So while I am atheist in terms of belief, I am culturally Christian with my greatest affinity being for the Catholic and Orthodox churches. That said, this is fucking ridiculous! https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/08/24/detroit-priest-invalid-baptism-canonical-consequences Like, c’mon, if there were ever a case for some special dispensation this seems like it.
Well, if you specially dispensate one guy, you've gotta specially dispensate everybody. Turns everything into a spiritual clusterfuck of sorts.
That is particularly ironic given that baptism was a pagan ritual, borrowed from the Greek mystery religions, and used by John the Baptist as a protest against blindly following religious ritual. John was a Jewish priest by birth, which meant that according to Jewish law, there was a host of rituals he should have been practicing, in the temple, from the age of 30 on. Instead, because he was so disgusted with the state of religion, he left the temple in his youth and, at the age of 30, began instead to preach repentance and practice a ritual that has no history whatsoever in the law of Moses. IOW, his message, and thus the message of baptism, is: "Rituals don't matter. What matters is the state of the heart. Salvation does not come from rituals, administered by priests, but by repentance." And Jesus, by letting himself be baptised by John, publicly sides with John the Baptist on the issue. One of the many ironies of church history is that the ritual that was used in place of the officially mandated rituals, in order to show that rituals don't matter or accomplish anything in themselves, has become one of the primary rituals of most forms of Christianity, with clergy of all stripes fighting about what is the "right" way to practice it so that it is valid...
The source for John the Baptist being a priest is the Gospel of Luke (coupled with the rules in the Pentateuch on priests being priests from father to son). The fact that John abandoned the temple in his youth, and started preaching at about the age of 30 is also the Gospel of Luke. (Sorry about that; I know you don't place much stock in Luke.) The fact that priests take up their duties officially at the age of 30 is also from the law of Moses. (Historical note: when the priest Ezechiel was deported to Babylon, before he reached the age at which he would begin his priestly functions, it was when he reached that age that he began preaching, too. That is almost certainly the implication of "in the 30th year" in the introduction to Ezechiel's prophecies, since the date doesn't correspond to 30 years after anything that would normally be used as a base line for dates. His example may have influenced John the Baptist, though there is no way of knowing. Luke says that God called him to preach, but doesn't say if the example of Ezechiel was part of what God used to speak to him.) The fact that John the Baptist was disgusted with the current religion is a deduction from him abandoning the temple and from what we know about the state of the religion at that time (the corruption of the Sadduccees, and the arrogant hypocrisy of the Pharisees), as well as his deliberate, blatant and public practice of a ritual that is totally different from those mandated in the Jewish religion. A priest who does that is making a pretty clear statement. His severe displeasure with the religious pactices of the time also ties in well with the fact that he was almost certainly influenced for a while by one or more of the groups that some ancient writers grouped together as "Essenes". But although there are clear parallels between John the Baptist and what we know of those dissident, monastical religious groups, there are also clear differences, so he obviously didn't find what he was looking for there. But even staying with them for a while would indicate a sympathy for their rejection of the state of the Jewish religion at the time. The fact that baptism has no history in traditional Jewish practices flows simply from reading the Old Testament. There are ceremonial purifications, but nothing that corresponds to baptism. The fact that baptism comes from the Greeks and was practiced in the mystery religions comes from studying the practices of those mystery religions. I can no longer say which particular books brought up that point, because I have read so many over the years in the course of my studies of various religions. The Greek origin of baptism is also attested by the simple fact that it is a Greek word, rather than a word with Hebrew or Aramaic roots. I read somewhere, though I can no longer say where, that the Pharisees already practiced baptism in Israel, before John the Baptist, but only for Gentiles who were proselytes to Judaism. I have been unable to find any confirmation of that anywhere else, though; I don't know if it is true or not. I have found no indication of anyone baptising Jews before John the Baptist. It would appear that John was the first to use baptism for Jews as a way of showing that it is not enough to be "born into it", if your heart isn't right with God. I have been fascinated by John the Baptist for many years. He was as much of a trouble-making reformer, in his time, as Martin Luther 1500 years later. Probably worse, actually. John really put into practice those Old Testament statements (mostly from prophets) who said that God was interested in the state of the heart, not in sacrifices or rituals. After playing around with that information for years in a rather unorganised form, I finally wrote a 15,000 word essay on John the Baptist, to show Christians what place rituals can have and, especially, what place they must not have, in faith. (But like most of my writings, that is available only in French. And in any case, I could hardly cite it as a source...)
Actually baptism is derived from specific ritual washing of the Mikvah. If John the Baptist was doing something that was pagan or added something to Jewish rituals, he would have been in big trouble by the Jewish religious leaders of the time. He would have violated God's command that said it is forbidden to add to God's law. Many of the people came to him to be baptized with no such fear.
