Jump to content

White clothing while baptizing


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, sheilauk said:

Is one of them Beck though?  Is it possible it’s a photo of the two men that were baptised, one having just been baptised and in white or light coloured clothing and the other has been baptised and changed into non baptismal clothing and has excitedly gone and embraced his fellow saint?  The caption could be read to say it’s the two men he baptised that are shown in the photo and not Beck with one of the men.

That’s a distinct possibility. And all the pieces would fit in a way that makes sense. Though I’ll admit from the appearance it could be Glen Beck. 
 

Added later: Re-reading the caption just now, I’m mostly convinced this is the explanation. Why would the caption refer to “these men” when the photo only shows one of them?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That could very well be. Unless things have changed without my knowing about it, it is against Church policy to photograph ordinances such as baptism. 

Correct.

We are having a baptism tomorrow and that was made very clear 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The white baptism clothes are a mere Christian custom, but is a memory of lost temple tradition, Catholics incorporated baptism, anointing and endowment into one baptismal ordinance. The Early Christians called the baptismal robe "Adam's coat". Silly modern Christian prejudice over ancient temple rituals they still do, in mutated forms, to this day. They just accept handshakes, wedding veils and chapels in churches (which is an un-synagogal large room inside a building with an alter/table) even though they are all temple traditions, which they claim to reject. Riddle me this Christians: When the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, was it a tragedy or good riddance?

It could not have been a tragedy, that the shadow and figure was fulfilled by the reality. Nor was it "good riddance", as those who lived before the good news came, were by grace saved, by the figures. 

The Destruction of the Temple is a sad instruction. It wasn't possible that the Jews should have an exclusive relationship with their God. God's love promises a remnant of return of the sons of Abraham to Him, even after some of them, could not bear the prophesied promise of His grace to all nations. Jesus said it would happen before He ascended in glory to the right hand of the Father. In some sense, that seems like it would be necessary, and at least God's goodness to "men of good will."

This "riddled Christian" accepts neither of your two choice answers.

Rory, aka 3DOP

Link to comment
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

It could not have been a tragedy, that the shadow and figure was fulfilled by the reality. Nor was it "good riddance", as those who lived before the good news came, were by grace saved, by the figures. 

The Destruction of the Temple is a sad instruction. It wasn't possible that the Jews should have an exclusive relationship with their God. God's love promises a remnant of return of the sons of Abraham to Him, even after some of them, could not bear the prophesied promise of His grace to all nations. Jesus said it would happen before He ascended in glory to the right hand of the Father. In some sense, that seems like it would be necessary, and at least God's goodness to "men of good will."

This "riddled Christian" accepts neither of your two choice answers.

Rory, aka 3DOP

  Despite fulfillment, the Christians worshipped at the temple, by commandment, every day until they were kicked out. After it was destroyed, they still had many other buildings they called "temples" while reporting in letters how they were being destroyed too. Abandonment of these "temples" was not their choice. Much of the bittersweet lament over the temple is supposed to comfort them from something they lost but never truly escaped from. That Eucharist is temple bread and libations you are eating. Resting on an altar, blessed by a priest, in the venue that's design likely has more in common with a temple than a synagogue.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
On 8/6/2022 at 12:13 AM, Pyreaux said:

  Despite fulfillment, the Christians worshipped at the temple, by commandment, every day until they were kicked out. After it was destroyed, they still had many other buildings they called "temples" while reporting in letters how they were being destroyed too. Abandonment of these "temples" was not their choice. Much of the bittersweet lament over the temple is supposed to comfort them from something they lost but never truly escaped from. That Eucharist is temple bread and libations you are eating. Resting on an altar, blessed by a priest, in the venue that's design likely has more in common with a temple than a synagogue.

Hi again Pyreaux. I hope you are enjoying a pleasant Sunday. 

Pyreaux: "Despite fulfillment, the Christians worshipped at the temple, by commandment, every day until they were kicked out."

