The Red Sea Like Baptism.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

When Moses lead the Israelites through the Red Sea into the Promised Land, the significance was similar (if not actual) to Baptism. The Israelites were putting their lives in order: confession, repentance, acceptance. They were converting and putting their faith in God when they passed through the Red Sea. They were preparing for the Promise Land--The Kingdom of God.

Is there any validity in this?

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004

Answers

rise

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 15, 2004.


That's true in Judaism. It is called midraishic thinking. That is why Paul, Peter, and the writer of Hebrews which I suspect is Barnabas (a Levite), and Matthew,interpreted old Testament sections or prophecies in Jesus life and that of the Church.

We call it allegorical.

Is it valid for us? We must be very careful we don't distort allegory for history. In Galatians, Paul calls Israel by Hagar, even though Hagar never was the ancestor of the Jews. Sarah, the true ancestor becomes the ancestor of the new believers.

Your friend,

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


"Midraishic thinking" is new to me, but I have had similar approaches to other O.T. stories. Which brings me to the idea of some miracles, were Jesus' miracles actual or symbolic? For example:

The storms at sea and the violent of the sea has been symbolic for evil or Satan's hand in confusion. When Jesus walked on water, did He actually walk on water or did He prevail over evil or calm the evil in the world?

Either way one perceives His miracles, Jesus did cause a change that no other could perform--miracle or not.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


A Christian critic, Rod, Bishop John Shelby Spong goes even further.

For him, based on the work of another author I cannot remember right now in his books Born of a woman, this Hebrew Lord, Liberating the Gospels especially, he says the evangelists composed the life of Jesus according to Jewish Midrash. That is, the life of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels is fake.

Where he lives

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/

Some of his theories are well presented to challenge us.

He and Randel Helms in his book Gospel fictions, have pushed the history of Jesus to new Horizons, where one cannot longer even say whether Jesus ever existed. To me, Randel Helms is better organized. He is not as verbose, but more to the point.

Helms is unlike Eisenmann in James the Brother of Jesus, where after reading over 900 + pages, you are told in an indirect way that Jesus life in the Gospels is that of his brother James!!!

The Christian Yahwist

PS: Rod, have you seen the Butterfly effect?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


"Butterfly effect? "

I wonder if that is a reference to the mythological insinuations towards the Gospels.

There is one very curious and specifice theological issue/problem that I have not yet found a proper answer to--The Baptism of Jesus. St. Matthew sort of gives a side-shot reply--It's God's deal, so we'll continue to do it for now. My gut feeling is that Jesus (half-man) must be baptized because of his human nature. His baptism is a guide or role model for us humans. His baptism has nothing to do with His sin; Jesus was sinless, but up to a time. Remember, He took the sins of the world, so He did have sin. It was our sin, but not His sin.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.



The Butterfly effect is a movie, Rod. I saw the director's cut and the teathrical version.

What you read about Jesus baptism is how each evangelist sees it during his time and audience.

For Mark, it doesn't matter. He is the one who says he is family is looking for Jesus because they think he is crazy.

For Matthew, Jesus is treated better. John the Baptist and his followers no longer present a threat or competition for Jesus movement around what is now Israel, Syria, Turkey.... Even so, there is still about 200,000 followers of John the baptist in Iraq today.

John's Gospel diminishes John's baptism.

So as to your question whether John allowed Jesus to be baptized because he carried the sins of the world, I don't know, Rod.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


I'm guessing that Jesus was bringing justification to the work of John the Baptist with finallity to John, or making the attempt to do so. There was the matter of converting the Jews. Also, how would it be accepted that Jesus was crucified, both as divinity and mortal, without having the human side baptized? I mean. If Jesus was who He claimed to be--man-God--, then the man should have been baptized by John. But, this brings a stain to such logic. This would mean that Jesus was sinful--He was not. And, Jesus was exalted--again, He was not. (I know; Elpidio, you have asserted Jesus' role.)

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


Which brings you full circle, Rod.

Logically for you, then, Jesus carried people sins, thus he had to be baptized.

I believe Jesus disciples had the same dilemma. John baptized for the remission of sins, then why did Jesus allow John to baptize him?....

