|
|
Post by alon on Dec 21, 2019 12:01:29 GMT -8
Christians do everything from sprinkle to dunk, but not a one of the major denominations does it right. Baptism comes from the Jewish practice of tevilah, which the apostles also did. Tevilah is full body immersion in the waters of a mikvah. It was done many times in a Jewish person’s life, and for many reasons; changing sects or accepting the faith being 2 of them. Do a search here for the word ‘tevilah’ and you’ll find several enlightening posts on it. Sure, I can see that Baptism came from Tevilah. I think that Tevilah was done in a Mikvah pool. Absolutely correct! Tevilah is the act of ritual immersion, and the Mikvah is the pool of clean water which meets the requirements. Also, as I understand it, John the Baptist practised some kind of baptism for the forgiveness of sins that was special to John. ... I don't know if John's Baptism practice was once-for-all, but it sounds like it was, because later in the New Testament, Paul met some believers who had been given "John's Baptism" and not yet Christian/Nazarene Baptism. The reference to "John's Baptism" makes it sound like it was a one-time ritual of baptism that was special to John, comparable to how Christian/Nazarene Baptism was a one-time ritual for believers. Remember John's ministry was primarily about repentance and making straight the path of Messiah: Isaiah 40:3 (ESV)
A voice cries:[Or A voice of one crying]
“In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord;
make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
John 1:23 (ESV) He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.”
Recall that when a writer mentions a word or phrase that is in an earlier text, he usually wants you to go and read that entire text and apply it to what you are now reading. All of Isaiah 40 is a Messianic prophecy. There are so many references we couldn't adequately deal with them here. But here is one: Isaiah 40:22 (ESV) It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
Numbers 13:32-33 (ESV)So they brought to the people of Israel a bad report of the land that they had spied out, saying, “The land, through which we have gone to spy it out, is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people that we saw in it are of great height. And there we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak, who come from the Nephilim), and we seemed to ourselves like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them.”"Make straight the way for the Lord" was a very common theme at the time of Yeshua. Every sect was consumed with zeal to prepare the way and usher in the Messianic age. Slaying their giants (Romans) was thought by many to be what was needed. However Yochanon was preaching repentance as the way to be ready for Messiah. This has always been requisite for salvation, so Yochanon had a large following, his own sect. However they were of the covenant before the death and resurrection of Yeshua. The covenant was and is the same, however prior to this they looked forward in faith to the promised Messiah, now we (and they) look back in faith on Yeshua and what He did for us. This was the message of the sect of the Notsarim. Those people were followers of the message of Yochanon, now they needed to accept the message of Yeshua and the Notsarim. Any time you made such a radical change in your beliefs or switched sects you underwent ritual purification in the waters of a mikvah; you did tevilah. The Greek for this (we know because of the LXX) is baptidzo. In English, baptism.
To answer your querry about John's baptism being a "one and done" event, no, it was not. All judaism, including Yochanon before the crucifixion and the Notsrim after followed  and the laws and instructions for tevilah therein. We still do, whenever we are able. And Jesus' disciples had a practice of "once for all" baptism that was different and was especially associated with the Holy Spirit. That is, unlike normal Tevilah immersions, the disciples' Baptism was not something that was expected to be done repeatedly in the life of the Christian/Nazarene. Nope, according to the church fathers the Nazarenes, of which sect Paul was said to be a "ringleader" held to Jewish practices well beyond the 4th cen CE when the church was actually formed. Paul himself is recorded twice as saying "I am a Pharisee." Not "I was," but "I am." The greater part of the sect of the Notzrim came from the Pharisees (by a huge margin the largest sect in Israel until the Notsrim). But so did Rabbinical Judaism. We have to distinguish what became of the mainstream sect in the centuries following Yeshua and what they were under the sect of the apostles. It's like bifurcating a water channel- you get two entirely separate streams.