3DOP: I agree that the Scriptures indicate that the witnesses of Christ's Ascension from Bethania returned to Jerusalem as they had been commanded, and worshiped "always in the Temple".

"...but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high. And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them. And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them, and was carried up to heaven. And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy. And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen." --- Luke 24:49-53

I am afraid I am missing your point. I am now Catholic, but I am familiar with many of the Protestant beliefs. I know of none who would be troubled by this. We learn from verses previous, that the command, was to return to Jerusalem to where the eleven Apostles were instructed as to how they were to go about their witnessing to the events that they had seen. They were to begin in Jerusalem, before "...penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations..." ---Luke 24:47

I cannot agree that the Apostles needed to be "kicked out", as you put it. After they had given testimony in Jerusalem, they were also commanded to give evidence to the life of Jesus to the nations. I would suggest that the Apostolic use of the Temple as a place to "worship always" needs to be restricted to the ten days between the Ascension and Pentecost, with the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the fiftieth day after the Resurrection. While this pattern continued in the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, there was still ignorance among these Jewish Christians, and even of the Apostles, that the message of Christ, and the gifts of God would extend beyond the Jewish people. It was a narrow and cramped vision which caused the first Jewish Christians to assume that perhaps the baptized would continue in Jerusalem alone, speaking and worshiping in the Temple. This is understandable, but it is also forgetful not only of the commands of Christ, but of all the prophecies of the Old Testament which point to an expansion of God's covenant with the Jews to include "all nations." 

In the beautiful story of the first Gentile convert, the centurion Cornelius, we see the astonishment of St. Peter and his companions when after both experience visions which lead them to one another, there was Jewish reticence from St. Peter to meet with Cornelius, that was only defeated because of the vision that God had sent: "And he said to them: You know how abominable it is for a man that is a Jew, to keep company or to come unto one of another nation: but God hath shewed to me, to call no man common or unclean." ---Acts 10:28  

St. Peter continues to explain how the vision instructed him that in the New Covenant, no man should be considered unclean. St. Peter's companions clearly have no idea about the expansion of God's kingdom to the nations. It is understandable though. After all, St. Peter had experienced his own surprise about the same thing only a few hours previously. While explaining the life, death, and resurrection to Cornelius and his Gentile friends, the following occurs: 

"While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they heard them speaking with tongues, and magnifying God. Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." ---Acts 10:44-48

The Holy Ghost will continue to help the infant Church recall the words of Christ which would make it useful for the Apostles and the newly baptized Jews, to use the Temple for a time, but unnecessary to locate the center of their faith in the Jewish Temple. They might not even be aware at this time the Veil of the Temple had been ripped in two when the earthquake followed the death of Jesus. Soon, they will will need to be learning the uselessness of circumcision in this New Covenant. The workings of God are sometimes abrupt, but not usually. He mercifully allowed for the Jewish Christians to retain beliefs and practices that would eventually be entirely foreign to the kingdom of God. This is the way in which God takes all people and nations. They can be saved and members of His Church while retaining certain customs that can be adapted to their new faith. If ceremonial lights on a tree give pagan German converts to Christianity comfort, there is no reason to rip there customs away as soon as they are baptized. Likewise, the worship in the Temple of the Jewish Christian was not considered to be in opposition to their new faith. But like a Christmas tree, it was unnecessary.

---

I suspect you are of a different opinion, Pyreaux. I do not propose my interpretation of the Scripture above as incontrovertible. I do propose that it is absolutely plausible, as I am sure yours is. Our different traditions will determine which interpretation to follow. I appreciate the energy and study with which you have presented your beliefs since you have joined us here, and trust we can carry on friendly and lively conversations when an occasion merits it. Sunday is now my day for doing this kind of thing. I would like to be able to have a good hope to analyze more of your work soon. But probably not until our next weekend. In the meantime, I look in here almost every day.

3DOP

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...