What if you pose it this way, Rod,

Baptism as a communion with God Yahweh. After all, according to the evangelists John saw the Heavens opened and God Yahweh's Holy Spirit descending on Jesus as a Dove.

After all, as his disciples said later in Acts: Jesus baptism was with the Holy Spirit which means a gretaer commuynication with the Deity.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


I read an example of a midrashic interpretation of the Lazarus story. Sorry I don't remember where this came from. With midrash, different interpreters can come up with differing "actual meanings."

Roughly it (THe Lazarus Story) was actually a story demonstrating Jesus' adoption of priestly powers, as well as a demonstration of acceptance by others of his authority.

Jesus was notified when Lazarus was in the early stages of excommunication---he was "sick." Lazarus' "death" was the completed excommunication. The author suggests that during the 1st century era, to be excommunicated was equivalent to being "dead."

When Jesus arived and called for Lazarus to "come forth," Lazarus was brought back to "life" by Jesus' authority. This would have put Jesus in opposition to the Temple authorites who likely would have issued the excommunication in the first place. Being in opposition to the Temple priests was not a "safe" position to be in.

This is one persons interpretaion, not mine. I'll try to find out where it came from. I have a lot of books and remember bits and pieces.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 16, 2004.


My first "cognitive" interpretation of the Lazarus event was very similar to your entry, Jim. I reckoned that we were witnessing a spiritual "death" instead of a physical one. I tried to argue my view with my best friend a Pentecostal. We never saw eye to eye, but now I sense that we could arrive at the same conclusions, yet maintain such different interpretations of the Lazarus event.

If we are spiritually dead, we may as well be physically dead, too. The end result is inevitable; we lose Salvation.

But, in my spiritual faith (not cognitive), I can accept that Jesus brought Lazarus back from the physical and spiritual death. Afterall, this is what Jesus does. He gives us Salvation.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.



Actually I should have said the author presented "Lazarus Story" as an example of midrashic style. The basis of the story was that Lazarus was excommunicated and Jesus went against temple authorities by reversing the excommunication and bringing him "back to life." Jesus assumed authority and it was accepted by those around him.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 16, 2004.

Jim

That sounds rather logical. I mean the part about Jesus bringing one back to communion. If it is only a story or a real event seem irrelevant when we consider the real meaning and role Jesus has. I guess that's the main issue we must weigh when considering miracles and works Jesus performed.

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


Rod

I like your recognition of "spiritual" faith as being somewhat different than cognitive understanding or interpretation. I often grapple with these two viewpoints. I try to keep them separate, and try to respect them both equally.

There was a time when I shut down my "spiritual" understanding in favor of the "rational." I'm now coming to understand that you can have both.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 16, 2004.


It is my belief that Jesus did not come to us in order to heal the sick or perform miracles. He came to give us Salvation. The miracles and healings were a demonstration of His gift of Salvation. The Lazarus "Story"/Event demonstrates our redemption into the Kingdom of God. When we study Jesus' miracles from the point of view of entering into the Kingdom of God, we can have a full understanding of what Jesus was teaching us. It is about faith in Jesus as our Saviour, not as a faith healer.

(BTW, I know that the "story" issue is not in your belief, Jim. I just want to clarify my use of the word "entry" to mean that it wasn't necessarily your belief, but only as an example.)

........... .........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.


Yes, I got the "authortiy" Jesus assumed part, too. I can't help, but to skip gears when I post. I don't want to forget some key points, so I tend to jump tracks. It has to be my age; I can't seem to blame anything else (I wish I could, though).

....................................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 16, 2004.



Readers,

Unfortunately this forum closed due to maintence problems with the server.

If you are interested in continuing a discussion, you can go to this board:

http://p221.ezboard.com/bthechristianforum

The Christian Forum

Or try our URL Forwarder www.bluespun.com

www.Bluespun.com

This was our back up board, but now we all relocated here.

Hope to see you there! All links lead to the same place!

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@gmail.com), November 28, 2005.

Rod

Actually, I think we were both posting at the same time. The responses get a little out of order. It only "looks" like we aren't listening to each other.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), August 16, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