|
Replies: 26
| visibility 601
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Religious Pron - Baptism and John
12
12
Oct 18, 2023, 2:45 PM
|
|
Today, baptism is a pretty well-defined ritual.
It often involves the some pomp and ceremony, the recitation of a Creed, and maybe the laying on of hands.
Or paws.
Baptism might be by immersion (dunking), or by affusion (sprinkling). Three times for the Trinity, etc.; very structured.
Some folks view baptism as a sacrament, or an act of God (specifically his grace), and some see baptism as just an ordinance (an act of man, in obedience to God.) Interpretations and methods may vary.
The Jews have been doing something like baptism ever since Moses and the origins of the Law. They call it Tevilah, and it’s kind of like taking a bath. Tevilah takes place in a mikvah, or a ritual pool.
Modern mikvahs
Not so modern mikvahs
Most of the time, a mikvah can be filled with faucet or even rainwater, although for more intense impurities (like sexual ones), “living”, aka flowing water, must be used.
A modern mikvah is quite a setup.
Consistent with Jews views on sin, the ritual bath is a process to be repeated. Sin can never be completely overcome, so it must repeatedly addressed. Some people, like this kid, seem to like it that way.
For Christians, however, baptism is usually a one-and-done slam dunk.
The Jews, on orders from God, did a lot of washing. There’s over 60 references to washing and cleaning in the Torah, and another 30 or so references to specifically being “ceremonially clean.” So it really was a big deal back then. Lots of washing of clothes, and meats, and feet, and hands, and just about everything.
Washing feet then
Washing feet now
And, it was a matter of life and death.
“Aaron and his sons are to use the water to wash their hands and feet before they go into the Tent or approach the altar to offer the food offering. Then they will not be killed. They must wash their hands and feet, so that they will not die.” (Exo 30:19-21)
Washing at the Tabernacle
And later washing at the Temple(s)
2 Chronicles 4:2-4
“2 Also he [Solomon] made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim…
3 And under it was the similitude of oxen…
4 It stood upon twelve oxen…”
The Mormons built one just like it in Salt Lake City; for purifying, and baptizing. Oxen and all.
So Jews had to wash, a lot. All the time in fact. It was so prevalent that it stood out when you didn’t do it, and that might have been considered blasphemous, since it was technically going against the Law of God:
“But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal.” - Luke 11:38
Jesus eating with the unwashed sinners.
But to be clear, for Jews, it’s not all that washing that takes sin away. Bathing removes impurities, so that one is prepared for the following ritual (sacrifice or otherwise) that removes the sin. But not everyone thinks that way. So what is the net effect of this ritual cleansing with water? Well, it depends on who you ask:
“Baptism takes away original sin, and also actual sins“ – Your Catholic Guide
“Is Baptism with Water the Washing Away of Sin Itself? No, only the blood of Christ and the renewal of the Holy Spirit can cleanse us from sin.” – The Gospel Coalition
“It does not deny that baptism washes away sins. On the other hand, it does not clearly affirm that baptism washes away sins, either. “ – Central Baptist Theological Seminary
Now, I don’t necessarily want to get in the middle of all that, so I’m going to assume they are all correct in whatever way God came to them. Only they know what God told them.
What I’m interested in, though, is not the end of baptism, where it is today. I’m interested in the beginnings of baptism. Particularly as it relates to one of the more famous Baptists, John the Baptist.
That’s John with the staff, and Jesus with the big cross-halo.
John had an interesting life (what we know of it) and I’ll probably do a full post on him later on. But for right now there was a very slim period of time, maybe only a few years, when John the Baptist was baptizing people. That’s where I want to go.
Spoiler alert
.JPG/440px-Head_of_St._John_the_Baptist_on_a_Plate%2C_Southern_Netherlands%2C_c._1430%2C_oak_-_Bode-Museum_-_DSC03181_(cropped).JPG)
Just kidding. This is John the Baptist’s actual head, at the cathedral in Amiens, France.
Shriveled, severed noggins not your thing? Well, you’ve gotta be impressed by this, then.
John wasn’t a priest in the Jewish Temple. So he wasn’t performing a Jewish cleansing ritual according to the Torah when he baptized people. He had his own means and methods. In fact, John didn’t even use a mikvah or Molten Sea at all. He used the Jordan River.
Al-Magtas, Jordan (Bethany beyond the Jordan)
“These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptising.” – John 1:28
Also, while John was baptizing, Jesus hadn’t died yet. So the Law had yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, no one was being saved from their sins through belief in Jesus, per the later Christian position.
