Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-28-2011, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

I think you're turning everything upside down. Mark is not positing a basis for Christian baptism which was already present in his strand of Christianity (which was Pauline-based). Mark already had Christian baptism; that's present in Paul. The trick was to find someone to baptize Jesus as God's son. Who better than a famous baptizer?...

You are ALSO turning UPSIDE DOWN and BACK to FRONT the documented chronology of "Paul".

It is DOCUMENTED that "Paul" PERSECUTED the Christian Faith by a Pauline writer. In the very NT, the CHRISTIAN FAITH BEFORE "PAUL" did INCLUDE Baptism.

And this is a Pauline writer who EXPOSES your UPSIDE DOWN and BACK to FRONT Pauline chronology.

1 Cor.

Quote:

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

Baptism PREDATES the Pauline writers.

But, now examine the words of JESUS in gMatthew.

Mt 28:18-19 -

Quote:

And Jesus came....saying ......Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Your PAULINE chronology is UPSIDE DOWN and BACK to FRONT.

"Paul" was a PERSECUTOR of the Christian Faith and in the NT John BAPTIZED JESUS BEFORE "PAUL" was called to the Preach about the Son of God.

In the NT, Jesus was BAPTIZED by John in the 15th year of the REIGN of Tiberius and "Paul" BEGAN to preach the Christian Faith AFTER the Ascension of Jesus.

Baptism in the NT was NOT derived from "Paul".

andrewcriddle · 05-28-2011, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

That would be a good point, but it looks to me like GMark does paint JTB as an humble forerunner:

Quote:

MK 1:7 And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.

That is a good point, however it is not spelled out as much in Mark as in the later accounts. There is not any explicit indication in Mark that John recognised Jesus as being his successor. Or that Jesus explicitly claimed to be the successor prophesied by John.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 05-28-2011, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Hello, Andrew. It is good to see you again.

I think you're turning everything upside down. Mark is not positing a basis for Christian baptism which was already present in his strand of Christianity (which was Pauline-based). Mark already had Christian baptism; that's present in Paul. The trick was to find someone to baptize Jesus as God's son. Who better than a famous baptizer?

In any case I would argue that Pauline baptism is present in Mark, not only in the baptism of Jesus into "sonship" but Paul also says that believers are baptized into Jesus' death, something present in Mark as well, in Mk 10:35-45

"And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized;"

Of course that is a prediction of their martyrdom too.

Vorkosigan

Hello Vorkosigan
Good to see you again too.

Pauline baptism may well be present in Mark, but that was not really the issue I was trying to raise.

I was referring to this passage in your earlier post:

Quote:

When the writer of Mark cracked open the Paulines, he read passages like:

"....For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship."

The writer of Mark created a scene in which the believer receives the spirit of sonship through baptism. The use of a historical figure is a convention of the Greek historical-romances whose conventions one or another found their way into his work. The writer of Mark simply found one associated with baptism.

I interpreted you to mean that Mark saw what happened, in his account, to Jesus when baptized by John, as a parallel to what happens to the Christian believer when baptized.

I may be misreading you, but this does seem to imply that Mark was seeking to base Christian baptism on the baptism of John, and although this idea is certainly found in later writers, I don't think it was present in Mark and it was certainly not present in Paul.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 05-28-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

That would be a good point, but it looks to me like GMark does paint JTB as an humble forerunner:

That is a good point, however it is not spelled out as much in Mark as in the later accounts. There is not any explicit indication in Mark that John recognised Jesus as being his successor. Or that Jesus explicitly claimed to be the successor prophesied by John.

Andrew Criddle

But, it is SPELLED out in gMark. In fact all the Synoptics use the VERY same words

Examine Mark 1.6-8

Quote:

6 And John was clothed with camel's hair....... And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Examine Matthew.

Mt 3:11 -

Quote:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire

Examine gLuke
Lu 3:16 -

Quote:

John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose, he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire...

Again, the Baptism of Jesus was NOT like any other baptism. When he was baptized Jesus went UP STRAIGHT out of the WATER. Jesus did NOT go down he went the OPPOSITE way.

In the Synoptics, JESUS WENT STRAIGHT UP OUT of the WATER.

Mt 3:16 -

Quote:

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water, and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him...

We have a clear FICTION story before us. Some people DON'T read what is claimed to have happened at the baptism but the story is there and it is TOTAL FICTION.

Jesus WENT UP STRAIGHT out of the WATER!!!!!

What a FICTION story!!!!

JoeWallack · 05-28-2011, 10:24 AM

Fools, you have no methodological perception,
the stauros we are gambling, is fearfully high.
We must crush him completely,
so like HJ before him, the historicity of JtB must die.

JW:
Okay, it's been well established here that the original baptism story consists primarily of the:

1) Impossible

2) Improbable

3) Known source of The Jewish Bible

all that is left for reasonably possible historicity is:

John baptized Jesus (John-bj).

The more astute student may take a moment to ponder how it is possible to conclude that John-bj was historical, if this is in fact the question in question, and all the surrounding evidence is pro fiction, and even take the time to look up "begging the question". I'll wait.

We have a lot of pressure now (crushing) on the historicity of John-bj and pro-historicity (ph) is reduced to defending with a question:

Why else (history) would "Mark" show a John-bj?

If we can show a clear Literary reason for John-bj than we remove the last leg for ph here.

The Legendary Vorkosigan has already demonstrated this here:

Did the Gospel of Mark know the Pauline Corpus?

Quote:

In this passage the spirit of God descends on the baptized one, as we see in Mark 1:10:

Psalm 151: For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. (NIV)

1:10: And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; (RSV)

There too, in this passage, we find the idea that those baptized are the sons of God. Recall that the Christology of Mark is Adoptionist, that is, the writer presents Jesus as a person adopted as the Son of God. In that light, compare Psalm 151 and Mark 1:11:

because those who are led by the Spirit of the Lord are sons of YHWH.

1:11: and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." (RSV)

In Psalm 151 "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit" that the believer is God's son.

There's another idea in Psalm 151 that we also see in Mark. One verse reminds us of the Garden of Gethsemane:

And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (NIV)

14:36: And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt." (RSV)

Clearly, given all the affinities between the OT and Mark that scholars have postulated, frequently on much slimmer grounds, we would be quite justified in seeing Psalm 151 as a potential source of the Baptism scene. The only problem with this thesis is that there is no Psalm 151. These passages are not from the Old Testament. They are from Paul's Letter to the Romans.

I pray that there is a limit to the number of times that I say that Christian Bible Scholarship (C-BS) has a Theological Methodology here (proof-text for evidence of historicity) and that is what AA el-all are using because it is the only one they have ever seen. If you want to see a Historical Methodology (which also looks for evidence of Fiction), go to the Vorkmeister.

Here is the start of my own demonstration of a known Literary Source for John-bj:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Galatians_3

Quote:

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.

So per Paul, you become a son of god at baptism. Paul repeats this theme a number of times. Per Paul, the ritual of circumcision is meaningless. It is replaced by the ritual of baptism, where faith is received, and one begins to be a son of god. "Mark's" Jesus' history after circumcision is meaningless. He receives faith and begins to be a son of god at the baptism. So once again we have "Mark" paralleling the only known significant Christian source before him.

Just as the general level of the likely fictional in "Mark" as a whole puts pressure on the historical claim of any individual statement, the demonstration that in general Paul was a major source for "Mark":

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

You Took The Words Right Out Of My Mouth

also supports the specific claim that Paul was a source for the John-bj.

Note again the further Literary Contrivance of "Mark" using the Baptism and Crucifixion as bookends, Baptism is where the spirit is received from god and Crucifixion is where the spirit is sacrificed back to god (render unto god what is god's). Here "Mark" is even kind enough to make the Baptism/Crucifixion connection clear:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_10

Quote:

10:37 And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on [thy] left hand, in thy glory.

