What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[RedFan]

Read carefully, i wrote, it was the Bishop's' and from the church'es' in Rome.

When constantine became the sole emperor of the Roman empire, he summoned Bishops from churches in the whole of Rome, 318 of them.

From the establishment of the Roman church and others by the Apostles, Bishops were elected to be the 'overseers' of all the churches, likewise 'deacons' in subordinate.

Even before constanttine, when emperors were divided and ruled only certain regions in Rome from one another. There were only Bishops in the churches of Rome as 'overseers' over believers in the congregation.

cathoilc church pope and clergies establishment came after constantine's death, where they claim to be his successors. But on the contrary there's another sect at the same time divided from them as too were successors, the Greek orthodox church,

Like the Pharisees and Sadducees and other Jewish sect divisions, there were already divisions between the bishops and churches in Rome, for constantine to summon them.

After the canonization of a single text in his time, they were still divided as councils in the courts of constantine. Where a part of them in the last days of constantine's reign, managed to deceive and convince him in pagan worship mixed with Christianity. Since between both of them there's quite a significant similarity with one another in disguise..

Tricked, constantine called for a decree, that any church that does not comply to such worship shall be persecuted. Therefore he persecuted more Christians who did not comply, than unbelievers who did want to be Christians.

You are aware, I take it, that the canon was not established at Nicaea? You are aware, I take it, that the Bishop of Rome (Sylvester) did not attend the council of Nicaea personally, and that the emissaries he sent in his stead were not bishops?

 

[RedFan]

Here's my $.02.
Mary died physically. It is the common teaching in the ordinary Magisterium of the Church and in its liturgical worship that Our Lady underwent bodily death. This is the unanimous teaching of all the Fathers of the Church in the context of their teaching on her Assumption.

Jewish custom for a dead body is quite elaborate. I don't think the the Jews suspended burial customs after the Resurrection/Ascension. Why should they?

After a person dies, the eyes are closed, the body is laid on the floor and covered, and candles are lit next to the body. The body is never left alone until after burial, as a sign of respect. The people who sit with the dead body are called shomerim, from the root Shin-Mem-Resh, meaning “guards” or “keepers”.​

​

Respect for the dead body is a matter of paramount importance. For example, the shomerim may not eat, drink, or perform a commandment in the presence of the dead. To do so would be considered mocking the dead, because the dead can no longer do these things.​

Death and Mourning in Judaism

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

As for any funeral, those who were closest to the deceased are in attendance, so it's quite plausible the Apostles were summoned at the approach of Mary's death. The Bible doesn't demand proof-text for every single event. But it stands to reason the shomerim included some or all the Apostles.

Were the Apostles dishonest conniving liars who hid Mary's body to they could invent a doctrine? It takes a lot more faith to believe that stupidity than it does to believe the Assumption. The bodies of saints and martyrs were prized with obvious great care and respect, so where is Mary's body?

It's not plausible to me that the apostles were in attendance at Mary's funeral. They were out in the world spreading the gospel as instructed by Christ, perhaps as far as India in Andrew's case. (Travel from Rome to Jerusalem by Peter, for example, would have taken a couple of weeks with fair seas.) And it's not plausible to me that an assumption of her dead body would escape mention BY ANYONE for centuries if the apostles had witnessed such a miraculous event.

Most of all, it's not plausible to me that our inability to identify her grave site means there wasn't one. How many Palestinian grave sites of first-century decedents are identifiable today? That we can't find one for Stephen, or James, doesn't suggest that their remains are in heaven.

Were the Apostles dishonest conniving liars who hid Mary's body to they could invent a doctrine?

The apostles didn't invent this doctrine.

 

[JBO]

It's precisely this attitude that been responsible for the loss of MANY souls.
MY 2 cents don’t mean a thing when it’s in opposition to the truth . . .

In the Early Church, you don’t find many things written about accepted truths.
The ECFs usually wrote about things that were challenged by others. The Church doesn’t “invent’ doctrines. When the Church officially defined a doctrine, it was usually at a Council because of such a challenge to that particular belief.

For example – the belief in the Eucharist is a core belief of the Church. And, although you see Early Church writings about it – you don’t see a lot of documents defending this belief because it was so widely and generally accepted as truth.

