Was it worth Dividing the Church??

[Josh]

Baptism in Jesus’ time was simply the Jewish practice of mikvah, which was neither sprinkling nor immersion. You went into a pool of flowing water (or a river) and had water poured in your head.

I understand baptism was an adaption of the Jewish practice of mikvah, but I've read complete immersion was required. There were requirements that a person have nothing on their body that would prevent the water from covering every part, not even a pin or comb in one's hair.

Yes, but they weren’t “immersed”. (You are correct that they were stark naked, and we have historical records that show that early Christians also baptised naked, which is why baptisms of women were held at night to preserve their modesty.) Instead, care would be taken to pour the water very carefully upon the head.

Orthodox Jews continue to practice miqvah this way today.

[joshuabgood]

Baptism in Jesus’ time was simply the Jewish practice of mikvah, which was neither sprinkling nor immersion. You went into a pool of flowing water (or a river) and had water poured in your head.

I understand baptism was an adaption of the Jewish practice of mikvah, but I've read complete immersion was required. There were requirements that a person have nothing on their body that would prevent the water from covering every part, not even a pin or comb in one's hair.

Yes, but they weren’t “immersed”. (You are correct that they were stark naked, and we have historical records that show that early Christians also baptised naked, which is why baptisms of women were held at night to preserve their modesty.) Instead, care would be taken to pour the water very carefully upon the head.

Orthodox Jews continue to practice miqvah this way today.

Was the modesty of men not considered worth preserving?

[Josh]

I understand baptism was an adaption of the Jewish practice of mikvah, but I've read complete immersion was required. There were requirements that a person have nothing on their body that would prevent the water from covering every part, not even a pin or comb in one's hair.

Yes, but they weren’t “immersed”. (You are correct that they were stark naked, and we have historical records that show that early Christians also baptised naked, which is why baptisms of women were held at night to preserve their modesty.) Instead, care would be taken to pour the water very carefully upon the head.

Orthodox Jews continue to practice miqvah this way today.

Was the modesty of men not considered worth preserving?

No, it wasn’t, because men and women are different. John the Baptist baptised in the day.

[Sudsy]

Are you referring to the Catholics and Orthodox parting ways with each other? If yes, are you suggesting they should have stayed together?

Just curious if you believe it is possible for churches to have their candlesticks removed? If yes, when does this happen and has it happened in the last 2000 years.
The Catholic/Orthodox divide was over doctrines as I understand. IMO, once a church permits its adherents to take up the sword, the church's candlestick is removed. (There may still be faith people who attend the church who retain eternal life.) So whether or not an organization or entity divides after its candlestick is removed is sort of non-issue from my perspective.

I am perhaps mis-understanding this Ernie but do you consider having 'the church's candlestick is removed' if a church supports involvement in wars ? If so, where do you get this from ? Many non-pacifist churches today I believe are leading people to Christ through the light they have. But what does it mean to be a church with it's candlestick removed ?

Yes, I think you are all understanding me correctly. When a church takes up the sword, I believe it has lost its candlestick as an organization or as an entity. The church may still introduce people to God as creator, or introduce people to Jesus the savior, (even unbelievers can do this) even when it is no longer under the lordship of Christ or no longer a representation of Jesus and his kingdom.

So your understanding of candlestick removal is not based on a scripture text regarding candlestick removal as used in Rev 2:5 written to the church in Ephesus ? This candlestick removal was about them leaving their first love for Christ. They were to remember what their life once was when they lived in close relationship with the Lord. Nothing is said here about taking up the sword or not.

There appeared to be a decline in the church at Ephesus from a deep love for Jesus to a dead orthodoxy. The Ephesian church's love for Jesus had grown cold, leaving only a slavish obedience to rules and doctrines. Sound doctrine and service are important, but they should be grounded in a deep love for Jesus.

I believe if we return to this first love for Jesus we will be focusing on Him and not so taken up with our varied understandings of scriptures. Paul stated that we now see through a glass darkly and only know in part so why not accept this as going to continue and get on with following Jesus as we believe the Holy Spirit guides us.

When we stand before God at judgment day I doubt our performance as believers will be judged on how well we followed the rules and beliefs of the local church but rather how we went about shining our lights in a way that impacted a lost and dying world. That view makes me shudder.