So if:
1) no sins were being washed away by baptism (as some Catholics think today), and
2) no faith in Jesus was saving souls (since he’s not dead and risen yet), and
3) no Temple rituals to purify the body (to later remove sin) were being performed,
Then what was John doing, and why? That’s the question.
John is one of the few people in the Bible who is actually corroborated by outside sources. That’s great. In this case, by the Jewish historian Josephus. So let’s start there, or near there:
“…John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God,”
It seems here that John is just asking people to be nice. All it takes is a little kindness and respect.
“…and to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.”
And here to just be clean. Cleanliness truly is next to Godliness.
Let’s check Josephus’s account against the 4 Gospels:
Matthew 1: 11 “I [John] baptize you with water for repentance.”
Mark 1: 4 “And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”
Luke 3:16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
John 1: 31 “…the reason I [John] came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
That’s more of a mixed bag compared to Josephus said. Per the Gospels, John is a messenger, and according to Mark, even a forgiver of sins; not just a guy who says be nice and stay clean. As I said earlier, it all depends on who you ask. With baptisms, and with John.
Who were these guys? We’re missing almost two decades of Jesus’s life, and almost all of John’s. Why?
If we look at what John the Baptist rails against later in the Gospels, it’s all about corruption and lack of compassion:
Luke 3:10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked. John answered, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.”
John says he’s not a prophet, he’s not a messiah, and he’s not someone who removes sin (sorry, Mark). John did think he was a precursor to the messiah, but he refuted even Jesus himself when he was asked if he was the traditionally expected precursor, Elijah.
Matthew 17:13 But I [Jesus] tell you, Elijah has already come, … 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
John 1:21 They asked him [John], “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.”
At a minimum, John seems like a reformer advocating peace and justice. But one can deliver a reform message without baptisms.
So again, what were his baptisms actually for?
Was he appealing to rural Jews by relaxing the requirements of a centuries old Temple ritual?
Was he appealing to gentiles by opening up closed Jewish rituals to them?
Was he advocating some unknown interpretation of messianic Judaism?
After John recognized Jesus’s ministry he just kept on baptizing and even kept his own disciples, rather than joining with Jesus. Why?
High stakes. Eternal consequences. But all unanswered mysteries.
Clearly John was a very important in his own time. All four of the Gospels mention him and that says volumes in itself. He’s even mentioned outside the Bible, and that’s pretty rare. And all attest that he had a large following, just like Jesus.
And just like Jesus, he still has a following to this day. The Mandaeans of Iran worship John the Baptist as the final and most important prophet to ever walk earth.
To them, Jesus was a false prophet who corrupted the message of John the Baptist. Water and baptism is the way to, and the way to serve, God. They view baptism like the Jews viewed sacrifices. A continuous way to wash away one’s sins, not baptized with the Holy Spirit, but with living water provided by God himself.
Flowing water and baptisms. The two most sacred things on earth to Mandaeans.
So we’ve got some answers, but still quite a bit of mystery. We’ll just have to take a second look at the life and death of this mysterious John, and what his version of baptism meant, or didn’t mean, in some future post.
|
|
|
|
 |
Orange Blooded [2159]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2577
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 4:26 PM
|
|
I’m sure your post is interesting but I can’t get past the first gif.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13976
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 5:30 PM
|
|
Purty girls is as easy to baptise as they is all the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2159]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2577
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 7:46 PM
|
|
Sweet Jesus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17923]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8946
Joined: 12/24/96
|
One thing I am certain of...
4
Oct 18, 2023, 5:29 PM
|
|
Baptism with water does not "cleanse" one from sin.
Also, the Jews practiced a form of Baptism when a proselyte was accepted as a Jew. Yep, people (Gentiles) actually came to the Jews to be accepted as one of them. They were put through a very arduous period of "learning" before they were accepted. Some were never accepted. But those accepted would go through a Baptism ritual as they were then dead to their gentile life and "born again" as a Jew.
They were literally now a Jew as far as the Jewish nation was concerned.
This is probably over-simplification of the early process of baptism I have mentioned.
However, a person who goes down "dirty" (without faith) will come back up still dirty.
I love those movies with the mobsters running into the catholic church for forgiveness before they run back out to kill 100 of their rivals mobsters. lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13976
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: One thing I am certain of...
3
Oct 18, 2023, 5:31 PM
|
|
If I was going to go kill my rivals, that's the approach I would take.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2159]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2577
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 7:49 PM
|
|
So wait…
Josephus spoke favorably of John, even though he supposedly recognized Jesus as the coming Messiah, something Josephus did not recognize?
That seems hard to imagine, no?
And if Jesus really amazed the elders at the temple when he was 12, how could Josephus barely know or say anything about him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 8:04 PM
|
|
Good questions.
Josephus actually lived after both Jesus and John, who lived at roughly the same time. I'll get deeper into that in the follow up post.
Josephus (37AD-100AD, roughly) was getting his info from the next generation.
And Josephus does mention Jesus in his writings, though its a bit suspect. He (or someone appending the text) actually calls Jesus "The Christ."
What makes it suspect though is how casual he is about it...almost as an afterthought. One might think that in the midst of a Jewish History some 20 books long in 9 volumes that the Son of God would merit more than two sentences. And then he goes on to other, relatively dry history.
I'll get into it in the later post. When one reads it in context it just seems so "eh, ok, now, on to the next political leader.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2159]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2577
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 8:31 PM
|
|
From what I understand even the most conservative of scholars consider Josephus’ mention of Jesus to be highly suspect, especially the parts like you say that call him the Christ.
Even if it was authentic you’re right he doesn’t seem to care much about Jesus, but thinks very highly of John the Baptist. Strange indeed.
And I’ve also never noticed the apparent contradiction between gospels with Jesus calling John the Baptist Elijah and then him saying he’s not. How does one clear that up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 11:57 PM
|
|
On Josephus and Jesus, here's a link for some light reading, lol.
https://archive.org/details/theAntiquitiesOfTheJews_507/page/n789/mode/2up?q=Christ
And here's the TLDR version.
To me that is just stunningly ho-hum. Now, it is somewhat amazing that Jesus gets a mention at all, among all the people that lived at the time. So that says to me that he was surely a popular person at the time, which is backed up by the Bible.
But to mention it in such passing it almost makes me wonder what the word "Christ" even meant at the time. And to have no mention of him reappearing to his followers after his resurrection, or any of his miracles, etc., is just weird. Josephus just says "Meanwhile, over at the Temple of Isis..."
Josephus seems completely unimpressed, which I suppose a non-believing Jew would be. But the alternative would be that his text was altered. And that leaves "by who, and when?" The why is pretty obvious, but it's a mystery to me either way. Neither answer seems to fully make sense.
Then there's they mystery of the term "tribe" to refer to Christians. To my knowledge, that's nowhere in the Bible. So who would call Christians a tribe, and why? That implies a strong family/relations link, rather than a following or congregation. Josephus is probably writing this around 90ish AD, about the same time the last of the Gospels, and the Book or Revelation are being written.
Tribe is such an odd term it doesn't seem that anyone inserting that text would use it, and as a non-believing Jew, why on earth would Josephus be talking about "wonderful things concerning him." No answer seems to make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2159]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2577
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 19, 2023, 7:32 PM
|
|
"Josephus is probably writing this around 90ish AD, about the same time the last of the Gospels, and the Book or Revelation are being written."
Here's the thing @Fordtunate Son...
The only way it makes sense is if Josephus is writing BEFORE the gospels were written. Or he was ignorant of the gospel tradition and going by another one in which John the Baptist had nothing to do with Jesus. That seems highly unlikely, so it has to be the former.
If he knew of what the gospels claimed, that John was the "one crying in the wilderness" who called Jesus the Messiah, how could he write about him and not debunk that as a christian concoction? Seems impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 19, 2023, 12:06 AM
[ in reply to Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John ] |
|
>How does one clear that up?
Well, if I were a Christian I suppose I would think that "Well, Jesus's knowledge is complete, so even if John didn't know he was the resurrection, or re-embodyment, or whatever term, of Elijah, he was.
Or, Jesus might have been speaking metaphorically and meant that John simply fulfilled the role of Elijah. Clearly, there was the expectation at the time that Elija would be a precursor to Christ. John the Baptist knew about the expectation, the Sadducees and Pharisees knew about it, Jesus knew about it, and all of Jesus's disciples knew about it. It was a specific question by the priests, and it was a specific point made by Jesus.
As an agnostic, I'm inclined to believe that both stories are true, as a written versions of the oral stories in the wake of Jesus's death: "somebody told somebody who told somebody, etc.
