not shape of the piece, but the sharing of the loaf between all the disciples. When Christians meet to remember the sacrifice of Jesus, there are no neat little circles, but a morsel of bread broken from one piece. That is the symbolism. I have noticed that wine is not always offered so can you tell me why? The bread and wine symbolize Christ's body and his blood....both are required.
Jesus did not stress the need for repetitive prayers, in fact he told his disciples not to pray like that....mindless repetition was not what God required.
He said...."But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matthew 6:6)
A few words from our heart are worth far more than empty words by rote from memory.
He continued.....“When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9 “Pray then in this way:
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:7-10)
He said to pray this "way" not pray this prayer. This was to be the model for our own prayers. Many people don't know how to pray because they have never been taught....how to have an actual conversation with God.
Again you are harking back to the Jewish arrangement. Christianity was a departure from the formal worship of the Jews. Jesus made it simple and he made God approachable, showing us how to address our Father and how to worship him acceptably.
Not true. You are going back to the Jewish arrangement again....The Ark of the Covenant and the cherubs that God commanded to be made were never seen by the people because they were contained in the Holy of Holies. Only the High Priest could enter in there and only once a year. This prevented the idolatry that entrapped their neighbors...and crept into their own worship. God put a stop to it. He commanded his people NOT to make images of any description for use in worship.
The furnishings of the Temple were decorative, not intended for anything else. Every one was at the command of God....to the last detail.
Please see post #29 for detail on that subject.
As a side point, since you have been a Roman Catholic in the past, what is the main difference between the two churches as far as beliefs and practices go?
Last edited:
The "Nicene Trinity Christianity" was declared the only legitimate Imperial religion and the only one entitled to call itself Catholic. This was the decree of the Roman emperor Theodosius in 380. He summoned another ecumenical council in 381 AD to rubber stamp that decree. The Roman emperors held the post of Pontifex Maximus, and they were the head of state, and religion. The Roman Catholic church included all the Roman churches of the time, such as individual jurisdictions, East & West, as part of the official Roman religion, whether they were located in Rome or Alexandria. And there was no pope of Rome in 325 AD, there was a bishop of Rome who sent his representatives to Nicaea. In 381 AD the diocese of Rome was put in precedence over the diocese of Constantinople. The Roman emperor, the Pontifex Maximus, was in overall charge. His concern was to maintain unity of empire and reign in any perceived heresies, which was causing strife in his kingdom. This was also the position of Constantine when he convened the Council of Nicaea. The head of the Catholic Church, was the beast/king of Rome. You worship/honor the king, Augustus Caesar, successor to Julius Caesar, you worship the "dragon" (Revelation 13:4).
Are you bound and determined to invent conspiracy theories for every aspect of every denomination you don't agree with, or is this something you only do with the Catholics?
It seems to me you ignored what I said - that they don't have any rule that it has to be a particular shape - jumped on your own nonsense, and just took off running.
You give much too much credit to the pope regarding Scripture.
Out of all the passages in the Bible the Church has only defined about seven.
It is Catholic belief that,
"the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error THAT TRUTH which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation"
For Catholics the Gospels were not penned at one time from 'dictation' by God, but were compiled in stages;
"1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, ‘whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up'
2. The oral tradition. ‘For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed'
3. The written Gospels. ‘The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus'
Many Catholics hold personal beliefs concerning Mary which are not part of the 'Deposit of Faith' not official church teaching. Mary has no merit of her own. There is one mediator between God and man and that is Christ.
Since the Gospel writers interpreted the meaning and purpose of Jesus through Hebrew Scripture;
the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation." (Note in this instance that the word "you" is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah's righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)
Genesis 12:17 "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."
Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."
Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."
Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus you shall say to him who lives inprosperity: 'Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have!"
These passages speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household. Joshua, cited above, even takes responsibility not only for his own serving the Lord, but for his family's as well.
And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:
Genesis 50:7-8 "So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father's house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen."
1 Samuel 1:21,22 "Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.'"
The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term "house" presumed otherwise.
Joachim Jeremias sums it up neatly:
The phrase "he and his (whole) house" denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children. In no single case is the term "house" restricted to the adult members of the house, though on the other hand children alone may be mentioned when the whole house is meant. Whilst slaves are very often not reckoned as part of the "house," the inclusion of the children is taken for granted. Indeed, the Old Testament repeatedly lays special emphasis on the very smallest being reckoned in.
Only one question remains: Does the New Testament use the word "house" in the same way? Clearly so. To quote Jeremias again:
I have not found in secular Greek usage any examples of "house" referring to "adults exclusively." As regards the phrase of the type "[So and so] and his house" no literary examples are found in the dictionaries generally in use.... In view of the dissimilarities of the New Testament phrase "he and his house" to secular Greek ... and its agreement with Old Testament usage ... there can be no doubt that it represents a heritage from biblical language.
In other words, the phrase "and his house" in the New Testament is clearly borrowed from the Old and meant to cover the same territory. it is irrelevant that children are not specifically mentioned in the household baptisms of the New Testament.
Even if it could be historically proven that every household baptism of the New Testament was -- by some fluke -- a baptism of a household with no very young children -- even that would be irrelevant. The point of the household language is that children, if any, are included unless explicitly excluded. If the Holy Spirit had meant to exclude children from baptism, the Scriptures would have to say, "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith." Or "[So and so] was baptized and -- there being no young children in the household but only such as were of an age and actually believed -- the entire household were baptized with him."
To get the full flavor of this truth, we ought to see the entire New Testament witness. Look at these verses one by one, remembering the normal meaning that any Jew or instructed Gentile would attach to the word "house" and let the cumulative force of these verses overwhelm you:
Matthew 10:12-14 "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."
Luke 19:9 "And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham'"
John 4:53 "So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, 'Your son lives.' And he himself believed, and his whole household."
Acts 2:38-39 "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'"
Acts 10:2 "[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always."
Acts 11:14-18 "'[Peter] will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.'"
Acts 16:14-15 "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us."
Acts 16:31-34 "So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."
Acts 18:8 "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Note well that Paul refers back to this event in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as the baptism of "Crispus." It is clear that in Paul's mind, to baptize "Crispus" is necessarily to baptize the members of his household under his headship as well.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other."
2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain."
Hebrews 11:7,9 "By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.... By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise."