I see what Nir says about Acts 18:23-25:
(p. 146)
Unfortunately, she doesn't the same point made by Magne, i.e. she realizes that Acts 18:23-25
(p. 145)
...but she doesn't derive the conclusion that, just in virtue of the its being "insufficient for becoming completely Christian", in whiletime the John's baptism has been despoiled in Acts 28:23-25 even of the power of the remission of the sins, hence going directly against even the same Gospel incipit of Mark.
Which means that when Peter or Ken insist on the simplicity of the John's baptism as a mere ritual without no magical power as presumed evidence of authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus, then they are de facto corroborating the point of Acts 18:23-25: the John's baptism was a mere empty ritual "therefore" it required to be surpassed by the superior baptism "in the name of Jesus".
It is equivalent to the argument of the early 12 apostles being illiterates: how much more divine was their unexpected success in preaching!
But the 12 apostles were not illiterates, and the John's baptism was not a mere ritual.
Significantly then, 'the baptism of John' is an early Christian baptism preparing the baptized for the coming of the messiah, for baptism in the Holy Spirit and for the coming of the kingdom of heaven. It is inextricably tied to the message about the coming one, whose way he prepares by his proclamation and his baptism.
(p. 146)
Unfortunately, she doesn't the same point made by Magne, i.e. she realizes that Acts 18:23-25
...it is instructive on two points: that the baptism by John was insufficient for becoming completely Christian - it was not in the name of the Lord Jesus nor did it extend the gift of the Holy Spirit; and that this is no hostle or competitive group to the followers of Jesus, as evident from their consent to be baptized 'in the name of the Lord Jesus' and receive the Holy Spirit upon the laying of hands, thus becoming more complete Christians.
(p. 145)
...but she doesn't derive the conclusion that, just in virtue of the its being "insufficient for becoming completely Christian", in whiletime the John's baptism has been despoiled in Acts 28:23-25 even of the power of the remission of the sins, hence going directly against even the same Gospel incipit of Mark.
Which means that when Peter or Ken insist on the simplicity of the John's baptism as a mere ritual without no magical power as presumed evidence of authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus, then they are de facto corroborating the point of Acts 18:23-25: the John's baptism was a mere empty ritual "therefore" it required to be surpassed by the superior baptism "in the name of Jesus".
It is equivalent to the argument of the early 12 apostles being illiterates: how much more divine was their unexpected success in preaching!
But the 12 apostles were not illiterates, and the John's baptism was not a mere ritual.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:24 pm