Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Settling this once and for all!
#31
Paul Younan Wrote:It depends, if it's an infant then it is usually a full immersion. If it is an adult, then it can be done with pouring. 'amud is "immersion" in English, but that doesn't have to be a full-body immersion. Your hands are 'amud in water when washing them, etc.

+Shamasha

Hi Paul, your response brought me to John the Baptizer's words in regards to 'amud. Did he say I 'amud you WITH water or did he say I 'amud you IN water? The Peshitta reads "lkwn" which dukhrana.com shows to mean "to, for".
Reply
#32
DrawCloser Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:It depends, if it's an infant then it is usually a full immersion. If it is an adult, then it can be done with pouring. 'amud is "immersion" in English, but that doesn't have to be a full-body immersion. Your hands are 'amud in water when washing them, etc.

+Shamasha

Hi Paul, your response brought me to John the Baptizer's words in regards to 'amud. Did he say I 'amud you WITH water or did he say I 'amud you IN water? The Peshitta reads "lkwn" which dukhrana.com shows to mean "to, for".
It's actually the next word that has the particle you're looking for. The word is "b'maya" - maya is water, like in Hebrew mayim, and the b' is the particle that can mean both "in" or "with". So as far as I'm aware, and Paul correct me if I'm wrong, but the text can be taken either way.
Reply
#33
You're correct Luc.
Reply
#34
The reason I asked, is because I felt puzzled when I encountered this in KJV and also Paul Younan Interlinear.

Since 'amud means immerse -- how can a person be immersed WITH water? English speakers would find that strange. (Also, people do not notice the wierdo grammatical occurence because most Bibles read "baptize" -- but they would be puzzled if "immerse" was used.)

Is....it correct to say that "immerse" is a verb that where 'in' or 'into' would be the appropriate way to render the verse ?? (I just recently found out that the Aramaic can render it "with", but wondering now what is more appropriate to translate.)

"I 'amud you WITH water" ,(though strange to my English mind), allows baptism by pouring.

" I 'amud you IN (or INTO) water" makes it lean to baptism by full body immersion. IN or INTO [also] makes more sense.

Paul, since you know linguistics, I request that you correct me about "immerse WITH water". Perhaps in Semitic psyche "being immersed with water" is fine. But English wise, it is a stumper. <!-- sHuh --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif" alt="Huh" title="Huh" /><!-- sHuh -->
Reply
#35
:

Since it could be either "with" or "in" how about immerse within water... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shamasha Paul, what is the standard and most used form of Baptisim in the Chuch of the East? And is it optional as to which form one prefers to have? I would prefer to be immersed myself.

Shlama,
Chuck
Reply
#36
I speak English and have no problem with the translation "Immersed in water", but I really like "Immersed within water" as it seems to flow better in my mind. Yet I am not an expert in Aramaic so I will have to lean on others for the WORD.
Reply
#37
Thirdwoe Wrote::

Since it could be either "with" or "in" how about immerse within water... <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->

Shamasha Paul, what is the standard and most used form of Baptisim in the Chuch of the East? And is it optional as to which form one prefers to have? I would prefer to be immersed myself.

Shlama,
Chuck

Shlama Akhan Chuck,

Usually the baptism of adults is limited to pouring depending on the church and the climate. The baptismal font in most of the parishes is small and unable to accommodate an adult for a full immersion. But you may be able to ask Qasha to see if there are other options. I've not heard of baptisms in the outdoors by the CoE in recent memory, but I could be wrong.

+Shamasha
Reply
#38
The Texas RAT Wrote:I speak English and have no problem with the translation "Immersed in water", but I really like "Immersed within water" as it seems to flow better in my mind. Yet I am not an expert in Aramaic so I will have to lean on others for the WORD.

Shlama Akhay,

I would base the translation on context. In this case, John was baptizing in a river so I would translate it "immerse you in water."

In other contexts, your hands can be immersed in water or with water when doing a ritual washing. It was common to refer to the washing of hands in bowls as amad.
Reply
#39
Paul Younan Wrote:
The Texas RAT Wrote:I speak English and have no problem with the translation "Immersed in water", but I really like "Immersed within water" as it seems to flow better in my mind. Yet I am not an expert in Aramaic so I will have to lean on others for the WORD.

