Born of water and of the Spirit?

[pearl]

Why did He have to be baptized ?

I don't think it is a question of 'having' to be baptized, Mark does not tell us why Jesus received baptism, his purpose being to identify Jesus as God's Son and the beginning of his ministry. All three motifs, (the opening of the heavens, the Spirit's dove like descent, the voice from heaven) identify Jesus (you are my beloved son), Ps2:7, "You are my son, this day I have begotten you."

 

[`mud]

Some of the NT doesn't weld with the OT does it ?
Assuming that Jesus preached the OT in his time,
what in the OT taught Jesus that he was a `first born` son of `god` ?
And I have forgotten, where did Jesus ever say this in his own words,
`I am the first son of `god` `...not... `you all are the sons of `god` `...
and never mentioning the women listening, audiences were just men ??
Just another thought, just like the next one:
Not a quote from John or Matthew, but direct quotes, memory does fade.
And the exchanges with ole Nic...I still wander ?
~
Ahhhhh....`thoughts`...sans memory they are !

 

[metis]

Why did He have to be baptized ?
He was born of (water, Mary) and (Spirit, God).
No baptizing needed, He was God's Son.
Doesn't make sense, never did !

In the case of the mikvah, Jews would be "baptized" when rendered "unclean", so it was done on at least a semi-regular basis with pretty much each person. The concept of using it to forgive "original sin" is not a Jewish concept since the latter is not part and parcel of Jewish theology.

Therefore, Jesus being baptized really shouldn't raise any eyebrows. Any contact he may have had whereas he touched an "unclean" person or object would justify going to the mikvah.

 

[`mud]

Mikvah.....especially for women after their periods.
Nothing to do with the `spiritual` meaning of a relation with `gods`, I think.
Maybe before the Sabbath, on occasion of self cleansing for occasional purity.
Once again...not related to the NT `god`.
And...what gave John any ordainment ?
But I'm really not too informed,
just confused as usual.

 

[metis]

Nothing to do with the `spiritual` meaning of a relation with `gods`, I think.
Maybe before the Sabbath, on occasion of self cleansing for occasional purity.
Once again...not related to the NT `god`.
And...what gave John any ordainment ?
But I'm really not too informed,
just confused as usual.

It's part & parcel with Jewish Law as found in Torah, therefore it is "spiritual" by that nature. Anyone who's a Jew or a Christian can perform a "baptism" in an emergency, btw.

What the early church did was to take the mikvah and they altered it somewhat to reflect both the forgiveness of "original sin" and also an introduction into the church, whereas a person commits themselves to following the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the Church.

And "confused" is good- it shows you're thinking and not just taking someone's word for it.

 

[`mud]

Say hi to the nuns this Sunday,
and tip your hat to father McNeal !
I see you left out the important parts, interesting !
But.....

 

[metis]

Say hi to the nuns this Sunday,
and tip your hat to father McNeal !
I see you left out the important parts, interesting !
But.....

What important parts?

BTW, you're aware that I'm not Catholic, right?

 

[`mud]

Attending your wife's church,
and the sentence in your post
" Mikvah.....especially for women after their periods."
And I have to apologize about the confusion,
`ecumenical/unaffiliated/attend wife's Catholic church`,
misleading oratorio info !

 

[pearl]

What the early church did was to take the mikvah and they altered it somewhat to reflect both the forgiveness of "original sin" and also an introduction into the church, whereas a person commits themselves to following the teachings of Jesus, the apostles, and the Church.

In no way does the Church consider the crossing of the Red Sea a kind of 'baptism' as a sign of God's covenant with the Jews. That sign was/is circumcision.

1 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, 2and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3All ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.

A spiritual rock that followed them: the Torah speaks only about a rock from which water issued, but rabbinic legend amplified this into a spring that followed the Israelites throughout their migration. Paul uses this legend as a literary type: he makes the rock itself accompany the Israelites, and he gives it a spiritual sense. The rock was the Christ: in the Old Testament, Yahweh is the Rock of his people (cf. Dt 32, Moses’ song to Yahweh the Rock). Paul now applies this image to the Christ, the source of the living water, the true Rock that accompanied Israel, guiding their experiences in the desert.

 

[metis]

In no way does the Church consider the crossing of the Red Sea a kind of 'baptism' as a sign of God's covenant with the Jews. That sign was/is circumcision.

1 I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, 2and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3All ate the same spiritual food, 4and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was the Christ.

A spiritual rock that followed them: the Torah speaks only about a rock from which water issued, but rabbinic legend amplified this into a spring that followed the Israelites throughout their migration. Paul uses this legend as a literary type: he makes the rock itself accompany the Israelites, and he gives it a spiritual sense. The rock was the Christ: in the Old Testament, Yahweh is the Rock of his people (cf. Dt 32, Moses’ song to Yahweh the Rock). Paul now applies this image to the Christ, the source of the living water, the true Rock that accompanied Israel, guiding their experiences in the desert.