[ken_sylvania]

The NT does not track to baptise infants.

There are Scriptures that state everyone in a household was baptized at once.

Are you referring to the accounts that say that everyone in the household believed and was baptized?
Do the paedobaptists you associate with wait until the child believes before they baptize it?

[temporal1]

The Church Jesus said He would build is supposed to be One. That was Jesus prayer in John 17.
Yet we keep digging our heels in to keep it sected.

(i believe) Jesus’ Church is ONE.
That all our fallible human goofiness will quickly fade away in presence of His perfection. (every knee will bow)

Until then, we have mixed results, and no human construct is perfect. According to what the Holy Spirit allows, glimpses of perfection may be seen/experienced. We are to TRY to trust in His judgment, as He actually demands. (We’re not good at this!)

Keep in mind, Jesus didn’t tell us to do what we’re good at! His commands were about what He knew would be difficult.

The verses i think about are about two men working in a field, not interferring with another man’s servant, trusting when there is no tangible reason to trust, etc.

i believe Jesus’ Church is ONE, always was, no matter how things appear on earth. He knows. We can’t know in full.
We are to trust when no secular proof is present. Jesus demonstrated patience and indulgence with Thomas as an object lesson for all.

You know, i’ve always thought Jesus was a little annoyed with Thomas over that. He used Thomas to extend a message.
i think He was pretty serious about His point.

[Neto]

One example: Acts 16, the jailer.

vs 33 says (literally) "all of his" were baptized.
vs 34 says "and he was overjoyed with whole household having believed in the God"

In order to use this as a proof of infant baptism, one must first assert that this man had infant children in his household. This is not stated in Scripture, so it is no more than an assumption, one derived, I would maintain, from the desire to support infant baptism. That is not the way true doctrine is established.

Secondly, vs 34 attributes belief as the reason the jailer was "overjoyed". There is a fairly clear implication that his whole household was ALSO overjoyed, and it seems to me to be a safe assumption that their reason for being happy was also for the same reason as is given for his joyous response - because he had believed.

I realize that there are other similar texts used to support this idea, and those can be considered individually as well.

[Neto]

The Church Jesus said He would build is supposed to be One. That was Jesus prayer in John 17. Yet we keep digging our heels in to keep it sected.

He was also very adamant about his objective that this Assembly would be pure.

[Josh]

In particular, the churches that infant baptise required that all parents in their jurisdiction have their babies baptised or else the government would punish them.

Where does the Bible teach that??

[Ernie]

I don't know of you can be sure of this Ernie. Evidence is clear that what we see in the west in Christianity is an attempt to follow Apostles & NT Pattern- but it is so completely different in every single denomination its clear we are all over the place.

I believe the main reason western churches are all over the place is because the majority of churches in the 3rd and 4th century began allowing unconverted people to become part of the church and allowed leaders to become "lords over God's heritage".
The Protestant Reformation was a reaction to this. But instead of going back to the blueprint (the New Testament) they tried reforming a system that could never be reformed. Church as understood by the Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants was not something in which Christ could be the Head. Christ cannot be the head of something that is persecuting followers of Jesus. When people follow Jesus, there is amazing similarities, even if they come from different cultures. Mennonites, Amish, German Baptists, Apostolics, Church of Christ people all sat together in prisons during World War 1 because they would not fight. Many Slavic Baptists and Slavic Pentecostals refuse to take the lives of others, and they also suffer for it. They find much in common with the aforementioned groups. How is it that all over the world, people who follow Jesus end up having much in common?

Why would you think that there are Amish & Mennonites that have concluded Orthodox is the True & original Church & left Anabaptism? They didn't leave for a new pop up denomination but were convinced.

This is not hard for me to understand at all. All you need to do is convince people that they should be part of the original church (organization), and some will fall for it.

Why do Orthodox people leave their churches to become part of churches that follow Jesus? All someone or the Holy Spirit needs to do is convince them that Jesus’ church is those who follow Him and make him the Head. (Not those who claim some historical connection to Jesus.)
Jesus told the Jews that if they were Abraham’s seed, they would do the works of Abraham. Paul told the Romans that “a man is not a Jew because he is one outwardly, nor is circumcision only outward and physical.”
Those who follow Jesus and promote his teachings are the truly orthodox.