Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jane H · 06-30-2013, 08:24 AM

Following on from J.P.Meier, I would opine that Jesus action here was, in debatable proportions, both eschatological and communitarian.

Eschatological in that the time for forgiveness of sins was upon Israel, and Jesus baptism symbolised his part in that development.

Communitarian, in that Jesus saw himself as part of, indeed representative of, a people that had ruptured its relationship with God; and even though he might not himself be personally responsible, he was part of that failed people. Ezra in the OT is another example of someone good actively repenting of the sins of his people.

Today we tend to think of repentance in terms of personal sin, whereas in C1 Israel, it was all about the community being outside God's righteousness.

This can also be seen in also 1QS 1:18-2:2, where they ask God to renew his mercy in allowing them to pass from a sinful past and a sinful community into a renewed community.

FWIW JPM regards the event as being the poster boy for authenticity using criterion of embarrassment, but re-interpreted by the Early Church.

ApostateAbe · 06-30-2013, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I will answer your more specific question: why was Jesus baptized if he was sinless? The answer is that at the time Jesus was baptized he was not sinless and didn't claim to be. Per Mark 10:18:

Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

He was just another sinner like everyone else, and he was baptized to get cleansed as a follower of John the Baptist.

JW:
"The answer is". You keep trying to proof-text Literary Criticism as support for historicity. But in order to conclude history for a supposed event from 2,000 years ago you have to have Source Criticism. Just looking at Literary Criticism of Jesus' supposed Baptism tests high for Fiction.

There's logic to pointing out that per "Mark" Jesus was like everyone else before he received (the) Christ (this also explains the la-la explanation that most will not recognize the return of Christ (false Christs), because it's the Spirit that returns, Jesus already went back to Galilee like he said. The Spirit could go into anyone now, except aa because even Jesus now has him on ignore).

There's more logic though to Jesus not being baptized by John. It's called statistics. Seems like quite a coincidence that in Jesus' short career he just happens to be baptized by the only prominent baptizer identified in Josephus, a likely source for "Mark". Does "Mark" lack credibility? Does Literary Criticism of "Mark" show contrivance? Did the Early Church lack Criticism skills? Statistically, most 1st century Jews were not baptized by John, Jesus and John were probably not in the same area and probably did not have their careers intersect.

None of this proves that Jesus was not baptized by John. That would take the same type of Source Criticism. It does create doubt though.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The gospel of Mark has the literary form of an ancient Grecco-Roman biography, containing plenty of mere myths, most closely analogous to Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus. It contains plenty of falsehoods but it is meant to be believed as a cult evangelistic message. It is not fiction, because it is boring to those who dont believe, containing little romance, battles, interesting plot or character development but plenty of preaching and parables and scatterred miracle stories that dont fit into a plot.

The point about statistics and John the Baptist is new to me. I would counter that a large number of influential ancient characters were mentioned by Philo and Josephus, and it is plausible that two such influential characters would know each other. I suppose your same argument could be applied to Alexander the Great and Aristotle. How did one happen to be a student of the other? I suppose it could be just myth, but it is also plausible history, as it is not purely a roll of the dice. Power tends to concentrate.

aa5874 · 06-30-2013, 10:13 AM

Again, ApostateAbe ARGUES AGAINST the Bible.

The story of Jesus in the Bible is NOT that Jesus was a Man but that he was GOD who became FLESH.

In gMark, Jesus ADMITTED he was the Son of God.

Mark 14

Quote:

Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

62 And Jesus said , I am...

The Jesus character in gMark had NO human father and identified himself as the Son of God to the Sanhedrin in gMark.

In any event, The very same claim is found in gMatthew and gLuke whose authors did specifically claim Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and the Son of God.

Matthew 19:17 KJV

Quote:

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luke 18:19 KJV

Quote:

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Who was the Father of Jesus in gMatthew? Who made Mary pregnant in gLuke?

It was a Holy Ghost.

The Son of the Ghost was also baptized in gMatthew and gLuke.

Why was Jesus Walking on the Sea in gMark if he was an ORDINARY Sinner man?

Baptizing an ORDINARY sinner man cannot make him become a Transfiguring sea Water Walker.

Apologetics that used the Canon argued that Jesus of the Canon did NOT have a human father.

The Jesus of gMark is a Jesus of Faith--Not a Jesus of Facts.

outhouse · 06-30-2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The issue is - did Jesus need to be cleansed or purified? In Mark, the baptism is used as a device to show the Holy Spirit descending onto or into Jesus (depending on the translation.) Other presumably later gospel writers who thought that Jesus was perfect from birth (if not before) realized the logical problem with such a baptism.

Um no, not exactly.

Spin made it clear this was a initiation ritual.

Your correct that Different gospels place Jesus divinity being acquired at different times.

Birth
Baptism
Resurrection

outhouse · 06-30-2013, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Following on from J.P.Meier, I would opine that Jesus action here was, in debatable proportions, both eschatological and communitarian.

Eschatological in that the time for forgiveness of sins was upon Israel, and Jesus baptism symbolised his part in that development.
.

Yes as it was written by the later authors.

Quote:

Communitarian, in that Jesus saw himself as part of, indeed representative of, a people that had ruptured its relationship with God; and even though he might not himself be personally responsible, he was part of that failed people. Ezra in the OT is another example of someone good actively repenting of the sins of his people.

While Jesus was alive it is unknown how much he really represented.

More then likely he had a very small rag tag group of a disciples with just his inner circle at best.

There was little community to work with here.

Quote:

Today we tend to think of repentance in terms of personal sin, whereas in C1 Israel, it was all about the community being outside God's righteousness.