That is, one group was telling the story that John the Baptist said no, and another group was telling the story that Jesus said yes. And both versions, under different authors, got written into the Gospels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12317
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 8:10 PM
|
|
The Jewish cleanliness water reminds me of Jesus' first recorded miracle, when he turned the water into wine. It was noted that the water pots used to gather the water were used for Jewish purification. It was an example of turning something unclean into something that was clean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3290]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4050
Joined: 1/3/14
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 9:04 PM
|
|
My take is that John's Baptism was the first step, cleansing the sinner and telling him to repent. After he has repented he is open to Jesus' coming and his gift of salvation by accepting him as the Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12317
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 9:32 PM
|
|
Love your emblem.
I believe that God brings us to repentance. Fordtunateson might describe me as a Calvinist. Correct me if I'm wrong, mon frere. I'm not as much into theology.
Fordtunate Son
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 19, 2023, 12:44 AM
|
|
Yes, I believe a part of the Calvinist theology is that God leads the way on things, effectively. That would include investigations of God, in which case man can only comprehend what God wants man to comprehend.
I'd think that in that light, God would guide men to repentance. It's been a while since I read up on TULIP. I'm not an expert on Calvinism either, but maybe one is lurking on the board to help us out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
1
Oct 19, 2023, 12:26 AM
[ in reply to Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John ] |
|
Yes, I think that is a very reasonable, and consistent interpretation. In the Jewish context, the removal of sin had ALWAYS been a 2-step process; first, the preparation by the priests, and second, the sacrifice by the priests.
So the John/Jesus combination would fit perfectly into that mindset.
In my follow up post I hope to dig into exactly what John might have been preaching, with some help from good folks like you  ">">">">">">">">">">">
We'll never know for certain of course, but I doubt he had all those followers who just wanted a bath and a message of peace. As I mentioned, one can give the message with no water necessary. Jesus did exactly that on the Mount.
Since all of John and Jesus's followers would have been Jews at that point, that would have been a very easy transition in thought, I think. Something along the lines of "well, this was once the exclusive domain of priests, but I, John, am opening it up to you for the first time etc."
One unusual thing though, is that John apparently kept many of his followers. Some went to Jesus, but many stayed with John. So to them, John's message, whatever it was, was satisfactory to them, without Jesus. If it was entirely a message of "Step one, step two", what would the people who stayed with John have expected from him?
That is, there doesn't seem to be a pay-off, or reward, for the people who chose to stay with John, if they thought baptism was the first step of two steps to Jesus. That makes me think there may have been more to the message than just Jesus.
And, the fact that John didn't just drop his bags and follow Jesus is odd to me too. Sadly, John didn't live long enough for us to know what his ministry might have been over time, but he must have thought he had some mission beyond just being a messenger about Jesus. That's even considering that, per the Bible, he vouched for Jesus as messiah.
Very exciting stuff. Thanks for your response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24216]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12317
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Religious Pron - Baptism and John
2
Oct 18, 2023, 11:39 PM
|
|
Let's not forget, the Father of the wedding praised Christ for the best wine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93785]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95485
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I took some time to reply.
1
Oct 21, 2023, 4:43 PM
|
|
It wasn't because I was confused but because I wasn't ready to say what I have to say. That's on me.
"Also, while John was baptizing, Jesus hadn’t died yet. So the Law had yet to be fulfilled. Therefore, no one was being saved from their sins through belief in Jesus, per the later Christian position."
That's not the Christian perspective. Well, it's not what the Bible teaches and you say so in your quotes:
"Matthew 1: 11 “I [John] baptize you with water for repentance.”
Mark 1: 4 “And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 3:16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
John 1: 31 “…the reason I [John] came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
To get this simple message, 'I baptize you with water for repentance...' we should all understand that when a man repents his main focus and attention is to turn to face God. People who focus on 'not sinning,' are not focused on God.
You can't see what's behind you neither physically nor spiritually.
As far as all the different reports on events, the writers of the Gospels had different view because their job had different goals.
Matt was the historian and reminds us Jesus is King of the Daviadic Covenant.
Mark remind is the He is a servant
Luke show us the humanity of Christ
John show us He is God.
They had different jobs, though all focused on Jesus, they focused somewhat on His different identities listed in the OT and yet all agreed and none contradicted another.
Officer, 'Did you see the bank robber?'
1st witness, 'Yes I saw him, he was white.'
2nd Witness, 'Yep, he was tall.'
