Through us when we witness to the powerful, Joe. Don’t forget the last part. Half quotes are what start cults and sometimes build Megachurches.
The Spirit can speak directly, through feeling or through the mouth of a donkey, if it sees fit. I find that last part both comforting and personally disturbing. :)
If you want a fight, tell someone how to have communion, baptism or to follow The Acts of the Holy Spirit which even gets retitled Acts of the Apostles in some translations.And the fights are almost always because people don’t obey and TEST the Spirit before acting.
The REV is getting an accurate message and the humor certainly sounds like Christ.
Mr. Doty, doesn’t the New Testament talk about the baptism of Moses, Noah, the cross or cup, the Holy Spirit and baptism of tongues of fire as being dry baptisms?
For Moses, Pharaoh was baptized, and for Noah it was everyone else. The Cross did not involve water not the Holy Spirit or the tongues of fire.
I was always taught that baptism is a transliteration and the real meaning was “identification with”. Moses baptism was identification with the parting of the Red sea and he walked on dry land. Noah was in a ship safe and dry but it identified with the flood. Water baptism would then identify one as a person set aside for Christ.
I agree it is not necessary for salvation. No amount of rationalization can consider the thief that repented of his mocking of Christ on the cross as having been “baptized” - it is faith.
Mr. Doty, Thanks for responding. I too really liked the Will B. Done series.
I am glad to see you ask for BCV and I take that as a positive sign since that is what we should be our source.
I had done a study once on real baptisms and dry baptisms comparing them to the kind that are symbolic or ritual. A symbolic or ritual baptism would be typified of many of the Jewish washings. Other examples would be Jesus’ washing of the feet, the baptism of John, proselyte baptism, the baptism of the disciples and the unique baptism of Jesus.
The passage on Noah is found in 1 Peter 3:20-21 was an identification of the believing covenant family of Noah, being identified with the sanctuary (Jesus Christ) of the ship as they were protected from the flood. The change in characteristics is going from being unsaved to saved from the flood. This was a dry baptism for the family of Noah as they did not become wet. Peter’s claim is that the flood is a form baptism.
The baptism of Moses in 1 Cor. 10:1, 2 was a double identification; the children of Israel are identified both with Moses as they passed through the Red Sea and with the cloud (Jesus Christ) and the sea as they passed through the Red Sea. The Israelites were acted upon by Moses and the cloud with the change is that they were rescued by Moses and the cloud. The second identification was with the sea and the characteristic that changed was the sea being parted allowing them to walk through on dry land.
In Acts 2:3 the divided tongues of fire with each one sitting on an individual apostle is also a real baptism. These tongues were subsequently identified with each of the apostles in verse 5 and appeared to cause a characteristic change in their ability in language communication.
Another related baptism is found in Gal 3:26-28 and the phrase “baptized into Christ”. The implications this baptism is that all believers are in the family of God and there is no distinction of race, class or sex. This too is a real baptism and the believer is identified with Christ and the characteristic change is putting on Christ through the mechanism of faith.
Another baptism is the baptism of Christ’s death. This is a retroactive identification of the believer with this baptism which means we were baptized into Christ’s death Rom. 6:3, 4 and Col. 2:12. We are now identified with Christ’s death.
The verse stating both the thieves on the cross were initially unrepentant is Matthew 27:44 “Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.” That was why I say after the one thief repented Christ welcomed him.
A serious religious discussion? Cool! I disagree with practically everything you said, though. Joe or Phill, if either of you would like to have a debate in e-mail, or even a three way one, that would be fun. My one e-mail is rdh289@gmail.com. To avoid spammers, please send a message there, and I’ll tell you my real one.
By debate I mean casual, friendly conversation by people with opposing views, in search of the truth, whether it is what we want to be true or not.
Honestly, I hope that you can convince me that water baptism is not essential for salvation. That would save a lot of worry for friends. But I will not believe you unless you can prove it, as much as I want to. I hope each of you can do much the same.
I’ll analyze all these arguments later, but here’s a starting point: the thief on the cross didn’t have to be baptized. Here are two reasons.
1) Jesus said so. Did God in the flesh directly speak to you and tell you that you were saved? If not, then you are not in the same category as this man.
