The Lord's Day
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
Well the Baptism of John, yes. Probably for sources on that is to look at Jewish mikvah generally ... but also to the Jewish mystical speculation and the forerunners of Markavah Mysticism and the Kaballah.
Was it?
I think 'baptism', or rather the essential meaning of baptism as it evolved from 'simple' washing to a more esoteric aspect of initiation – baptism is an initiatic rite – and this might well be part of John's teaching, as a forerunner of an apokalypsis, that is the initiation into a secret rite or teaching.
Generally, the word 'apocalypse' has come to mean 'revelation' and is to do with the End-Times or the eschaton. It's more likely the term was used to mean the disclosure of a secret or esoteric doctrine and again reaches back into Hebrew mystical speculation.
(Currently I am looking into the works of Guy Stroumsa, and his thesis that elements of Hebrew mystical speculation can be found among early heterodox Jewish and Jewish-Christian sects.)
So while ritual washing was a common and open practice, there was also an esoteric parallel 'baptism' which was an initiatic rite and had an apocalyptic dimension, and this informed early Christian baptism.
I'd need context ... I'm thinking of Jesus washing the disciples' feet at the Last Supper (John 13) or the accounts of a woman washing Jesus' feet (Luke 7 & John 13)?
Yes .. wudu is done before prayer.
..and then there is gusl .. which includes wudu, but water must be passed over the whole body i.e. bath/shower
This is also incumbent when one first professes faith.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Yes, it was. There was a bit more to Nicea than Arius and Athanasius
Also on the docket were the change from Passover to Easter, and scolding the Meletians for observing Jewish ritual washing.
I know we've been over this ground before, you and I.
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I think the correspondent the Baptists draw that from is the example from the Gospel of John 13 where Jesus washes the feet of his disciples.
I hadn't thought to connect that with Jewish ritual washing, honestly hadn't considered it. I'm pressed to think of an example of Jewish "whole body" washing, at least prescribed in the Old Testament, but buried in Kosher is a LOT of hand washing and washing affected body parts, mostly hand washing.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Baptism to me is a public declaration. It's an outward demonstration of an inward transformation. Dying to self and being reborn in Christ. It's a very special event for us.
I can't find any reference to that, or Jewish ritual washing generally, in the Nicaean documents?
There's an interesting aspect of this in Luke 7.
It was common Jewish practice for a host to provide water for guests to wash their feet (cf Judges 19:21). To omit could be considered rude.
In Luke 7, Jesus is invited to the house of a Pharisee, and when there, a woman came in and washed and annointed his feet. Simon (the host) knew here to be 'a sinner', and was perhaps secretly amused at what was going on – his guest being defied by a sinner.
So Jesus rounds on him:
"And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon: Dost thou see this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she with tears hath washed my feet, and with her hairs hath wiped them. Thou gavest me no kiss; but she, since she came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint; but she with ointment hath anointed my feet. Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less." (v44-47)
He then goes on to say to the woman: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." (v48) Which rather outrages those Simon has invited to show off his guest – no man has the authority to forgive sin – and not the least Simon, because it's implicit that her sins are forgiven, but his sins of omission are not.
Clearly, as important as Simon might consider himself to be, Jesus doesn't take crap from anyone...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Interesting, considering it is right there at the link I provided
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Melitian_schism
This should go directly to the passage
Melitians - Wikipedia
This is more focused on the Meletians proper
Found it:
emphasis mine
From the history thread in our conversation there:
Rome in transition
I can’t help but wonder, the similarity of Christianity with the Pagan initiatory religions. Coincidence? I am inclined to think not. Assuming that the pagan world was not completely devoid of the truth, of a sense of the Divine, etc., then it should be of no surprise that similarities exist...
www.interfaith.org
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
G!d is no respecter of persons.
Last edited:
OK ... this is all a bit confusing ...
1: There is mention of the Meletian schism at Nicaea, but it's nothing to do with 'superstitious monks' or the practice of Jewish ablutions.
2: The early Church practiced ablutions – the washing of face, hands and feet – following the Jewish practice, and the practice continued in the East, but not the West.
3: I don't think the Christian Church had any issues with Jewish ritualistic washing.