3rd Witness, 'Sure did, he was skinny and had a beard.'
4th Witness, 'Oh yeah, he was wearing a black hoodie with a brown vest'
Pharisee, 'I ran out the door when I saw the gun.'
"John says he’s not a prophet, he’s not a messiah, and he’s not someone who removes sin (sorry, Mark)."
If you're referring to Mark 1:4 then you have misunderstood the function of baptism. It's the after getting saved activity which one does of obedience to God, a profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. Nothing changed from the baptisms in the OT and under the law. For, they too confessed their sinfulness and believed that a Messiah would come and shed His blood to pay for their sin. The entire system of sacrifice was designed to remind the COI (Children of Israel) that a suffering Messiah would do what the blood of goats and bulls could not do.
Neither water nor the blood of animals could clean the soul.
Note: I wonder why God didn't inform the COI that their Messiah would make two trips? Or did he? That would make a good book and you should write it.
"John did think he was a precursor to the messiah, but he refuted even Jesus himself when he was asked if he was the traditionally expected precursor, Elijah."
John wasn't Elijah in the flesh, he was Elijah in spirit only. John didn't have the power of Elijah as far as we know. He only knew his job was to set the stage for Christ. Elijah performed 16 miracles, John did none.
"At a minimum, John seems like a reformer advocating peace and justice. But one can deliver a reform message without baptisms.
So again, what were his baptisms actually for?
Was he appealing to rural Jews by relaxing the requirements of a centuries old Temple ritual?
Was he appealing to gentiles by opening up closed Jewish rituals to them?
Was he advocating some unknown interpretation of messianic Judaism?"
You answered these questions before you asked them. John came to baptize the Hebrews for repentance and remission of sin. If you can comprehend that baptism and sacrifice was always part of the COI's ritual services and that they always were representatives of the baptism of The Holy Ghost and the sacrifices representative of Jesus' sacrifice which took away man's sin. then this becomes simple.
"After John recognized Jesus’s ministry he just kept on baptizing and even kept his own disciples, rather than joining with Jesus. Why?"
The Law was still in full force for all the COI and mankind. Had Jesus not obeyed the law we'd be up the creek without a paddle even today.
Evidently, God didn't tell John to end his ministry but he continued to baptize and preach repentance for remission of sin. Jesus hadn't fulfilled the law. There's a lot of confusion about that. The law was a contract (covenant) between Israel and God. Like any contract there are three ways to legally nullify it.
The first way is to amend it if both parties agree. 'I'll pay you $$ to paint the outside of the house after you paint the interior.' "OK, X more $$$." 'Agree.'
The second way is for both parties to agree to make the contract null and thereby void it making it worthless except for being ah historical document.
The most common way is for both parties to fulfill their contractual obligations which makes also make the contract an historical document. That is what Jesus did to the law. He fulfilled man's obligation to God on our behalf.
It's past time for all of you to sign on the dotted line by repenting (turning to God for salvation and direction) by accepting Jesus' sacrifice.
You probably wouldn't love me if I wasn't honest, would you Fordtunate Son
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: I took some time to reply.
1
Oct 22, 2023, 4:12 AM
|
|
>You probably wouldn't love me if I wasn't honest, would you?
Well, it would depend on whether I liked your lies or not, lol. Mrs. Fordt lies to me all the time…tells me I’m handsome, etc. I know she’s lying to me but I like those lies so I love her anyway. ">
I’m glad you took the time to write a lengthy response. That’s what makes this fun. As always, I can’t tell anyone what their experiences or interpretations are, but I do enjoy hearing different ones and how they are supported. That is, most people think things for a reason, and the reasons are always interesting.
For instance, your position that “[Baptism] is the after getting saved activity which one does of obedience to God” is slightly different than this guy, on DesiringGod. c o m.
"Because in the New Testament, the word saved is used for what happens before, in, and after baptism.
Ephesians 2:8: We “have been saved.”
1 Corinthians 1:18: We “are being saved.”
Romans 13:11: “Salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.”
I haven’t examined his position in depth, but it just shows the subtle differences in belief on just about any topic, that people have.
In some future post I will probably get into infant baptism because it was and still is a point of difference between denominations. For instance, some Pentecostals and Church of God, the Jehovah’s witnesses, and the Mormons all reject infant baptism.
It's usually on the grounds that baptism must be preceded by willing repentance and faith, neither of which a child can do. The Mormons even say that a child is sinless until he knows right and wrong (age 8), so baptism before that age is meaningless to them.
