Baptism In Ot? A Bom Problem

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Am I missing something? Both were killed due to political consideration.

Even if this were so; it was fueled by the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin (hope I spelled that right) who could not put a man to death by Roman law, so they convinced others it was political. John was killed because the wife of Herod’s brother had her daughter do a dance and he promised her anything, and was saddened because he feared the people. Christ was pursued as a heretic…not sure how you see these as political. You did not use the quote function so I am not sure to whom you were addressing.

[cdowis]

Contextual usage shows that the 'waters' had reference to 'waters' associated with conception/birth. Joseph, with his parenthetical addition, was expanding the relevance of the promises to those entering into Israelite lineage through Baptism, and not simply to the Judeans.

If you look carefully at the OT, many of the prophecies can be taken in multiple context. Many prophecies were "taken out of context" and used as prophecies of Christ, for example. The Jewish scholars rejected those interpretations.

Even as the NT prophets showed us this dual meaning in the messianic prophecies, in the case of the "waters of Judah", a prophet has also shown us the dual meaning to a modern audience.

[David T]

If you look carefully at the OT, many of the prophecies can be taken in multiple context. Many prophecies were "taken out of context" and used as prophecies of Christ, for example. The Jewish scholars rejected those interpretations.

Even as the NT prophets showed us this dual meaning in the messianic prophecies, in the case of the "waters of Judah", a prophet has also shown us the dual meaning to a modern audience.

The separate meaning need not all be the original intent.

TO be clear, I do firmly believe in the appropriateness of later prophets recrafting, and giving new meaning to earlier texts. This happened all the time. I do not believe this necessitates the expounding of a hidden or secret or coded part of the original intent. It is truly giving the old words new meaning. I believe Joseph gave that scripture a new modern meaning that was different and distinct from its original intent. I don't think there is any benefit or reason for arguing that Isaiah, in that passage, had in mind someone standing in water, and being ritually immersed in the name of YHWH by someone with ecclesiastical authority, more than the actual sense of the words - speaking to individuals coming from the nation said to be of the literal physical seed of Judah.

[wenglund]

I am not sure, but perhaps the discussion on this thread may be enhanced by the discussion I just started on this thread: Washings and Anointing....

The discussion there will look into the nature and history of washings and anointing, including in the form of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

We all may have a few things to learn from each other. Your input there will be welcomed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jadams_4242]

In a response to Zerinus in another thread, Ron Beron makes the following observation:

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

This would be contrary to what we find in the Book of Mormon. I am interested in what others have to say about this. I could not find any other discussion or articles about this specific issue.

And have you taken into consideration "extra" biblical cannon writings of ancient?... and have you a complete understanding of the bible inacurecies?...

[Calm]

Thus, the real question is why the OT does not mention explicitly the ordinance of baptism. I think the clear answer is that it was removed by the Jews who wanted to draw a clear distinction between their corrupted practices and the restored ordinance of the Christians.

If this is so, we should be able to find evidence of baptism in the Dead Sea Scroll collection, right? (since many of them were written prior to the appearance of Christianity iirc)....

Is it in there and if not, why do you think that is....

[Ron Beron]

'cdowis' writes,

The text of the BOM which tells us about the original ordinance.

The apostles had a text of the OT prior to the changes made by the scribes and Pharasees, who removed texts which pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. For example,

Matt 2 [23] And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

This prophecy, available to Matthew, was removed from the OT and is no longer available to us, as is the case with other texts of the OT.

It has been suggested in some circles that Matthew did not have any specific prophet in mind, hence the plural form of prophets. Rather he was speaking in a general non-specific way relating Jesus to the locale. I would be fascinated if you could provide some evidence that the Pharisees et al removed texts from the OT that speak of Jesus as Messiah. This is a new one on me. Specifically dealing with the above the following might be of some interest...

Matt 2:23 has puzzled many by asserting that when Jesus’ family arrived in Nazareth it fulfilled what was said by the “prophets” (note the plural) “that he shall be called Nazōraios.” The text clearly associates Nazareth and Nazōraios, but since no Hebrew Scripture mentions Nazareth, readers had to look for other allusions, calling on the Hebrew roots NṢR and NZR. In the case of NṢR, Isa 11:1 prophesies the messianic “shoot (neṣer)” from Jesse; additionally NṢR as a verb can mean “to observe, to guard.” On the other hand, if Matt 2:23 alludes to NZR, there are stories of Nazirite vows, consecrating Samson (Judges 13) and others (Samuel in 4Q1 Sam). Jesus was surely not a Nazirite proper, but the LXX associates this root with holiness, and consequently some church writers (e.g., Tertullian, Eusebius) so interpreted the verse. The intention of Matt 2:23 depends in part on the language knowledge and exegetical method of the writer(s) of Matthew (Brown 1977: 207–13). In any case, Matt 2:23 presents Nazōraios as a favorable appellation.

Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 4: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1049). New York: Doubleday.

The New Interpreters Commentary further states,

He shall be called a Nazarene (or "Nazorean"): The allusion may be to Judg. 13:5, "The boy shall be a Nazarite," or perhaps to Isa. 11:1. Matthew apparently plays on words as the rabbis loved to do, and his point is: "The Scripture should be understood as saying noçrî [Nazarene], not nâzîr [Nazarite] or neçer [sprout]." One may compare the rabbinical saying about the law: "Read not hArûth [engraved] but herûth [freedom]" (Aboth 6:2).

The village of Nazareth is not mentioned in any ancient records. For this and other reasons it has been occasionally doubted whether "Nazorean" means "man from Nazareth," but this is still the most likely explanation. The village en-Nazira is traditionally identified with Nazareth, no doubt correctly. See G. F. Moore, "Nazarene and Nazareth," in F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part I, Vol. I (London: Macmillan & Co., 1920), 426-32; and W. F. Albright, "The Names 'Nazareth' and 'Nazorean,'" Journal of Biblical Literature, LXV (1946), 397-401.

As you can see the passage does have precedent in the OT.

As you indicate, this ordinance had become a simple act of purification, rather than the ordinance as restored by John the Baptist. Now, you can reject the BOM text as an indication of the original ordinance, if you choose. I have trust in the BOM as authentic history, and accept the proven fact that the OT was changed and critical texts regarding Christ were removed.

In my preamble I stated that according to OT sources and specifically excused modern revelation such as the BofM because of the simplicity of dealing with only one set of scripture at a time. Since these specific words are nowhere to be found in the OT and that the OT is a fairly complete corpus due to the rigidity of the transcription process it would be fairly safe to assume that OT accounts of ritual ablution coupled with secondary commentaries such as the Midrashim give a good picture of the nature of "baptism" in the OT. As stated previously that while many Israelites followed the mechanics of ritual purification they also developed a need for personal purification of sin.

His baptism did not include the ordinance of laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Christ Himself accepted the ordinance as performed by John.

Your understanding of these things are based on the incomplete records and the influence of the Bible scholars and theologians rather than modern revelation and living prophets.

See above. The records are as complete as can be given the obvious lack of supporting documents. I might add the BofM is also incomplete since it is missing a 116 pages.

[Robert F. Smith]

Eisenman also brings out the family link between Jesus, John and James. All of whom, at least according to Eisenman shared in the Zadokite or Melchizedek priesthood. Good post.

Yes, we must not forget Jesus' brother James the Just, who was executed by the High Priest and Sanhedrin in 62 A.D.

As for the Aaronide line of Zadok (whether the source of "Sadducees" I do not know), it did not require the Melchizedek priesthood.

[volgadon]

I have trust in the BOM as authentic history, and accept the proven fact that the OT was changed and critical texts regarding Christ were removed.

Then how is it that all the critical texts regarding Christ used in the NT can also be found in the OT?

[Vance]

I would be fascinated if you could provide some evidence that the Pharisees et al removed texts from the OT that speak of Jesus as Messiah.

Well, we do have this statement from Jesus.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

[volgadon]

Well, we do have this statement from Jesus.

Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The key of knowledge doesn't necesarily mean textual excisions. In fact, it far more likely would have meant that a misleading interpretation was provided, thus preventing access to knowledge.

[Vance]

The key of knowledge doesn't necesarily mean textual excisions.

Well, we do have this,

JST Luke 11:53 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge, the fulness of the scriptures; ye enter not in yourselves into the kingdom; and those who were entering in, ye hindered.

In fact, it far more likely would have meant that a misleading interpretation was provided, thus preventing access to knowledge.

If you don't mind, I will take the JST over your opining.

[Robert F. Smith]

The 'waters of baptism' was a later commentary by JS, not in the original 1830 text of the BoM. I don't think there are any BoM scholars who view that as being some restored version of the Isaianic text, or even original to the Nephite record, but rather a modern commentary or expansion.

Contextual usage shows that the 'waters' had reference to 'waters' associated with conception/birth. Joseph, with his parenthetical addition, was expanding the relevance of the promises to those entering into Israelite lineage through Baptism, and not simply to the Judeans.

It is true that Joseph added a couple of phrases to I Nephi 20:1-2 (Isaiah 48:1-2) for the 1840 edition. What is interesting is that both phrases (in bolded italics below) restore the poetic sequence of parallel Hebrew distichs:

20:1 Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob,

Which are called by the name of Israel,

And are come forth out of the waters of Judah.