38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

40 but to sit on my right hand or on [my] left hand is not mine to give; but [it is for them] for whom it hath been prepared.

Apparently this connection was important enough to "Mark" to make it a "Make sure the Reader understands moment".

I have faith that we have now reduced reasonably possible historicity down from Jesus was baptized by John in general to it was specifically John who did the baptism. In other words, the question is reduced from:

Why did "Mark" show Jesus being baptized?

to

Why did "Mark" show that John was the one who baptized Jesus?

Before we further reduce this to what Cousin It looked like after his haircut I'll use AA's own words to ask him:

What extent of likely fiction would need to be shown before you doubt that the baptism of Jesus by John was historical?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack · 05-29-2011, 09:18 AM

JW:
We have now forced the argument for the historicity of the baptism to retreat past the 38 parallels to The Jewish Bible. In an effort to achieve total victory against the NoKoreans before Department Chairman MaoRath invades these unholy borders with a horde of laboring Chinamen arguments, let's look at the last remaining strand of reasonably historical possibility, that it was specifically John that applied the baptism.

Do we have a reasonably possible Literary reason for "Mark" selecting John here? The Legendary Vorkosigan has already suggested we do:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html

Quote:

The most likely explanation, based on the facts assembled above, is that the writer has grabbed John the Baptist out of history, perhaps from a source like Josephus' Antiquities, and inserted him here to play the role of OT prophet whose purpose is to anoint the True King. As a number of exegetes have pointed out, the writer's Christology is Adoptionist. This means that the writer of Mark probably did not believe that Jesus was born the Son of God, but presents him as an ordinary human being whom God adopted as his Son. Because Adoptionism came to be considered heretical, as Bart Ehrman (1996) notes, v11 spawned many variants in the textual traditions as scribes struggled to overcome its heretical tendencies. Many exegetes have observed that the later writings preserve a tradition of conflict between the followers of John and the followers of Jesus. Perhaps the writer of Mark knew of that tradition and was simply attempting a solution to the problem: "If you can't beat 'em, assimilate them to your tradition." Or perhaps he intended to reply to that perception of a problem, and claim that actually there was no trouble between them at all, and each respected the other.

We'll now embellish Vork's theory that "Mark" selected John because he saw him in Josephus. In general, I've already demonstrated it likely that Josephus was a major source for "Mark":

"Mark's" Fourth Philosophy Source (After Imagination, Paul & Jewish Bible) = Josephus

Specifically, go through "Mark" and list all of the individual public figures identified:

1) John the Baptist

2) Herod

3) Caesar

4) The High Priest

5) Pilate

Note that all are also mentioned and receive at least a paragraph in Josephus. "Mark" does not name The High Priest but this may be because of the Literary effect and or Theology of wanting the office rather than an individual as the opposition to Jesus. "Mark" drives his Jesus throughout Israel and the surrounding countries but neglects to identify any public official not identified in Josephus. What are the odds than that "Mark" chose John to baptize Jesus because he needed someone to baptize Jesus and John was the only prominent baptizer mentioned by Josephus? Probably better than the odds that the baptism of Jesus by John was historical.

Okay, without much effort this Thread probably already contains the best argument ever against the supposed historicity of the baptism. For christ's sake can someone please present a complete summary of the argument for historicity? Don't bother just presenting a proof-text for based on the supposed Criteria of Embarrassment and Multiple Attestation. Save it for Tweeb where there is virtually no scholarship and attitude is a substitute for research. This Forum is based on Science so any argument for has to address Source Criticism and criteria to identify fiction. The potential glory for HJ is that you will be the first to do so. So son of man up and let's get this over with.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 05-29-2011, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

....So per Paul, you become a son of god at baptism. Paul repeats this theme a number of times. Per Paul, the ritual of circumcision is meaningless. It is replaced by the ritual of baptism, where faith is received, and one begins to be a son of god. "Mark's" Jesus' history after circumcision is meaningless. He receives faith and begins to be a son of god at the baptism. So once again we have "Mark" paralleling the only known significant Christian source before him....

