Interesting to me how the simple immersions in Acts got so involved with such acts and meaning. I really doubt the 3,000 initially that repented were all baptised naked. And is there proof that Jesus was stark naked on the cross ? If that is true why don't pictures blur the private areas instead of showing a cloth covering ? I must be missing something here in my understanding.Valerie wrote: I read this teaching about how holy baptism was done & again think of the passage, to the pure, all things are pure- I read what he had to say (although I don't think he was the one who 'started' this type of baptism, was just teaching catechums)
and this man knew the Lord- and the early Church (and really present Church) understand the deepest things of baptism in preparation which are really absent in much of Protestantism & Anabaptism- I tend to believe this 'depth' of it was not an unholiness but the opposite-
Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:
2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds 2395 . Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree 2396 . For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, ye may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxeth corrupt in the lusts of deceit 2397 . May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on 2398 ? O wondrous thing! ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed 2399 ; for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed.
3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil 2400 , from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree 2401 , and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree. The exorcised oil therefore was a symbol of the participation of the fatness of Christ, being a charm to drive away every trace of hostile influence. For as the breathing of the saints, and the invocation of the Name of God, like fiercest flame, scorch and drive out evil spirits 2402 , so also this exorcised oil receives such virtue by the invocation of God and by prayer, as not only to burn and cleanse away the traces of sins, but also to chase away all the invisible powers of the evil one. - http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/207/2070036.htm
Not sure how baptism was developed through the years, they don't baptize in the nude now of course but thinking about history, and some things Jim said- well it was true then- and wasn't seen as shameful in 'certain' contexts-
Anyway- I learned something about baptism I had only heard about before- Cyril was a holy man of God, not an apostate though- different customs for different times but not necessarily 'evil' or 'unholy' as we see it in our day- (when Jesus removed His outer garments to wash the disciples feet, I mean- there was nothing vile about that, I am not sure when following Jesus example, do the brethren remove their outer garments too?- probably if not careful- we would see that as 'shameful' today-)
Back to OP
I'm surprised to hear you acknowledge 'different customs for different times'. I like your point on do today's feet washings have the washer stripping down to their underwear to follow Jesus example. At what point is the washer being disobedient to how Jesus did this.