Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-17-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

None of this has any support in Judaism. There was no Jewish belief that the Messiah would die.

More significantly though is that the ritual itself would be anathema to Judaism. Blood and corpses were both extremely unclean spiritually, and Jews internalized this into a cultural and physical revulsion that was as bad (in fact probably worse) than aversions to human waste. Blood was disgusting and literally evil (spiritually corrupting). So were dead bodies. Jesus asking them to drink his blood and eat his flesh even symbolically was the same to them as if he had told them they had to drink his piss and eat his shit.

It also has nothing at all to do with Judaism. There is no kind of precedent or meaning for it in a Jewish context.

Crossan thinks Jesus just had a communal meal enacting what he calls a call to "open commensality," a subversive act of egalitarianism against class stratification and ritual purity. This may have an echo in Luke's road to Emmaus story. Two disciples meet a stranger on the road, then recognize the "presence of Jesus" when they break bread together.

I kind of have my doubts that Jesus even did that much, though. Not a word of the Last Supper story is creditable in my opinion.

Harnack says it was a communal meal. The linking to the Passover and death of Jesus came later.

This is what he says about early Christian practice:

“Finally, prayers offered by the worshipper in the public worship of the community, and the gifts brought by them, out of which were taken the elements for the Lord’s supper, and which were used partly in the common meal, and partly in support of the poor,”

This I can go along with. The "blood and body" stuff, no way. That's as patent a pagan accretion as anything in Christianity.

Duvduv · 04-17-2012, 12:13 PM

I don't think it is merely for body washing after repentance. That's not what immersion is for. It's for purification. However, in a Jewish context it has nothing to do with repentance per se.

The meanings used by the authors of Galatians, Titus and Collosians is far different than that of the gospels and certainly Peter's description. It's all very metaphorical in the gospels.
In the gospels it is different than what Peter claims:

GMatt:
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire:

GLuke:
3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins;

GJohn:
33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-17-2012, 12:33 PM

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.
-Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2

No Robots · 04-17-2012, 12:53 PM

Sorry, Diogenes, but you are quite wrong about eating flesh and drinking blood in Jewish symbolism:

The word akal, to eat, is frequently used in a secondary sense, as in the saying of B. Hillel : "There is no Messiah for Israel, since they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah" (Sanhedrin 98b, 99a)--The sayings of the Jewish fathers / Joseph Isaac Gorfinkle, p. 60.

The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3, 6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; b. Sanh. 70a, etc. We have therefore a double simile of Jesus here. Jesus made the broken bread a simile of the fate of his body, the blood of the grapes a simile of his outpoured blood.--The Eucharistic words of Jesus / Joachim Jeremias, p. 224.

This is another case where Jewish symbolism is literalized and made into a supersition by pagans.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-17-2012, 05:41 PM

Hillel wasn't speaking in a literal sense or referring to any kind of ritual. Other translations render that as "consumed," enjoyed," "had," or "used up." In context he was saying that Israel had already used up "consumed" it's Messiah in the person of Hezekiah. There is no implication of ritual cannibalism in there, or any notion of Messiah being literally "eaten." That's a bad translation.

The physical resemblance of red wine to blood is obvious and unremarkable, but that doesn't mean they ritually drank it and pretended it was blood or that they were not repulsed by blood, or that they had any notion whatever of a dying and consumed Messiah

The bread and wine ceremonies come from pagan agricultural rituals and mystery cults (e.g. grain gods being "eaten" as bread, wine was the "blood of Dionysus"). The putative Jewish followers of Jesus would have known that as well. Paul obviously did.

Duvduv · 04-17-2012, 06:06 PM

Why does this statement appearing in Josephus appear to answer or "clarify" what the Baptist's baptism was as it appears in Matthew and Luke? Sounds like some uncomfortable Christian apologetica here.

How strange that this clarification lacks any reference to the secondary nature of the baptism of the Baptist as compared to the baptism of the holy spirit and fire of the fellow who comes after him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret.
And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod.
-Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2

aa5874 · 04-17-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The bread and wine ceremonies come from pagan agricultural rituals and mystery cults (e.g. grain gods being "eaten" as bread, wine was the "blood of Dionysus"). The putative Jewish followers of Jesus would have known that as well. Paul obviously did.

Again, you PRESUME your own history. But, please tell us how do you know those things??? What credible sources of antiquity corroborate the Pauline writer???

I no longer accept Presumptions and ad hoc speculation about Jesus , the disciples and Paul.

You seem to presume the Pauline writings are historically accurate.

You are yet to show that anything Paul claimed happened did indeed occur and that the events happened BEFORE c 70 CE.

We are ALL aware of the Pauline writings but we cannot PRESUME they are historically accurate when the writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a Man and that he was a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus, the Son of God.

Frankly, you come across as one who is SIMPLY a weak believer. You just accept, without a shred of evidence, a little less than the average parishoner.

Some people believe all the Bible and some just believe a little.

