Apostolic immersion in water
It is wisest to baptize in this direction, i.e. face down. Then water
does not enter the nostrils and it is easier to get out of the water.
does not enter the nostrils and it is easier to get out of the water.
Common water baptism in use is not apostolic
Having studied the matter carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the water baptism performed by the most common and largest Christian churches, where babies are baptized in the 'Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit', cannot be apostolic, because the apostles are never said to have baptized in that way in the Acts of the Apostles.
In my opinion, this type of baptism has been drifted by replacing the original baptism performed by the apostles with a baptism in which the one being baptized is not required to hear the message of salvation, not to repent, and not to make his own decision to follow Adonai Yeshua. At the same time, the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit is skillfully prevented!
It is therefore a really dangerous baptism in water, which has replaced the original clear baptism command and managed to get huge masses of people (practically) into church membership through forced baptism, without asking the baptized's own opinion. Through that, they also become church tax payers and obedient to the church, but not to the teachings of the Bible.
Having studied the matter carefully, I have come to the conclusion that the water baptism performed by the most common and largest Christian churches, where babies are baptized in the 'Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit', cannot be apostolic, because the apostles are never said to have baptized in that way in the Acts of the Apostles.
In my opinion, this type of baptism has been drifted by replacing the original baptism performed by the apostles with a baptism in which the one being baptized is not required to hear the message of salvation, not to repent, and not to make his own decision to follow Adonai Yeshua. At the same time, the opportunity to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit is skillfully prevented!
It is therefore a really dangerous baptism in water, which has replaced the original clear baptism command and managed to get huge masses of people (practically) into church membership through forced baptism, without asking the baptized's own opinion. Through that, they also become church tax payers and obedient to the church, but not to the teachings of the Bible.
According to the Acts of the Apostles, the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is given only to those who take the apostolic immersion baptism: Acts 2:38-39. Because I know the merciful heavenly Father, I know that he agrees to give the Holy Spirit even to those who do not know original baptism, but who sincerely ask for and value that gift from him: Luke 11:13.
After all, I received the gift of the Holy Spirit myself, first after fervently begging, even though I had been mistakenly baptized after coming to faith in immersion baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, I know that the attitude of a person's heart is decisive if he himself does not know what is the correct apostolic way of performing water baptism. More about the right way in the rest of my thesis.
My rationale is as follows
The delusion apparently started already at the end of the first century in the so-called Didache's doctrine of dissemination. But at the Council of Nicaea in 325 the so-called with the enactment of the doctrine of the Trinity, it was established in the doctrines of the dominant denominations as authorized dogma.
In this treatise, I will not discuss the Didache or the doctrine of the Trinity, the study of which requires separate treatises. The reader can get to know them more closely through the links below and see for himself that they did not originally belong to the Apostolic Christianity.
A) My reasoning based on JNTC
I copied the following text mainly from Jewish New Testament Commentary (David H. Stern). I have only added translations of Hebrew words and translated some English proper names into Hebrew.
>>
Pages 85-86
Matt. Chapter 28
Verse 19 (I'm adding the verse here because it's under review)
" Therefore, go and make people from all nations into talmidim (disciples), immersing them into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit)." From Complete Jewish Bible (David H. Stern).
This "Great Commission" of Yeshua is stated with varying emphases at Mark 16:15-20, Luke 24:46-49, John 20:21-23 and Acts 1:8.
Therefore go and make people from all nations into talmidim (disciples). This must have shocked his hearers, who surely thought that the Messiah was only, or at least primarily, for Jews. Today the situation is reversed, for many Christians think it wrong to evangelize Jews. But their position is inconsistent; for if they really respect Yeshua they should obey his command to make people from all nations, including the Jewish nation, into talmidim (disciples).
Therefore go and make people from all nations into talmidim (disciples). This must have shocked his hearers, who surely thought that the Messiah was only, or at least primarily, for Jews. Today the situation is reversed, for many Christians think it wrong to evangelize Jews. But their position is inconsistent; for if they really respect Yeshua they should obey his command to make people from all nations, including the Jewish nation, into talmidim (disciples).
Immersing them (see 3:IN)*) into the reality of the Father, the Son and the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit). KJV has "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." Christianity has tended to regard this phrase as a "baptismal formula" to be pronounced when someone is baptized. This understanding leads to such questions as: What is this "name" of the Father, Son and Spirit? Is it Jehovah?**) Jesus***) (compare Acts 2:38, 8:16)? or something els? Must all three "persons of the Godhead" be mentioned for a baptism to be valid?