2) He was not in the Christian age. For the man to require a Christian salvation as opposed to a Jewish one, he would have had to have been killed after Acts 2. Therefore, his lack of baptism wasn’t the problem, it was his breaking of Jewish law, like the thievery that put him on that cross.
@rdh228, we would say that we do not limit God’s grace–God can and has saved persons without baptism, or even any affiliation with the Church. However, it is better to trust in and make use of the means God has given us, which does include faith, and a full response to faith, including joining His people.
The reason that baptism is not a work, but a response to faith, is that it’s not effective unless God acts first.
Mr. Doty, As I stated - everything in the response I wrote. It has been published and taught, so yes I copied that from my own writings. When you write for publication it is not like writing on a blog post, which I am sure you know. I am not trying to cause an argument, I am trying to be collaborative and please take my discussions in that manner. Please, if I have come across as confrontational I apologize.
My initial point in responding to you was your statement : “The word for “baptism” in the Greek text refers to complete immersion in water.” was to show that baptizo is used in instances where complete immersion in water did not take place. I know the typical example is a heated sword plunged into water, but underlying that action is a change in the characteristics of the metal. In other words, the plunging the sword into the water identifies it with the new material properties.
The foot washings were part of OT cleansings, which relate to baptism. Here is my section on ritual washings (abridged and not quoted since it is my work): Uncleanliness was not sin, but it was analogous to sin. Uncleanliness in the Old Testament is treated the same way we would treat something that we come in contact with that could be contagious Lev 11:40; 15:13; 17:15; 22:6; Num 19:17, 20-22. Note that depending on the circumstances, some of these washings required either sprinkling, washing in water that was not moving and in other cases washing in water that was moving – such as a stream. Cleansing could be one day or seven days depending on the circumstances or even multiple days of seven (Lev 12). In Lev 16 we have both sprinkling with blood and moving water as part of the ritual cleansing. The Mishnah (a rabbinic discussion on the laws of the Pentateuch) has 10 chapters on rules and regulations for the ritual washings. The Levites required cleansing – Num 8:5-22. Consider Num 19 & Ezek 36:25-27 compared with Heb 9:13-15 with Heb 10:22 demonstrating the superiority of Christ over the ritual sacrifices. The Ezekiel passage is a prophecy that in the future God will do the washing. This is an excellent example of the ritual compared with the reality.
Realize, I was using current traditional references to this Holy week when I spoke of the Passover, but agree with your comment on the Seder meal had to be before the Passover meal as you note He was the Passover Lamb. I agree fully that Jesus had do be off the cross and in the tomb before sundown, which as you note the women had to prepare for in advance.
Now if you would like to join forces and discuss why baptism is not needed for salvation in a positive way and we can kick that off with RDH288. I am of the opinion that more can learn from the discussion on line than off line. Thoughts?
Ah, Phil DeBlank, but it’s worth noting that there is a difference between the Synoptics (Matt, Mark, Luke) and John: in the Synoptic Gospels, the disciples prepare the Passover meal (Mt 26:17, 18 and parallels)–Matthew in 26:30 even speaks of singing the Hallel hymn. They clearly believe this is a Passover Meal.
On the other hand, in John 13, the meal is “before the Passover” (13:1), so that Jesus will die on preparation day as the Passover Lambs are being sacrificed (19:31). In fact, John notes that when Jesus was led to Pilate’s praetorium, the priests did not enter the house, lest they be defiled and be unable to eat the Passover (John 18:28).
It’s a difference, and hard to reconcile, apart from saying that they are inconsistent. Both cannot be right, unless we postulate (for this reason alone) that there were two celebrations of Passover–but that clearly, whether the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples was Passover or not, it reflected that meal and used many of its rituals. I myself prefer John’s timeline–it explains why the Romans would agree to the unusual request to remove the bodies. After all, the whole point of crucifixion was to have the bodies left up as a warning, and ideally they would take days, not hours, to die.
Actually in our 2010 calendar the Seder meal was Monday and Passover week started Tuesday and ends next Tuesday. So nailing down the exact meal is somewhat difficult. I think the Sabbath day though is critical and that is when the bodies had to be taken down and buried or entombed.
I think Mr Doty and I were considering the Synoptics and John when we made our comments. There are plenty of harmony’s out there, but they do not always take into account the Levitical rituals and the many meals during Passover week. Sometimes we speak in shorthand and just say Passover, when we know it means more than just one day.