> I wonder why God didn't inform the COI that their Messiah would make two trips? Or did he? That would make a good book and you should write it.
This is something I will look into. It’s a deeper issue because it gets into what is interpreted as prophecy and what is not, which is a much bigger topic. The Book of Isaiah is a big one for this, and all 4 Gospels refer to it as prophecy. But, as with all scripture, different folks see it different ways.
> He [John] only knew his job was to set the stage for Christ.
Yes. I plan on a follow up with John at some point. There's some interesting history around him and his time. But, I’m deep in the weeds with Isaiah at the moment.
>If you can comprehend that baptism and sacrifice was always part of the COI's ritual services and that they always were representatives of the baptism of The Holy Ghost and the sacrifices representative of Jesus' sacrifice which took away man's sin then this becomes simple.
Yes, I’m starting to see the interpretation that John was a transition between Law and Jesus.
The Jews used purified water to prepare, and the sacrifice itself to remove sin.
John used river water to prepare, and faith in Jesus to remove sin.
But there were people who were baptized and followed John but to our knowledge never followed Jesus. Why go half way? That makes me think some must have seen John’s baptisms in a different way somehow.
Using your contract analogy it’s as if they took out a loan but never spent the money. They got baptized but never believed in Jesus, because they continued to follow John. That’s odd.
> It's past time for all of you to sign on the dotted line by repenting (turning to God for salvation and direction) by accepting Jesus' sacrifice.
Well, I did once long ago. But I think now I’m in willful breech-of-contract. Though I still like to hang out and watch the lawyers on both sides sort out all the details. 😊
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93785]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95485
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Thank you.
1
Oct 22, 2023, 7:30 AM
|
|
I think I misspoke when addressing the fact that John continued to baptize after he baptized Jesus.
John's calling Jesus 'The Lamb of God,' actually supports my understanding that people were saved from Adam until today through their faith that God would send a messiah to pay for their debt of sin to Him. How did anyone know what 'The Lamb of God,' meant?
I believe I failed to highlight the fact that John taught the law as it was taught before the Diaspora which included a coming messiah who would suffer and die for man's sin. We are not told what John's message was after He baptized Christ but we know that John recognized Christ while both he and Jesus were in the womb. John said, 'He must increase and I must decrease,' (John 3:30) There's a sermon in that statement but it's for another time in another post.
I've harped a ton about the Pharisees and synagogues. Plainly said, neither word or concept existed before the Silent Years. Mosaic Law was twisted during the exile. Before the Diaspora gatherings to worship were only permitted by the Law at the tabernacle until the Temple was built.
The Roman Empire being littered with synagogues wasn't at God's direction for He had not spoken to the COI during that time and they certainly had not been told to do such in the OT. Even their violation of Mosaic law was used by God to spread the Gospel of Christ. Paul often entered those synagogues and preached Jesus.
Check your reference (desiringgoddotcom) again and see if it in fact is not more simple than confusing.
"Because in the New Testament, the word saved is used for what happens before, in, and after baptism.
Ephesians 2:8: We “have been saved.”
We are born again, or birth via God's Holy Spirit, when we receive Jesus as our savior. That's simply accepting that He is God's Son who died on the cross on our behalf.
1 Corinthians 1:18: We “are being saved.”
God is continuously saving us from continuing in sin.
Romans 13:11: “Salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.”
When our spirit leaves this world and goes to God our salvation from a sinful body is finished.
Sin is like a car wreck. You go the hospital to get fixed, you're saved. During the following weeks or months you heal daily, you're continuously being saved. Finally you're back to normal and completely healed from the car wreck which is the human condition.
Without reading desiring God I can see what the writer might have meant. That's been my understanding for many decades.
You can put most protestants on the list of those who do not Baptize infants. I've visited a ton of protestant churches as a child and never saw an infant baptism. Perhaps the Church of Christ might, IDK. Back in the early 1070s I knew a COC member who told me those who didn't get baptized when to hell. He never responded when I ask him about the thief on the cross beside Jesus.
I strongly recommend you silence the noise about you during your read of Isaiah and ask God to show you the truth of that prophetic book. Ignore any and all including me. Study it without assistance of any man. It has been my experience that God will show me what I need and not clutter my mind up with things I don't need. My questions about certain scriptures sometimes linger for years, even decades so I've learned to focus on that which is revealed rather than thinking I can master it all by listening to voices other than His.