I can give you some quotes if you want of church fathers saying the Nazarenes were still Jews and followed Jewish customs. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 21, 2019 13:01:19 GMT -8
Dan, Supposing that the disciples were following Jewish customs, which must have been true considering that Paul/Saul was involved in consecrating some believers, it doesn't necessarily follow that all their special Nazarene/Christian practices were the same as the pre-existing Jewish ones. I mean that the Jewish disciples' baptism practice wasn't necessarily the same thing only as what Jews normally do (repeated Tevilah). I think that when Yeshua appeared for instance and told the disciples to baptize all nations, He meant it spiritually, but it was also alluding to a specific ritual act of baptism for believers. In Acts 19, for instance, Paul says that "John's baptism" was for repentance. It sounds to me in this passage like John had a specific baptism ritual that was for repentance. The disciples who Paul met had gotten John's "baptism", not John's "baptisms". So, of course the Nazarene sect in the 4th century was following like the records say, and sure, that could naturally include Tevilah. But it sounds to me like in addition that they would also get the special baptism of the Nazarenes in the NT, like in Acts 19 where Paul gives the followers whom he found a new baptism that came after John's baptism that John's followers already. In other words, Nazarenes could be getting Tevilah repeatedly, but it looks like there was a special kind of baptism that Paul wanted to give believers in Acts 19 that went beyond the one that they already had, and that this special baptism wasn't something repeated throughout the believers' lives like a Tevilah was. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 21, 2019 13:14:31 GMT -8
Let me clarify what I was referring to in Question 4. The writers that I found suggest that in comparison to the normal cleansing ritual of Tevilah, John the Baptist was calling people to a special water "baptism for repentance" that Josephus said consecrated their bodies, and which in Acts 19 was called "The Baptism of John". That is, it wasn't just the normal Tevilah of the Jews in general, but one specific to John's ministry that his followers had. Acts 19 says: That is, there was a special baptism, "John's Baptism", a "baptism of repentance", into which the followers were immersed, which sounds different than saying that they were baptised into the general baptism of the . And then in Acts 19, Paul follows the preaching by baptising the followers "in the name of the Lord Jesus", whereas previously they were only baptized into "John's Baptism". This suggests that being baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" was an important ritual, distinct from only being baptized in usual Tevilah immersions. So in Question 4, I was comparing (A) John's Baptism (as Josephus described it) consecrating the body after righteous living that cleansed the soul with (B) Christian Baptism, which seems somehow connected with the Holy Spirit. For instance, Jesus saw the Holy Spirit coming on Him at His own water baptism. So I was thinking about the elements of baptism. For instance, could the person get the Spirit before or after the special baptism that was done into the name of Christ/the Lord Yeshua? In Acts 19, it looks like the believers get the Holy Spirit when Paul/Saul lays hands on them after their baptism in the name of the Lord Yeshua. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 21, 2019 16:02:56 GMT -8
Dan, Supposing that the disciples were following Jewish customs, which must have been true considering that Paul/Saul was involved in consecrating some believers, it doesn't necessarily follow that all their special Nazarene/Christian practices were the same as the pre-existing Jewish ones. It does if they were Jews:
(Epiphanius, AD 370, Panarion 29) "But these sectarians... did not call themselves Christians-but "Nazarenes," ... However they are simply complete Jews. They use not only the New Testament but the Old Testament as well, as the Jews do… They have no different ideas, but confess everything exactly as the Law proclaims it and in the Jewish fashion-- except for their belief in Messiah, if you please! ... They disagree with Jews because they have come to faith in Messiah; but since they are still fettered by the Law -- circumcision, the Sabbath, and the rest-- they are not in accord with Christians...they are nothing but Jews…"Sounds pretty clear to me. They were Jews, doing things like Jews always had done. And if they confessed "everything exactly as the Law proclaims it" then they were doing tevilah a well exactly as said to do.I mean that the Jewish disciples' baptism practice wasn't necessarily the same thing only as what Jews normally do (repeated Tevilah). I think that when Yeshua appeared for instance and told the disciples to baptize all nations, He meant it spiritually, but it was also alluding to a specific ritual act of baptism for believers. If this were the case you'd think such a baptism would be recorded somewhere. To my knowledge this was never done. What was recorded, and in Rome no less, were frescos of Jews still doing tevilah as they always had all the way up into the 5th cen CE.
In Acts 19, for instance, Paul says that "John's baptism" was for repentance. It sounds to me in this passage like John had a specific baptism ritual that was for repentance. The disciples who Paul met had gotten John's "baptism", not John's "baptisms". Repentance was required before the "baptism." It was the reason for doing tevilah in the first place. Baptism, even in Christian theology does not save you, nor does it make you repent. It is a physical representation of what has already occured spiritually. If you di not repent first, tevilah would do you no good!
The only reason it sounds to you like John had a specific baptism ritual is that is how you've been trained to believe. The catholic churches all have a lot of different rituals for different events, including baptisms. Visual rituals along with the smell of incense and sounds of chanted prayers have a very profound psychological effect. Add to that the teachings that Jesus came to do something completely new, different, and better and it is small wonder that is what it seems like to you! But again, nowhere are these different rituals recorded for the Notsarim. Just the opposite, in the words of more than one church father and in frescos of the times up to 5 centuries later. Recordings that say it was all the same. Recordings of your own, not mine.
So, of course the Nazarene sect in the 4th century was following like the records say, and sure, that could naturally include Tevilah. But it sounds to me like in addition that they would also get the special baptism of the Nazarenes in the NT, like in Acts 19 where Paul gives the followers whom he found a new baptism that came after John's baptism that John's followers already. The "new baptism" was simply an affirmation of their new faith not in Yochanon, who said the Messiah would (and did) come; but in the fact that Messiah was Yeshua and that He died for their sins and was raised on the 3rd day. Same tevilah, just a different reason, as indeed it was each and every time tevilah was done!In other words, Nazarenes could be getting Tevilah repeatedly, but it looks like there was a special kind of baptism that Paul wanted to give believers in Acts 19 that went beyond the one that they already had, and that this special baptism wasn't something repeated throughout the believers' lives like a Tevilah was. It only went beyond because they had not yet professed faith that this had happened. Understand who these people were. They were Jews of the diaspora who had been living in communities in Asia Minor probably for centuries. They were not in Israel, had not been witness to what had happened or the great interest in this wonderful Rabbi who performed miracles only Messiah could do, and explained better, just like Messiah was supposed to. They probably heard stories, but they were not privy to the constant stream of excitement and stories as one in Israel might be. So all they had was the baptism of Yochanon, a euphemism for baptism of repentance since that is what John preached. Now they were hearing first hand accounts of this, the man most likely to be their Messiah! They believed, and since they had alreday repented (and obviously not backslidden) they were eligible to be baptized in the name of Him who they now believed in. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 21, 2019 16:37:37 GMT -8
Let me clarify what I was referring to in Question 4. The writers that I found suggest that in comparison to the normal cleansing ritual of Tevilah, John the Baptist was calling people to a special water "baptism for repentance" that Josephus said consecrated their bodies, and which in Acts 19 was called "The Baptism of John". That is, it wasn't just the normal Tevilah of the Jews in general, but one specific to John's ministry that his followers had. And those writers, would they be Christian commentators pushing their own theology?Acts 19 says:That is, there was a special baptism, No, there was the same old tevilah."John's Baptism", a "baptism of repentance", A baptism because of their repentance, just like always.into which the followers were immersed, which sounds different than saying that they were baptised into the general baptism of the . If it's not in , it isn't Godly baptism.
