Duvduv

This point is especially important because there is no notion in Judaism at all that immersion serves to wash away sins. In the time of the Temple this could only be performed through a share in various sacrifices, especially that of Yom Kippur. Ritual immersion only had (and has) the effect of RITUAL PURIFICATION. not REMISSION OF SIN.

There were probably sects who practiced frequent regular ritual immersion in relation to sins, but the later Christian system associated it to remission of sin in relation to their Christ. Of course the immersion practiced by John for remission of sin was by definition incomplete because it could not accomplish the task provided by immersion in association with faith in the Christ.

sotto voce

It should be noted that the idea of water baptism being efficacious in removing sin is antichrist, and barely intelligent.

It's simply unbelievable that a serious forum can make an equivalence between anointing with oil and water baptism.

Except as a rather pathetic joke, perhaps.

aa5874

In the Autobiography of Josephus the author claimed he did indeed join a sect of Banus where he bathed in cold WATER to maintain Chastity.

Life of Flavius Josephus

Duvduv

This is not ritual immersion but a known practice to cool off sexual desire which could lead to sin if the person was not married. In the case of Josephus who was of the priestly sect, the requirement for relatively early marriage would be of utmost importance if he were to serve in the Temple.

There was never a practice among Jews to intentionally avoid marriage as an act of spiritual advancement. IF (and I say IF) the Essenes really did exist, then they were refraining from marital relations only AFTER a certain age of having had children.

This story does not even sound authentically Jewish, and as I have said before, there is much to question in Josephus as to its authenticity.

aa5874

I merely showed you what is found in writings attributed to Josephus. I really don't accept "sounds of authenticity" as evidence of authenticity.

Now, look at what is found in Hebrew Scripture. It would appear that there was a Jewish Tradition that DIPPING oneself in the River Jordan had healing properties.

Naaman was INSTANTLY cured of leprosy after Dipping Seven times in the Jordan. Please, does this story in the Hebrew Bible "sound authentically Jewish" or credible to you???

2 Kings 5

Diogenes the Cynic

I think this is actually a pretty interesting point.

Duvduv

A Kohen would never refrain from marriage. So the idea of Josephus belonging to a sect where he took cold baths/immersions to cool off his passions has nothing to do with purification, and given the fact that he was a Kohen gives me strong reason to doubt this was even written by a Jew.

The case of Naaman is not a general principle involving healing by immersing in the Jordan, but rather a particular event involving a miracle provided to Naaman by Elisha.

This has NOTHING to do with the case of the Baptist remission of sins as a function of regular immersion.

Duvduv

The idea of baptizing is not the same as anointing a king. In the case of David he was chosen from among his brothers to be king. The Baptist story does not involve Jesus being anointed with oil. But there is a certain story similarity that readers familar with the Hebrew Tanakh would appreciate vis a vis a biblification of the Jesus story.

I should comment though that the very idea that the gospel story is structured to resemble a biblical story itself suggests that it was a canonization at the time the story was composed. Otherwise there would be no reason or expectation that the story would be structured in a way the evoked biblical ones unless the gospel story itself was deemed to be equivalent to a biblical story. This is even moreso in the case of GMatt.

This is of particular significance given how different the gospels are from one another, since one would assume a "biblical tale" to take the form of only a single tale rather than 3 or 4.

sotto voce

So it's not 'all extremely interesting'. To say the least of it.

What is interesting is that there is no precedent in the Hebrew Bible for actual water baptism, and no fake gospel writer would have devised it out of whole cloth. It was never commanded as a replacement initiation rite in place of circumcision, and John (real or imagined) never suggested that his baptism should replace it. The only possible non-figurative prototype is the washing of Naaman, a diseased but highly distinguished man who was told that bodily healing would be his if he was to wash in a small, somewhat mucky, unimportant river (the Jordan) seven times, the seventh time confirming his humility. But this was to cure disease, not to signify the renunciation of sin, as was John's baptism; it was an isolated incident, never repeated. Not a pattern for mass baptism by an invented baptist preacher.

The gospellers were well aware that the preoccupation of Israel was, or should have been, the consciousness of spiritual 'dirt', that was the problem in Eden, the problem with Cain, with Abraham's descendants until Jesus, that is expressed neatly here:

'Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin; because I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.' Ps 51:2-3

That of course refers to spiritual washing, and all of the gospellers and NT letter writers see that washing effected by faith in the cross of Jesus. That must have been their focus, their whole purpose in writing: so if the baptism of Jesus (that showed a foretaste of his attitude at his crucifixion) was invented, so were all of their writings. The baptism of Jesus cannot make any sense in the Christian Bible unless it is seen as integral to it. John referred to it (or rather, the demonstrated response of heaven to it) as a witness, with the crucifixion, of who Jesus was:

'This is the one who came by water and blood— Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. Because there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.' 1 Jn 5:6-8

John would have hardly made such a fundamental statement, one that particularly resonated with Jews, that appealed to Jews, that almost challenged them to come to terms with it, that referred to an event that had not been widely witnessed by them.

Witnessed by them, by the Jordan; a little reminder for psalm-reading Jews, highly distinguished or not, of Naaman, whose body was healed, if not more.

JoeWallack

JW:
Once again we agree. Is Sott starting to remind anyone else of an Apologist version of Chili?



Joseph