What say the scriptures?

Clear · Dec 6, 2019

REGARDING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:29 AND BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

Hi @74x12 :

74X12 said : "Baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) is often misunderstood by people to mean being baptized for a dead person…..Speaking of Jesus who (if there is no resurrection) is still dead and so whoever is baptized for Jesus is baptized for "the dead". But of course it's not true. Jesus rose from the dead and so baptism is not for "the dead" but the one who lives forevermore. (post #147)

There are some problems with your personal interpretation of this text. For example, the original text is not English but Greek and in Greek, “the dead” refers to a plurality of individuals (though this is not apparent in English). The english version reads : What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of (gk υπερ) the dead if the dead are not raised at all? Why are people baptized on their behalf? (RSV).

The Greek refers to βαπτιζονται υπερ των νεκρων ει ολωσ νεκροι ουκ εγειρονται. Τι και βαπτιζονται υπερ των νεκρων

Both references to "baptized" βαπτιζονται refer to a plurality of people being baptized. Not "one" person.

“On behalf of the dead” / gk υπερ των νεκρων : "The dead" (gk νεκρων) also refers to a plurality of people who are dead, not the single person “jesus”.

If the dead are not raised [at all] : ει ολωσ νεκροι ουκ εγειρονται. "The dead" (gk Νεκροι) is another plural word and thus refers to a plural number of dead as does εγειρονται (the raised ONES - plural) those made alive.

Why are they baptized for the dead? Βαπτιζονται refers to a plurality of persons baptizes and των νεκρων the dead refer to a plurality who are dead. In this case "they" makes it clear that this refers to a multiple as well.

So, while I agree that this verse was written in context of the resurrection, the reference to baptism refers to a multitude of people and cannot refer simply to a single person (i.e. “Jesus”).

@Katzpur said : “ What makes you think this is speaking specifically about Jesus' resurrection? I would say that it's more likely to be speaking of the resurrection of all mankind. I mean why would anyone feel the need to be baptized "for Jesus"? Jesus had already been baptized. (Sometimes the most straightforward interpretation of the sentence is the most correct one. There's no need to complicate things.)” Post #154

I agree with you that 1 Cor 15:29 is referring to a multitude of people and not to a single individual (Jesus). Similarly, Like resurrection, baptism refers to a multitude being baptized in this reference.

I very much like your references to the LDS restorational movements' re-adoption of the early doctrines. You might like some of the early Judeo-Christian textual references to the state of the dead since they mirror your own theology.

For example, The very firm early Judao-Christian doctrine of communicative spirits in the “spirit world” between death and resurrection is augmented by the tradition of those who converted to Christianity while in the spirit world (such as the sons of symeon) in the ancient popular Christian text, gospel of Nicodemus.

The narrative relates how two men who had died were among those resurrected at the time of the resurrection of Jesus. They described the conditions that existed in the place where the stories of the dead resided. They describe how the spirits in the world of spirits are social and communicate. They describe how the spirits of the dead were instructed concerning the gospel.

These two men who had died had accepted the gospel and were then instructed, AFTER their resurrection (concurrent with Jesus resurrection) to be baptized at what seems to be their earliest opportunity (even before testifying of the resurrection of Jesus). “All this we saw and heard, we two brothers who also were sent by Michael the archangel and were appointed to preach the resurrection of the Lord, but first to go to the Jordan and be baptized. There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again. Then we went to Jerusalem also and celebrated the Passover of the resurrection. But now we depart, since we cannot remain here.....” (The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christs descent...)

The parallel biblical narrative of similar individuals is abbreviated in form in Matthew 27:52-53 : "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and, coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many." The sons of rabbi Symeon were among these dead who received their bodies again and spoke to the people about their experiences.

While Dyman, (the thief on the cross) is also described in the spirit world in this narrative, he is lost to textual tradition at this point.

This doctrine that even the non-baptized resurrected who came to believe in Jesus, were to become baptized retains the early symbolic importance that baptism had inside early Christianity.

I hope your spiritual journey is good 74X12 and Katzpur

Clear

ολοσ=εισετζ/νεακσεω

e.r.m. · Dec 7, 2019

whirlingmerc said:
not obedience?
It seems it is a purpose as Peter 'commanded' they be baptized.
not to mention Jesus

I could see one 'obeying' the command as a fruit of salvation.

That's just church lingo and it's inferred. Every command is expected to be obeyed, not just baptism (Matthew 28:20). Getting baptized in Jesus's name just to obey it is not a written purpose. The apostles never said get baptized for the sake of obedience. The apostles never said to obey any command just for the sake of obedience. But according to the scriptures, a person "obeys" the command of getting baptized in Jesus's name for what purpose? Or are you saying the Bible never says why this command was given?

74x12 · Dec 7, 2019

Clear said:
REGARDING 1 CORINTHIANS 15:29 AND BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

Hi @74x12 :

74X12 said : "Baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29) is often misunderstood by people to mean being baptized for a dead person…..Speaking of Jesus who (if there is no resurrection) is still dead and so whoever is baptized for Jesus is baptized for "the dead". But of course it's not true. Jesus rose from the dead and so baptism is not for "the dead" but the one who lives forevermore. (post #147)

There are some problems with your personal interpretation of this text. For example, the original text is not English but Greek and in Greek, “the dead” refers to a plurality of individuals (though this is not apparent in English). The english version reads : What do people mean by being baptized on behalf of (gk υπερ) the dead if the dead are not raised at all? Why are people baptized on their behalf? (RSV).

The Greek refers to βαπτιζονται υπερ των νεκρων ει ολωσ νεκροι ουκ εγειρονται. Τι και βαπτιζονται υπερ των νεκρων

Both references to "baptized" βαπτιζονται refer to a plurality of people being baptized. Not "one" person.

“On behalf of the dead” / gk υπερ των νεκρων : "The dead" (gk νεκρων) also refers to a plurality of people who are dead, not the single person “jesus”.

If the dead are not raised [at all] : ει ολωσ νεκροι ουκ εγειρονται. "The dead" (gk Νεκροι) is another plural word and thus refers to a plural number of dead as does εγειρονται (the raised ONES - plural) those made alive.

Why are they baptized for the dead? Βαπτιζονται refers to a plurality of persons baptizes and των νεκρων the dead refer to a plurality who are dead. In this case "they" makes it clear that this refers to a multiple as well.

So, while I agree that this verse was written in context of the resurrection, the reference to baptism refers to a multitude of people and cannot refer simply to a single person (i.e. “Jesus”).

@Katzpur said : “ What makes you think this is speaking specifically about Jesus' resurrection? I would say that it's more likely to be speaking of the resurrection of all mankind. I mean why would anyone feel the need to be baptized "for Jesus"? Jesus had already been baptized. (Sometimes the most straightforward interpretation of the sentence is the most correct one. There's no need to complicate things.)” Post #154

I agree with you that 1 Cor 15:29 is referring to a multitude of people and not to a single individual (Jesus). Similarly, Like resurrection, baptism refers to a multitude being baptized in this reference.

I very much like your references to the LDS restorational movements' re-adoption of the early doctrines. You might like some of the early Judeo-Christian textual references to the state of the dead since they mirror your own theology.

For example, The very firm early Judao-Christian doctrine of communicative spirits in the “spirit world” between death and resurrection is augmented by the tradition of those who converted to Christianity while in the spirit world (such as the sons of symeon) in the ancient popular Christian text, gospel of Nicodemus.

The narrative relates how two men who had died were among those resurrected at the time of the resurrection of Jesus. They described the conditions that existed in the place where the stories of the dead resided. They describe how the spirits in the world of spirits are social and communicate. They describe how the spirits of the dead were instructed concerning the gospel.