Almost nothing about the "eucharist" as defined and established by the RCC exists within the NT. It is essentially a construct of the RCC wholly apart from the NT.

 

[GodsGrace]

Surely God could have make an exception and not allow Mary to die physically. The question is, why should we believe He did so in Mary's case? If the answer is "because of her IC," I dissent. Her IC -- which I DO NOT CHALLENGE, by the way (at least not here) -- is just not a reason to believe in the Assumption. If physical death is indeed the consequence of original sin that the RCC insists it is, then what's good for the goose (Mary) is good for the gander (you and me), and elimination of original sin, whether from an IC or as a result of baptism and forgiveness, should result in NO PHYSICAL DEATH FOR ANY CHRISTIAN.

So, give me a different reason to believe in the Assumption.

See post 614.
@Jude Thaddeus sent me some links on the above.

I don't have a different reason,,,,,actually we're in the same boat.

I'm saying that it IS possible that God just didn't want her immaculate body to be buried.

So if you don't accept that God could do this - He who created the universe - I can't really be of any help since I myself am looking for some support.

I do want to remind you of Enoch and Elijah.

It couldn't be the same?
Were they born without the sin nature?

 

[Truther]

Are you at all aware of the 2 Great Commandments Jesus left us with?

1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

Do YOU love your neighbor?
Who IS your neighbor?

Hate is not a part of the Christian life.
You demonstrate hate.

And yet call yourself a Christian....
A Christian is a follower of the teachings of Christ.

Are You following His teachings?

Yes. Fact is, God hates the RCC. You need to send your post to God, not me.

 

[Truther]

Right, and check out my post #637, do you think we've got the same thing going on in the spirit, thanks?

Yes, but well established, full blown deception as “spiritual enforcement “.

 

[GodsGrace]

Almost nothing about the "eucharist" as defined and established by the RCC exists within the NT. It is essentially a construct of the RCC wholly apart from the NT.

I do believe JBO, that there is sufficient support for the Eucharist as the CC teaches it.

Read John 6:53

The word EAT, in this particular case, means to chew.

Seems really literal to me.
Why wouldn't it be?

Jesus said THIS IS MY BODY, which will be given up for you.
AS He held the bread.
And, indeed, the next day His body was broken and given up.

Strong's Concordance esthió: to eat​ Original Word: ἐσθίω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: esthió Phonetic Spelling: (es-thee'-o) Definition: to eat Usage: I eat, partake of food; met: I devour, consume (e.g. as rust does).

part 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

@JBO

Different tenses are used here:


Matthew 9:11 V-PIA-3S
GRK: καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει ὁ διδάσκαλος
NAS: is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors
KJV: disciples, Why eateth your Master
INT: and sinners eats the teacher
Matthew 11:18 V-PPA-NMS
GRK: Ἰωάννης μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων
NAS: came neither eating nor drinking,
KJV: came neither eating nor drinking,
INT: John neither eating nor drinking

Matthew 11:19 V-PPA-NMS
GRK: τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων
NAS: came eating and drinking,
KJV: of man came eating and drinking,
INT: the of man eating and drinking

Matthew 12:1 V-PNA
GRK: στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν
NAS: to pick the heads [of grain] and eat.
KJV: the ears of corn, and to eat.
INT: heads of grain and to eat

Matthew 15:38 V-PPA-NMP
GRK: οἱ δὲ ἐσθίοντες ἦσαν τετρακισχίλιοι
NAS: And those who ate were four thousand
KJV: And they that did eat were
INT: those who moreover ate were four thousand

Matthew 24:49 V-PSA-3S
GRK: συνδούλους αὐτοῦ ἐσθίῃ δὲ καὶ
NAS: his fellow slaves and eat and drink
KJV: and to eat and
INT: fellow servants of him to eat moreover and

Matthew 26:21 V-PPA-GMP
GRK: καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν εἶπεν
NAS: As they were eating, He said, Truly
KJV: And as they did eat, he said, Verily
INT: And [as] they were eating to them he said