The Theodoret reference of superstitious monks etc. I can find mentioned, but not with a precise reference, which makes me suspicious of the reference!
I did find this from Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, 1:9:
"Notwithstanding the endeavours of that divine assembly of bishops to apply this medicine to the Meletian disease, vestiges of his infatuation remain even to this day; for there are in some districts bodies of monks who refuse to follow sound doctrine, and observe certain vain points of discipline, agreeing with the infatuated views of the Jews and the Samaritans."
The 'Meletian disease' is Arianism. Quite what the 'infatuated view' were, we have no idea.
Meletius was a hard-liner, arguing against what he saw as laxity in the Church in welcoming those who had given way under persecution.
There's little doubt that Athanasius took a high-handed attitude towards the Meletians, adopting hostile and oppressive measures when their leaders rather unwisely allied themselves to the Eusebian party, thus opening themselves to the accusation of Arianism.
The sad truth was, the rural Coptic communities practiced an ancient and simple piety – one might call them indigenous Egyptian Christians. They played no part in the Arian disputes, probably were ignorant of them. They continued for several centuries with little or nothing to do with the great debates of the day, but by simply existing posed a perceived threat to the Greek-speaking See of Alexandria, and in the 7th century were wiped out by the local patriarch in a series of persecutions.
Hi, @juantoo3, Looking at your reference, I came across your comment in the Rome in Transition thread:
"I can’t help but wonder, the similarity of Christianity with the Pagan initiatory religions. Coincidence? I am inclined to think not."
I'm currently posting notes on the origins of the Christian esoteric and mystical tradition,
"I can’t help but wonder, the similarity of Christianity with the Pagan initiatory religions. Coincidence? I am inclined to think not."
I'm currently posting notes on the origins of the Christian esoteric and mystical tradition,
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Well....the reference is the Catholic Encyclopedia
Perhaps ablutions were more tangential than I have thought, but I still wouldn't discount it entirely.
I know ... and vaguely attributed, and widely repeated. I still doubt it.
Wiki reference:
"A cantharus is a fountain used by Christians for ablution before entering a church. These ablutions involve the washing of the hands, face, and feet... Eusebius (of Caesarea) recorded this practice of canthari located in the courtyards of churches, for the faithful to wash themselves (especially the hands and feet) before entering a Christian house of worship. The practice has its origins Jewish practice of performing ablutions before entering into the presence of God."
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Indeed, that was the 6th post, not sure why the link focused on that when I purposefully pointed over100 posts later.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 655
- Reaction score
- 581
- Points
- 88
Before I make my points I will share a story. I was in Guatemala with some friends and I was carrying my Bible. I had been to a Bible study with some friends. It was Sunday and the Catholic service had just ended. A young Guatamalteca sat next to and asked me if I was a missionary. I told her I was in Guatemala to learn from the people of Guatemala, not to push any faith. Well, and I was visiting friends. I told her I was at a Bible study, which started a biblical discussion. I was stunned because she was the first Catholic I had ever met who knew her Bible cover to cover. Eventually I asked her if her biblical knowledge contradicted the Catholic doctrine. She told me that all Catholics know that only a few verses are important.
Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and Luke 11:52. These verses are very popular. This is where Jesus tells Peter that he is the "rock" and that He is giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
She went on to explain that Peter was the first Pope. These verses prove that Jesus was giving Peter the power to change whatever was needed over time. It also meant that any succeeding Pope would have the same authority.
I was puzzled by her claim, but she definitely seemed very intelligent. So when I was back in the U.S. I asked some of my professors and asked the local priest if there was any truth to her claim. They all said that, in a nutshell, that her claim was correct.
The quotes I gave on the previous thread not only bolster her claim, but illustrate that the Catholic church doesn't hold itself accountable to scripture aside from the verses above. The Catholic church can change whatever custom it sees fit, even if it isn't biblical.
Matthew 16:18-19, Matthew 18:18 and Luke 11:52. These verses are very popular. This is where Jesus tells Peter that he is the "rock" and that He is giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.
She went on to explain that Peter was the first Pope. These verses prove that Jesus was giving Peter the power to change whatever was needed over time. It also meant that any succeeding Pope would have the same authority.