I only accept what is corroborated like Pilate, Tiberius, and Caiaphas--NOT the uncorroborated like Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-17-2012, 06:32 PM

Josephus was Jewish, not Christian.

My point was that the water itself did not remit sins, but repentance.

Josephus says nothing about John the Baptist preaching a Messiah or even the end of the world, and I don't think he did. I think Mark just had to make Jesus superior to him somehow, so he said that John was really just predicting the Messiah (which I think is implausible bullshit, frankly, not supported by Josephus, and I would argue it's internally contradicted by Mark himself, in that Mark says that Antipas like hearing JBap, which would make no sense if JBap was preaching that another King was about to take his throne.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-17-2012, 07:04 PM

This from the Qumram Scrolls:

And by the spirit of holiness uniting him to His truth he shall be purified from all his iniquities, and by the spirit of uprightness and humility his sin shall be atoned for. And by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God, his flesh shall be purified in being sprinkled with waters of (removing) impurity and sanctified by cleansing water.
(1 QSIII 7-9)

It's the repentance that remits sins, and water is only for the flesh.

Duvduv · 04-17-2012, 07:21 PM

However there is no indication that immersion is for cleanliness.
Even in the DSS.In fact a person can immerse in dirty sea or river water.
Purification still occurs.

04-17-2012, 12:53 PM	#254
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Sorry, Diogenes, but you are quite wrong about eating flesh and drinking blood in Jewish symbolism: The word akal, to eat, is frequently used in a secondary sense, as in the saying of B. Hillel : "There is no Messiah for Israel, since they have already eaten him in the days of Hezekiah" (Sanhedrin 98b, 99a)--The sayings of the Jewish fathers / Joseph Isaac Gorfinkle, p. 60. The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3, 6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; b. Sanh. 70a, etc. We have therefore a double simile of Jesus here. Jesus made the broken bread a simile of the fate of his body, the blood of the grapes a simile of his outpoured blood.--The Eucharistic words of Jesus / Joachim Jeremias, p. 224. This is another case where Jewish symbolism is literalized and made into a supersition by pagans.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-17-2012, 12:13 PM	#252
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I don't think it is merely for body washing after repentance. That's not what immersion is for. It's for purification. However, in a Jewish context it has nothing to do with repentance per se. The meanings used by the authors of Galatians, Titus and Collosians is far different than that of the gospels and certainly Peter's description. It's all very metaphorical in the gospels. In the gospels it is different than what Peter claims: GMatt: 11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and [in] fire: GLuke: 3 And he came into all the region round about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins; GJohn: 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.

04-17-2012, 12:33 PM	#253
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and was a very just punishment for what he did against John called the baptist [the dipper]. For Herod had him killed, although he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions. And when others massed about him, for they were very greatly moved by his words, Herod, who feared that such strong influence over the people might carry to a revolt -- for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise -- believed it much better to move now than later have it raise a rebellion and engage him in actions he would regret. And so John, out of Herod's suspiciousness, was sent in chains to Machaerus, the fort previously mentioned, and there put to death; but it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution for John God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod. -Josephus, Antiquities 18.5.2

04-17-2012, 05:41 PM	#255
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Hillel wasn't speaking in a literal sense or referring to any kind of ritual. Other translations render that as "consumed," enjoyed," "had," or "used up." In context he was saying that Israel had already used up "consumed" it's Messiah in the person of Hezekiah. There is no implication of ritual cannibalism in there, or any notion of Messiah being literally "eaten." That's a bad translation. The physical resemblance of red wine to blood is obvious and unremarkable, but that doesn't mean they ritually drank it and pretended it was blood or that they were not repulsed by blood, or that they had any notion whatever of a dying and consumed Messiah The bread and wine ceremonies come from pagan agricultural rituals and mystery cults (e.g. grain gods being "eaten" as bread, wine was the "blood of Dionysus"). The putative Jewish followers of Jesus would have known that as well. Paul obviously did.

04-17-2012, 06:32 PM	#258
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Josephus was Jewish, not Christian. My point was that the water itself did not remit sins, but repentance. Josephus says nothing about John the Baptist preaching a Messiah or even the end of the world, and I don't think he did. I think Mark just had to make Jesus superior to him somehow, so he said that John was really just predicting the Messiah (which I think is implausible bullshit, frankly, not supported by Josephus, and I would argue it's internally contradicted by Mark himself, in that Mark says that Antipas like hearing JBap, which would make no sense if JBap was preaching that another King was about to take his throne.

04-17-2012, 07:04 PM	#259
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	This from the Qumram Scrolls: And by the spirit of holiness uniting him to His truth he shall be purified from all his iniquities, and by the spirit of uprightness and humility his sin shall be atoned for. And by the humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God, his flesh shall be purified in being sprinkled with waters of (removing) impurity and sanctified by cleansing water. (1 QSIII 7-9) It's the repentance that remits sins, and water is only for the flesh.

04-17-2012, 07:21 PM	#260
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	However there is no indication that immersion is for cleanliness. Even in the DSS.In fact a person can immerse in dirty sea or river water. Purification still occurs.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.