"Yes, I’m starting to see the interpretation that John was a transition between Law and Jesus.
The Jews used purified water to prepare, and the sacrifice itself to remove sin.
John used river water to prepare, and faith in Jesus to remove sin."
The only purified water I recall from the Bible was running water which the Priest used to clean their hands after examining a man with leprosy. Surgeons used that for decades now.
"Yes, I’m starting to see the interpretation that John was a transition between Law and Jesus.
The Jews used purified water to prepare, and the sacrifice itself to remove sin.
John used river water to prepare, and faith in Jesus to remove sin."
Both John and Jesus lived under the Law. The event which saved John's soul, the Death burial and resurrection of Christ, did not occur in John's lifetime. He had the same faith at all the OT believers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Thank you.
2
Oct 22, 2023, 3:30 PM
|
|
> people were saved from Adam until today through their faith that God would send a messiah to pay for their debt of sin to Him.
So you’re saying people were saved just by the *belief* in a soul-saving Messiah, even before he was actually sent, and even before he died?
That’s interesting. I’ll have to re-read some parts of the Bible with that concept in mind. But that makes me wonder what the whole point of the sacrifice system was, if mere belief was sufficient to be saved all the way back to Adam.
> but we know that John recognized Christ while both he and Jesus were in the womb.
Yes, from Luke 1:41.
But I have trouble squaring that with John 1:33
“And I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.34 I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One.”
Matt 11:2
2 When John, who was in prison, heard about the deeds of the Messiah, he sent his disciples 3 to ask him, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”
So from these three verses it seems that John knew Jesus in the womb, but then forgot about him when they met at Jesus’s baptism, then realized he was the Messiah after he baptized him, then forgot about him again after John went to prison. That all seems very inconsistent.
>Before the Diaspora gatherings to worship were only permitted by the Law at the tabernacle until the Temple was built.
Yes, this is another very interesting topic I’d like to take a deep dive into. And it’s also tied to where that Temple was “intended” to be built. That’s what split the Samaritans off from the rest of Israel…whether Mt. Gerzim, or Mt. Zion, was the holiest spot, and thus the appropriate site for the Temple. It’s on my list for future study.
>I strongly recommend you silence the noise about you during your read of Isaiah and ask God to show you the truth of that prophetic book. Study it without assistance of any man.
Oh I do, and have ready it many times though the years. Though I must admit every time I re-read it I see it in more of a secular light than a religious one. Not exclusively, because God is referenced throughout the text.
But knowing the when where and why it was written have made it more of a time-specific, and less universal text to me. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and others, will all disagree with me 😊
>Both John and Jesus lived under the Law.
Yes, I’m beginning to understand your belief better now, tied back to this:
> people were saved from Adam until today through their faith that God would send a messiah to pay for their debt of sin to Him.
> The event which saved John's soul, the Death burial and resurrection of Christ, did not occur in John's lifetime.
So you’re saying that prior to Jesus’s D&R, being saved was by faith that a soul-saving messiah would come; and after Jesus’s D&R, being saved was by faith that Jesus was that messiah.
So am I correct in saying that people were saved long before Jesus even died, so long as they had faith he was coming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93785]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95485
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Thank you.
1
Oct 22, 2023, 7:53 PM
|
|
"> people were saved from Adam until today through their faith that God would send a messiah to pay for their debt of sin to Him.
So you’re saying people were saved just by the *belief* in a soul-saving Messiah, even before he was actually sent, and even before he died?"
Absolutely.
"So from these three verses it seems that John knew Jesus in the womb, but then forgot about him when they met at Jesus’s baptism, then realized he was the Messiah after he baptized him, then forgot about him again after John went to prison. That all seems very inconsistent."
I wouldn't say forgot about Him, I'd say wasn't positive as to who He was. "Behold, the Lamb of God.' John also knew Christ was alive and was coming to meet him. Matt 11:2.
"So am I correct in saying that people were saved long before Jesus even died, so long as they had faith he was coming?"
Yes.
If obeying the law would save your soul how then was Abraham, Noah and others who lived before the law saved? Adam knew the plan of salvation when God slew animals to cover Eve's and Adam's nakedness.
We see them as being covered with leaves only in their private parts which defined their genders. That, from my perspective, is all wrong. Their nakedness represented their sin and the slaughter of the innocent hid that from God, metaphorically speaking.
That was the beginning of the ritual of sacrifice in which those who participated had within their hearts a picture of the suffering Messiah who would someday come according to God's promise.
What does your wife say about these things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Thank you.
Oct 22, 2023, 11:17 PM
|
|
Thanks for those answers.
I think you said that the purpose of the Law in your mind was to turn one to God. It was a way to focus on God, but it was actually not necessary, or even able, to bestow salvation by itself.
And so since faith has been an option since Adam and Eve, a person like Noah, who didn't have the Law (because it came after Moses) could still be saved by faith alone?
If that's so, I presume this would be a history timeline of sorts:
1) God/Jesus/Holy Ghost created heaven and earth, man, etc.
2) Sin was created by Adam's disobedience, but man could still be saved by G/J/H's grace, if he believed in G/J/H.
3) All the ante-diluvian history...Cain, Abel, Seth, etc., then the flood.
4) The world was re-populated, God revealed himself to his chosen few, and gave them the Law. Although, anyone without the Law could still be saved through belief if they found out about G/J/H.
5) God decided to send his physical manifestation, Jesus, to tell the Jews the Law had been replaced by Jesus's D&R, and that once again, only belief is necessary.
I can follow all that if that's what you mean. But it seems in that case that the Jews being chosen was because they needed a little extra help, rather than for them being exalted in any way.
The Jews needed the Law to help them focus on God, while the rest of the world could achieve salvation (like Noah, or the Chinese, or Hammurabi) simply by believing without extra help. Sort of like the Jews were the slower kids in class. Am I comprehending that correctly?
>What does your wife say about these things?
She's a good Southern Baptist Girl so her beliefs are pretty simple. Unless I'm mistaken she thinks that salvation for Gentiles began with Jesus's D&R, and anybody who died before that gets assessed on judgement day. I'm not sure she's deeply contemplated the fate of ancient Mesopotamians who believed in Marduk, lol.
I'd have to talk to her more about it. When we got married I was an Atheist, and I think she has long since given up on trying to save me or unscramble me ">">">
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93785]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95485
Joined: 12/25/09
|
We discussed Abraham and...
1
Oct 23, 2023, 12:40 PM
|
|
how God told him to leave his family and go to a place 'I will show you.' You introduced that topic in one of your pictorials.
Why did you choose your wife? That's how simplistically complicated God's choice of Abraham. All we know is that God intended to choose a people and rather than picking our a people who existed He picked a single man to be His chosen people and chose through one of his sons and one of his son's sons to father His people.
Why did God choose Abraham, Isaac and Jakob? I'll figure that our after I figure out why He chose me.
We know why God gave the law. Galatians 3:
"24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Why did Israel need a schoolmaster? Why does anyone need a teacher? Why didn't those from Adam through Isaac need a teacher? They had faith in God. So after 400 years in slavery the Children of Israel needed a teacher. We've discussed this in post which you authored.
Moses met with God Who came in the form of a burning bush. You well know the story. Moses wasn't your average illiterate slave, he was raised in the Pharaoh's court. When the COI left Egypt they took everything that wasn't nailed down with them. They had no direction other than some 400 year old family story about a land filled with milk and honey.
They had no land, no law to bind them together as a people and a nation. The law, for them, was given to them to manage sanitation, hygiene, construction, government, personal property, feast, sexuality and crime. The 10 Commandments included two vertical laws, how to honor God, and 8 horizontal laws, how to treat one another.
It makes you wonder if God didn't take a family of 12 sons and build a 1+ million member family in slavery so they would need a school master. The adult generation who exited Egypt didn't pay attention in class and became bones in the desert.
Faith in God has always been saving. During the dispensation of mankind before the law, under the law and now in the dispensation of grace. Those before the law believed a Savior would come, those under the law were so because they needed daily sacrifices to comprehend that we sin constantly and needed a sacrifice so great that it could end the curse of the law for all.
We got the good end of the deal. We don't look forward in history to a coming Christ we see Him daily in our lives, in the lives of others and see the potential in the lives of those around us.
I'm a poor Southern Baptist and my beliefs are pretty simple too. The only way to justification before God is through the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ. That's how it is now, how it was from the giving of the law until Christ died on the cross and how it was from Adam to Moses and the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29905]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8856
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: We discussed Abraham and...
1
Oct 23, 2023, 6:09 PM
|
|
Very thorough. Thanks for the comprehensive answer!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 26
| visibility 601
|
|
|
50