Exactly, as it was a modification of the mikvah that took on new meanings for Christians. Now, seeing Jesus in that "Rock" is likely used symbolically, imo, which is characteristic not only of Paul's writings but also with traditional Jewish literature to begin with.

BTW, your first sentence threw me a bit as I wasn't sure you had me saying or imply something that I didn't say nor imply as I made no reference to the exodus out of Egypt. So, are we on the same page, just to be clear?

 

[pearl]

So, are we on the same page, just to be clear?

Yes. I just think it extremely important that Hebrew Scripture is not assumed to be about Jesus as the intent of the authors at the time they wrote even though Christians read Christ into it. I think there needs to be caution when referring to what Jesus did and said was 'in fulfillment of Scripture'.
It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of Hebrew Scripture as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries.

 

[metis]

Yes. I just think it extremely important that Hebrew Scripture is not assumed to be about Jesus as the intent of the authors at the time they wrote even though Christians read Christ into it. I think there needs to be caution when referring to what Jesus did and said was 'in fulfillment of Scripture'.
It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of Hebrew Scripture as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries.

I agree. I had a copy of "Jerome's Bible Commentary" that I donated to my wife's church, and it pretty much was bluntly honest on this as well, such as mentioning that the Isaiah references were not in regards to Jesus, although they said it sort of set up that dynamic, if you know what I mean. I can't remember its choice of words though.

 

[pearl]

I had a copy of "Jerome's Bible Commentary" that I donated to my wife's church,

I think almost every church has a copy used especially homily prep. Conservatives don't like it traditionalists distrust it, radicals consider it to be heresy. The editors were all part of the group of scholars appointed by the popes to the Pontifical Biblical Commission which is seated within the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There is now the 'New Jerome Biblical Commentary', 1990.

Isaiah references were not in regards to Jesus, although they said it sort of set up that dynamic, if you know what I mean. I can't remember its choice of words though.

"Christian faith recognises the fulfilment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfilment as a literal one. Such a conception would be reductionist. In reality, in the mystery of Christ crucified and risen, fulfilment is brought about in a manner unforeseen. "
reference:
'The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible'

 

[metis]

There is now the 'New Jerome Biblical Commentary', 1990.

How does it compare to the original? I'll have to check it out, especially since I'm back into studying Christian theology after being less interested in the last couple of decades because of my focus on Judaism and the eastern religions.

"Christian faith recognises the fulfilment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfilment as a literal one. Such a conception would be reductionist. In reality, in the mystery of Christ crucified and risen, fulfilment is brought about in a manner unforeseen. "
reference:
'The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible'

Thank you for this.

 

[pearl]

How does it compare to the original?

I am not familiar with the JBC, only the reference to it in the NJBC. The 1968 JBC embodied the revolution in Catholic biblical studies that took place in the two decades between the appearance of the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII and the closing of Vatican II Council. The original contributors were almost all clergy, the new has a significant proportion of lay contributors and women. Archaeology pertinent to the Bible has flourished in the Holy Land areas etc.

 

[metis]

I am not familiar with the JBC, only the reference to it in the NJBC. The 1968 JBC embodied the revolution in Catholic biblical studies that took place in the two decades between the appearance of the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII and the closing of Vatican II Council. The original contributors were almost all clergy, the new has a significant proportion of lay contributors and women. Archaeology pertinent to the Bible has flourished in the Holy Land areas etc.

Thanks for that info and, btw, I renewed my subscription to BAR several months ago, so I'm trying to get back into the "routine" after a looooooooong "vacation".

 

[pearl]

Thanks for that info and, btw, I renewed my subscription to BAR several months ago, so I'm trying to get back into the "routine" after a looooooooong "vacation".

You lost me, what is 'BAR',

 

[metis]

You lost me, what is 'BAR',

You've never been to a BAR??? How saintly of you!

It's the publication "Biblical Archaeology Review". Great magazine that's not linked to any religion or denomination, so one has to have a relatively thick skin as they cite the research and not any "company line".

At my age, I don't have any thick skin left but my wife says I have a thick skull.

 

[pearl]

Great magazine that's not linked to any religion or denomination, so one has to have a relatively thick skin as they cite the research and not any "company line".

I find an honest biblical exegesis similar to an archeological dig, sifting deeper and deeper through the layers of manuscripts.

 

[metis]

I find an honest biblical exegesis similar to an archeological dig, sifting deeper and deeper through the layers of manuscripts.

Hey, I can dig that.