Here is the problem - if you perceive a disagreement, then you need to reconcile scripture with scripture. You cannot leave it at inconsistent. If you throw out anything, then why not throw out everything?
We don’t throw out everything, because “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (Verbum Dei 11) This truth must be understood according to the author’s standards of truth, which may not be ours. For example, we have a much more strict standard of quoting and historical accuracy, where Luke, for example, like other ancient authors, is not afraid of putting words and even whole speeches in his characters’ mouth, which may or may not reflect what was actually said–as long as it “should have been said that way.”
I usually don’t check this during the week, but noticed the discussion. Joe I think you are pretty much on target here. You are correct with the Jewish calendar day starting at sunset. That seems to confuse folks on counting days. The Passover feast actually covered 4 days. There has always been a lot of discussion on the actual crucifixion day. I would also mention the 3 days and 3 nights statement is intended to be taken as “similar to” or “like” Jonah and that has caused people to force fit - so I can be comfortable with either Thursday or Friday as a tradition. Just guessing, but that may have been where Phil was going.
Your comments on Luke is correct and I would add that Mark’s Gospel is essentially Peter’s Gospel. Mark would fit in the 120 list.
You guys have fun - I just don’t have time until the weekend to do this and may not have time this weekend.
Side note - I wouldn’t mind discussing Baptismal regeneration and would fall on Phil and Joe’s sides in the discussion. I will try and post some stuff on the weekend if I find time.
First off I am trying to be open and questioning in the discussion on baptism saving and I was confused by this statement as I had heard similar to this from a hyper-dispensational Dallas Theological Seminary professor (now dead) who claimed every dispensation had a different means or way of salvation (i still have his book):
Rdh228 said - “For the man to require a Christian salvation as opposed to a Jewish one”.
So that leads me to ask, are you trying to tell me that Abraham was not saved by faith and from that faith he was not credited with righteousness, but was saved by some other means by TRYING but failing to keep some laws?
Before we can even consider discussing baptism as having anything to do with salvation, I would ask you read Hebrews chapter 11 and write down all the statement relating to “by faith”.
If it is not by faith, then we need to establish how you think they were saved. Orthodoxy requires the crediting of Christ’s righteousness to the account of the believer and the transfer of the believer’s sins to Him on the cross for 3 hours. If that did not happen for the Old Testament believers , then how was that accomplished?
Anyway if I have jumped to an incorrect conclusion and you do agree the Old Testament believers were saved by faith, then your point 1 and 2 are would be moot as the thief was saved by faith and I apologize for the confusion on my part. But if He was saved by fiat from Jesus are you then also saying all those listed in Hebrews 11 were saved by some other means and if so what?
Whoosh! I am not even going to try to follow that.
Bunnyface ~ Hello, I am sorry about the members of your congregation. I should have said something before. Do you know if Lutherans have a specific passage they read when someone dies?
I’m not sure about Lutherans having a specific reading for a funeral–or a death. I know the use of Psalm 23 (“The Lord is my shepherd.”) is pretty standard. Catholics have a whole set of possible readings, about 6 from the Old Testament, 3 or 4 Responsorial psalms, 20 plus New Testament, and about 20 Gospels they can use. And there are even a few other popular ones, like Ecclesiastes 3: 1-9 or -11. (“There is an appointed time for everything…”)
It’s not only the Jews who mark time from Sunset to Sunset. The Catholics also begin major feasts, and in fact the Divine Office, our daily prayers, from sunset, which is why there are “First” and “Second” Vespers for Sundays and Solemnities.
My first homily after ordination was on Carmel Rolls. For the Feast of Corpus Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ, aka the Eucharist).
I immediately thought of a priest/minister trying to serve a giant sticky bun for communion. All those messy sticky fingers. (probably not what you meant, but funny) I am curious about what you meant though.
Okay, I hope that this is not too controversial of a question.
Does anybody know about the Christian religion adopting pagan rituals such as celebrating Winter by bringing greenery into the homes and celebrating spring with the eggs. I had read that this was done to help convert pagans to Christianity? I think at the time, there was only one major Christian religion (Catholics).
BTW ~ please remember lectures scare me please KISS it.
Keep It Simple (for the) Stupid
We didn’t necessarily adopt pagan rituals, but did adopt some of the trappings–greenery and Yule log at Christmas, the eggs for Easter, and so on.
