1 Corinthians 1: 11 - 16 (RSV):spin wrote:Use of "baptize" in a Jewish ritual purity situation:Sirach 34:25 If a man washes (βαπτιζομενος) after touching a dead body, and touches it again, what has he gained by his washing?
Christian description of Pharisees "washing" food and vessels:Mk 7:4 and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash (βαπτισωνται) it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing (βαπτισμους) of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.
Christian report of a Pharisee shocked at Jesus not washing his hands:Lk 11:38 The Pharisee was amazed to see that he did not first wash (εβαπτισθη) before dinner.
[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Ga'ius;
[15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name.
[16] (I did baptize also the household of Steph'anas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)
Tacitus, Histories, Book 4:
"While things were in this state, while there was division in the Senate, resentment among the conquered, no real authority in the conquerors, and in the country at large no laws and no Emperor, Mucianus entered the capital, and at once drew all power into his own hands..."
...
"The murder of Calpurnius Galerianus caused the utmost consternation. He was a son of Caius Piso, and had done nothing, but a noble name and his own youthful beauty made him the theme of common talk; and while the country was still unquiet and delighted in novel topics, there were persons who associated him with idle rumours of Imperial honours. By order of Mucianus he was surrounded with a guard of soldiers. Lest his execution in the capital should excite too much notice, they conducted him to the fortieth milestone from Rome on the Appian Road, and there put him to death by opening his veins. Julius Priscus, who had been prefect of the Praetorian Guard under Vitellius, killed himself rather out of shame than by compulsion..."
AS to the beauty of Galerianus Piso, we find:
Acts 6: 15, 7: 58 - 59 (RSV):
[15] And gazing at him, all who sat in the council saw that his face was like the face of an angel.
...
[58] Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.
[59] And as they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
Replace "Stoning", with "Opened his veins" and we may see the Death of Stephen Martyr outside the city as a replacement story for the murder of Gaelerianus at the fortieth mile marker. There is more to this "bare bones" analysis but the argument holds. The "House of Stephanas" is a composite entity with Frugi Piso and Galerianus melded into one character.
The point of this is the function of "Baptism" in this equivalence. "Baptism" may not mean what you think it should mean. With this we move to Spin's important Idea:
Numbers 19: 11 - 13 (RSV):Use of "baptize" in a Jewish ritual purity situation:
Sirach 34:25 If a man washes (βαπτιζομενος) after touching a dead body, and touches it again, what has he gained by his washing?
[11] "He who touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days;
[12] he shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean; but if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean.
[13] Whoever touches a dead person, the body of any man who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is still on him.
Guess who is Ritually Unclean?
John 12: 1 (RSV):
[1] Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Laz'arus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.
The implications for CHRISTIANS is that if Jesus could raise Lazarus from the dead, he could eat with him at a supper and be clean ("They made him a supper..." /S). Note that this is NOT what "Jesus" stated:
John 11: 14, 25 - 26 (RSV):
[14] Then Jesus told them plainly, "Laz'arus is dead;
...
[25] Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,
[26] and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?"
This is a massive rewrite of Judaic scripture and culture:
Ecclesiastes 9: 5 - 6 (RSV):
[5] For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.
[6] Their love and their hate and their envy have already perished, and they have no more for ever any share in all that is done under the sun.
Lazarus was not raised from the dead. The Passage is a Symbolic Passage concerning the House of Lazar/Eleazar. The rewrite shows that the Romans will "Resurrect" the Priesthood, the Houses of Eleazar and Ithamar ('n the Hasmoneans...) and "Transfer" the Holiness of the Priesthood to the Flavian Emperors.
The irony here is that "Joseph of Arimathea" may be Ritually Unclean in taking down the body of "Jesus" but would have still been able to participate in Passover by waiting a month and going to the Second Passover. "Jesus", however, is Ritually Unclean.
Someone knew this and left a Trail in the Story. Who knew a lot about the Book of Numbers and would have known of "Water" and "Baptism" in the Judaic Sense? That person's knowledge was overwritten in the Transvaluation. It was not, however, eliminated. As Spin notes, the Proto-Christian Intentions, at this creation, changed Trajectories
CW