These two men who had died had accepted the gospel and were then instructed, AFTER their resurrection (concurrent with Jesus resurrection) to be baptized at what seems to be their earliest opportunity (even before testifying of the resurrection of Jesus). “All this we saw and heard, we two brothers who also were sent by Michael the archangel and were appointed to preach the resurrection of the Lord, but first to go to the Jordan and be baptized. There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again. Then we went to Jerusalem also and celebrated the Passover of the resurrection. But now we depart, since we cannot remain here.....” (The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christs descent...)

The parallel biblical narrative of similar individuals is abbreviated in form in Matthew 27:52-53 : "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised and, coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many." The sons of rabbi Symeon were among these dead who received their bodies again and spoke to the people about their experiences.

While Dyman, (the thief on the cross) is also described in the spirit world in this narrative, he is lost to textual tradition at this point.

This doctrine that even the non-baptized resurrected who came to believe in Jesus, were to become baptized retains the early symbolic importance that baptism had inside early Christianity.

I hope your spiritual journey is good 74X12 and Katzpur

Clear

ολοσ=εισετζ/νεακσεω

I see, well thanks. I will look into this.

Clear · Dec 8, 2019

POST ONE OF TWO

I liked some of the thoughts brought up by various posters. For example,

@exchemist said : “I looked up why John the Baptist baptized people and learned it derived from the Jewish mikvah, a ritual bath taken to symbolise spiritual cleansing. So there was nothing really new about it. The Gospels tell us that this ritual was adopted by Christ, in that he allowed himself to be baptized by John and then, after his resurrection, gave the injunction I referred to previously to continue the practice, as a part of the induction of new disciples. (post #137)

Exchemists observation that this ritual of baptism was associated with the conversion to Christianity is insightful.

I also liked @Whirlingmercs’ observation that baptism was also associated with the principle of obedience. Whirlingmerc said : “It seems it is a purpose as Peter 'commanded' they be baptized. not to mention Jesus I could see one 'obeying' the command as a fruit of salvation.” (post #157) and his reference to it as a "seal of salvation" (post #160).

These were also insightful observations made by other posters as well, though I cannot tell what deeper meaning is being applied in many of the prior posts.

REGARDING BAPTISM IN EARLY HISTORICAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEWS

I just wanted to make just a couple observations regarding how early Christians themselves viewed baptism that underlie a historical interpretations of the biblical texts that refer to baptism. Even the language of the early biblical text offers insights that the English doesn’t.

For example, 1 Peter 3:22 says : Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: -1 Peter 3:22 “

The greek/koine points out in vs 21 that "the like figure" means “Baptism, [which] corresponds (αντιτυπον) to this, now saves us” (or "saves you”, depending upon which base text one uses). Thus, there was something important about baptism which was, somehow, connected with salvation.

The phrase, “the answer of a good conscience” should be “the REQUEST (επερωτημα) for a good conscience” (as in a thing sought for) if one is using the common koine usage, and also best retain the symbolism of removal of "stain", "dirt", or “filth” as both a physical and moral symbol in the early Christian symbol set.

I think that modern individuals lose sight of the fact that our modern language translations and our modern symbol sets are not the same as that of the ancient Judeo-Christians. The principle is that the ancient Christian gospel (the ευαγγελιον, the “good” or “true” message) includes all aspects of Christs message that prepares mankind for and ultimately delivers them into a social heaven, fully prepared to live in such a place.

BAPTISM WAS IMPORTANT IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGION

In early Christian worldview, Baptism was only part of the early Christian gospel, but, it was a profoundly important part of this process of preparing mankind for and ultimately delivering them into a social heaven.

Justin Martyr circa 151 said : "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

As a youth, I grew up in a Christian church that had little knowledge and understanding regarding Christian baptism. Part of the congregation believed baptism was somehow important for some vague reasons and others had no knowledge of its import and felt no need to undergo “tubbing”,(as our minister called baptism). The minister himself did not have knowledge enough to possess any strong opinion either way. So, once a month he would baptize those who wanted it and did not pressure those who did not want baptism. It was simply an unknown subject to such Christians. We had lost the knowledge of such things.

Part of the value of studying the Early Judao-Christian texts is to gain a clearer view of the characteristics of the earliest Christianities; their doctrines and practices. Study of early texts reveals the evolution of doctrines and practices and clarifies those things that have been lost to modern Christianities. Such loss of prior knowledge and change in doctrines and practices has always occurred. Moses laments that the Children of Israel “will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles…they will worship the false gods…they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe." (Dead sea scroll, The Words of Moses 1Q22).

The phenomenon of changing and evolving orthodoxies applies to ordinances as well. For example, regarding baptism, Barnabas observed : “concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves." (Bar 11:1). This same principle of changing doctrines applied to ancient Christianity just as it applied to the Jews as Paul indicates regarding the Galatians : “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” (gal 1:6) The Christianities today who no longer understand the original import and essence of Baptism, have simply repeated the same mistake as Israel made and as the Galatians and other Christian forefathers made in the loss of important knowledge.

The Catechumens (or early converts to Christianity) were supposed to be taught many things BEFORE baptism : “Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. 2 Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence, the judgment seats of different legislation, why the world came to be and why man was appointed a world citizen. 3 Let him understand his own nature, of what sort it is. Let him be educated in how God punished the wicked...5 And how God, though he foresaw, did not abandon the race of men, but summoned them at various times from error and folly into the understanding of truth....6 Let the one who offers himself learn during his instruction these things and those that are related to them." (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - # 8 Instruction for the Catechumens - AposCon 7.39.2-4) The import of having such knowledge before baptism was partly because baptism represented a covenant made with God and one was to know the choice and commitment one was making before making the covenant associated with baptism.

BAPTISM WAS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY TO THESE ANCIENT CHRISTIANITIES

Early Christianity taught that “Baptism is a great thing, ...Because if people receive it they will live” (The gospel of Phillip). In his vision of the church as a Tower built upon a lake of water, Hermas asks the angel, “Why is the tower built upon water, madam?”, the angel replies “it is because your life was saved and will be saved through water.” (Her 11:5) This descent into the water of Baptism, was associated with a great blessing and thus it was taught: “... blessed are those who, having set their hope on the cross, descended into the water, because he speaks of the reward “in its season” (Bar 11:8)

Using similar symbolism used in the present example in 1 Peter 3:21, Barnabas also explained one meaning underlying this scriptural symbolism : “By this he means that while we descend into the water laden with sins and dirt (ρυπου), we rise up bearing fruit in our heart and with fear and hope in Jesus in our spirits.” (Bar 11:11). The increase in hope was connected to the promise and covenant within the ordinance. Because it was a covenant, it was offered only to those who were WILLING and WANTING (and thus “worthy”) to make such a covenant. Thus the officer of the guard, Annaias “being learned in the law, came to know our Lord Jesus Christ from the sacred scriptures, which I approached with faith” could claim he “Was accounted worthy of holy baptism”. (The Gospel of Nicodemus - Prologue)

TO THESE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS, BAPTISM WAS A SYMBOL OF A COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND MANKIND

Just as a seal was a symbolic “Hallmark” or sign that authenticated, confirmed, or attested to a thing, Baptism was seen as a similar symbol : “For before a man,” he said, “bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead, but when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water; so they go down into the water dead and they come up alive. Thus this seal was proclaimed to them as well, and they made use of it in order that they might enter the kingdom of God.” ( Her 93:34)

Though baptism was a physical ritual, the ritual was simply a symbol of a spiritual reality. The critical thing that was happening was invisible. The covenant itself was NOT the physical ordinance, but rather it was the internal commitment and changing of the heart of the person. The physical ordinance is merely a sign that a covenant was made. Though the physical ritual was imitated repeatedly by later Christian counterfeits, the actual covenant that took place within the heart; the authority to perform the ordinance; and the associated internal conditions could not (and still cannot) BE imitated nor counterfeited. The commandments and the ordinances of the Lord were always “written on the tablets of your hearts” (I Clement 2:8) and the Lord knows our hearts....