Another reason for boiled eggs at Easter: eggs were one of the foods fasted from during Lent, hence many pre-Lent traditional foods (pancakes) used more eggs, Easter Bread had lots of eggs, and the others were saved up (and preserved by boiling) until Easter came.
We also adopted similar dates for festivals, sometimes for the opposite reason: not to adopt the pagan ritual, but to hide the Christian one. For example, Christmas was at the same time as the Saturnalia, a pagan Roman feast, since that way the Christians could celebrate without drawing attention either way–celebrating when others weren’t, or not celebrating when others were.
Joe - on your post from a day ago on Hebrews - I agree - Hebrews is a tough book and, I would not attribute it to Paul and it really does not matter as you say. Phil’s reference is not to a complex chapter and with all the repetitive phrases of by faith makes it rather clear..
Your Titus 3:5 reference is also used as a proof text by the Church of Christ as implied water baptism, though as you note in context there is no reference to water baptism. It is as you say the “washing of regeneration”. Actually as I am sure Joe knows the Greek word palingenesias is a genitive of apposition which simple means the translation would be phrased more like “the washing which is regeneration”. This brings us back to Joe’s point of the renewing of the Holy Ghost (Ref: A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles by Chalres Ellicott).
So I am very comfortable with Joe’s treatment and we do not need to go into a long discussion on regeneration unless someone else pursues it.
Ok - the thing on adopting traditions from pagan cultures - yes, it was done and it is very documented in both Roman Catholic changes and adaptations and of course in Protestant protestations - which I guess is what Protestants do - right?
In trying to keep it simple, be aware as pagan rituals were pulled in in the early years of the church - 300 - 1200 AD, there were protests, but Rome called the shots so to speak. The results of that acceptance you see in the areas that Bunnyface has outlined. More recent changes in what some churches accept are celebrating something known as “the Day of the Dead” and how it is allowed. Same with Mardi Gras. Neither is rebuked as pagan. Rather than list a bunch of negatives let me follow up with something more appropriate for tomorrow.
There has been a lot of excellent documents created over the years but this quote from the Heidelberg Catechism #40 & 43 seems appropriate:
Why did Christ go all the way to death?
Because God’s Justice and truth demand it: Only the death of God’s Son could pay for our sin.
What further advantage do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross?
Through Christ’s death our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with Him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us, but that instead we may dedicate ourselves as an offering of gratitude to Him.
May you have a wonderful resurrection Sunday and remember - “He is Risen!”
Joe - I was not referring to musical instruments, my reference is that the old line church of Christ that insist on being baptized in their church is the mechanism for salvation. Lately there has been a split and and a new group of Church of Christ folks no longer believe in baptismal regeneration.
On instruments - I have no issue either way - have had to take defend at one time or another both positions. for the side that says instruments are ok - all they do is look at David and the OT use of trumpets, drums and such and of course throw in David’s dancing and a good time was had by all ;-)
AS you and I are discovering, once you agree on orthodoxy, the rest of the stuff is in house debates and so if you don’t like music you find a church that does not do music, or if you want psalm singing you find a church that does that, and if you want a rock band you find a church that does that. But, when we do worship, it should always be in a manner prescribed by what we have been shown in the Bible and that brings honor and glory to God not to man or to attract people.
For those who read this stuff Joe and I write, realize both he and I have been in churches that sing without instruments - and I have been in some that don’t think you should make a joyful noise but only study. I would conclude noting the most powerful singing I have ever heard has been in a group of Scottish covenanters singing Psalms in Scotland - no instruments but the voice.
ejcapulet over 14 years ago
Wonderful answer!
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Holy ……… no, I didn’t……. nope.
freeholder1 over 14 years ago
Through us when we witness to the powerful, Joe. Don’t forget the last part. Half quotes are what start cults and sometimes build Megachurches.
The Spirit can speak directly, through feeling or through the mouth of a donkey, if it sees fit. I find that last part both comforting and personally disturbing. :)
If you want a fight, tell someone how to have communion, baptism or to follow The Acts of the Holy Spirit which even gets retitled Acts of the Apostles in some translations.And the fights are almost always because people don’t obey and TEST the Spirit before acting.
