When Beliefs Conflict

[stovebolts]

Berserk,
Your entire post was most excellent in my view.

If we may, can we take a trip off the beaten path and explore another possibility if not for any other sake than exploration?

) Is Jesus' phrase "born of water and the Spirit" referring to baptism, amniotic birth fluid, or God's Word as living water? John's later reference to the testifying role of the Spirit and the water makes is clear that "born of water and the Spirit" in John 3:3 includes an implicit reference to baptism:
"This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only, but with the blood...There are 3 that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these 3 agree (1 John 5:6-8)."

There are three that testify. Can we look at the water?

If we look at all four gospels, they include the baptism of Jesus in water.

John 1:32-34 And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.”

John testifies he saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus and remain upon him. However, in order that testimony is to be affirmed according to Jewish custom, it must come by two or more witnesses. Who then is the second witness?

If we look at Matthew 21:23-27 Jesus is challenged on his authority ( s'mikhah) to teach new teachings (a no no unless one is regarded as a great Rabbi by two respected Rabbis, prophet etc) and Jesus refers back to the prophet John as one of the witnesses. Again, where is the second witness?

Matthew 3:16-17 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

We see here that the second witness is God the Father.

Do you think it possible that when the water testifies, it is referring to Jesus baptism pointing to the authority affirmed by such a great prophet such as John and God himself?

Thoughts?

 

[Berserk]

Stove Bolts,

Your question illustrates how intertwined many theological issues are, for example, how Jesus' baptism as witnessed, say, by the Father and the Holy Spirit leads us directly to the question of how Jesus and the Gospel writers understood the interrelationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e. g. Matthew 28:19). Most of us on this site would affirm the later doctrine of the Trinity. Yet the word "Trinity" and "the Personhood" of the triune God are not explicit biblical concepts. The earliest ecclesial use of the word "Trinity" (Greek: "trias") comes from Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (c. 180 AD), but his "Trinity" consists of "God, God's Word (= Christ), and God's Wisdom (not the Holy Spirit)." This early Trinity reflects the OT personification of divine Lady Wisdom, who speaks as if 'She" is a distinct Person from Yahweh, while at the same time being one with God (e. g. in Proverbs 8); and in the Gospels Jesus serves as the mouthpiece for Wisdom personified (Luke 11:49; cp. Matthew 23:34), but never for the Holy Spirit. Paul seems to use the terms "Holy Spirit" and "Spirit of Christ" interchangeably and seems to reserve "Holy Spirit" as a term for God's saving power in action. What often gets lost in the transition from Pauline use of the Spirit as an experience of divine power to the abstraction of classic Trinitarian doctrine is the intended mystical or experiential dimension of life in the Spirit. 4 Pauline texts can be cited to illustrate this point:

(a) "He (Paul) said to them (the Ephesian disciples): "Did you receive (= "have the experience of receiving) the Holy Spirit when you became believers (Acts 19:2)?""
(b) "Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? ...Did you experience so much for nothing?...Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the Law or by your believing what you heard (Galatians 3:3-5)?"
(c) "I will find out not the (God) talk of these arrogant people, but their power. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of (God) talk, but of power (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)."
(d) "My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom but on the power of God (1 Corinthians 2:4-5).

These facts complicate the answer to the question, "Can the Father and the Dove (= the Holy Spirit) be identified as 2 witnesses to Jesus' identity at His baptism?"

 

[stovebolts]

These facts complicate the answer to the question, "Can the Father and the Dove (= the Holy Spirit) be identified as 2 witnesses to Jesus' identity at His baptism?"

Perhaps the complication comes by introducing a foreign thought into a first century culture.
Consider the idea of the Hebrews hearing Gods voice. This is not a foreign concept to the Jews not are signs. An ancillary review of Exodus affirms Gods signs and wonders to national Israel as well as Gods audible voice.

For Jesus to be ordained (s'mekhah) to teach new teachings to the Israelites required the approval from two powerhouses. We have the prophet John the baptist and God himself.

If we want to bring trinitarian thought into the discussion, it is for our theological benefit only and any believe any complications are self imposed.

Thoughts?

 

[daninthelionsden]

Perhaps the complication comes by introducing a foreign thought into a first century culture.
Consider the idea of the Hebrews hearing Gods voice. This is not a foreign concept to the Jews not are signs. An ancillary review of Exodus affirms Gods signs and wonders to national Israel as well as Gods audible voice.

For Jesus to be ordained (s'mekhah) to teach new teachings to the Israelites required the approval from two powerhouses. We have the prophet John the baptist and God himself.

If we want to bring trinitarian thought into the discussion, it is for our theological benefit only and any believe any complications are self imposed.

Thoughts?

I have read that Jews believe God to be beyond human thought to conceive and beyond human words to describe. We simply try as best we can.

 

[stovebolts]

I have read that Jews believe God to be beyond human thought to conceive and beyond human words to describe. We simply try as best we can.

I'm pretty sure most Christians believe the same.
However, we're talking about Jewish tradition which states a teacher of the law ( which Jesus was) can only teach established orthodox views. He cannot introduce new teachings unless he is established by at least two respected teachers which is not easy to come by.

John the Baptist was considered a great and powerful prophet of God who establishes Jesus as does God himself. Both of these affirmations occur during Jesus baptism. Thus, Jesus new teachings are established through the two witness of John and God. Simple huh?

God affirms the authority/ ordination (s'mekhah) of Jesus again at the transfiguration .

 

[Prycejosh1987]

So, what do we do when what someone believes doesn't jibe with what we've been taught? WHat's the best way to bring the 'disconnect' to people's attention? How can we go from the 'let me show you why you're wrong' attitude to the 'let me see what I may have missed' attitude when APPROACHING an area of dissent?

I think it is learning about context and seeing understanding on both sides.