I was puzzled by her claim, but she definitely seemed very intelligent. So when I was back in the U.S. I asked some of my professors and asked the local priest if there was any truth to her claim. They all said that, in a nutshell, that her claim was correct.
The quotes I gave on the previous thread not only bolster her claim, but illustrate that the Catholic church doesn't hold itself accountable to scripture aside from the verses above. The Catholic church can change whatever custom it sees fit, even if it isn't biblical.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 655
- Reaction score
- 581
- Points
- 88
1. The math for the "Lord's Day' doesn't add up.
Matthew 12: 39 Jesus replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
3 days. 3 nights. So if Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon and resurrected on Sunday morning He wasn't the Messiah. He didn't complete His own prophecy. At most you can get 2 nights and 3 days out of that scenario. If He's not the Messiah, then the "Lord's Day" is definitely not Sunday. Imagine staying at a hotel for 3 days and 3 nights. You arrive Friday afternoon and they kick you out Sunday morning. You'd be ticked off! If we're following the math Jesus should have been resurrected on Sunday evening at the earliest. So maybe Monday should be the Lord's Day?
Matthew 12: 39 Jesus replied, “A wicked and adulterous generation demands a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
3 days. 3 nights. So if Jesus was crucified on Friday afternoon and resurrected on Sunday morning He wasn't the Messiah. He didn't complete His own prophecy. At most you can get 2 nights and 3 days out of that scenario. If He's not the Messiah, then the "Lord's Day" is definitely not Sunday. Imagine staying at a hotel for 3 days and 3 nights. You arrive Friday afternoon and they kick you out Sunday morning. You'd be ticked off! If we're following the math Jesus should have been resurrected on Sunday evening at the earliest. So maybe Monday should be the Lord's Day?
I'm not sure you're that well-informed about the process? Let me assure you, any dogmatic declarations made by the Church are usually well-founded on Scriptural grounds.
If there's an instance you're aware of, I'll gladly discuss it with you.
A talking point would be the 'Four Marian Dogmas' declared by the Church.
The First: Mary is Theotokos – the Mother of God – declared at the Council of Ephesus (431). This is clearly argued from Scripture, notably Luke 1 and John 1.
The Second: The Assumption into heaven of Mary, body and soul. This was declared by the Church in the reign of Pope Pius XII in 1950.
There is no direct Scriptural support for this dogma whatsoever, but it is a truth of tradition of the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican communions. It was the common belief dating back to the 5th century, and is actually attested in apocryphal literature from the 2nd. The stories differ, some place her passing at Jerusalem, others at Ephesus.
(There are also obvious mythological elements – in one, Thomas the Apostle (who was absent when the risen Christ appeared to the others in the 'upper room') was absent from the city when the body of Mary was laid in the tomb. He returned, and the tomb was opened for him to see, but was empty. The story goes on, but its clearly derivative.)
There are however Scriptural references which would seem to support the belief – Genesis 3:15 and Revelations 12:1.
The Third: The Immaculate Conception – by Pope Pius IX in 1854. This belief is that Mary, at her conception, was preserved immaculate from the stain of Original Sin. This rests on the angelic salutation in Luke 1: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ... Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God." (v28, 30).
On my degree course we discussed this. Was Mary baptised, and by whom? Clearly, she was 'baptised' when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Was that immediately prior to the conception or, being known before the creation of the world that she would conceive, from the moment of her creation? The Church declared the latter.
(Note: a common erroneous belief is that 'The Immaculate Conception' means Virgin Birth. This is a mistake – it refers to her conception, not that of the child Jesus.)
The Fourth: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, declared at the Synod of Milan in 389. Affirms the virginity of Mary before, during and after. Tricky one this: How do we know? And who would have 'the 'brass neck', as we say in the UK, to ask? And why?
There is a reference in an apocryphal gospel, but the proving of the hymen still intact seems just too invasive ...
Scripture talks of the family of Jesus, but not of the children of Mary ... so the tradition has always treated this as 'extended family'.
+++
This has been discussed ad nauseam here before.
Short answer: The Johannine account is generally regarded as the more accurate, whereas the Friday-to-Siunday is the tradition, but wrong.