The REV is getting an accurate message and the humor certainly sounds like Christ.
runar over 14 years ago
Corruption, abuse…and that’s just the Catholic church.
dead.theologians.society over 14 years ago
Mr. Doty, doesn’t the New Testament talk about the baptism of Moses, Noah, the cross or cup, the Holy Spirit and baptism of tongues of fire as being dry baptisms?
For Moses, Pharaoh was baptized, and for Noah it was everyone else. The Cross did not involve water not the Holy Spirit or the tongues of fire.
I was always taught that baptism is a transliteration and the real meaning was “identification with”. Moses baptism was identification with the parting of the Red sea and he walked on dry land. Noah was in a ship safe and dry but it identified with the flood. Water baptism would then identify one as a person set aside for Christ.
I agree it is not necessary for salvation. No amount of rationalization can consider the thief that repented of his mocking of Christ on the cross as having been “baptized” - it is faith.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Phil N. DeBlanc ~ you did it again ( :
Hello Joe ~ Have a good day!
Be Nice Everyone! (giggles)Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Freeholder1 ~ whenever I look at your avatar, I see two rock formations. I know it is a polar bear and a rock formation, but …… ~ Happy Monday.
dead.theologians.society over 14 years ago
Mr. Doty, Thanks for responding. I too really liked the Will B. Done series.
I am glad to see you ask for BCV and I take that as a positive sign since that is what we should be our source.
I had done a study once on real baptisms and dry baptisms comparing them to the kind that are symbolic or ritual. A symbolic or ritual baptism would be typified of many of the Jewish washings. Other examples would be Jesus’ washing of the feet, the baptism of John, proselyte baptism, the baptism of the disciples and the unique baptism of Jesus.
The passage on Noah is found in 1 Peter 3:20-21 was an identification of the believing covenant family of Noah, being identified with the sanctuary (Jesus Christ) of the ship as they were protected from the flood. The change in characteristics is going from being unsaved to saved from the flood. This was a dry baptism for the family of Noah as they did not become wet. Peter’s claim is that the flood is a form baptism.
The baptism of Moses in 1 Cor. 10:1, 2 was a double identification; the children of Israel are identified both with Moses as they passed through the Red Sea and with the cloud (Jesus Christ) and the sea as they passed through the Red Sea. The Israelites were acted upon by Moses and the cloud with the change is that they were rescued by Moses and the cloud. The second identification was with the sea and the characteristic that changed was the sea being parted allowing them to walk through on dry land.
In Acts 2:3 the divided tongues of fire with each one sitting on an individual apostle is also a real baptism. These tongues were subsequently identified with each of the apostles in verse 5 and appeared to cause a characteristic change in their ability in language communication.
Another related baptism is found in Gal 3:26-28 and the phrase “baptized into Christ”. The implications this baptism is that all believers are in the family of God and there is no distinction of race, class or sex. This too is a real baptism and the believer is identified with Christ and the characteristic change is putting on Christ through the mechanism of faith.
Another baptism is the baptism of Christ’s death. This is a retroactive identification of the believer with this baptism which means we were baptized into Christ’s death Rom. 6:3, 4 and Col. 2:12. We are now identified with Christ’s death.
The verse stating both the thieves on the cross were initially unrepentant is Matthew 27:44 “Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing.” That was why I say after the one thief repented Christ welcomed him.
Plods with ...™ over 14 years ago
I haven’t had this much Bible learnin’ in a loooonnnnggg time. Thanks!
rdh288 over 14 years ago
A serious religious discussion? Cool! I disagree with practically everything you said, though. Joe or Phill, if either of you would like to have a debate in e-mail, or even a three way one, that would be fun. My one e-mail is rdh289@gmail.com. To avoid spammers, please send a message there, and I’ll tell you my real one.
By debate I mean casual, friendly conversation by people with opposing views, in search of the truth, whether it is what we want to be true or not.
Honestly, I hope that you can convince me that water baptism is not essential for salvation. That would save a lot of worry for friends. But I will not believe you unless you can prove it, as much as I want to. I hope each of you can do much the same.
rdh288 over 14 years ago
I’ll analyze all these arguments later, but here’s a starting point: the thief on the cross didn’t have to be baptized. Here are two reasons.
1) Jesus said so. Did God in the flesh directly speak to you and tell you that you were saved? If not, then you are not in the same category as this man.
