12Th Century Baptismal Font.... Hmmmmm

[Bill Hamblin]

Yes, That one in France ... that sits on the oxen, similar to the molten sea in the temple long ago in Jerusalem.

That's where their idea came from - they may have thought the one in the OT was also used for baptisms.

Regards,

Jim

Technically speaking, we don't know what the brazen sea was used for, so we cannot say that it wasn't used for ritual purification immersion.

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Bill,

Thank you for your indepth comments. I looked at your reference for Gilgal - "Then said Samuel to the people, Come, and

let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there. And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king before the

Lord in Gilgal; and there they sacrificed sacrifices of peace offerings before the Lord; and there Saul and all the men of Israel

rejoiced greatly"

No mention of a temple.

On the contrary, "before the Lord" (le-pney yhwh) is a technical term in Hebrew for cultic activity, here clearly with an altar and sacrifices. If a massebah raised stone can be a "house of God" (bet elohim) (Gen 28:17), then certainly a cultic site with twelve raised stones (Josh. 4:3, 4:8; imitating Sinai, Ex 24:4) and an altar could be understood as a temple in ancient Israelite conception (though obviously not in modern Evangelical conception).

But the point is simply that Israel had many temples that were accepted by the Lord. That point you haven't engaged.

[Ron Beron]

On the contrary, "before the Lord" (le-pney yhwh) is a technical term in Hebrew for cultic activity, here clearly with an altar and sacrifices. If a massebah raised stone can be a "house of God" (bet elohim) (Gen 28:17), then certainly a cultic site with twelve raised stones (Josh. 4:3, 4:8; imitating Sinai, Ex 24:4) and an altar could be understood as a temple in ancient Israelite conception (though obviously not in modern Evangelical conception).

But the point is simply that Israel had many temples that were accepted by the Lord. That point you haven't engaged.

Along these lines was the Canaanite temple at Hazor ever used as a model for Solomon's temple or was the Ain Dara temple in Syria a better candidate?

Edited August 10, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Lachoneus]

Although the cathedral at Pisa, Itay, is most famous for its campanile (free standing bell tower), I have always been fascinated by its Baptistry of St John (1152-1363). Not only was the font obviously used for baptism by immersion, but the building has the most amazing acoustics. When I was there, my companion and I were the only two people in the building. It was awesome. Here is a video showing the interior of the font and demonstrating the wonderful acoustics. http://www.sonicwonders.org/?p=875

[theplains]

On the contrary, "before the Lord" (le-pney yhwh) is a technical term in Hebrew for cultic activity, here clearly with an altar and sacrifices. If a massebah raised stone can be a "house of God" (bet elohim) (Gen 28:17), then certainly a cultic site with twelve raised stones (Josh. 4:3, 4:8; imitating Sinai, Ex 24:4) and an altar could be understood as a temple in ancient Israelite conception (though obviously not in modern Evangelical conception).

But the point is simply that Israel had many temples that were accepted by the Lord. That point you haven't engaged.

There was no temple at Gilgal. That was the first point I was engaging at the time. There are many things people do

"before the Lord" or "in the name of the Lord" but not necessarily approved by God. Being "understood as a temple"

does not make it a temple.

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

Technically speaking, we don't know what the brazen sea was used for, so we cannot say that it wasn't used for ritual purification immersion.

See 2 Chronicles 4:2-3,6. It was used for the priests to wash in, not immersion for baptism.

"Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof;

and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it

round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast ... He

made also ten lavers, and put five on the right hand, and five on the left, to wash in them: such things as they offered

for the burnt offering they washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to wash in".

Women did not go into the molten sea nor wash in it either.

Thanks,

Jim

[volgadon]

See 2 Chronicles 4:2-3,6. It was used for the priests to wash in, not immersion for baptism.

"Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof;

and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it

round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast ... He

made also ten lavers, and put five on the right hand, and five on the left, to wash in them: such things as they offered

for the burnt offering they washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to wash in".

Women did not go into the molten sea nor wash in it either.

Thanks,

Jim

Are you aware that the same word for washing is used to mean sheep dipping?

[Bill Hamblin]

See 2 Chronicles 4:2-3,6. It was used for the priests to wash in, not immersion for baptism.

"Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof;

and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. And under it was the similitude of oxen, which did compass it

round about: ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about. Two rows of oxen were cast, when it was cast ... He

made also ten lavers, and put five on the right hand, and five on the left, to wash in them: such things as they offered

for the burnt offering they washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to wash in".

Women did not go into the molten sea nor wash in it either.

Thanks,

Jim

Right. In other words, ritual purification immersion. (Otherwise, why such a huge basin?)

[Bill Hamblin]

There was no temple at Gilgal. That was the first point I was engaging at the time. There are many things people do

"before the Lord" or "in the name of the Lord" but not necessarily approved by God. Being "understood as a temple"

does not make it a temple.

Thanks,

Jim

You may not think it was a temple, but the ancient Israelites clearly did, since they did temple rites there.

[Bill Hamblin]

Along these lines was the Canaanite temple at Hazor ever used as a model for Solomon's temple or was the Ain Dara temple in Syria a better candidate?

Ain Dara is a better match.

[cdowis]

Why is Judah associated with the waters of baptism?

OK, I give up.

Why is "waters of Judah" associated with the ordinance of baptism? Perhaps we can ask Isaiah when we see him. Anyway, I do know why the waters of Mormon is associated with baptism.

Edited August 11, 2012 by cdowis