Or out of the waters of baptism,

Which swear by the name of the Lord,

And make mention of the God of Israel,

Yet they swear not in truth,

Nor in righteousness.

20:2 Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city,

But they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel,

Which is the Lord of Hosts,

Yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name.

[barnsweb]

There is ample reason in the Bible account to prove the necessity of baptism. The fact may be that investigators will be willing to accept it's words. The record in Acts tells us the baptism of John alone was not equal to baptism into Jesus Christ. However, there are two or three foundational verses, and the principle of 'the sum of Thy word is truth' tells us not to take one truth to the exception of another.

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

The great commission of Matthew is about becoming a disciple of Jesus, being baptized, and then progression in knowing and obeying the teachings/commandments Jesus gave us from the Father.

Acts 2 gives baptism as what 'must' be done, and that our belief and obedience to the Son and the commandment of God brings us into fellowship with the blessings of the Promise of God, first starting with the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The next link is in Acts 3:22,23, where Peter quotes Moses about the necessity that we hear Jesus out in all things and do whatever He taught, which fits exactly about the words of Jesus about those who love Him will keep His words and His commandments. This is our reasonable service to Him, and those who will not hear Him in all things will be cut off from the brethren - at least that's what Peter quoted Moses as saying. I'll have to testify that I believe that is true - although none of us is perfect, we should at least be active and growing in whatever His Father told Him to tell us. Jesus said we love Him if we keep His commandments, just as He loves the Father and keeps His commandments. It's a matter of love, respect and regard.

[cdowis]

This is widely understood as a wordplay/misreading/expansion of Isaiah 11's use of netzer, or branch, not a reference to some mysterious missing prophecy.

The same type of scriptural wordplay/re-setting and re-contextualizing of OT texts are used by most of the Gospel Writers throughout their works to use phrases-with-authority to add support to their assertions. Prooftexting is not something new to religious apologetic efforts today

Did I miss something here?

The prophet explained what the waters of Judah means, and now theologians and scholars disagree with him. That's nice.

So-called "prooftexting" may simply be evidence that the scribes and Pharsees, in their attempt to discredit the Yeshua Messiah, changed the original text, changing its intended meaning and context. The original meaning (and double meaning) were restored by the NT prophets.

The scholars and theologians do not have the original texts so they can only assume/suppose/speculate.

[Calm]

Cd, what is the time frame where you see this alteration taking place? And how extensive was the alteration? What texts would it likely have involved?

[cdowis]

Cd, what is the time frame where you see this alteration taking place? And how extensive was the alteration? What texts would it likely have involved?

Well, let's speculate.

I suppose that the Nephites brought it with them as recorded on the brass plates, so the change was after the Babylonian captivity. We know that Israel went into apostacy and Nehemiah attempted a restoration of the law, so the rite was in a transitional state from then to the time of Christ. Any scriptural text was removed by the scribes and Pharasees to make it a "Christian only" ordinance. There is no way to know what they removed from the Hebrew scriptures, only that Christ condemned them for these omissions, and even the writers of the Gospels had texts that are missing today (see my Nazarene example.

The alteration is probably moving from a covenant ordinance to simple cleansing rites. Now, admittedly the Nephites certainly had a more full knowledge of baptism that probably never was present among the Israelites.

Edited October 24, 2011 by cdowis

[Calm]

Any scriptural text was removed by the scribes and Pharasees to make it a "Christian only" ordinance.

So are you suggesting these texts were removed sometime after Christ or perhaps John began to teach baptism to make it look like there was no foundation for their teaching (since they wouldn't know ahead of this time that this would become a foundational Christian ritual?)

[David T]

Any scriptural text was removed by the scribes and Pharasees to make it a "Christian only" ordinance. There is no way to know what they removed from the Hebrew scriptures, only that Christ condemned them for these omissions, and even the writers of the Gospels had texts that are missing today (see my Nazarene example.

The alteration is probably moving from a covenant ordinance to simple cleansing rites. Now, admittedly the Nephites certainly had a more full knowledge of baptism that probably never was present among the Israelites.

So is your position that the Pharisees and Sadducees (bitter enemies) worked together to remove all traces of...what? I'm guessing your view is they must have worked together, because if just one group had tried to do such an alteration, there would have been a huge fit from the other, of which we would probably have had a record, and also a distinct scriptural tradition. Also, this confederacy you assert must have been significantly before Jesus. Because pre-Jesus non-Pharisee and Sadducee texts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) don't attest to such radical re-editing as you claim. There certainly are some different subtle (but important) readings in the Isaiah records there, but none such as the type you are stating must have occurred.

