Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 03-29-2012, 04:46 PM

It should be noted that the heretics think 'fire' (in your quote) literally means fire - i.e. that people are immersed somehow in fire. Never have been able to figure that one out satisfactorily.

sotto voce · 03-29-2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It should be noted that the heretics think 'fire' (in your quote) literally means fire - i.e. that people are immersed somehow in fire. Never have been able to figure that one out satisfactorily.

As with the cleansing action of water, it's reference to the use of the purifying action of fire (then more familiar in smelting than it is to moderns), both actions transferred to the same abstract process. It's just an alternative figure to that of the washing of water. It refers to the 'fire' of removing bad personal motives and practices. It was surely reference to a passage of Malachi that mentioned both refining fire, and John himself, as the precursor of what was to happen to the Jews:

'"See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the Lord Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner's fire or a launderer's soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. Then the Lord will have men who will bring offerings in righteousness, and the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be acceptable to the Lord, as in days gone by, as in former years."' Mal 3:1-4 NIV

Flames of fire were reported as signs of the coming of the Holy Spirit, but this was a once-only occasion, so it's not really justified to say that literal fire is meant here.

sotto voce · 03-29-2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yes, I am aware of these points. I have read and re-rread the text and came to the same conclusion especially with regards to how the author can say that all twelve were baptized by John.

Perhaps they were, and this was commonly known. The point is that this idea is not essential for the gospel revelation.

Quote:

The real question is why does he go beyond what is actually written in the Gospel of John? Why would he say that ALL the disciples were first baptized with water and then with spirit?

Presumably to show that the baptism of John was altogether ineffective as achieving the final desired outcome, though of course it was preparation for it. It's perhaps a bit of a stretch, but it's not actually misleading.

Quote:

the opinion of the author:

2. that it can be either or (namely, that water baptism or spirit baptism are the equivalents of one another and exchangeable rather than being a two step process).

I don't think that's the view of this author, who says that water baptism was ineffective as a means of conversion. Spirit baptism only was effective. Water baptism took place after conversion as declaration of justification already appropriated, of conversion already effective.

Quote:

I would think that some heretical groups argued that one only needed to have spirit baptism.

As far as justification before God is concerned, that's orthodoxy. As far as justification before others is concerned, water baptism was necessary, because "whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him," and water baptism was then the adopted means of avoiding being disowned.

It is of course heretical as well as nonsensical to say that water baptism is the means of justification before God.

GakuseiDon · 03-29-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It should be noted that the heretics think 'fire' (in your quote) literally means fire - i.e. that people are immersed somehow in fire. Never have been able to figure that one out satisfactorily.

Fire and air were considered as "spiritual" substances. Fire tends to ascend straight up, so the ancient Greeks at least thought the heavens and their inhabitants were made of fire. So fire here suggests a spiritual ritual.

aa5874 · 03-29-2012, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

What the hell. If the wonky texts don't tell us what we want, let's just make up some more shit.

Jesus forgot to Baptize John with the Ghost in gMark and made John the Baptist a FALSE prophet.
:devil1:
John Baptised Jesus for remission of Sins but Jesus NEVER Baptize John with the Ghost.

Mark 1:8 KJV

Quote:

I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost

stephan huller · 03-30-2012, 09:47 AM

I've also been thinking about the very old notion of fire appearing in the water when John tried to baptize Jesus. Justin mentions it among others. In the Anonymous Treatise the author rejects the idea that this ever happened and associates it with heresy. Nevertheless it could have been attached to a supernatural Jesus. The idea of course is that Jesus is ho on of the burning bush (= 'the Being') who is a fire which is never consumed. I think the author also connects the interest in fire with Simon Magus. Nevertheless the real core here is the connection with 'spiritual baptism' (i.e. being baptized by fire). Fire baptism is being fully immersed in the divine nature of Jesus.

Quote:

For because John said that we must be baptized in the Holy Ghost and in fire, from the fact that he went on to say and fire, some desperate men have dared to such an extent to carry their depravity, and therefore very crafty men seek how they can thus corrupt and violate, and even neutralize the baptism of holiness. Who derive the origin of their notion from Simon Magus, practising it with manifold perversity through various errors; to whom Simon Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles, said, Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the grace of God could be possessed by money; you have neither part nor lot in this work; for your heart is not right with God. Acts 8:20-21 And such men as these do all these things in the desire to deceive those who are more simple or more inquisitive. And some of them try to argue that they only administer a sound and perfect, not as we, a mutilated and curtailed baptism, which they are in such wise said to designate, that immediately they have descended into the water, fire at once appears upon the water. Which if it can be effected by any trick, as several tricks of this kind are affirmed to be— of Anaxilaus— whether it is anything natural, by means of which this may happen, or whether they think that they behold this, or whether the work and magical poison of some malignant being can force fire from the water; still they declare such a deceit and artifice to be a perfect baptism, which if faithful men have been forced to receive, there will assuredly be no doubt but that they have lost that which they had. Just as, if a soldier after taking an oath should desert his camp, and in the very different camp of the enemy should wish to take an oath of a far other kind, it is plain that in this way he is discharged from his old oath.