Again, the Pauline writings are PRESUMED early. The Pauline writings are NOT known or corroborated to be early. NO-ONE knows the ACTUAL date the Pauline writings were made but have PRESUMED in advance that some were early or BEFORE the Fall of the Temple even when NOT a single external source can account for the Pauline Jesus who was the END of the LAW and was EQUAL to God.

Now, "Paul" will show that he had little THEOLOGICAL regard for the ritual of BAPTISMS which PRECEDED "PAUL"

1 Corinthians 1:17-18 -

Quote:

17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God...

1Co 1:14 -

Quote:

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius...

"Paul" was EXTREMELY DELIGHTED that he did NOT BAPTIZE but a few. "Paul" thanked God. "Paul" was PLEASED he was NOT sent to Baptize.

But, the MARKAN GOD was PLEASED Jesus was BAPTIZED.

Mr 1:11 -

Quote:

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The story of the Baptism of Jesus is NOT in the Pauline writings at all and the author of gMark SIMPLY did NOT use the Pauline writings. This is so PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.

1. John the Baptist is NOT in the Pauline writings.

2. The so-called prophecies from Hebrew Scripture about John the Baptist is NOT in the Pauline writings.

3. It is NOT claimed in the Pauline writings that Jesus was Baptised.

4. The Pauline writings do NOT even mention the River Jordan.

5. The Pauline Jesus was NOT in the River Jordan with or without John the Baptist.

It is SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

The author of gMark did NOT get his FICTION story about the Baptism of Jesus from "Paul" where Jesus WENT UP STRAIGHT out of the River Jordan, that the Holy Ghost ENTERED Jesus like a DOVE and a VOICE from a cloud claimed he was PLEASED with his Son.

Toto · 05-29-2011, 09:00 PM

Battle of the Fonts split off.

It's Joe Wallack's thread. Let him continue.

Sheshbazzar · 05-29-2011, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

"Mark" does not name The High Priest but this may be because of the Literary effect and or Theology of wanting the office rather than an individual as the opposition to Jesus.

Just struck me with the OT parallel of how Moses in all that protracted wrangling in The Pharaoh's courts never once gives us the name of The particular Pharaoh, even though it would have been the recognizable name of Egypt's most powerful ruler. The Office rather than the individual ruler also being the antagonist in that story.

mountainman · 05-29-2011, 09:31 PM

Hi Joe,

Where does archaeology fit with source criticism and criteria etc? Graydon Snyder seems to think the baptism of jesus by john is not only historical, but is represented in "early christian art". See his book "ante pacem" (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Best wishes,

Pete

Quote:

p.36

3.3 Sarcophagi

Plate 13:
"The sarcophagus located in Sta. Maria Antiqua, Rome.
"Likely the oldest example of Early Christian plastic art"

Description:

"The Teaching of the Law stands in the center, with a Good Shepherd immediately
to the right and an Orante immediately to the left. Continuing left is a Jonah
cycle, first Jonah resting, then Jonah cast out of the ketos, and finally Jonah
in the boat. To the extreme left side stands a river god. To the right of the
Good Shepherd there is a baptism of Jesus with a dove descending. Jesus is young,
nude, and quite small next to the older, bearded John the Baptist. A pastoral
scene concludes the right end"

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

This Forum is based on Science so any argument for has to address Source Criticism and criteria to identify fiction. The potential glory for HJ is that you will be the first to do so. So son of man up and let's get this over with.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

05-29-2011, 09:00 PM	#68
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Battle of the Fonts split off. It's Joe Wallack's thread. Let him continue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.