2) He was not in the Christian age. For the man to require a Christian salvation as opposed to a Jewish one, he would have had to have been killed after Acts 2. Therefore, his lack of baptism wasn’t the problem, it was his breaking of Jewish law, like the thievery that put him on that cross.
lfanterickson over 14 years ago
I thank God He considers the world WORTH dying for!
bmonk over 14 years ago
@rdh228, we would say that we do not limit God’s grace–God can and has saved persons without baptism, or even any affiliation with the Church. However, it is better to trust in and make use of the means God has given us, which does include faith, and a full response to faith, including joining His people.
The reason that baptism is not a work, but a response to faith, is that it’s not effective unless God acts first.
dead.theologians.society over 14 years ago
Mr. Doty, As I stated - everything in the response I wrote. It has been published and taught, so yes I copied that from my own writings. When you write for publication it is not like writing on a blog post, which I am sure you know. I am not trying to cause an argument, I am trying to be collaborative and please take my discussions in that manner. Please, if I have come across as confrontational I apologize.
My initial point in responding to you was your statement : “The word for “baptism” in the Greek text refers to complete immersion in water.” was to show that baptizo is used in instances where complete immersion in water did not take place. I know the typical example is a heated sword plunged into water, but underlying that action is a change in the characteristics of the metal. In other words, the plunging the sword into the water identifies it with the new material properties.
The foot washings were part of OT cleansings, which relate to baptism. Here is my section on ritual washings (abridged and not quoted since it is my work): Uncleanliness was not sin, but it was analogous to sin. Uncleanliness in the Old Testament is treated the same way we would treat something that we come in contact with that could be contagious Lev 11:40; 15:13; 17:15; 22:6; Num 19:17, 20-22. Note that depending on the circumstances, some of these washings required either sprinkling, washing in water that was not moving and in other cases washing in water that was moving – such as a stream. Cleansing could be one day or seven days depending on the circumstances or even multiple days of seven (Lev 12). In Lev 16 we have both sprinkling with blood and moving water as part of the ritual cleansing. The Mishnah (a rabbinic discussion on the laws of the Pentateuch) has 10 chapters on rules and regulations for the ritual washings. The Levites required cleansing – Num 8:5-22. Consider Num 19 & Ezek 36:25-27 compared with Heb 9:13-15 with Heb 10:22 demonstrating the superiority of Christ over the ritual sacrifices. The Ezekiel passage is a prophecy that in the future God will do the washing. This is an excellent example of the ritual compared with the reality.
Realize, I was using current traditional references to this Holy week when I spoke of the Passover, but agree with your comment on the Seder meal had to be before the Passover meal as you note He was the Passover Lamb. I agree fully that Jesus had do be off the cross and in the tomb before sundown, which as you note the women had to prepare for in advance.
Now if you would like to join forces and discuss why baptism is not needed for salvation in a positive way and we can kick that off with RDH288. I am of the opinion that more can learn from the discussion on line than off line. Thoughts?
bmonk over 14 years ago
Ah, Phil DeBlank, but it’s worth noting that there is a difference between the Synoptics (Matt, Mark, Luke) and John: in the Synoptic Gospels, the disciples prepare the Passover meal (Mt 26:17, 18 and parallels)–Matthew in 26:30 even speaks of singing the Hallel hymn. They clearly believe this is a Passover Meal.
On the other hand, in John 13, the meal is “before the Passover” (13:1), so that Jesus will die on preparation day as the Passover Lambs are being sacrificed (19:31). In fact, John notes that when Jesus was led to Pilate’s praetorium, the priests did not enter the house, lest they be defiled and be unable to eat the Passover (John 18:28).
It’s a difference, and hard to reconcile, apart from saying that they are inconsistent. Both cannot be right, unless we postulate (for this reason alone) that there were two celebrations of Passover–but that clearly, whether the Last Supper of Jesus with his disciples was Passover or not, it reflected that meal and used many of its rituals. I myself prefer John’s timeline–it explains why the Romans would agree to the unusual request to remove the bodies. After all, the whole point of crucifixion was to have the bodies left up as a warning, and ideally they would take days, not hours, to die.
dead.theologians.society over 14 years ago
Actually in our 2010 calendar the Seder meal was Monday and Passover week started Tuesday and ends next Tuesday. So nailing down the exact meal is somewhat difficult. I think the Sabbath day though is critical and that is when the bodies had to be taken down and buried or entombed.
