Strangest experience this past week or so. I started reading Matthew about a week ago, got sidetracked, picked it up again last night for an hour or so. I really like Matthew. I mean, there are a lot of passages that serve only the purpose of emphasizing that Jesus is the Son of God and that the Pharisees suck, but when it really gets down to what Jesus is teaching and preaching (nice rhyme there), as Lenny Bruce once said, "Heavy; beautiful."
Included in this particular gospel, I have found something which, to me, suggests that baptism might be good, even beneficial, but is not 100% necessary for salvation. Ah, hear me out (more Lenny. Damn, caffeine makes my brain go nutso). Anyway, in chapter 19, a rich man comes and asks Jesus how he might obtain everlasting life. Interestingly, Jesus lists five commandments, only four of which are included in the original Ten (the other being "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"). The young man says, essentially, "Right. doing that. What else is needed?" Now, if it were really true that only the baptized could be saved, would Jesus not reply "You must be baptized"? Yet He does not! Instead, He commands the young man to sell his worldly possessions and give the money thus accrued to the poor, and to follow Jesus to the end of His days. So, sacrifice and help those less fortunate than you. This is more important, according to the Gospel of Matthew, than any ceremony of baptism. I find it interesting...
In other news, am now officially dating someone (long-distance; she lives in Vermont of all places!) who, unlike all my previous girlfriends is actually theologically compatible with me! This is a big deal! Go me!
Note to self: seriously, no more coffee early Sunday morning.
2 comments:
I don't feel that baptism is necessary for salvation, but it's not a meaningless ceremony, either.
One other thing I find interesting--according to the wikipedia article on baptism, apparently there are places in the gospels wherein the verb usual translated as "baptize" in English Bibles is used to denote something else. In two places which are normally simply translated as "wash" in regards to hands, in fact. The original text apparently relates that the Pharisee was shocked that Jesus did not "baptize himself" before dinner, as was customary. This makes me wonder if there mightn't be other places where the word is commonly translated as "baptism" against the original intent.
By the way, hopalong, you mentioned recently I think something about the Letters being possibly older than the gospel texts that we currently possess--where did you find this information? I'd be interested in showing it to my super-conservative Church of Christ-attending relations.
Post a Comment