And then in Acts 19, Paul follows the preaching by baptising the followers "in the name of the Lord Jesus", That was who they now believed on, and as always the change was marked with tevilah.whereas previously they were only baptized into "John's Baptism". Which was because they believed on HaSHem's , took what it  to heart, and repented of their sins. This can happen many times in the life of a believer. However when saved that is a special tevilah only because (like repentance) of what ou have just done. It is special to you because it marks a turning point in eternity for you. The method is the same, but the meaning should be much more for you.
This suggests that being baptised "in the name of the Lord Jesus" was an important ritual, distinct from only being baptized in usual Tevilah immersions. Only as I just explained above ...So in Question 4, I was comparing (A) John's Baptism (as Josephus described it) consecrating the body after righteous living that cleansed the soul No-no-NO! You couldn't have meant that like it sounds! It is symbolic of the fact you have consecrated yourself to good works, but those works won't save you any more than tevilah/baptism will! Assuming we agree on that point:
Yes, if truly saved we will want to set ourselves apart for righteous living and good works.
with (B) Christian Baptism, which seems somehow connected with the Holy Spirit. Of course it is, just like all OT baptism was. For instance, Jesus saw the Holy Spirit coming on Him at His own water baptism. So I was thinking about the elements of baptism. For instance, could the person get the Spirit before or after the special baptism that was done into the name of Christ/the Lord Yeshua? In Acts 19, it looks like the believers get the Holy Spirit when Paul/Saul lays hands on them after their baptism in the name of the Lord Yeshua. You get the Holy Spirit as soon as you accept Yeshua and are saved. The Spirit descending on Yeshua as a dove and the special outpouring of the Spirit when Paul laid hands on them were signs to those watching. The on a sign that this was indeed the long awaited Messiah. The second a sign to the Jews there that this was indeed of God. There were Gentile proselytes and God-fearers there as well as the Jews:Acts 11:1 (NASB) Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
These Jews had all heard the promises:Joel 2:28, (3:1) (ESV) “And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
However they thought these were only for the Jews. Now here these Gentiles are receiving it with them? They definitely needed a sign to accept this development!
But when we are saved, at that moment we are adopted into Israel and made heirs to the promises. It's just the Almighty, being Himself smarter than your average, run of the mill god was smart enough to know the Jews would need a sign.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 22, 2019 8:44:34 GMT -8
I asked you to read the par'shah this week. I posted it early, but here is more of what was said by Rabbi Sacks:The is consistently skeptical about knowledge based on appearances. One of the ways it signals this is its set of variations on the theme of clothes in Genesis.”“Almost always they are used to deceive. Jacob wears Esau’s clothes to take his blessing. Tamar dresses as a prostitute to deceive Judah. The brothers daub Jacob’s richly embroidered robe in blood to convince their father that he has been eaten by a wild animal. Potiphrs wife uses Joseph’s abandoned cloak as evidence for a false charge of rape. Joseph, dressed in the robes of an Egyptian viceroy, is not recognized by his brothers.”“The first time clothes appear in the book of Genesis sets the tone for all others. The first man and woman eat the forbidden fruit, realize that they are naked, feel ashamed, and make themselves coverings of fig leaves. It is thus with a shock of recognition that we discover the Hebrew word for garment, beged, also means “betrayal.” Clothes deceive. People are not what they appear to be.”“The assumption in all visually based cultures is that sight is the most reliable form of knowledge. If you are in doubt about something, go and see. However, one of the achievements of social psychology has been to show that seeing is not a cognitively neutral activity.”“To the contrary, our impressions and perceptions are largely shaped by what we pay attention to and what we expect to see. In one well-known test, students were given a description of a guest lecturer before he entered the room. One group was told he was intelligent, skillful, industrious, warm, determined, practical and cautious. A second group was given the same list of traits, with one difference: the word “cold” was substituted for the word “warm.” After the lecture, the students were asked to give their impressions of the speaker.”The “cold” group found him to me more unsociable, self-centered, irritable, humorless, and ruthless than the “warm” group, despite the fact that they had heard the same talk from the same person. Likewise, we make judgements of character on the basis of physical appearance. One survey, for example, showed that tall college graduates (six foor two and over) received average starting salaries 12.4 per cent higher than those under six feet.”“The individuals elected as president of the United States during the twentieth century were almost invariably taller than their opponents. Three thousand years ago the noted this fact and how misleading it can be. The first man chosen to be king of Israel, Saul, was “a head taller than anyone else” (1 Sam. 9:2). However, he proved to be a man of weak character- physically tall, morally small. When Saul failed and God sent Samuel to anoint a son of Jesse in his place, the prophet was impressed by Eliav, but God told him “Take no account of it if he is handsome and tall; I reject him. The Lord does not see as man sees. Men judge by appearance, but the Lord judges by the heart” (1 Sam. 16:6-7).”