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

Clear · Dec 8, 2019

POST TWO OF TWO

AUTHENTIC BAPTISM WAS ASSOCIATED WITH AUTHENTIC REPENTANCE

In the authentic covenant, one may claim : “And he shall wash my soul with a laving from the land, And he shall raise me on wings upwards to dwellings. And shall set me in the treasure-house of the Father, where no thieves shall loiter.” (Govishn Ig Griv Zindag)

However, Christian counterfeiters became willing to baptize those unfit and unwilling as though God could be fooled into giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost to those who were simply “made wet”. They did not commit to have FAITH, to become HUMBLE and importantly, to REPENT of their sins before authentic baptism. The authentic promise was made : “...in the TRUTH of Your covenant…to cleanse ONESELF from uncleanness…and THEN he shall enter the water..." (Dead sea scroll BAPTISMAL LITURGY 4Q414) The counterfeiters lacked faith, repentance and sincerity, yet still complained (both then and now) when they have no holy Ghost.

If the convert did not uphold his side of the covenant of Baptism by humility and authentic repentance before undergoing the ordinance of baptism, then the Lord was under no obligation to uphold his side of the covenant of cleansing and bestowal of the Holy Spirit. The sequence was very important in this case (and in other cases). “ ...and there are the two commandments: Unless they are performed in proper sequence they leave one open to the greatest sin. It is the same with the other commandments. " (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Napthali 8:9)

The authentic sequence was always to cleanse oneself by sincere and humble repentance, before baptism, thus it was said in that order : “...in the truth of Your covenant…to cleanse oneself from uncleanness…and then he shall enter the water (Dead sea scroll BAPTISMAL LITURGY 4Q414)

This is not to say one could not become humble and repent later, merely that the ordinance, was of no benefit without Faithful humility and repentance. It was because there were qualifications to the authentic covenants he was willing to submit to, Annanias said he was “accounted worthy” of baptism.

The same principle was true of the counterfeits that was true of the honest refusals. The outward ordinance, by itself, had no efficacy and was good for nothing. The authentic ordinance itself could never be of benefit to those who refused to humble themselves in repentance, and who did not honestly make the covenant to God that was associated with baptism. Of those refusing authentic entry into the society of believers it was taught : “ceremonies of atonement cannot restore HIS innocence, neither cultic waters HIS purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism… - for only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways…and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, purified from all iniquity…only thus can he really receive the purifying watersand be purged by the cleansing flow… - (Dead Sea Scroll – Charter.. 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11)

Anciently the counterfeit ordinances were noted and those involved were warned : “If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything and says, “I am a Christian,” he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back, but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded". (The gospel of Phillip)

How many times have the atheists and others without faith in revelation from God claimed “I’ve prayed but received no answer.” and then conclude the principle themselves are at fault, never mind that they “unplugged the machine.” One simply cannot counterfeit the authentic covenant and commitment God requires for the baptismal covenant to be in full force and for the tangible blessings which accompany authentic baptism to be manifest.

I had not intended on dwelling on how Baptism became abused and relegated to “forgotten things” in the more modern Christianities, however, as I review the early texts, the texts themselves seemed so often to dwell on such things in an increasingly resigned and unfruitful attempt to prevent this ordinance from abuse and dishonor among Christian schisms and later theories as they abandoned early doctrines and practices and developed the various new theories and practices which characterized apostasy.

At any rate, I like the clear, coherent, logical, rational and historically consistent approach and presentation inside the early Judeo-Christian texts concerning Baptism and what it meant to them. I do NOT think the various competing modern theories concerning baptism are as rational and as logical as the more original Judeo-Christian beliefs.

@whirlingmerc and @exchemist, Kudos for your insights into baptism. I hope your spiritual journey is good and wonderful.

Clear
ειειειτωω

whirlingmerc · Dec 8, 2019

Clear said:
POST TWO OF TWO

AUTHENTIC BAPTISM WAS ASSOCIATED WITH AUTHENTIC REPENTANCE

In the authentic covenant, one may claim : “And he shall wash my soul with a laving from the land, And he shall raise me on wings upwards to dwellings. And shall set me in the treasure-house of the Father, where no thieves shall loiter.” (Govishn Ig Griv Zindag)

However, Christian counterfeiters became willing to baptize those unfit and unwilling as though God could be fooled into giving the Gift of the Holy Ghost to those who were simply “made wet”. They did not commit to have FAITH, to become HUMBLE and importantly, to REPENT of their sins before authentic baptism. The authentic promise was made : “...in the TRUTH of Your covenant…to cleanse ONESELF from uncleanness…and THEN he shall enter the water..." (Dead sea scroll BAPTISMAL LITURGY 4Q414) The counterfeiters lacked faith, repentance and sincerity, yet still complained (both then and now) when they have no holy Ghost.

If the convert did not uphold his side of the covenant of Baptism by humility and authentic repentance before undergoing the ordinance of baptism, then the Lord was under no obligation to uphold his side of the covenant of cleansing and bestowal of the Holy Spirit. The sequence was very important in this case (and in other cases). “ ...and there are the two commandments: Unless they are performed in proper sequence they leave one open to the greatest sin. It is the same with the other commandments. " (Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs - Napthali 8:9)

The authentic sequence was always to cleanse oneself by sincere and humble repentance, before baptism, thus it was said in that order : “...in the truth of Your covenant…to cleanse oneself from uncleanness…and then he shall enter the water (Dead sea scroll BAPTISMAL LITURGY 4Q414)

This is not to say one could not become humble and repent later, merely that the ordinance, was of no benefit without Faithful humility and repentance. It was because there were qualifications to the authentic covenants he was willing to submit to, Annanias said he was “accounted worthy” of baptism.

The same principle was true of the counterfeits that was true of the honest refusals. The outward ordinance, by itself, had no efficacy and was good for nothing. The authentic ordinance itself could never be of benefit to those who refused to humble themselves in repentance, and who did not honestly make the covenant to God that was associated with baptism. Of those refusing authentic entry into the society of believers it was taught : “ceremonies of atonement cannot restore HIS innocence, neither cultic waters HIS purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism… - for only through the spirit pervading God’s true society can there be atonement for a man’s ways…and so be joined to his truth by his Holy Spirit, purified from all iniquity…only thus can he really receive the purifying watersand be purged by the cleansing flow… - (Dead Sea Scroll – Charter.. 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11)

Anciently the counterfeit ordinances were noted and those involved were warned : “If one goes down into the water and comes up without having received anything and says, “I am a Christian,” he has borrowed the name at interest. But if he receives the Holy spirit, he has the name as a gift. He who has received a gift does not have to give it back, but of him who has borrowed it at interest, payment is demanded". (The gospel of Phillip)

How many times have the atheists and others without faith in revelation from God claimed “I’ve prayed but received no answer.” and then conclude the principle themselves are at fault, never mind that they “unplugged the machine.” One simply cannot counterfeit the authentic covenant and commitment God requires for the baptismal covenant to be in full force and for the tangible blessings which accompany authentic baptism to be manifest.

I had not intended on dwelling on how Baptism became abused and relegated to “forgotten things” in the more modern Christianities, however, as I review the early texts, the texts themselves seemed so often to dwell on such things in an increasingly resigned and unfruitful attempt to prevent this ordinance from abuse and dishonor among Christian schisms and later theories as they abandoned early doctrines and practices and developed the various new theories and practices which characterized apostasy.