He was in big trouble with the Jewish religious leaders of the time. They didn't want to admit he was sent by God, and the only reason they didn't move on him was because they feared the people. And the historical sources disagree with you on the origin of baptism.
You SAY that, but you're unable to name the sources you used. I've done extensive study on the topic of Baptism as well, and I've never once come across the idea that baptism has a pagan Greek origin. If you do have some sources you could guide me to, I'd love to read them.
Interesting, considering that the mikvah ritual (complete immersion, which is still practiced by some Jews today) was meant to "purify" women who were deemed "unclean" following their menstrual cycle. If what you're suggesting is true, John was not only an iconoclast, but believed that men needed purification as much as women.
That's not the only thing mikvah was used for by the Jews. It was used for MANY ritual cleansings, including the initiation right of goyim converts to Judaism.
Pretty impressive for a desert people. Don't forget to mention that your boy Paul also insisted on circumcision for goyim, regardless of age. I wonder if he liked to "supervise."
Uhhhhh, I think you might want to revisit the book of Acts (especially chapter 15) and the whole book of Galatians. There is no way at all it's reasonable to say that Paul "insisted on circumcision for goyim". Paul was vehemently opposed to the "party of circumcision" who insisted that gentiles be circumcised, and even coarsely suggested that they emasculate themselves.
My bad. It's hard to keep track of his numerous "improvements" on the Gospels. In this instance, it might have been enlightened self-interest. Raised in the Greek tradition, he was probably uncut.
Paul was certainly circumcised. What do you mean by "raised in the Greek tradition"? Paul was a Pharisee. Philippians Chapter 3 "... If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish ..."
Whatever. He was a raging misogynist, and Catholicism at least should be called "Paulianity," not "Christianity." We'd have been spared two decades of misogyny. Lil Paulie was ascared of women (we can only imagine why). He'd have tossed Magdalene in the gutter. He loved that whole Boys' Club at the Last Supper and grieved for the rest of his life that he hadn't been there. There's no evidence he ever had a relationship with anyone [which suggests the grounding of celibacy/pedophilia], and he was generally a man with a grudge. No response necessary. If Jesus did exist, and wasn't just a sad little boy who got on the wrong side of Roman law (deliberately? ignorantly? Who's to say?) whom later writers (i.e., the Gospels) turned into an amalgam of Gilgamesh and other pagan gods-who-fucked-their-mothers-to-create-themselves, but was actually a Son of God, instead of just visiting Saul with an epileptic attack, which the sumbitch turned into a "Sign," he'd have finished the job. "You're not Me, asshat. You don't get to rewrite history in My Name. Die!" Pity.
Guy could write a mean epistle, though. Garamet's post does make me wonder if Christianity would have taken off like it did without Paul. He does seem only second to Jesus in terms of importance, Biblically speaking.
The whole thing is cobbled together from pagan religions that predated Judeo-Christianity. I've said before that religions are the forerunners of science. Humans need to find explanations for things. It's why I'm equally pissed off at religionists and atheists. Both of them want to plump me into one category or the other. Nope. I'm an agnostic or, if you want to split hairs, a deist. I do not believe some Supreme Being stretched forth his hand and said "Let there be Light." Equally, I don't believe, like Oliver Wendel Jones, "It All Just Happened!!!!" Carl Sagan was mature enough to say we're not evolved enough to know. Even Ike Asimov, egotist that he was, left room for doubt. If I had to choose, I'm partial to the beliefs of my Celtic/Teutonic ancestors. There is a god for every tree and rock and creek, and we greet each of them as we pass by. We'd never rape and pillage in the name of the Great God Oil or the Great God Coltan or the Great God "My Empire's Bigger Than Yours!" Anyone - religionist or atheist (yeah, I'm looking at you, @Diacanu) - who has the chutzpah to say "I know for an absolute certainty that this is how the universe works" is equivalent to anyone else who says the same thing. Piss up a rope, alla yez!
I don't have absolute certainty. But absolute certainty is not necessary. It's not absolutely certain the weather man is going to be correct, but he usually is. We know what happened before the big bang with way more precision than tomorrow's weather.
I think saying 'before the Big Bang' is like saying 'what's north of the North Pole.' Maybe Hawking said something like that? Don't remember.
If you care to share that information, you'll get a Nobel Prize. IOW, no we don't. Weather forecasting for one thing is now vastly improved to the point where it's almost always right in the near term.
I don't really see much difference beyond not knowing what preceded The Big Bang and how God came into existence.
Oh, fine, we don't know what happened inside the dot when time didn't exist, but the squillinth of a second of measurable time before the dot grew into a full explosion is pretty well mapped out by Hawking.
I'm not sure that Hawking has much to do with it. Alan Guth seems to me to have been the central figure in developing our current model. We think that we have a reasonably good theory (though there are certainly questions) as to what happened from a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang onwards. But that first time period is largely a mystery, to say nothing of "before", or if that word even means anything at all.