“Appearances mislead. Psychologists also speak of a phenomenon known as confirmation bias, which means that we have a tendency to notice facts that confirm our pre-existing attitudes and disregard those that challenge or disconfirm them. Optimists and pessimists, radicals and reactionaries, religious believers and athiests tend to find what happens, or what is discovered, proves that they were right all along. We select for attention the evience that supports our prior convictions. We see what we expect to see. That is the central theme of the story of the spies.” “Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kotzk pointed out that the spies made a statement that was highly emotive but completely unwarranted. They said: “We were in our eyes like grasshoppers, and so we were in their eyes” (Num. 13:33). They were entitled to say the first half of the sentence. It accurately described how they felt. But they were not entitled to say the second half. They had no idea how they appeared in the eyes of the inhabitants of the land. They merely inferred it, and they were wrong. They assumed that others saw them as they saw themselves. They projected their sense of inadequacy onto the external world, with the result that they misinterpreted what they saw. Instead of ordinary people, they saw giants. Instead of towns, they saw impregnable fortresses. They were afraid.”“The confirmation bias meant that they paid selective attention to phenomena that gave them reasons to be afraid. But their perception was not in the world but in the mind. Long before the birth of psychology, the signaled that there is no such thing as “the innocent eye.” “We do not simply see what is there. We select and interpret what is there. We notice some things but not others. We make inferences on the basis of pre-judgments. But we are for the most part unaware of this. The result is we believe what we see or what we think we see. In truth however, we often see what we believe, that is, what we expect to see.” Jonathan Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the CommonwealthThis is what I see you doing with your interpretations of baptism/tevilah. You are looking back on a 1st cen custom with 21st cen eyes, interjecting the teachings and values, what you think important from your own faith onto a completely different people and faith, Nazarene Jews. These people were not the 1st church. Again, if you wish I can provide statements from venerated church fathers saying they were completely different and existed as a separate entity from the church for centuries. So to overlay your own ideas onto them will give a completely distorted view instead of truth.
Tevilah was the same, was done the same and for the same reasons in all the centuries of the existence of the sect of the Nazarenes, until the church had persecuted them to the brink of extinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 22, 2019 15:05:14 GMT -8
I want to point something out. For most of us in MJ, that very good artical by Rabbi Sacks is where we came from. It is what we strive to overcome every day of our walk. For any here who are new to MJ, this is a huge part of the challenge you face in thinking Hebraically. I don't know who it was, but someone said "When you make a statement, you close your mind. But when you ask a question, you open it to a whole range of possibilities." As Meshiachim, we question everything; most things many times over. We prayerfully use discernment. Compare it to all scripture that came before, and ultimately take it back to . If it disagrees, either it's wrong or (more likely if it is itself scripture) you misunderstand what it says. Be like the Bereans:
Acts 17:10-12 (ESV) The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men. What scriptures? All they had was the TNK, basically the (so called) Old Testament:2 Timothy 3:15-16 (ESV) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Again, what sacred writings? All they had was basically what would become the TNK, our Old Testament. But they were able to make them "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." These were Jews. If it disagreed even the least bit they wouldn't have accepted it. But they did accept the message given them by the apostles, and that is what LATER became the "New Testament."
See, here is a perfect example of what Rabbi Sacks was talking about. We tend to do as most Christians and look at it like everyone had the same Bible we do. And I'll tell you how bad it gets; I've known people who, back when we all carried King James Bibles actually thought Jews said "thee" and "thou"- basically talked like in their Bible! But we tend to forget the only scrolls were in the Temple, synagogues, and palace. And they did not have the Renewed Covenant (NT) in them! That is precisely what was being written. Mostly as letters with no intent of writing a Bible!
Just a little reminder to all of us.
Baruch HaShem
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmie on Dec 23, 2019 10:55:57 GMT -8
The is consistently skeptical about knowledge based on appearances. One of the ways it signals this is its set of variations on the theme of clothes in Genesis.”
“Almost always they are used to deceive. Jacob wears Esau’s clothes to take his blessing. Tamar dresses as a prostitute to deceive Judah. The brothers daub Jacob’s richly embroidered robe in blood to convince their father that he has been eaten by a wild animal. Potiphrs wife uses Joseph’s abandoned cloak as evidence for a false charge of rape. Joseph, dressed in the robes of an Egyptian viceroy, is not recognized by his brothers.”