- - -
*) Abbreviation for (see 3:IN) is used in in-text citations where there are 3 or more authors. They are mentioned in the last chapter of this citat.
**) My abbreviation: The name must be Yehowah for pronouncing it right.
***) My abbreviation: The name must be Hebrew name 'Yeshua' and not Jesus.
- - -
So far as I am concerned, these questions miss the point. First of all, Greek eis generally means into rather than in. Secondly, although name is literal meaning of Greek onoma, "immerzing into a name" describes no possible literalact. My rendering expresses what I believe to be the intended meaning, since in the Bible "name" stands for the reality behind the name. While "in the name of" can mean "on the authority of," that seems weak here; more is meant than identifying who authorizes immersion. It is possible that the Greek for "into the name" renders Hebrew lashem (to Elohim), "for, for the sake of, with reference to"; if so, the JNT (Jewish New Testament) renders the sense well.
The Father, the Son and the Ruach HaCodesh (Holy Spirit). This is the closest the New Testament comes to stating the proposition that YHVH, Adonai, the one Elohim of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov, consist of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (compare 2 Cor. 13:14). The word trinity appears nowhere in the New Testament; it was developed later by theologians trying to express profundities which Elohim has revealed about himself. The New Testament does not teach tritheism, which is belief in three Elohims. It does not teach unitarianism, which denies the divinity of Yeshua the Son and the Holy Spirit. It does not teach modalism, which says that Elohim appears sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son and sometimes as the Holy Spirit, like an actor changing mask.
- - -
*) Abbreviation for (see 3:IN) is used in in-text citations where there are 3 or more authors. They are mentioned in the last chapter of this citat.
**) My abbreviation: The name must be Yehowah for pronouncing it right.
***) My abbreviation: The name must be Hebrew name 'Yeshua' and not Jesus.
- - -
So far as I am concerned, these questions miss the point. First of all, Greek eis generally means into rather than in. Secondly, although name is literal meaning of Greek onoma, "immerzing into a name" describes no possible literalact. My rendering expresses what I believe to be the intended meaning, since in the Bible "name" stands for the reality behind the name. While "in the name of" can mean "on the authority of," that seems weak here; more is meant than identifying who authorizes immersion. It is possible that the Greek for "into the name" renders Hebrew lashem (to Elohim), "for, for the sake of, with reference to"; if so, the JNT (Jewish New Testament) renders the sense well.
The Father, the Son and the Ruach HaCodesh (Holy Spirit). This is the closest the New Testament comes to stating the proposition that YHVH, Adonai, the one Elohim of Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov, consist of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (compare 2 Cor. 13:14). The word trinity appears nowhere in the New Testament; it was developed later by theologians trying to express profundities which Elohim has revealed about himself. The New Testament does not teach tritheism, which is belief in three Elohims. It does not teach unitarianism, which denies the divinity of Yeshua the Son and the Holy Spirit. It does not teach modalism, which says that Elohim appears sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son and sometimes as the Holy Spirit, like an actor changing mask.
It is easy to wander astray into error or nonsense in thinking about Elohim, since his ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). Some Messianic Jews use the term triunity in conscious avoidance of the word trinity, which has such a non-Jewish, traditionally Christian ring to it, and in order to emphasize the unity of Elohim as proclaimed in the Sh'ma (Hear Israel etc.) without neglecting what this verse highlights. But the bottom line is that it is more important to believe Elohim's word and to trust him than to argue over particular doctrinal or verbal formulas used in attempting to describe the nature of Elohim.
There is also a textual issue. Although all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. (Christian Era), quotes the verse without it. Most scolars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala ("The Conclusion of Matthew," Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), pp. 132-147) and David Flusser ("The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source," ibib., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119) take the opposite view.
There is also a textual issue. Although all ancient manuscripts have the trinitarian formula, Eusebius, the Church historian, who may have been a non-trinitarian, in his writings preceding the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. (Christian Era), quotes the verse without it. Most scolars believe the formula is original, but papers by Hans Kosmala ("The Conclusion of Matthew," Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, 4 (1965), pp. 132-147) and David Flusser ("The Conclusion of Matthew in a New Jewish Christian Source," ibib., 5 (1966-7), pp. 110-119) take the opposite view.