This can also be seen in also 1QS 1:18-2:2, where they ask God to renew his mercy in allowing them to pass from a sinful past and a sinful community into a renewed community.

I would not try and apply the Essenes as anything other then a possible similarity.

But I agree with the importance of the community here.

Quote:

FWIW JPM regards the event as being the poster boy for authenticity using criterion of embarrassment, but re-interpreted by the Early Church

Agreed. It was re-interpreted

And scholars are almost 100% unanimous in the baptism and claim it to be one of two facts regarding Jesus.

JPM does good work, but like most scholars I can only follow so much.

Von Bek · 06-30-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Example

Metaphorical for washing away ones sin, allegory.

Dunking in water goes back a long ways. Look at the mikvahs.

Key phrase, "ritual purification"

Think .... Ganges River.

Why do you bring up the Ganges River in India? Because it is a holy river to Hindus? Jesus did not have to be baptized in the Jordan. It is not the river, but the act of baptism that is important in the gospel story.

Davka · 06-30-2013, 02:35 PM

In the story, John asks Jesus why he is coming to be baptized, and Jesus replies that it is "to fulfill righteousness." The righteous Jew, or tzadik, is one who has fulfilled the Law according to Moses. Perhaps the "righteousness" in the story is a reference to the Law's requirement that a Priest must be ritually washed before entering the Holy of Holies?

aa5874 · 06-30-2013, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

And scholars are almost 100% unanimous in the baptism and claim it to be one of two facts regarding Jesus....

Your claim is a fallacy. Scholars who argue for Myth Jesus do not claim the baptism story is a fact.

ApostateAbe · 06-30-2013, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

In the story, John asks Jesus why he is coming to be baptized, and Jesus replies that it is "to fulfill righteousness." The righteous Jew, or tzadik, is one who has fulfilled the Law according to Moses. Perhaps the "righteousness" in the story is a reference to the Law's requirement that a Priest must be ritually washed before entering the Holy of Holies?

I think it is best to make sense of that phrase in light of the context and the patterns of the gospels. In that passage, Jesus was responding to John's objection, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Jesus responds, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness." We can only speculate what that means, because it is never explained, and the meaning is not obvious to any early Christian commentators. I think the ambiguity is intended, because the author of Matthew really did not have a good reason why John was baptizing Jesus. It was a weak ad hoc reason. The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was an embarrassment to the gospel authors, not just because Jesus was supposedly sinless, but because the cult of John the Baptist competed with the cult of Jesus, so the baptism would imply that John was holier than Jesus, and Christians needed an explanation of some sort. Each gospel author dealt with the embarrassment in their own way. Mark has Jesus being declared by God to be his exalted son right in the presence of John as the baptism occurs, and Mark makes John extremely reverent to Jesus. Matthew does the same, but has John objecting to such a baptism and Jesus offering an ambiguous but holy-sounding explanation. Luke has Jesus getting baptized apparently by somebody else (John was jailed before the account of the baptism of Jesus). The gospel of John has John the Baptist relate the events that surrounded the baptism but left out the baptism itself!

Toto · 06-30-2013, 03:05 PM

But the Jordan River is highly symbolic.

From Jordan River tourist website

Quote:

... Moses stood and looked over the Promised Land stretched out in front of him. He saw the Jordan River before him, ...

After Moses passed away, Joshua, the son of Nun, crossed with the Israelites into the Promised Land.

Elijah and Elisha
But soon after their entrance into the Holy Land the people turned from the worship of God and took to worshipping strange gods. God sent to them many prophets to bring them back to true belief in His oneness and observance of His commandments. One of the most famous prophets was Elijah, who lived during the time of the rule of King Ahab in Israel. Ahab and his wife oppressed Elijah, and when Elijah grew old, God inspired him to leave and settle in what is today Jordan. So he left with his appointed successor, Elisha, who carried on his spirit and message. When they arrived at the River Jordan, Elijah struck it with his cloak and parted the waters of the river. He and Elisha crossed the dry land, and as they were speaking together upon the other side of the river, a fiery chariot came and carried Elijah into the heavens. (2nd Kings: 2)

John the Baptist
Again, hundreds of years passed and John the Baptist appeared at Bethany (Bayt ‘Anya) on the far side of the Jordan River (John 1:28 & John 10:40). He continued the path of faith and took the message from Moses – representative of the Holy Law – and from Elijah – representative of the prophets of the Old Testament (Luke 1:17)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-30-2013, 08:24 AM	#21
Jane H Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: UK Posts: 186	Following on from J.P.Meier, I would opine that Jesus action here was, in debatable proportions, both eschatological and communitarian. Eschatological in that the time for forgiveness of sins was upon Israel, and Jesus baptism symbolised his part in that development. Communitarian, in that Jesus saw himself as part of, indeed representative of, a people that had ruptured its relationship with God; and even though he might not himself be personally responsible, he was part of that failed people. Ezra in the OT is another example of someone good actively repenting of the sins of his people. Today we tend to think of repentance in terms of personal sin, whereas in C1 Israel, it was all about the community being outside God's righteousness. This can also be seen in also 1QS 1:18-2:2, where they ask God to renew his mercy in allowing them to pass from a sinful past and a sinful community into a renewed community. FWIW JPM regards the event as being the poster boy for authenticity using criterion of embarrassment, but re-interpreted by the Early Church.

06-30-2013, 02:35 PM	#27
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	In the story, John asks Jesus why he is coming to be baptized, and Jesus replies that it is "to fulfill righteousness." The righteous Jew, or tzadik, is one who has fulfilled the Law according to Moses. Perhaps the "righteousness" in the story is a reference to the Law's requirement that a Priest must be ritually washed before entering the Holy of Holies?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.