“The first time clothes appear in the book of Genesis sets the tone for all others. The first man and woman eat the forbidden fruit, realize that they are naked, feel ashamed, and make themselves coverings of fig leaves. It is thus with a shock of recognition that we discover the Hebrew word for garment, beged, also means “betrayal.” Clothes deceive. People are not what they appear to be.”
God made coats from skins to cover Adam and Eve, Jacob wore his brothers raiment, Tamar wore a widow's garment, Joseph wore the coat of many colors to show that he was to receive the double portion which Rubin had forfeited, he didn't ware the cloak to deceive. Latter God spends a lot of time detailing out the priest's garments, people rend their garments to show humility, David's daughters ware many colored garments to show that they were virgins. I am seeing two classes of clothes. Godly and Worldly. |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 23, 2019 10:57:19 GMT -8
I mean that the Jewish disciples' baptism practice wasn't necessarily the same thing only as what Jews normally do (repeated Tevilah). I think that when Yeshua appeared for instance and told the disciples to baptize all nations, He meant it spiritually, but it was also alluding to a specific ritual act of baptism for believers. If this were the case you'd think such a baptism would be recorded somewhere. To my knowledge this was never done. What was recorded, and in Rome no less, were frescos of Jews still doing tevilah as they always had all the way up into the 5th cen CE.Let me be clear that what I meant was that when Jesus spoke of baptizing all nations, I took him to be making an allusion to the fact that the disciples baptized new converts in a Christian/Nazarene baptism sacrament/ritual, like Paul did in Acts 19 and like Christians normally do today. I didn't mean that the apostles were to perform a mass ritual baptism of a whole nation. BTW, there is actually a historical mass baptism of Russians/Ukrainians called the "Baptism of Rus" in the 10th century when the Russian nation was considered to have accepted baptism.  You made a good point when you said, "Repentance was required before the "baptism." It was the reason for doing tevilah in the first place. " So it wasn't as if the baptism for repentance of John, Jesus, or the Christians or Jews was itself a direct part of the act of repenting spiritually inside. It was a ritual done because the person had repented or was still repentant (depending on how you want to phrase it). So when the Bible says that John was preaching baptism of/for the repentance and remission of sins, it doesn't mean that the baptism itself was repentance, but closely associated with it. The repentant person was baptized into this baptism of repentance for cleansing sins. So does that mean that the baptism of John was cleansing the sins, or that the repentance had already cleansed the sins together with God's forgiveness and the ritual was only an outward sign of this process, or was it a direct part of the washing away of sins like how the Yom Kippur ritual was a direct part of the nation's substitutionary atonement? It is hard for me to separate all this out in my mind. Maybe the person repents and wants to be cleansed spiritually, and God wants the person to be cleansed and to undergo immersion, and then as the person undergoes the immersion, God cleanses the person. To make answering the main question simpler, I want to focus on comparing Josephus' portrayal of John's baptism with the traditional Christian understanding of Baptism. You write: "The "new baptism" was simply an affirmation of their new faith not in Yochanon, who said the Messiah would (and did) come; but in the fact that Messiah was Yeshua and that He died for their sins and was raised on the 3rd day. Same tevilah, just a different reason, as indeed it was each and every time tevilah was done!
" So the Nazarenes' Tevilah was basically a ritual affirmation of faith in Yeshua being the Messiah, atoning, and rising. I think that you are also suggesting that it was a washing that was sealing, cleansing, purifying or consecrating the person symbolically by washing them physically, like was done in other cases when Jews underwent ritual purification like on taking a vow or after repenting of something. I also get this from when you write: "('And then in Acts 19, Paul follows the preaching by baptising the followers "in the name of the Lord Jesus",') That was who they now believed on, and as always the change was marked with tevilah.
"You asked about my comment, I think that it is a general or usual opinion among Jewish and Christian scholars. Probably there are Messianic writers who feel that John wanted his audience to undergo a special Tevilah or immersion that was connected to their repentance. The way it comes across in Josephus' passage and in the NT for me is that John was asking them to repent and undergo ritual immersion, not that he was calling them to make such regular ritual immersions part of their religious life (although Tevilah was a part of Jewish religious life). The Jews for Jesus website article "The Messiah would be preceded by Elijah the prophet" says that Luke "shows that John began to effect reconciliation (through his baptism of repentance) and in that way prepared the people for the coming of Jesus." I take the phrase "his baptism of repentance" to imply that the ritual immersion was somehow special or particular for John. Otherwise if it was just that John was calling them to repentance and normal Tevilah like Jews normally do, the author would not say "his baptism of repentance", but rather "through repentance and Tevilah". It makes sense when you say, Maybe that is true, that Christian baptism is just Tevilah but with added meanings, like marking a turning point in eternity, being accepted into the Nazarene/Christian commmunity / "body of the Messiah". It is helpful when you said: It seemss like Josephus would have thought that the righteous living would include the repentance or else that the person would have righteous living and repentance before the baptism. Also, it sounds like depending on how you define "save", and good works, he may have also expected that the Tevilah and good works minus repentance and minus faith would not "save" a person either. For Josephus, "piety" is a major concept and component in spirituality. Josephus was saying that the baptism came after forgiveness/remission of sins, and he must have considered repentance to have been a prerequisite. It sounds like in Acts 19 that the Holy Spirit did not come immediately when the followers believed, but rather when Paul put hands on them. First he preached to them, then: You could suppose that the descent of the Spirit in verse 6 above was a second arrival of the Spirit, but it sounds to me reading the passage that it was the Spirit's first descent on the believers. It sounds like First they believed, then they were baptized into Yeshua, then they got the laying on of hands, then they got the Spirit. Thanks for sharing the quote from R. Sacks. You asked about two places that the NT refers to "scipture". First, in Acts 17, the Bereans were talking about TaNaKh, as well maybe as other Jewish holy writings like the "Deuterocanon" as scripture, because they were searching for confirmation of the Gospel story. Second, when 2 Timothy 3 says that all scripture is God breathed, I expect that he would include special Christian holy writings in this, because Don Stewart writes in the Blue Letter Bible website about 1 Timothy 5: |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 23, 2019 12:12:24 GMT -8
The is consistently skeptical about knowledge based on appearances. One of the ways it signals this is its set of variations on the theme of clothes in Genesis.”