I think Mr Doty and I were considering the Synoptics and John when we made our comments. There are plenty of harmony’s out there, but they do not always take into account the Levitical rituals and the many meals during Passover week. Sometimes we speak in shorthand and just say Passover, when we know it means more than just one day.
Here is the problem - if you perceive a disagreement, then you need to reconcile scripture with scripture. You cannot leave it at inconsistent. If you throw out anything, then why not throw out everything?
bmonk over 14 years ago
We don’t throw out everything, because “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.” (Verbum Dei 11) This truth must be understood according to the author’s standards of truth, which may not be ours. For example, we have a much more strict standard of quoting and historical accuracy, where Luke, for example, like other ancient authors, is not afraid of putting words and even whole speeches in his characters’ mouth, which may or may not reflect what was actually said–as long as it “should have been said that way.”
DerekA over 14 years ago
I usually don’t check this during the week, but noticed the discussion. Joe I think you are pretty much on target here. You are correct with the Jewish calendar day starting at sunset. That seems to confuse folks on counting days. The Passover feast actually covered 4 days. There has always been a lot of discussion on the actual crucifixion day. I would also mention the 3 days and 3 nights statement is intended to be taken as “similar to” or “like” Jonah and that has caused people to force fit - so I can be comfortable with either Thursday or Friday as a tradition. Just guessing, but that may have been where Phil was going.
Your comments on Luke is correct and I would add that Mark’s Gospel is essentially Peter’s Gospel. Mark would fit in the 120 list.
You guys have fun - I just don’t have time until the weekend to do this and may not have time this weekend.
Side note - I wouldn’t mind discussing Baptismal regeneration and would fall on Phil and Joe’s sides in the discussion. I will try and post some stuff on the weekend if I find time.
Grace and Peace Derek
dead.theologians.society over 14 years ago
First off I am fine with Mr. Doty’s responses.
First off I am trying to be open and questioning in the discussion on baptism saving and I was confused by this statement as I had heard similar to this from a hyper-dispensational Dallas Theological Seminary professor (now dead) who claimed every dispensation had a different means or way of salvation (i still have his book):
Rdh228 said - “For the man to require a Christian salvation as opposed to a Jewish one”.
So that leads me to ask, are you trying to tell me that Abraham was not saved by faith and from that faith he was not credited with righteousness, but was saved by some other means by TRYING but failing to keep some laws?
Before we can even consider discussing baptism as having anything to do with salvation, I would ask you read Hebrews chapter 11 and write down all the statement relating to “by faith”.
If it is not by faith, then we need to establish how you think they were saved. Orthodoxy requires the crediting of Christ’s righteousness to the account of the believer and the transfer of the believer’s sins to Him on the cross for 3 hours. If that did not happen for the Old Testament believers , then how was that accomplished?
Anyway if I have jumped to an incorrect conclusion and you do agree the Old Testament believers were saved by faith, then your point 1 and 2 are would be moot as the thief was saved by faith and I apologize for the confusion on my part. But if He was saved by fiat from Jesus are you then also saying all those listed in Hebrews 11 were saved by some other means and if so what?
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Whoosh! I am not even going to try to follow that.
Bunnyface ~ Hello, I am sorry about the members of your congregation. I should have said something before. Do you know if Lutherans have a specific passage they read when someone dies?
bmonk over 14 years ago
I’m not sure about Lutherans having a specific reading for a funeral–or a death. I know the use of Psalm 23 (“The Lord is my shepherd.”) is pretty standard. Catholics have a whole set of possible readings, about 6 from the Old Testament, 3 or 4 Responsorial psalms, 20 plus New Testament, and about 20 Gospels they can use. And there are even a few other popular ones, like Ecclesiastes 3: 1-9 or -11. (“There is an appointed time for everything…”)
It’s not only the Jews who mark time from Sunset to Sunset. The Catholics also begin major feasts, and in fact the Divine Office, our daily prayers, from sunset, which is why there are “First” and “Second” Vespers for Sundays and Solemnities.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Thank you Bunnyface.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Bunnyface said (on another strip):
There’s also Sticky Buns, aka Carmel Rolls…
My first homily after ordination was on Carmel Rolls. For the Feast of Corpus Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ, aka the Eucharist).
I immediately thought of a priest/minister trying to serve a giant sticky bun for communion. All those messy sticky fingers. (probably not what you meant, but funny) I am curious about what you meant though.