Mark 1:6 V-PPA-NMS
GRK: αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐσθίων ἀκρίδας καὶ
NAS: his waist, and his diet was locusts
KJV: loins; and he did eat locusts and
INT: of him and eating locusts and

Mark 2:16 V-PIA-3S
GRK: ἰδόντες ὅτι ἐσθίει μετὰ τῶν
NAS: saw that He was eating with the sinners
KJV: saw him eat with publicans
INT: having seen him eating with the

Mark 2:16 V-PIA-3S
GRK: καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίει
NAS: Why is He eating and drinking
KJV: How is it that he eateth and drinketh
INT: and sinners he eats



Mark 7:4 V-PIA-3P
GRK: βαπτίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ ἄλλα
NAS: and [when they come] from the market place, they do not eat unless
KJV: except they wash, they eat not. And
INT: they wash not they eat and other things

Mark 7:5 V-PIA-3P
GRK: κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον
NAS: of the elders, but eat their bread
KJV: but eat bread
INT: with unwashed hands eat the bread

Mark 7:28 V-PIA-3P
GRK: τῆς τραπέζης ἐσθίουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν
NAS: the table feed on the children's
KJV: under the table eat of the children's
INT: the table eat of the

Mark 14:18 V-PPA-GMP
GRK: αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσθιόντων ὁ Ἰησοῦς
NAS: As they were reclining [at the table] and eating, Jesus
KJV: sat and did eat, Jesus said,
INT: they and were eating Jesus

Mark 14:18 V-PPA-NMS
GRK: με ὁ ἐσθίων μετ' ἐμοῦ
NAS: of you will betray Me -- one who is eating with Me.
KJV: you which eateth with me
INT: me who is eating with me



Luke 5:30 V-PIA-2P
GRK: καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν ἐσθίετε καὶ πίνετε
NAS: Why do you eat and drink
KJV: saying, Why do ye eat and drink
INT: and sinners do you eat and drink

Luke 5:33 V-PIA-3P
GRK: δὲ σοὶ ἐσθίουσιν καὶ πίνουσιν
NAS: do the same, but Yours eat and drink.
KJV: but thine eat and drink?
INT: however of you eat and drink

Luke 6:1 V-IIA-3P
GRK: αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας
NAS: them in their hands, and eating [the grain].
KJV: and did eat, rubbing
INT: of him and were eating the heads of grain

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

It's not plausible to me that the apostles were in attendance at Mary's funeral. They were out in the world spreading the gospel as instructed by Christ, perhaps as far as India in Andrew's case. (Travel from Rome to Jerusalem by Peter, for example, would have taken a couple of weeks with fair seas.) And it's not plausible to me that an assumption of her dead body would escape mention BY ANYONE for centuries if the apostles had witnessed such a miraculous event.

Not true.

Most of all, it's not plausible to me that our inability to identify her grave site means there wasn't one. How many Palestinian grave sites of first-century decedents are identifiable today? That we can't find one for Stephen, or James, doesn't suggest that their remains are in heaven.

The apostles didn't invent this doctrine.

That doesn't answer the question. Where is Mary's body??? Did those present, Apostles or not, hide it??? Do you have a "plausible" answer aside from your speculation??
Why is there no mention of her body in a gravesite or tomb where Mary was allegedly buried anywhere in early church history?

Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 – Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?

2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 – Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.

Psalm 132:8 – Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.

2 Cor. 12:2 – Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.

Matt. 27:52-53 – when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary’s assumption into heaven.

Rev. 12:1 – we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

2 Thess. 2:15 – Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary’s bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary’s bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Rev. 12:1 – we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.

Rev. 12:1 must be read together with Rev. 11:19. Remember, there were no verse divisions until the 15th century, so it reads like this:

Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.



The Assumption of Mary affirms the resurrection of all who die in Christ.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Almost nothing about the "eucharist" as defined and established by the RCC exists within the NT. It is essentially a construct of the RCC wholly apart from the NT.

Wrong, the DENIAL of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is a man made tradition. It contradicts John 6. You are forced to DENY the unanimous teachings of the Early Church Fathers that went unchallenged for centuries. Furthermore, within 65 years after Luther's nail job, there were 200 interpretations of "This Is My Body", revealing the chaos and confusion resulting from "Bible alone" theology. And you are forced to DENY the numerous Eucharistic miracles that occur even to this day. DENY, DENY, DENY. The reality of the Real Presence requires supernatural faith, that apparently, you don't want.

