Tag: Jesus

Baptize in the Name of . . . Who?

Baptize in the Name of . . . Who?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in passage 1240 that a legitimate form for administering baptism is “N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  But for a few Protestants, for example, Oneness Pentecostals, this Trinitarian recipe doesn’t coordinate what the Bible needs to state about baptism. They guarantee that submersion ought to be managed only “in the name of Jesus.”

For help, they advance to sections like Acts 2:38, where Peter says, “Apologize, and be absolved all of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardoning of your wrongdoings; and you will get the endowment of the Holy Spirit” (accentuation included). Different sections incorporate Acts 8:14-16 (with reference to those in Samaria who had gotten the Word of God), 10:48 (with reference to Cornelius and his Gentile companions), and 19:5 (with reference to adherents to Ephesus).

Sections like these offer ascent to a genuine inquiry: Why is the Church saying that we can purify through water with the Trinitarian equation when every one of the baptisms referenced in the Bible is done “for the sake of Jesus”?

Here are few different ways to address this difficulty.

Initial, a self-proclaimed Christian can’t reject the legitimacy of the Trinitarian equation since Jesus directions the messengers to utilize it when they absolve: “Go in this manner and make pupils everything being equal, sanctifying through water them for the sake of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). The individuals who represent the test, along these lines, at any rate need to recognize that the Trinitarian recipe is legitimate since it originates from the lips of the Master himself.

Second, when contrasted with Jesus’ instruction to utilize the Trinitarian recipe in Matthew 28:19, the sections found in the book of Acts don’t appear to allude to the actual formula that must be utilized in regulating the holy observance.

Notice how in Matthew 28:19 Jesus is secretly tending to just the eleven (Matt. 28:16), whom he is sending to perform baptisms. In setting, it bodes well that Jesus would let them know precisely how to do it.

Balance this with, for instance, Peter’s order in Acts 2. That happens in an open setting and is given to the individuals who would receive baptism—not to the individuals who might perform it. It would not appear to be as fundamentally imperative for those getting the holy observance to know the exact equation with respect to those performing it, isn’t that so?

Also, Peter’s order isn’t planned. Rather, he is rapidly counting what must be done to be spared in light of those present who, after hearing his proclaiming, were “slice to the heart” and asked him, “Brethren, what will we do?” (v.37). It’s nonsensical to surmise that Peter would give exact guidelines as to the words that must be utilized in sanctification when he’s only saying, “You need to be spared? Alright, here are the things you have to do—apologize and get absolved.”

Jesus’ direction to purify through water in Matthew 28:19 is likewise distinct from Peter’s order for Cornelius to be immersed “for the sake of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:48). As upon the arrival of Pentecost, Luke records what Peter says to the individuals who might get sanctification, not the individuals who might control it.

Likewise, Luke does not record what Peter said explicitly. He only describes in outline shape: “And he [Peter] told them to be purified through water for the sake of Jesus Christ.” It doesn’t appear that Luke plans to state that the words “for the sake of Jesus” were Peter’s guidelines for the real words to be utilized in regulating baptism.

The other “for the sake of Jesus” passages (Acts 8:14-16; 19:5) is much additionally expelled from the idea of Jesus’ directions in Matthew 28:19. Truth be told, they aren’t directions by any stretch of the imagination.

Each case is simply a passing reference to the way that some were purified through water: “They had just been immersed for the sake of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:14-16); “they were absolved for the sake of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). It’s impossible that such superficial comments were implied as an explanation of the correct words that were utilized for those sanctifications.

On the off chance that the expression “for the sake of Jesus” doesn’t refer to the baptismal formula in the above sections, at that point what does it allude to? A sensible elucidation is that the early Church utilized “for the sake of Jesus” to recognize Christian sanctification from other contemporary kinds of baptism, for example, Johannine baptism, the absolutions among the Qumran sectaries, and even Jewish ceremonial washings.

Baptisms were not selective to Christians. This is self-evident, given the baptisms of contrition that John the Baptist directed (Matt. 3:13-14, 21:25; Acts 1:22, 10:37). Sanctification was additionally a typical practice among the Qumran people group, which tried to join purging, contrition, and the desire for the Spirit (see Ezekiel 36:25-27) in genuine baptisms (cf. 1QS 3:6– 9; 1QH 11:12– 14).

Indeed, even the Jewish formal washings could be viewed as a baptism of sorts. For instance, in Luke 11:37-38 the Pharisees welcome Jesus to eat with him, and Luke discloses to us that the Pharisees were “flabbergasted to see that he [Jesus] did not first wash before supper.” The Greek word for “wash” is baptizō.

Likewise, in Mark 7 we’re informed that when the Pharisees come back from the commercial center, they don’t eat except if they first “filter” (Greek, baptisontai) themselves (v.3). Different customs include the “washing” (Greek, baptismous) of containers and vessels (v.4). So Jewish stately washings could be considered as a kind of “sanctification.”