<<
I, too, share the opposite opinion with Eusebius, Hans Kosmala and David Flusser. My reasoning for that in the following below B).
P.S. I understand David H. Stern very well in that he treats the subject very carefully, because the doctrine of water baptism divides many believers in Yeshua. It really is a hot and difficult topic!
B) The evidence contained in the Acts of the Apostles
The first apostles received the baptism command directly from Adonai Yeshua. There are a total of four (4) mentions of the baptism they performed in the Acts of the Apostles: (I use his correct Hebrew proper name when quoting our Savior)
1) Acts 2:38 >>Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.<<
I, too, share the opposite opinion with Eusebius, Hans Kosmala and David Flusser. My reasoning for that in the following below B).
P.S. I understand David H. Stern very well in that he treats the subject very carefully, because the doctrine of water baptism divides many believers in Yeshua. It really is a hot and difficult topic!
B) The evidence contained in the Acts of the Apostles
The first apostles received the baptism command directly from Adonai Yeshua. There are a total of four (4) mentions of the baptism they performed in the Acts of the Apostles: (I use his correct Hebrew proper name when quoting our Savior)
1) Acts 2:38 >>Peter said to them, "Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.<<
2) Acts 8:16 >>(For the Spirit had not yet come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Adonai Yeshua.)<<
3. Acts 10:48 >>So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach. Then they asked him to stay for several days.<<
4. Acts 19:5 >>When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Adonai Yeshua.<<
It is noteworthy that in the Acts of the first apostles, there is not a single mention of ecclesiastical infant baptism or of being baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". It's because that kind of baptism is a replacement baptism invented by people themselves!
3. Acts 10:48 >>So he gave orders to have them baptized in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach. Then they asked him to stay for several days.<<
4. Acts 19:5 >>When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Adonai Yeshua.<<
It is noteworthy that in the Acts of the first apostles, there is not a single mention of ecclesiastical infant baptism or of being baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". It's because that kind of baptism is a replacement baptism invented by people themselves!
This connection also clearly includes the general instruction of the apostle Paul:
Col. 3:17 >>And whatever you do in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Adonai Yeshua, giving thanks to Elohim the Father through him.<<
That "whatever" includes: teachings, prayers, baptisms, blessing the grave, etc.
Baptize only in the name of Yeshua HaMashiach?
Because the first apostles did so. Later, the proper names and titles of our Savior were translated into Greek and from there into several other languages. The fact is that our Savior was born from the tribe of Judah and was given the name Yeshua by the command of Yehowah. The Hebrew name Yeshua means "Salvation" and "Saviour". Translation names do not have the same meaning linguistically or etymologically, because they are only invented by people, even if they aim to refer to the same person. (Where Did the Name Jesus Come From?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZtWlmjH35w
Since the person in question has the right name, revealed to us from heaven, why wouldn't we use it? Because the Bible translators have not taken the following clear teaching of the apostle Peter as true, but have invented substitutes for the name themselves!
The Apostle Peter taught the following about that glorified name when speaking to the Jews in Hebrew. Acts 4:10-12
>>10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Yeshua HaMashich HaNotzri whom you crucified, whom Elohim raised from the dead, this man stands before you healthy.
11 This Yeshua is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, that has become the cornerstone. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among people by which we must be saved."<<
- - -
That last verse inevitably reminds me of Adonai Yeshua's teaching from the Sermon on the Mount: Matt. 7:13-14
>>13 "Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it.<<
- Only a few people find the narrow gate and the difficult way! So you have to look for them diligently until you find them!
That last verse inevitably reminds me of Adonai Yeshua's teaching from the Sermon on the Mount: Matt. 7:13-14
>>13 "Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it.<<
- Only a few people find the narrow gate and the difficult way! So you have to look for them diligently until you find them!
If you have received the gift of the Holy Spirit despite the wrong way of water baptism, then it has only been an exception made by our merciful Creator. Therefore, do not teach that wrong baptism to others!
P.S. Although the correct, original baptism by immersion for believers is not a prerequisite for salvation, it is nevertheless obedience to the original teaching and the way to spiritual blessing.
That was the reason why I later took it myself, even though I had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit several decades before. That's why I recommend the same to you. Be baptized such as as apostles taught!
Finally, the most important question of your life
Have you really found the narrow gate and the difficult road?
So: Is your faith based on the original teachings of UT or on its forgeries?
A song that fits the topic
We Choose the Fear of the Lord
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti