MennoNet.com

Josh wrote:The act of baptism was directly tied to the Judaism ritual of miqvah which was ritual purification, typically done after anything that made you ritually unclean.

Are you implying that this is the way the Apostles and early Church writers/fathers of the faith made the connection?
I think the ancient Christian faith has a lot to say about Baptism which is not considered 'symbol only' from what we have studied- granted since the Reformation the understanding was changed by many but not all Christians during the Reformation era-

I was just asking if you think the Church was going backwards towards Judaism by what they were practicing in this way-

Valerie wrote:

Josh wrote:The act of baptism was directly tied to the Judaism ritual of miqvah which was ritual purification, typically done after anything that made you ritually unclean.

Are you implying that this is the way the Apostles and early Church writers/fathers of the faith made the connection?
I think the ancient Christian faith has a lot to say about Baptism which is not considered 'symbol only' from what we have studied- granted since the Reformation the understanding was changed by many but not all Christians during the Reformation era-

I was just asking if you think the Church was going backwards towards Judaism by what they were practicing in this way-

I'm not saying anything other than what I said:

Josh wrote:The act of baptism was directly tied to the Judaism ritual of miqvah which was ritual purification, typically done after anything that made you ritually unclean.

To someone listening and talking to John the Baptist, before Jesus even was performing his ministry, what John was calling for was identical to how the miqvahs were used in the temple. Ritual purification was indeed not "symbol only"; the old law taught that if you weren't properly purified you would be unclean before God with terrible consequences.

With that said, I do not think God is going to send born again Christian believers to hell just because we aren't baptised.

Josh wrote:

Valerie wrote:

Josh wrote:The act of baptism was directly tied to the Judaism ritual of miqvah which was ritual purification, typically done after anything that made you ritually unclean.

Are you implying that this is the way the Apostles and early Church writers/fathers of the faith made the connection?
I think the ancient Christian faith has a lot to say about Baptism which is not considered 'symbol only' from what we have studied- granted since the Reformation the understanding was changed by many but not all Christians during the Reformation era-

I was just asking if you think the Church was going backwards towards Judaism by what they were practicing in this way-

I'm not saying anything other than what I said:

Josh wrote:The act of baptism was directly tied to the Judaism ritual of miqvah which was ritual purification, typically done after anything that made you ritually unclean.

To someone listening and talking to John the Baptist, before Jesus even was performing his ministry, what John was calling for was identical to how the miqvahs were used in the temple. Ritual purification was indeed not "symbol only"; the old law taught that if you weren't properly purified you would be unclean before God with terrible consequences.

With that said, I do not think God is going to send born again Christian believers to hell just because we aren't baptised.

But then in Acts 19 there were some disciples at Ephesus that had been baptized with John's baptism, but were re-baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, which shows an obvious difference in baptisms, as well as an obvious difference between miqvah and John's baptism.

I agree. That's why I think the new baptism which replaces miqvah, the Lord's Supper which replaces Passover, the veiling or no veiling for men which replaces the special garments temple goers used to need to wear, and the symbolic anointing oil which replaces how priests used to anoint, show now we have a new covenant with symbols but no more "sacramental" powers.

It's really this which makes Christianity an entirely different kind of religion.

Alas, I have been gone far too long. May and June just up and disappeared. I should probably address a couple different folk on this thread.

Sudsy~

I know this has been hashed out here (or at least on Menno Discuss) before, but I personally at least do not see anything anywhere in Scripture that teaches that a woman needs to 'cover her glory' (her hair). This is one of the really confusing things for me, as one coming from a non-distinctive dress Mennonite background - why do so many of the Swiss Brethren groups think that it is a HAIR covering, instead of a HEAD covering? Can anyone tell me when that idea was put forth, or developed? And if it IS a hair-covering, then the only ones around here (Holmes Co, Ohio) who do it right are the Swartzentrubbers. I don't want to start an argument about this, I just thought that for the sake of others who might read this thread, it should be mentioned. Otherwise I'd just continue to let it go.

It would have been the Apostle Paul in the first century. And you raise a valid point - it's actually a "long hair covering", not a head or all-hair covering. Thank you for bringing that up. In all seriousness, you truly don't get that from the 1st 16 verses of 1st Cor 11? If not, I'd be glad to expand. Sorry for the delay

Ernie ~

I think foot washing is the "other sort of command" since we are not aware that it was an early church practice. Holy kiss and lifting hands are both found in early church writings indicating this was a practice.

In addition to 1 Tim 5:10 (which I acede is more of a reference, not a command), I can think of 8 or 9 patristic references right off the bat, though admittedly I'm thinking late 2nd to early 3rd century and on. Would your premise be that footwashing may have developed later as an ecclesial practice rather than being engaged in by the church from day 1?

Heirbyadoption wrote:Alas, I have been gone far too long. May and June just up and disappeared. I should probably address a couple different folk on this thread.

Sudsy~

I know this has been hashed out here (or at least on Menno Discuss) before, but I personally at least do not see anything anywhere in Scripture that teaches that a woman needs to 'cover her glory' (her hair). This is one of the really confusing things for me, as one coming from a non-distinctive dress Mennonite background - why do so many of the Swiss Brethren groups think that it is a HAIR covering, instead of a HEAD covering? Can anyone tell me when that idea was put forth, or developed? And if it IS a hair-covering, then the only ones around here (Holmes Co, Ohio) who do it right are the Swartzentrubbers. I don't want to start an argument about this, I just thought that for the sake of others who might read this thread, it should be mentioned. Otherwise I'd just continue to let it go.