With the various baptisms being performed at the season of Christ, and with the Jewish custom “baptismal” washings, there would be a need to recognize the Christian holy observance of sanctification—”for the sake of Jesus”— from all these different sorts of absolutions.

We see this happen in Acts 19, where Paul approaches new professors in Ephesus and inquires as to whether they had gotten the Holy Spirit. The new devotees react to the request, “No, we have never at any point heard that there is a Holy Spirit” (v.2). Paul at that point asks, “Into what at that point were you sanctified through water?” The Ephesian devotees react, “Into John’s submersion” (v.3).

Paul answers by articulating the distinction between John’s baptism and the baptism of Jesus (v.4), and sanctifies through water them “for the sake of Jesus” (v.5). In light of the specific situation, “for the sake of Jesus” means that they were baptized into Jesus with Jesus’ baptism and not John’s.

We discover something comparative in the Didache, a first-century Christian questioning (around A.D. 70-90). In section seven, it gives the Trinitarian equation as the words to use for baptism. And afterward in section nine, it alludes back to that equivalent baptism as absolution “for the sake of the Lord” (9,5). In this way, for the early Christians, absolution “for the sake of the Lord” meant Trinitarian baptism.

The last thing that we can say in reaction to this test is that Paul’s discussion with the Ephesian adherents to Acts 19 insights at the way that the Trinitarian recipe was in reality a typical equation utilized in the early Church. Note how when the adherents to Ephesus advise Paul that they had never known about the Holy Spirit, Paul promptly asks, “Into what at that point were you sanctified through water?” (v.3).

The suggestion is that on the off chance that they had been sanctified through water with the absolution of Jesus and not just with the baptism of John, they would have found out about the Holy Spirit. This recommends the early Christians were utilizing the Trinitarian equation when they purified through water. You can’t experience a Christian absolution and never catch wind of the Holy Spirit!

Along these lines, not exclusively do the “for the sake of Jesus” passages fail to demonstrate that “for the sake of Jesus” is the valid form to use for baptism, yet there is great scriptural proof that the Trinitarian recipe is the valid formula for managing the holy observance.

Faith Comes by Hearing

Faith Comes by Hearing

Years back, I read an interesting science article on a predicted earthquake in the Pacific Northwest that seismologists are calling the Really Big One. For long, scientists had puzzled over why the region never appeared to have suffered any unusual earthquake activity, even though it is part of the geological region known as the Ring of Fire, which encircles nearly the entire Pacific basin and is famous for its earthquakes and volcanos. In recent decades, though, researchers found out that there was indeed a major Pacific Northwest earthquake in 1700—and that we are now at least seventy-five years overdue for another.

Once the eighteenth-century Cascadia earthquake was scientifically proven, anthropologists and ethnographers commenced giving credence to oral histories of such an event from the indigenous peoples of the region, who had preserved stories of a massive quake and subsequent flooding from a time before European explorers reached the area. Prior to scientific corroboration, those stories had been treated with skepticism.

It is not only oral stories passed down through generations that can be discounted as evidence for historical events. Sometimes written testimonies get the same skeptical eye. Deniers of the reality of Christ’s resurrection will sometimes proclaim that there is no historical evidence for it. When Christians point to the Gospels, the deniers discount their reliability because they were written down and preserved by Christians. Even Jesus’ very existence as a historical figure can be dismissed by doubters for “lack of evidence” because Christians wrote the primary histories of his life.

Entire libraries of books have been written by Catholics and Protestants defending the historical reliability of the Gospels. These authors often dig down deep into the available manuscripts, reporting on their age, the materials used in their creation, the scholarship done to date on ancient literary styles, and other scientific indicators of the Gospels’ credibility. This work is of value, but it can also be inaccessible for many modern people, who often prefer quick answers to hard questions.

Is there a way to tackle questions on the historical reliability of the Gospels for people who don’t want to read a book or watch a video on the topic? One reliable approach is to bring to their mind the importance of storytelling in human history.

Long before written language existed, humans passed on knowledge through story. Sometimes ancient peoples made myth as a means of describing  natural phenomena that were otherwise inexplicable for them. Through story these myths established relevant truths—such as that there are reasons why light and dark exist. They didn’t describe historical events, but they served a necessary purpose in a pre-scientific age by aiding people to understand something vital about their world.

Other times, testimony to actual historical events gets preserved in story form. The indigenous people of the North American continent remembered their ancestors who died in a catastrophic event by telling stories of the time the earth shook and salt water flooded the forests, killing all the trees. For generations, historians assumed all of these stories were creation myths, similar to the biblical narrative of a great flood. We now know many of them describe something that really happened in the not-too-distant past.