“Almost always they are used to deceive. Jacob wears Esau’s clothes to take his blessing. Tamar dresses as a prostitute to deceive Judah. The brothers daub Jacob’s richly embroidered robe in blood to convince their father that he has been eaten by a wild animal. Potiphrs wife uses Joseph’s abandoned cloak as evidence for a false charge of rape. Joseph, dressed in the robes of an Egyptian viceroy, is not recognized by his brothers.”
“The first time clothes appear in the book of Genesis sets the tone for all others. The first man and woman eat the forbidden fruit, realize that they are naked, feel ashamed, and make themselves coverings of fig leaves. It is thus with a shock of recognition that we discover the Hebrew word for garment, beged, also means “betrayal.” Clothes deceive. People are not what they appear to be.”
God made coats from skins to cover Adam and Eve, Jacob wore his brothers raiment, Tamar wore a widow's garment, Joseph wore the coat of many colors to show that he was to receive the double portion which Rubin had forfeited, he didn't ware the cloak to deceive. Latter God spends a lot of time detailing out the priest's garments, people rend their garments to show humility, David's daughters ware many colored garments to show that they were virgins. I am seeing two classes of clothes. Godly and Worldly.
Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 23, 2019 12:18:26 GMT -8
Thanks for the input, Jimmie.
|
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 23, 2019 13:20:38 GMT -8
You made a good point when you said, "Repentance was required before the "baptism." It was the reason for doing tevilah in the first place." So it wasn't as if the baptism for repentance of John, Jesus, or the Christians or Jews was itself a direct part of the act of repenting spiritually inside. It was a ritual done because the person had repented or was still repentant (depending on how you want to phrase it). Yes. It was an outward sign of an inward work of the Holy Spirit. Water is one of the things that represents the Spirit biblically. Jesus is also called the "Living Water." So this is a picture of the Ruach working in a person professing Yeshua as their Savior.So when the Bible says that John was preaching baptism of/for the repentance and remission of sins, it doesn't mean that the baptism itself was repentance, but closely associated with it. The repentant person was baptized into this baptism of repentance for cleansing sins. So does that mean that the baptism of John was cleansing the sins, or that the repentance had already cleansed the sins together with God's forgiveness and the ritual was only an outward sign of this process, or was it a direct part of the washing away of sins like how the Yom Kippur ritual was a direct part of the nation's substitutionary atonement? It is hard for me to separate all this out in my mind. Maybe the person repents and wants to be cleansed spiritually, and God wants the person to be cleansed and to undergo immersion, and then as the person undergoes the immersion, God cleanses the person. Then, as now it is repentance and faith through which w are saved. The only difference in John's baptism and that of the apostles was when John was doing it Yeshua had not yet died for those sins. So if you were baptized into John's baptism you had not yet accepted the fact of the resurrection. When you accepted that, you were making a major change in your theology as well as joining a new sect. This required tevilah. Most Baptist denominations today require a profession of faith and that a person is baptized again if they were baptized in another denomination. I used to think that was pretty arrogant of them/us. But it is actually biblical.
Let me explain it this way: say a person accepts Yeshua, repents his sins and places his trust in the Lord alone, then immediately he is struck by a meteor. He had no chance to be baptized. But that person is still saved. Say a person wants heaven, but wants it his way. He says the words and goes in the water, and is damned to hell for his troubles. The baptism did nothing for him. Another is saved, but refuses to do tevilah because he thinks it an archaic practice. He too is hell bound because of his disobedience. He too wanted heaven his way; wanted to tell God how worship is done. Baptism/tevilah is an act of obedience. It is also a symbol of your commitment. Now there were many other reasons given for tevilah, and it is important for us to be obedient when we can. I suspect part of the reason is so we wouldn't take lightly what God takes very seriously. Sex, for example. If every time a kid had sex we threw them in the pool, there'd be a lot less of that happening. It's a physical reminder how seriously God takes the act, even among married people. Unmarried you couldn't do tevilah and that meant you couldn't go to the Temple.