It would have been the Apostle Paul in the first century. And you raise a valid point - it's actually a "long hair covering", not a head or all-hair covering. Thank you for bringing that up. In all seriousness, you truly don't get that from the 1st 16 verses of 1st Cor 11? If not, I'd be glad to expand. Sorry for the delay

Ernie ~

I think foot washing is the "other sort of command" since we are not aware that it was an early church practice. Holy kiss and lifting hands are both found in early church writings indicating this was a practice.

In addition to 1 Tim 5:10 (which I acede is more of a reference, not a command), I can think of 8 or 9 patristic references right off the bat, though admittedly I'm thinking late 2nd to early 3rd century and on. Would your premise be that footwashing may have developed later as an ecclesial practice rather than being engaged in by the church from day 1?

So is the 1 Tim 5:10 a reference to the 'ordinance' of feet-washing, or does it refer to the practice of hospitality/service/good works of meeting the need of washing a visitor's feet? In the context I'm inclined to understand it as the latter.

Heirbyadoption wrote:Alas, I have been gone far too long. May and June just up and disappeared. I should probably address a couple different folk on this thread.

Sudsy~

I know this has been hashed out here (or at least on Menno Discuss) before, but I personally at least do not see anything anywhere in Scripture that teaches that a woman needs to 'cover her glory' (her hair). This is one of the really confusing things for me, as one coming from a non-distinctive dress Mennonite background - why do so many of the Swiss Brethren groups think that it is a HAIR covering, instead of a HEAD covering? Can anyone tell me when that idea was put forth, or developed? And if it IS a hair-covering, then the only ones around here (Holmes Co, Ohio) who do it right are the Swartzentrubbers. I don't want to start an argument about this, I just thought that for the sake of others who might read this thread, it should be mentioned. Otherwise I'd just continue to let it go.

It would have been the Apostle Paul in the first century. And you raise a valid point - it's actually a "long hair covering", not a head or all-hair covering. Thank you for bringing that up. In all seriousness, you truly don't get that from the 1st 16 verses of 1st Cor 11? If not, I'd be glad to expand. Sorry for the delay

I didn't go back & check, but I think your quote is from at least two different people. Sudsy does not live in Holmes County, Ohio. I think I wrote some parts of that, and he wrote other parts. But if you are suggesting that the veiling is a hair covering, and not a head covering, then you have some words that need to be changed in your Greek text.

Neto wrote: I didn't go back & check, but I think your quote is from at least two different people. Sudsy does not live in Holmes County, Ohio. I think I wrote some parts of that, and he wrote other parts. But if you are suggesting that the veiling is a hair covering, and not a head covering, then you have some words that need to be changed in your Greek text.

Could you do me the honor of explaining/expanding on that thought briefly? Thanks.

Neto wrote:

Heirbyadoption wrote:Alas, I have been gone far too long. May and June just up and disappeared. I should probably address a couple different folk on this thread.

Sudsy~

I know this has been hashed out here (or at least on Menno Discuss) before, but I personally at least do not see anything anywhere in Scripture that teaches that a woman needs to 'cover her glory' (her hair). This is one of the really confusing things for me, as one coming from a non-distinctive dress Mennonite background - why do so many of the Swiss Brethren groups think that it is a HAIR covering, instead of a HEAD covering? Can anyone tell me when that idea was put forth, or developed? And if it IS a hair-covering, then the only ones around here (Holmes Co, Ohio) who do it right are the Swartzentrubbers. I don't want to start an argument about this, I just thought that for the sake of others who might read this thread, it should be mentioned. Otherwise I'd just continue to let it go.

It would have been the Apostle Paul in the first century. And you raise a valid point - it's actually a "long hair covering", not a head or all-hair covering. Thank you for bringing that up. In all seriousness, you truly don't get that from the 1st 16 verses of 1st Cor 11? If not, I'd be glad to expand. Sorry for the delay

I didn't go back & check, but I think your quote is from at least two different people. Sudsy does not live in Holmes County, Ohio. I think I wrote some parts of that, and he wrote other parts. But if you are suggesting that the veiling is a hair covering, and not a head covering, then you have some words that need to be changed in your Greek text.

Yes, I could not not find this quote I supposedly made. Could you correct this Heirbyadoption, as to where it came from ? Thankyou.

Sudsy wrote:

Neto wrote:

Heirbyadoption wrote:Alas, I have been gone far too long. May and June just up and disappeared. I should probably address a couple different folk on this thread.

Sudsy~
It would have been the Apostle Paul in the first century. And you raise a valid point - it's actually a "long hair covering", not a head or all-hair covering. Thank you for bringing that up. In all seriousness, you truly don't get that from the 1st 16 verses of 1st Cor 11? If not, I'd be glad to expand. Sorry for the delay

I didn't go back & check, but I think your quote is from at least two different people. Sudsy does not live in Holmes County, Ohio. I think I wrote some parts of that, and he wrote other parts. But if you are suggesting that the veiling is a hair covering, and not a head covering, then you have some words that need to be changed in your Greek text.

Yes, I could not not find this quote I supposedly made. Could you correct this Heirbyadoption, as to where it came from ? Thankyou.

Somehow I dropped your name instead of Neto's. It was his comment. I apologize.