And then there are the stories that preserve the record of God’s interaction with man. Skeptics often try to sort these stories as either comforting myths or origin tales of uncertain provenance. But, as G. K. Chesterton noted:

If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favor of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism—the abstract impossibility of miracle.

The Second Vatican Council affirmed that there are many different literary forms in Scripture and that scholars may use modern historical-critical methods to “check what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using modern literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture” (Dei Verbum 12). The Gospels, however, come to us from the apostles and preserve the first Christians’ actual experience with the Son of God:

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (DV 18).

Did the authors of the New Testament intend for us to comprehend them to be passing on reliable histories of Jesus Christ? St. Luke explicitly said that preserving a record of historical events was his reason for writing his Gospel and the book of Acts (Luke 1:1-4). In fact, he said he was doing so particularly to reassure Theophilus, his first reader, that the stories Theophilus had heard from others were true (vv. 3-4). St. John told his readers three times in the last chapters of his Gospel that the stories he was telling them were true, firsthand experiences of what Jesus said and did (John 19:35, 20:30-31, 21:24-25).

The Gospels are stories of Jesus Christ, written under the influence of the Holy Spirit, gathered and preserved by the Church that Christ founded to teach in his name. Together with the Church’s Sacred Tradition—our oral history—these stories both preserve historical events and serve to “show to all men the knowledge of God and of man and the ways in which God, just and merciful, deals with men” (DV 15). Or, as St. Paul put it:

How are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? . . . So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ (Rom. 10:14-17).

The Mystical Home of Nazareth

The Mystical Home of Nazareth

Image result for The Mystical Home of Nazareth
Mystical Home of Nazareth

A Model Home For ALL ”The Nazareth Home”

A particular application of the Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ may be made to the Legion meetings, especially to the praesidium meeting which forms the heart of the Legion system.
“Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” (Mt 18:20) These words of our Lord assure us that his influential presence in the members of his Mystical Body is intensified according to the number in which they unite to serve him

The Home of Nazareth

Catholic love for the Mother of God shows a praiseworthy sense of the artistic by its reluctance to ask for elaborate details of the life at Nazareth. We know that at Nazareth there dwells a life that is not of man’s experience, hardly of man’s comprehension.

Is there anyone here on earth who could draw a picture of those two lives of superhuman intensity which find in their very intensity a most complete blending of all their movements, affections, aspirations? Let me watch from the hilltop over Nazareth a woman going down to the well with the pitcher poised on her head, a boy of fifteen at her side.

I know that between the two there is a love such as is not found among the spirits that dwell before the throne of God. But I know, too, that I am not entitled to see more lest I die of wonderment.” (Vonier: The Divine Maternity)

What I should know about Nazareth

So, when legionaries gather together in the praesidium in his name and for his work, he is present in that potent way; it has been made evident that power goes out from him there. (Mk 5:30)
Also with Jesus in that little Legion family are his Mother and St. Joseph, who have towards the praesidium the same relation that they had to him; which permits us to look on the praesidium as a projection of the Home of Nazareth, and this not as a mere devotional exercise but as something based on reality.
How many generations were there from Abraham to Jesus?

How many generations were there from Abraham to Jesus?

Image result for images of generation of Abraham to  Jesus
Generations from Abraham to Jesus

In Matthew’s Gospel there are 41 generations from Abraham to JesusMatthew demonstrated that there were 14 generations (see Matthew 1:17): from Abraham to David; from David to Josiah; from Josiah to Jesus. To do this, he had to ignore 3 kings in the Old Testament and have David in the preceding (as 14) and following (as 1) groups, but not so Josiah.

Luke had great men occur in multiples of 7 generations starting from Adam, with: Enoch at 7; Abraham at 21; David at 35; Jesus at 77. In Luke’s list there are therefore 56 generations from Abraham to Jesus. This required adding two people in the Old Testament list: Kainan at 13 from Adam; Admin at 28 from Adam. Whereas Matthew follows the royal line from David to Zorobabel, Luke’s focus is on common people, so follows commoners from David to Zorobabel — notice Zorobabel’s quite different paternal grandfathers in the two lists.

The Difference

Based on multiple historical sources, there are 400 years missing from most people’s calculation of the number of generations.

My trilogy Torn Between Two Worlds documents this and brings logic back into Christianity.

This is the account of Dave Cross

Matthew’s list used a list that dropped out some rather worthless kings, and by grouping them 14 at a time, served as a memory aid.

Luke’s more detailed list doesn’t drop anyone out. The book of Matthew was already available by this time. Luke spent 2 years at least in Jerusalem, which means he had access to the registry of births that were keep there. He too had access to Jesus’ family members, which seems to have included Mary. In the opening words of his Gospel, he acknowledged the work of others.

  • (Luke 1:1-4) 1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally.

Luke’s list would be the most detailed. The 56 that Dave cited would be accurate