At any rate, I like the clear, coherent, logical, rational and historically consistent approach and presentation inside the early Judeo-Christian texts concerning Baptism and what it meant to them. I do NOT think the various competing modern theories concerning baptism are as rational and as logical as the more original Judeo-Christian beliefs.

@whirlingmerc and @exchemist, Kudos for your insights into baptism. I hope your spiritual journey is good and wonderful.

Clear
ειειειτωω

John the baptist told people to show works in accordance with their repentance as did apostles. Paul did similar. I see baptism, repentance, good works it as a type of fruit.

“I preached to those in Damascus first, and to those in Jerusalem and in all the region of Judea, and to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works worthy of repentance.” (Acts 26:20)

There is necessary fruit of salvation, ''he who endures to the end shall be saved" Jesus said and perseverance is one form but fruit of salvation shows in various ways as one lives a godward life with new treasures in their heart.

whirlingmerc · Dec 8, 2019

e.r.m. said:
That's just church lingo and it's inferred. Every command is expected to be obeyed, not just baptism (Matthew 28:20). Getting baptized in Jesus's name just to obey it is not a written purpose. The apostles never said get baptized for the sake of obedience. The apostles never said to obey any command just for the sake of obedience. But according to the scriptures, a person "obeys" the command of getting baptized in Jesus's name for what purpose? Or are you saying the Bible never says why this command was given?

Since both John the baptism and Peter commanded people to be baptized, I'm going out on a limb and saying expected obedience is implied

I would have a problem with a view that baptism is 'no big deal'' or a church that doesn't practice baptism or communion. In many ways we live out obedience and are partly driven by a better treasure we have in our hearts now.

I also have a problem with baptismal regeneration for different reasons, not the least of which being the thief at the cross was never baptized and promised paradise

I do think it's important to respect people views held in good conscience.

Clear · Dec 8, 2019

Hi @whirlingmerc :
I like many of your insights. I am a bit confused about one comment you made.

Whirlingmerc said : "I also have a problem with baptismal regeneration for different reasons, not the least of which being the thief at the cross was never baptized and promised paradise" (post #167)

While the early Judeo-Christians wrote of the specific purposes of and effects which were the result of baptism in their literature, I am not sure that you are speaking of the same thing THEY described in THEIR literature. Can you explain what YOU think "baptismal regeneration" is in the early Judeo-Christian context?
Can you explain why the promise Jesus made to Dymas the thief causes you a "problem' with baptismal regeneration?

Clear
ειειφυειω

whirlingmerc · Dec 8, 2019

Clear said:
Hi @whirlingmerc :
I like many of your insights. I am a bit confused about one comment you made.

Whirlingmerc said : "I also have a problem with baptismal regeneration for different reasons, not the least of which being the thief at the cross was never baptized and promised paradise" (post #167)

While the early Judeo-Christians wrote of the specific purposes of and effects which were the result of baptism in their literature, I am not sure that you are speaking of the same thing THEY described in THEIR literature. Can you explain what YOU think "baptismal regeneration" is in the early Judeo-Christian context?
Can you explain why the promise Jesus made to Dymas the thief causes you a "problem' with baptismal regeneration?

Clear
ειειφυειω

The thief on the cross was not baptized but saved. That suggests regeneration happened apart from baptism in his case.

In the early Judea Christian context there were various views on baptism and some people even tried to wait to be baptized until shortly before the died to have more a clean slate before dying. I think would be looked at as fairly eccentric now.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2019

Clear said:
POST ONE OF TWO

I liked some of the thoughts brought up by various posters. For example,

@exchemist said : “I looked up why John the Baptist baptized people and learned it derived from the Jewish mikvah, a ritual bath taken to symbolise spiritual cleansing. So there was nothing really new about it. The Gospels tell us that this ritual was adopted by Christ, in that he allowed himself to be baptized by John and then, after his resurrection, gave the injunction I referred to previously to continue the practice, as a part of the induction of new disciples. (post #137)

Exchemists observation that this ritual of baptism was associated with the conversion to Christianity is insightful.

I also liked @Whirlingmercs’ observation that baptism was also associated with the principle of obedience. Whirlingmerc said : “It seems it is a purpose as Peter 'commanded' they be baptized. not to mention Jesus I could see one 'obeying' the command as a fruit of salvation.” (post #157) and his reference to it as a "seal of salvation" (post #160).

These were also insightful observations made by other posters as well, though I cannot tell what deeper meaning is being applied in many of the prior posts.

REGARDING BAPTISM IN EARLY HISTORICAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEWS

I just wanted to make just a couple observations regarding how early Christians themselves viewed baptism that underlie a historical interpretations of the biblical texts that refer to baptism. Even the language of the early biblical text offers insights that the English doesn’t.

For example, 1 Peter 3:22 says : Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: -1 Peter 3:22 “

The greek/koine points out in vs 21 that "the like figure" means “Baptism, [which] corresponds (αντιτυπον) to this, now saves us” (or "saves you”, depending upon which base text one uses). Thus, there was something important about baptism which was, somehow, connected with salvation.

The phrase, “the answer of a good conscience” should be “the REQUEST (επερωτημα) for a good conscience” (as in a thing sought for) if one is using the common koine usage, and also best retain the symbolism of removal of "stain", "dirt", or “filth” as both a physical and moral symbol in the early Christian symbol set.

I think that modern individuals lose sight of the fact that our modern language translations and our modern symbol sets are not the same as that of the ancient Judeo-Christians. The principle is that the ancient Christian gospel (the ευαγγελιον, the “good” or “true” message) includes all aspects of Christs message that prepares mankind for and ultimately delivers them into a social heaven, fully prepared to live in such a place.

BAPTISM WAS IMPORTANT IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN RELIGION

In early Christian worldview, Baptism was only part of the early Christian gospel, but, it was a profoundly important part of this process of preparing mankind for and ultimately delivering them into a social heaven.

Justin Martyr circa 151 said : "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

As a youth, I grew up in a Christian church that had little knowledge and understanding regarding Christian baptism. Part of the congregation believed baptism was somehow important for some vague reasons and others had no knowledge of its import and felt no need to undergo “tubbing”,(as our minister called baptism). The minister himself did not have knowledge enough to possess any strong opinion either way. So, once a month he would baptize those who wanted it and did not pressure those who did not want baptism. It was simply an unknown subject to such Christians. We had lost the knowledge of such things.

Part of the value of studying the Early Judao-Christian texts is to gain a clearer view of the characteristics of the earliest Christianities; their doctrines and practices. Study of early texts reveals the evolution of doctrines and practices and clarifies those things that have been lost to modern Christianities. Such loss of prior knowledge and change in doctrines and practices has always occurred. Moses laments that the Children of Israel “will abandon me and choose to follow the idols of the gentiles…they will worship the false gods…they will violate every sacred assembly and covenant Sabbath the very ones I am commanding them today to observe." (Dead sea scroll, The Words of Moses 1Q22).

The phenomenon of changing and evolving orthodoxies applies to ordinances as well. For example, regarding baptism, Barnabas observed : “concerning the water, it is written with reference to Israel that they would never accept the baptism that brings forgiveness of sins, but would create a substitute for themselves." (Bar 11:1). This same principle of changing doctrines applied to ancient Christianity just as it applied to the Jews as Paul indicates regarding the Galatians : “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel.” (gal 1:6) The Christianities today who no longer understand the original import and essence of Baptism, have simply repeated the same mistake as Israel made and as the Galatians and other Christian forefathers made in the loss of important knowledge.