To make answering the main question simpler, I want to focus on comparing Josephus' portrayal of John's baptism with the traditional Christian understanding of Baptism. You write: "The "new baptism" was simply an affirmation of their new faith not in Yochanon, who said the Messiah would (and did) come; but in the fact that Messiah was Yeshua and that He died for their sins and was raised on the 3rd day. Same tevilah, just a different reason, as indeed it was each and every time tevilah was done!
" So the Nazarenes' Tevilah was basically a ritual affirmation of faith in Yeshua being the Messiah, atoning, and rising. Yes! I think that you are also suggesting that it was a washing that was sealing, cleansing, purifying or consecrating the person symbolically by washing them physically, like was done in other cases when Jews underwent ritual purification like on taking a vow or after repenting of something. Absolutely, it is symbolic. I also get this from when you write: "('And then in Acts 19, Paul follows the preaching by baptising the followers "in the name of the Lord Jesus",') That was who they now believed on, and as always the change was marked with tevilah."You asked about my comment, I think that it is a general or usual opinion among Jewish and Christian scholars. Catholic scholars. Baptist and many other denominations scholars would disagree, as do we. Probably there are Messianic writers who feel that John wanted his audience to undergo a special Tevilah or immersion that was connected to their repentance. If so they aren't true Messianics. If they think tevilah was done differently as a ritual specific to one sect, then they are adding to the traditions handed down by the apostles. The way it comes across in Josephus' passage and in the NT for me is that John was asking them to repent and undergo ritual immersion, not that he was calling them to make such regular ritual immersions part of their religious life (although Tevilah was a part of Jewish religious life). Since as you say it was already part of their life, why would he ask them to amke it part of their life?The Jews for Jesus website article "The Messiah would be preceded by Elijah the prophet" says that Luke "shows that John began to effect reconciliation (through his baptism of repentance) and in that way prepared the people for the coming of Jesus." "Make straight the way of the Lod!" That is exactly what he was doing. Prepare their hearts in repentance, then all they'd have to do is acept the resurrection. I take the phrase "his baptism of repentance" to imply that the ritual immersion was somehow special or particular for John. No different than any other tevilah. Otherwise if it was just that John was calling them to repentance and normal Tevilah like Jews normally do, the author would not say "his baptism of repentance", but rather "through repentance and Tevilah". "His baptism of repentance" was just being specific in the vernacular of the day.
It makes sense when you say, Maybe that is true, that Christian baptism is just Tevilah but with added meanings, like marking a turning point in eternity, being accepted into the Nazarene/Christian commmunity / "body of the Messiah". It is helpful when you said: It seemss like Josephus would have thought that the righteous living would include the repentance or else that the person would have righteous living and repentance before the baptism. Also, it sounds like depending on how you define "save", and good works, he may have also expected that the Tevilah and good works minus repentance and minus faith would not "save" a person either. For Josephus, "piety" is a major concept and component in spirituality. Josephus was saying that the baptism came after forgiveness/remission of sins, and he must have considered repentance to have been a prerequisite. Josephus was confused, as that paragraph illustrates. He was a Jew, proud of his Sacerdotal heritage; and yet he was Hellenized completely and converted from being of God's people to being a pagan and serving the most pagan gov't the world has seen!It sounds like in Acts 19 that the Holy Spirit did not come immediately when the followers believed, but rather when Paul put hands on them. First he preached to them, then: You could suppose that the descent of the Spirit in verse 6 above was a second arrival of the Spirit, but it sounds to me reading the passage that it was the Spirit's first descent on the believers. It sounds like First they believed, then they were baptized into Yeshua, then they got the laying on of hands, then they got the Spirit. It was the first arrival of the Spirit on those believers, but this was the same as at Pentecost. And yes, it was a special event for the Ruach to arrive in such overwhelming power and visible glory on a group of believers. Like I said, this was a sign for some very Jewish apostles more than anything else. There were Gentiles in that group, proselytes and God-fearers. The Jews would have believed the prophecies of this happening were only for them. So this must have been a shock to their system. And yes, you got the order correct.Thanks for sharing the quote from R. Sacks. Welcome.You asked about two places that the NT refers to "scipture". First, in Acts 17, the Bereans were talking about TaNaKh, as well maybe as other Jewish holy writings like the "Deuterocanon" as scripture, because they were searching for confirmation of the Gospel story. Yes, Jews have always looked to other writings as holy writ, as long as they did not violate . What we call deuterocanon. Second, when 2 Timothy 3 says that all scripture is God breathed, I expect that he would include special Christian holy writings in this, because Don Stewart writes in the Blue Letter Bible website about 1 Timothy 5: It doesn't mater what BLB says, there were no Christians, ergo no Christian witings when 1 & 2 Tim was written. There weren't many Nazarene writings then either. The Nazarene letters, including 1 & 2 Tim were still being written.