17. Moreover, if a man of this sort should again return to you, you will assuredly hesitate whether he may have baptism or no; and yet it will behoove you, in whatever way you can, to aid even this man if he repent. For of this adulterous, yea, murderous baptism, if there is any other author, it is then certainly a book devised by these same heretics on behalf of this same error, which is inscribed The Preaching of Paul; in which book, contrary to all Scriptures, you will find both Christ confessing His own sin— although He alone did no sin at all— and almost compelled by His mother Mary unwillingly to receive John's baptism. Also, that when He was baptized, fire was seen to be upon the water, which is written in neither of the Gospels. And that after such long time, Peter and Paul, after the collation of the Gospel in Jerusalem, and the mutual consideration and altercation and arrangement of things to be done finally, were known to one another, as if then for the first time; and certain other things devised of this kind disgracefully and absurdly;— all which things you will find gathered together into that book. But they who are not ignorant of the nature of the Holy Spirit, understand that what is said of fire is said of the Spirit Himself. For in the Acts of the Apostles, according to thatsame promise of our Lord, on the very day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit had descended upon the disciples, that they might be baptized in Him, there were seen sitting upon each one tongues as if of fire, that it might be manifest that they were baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire— that is, with that Spirit which was, whether fire, or as fire, such as was the fire which burned in the bush, and did not consume the bush; and such as is that fire which is the Spirit of the Angel, as says the Scripture, Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a burning fire; whom if you should resemble, or be a companion or sharer with, you shall be able to dread no fire, not even that which, going before the Lord in the day of judgment, shall burn up the whole world, save those who are baptized in the Holy Spirit and in fire.

18. And the Spirit, indeed, continues to this day invisible to men, as the Lord says, The Spirit breathes where He will; and you know not whence He comes, or whither He goes. John 3:8 But in the beginning of the mystery of the faith and of spiritual baptism, the same Spirit was manifestly seen to have sat upon the disciples as it had been fire.

I wonder whether 'the Preaching of Paul' (which is an otherwise unknown text) is a mistake for 'the Preaching of Peter.'

The idea that the Holy Spirit that came upon the disciples was like fire seems to be from Acts 2:

Quote:

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.

arnoldo · 03-30-2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

What the hell. If the wonky texts don't tell us what we want, let's just make up some more shit.

Jesus forgot to Baptize John with the Ghost in gMark and made John the Baptist a FALSE prophet.
:devil1:
John Baptised Jesus for remission of Sins but Jesus NEVER Baptize John with the Ghost.

Mark 1:8 KJV

Quote:

I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost

What significance, if any, is it that Jesus did wash Peter's feet as per John 13:6-9?

sotto voce · 03-30-2012, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

What significance, if any, is it that Jesus did wash Peter's feet

That was just washing, to make feet clean from road soiling. Foot washing for guests was regarded as servile, the job of servants or perhaps children. But Jesus reckoned to set an example for his church, so that no-one should consider himself above taking the most humble role.

'"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord', and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him."' Jn 13:13-16 NIV

stephan huller · 03-30-2012, 06:12 PM

None of the earlier writers take this as a baptism.

arnoldo · 03-31-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

None of the earlier writers take this as a baptism.

You're right, the gJohn elsewhere mentions that Jesus himself did not baptize anyone in John 4:2. Regarding the OP, my guess is that during the first century, issues re circumcision was a greater priority than water baptism. There may've been a reversal when during the third century issues regarding water baptism became paramount. The following introduction to a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria may provide some historical context for this issue.

Quote:

DURING the years 254-258 there was a controversy between the see of Rome on the one hand and the Asiatic and African churches on the other as to the validity of baptisms administered by heretics. Pope Stephen maintained that those who had, in an heretical medium, been baptised either in the name of Jesus Christ alone, or in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ought, after a bishop had laid hands on them, to be admitted to communion; whereas Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Caesarea maintained that heresy on the part of the baptiser rendered baptism null and void. The pope accused his antagonists of rebaptising (a)nabapti/zein), thereby to some extent begging the question at issue, and excommunicated them both in Asia and in Africa.
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/di...ia_letters.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2012, 04:46 PM	#11
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It should be noted that the heretics think 'fire' (in your quote) literally means fire - i.e. that people are immersed somehow in fire. Never have been able to figure that one out satisfactorily.

03-30-2012, 06:12 PM	#19
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	None of the earlier writers take this as a baptism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.