The Catechumens (or early converts to Christianity) were supposed to be taught many things BEFORE baptism : “Let the one who is to be instructed in piety be taught before baptism: knowledge concerning the unbegotten God, understanding concerning the only begotten son, and full assurance concerning the Holy spirit. 2 Let him learn the order of a distinguished creation, the sequence of providence, the judgment seats of different legislation, why the world came to be and why man was appointed a world citizen. 3 Let him understand his own nature, of what sort it is. Let him be educated in how God punished the wicked...5 And how God, though he foresaw, did not abandon the race of men, but summoned them at various times from error and folly into the understanding of truth....6 Let the one who offers himself learn during his instruction these things and those that are related to them." (Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers - # 8 Instruction for the Catechumens - AposCon 7.39.2-4) The import of having such knowledge before baptism was partly because baptism represented a covenant made with God and one was to know the choice and commitment one was making before making the covenant associated with baptism.

BAPTISM WAS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY TO THESE ANCIENT CHRISTIANITIES

Early Christianity taught that “Baptism is a great thing, ...Because if people receive it they will live” (The gospel of Phillip). In his vision of the church as a Tower built upon a lake of water, Hermas asks the angel, “Why is the tower built upon water, madam?”, the angel replies “it is because your life was saved and will be saved through water.” (Her 11:5) This descent into the water of Baptism, was associated with a great blessing and thus it was taught: “... blessed are those who, having set their hope on the cross, descended into the water, because he speaks of the reward “in its season” (Bar 11:8)

Using similar symbolism used in the present example in 1 Peter 3:21, Barnabas also explained one meaning underlying this scriptural symbolism : “By this he means that while we descend into the water laden with sins and dirt (ρυπου), we rise up bearing fruit in our heart and with fear and hope in Jesus in our spirits.” (Bar 11:11). The increase in hope was connected to the promise and covenant within the ordinance. Because it was a covenant, it was offered only to those who were WILLING and WANTING (and thus “worthy”) to make such a covenant. Thus the officer of the guard, Annaias “being learned in the law, came to know our Lord Jesus Christ from the sacred scriptures, which I approached with faith” could claim he “Was accounted worthy of holy baptism”. (The Gospel of Nicodemus - Prologue)

TO THESE ANCIENT CHRISTIANS, BAPTISM WAS A SYMBOL OF A COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND MANKIND

Just as a seal was a symbolic “Hallmark” or sign that authenticated, confirmed, or attested to a thing, Baptism was seen as a similar symbol : “For before a man,” he said, “bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead, but when he receives the seal, he lays aside his deadness and receives life. The seal, therefore, is the water; so they go down into the water dead and they come up alive. Thus this seal was proclaimed to them as well, and they made use of it in order that they might enter the kingdom of God.” ( Her 93:34)

Though baptism was a physical ritual, the ritual was simply a symbol of a spiritual reality. The critical thing that was happening was invisible. The covenant itself was NOT the physical ordinance, but rather it was the internal commitment and changing of the heart of the person. The physical ordinance is merely a sign that a covenant was made. Though the physical ritual was imitated repeatedly by later Christian counterfeits, the actual covenant that took place within the heart; the authority to perform the ordinance; and the associated internal conditions could not (and still cannot) BE imitated nor counterfeited. The commandments and the ordinances of the Lord were always “written on the tablets of your hearts” (I Clement 2:8) and the Lord knows our hearts....

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS

I believe "the like figure" means “the flood". The flood is representing baptism. It's not saying the flood saves us, but baptism.
I suspect the Greek word for answer carries both meanings, request/answer, and can go either way in different sentences. In 1 Peter 3:21, it works both ways.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2019

whirlingmerc said:
The thief on the cross was not baptized but saved. That suggests regeneration happened apart from baptism in his case.

The thief on the cross is the oldest argument against baptism's role in getting saved. Do you not consider that it might also be the oldest debunked argument as well? The question still comes back to "In the New Testament, what is the written purpose of baptism in Jesus's name?", which was first commanded in Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38-39.

In the early Judea Christian context there were various views on baptism and some people even tried to wait to be baptized until shortly before the died to have more a clean slate before dying. I think would be looked at as fairly eccentric now.

I agree it would be. I've heard of that view also. It wasn't too early, maybe the third century or later. But as far as all documentation is concerned, baptism in Jesus's name started off as associated with having a clean slate as you said. Jason Martyr said this of baptism for those who had committed sins beforehand. The non-salvific baptism teachings came much later.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2019

roberto said:
Mat 3:14 But Yochanan would have hindered him, saying, “I need to be immersed by you, and you come to me?”
Mat 3:15 But Yeshua, answering, said to him, “Allow it now, for this is the fitting way for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.

Why did the Messiah say.......:“Allow it now, for this is the fitting way for us to fulfill all righteousness.”

I'm not sure if that question will ever be definitively answered. The best that I can say right now is that Jesus is the only person in history whoever got baptized without anything to do with sin, and he was the only person ever recorded to be baptized in such a way to fulfill all righteousness.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2019

Redemptionsong said:
Ephesians 4:4-6. 'There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'

The problem with making a distinction between the Holy Spirit given 'directly from Jesus' and 'by the laying on of hands' is that you create two different baptisms, or an A class and a B class of believer. This is not what Ephesians teaches us. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul teaches that there is only one baptism (a baptism in water and in the Spirit).

Peter made a distinction by not calling that a baptism. John the Baptist also said that it would be Jesus who would baptize with the Holy Spirit. Both times baptism with the Holy Spirit was referred to about Acts 2 & Acts 10 (both references were made in chapter 11), there was no mediator or hands. It came directly from heaven. It does not contradict Ephesians 4:4-5. There were no class A or B believers.

Jesus was not on earth to lay hands on the hundred and twenty on the day of Pentecost. The Holy Spirit was shed forth (Acts 2:33) from the Father and Son . You might say that this was Jesus' 'laying on of hands'.

The important thing is it came directly from Jesus.

Thereafter, we have Peter and Paul 'laying on hands' that believers might receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 19:1-7 is a good example. It would be wrong to say that just because the Holy Spirit was received in this way that it was somehow second class, or not able to give new life.

By this time they would have already received the gift of the Holy Spirit living in them Romans 8:9, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19 at their baptism in Jesus's name Acts 2:38-39. They have gotten some outpouring of some gifts through the laying on of the apostle's hands, but Peter one of the apostles who did this laying on of hands, left this out in defining Baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, the passage from Ephesians also ends with the words, 'One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'

Why would it say 'in you all', if it was referring to only part of the body of Christ?

I'm sure it referred to the whole body of Christ. Having the apostles lay hands on some did not make them an extra special Christian 1 Corinthians 12:7-11,30.

whirlingmerc · Dec 8, 2019

e.r.m. said:
The thief on the cross is the oldest argument against baptism's role in getting saved. Do you not consider that it might also be the oldest debunked argument as well? The question still comes back to "In the New Testament, what is the written purpose of baptism in Jesus's name?", which was first commanded in Matthew 28:19, Acts 2:38-39.

I agree it would be. I've heard of that view also. It wasn't too early, maybe the third century or later. But as far as all documentation is concerned, baptism in Jesus's name started off as associated with having a clean slate as you said. Jason Martyr said this of baptism for those who had committed sins beforehand. The non-salvific baptism teachings came much later.

Abraham was declared righteous by faith before he was circumsized (which is the closest he came to a type of baptism)

Abraham was declared righteous by faith when he was about 76, he was circumcised around 112 with Ismael and Issaac about 36 years later.... and Paul uses Abraham being saved by faith as the picture of one being saved

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2019

Windwalker said:
Which is what the meaning of the word symbolic is: "a thing that represents or stands for something else, especially a material object representing something abstract.". In the "likeness" of is the same thing. It stand in for something else, without it being that actual thing. So yes, it is symbolic. They don't have to use that specific word, to understand its meaning. "In the likeness of", for Paul, in today's vocabulary is "symbolically". I cannot imagine he could disagree.

This is the common argument, yes. What it does not say is "Y'all got baptized in order to symbolize..." or "the likeness is the reason y'all got baptized". That's the difference between incidental and purpose.

It states its purpose very clearly. It represents our own passage of death to the old self, burial through a symbolic ritual, and resurrection to a spirit guided life.

"Clearly" is a subjective term where all the eye of the beholder, inference, and eisegesis happen. "Explicitly" is black and white unavoidable. It is not written that one gets baptized in order to represent. That is inferred.

Yes it is. "In the likeness of", is the meaning of our word symbolic in how we use it.

No, ancient words are not deciphered through the filter of modern teachings. One must seek its original intent, which is found in the words written, not see how it agrees with preconceived ideas.

I don't think you really understand the nature of symbolism. If you mean to say, "merely" or "only a symbol", then you do not have an understanding of what religious symbolism actually is. It is deeply significant. There is no "just" or a "simply" to it.

When symbolism is not the explicitly stated purpose "They got baptized to symbolize their...", then it is "just" or "simply" because it is less than the "stated" purpose. It's also wring to try to attempt to "replace" the stated purpose, with a non-stated inference.

I don't think there is. It very clearly symbolizes, or represents our own transformation path of death, burial, and resurrection. If it is not symbolic, then are we to be literally put to death, literally put into the ground, on plunged with stones tied to our feet in a lake, and then literally brought back from literal physical death? Of course not, the whole ritual symbolizes that. That's why it's symbolic, because it is not literal death physically.

I like the way one person once put it. Ultimately all sins are forgiven in the mind of God, because He decides. And He decides how. The Passover angel literally spared the first born of Egypt who had blood on their homes. The animal was literally sacrificed. But God prescribed how the price of death would be met, so the angel would pass over. With Isaiah the angel touched his lips with coal and He was forgiven Isaiah 6:4-7. With most of the people in the old covenant blood was required Hebrews 9:19-22. The blood did not actually cleanse them, God did, but it was a requirement, the purpose was not symbolism.
Romans 6:5-8 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, [6] knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. [7] For he who has died has been freed from sin. [8] Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,

In baptism
1. We "have been" united with him.
2. Our old man was crucified, has died.
3. We have been freed from sin.

If this happens in the mind of God, it's just as real. We are fulfilling an expectation to be saved according to what God wants as in all the other cases. The Bible Never gave an expectation to do anything to represent "Salvation or the dbr", that's not a thing.

In
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

We are a new creation, spiritually not physically, but the reality nonetheless.

Yes, he was speaking metaphorically with those symbols. That does not mean however, that it was not real. If you understood what symbolism was, then you'd know it represents or symbolizes some realty. It does not mean fictional. You would be very mistaken to think that.

Again, no one ever forwarded a command or an expectation to represent salvation or the dbr.

e.r.m. · Dec 8, 2019

whirlingmerc said:
Abraham was declared righteous by faith before he was circumsized (which is the closest he came to a type of baptism)

Abraham was declared righteous by faith when he was about 76, he was circumcised around 112 with Ismael and Issaac about 36 years later.... and Paul uses Abraham being saved by faith as the picture of one being saved

Paul did use Abraham being saved by faith as the picture of one being saved, but Paul never associated physical circumcision with baptism in Jesus's name. No one in the Bible did. It's everybody else who did that.

Abraham's faith was described in this way
Hebrews 11:8-10 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. [9] 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; [10] for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

Clear · Dec 8, 2019

POST ONE OF TWO

Whirlingmerc said : "I also have a problem with baptismal regeneration for different reasons, not the least of which being the thief at the cross was never baptized and promised paradise" (post #167)

Whirlingmerc clarifies : “The thief on the cross was not baptized but saved. That suggests regeneration happened apart from baptism in his case.” (post #169)

Hi @whirlingmerc

I am still not quite sure why you think the fact that Dymas dies and goes to paradise means Dymas was saved. Are you interpreting the "place" of “paradise” in this instance, means “heaven” or some sort of salvation?

While “paradise” can mean a heavenly place, the promise to Dymas was NOT that Dymas would have "salvation in heaven", but rather, Dymas was promised to be “μετ εμου εν τω παραδεισω” (with me in “PARADISE”). The definition of παραδεισω (paradise) in the LXX, in Mac 7,25&26, in II Mac 5:17 and 7:12 and other places is that of a park, a garden (LXX), “an abode of the blessed dead”. It was the garden outside of the palace. Remember, John 20:17 tells us that Jesus had not yet been to "heaven" where his Father was. In speaking to Mary, he said : "... Hold me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

In the genre of early Christian decensus literature (the literature describing Jesus’ visit to the dead spirits in paradise/hades/sheol/the grave, etc. we have multiple descriptions of the place of the “righteous” dead being called “paradise”. For examples :

Speaking of the expectation that the messiah would visit the dead, it was said : “...And he shall open the gates of paradise, he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam, and he will grant to the saints to eat of the tree of life...... Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi ch 18 & 19:1 This text is part of the decensus literature that is referring to Jesus' descent into hades during the three days his body lay in the tomb and he went to the spirits in hades/paradise/sheol, etc.

Of the early traditions of the “death” of Melchizedek, the angel Michael is commanded to go down and take an individuals spirit and place it in “paradise” (i.e. the place of the righteous dead). 9 “And Michael took the child on the same night on which he had come down; and he took him on his wings, and he placed him in the paradise of edom.... 11 Thus Nir ended his life. 2nd Enoch 72:9-11;

Similarly, when the prophet Sedrach reaches the end of his life, the Son of God was sent to take Sedrachs soul to the place of the righteous dead, called “paradise”. “And God said to his only begotten Son, “Go, take the spirit of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5

“THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE”

In describing the “intermediate” world between mortality and Final Judgment Both writers and translators of various early texts, both correctly and incorrectly, use many words to refer to this place such as SHEOL - HADES - SPIRIT WORLD, PARADISE, sometimes "HELL" is used. (I believe they get it correctly more often than RE posters do however…) Occassionally, it is only the context that saves us from great confusion.

For example the prophet Enochs description that “paradise is in between the corruptible and the incorruptible.” (2En 8:5) indicates the ancient meaning for Paradise which moderns often forget. This ancient usage of the word “Paradise” changes the meaning of Jesus promise to Dymas (the thief crucified beside Jesus) that “thou shalt be with me in paradise” (lk 23:43). It was not “heaven” Dymas was promised, but it was “paradise”, the place between corruptible mortality and incorruptible heaven.

The concept of paradise describing the place of the righteous dead finds it’s way into much of the early literature. Of mortals it was said, “ Either he will be in this world or in the resurrection or in the places in the middle.” (The gospel of Phillip) The early literature describes both Jesus AND Dymas the thief in this specific place after their death.

The descent of Christ into “the place in between” (sheol, hades, hell, etc.) after his death

The descent of Christ into this spirit world after his death is described in multiple ancient accounts and they are very clear that Christ went to the world of spirits , to the place where dymas (the thief crucified beside jesus) went.

One is The Gospel of Bartholomew. In this account, the Apostle Bartholomew asks he risen Jesus : “Lord, when you went to be hanged on the cross, I followed you at a distance and saw how you were hanged on the cross and how the angels descended from heaven and worshiped you. And when darkness came, I looked and saw that you had vanished from the cross; only I heard your voice in the underworld,.....Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.”

In this christian account, Jesus summarizes his descent into Hades saying : "I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... When I descended with my angels to the underworld ,in order to dash in pieces the iron bars and shatter the portals of the underworld”... “ I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.... “I was hanged upon the cross for your sake and for the sake of your children.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one)

The early Christian Gospel of Nicodemus, text contains multiple testimonies of the living Jesus after his resurrection AND descriptions of Jesus actions in Hades when he visited the “spirits imprisoned” there. Joseph (of Arimathea) observes to those discussing Jesus resurrection : “Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, [Luke 2:34] and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea”...Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke.” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch one)

These men then speak with the resurrected sons of Symeon (who were NOT Christians and were NOT baptized while they were alive). These two had died, and gone to the world of Spirits, converted to Christianity while in the spirit world, and had then been resurrected with many others at the resurrection of Christ and who were walking among and teaching others regarding Jesus. The brothers described what happened in this Spirit world (sheol, hades, etc).

“We, then were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another, and immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins.....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved,....Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch two)

I might make the point here that it is not only John the Baptist’s spirit who is teaching the gospel, but the spirits of the other Patriarchs among the spirits of men are teaching the gospel and many other spirits are also “called to testify” and teach gospel truths to the others in the spirit world. Though the complete Story of Dymas is incomplete, it is clear that Jesus’ Promise that he would be in this “paradise” with other spirits was fulfilled as the early Christian literature describes.

Post two of two follows

Clear · Dec 8, 2019

post two of two

DYMAS (THE THIEF ON THE CROSS ALSO ARRIVES IN HADES (THE PART THE EARLY TEXTS CALL PARADISE)
Speaking of these spirits in the middle, it is recorded that Dymas was given a cross and sent to “paradise” with the other spirits who were awaiting resurrection. However, this place is Not “salvation” nor is it “heaven”, but it is the place ‘in between” while the spirits of the dead await resurrection. :

The story continues, and while John the Baptist’s spirit and the spirits of the other Patriarchs among the spirits of men are offering their testimonies of the gospel, other spirits are also “called to testify” and teach gospel truths to the others in the spirit world (which is the point the sons of symeon make clear in the narrative). Though the complete Story of Dymas is incomplete, it is clear that Jesus’ Promise that he would be in this “paradise” with other spirits was fulfilled as the early Christian literature describes.

Speaking of these spirits in this world of spirits, it is recorded that Dymas was given a cross and sent to “paradise” with the other spirits who were awaiting resurrection : While they were saying this there came another, a humble man, carrying a cross on his shoulder. The holy fathers asked him: “who are you, who have the appearance of a robber, and what is the cross you carry on your shoulder?” He answered: “I was, as you say, a robber and a thief in the world, and therefore the jews took me and delivered me to the death of the cross together with our Lord Jesus Christ. When, therefore, he hung on the cross, I saw the wonders which happened and believed in him. And I appealed to him and said: ‘Lord, when you reign as king, do nor forget me.’ And immediately he said to me: ‘Truly truly, today I say to you, you shall be with me in Paradise’ [Lk 23:43]. So I came into Paradise carrying my cross, and found Michael the archangel, and said to him: ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, who was crucified, has sent me here. Lead me, therefore, to the gate of Eden.’...Then the archangel said to me: ‘Wait a short while. For Adam also, the forefather of the race of men, comes with the righteous, that they also may enter in....(Ch XI> The Gospel of Nicodemus- Christ’s descent into hell)

While Dymas is in paradise, it is clear that this specific place is not heaven, nor is it salvation. IF Dymas IS with all of these individuals, then he was with the dead who were sent to be baptized in the Jordan with the rest of the dead (according to this narrative tradition).

While I think it is fine to theorize that the early christians are incorrect in their textual traditions, IF you think Jesus WAS referring to salvation, you could certainly make a case for it. However, I think the early Christian doctrines surrounding baptism as a part of the "PROCESS" of sanctification is quite logical and rational compared to most of the later theological theories I have been exposed to.

In any case Whirlingmerc, I hope your spiritual journey in this life is absolutely wonderful and your insights are deep and satisfying.

Clear
ειτωτζσεω

Clear · Dec 8, 2019

Hi @e.r.m.

E.R.M. said : “I suspect the Greek word for answer carries both meanings, request/answer, and can go either way in different sentences. In 1 Peter 3:21, it works both ways. “ (post #170)

No, 1 Pet 3:21 doesn’t work both ways in koine Greek.

Ερωταω is so closely tied to the meaning of “ask” “entreat” in Koine that I had not expected anyone to suggest otherwise. The King James translation is simply in error in this sentence.

Ερωτηθεις = “being asked what your pleasure is” became “please” as Koine evolved. “Please” is a request. It was used thusly in normal textual use at that time. For example, P Oxy ii. 269.4 (57 a.d) Εαν δυνη ερωτηθεις οχλησον διοσκορον says, “if you can, please worry Dioscorus”. It is a request being made, not an answer given.

The closest it comes to an answer is where it is used in connection with παρακαλω such as 1 Thes 4:1 “ Finally brethren, we beseech and exhort you…( gk, ερωτομεν υμας). Still, it is a pleading that is intended in the beseeching. In the Christian catacombs we find the inscription “Ζησης εν κυριοn και ερωτα υπερ ημων”, Live in [the] Lord and plead on behalf of us.” Perhaps the inscription came from 1 John 5:16 “…he will ask, and God will give him life life…” “αιτησει και δωσει αυτω ζωην...” since αιτησει or Jn 16:23 In that day you will ask (ερωτησετε) nothing of me”……“if you ask (αιτησητε) anything of the Father in my name, he will give it to you…”

Strongs is correct to classify this word meaning as an inquiry though in certain circumstances, it can be a demand but this is extremely rare. You can certainly look through the scriptures to see if you can find an example of where it is used as “an answer” OR a "demand". (More on this later).

It is almost ALWAYS in the context of some sort of inquiry, request or appeal and not a demand of God. I see it sometimes clumsily translated as a profession or pledge although in the context of making a covenant, it can be used that way.

For example, the word used in 1 Pet 3:21 is επερωταω which is a request. It most often appears in the New Testament text in some sense of the word “ask”. THIS is how it is used in the early Koine texts of the time as well. For example, in Papyrus Hib I. 72.15 a person “a” “having been sent to Ch. In the sanctuary ASKED him if the seal was in the temple…” (gk Αποσταλεις Α. Προς τον εν τωι αδυτωι Χ. Επηρωτα ει υπαρχει εν τωι ιερωι....η σφραγις).

In the RARE usage that it refers to an “answer” it is used in relationship to a QUESTION. For example, In Papyrus Oxy VI. 905.10 the koine example speaks of a contract being valid “being written in duplicate in order that each party may have one, and in answer to the formal question they declared to each other their consent…” The Greek for this is : “…Κυρια η συνγραφη δισση γραφεισα προς το εκατρον μερος εχειν μοναχον και επερωτηθεντες εαυτοις ωμολογησαν...” The point in this example is that IF it relates to an answer, it is in relation to a pleading, a request, etc.

Another example might help. In many of the early Greek Papyrus, this word appear in an almost formulaic way, especially in contracts. In Papyrus Gen I 42.31, P Fay 90.22, P Tebt II 378.30 and in P Oxy 1273.41 we have the following formula : “…and to each other’s questions whether this is done rightly and fairly they have given their assent…”. The Greek of these texts is : “…Περι δε του ταυτα ορθως καλως γεινεσθαι αλληλους επερωτησαντες ωμολογησαν…” In another contract (covenant involving money…) the text says “…I will guarantee (the sale) and have been asked the formal question as aforesaid……” The Greek is “… Βεβαιωσω και επερωτημε ως προκειται” …

The point is that NONE of these uses is independent of a plea or inquiry, or question. NONE of these uses is, in the strict sense, an “answer” or used as a verb in “answering”. LOOK through the New Testament Text and see if you can find an exception to this usage. IF you can, it will be very, very rare (more on this later).

The noun usage in 1 Peter 3:21 is no different and it is used in the same way. The best you can do with 1 Peter 3:21 is render it as an early Latin version of “stipulation” which, could make sense in the early Christian context of baptism as a covenant between two parties (man and God) where both agree to fulfill their respective parts of a covenant. Still, as Blenkin notes, it still means an “inquiry” into an agreement. An example of this might be P Oxy IV 718.12 in a text written “in answer to an inquiry concerning the landlord”… (the Greek in P Oxy is : Ως εξ επερωτησεως κτητορος…). This is the closest you can come to using Επερωτημα as an “answer” and it still doesn’t work in greek translation in 1 Pet 3:21.

IS THERE AN EXAMPLE WHERE IT IS USED AS AN "ANSWER" IN THE CONTEXT OF 1 PET 3:21?
In the New Testament, Επερωταω – occurs 56 times in one form or another, none of which mean “an answer”. Look to see if you can give me examples where it does not entail a type of pleading or related to a question? It’s base word ερωταωoccurs 63 times in different forms. Are ANY of those “an answer”? Altogether these two forms occur 119 times. Are any of these occurrences used in the correct form of “an answer”? IF you can find even one that is not a mistake, then can you find any more?

Even the Sar Shalom version of 1 Peter 3:21 in Hebrew has אִם־לִשְׁאָל־לָנוּ which means, “ to ask him”….

In 1 Peter 3:21, individuals are making a plea, a “request” for a “good conscience”. They are not demanding it, nor are they simply answering a question that God has regarding their conscience.

I hope this did not come across as a hammer on a fly, but it is very strange to have anyone familiar with koine try to use this word as an “answer”. I honestly hope your spiritual journey is wonderful e.r.m. and that your questions regarding baptism give you insights you want. Good luck.

Clear
ειτωτζσεω

whirlingmerc · Dec 9, 2019

Clear said:
POST ONE OF TWO

Whirlingmerc said : "I also have a problem with baptismal regeneration for different reasons, not the least of which being the thief at the cross was never baptized and promised paradise" (post #167)

Whirlingmerc clarifies : “The thief on the cross was not baptized but saved. That suggests regeneration happened apart from baptism in his case.” (post #169)

Hi @whirlingmerc

I am still not quite sure why you think the fact that Dymas dies and goes to paradise means Dymas was saved. Are you interpreting the "place" of “paradise” in this instance, means “heaven” or some sort of salvation?

While “paradise” can mean a heavenly place, the promise to Dymas was NOT that Dymas would have "salvation in heaven", but rather, Dymas was promised to be “μετ εμου εν τω παραδεισω” (with me in “PARADISE”). The definition of παραδεισω (paradise) in the LXX, in Mac 7,25&26, in II Mac 5:17 and 7:12 and other places is that of a park, a garden (LXX), “an abode of the blessed dead”. It was the garden outside of the palace. Remember, John 20:17 tells us that Jesus had not yet been to "heaven" where his Father was. In speaking to Mary, he said : "... Hold me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."

In the genre of early Christian decensus literature (the literature describing Jesus’ visit to the dead spirits in paradise/hades/sheol/the grave, etc. we have multiple descriptions of the place of the “righteous” dead being called “paradise”. For examples :

Speaking of the expectation that the messiah would visit the dead, it was said : “...And he shall open the gates of paradise, he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam, and he will grant to the saints to eat of the tree of life...... Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs- Levi ch 18 & 19:1 This text is part of the decensus literature that is referring to Jesus' descent into hades during the three days his body lay in the tomb and he went to the spirits in hades/paradise/sheol, etc.

Of the early traditions of the “death” of Melchizedek, the angel Michael is commanded to go down and take an individuals spirit and place it in “paradise” (i.e. the place of the righteous dead). 9 “And Michael took the child on the same night on which he had come down; and he took him on his wings, and he placed him in the paradise of edom.... 11 Thus Nir ended his life. 2nd Enoch 72:9-11;

Similarly, when the prophet Sedrach reaches the end of his life, the Son of God was sent to take Sedrachs soul to the place of the righteous dead, called “paradise”. “And God said to his only begotten Son, “Go, take the spirit of my beloved Sedrach, and put it in Paradise.” The Apocalypse of Sedrach 9:1-2 and 5

“THE PLACE IN THE MIDDLE”

In describing the “intermediate” world between mortality and Final Judgment Both writers and translators of various early texts, both correctly and incorrectly, use many words to refer to this place such as SHEOL - HADES - SPIRIT WORLD, PARADISE, sometimes "HELL" is used. (I believe they get it correctly more often than RE posters do however…) Occassionally, it is only the context that saves us from great confusion.

For example the prophet Enochs description that “paradise is in between the corruptible and the incorruptible.” (2En 8:5) indicates the ancient meaning for Paradise which moderns often forget. This ancient usage of the word “Paradise” changes the meaning of Jesus promise to Dymas (the thief crucified beside Jesus) that “thou shalt be with me in paradise” (lk 23:43). It was not “heaven” Dymas was promised, but it was “paradise”, the place between corruptible mortality and incorruptible heaven.

The concept of paradise describing the place of the righteous dead finds it’s way into much of the early literature. Of mortals it was said, “ Either he will be in this world or in the resurrection or in the places in the middle.” (The gospel of Phillip) The early literature describes both Jesus AND Dymas the thief in this specific place after their death.

The descent of Christ into “the place in between” (sheol, hades, hell, etc.) after his death

The descent of Christ into this spirit world after his death is described in multiple ancient accounts and they are very clear that Christ went to the world of spirits , to the place where dymas (the thief crucified beside jesus) went.

One is The Gospel of Bartholomew. In this account, the Apostle Bartholomew asks he risen Jesus : “Lord, when you went to be hanged on the cross, I followed you at a distance and saw how you were hanged on the cross and how the angels descended from heaven and worshiped you. And when darkness came, I looked and saw that you had vanished from the cross; only I heard your voice in the underworld,.....Tell me, Lord, where you went from the cross.”

In this christian account, Jesus summarizes his descent into Hades saying : "I went to the underworld to bring up Adam and all the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.... When I descended with my angels to the underworld ,in order to dash in pieces the iron bars and shatter the portals of the underworld”... “ I shattered the iron bars....And I brought out all the patriarchs and came again to the cross.... “I was hanged upon the cross for your sake and for the sake of your children.” (The Gospel of Bartholomew chapt one)

The early Christian Gospel of Nicodemus, text contains multiple testimonies of the living Jesus after his resurrection AND descriptions of Jesus actions in Hades when he visited the “spirits imprisoned” there. Joseph (of Arimathea) observes to those discussing Jesus resurrection : “Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, [Luke 2:34] and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea”...Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke.” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch one)

These men then speak with the resurrected sons of Symeon (who were NOT Christians and were NOT baptized while they were alive). These two had died, and gone to the world of Spirits, converted to Christianity while in the spirit world, and had then been resurrected with many others at the resurrection of Christ and who were walking among and teaching others regarding Jesus. The brothers described what happened in this Spirit world (sheol, hades, etc).

“We, then were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another, and immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins.....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved,....Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible” (Gospel of Nicodemus Ch two)

I might make the point here that it is not only John the Baptist’s spirit who is teaching the gospel, but the spirits of the other Patriarchs among the spirits of men are teaching the gospel and many other spirits are also “called to testify” and teach gospel truths to the others in the spirit world. Though the complete Story of Dymas is incomplete, it is clear that Jesus’ Promise that he would be in this “paradise” with other spirits was fulfilled as the early Christian literature describes.

Post two of two follows

.

In the big picture, the thief on the cross asked to be 'remembered when you came in your kingdom'. In that light it sure sounds rather heavenly. But really what makes heaven to be heaven? The pressence and treasuring of God! and Jesus said you will be with me." That is heavenly

What say the scriptures?

Well-Known Member

Church of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Church of Christ

Church of Christ

Church of Christ

Church of Christ

Well-Known Member

Church of Christ

Church of Christ

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member