So please be more specific when, and by whom, you feel such a massive alteration was made.

Edited October 24, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Calm]

Also, this confederacy you assert must have been before Jesus. Because pre-Jesus non-Pharisee and Sadducee texts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) don't attest to such radical re-editing as you claim.

.

Really wished you had waited til later to bring all this stuff up so that cdowis would have had the opportunity to lay out his original theory so I could understand the whys and how he was framing the ideas and methods involved by himself. Now it will be more of a response than an exploration....sigh. Edited October 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[David T]

It will allow him to get more specific. If he's already deeply thought this out, I hope he would have already taken those things into consideration. It's a pretty radical charge he's presenting. It's better to have the elements that are commonly stacked against his theory to be out there on the table. I understand his scriptural interpretation and viewpoint as to why he believes such a thing must have occurred. It is a popular one, but not one I see ever really explored practically.

[cdowis]

So is your position that the Pharisees and Sadducees (bitter enemies) worked together to remove all traces of...what?

1. We read in the NT that they were united in their opposition to Christ. In our day, we have bitter enemies, atheists and evangelists, united together as antimormons. I see evangelists using the same arguments that the atheists use against the Bible and Deity. Their hatred against the truth subsumes their personal animosity.

2. Christ himself condemned them for removing texts.

3. I gave a specific example of "Nazarene" text which was removed regarding the Messiah. This was one argument they used against Yeshua, that he was from Nazareth, and could not be the Messiah. They clearly removed the text which gave lie to their argument.

I'm guessing your view is they must have worked together, because if just one group had tried to do such an alteration, there would have been a huge fit from the other, of which we would probably have had a record, and also a distinct scriptural tradition. Also, this confederacy you assert must have been significantly before Jesus. Because pre-Jesus non-Pharisee and Sadducee texts (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) don't attest to such radical re-editing as you claim.There certainly are some different subtle (but important) readings in the Isaiah records there, but none such as the type you are stating must have occurred.

So please be more specific when, and by whom, you feel such a massive alteration was made.

You can't help yourself, can you. You use the antimormon technique of misquoting, of "summarizing" my post. Please show us where I clain that there was "massive re-editing" of Isaiah.

Christ accuses them of removing texts, and it is not necessary that there was massive changes.

1. I made no mention of the book of Isaiah. One textual tradition is found in the BOM and there are no "massive changes" there.

2, A sentence here, a word there, an entire book "lost".

I guess that you find it necessary to misstate my position, and I understand your desperation. I have lost my interest in continuing to correct your misrepresentation of my position. Go ahead and blather away.

Edited October 24, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

It will allow him to get more specific. If he's already deeply thought this out, I hope he would have already taken those things into consideration. It's a pretty radical charge he's presenting.

These are not new ideas. I got them from several sources, including Nibley. It is a matter of doing your homework rather than the Bible scholars and theologians.

Christ made it very clear what happened. If this is a radical idea, you need to look to him. The NT makes it clear that stuff is missing, so look to the NT, the OT which mentions entire books that are missing. The BOM quotes from a missing OT prophet which makes clear references to the Messiah.

Nibley, et al, ties it together.

Cdowis has merely done his homework. I have actually read the scriptures and I ignore the commentaries of those who reject modern revelation.

The BOM tells us that John did not originate the rite of baptism. The question is not why there is baptism in the BOM, but why it is missing from the Hebrew scriptures. The Bible itself testifies that it has missing texts, so we have an answer. Christ tells us that the scribes and Pharasees removed text, but there were other likely reasons, where entire books went missing.

This thread is based on a false premise. THe "problem" is with the Bible -- it is neither inerrant nor complete. That is why we have modern revelation, specifically the BOM.

What a radical concept!

Edited October 24, 2011 by cdowis

[Vance]

Now, what motive would the Jewish leaders have for removing prophesies from OT text that predict that they will kill their own Messiah?

Gee, I just can't think of any possible motive. /sarc

[David T]

Well, we do have this,

JST Luke 11:53 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge, the fulness of the scriptures; ye enter not in yourselves into the kingdom; and those who were entering in, ye hindered.

If you don't mind, I will take the JST over your opining.

Whose interpretation of the JST? Are you positive the 'fulness' of this 'key' is describing textual quantity and not the power/context/meaning? I doubt your position is that the Pharisees/Scribes/Lawyers Jesus was addressing took away all previous prophetic writings ever existing (IE, that there was a completeness of the textual record before they got their hands on it).

We say that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain the fulness of the Gospel (at least that's still the current claim in the introduction to the BoM) - the BoM is praised for its directness, power, and clarity on the essentials, yet not quantitative documentation.

Edited October 24, 2011 by nackhadlow