Shlama Akhay,

I would base the translation on context. In this case, John was baptizing in a river so I would translate it "immerse you in water."

In other contexts, your hands can be immersed in water or with water when doing a ritual washing. It was common to refer to the washing of hands in bowls as amad.

Yeah good to keep things in context. As for in the river, immerse would mean to "submerge under the surface of the water" right?
Reply
#40
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhan Chuck,

Usually the baptism of adults is limited to pouring depending on the church and the climate. The baptismal font in most of the parishes is small and unable to accommodate an adult for a full immersion. But you may be able to ask Qasha to see if there are other options. I've not heard of baptisms in the outdoors by the CoE in recent memory, but I could be wrong.

+Shamasha

Hi Paul, may I ask, since the apostles brought baptism [to CoE] -- did they teach that baptism has to be done a certain way? Some Christians today have disputes of full body baptism only VS. "pouring and sprinkling are also acceptable."

Or CoE on its own start baptism by pouring because water was scarce in the region?
Reply
#41
DrawCloser Wrote:
Paul Younan Wrote:Shlama Akhan Chuck,

Usually the baptism of adults is limited to pouring depending on the church and the climate. The baptismal font in most of the parishes is small and unable to accommodate an adult for a full immersion. But you may be able to ask Qasha to see if there are other options. I've not heard of baptisms in the outdoors by the CoE in recent memory, but I could be wrong.

+Shamasha

Hi Paul, may I ask, since the apostles brought baptism [to CoE] -- did they teach that baptism has to be done a certain way? Some Christians today have disputes of full body baptism only VS. "pouring and sprinkling are also acceptable."

Or CoE on its own start baptism by pouring because water was scarce in the region?

DC,

It's really more a matter of who is being baptized, as flowing water is plentiful in Assyria (very green and mountainous, with lots of rivers and streams). 99% of those baptized in the CoE are infants and small children, and to many parents' dismay, the child is fully immersed three times and often gasps and get a lung or two filled with water. The limitations of a particular parish may dictate a pouring for an adult, if the baptismal font is small. More and more modern churches (like some Catholic) are installing jacuzzi-size baptismal fonts so that the adults can be fully immersed if they choose.

The method of immersion vs. pouring is less important in our tradition that the actual prayers and intent.

+Shamasha
Reply
#42
:

The Didache, considered to be the earliest (70-80 A.D.) of Christian documents after the New Testament books, and thought to have been given by The Apostles, is a sort of manual of Christian practice duing that period, which says this about various Baptismal forms.

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living (running) water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."
Reply
#43
Hi Thirdwoe -- how is Didache apostolic?
Reply
#44
:

If it was written by the Apostles, or at least sanctioned by them, then it would be Apostolic. How could we know for sure though? It was for some time considered to be part of the Cannon of Scripture, but was passed over in the final decision by the Western Church, along with 1st Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Leter to Diognetus, the Letter of Polycarp, and the 7 Letters of Ignatius... I don't judge it is Apostolic or not, but only show it here as a witness of what was taught early on among 1st century Christians. And may account for the practice of pouring water over the head, as an alternate form of Baptism.

Here is some information about it, that you may not have heard before.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#45
Hi Paul, (or anyone else from CoE)

After discussing baptism, I remembered 1 Peter 3:21. I don't know what Peshitta really really says but I can use Aramaic translations.


Etheridge Wrote:After which very type also you are saved in baptism, not while you cleanse the body from filth, but while you make confession of Aloha with a pure conscience, and of the resurrection of Jeshu Meshiha

Murdock Wrote:And ye also, by a like figure, are made alive by baptism, (not when ye wash your bodies from filth, but when ye confess God with a pure conscience,) and by the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah;

The Aramaic word for confess is mawd'eyn.

Etheridge and Murdock use "confess", but it can be rendered as "promise" also. My mother's church teaches "promise", but I don't feel right from that interpretation.

From your Eastern tradition and perspective -- is the correct interpretation "promise to serve God" or do we just "confess him (our faith confession)"?

I know this might be nitpicking, but I am itching to know...
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)