Eucharistic Index - The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Introduction to the Eucharist, the Eucharist in Scripture, the Eucharist and Vatican II, Eucharistic Miracles, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, and evidence proving that the Early Christians believed in the Real Presence.

www.therealpresence.org

 

[BreadOfLife]

Almost nothing about the "eucharist" as defined and established by the RCC exists within the NT. It is essentially a construct of the RCC wholly apart from the NT.

Let’s see what the Bible says . . .

In 1 Cor., Paul speaks to the reality of the Eucharist and the severity of the consequences to those who take this lightly:
1 Cor, 11:27-30
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.”

Pretty harsh language for something that YOU claim is only “symbolic”, don’t you think?
This directly correlates to the Bread of Life discourse in John 6, where Jesus stated in no uncertain terms:

John 6:53-56
“Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.”

It’s interesting to note that the usual Greek word used for human eating is “phagon”, however, this is not the word used in these passages. St. John uses the word, “trogon”, which means, to munch or to gnaw - like an animal. This is hyperbole, which is often used in Scripture to make a point. He meant what he said.
Just as the Paschal Lamb was to be eaten, it is also true for the Lamb of God.

Please don’t respond with a simple denial. Give me a Scriptural refutation.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oh, so you think that Jesus thought his name was son? How silly. Definitely Catholic thinking.

Nope. It’s His ROLE in the Trinity, son.

Keep studying – you’ll learn . . .

 

[lforrest]

Infant mortality before modern medicine was almost 40%, so fear was the reason for infant baptism.

 

[BreadOfLife]

My king James Bible was translated 400 years ago in England. Your Catholic Bible was translated. God knows when by God knows who. It is full of weird stuff. It even seems kind of mystical.

The Catholic Latin Vulgate was translated 1600 years ago.

Full of “weird stuff”?? Like what??
You have once again FAILED to show me the differences.

Would you like me to school to about that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't think @Truther is obstinate.
He just plain hates the CC and YOU feed his hate.

No - he hates Christianity in general.

As to obstinate.
I may be obstinate.

But I care not what you think about it.

I wouldn't call you obstinate - just confused . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why are you so mad?

Who’s “mad”??

I was just stating facts.

Let me tell you two things Bread:

1. You should learn to distinguish between your friends and your enemies.

2. I won't be taking any lessons from you....so if you think to write to me about something or other about the CC,
save your typing.

If anybody is “mad” here – it’s YOU . . .

I said that you were confused – but now I’ll add “obstinate” to that list.

And....you're getting councils mixed up with writings.
The ECFs wrote PLENTY in terms of teachings.

AND,,,,I don't find anything there about the Assumption.

However, I will be reading up on the links 2 nice posters sent me.

Now you’re being dishonest because I already sent you a quote from Epiphanus’ work, Panarion (Refutation of All Heresies, AD 350), that speaks of Mary’s Assumption.

As for the Councils – I never confused them with Early Church writings.
Ecumenical Councils are Authoritative. NOT all of the writings were.

You may think you know about the Catholic Church – but you are definitely lacking in knowledge and have spiritual pride to spare . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Infant mortality before modern medicine was almost 40%, so fear was the reason for infant baptism.

Hmmmm . . .
Maybe you should let Paul and Peter know that because they Baptized the ENTIRE HOUSEHOLDS of the Philippian Jailer, Stephanas and Cornelius.

Imagine that . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

BTW,
Contrary to what you believe as evidenced from the above first sentence....
doctrine does not save a person or cause their loss.

Belief and obedience to God saves a person.

I couldn’t agree with you more . . .

And what did God (Jesus) say about that to His Church?

Matt 16:19, 18:15-18
WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

GOD said that . . .

 

[Truther]

Nope. It’s His ROLE in the Trinity, son.

Keep studying – you’ll learn . . .

When Jesus said to baptize in the name of the son, did he think that his name was son or that they should baptize in the name of the son, which is Jesus?