9(For the Scripture says, “Do not keep an ox from eating as it treads out the grain.” And in another place, “Those who work deserve their pay!” (1 Timothy 5:18 NLT) |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 25, 2019 9:04:07 GMT -8
You made alot of good points, like when you said, The water immersion and Spirit would be acting simultaneously. I don't remember where water Biblically represents spirit, but in Genesis 1, God's Spirit was on the water, so they are connected. You asked, Your question misconstrued what I wrote. As I understood the texts, John was not calling his audience to repeatedly repent and make immersions throughout their lives, but was specifically calling them to make an immersion. Repentance and regular immersion was part of Jewish religious life at the time, and of course rabbis must have been teaching people to practice repentance and Tevilah in accordance with . Those rabbis could have been preaching to Jews with weak observance of , or could have been preaching to Jews who were already observant. But in contrast to those rabbis, it looks like John was preaching to everyone, including the sinless Yeshua, to undergo a ritual immersion, one act that carried profound significance, as shown by the fact that Yeshua, who must have done Tevilah before, received what Paul later called The Baptism of John and saw the Holy Spirit descending. We wrote: I must not have made clear what I meant about "John's baptism" being specific to his ministry somehow, as opposed to being no different than regular Tevilah, because I don't think that Catholics and Baptists in general would differ on the point- even if in reality John was only preaching normal Tevilah. Below I will share some examples for why I suppose that it is the most common view among Evangelical Protestants and some Messianics too. Hanoch ben Keshet writes in the Kesher Journal article about Ezekiel 36 as the Besorah for Israel: "Beasley-Murray admits Yohanan’s rite and Messiah’s soon outpoured Spirit are widely thought represented in John 3:5 and are derived from Ezekiel 36:25-27". I take the phrase John's rite to mean that his baptismal practice was somehow specific to his ministry. The article "Why Did John the Baptist Baptize with Water" by a born again author on the 4JesusOutreach website says: "Unlike the frequent Jewish Mikveh washings, John’s baptism was a one-time event for a renewed people of God." The "Messianic Apologetics" website says:I take the words "Derived his practice from" to mean that the practices were somehow distinguishable. You made a good catch in your post below where John 7 associates the spirit with water allegorically. When I wrote:"Your question misconstrued what I wrote", I didn't mean that you were deliberately trying to make what I said wrong. Your question was Why would John be telling them to make Tevilah part of their religious practice, since as I said, Tevilah was already part of their religious practice? I must not have made what I was saying clear. I must have meant it in the sense of John preaching to his audience to stay constant in their observance of repeated immersions, not in the sense of introducing Tevilah into Judaism, which as you said, was already there. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Dec 25, 2019 10:01:48 GMT -8
You made alot of good points, like when you said, The water immersion and Spirit would be acting simultaneously. I don't remember where water Biblically represents spirit, but in Genesis 1, God's Spirit was on the water, so they are connected. Isaiah 44:3 'For I will pour out water on the thirsty land And streams on the dry ground; I will pour out My Spirit on your offspring And My blessing on your descendants;
John 7:37-39 Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Just 2 places. There are more.You asked,Your question misconstrued what I wrote. No, YOU are misunderstanding my answers because you cannot get past the catholic template. And I understand that is an extremely difficult thing to do. We here have all been there. But you must try or you'll never understand either me or scripture. As I understood the texts, John was not calling his audience to repeatedly repent and make immersions throughout their lives, but was specifically calling them to make an immersion. He was calling them to repent as a specific part of his message. He was saying nothing for or against repeated tevilah. He was just calling them to repentance, which then required tevilah NOT as part of some separate itual. but as they had done for centuries and would all (including the Nazarenes) continue to do! Repentance and regular immersion was part of Jewish religious life at the time, and of course rabbis must have been teaching people to practice repentance and Tevilah in accordance with . Those rabbis could have been preaching to Jews with weak observance of , or could have been preaching to Jews who were already observant. They were Jews of all levels of observance.
But in contrast to those rabbis, it looks like John was preaching to everyone, including the sinless Yeshua, to undergo a ritual immersion, one act that carried profound significance, as shown by the fact that Yeshua, who must have done Tevilah before, received what Paul later called The Baptism of John and saw the Holy Spirit descending. Of course Yeshua had done tevilah. But John was NOT preaching to Yeshua!Mat 3:14 But John tried to prevent Him, saying, “I need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?”
John tried to prevent Yeshua's "baptism."
Look, Joun was famous for preaching repentance. That's why they called it the baptism of John, not because it was any difference. But John died before Yeshua, so he never witnessed the resurrection. So it was called the baptism of Yeshua because those receiving it were then (beforehand) believers in Yeshua as Messiah, and of His death, burial, and resurrection. That's all. Semantics, if you will. Absolutely nothing to do with any special dunkin', the proof of which (besides common sense in interprtation) is there were NEVER any special methods described until the catholic church came along centuries later. And even at that time the writings of their own church founders as well as frescos in Rome attest it was still done the same.
Oh, and you have a MERRY CHRISTMAS! 
DAN (forgot to turn off caps) C |
|
|
|
Post by rakovsky on Dec 25, 2019 11:06:05 GMT -8
I added some things in my post above. It is nice writing to you. Merry Christmas to you also!
🎅🤶💂♂️💂♀️🛍😇👼🌲🎄🎁🕍⛪☃️⛄❄🌠🌟⭐
|
|
and the laws and instructions for tevilah therein. We still do, whenever we are able. 
to heart, and repented of their sins. This can happen many times in the life of a believer. However when saved that is a special tevilah only because (like repentance) of what ou have just done. It is special to you because it marks a turning point in eternity for you. The method is the same, but the meaning should be much more for you.