Ooops! Premium Member over 14 years ago
Okay, I hope that this is not too controversial of a question.
Does anybody know about the Christian religion adopting pagan rituals such as celebrating Winter by bringing greenery into the homes and celebrating spring with the eggs. I had read that this was done to help convert pagans to Christianity? I think at the time, there was only one major Christian religion (Catholics).
BTW ~ please remember lectures scare me please KISS it. Keep It Simple (for the) Stupid
bmonk over 14 years ago
We didn’t necessarily adopt pagan rituals, but did adopt some of the trappings–greenery and Yule log at Christmas, the eggs for Easter, and so on.
Another reason for boiled eggs at Easter: eggs were one of the foods fasted from during Lent, hence many pre-Lent traditional foods (pancakes) used more eggs, Easter Bread had lots of eggs, and the others were saved up (and preserved by boiling) until Easter came.
We also adopted similar dates for festivals, sometimes for the opposite reason: not to adopt the pagan ritual, but to hide the Christian one. For example, Christmas was at the same time as the Saturnalia, a pagan Roman feast, since that way the Christians could celebrate without drawing attention either way–celebrating when others weren’t, or not celebrating when others were.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe - on your post from a day ago on Hebrews - I agree - Hebrews is a tough book and, I would not attribute it to Paul and it really does not matter as you say. Phil’s reference is not to a complex chapter and with all the repetitive phrases of by faith makes it rather clear..
Your Titus 3:5 reference is also used as a proof text by the Church of Christ as implied water baptism, though as you note in context there is no reference to water baptism. It is as you say the “washing of regeneration”. Actually as I am sure Joe knows the Greek word palingenesias is a genitive of apposition which simple means the translation would be phrased more like “the washing which is regeneration”. This brings us back to Joe’s point of the renewing of the Holy Ghost (Ref: A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles by Chalres Ellicott).
So I am very comfortable with Joe’s treatment and we do not need to go into a long discussion on regeneration unless someone else pursues it.
DerekA over 14 years ago
Ok - the thing on adopting traditions from pagan cultures - yes, it was done and it is very documented in both Roman Catholic changes and adaptations and of course in Protestant protestations - which I guess is what Protestants do - right?
In trying to keep it simple, be aware as pagan rituals were pulled in in the early years of the church - 300 - 1200 AD, there were protests, but Rome called the shots so to speak. The results of that acceptance you see in the areas that Bunnyface has outlined. More recent changes in what some churches accept are celebrating something known as “the Day of the Dead” and how it is allowed. Same with Mardi Gras. Neither is rebuked as pagan. Rather than list a bunch of negatives let me follow up with something more appropriate for tomorrow.
DerekA over 14 years ago
There has been a lot of excellent documents created over the years but this quote from the Heidelberg Catechism #40 & 43 seems appropriate:
Why did Christ go all the way to death?
Because God’s Justice and truth demand it: Only the death of God’s Son could pay for our sin.
What further advantage do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross?
Through Christ’s death our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with Him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us, but that instead we may dedicate ourselves as an offering of gratitude to Him.
May you have a wonderful resurrection Sunday and remember - “He is Risen!”
DerekA over 14 years ago
Joe - I was not referring to musical instruments, my reference is that the old line church of Christ that insist on being baptized in their church is the mechanism for salvation. Lately there has been a split and and a new group of Church of Christ folks no longer believe in baptismal regeneration.
On instruments - I have no issue either way - have had to take defend at one time or another both positions. for the side that says instruments are ok - all they do is look at David and the OT use of trumpets, drums and such and of course throw in David’s dancing and a good time was had by all ;-)
AS you and I are discovering, once you agree on orthodoxy, the rest of the stuff is in house debates and so if you don’t like music you find a church that does not do music, or if you want psalm singing you find a church that does that, and if you want a rock band you find a church that does that. But, when we do worship, it should always be in a manner prescribed by what we have been shown in the Bible and that brings honor and glory to God not to man or to attract people.
For those who read this stuff Joe and I write, realize both he and I have been in churches that sing without instruments - and I have been in some that don’t think you should make a joyful noise but only study. I would conclude noting the most powerful singing I have ever heard has been in a group of Scottish covenanters singing Psalms in Scotland - no instruments but the voice.