Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 05-10-2008, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

You did not comment on my main meaning. Mark portrays Jesus as coming to the Jordan river to undergo a baptism of repentance for sins. If Jesus in Mark is God already, why is he being baptized, without explanation (contrast Matthew 3.14!), for repentance for sins?

Hmmm, good point, this might indeed be a case of "letting something slip" (revealing a historical nugget of a mere man) - but then again it could be a case of Mark deliberately emphasising a different concept of theology.

Clivedurdle · 05-10-2008, 02:59 AM

Quote:

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Ah, I see the problem!

Yes John baptised to wash away sins
Jesus was baptised by John
Therefore Jesus was baptised to wash away sins.

Wrong!

It was a special baptism with doves and wotnot!

No evidence there at all that this is recalling a historical event!

Hint

Quote:

And it came to pass in those days

A prophesised event? Hmmm.

aa5874 · 05-10-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I'm not a historian. I'm one of those psychologists with whom you want historians to talk.

ROFMLAO. Ok ok you got me good there. That's two of you guys who've been giving such a good impression of being historians I've been taken in. (So who is actually a historian here? Spin? Toto?)

Maybe most "historians" are actually "christian apologists".

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

So who is actually a historian here? Spin? Toto?

AFAIK, Carrier is our only "actual" historian though we do have "actual" Bible scholars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Hmmm, good point, this might indeed be a case of "letting something slip" (revealing a historical nugget of a mere man) - but then again it could be a case of Mark deliberately emphasising a different concept of theology.

IIUC, this is one of, if not the reason why Mark is thought to have held an adoptionist view.

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Yes John baptised to wash away sins
Jesus was baptised by John
Therefore Jesus was baptised to wash away sins.

No, it goes like this:

John baptised to wash away sins
Jesus is unapologetically depicted as going to John for that purpose
Therefore, Jesus believed he was a sinner

Either Jesus had yet to become the sinless "god-man" and had to be "adopted" by God or he was unaware of his true nature and had to be informed of it by God. IIUC, the wording of the passage tends toward the former.

aa5874 · 05-10-2008, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Yes John baptised to wash away sins
Jesus was baptised by John
Therefore Jesus was baptised to wash away sins.

No, it goes like this:

John baptised to wash away sins
Jesus is unapologetically depicted as going to John for that purpose
Therefore, Jesus believed he was a sinner

Either Jesus had yet to become the sinless "god-man" and had to be "adopted" by God or he was unaware of his true nature and had to be informed of it by God. IIUC, the wording of the passage tends toward the former.

It is not found in gMark that Jesus went to be baptised because he believed he was a sinner.

It is shown that Jesus went to be baptised to recieve the Spirit of God.

Mark 1.9-10

Quote:

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth and was baptised by John,

And straightway coming out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him.

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is not found in gMark that Jesus went to be baptised because he believed he was a sinner.

We are told why John baptized and we are told Jesus went to him to be baptized. Since the author cannot have been ignorant of the obvious implication and does not offer any alternate explanation, the conclusion logically follows from the evidence.

Quote:

It is shown that Jesus went to be baptised to recieve the Spirit of God.

The passage shows nothing of the sort. It describes what happened but does not tell us or even suggest that this was why Jesus went to John. Where do you see anything indicating Jesus knew this was going to happen?

Clivedurdle · 05-10-2008, 11:18 AM

Why is anyone assuming gMark is describing an actual event? How often have you seen the Holy Spirit descending as a dove and then proclaiming this is my son?

We are reading a made up story!

It is therefore ridiculous to even start on this path that Jesus was having his sins washed away!

It is as if we are dissecting a discussion between Data and Pickard!

(And please note the avoidance of the killer phrase - AND IT CAME TO PASS!)

Amaleq13 · 05-10-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Why is anyone assuming gMark is describing an actual event?

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not. I'm simply considering the story as a story.

Clivedurdle · 05-10-2008, 11:32 AM

And then we go onto this wondrous track about when did Jesus realise he was god, here or at resurrection, at cana, at ascension at resurrection, at transfiguration or wherever.

But slow down, these are all plot gap fixes, let us start at the beginning - what are we looking at - a history with loads of magic bits or Lord of the Rings?

And why historians believe it was all historical is because that is the cultural myth and they have never thought to challenge it - religion is continuously given special privileges like places in the House of Lord, and it is backed up by real threats, often to children.

Its magic and superstition for example exorcism at baptism is so ingrained and habitual it is not noticed for the charlatan mumbo jumbo it is.

It's mythos of respectability is founded on this real Jesus.

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

05-10-2008, 11:18 AM	#218
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Why is anyone assuming gMark is describing an actual event? How often have you seen the Holy Spirit descending as a dove and then proclaiming this is my son? We are reading a made up story! It is therefore ridiculous to even start on this path that Jesus was having his sins washed away! It is as if we are dissecting a discussion between Data and Pickard! (And please note the avoidance of the killer phrase - AND IT CAME TO PASS!)

05-10-2008, 11:32 AM	#220
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	And then we go onto this wondrous track about when did Jesus realise he was god, here or at resurrection, at cana, at ascension at resurrection, at transfiguration or wherever. But slow down, these are all plot gap fixes, let us start at the beginning - what are we looking at - a history with loads of magic bits or Lord of the Rings? And why historians believe it was all historical is because that is the cultural myth and they have never thought to challenge it - religion is continuously given special privileges like places in the House of Lord, and it is backed up by real threats, often to children. Its magic and superstition for example exorcism at baptism is so ingrained and habitual it is not noticed for the charlatan mumbo jumbo it is. It's mythos of respectability is founded on this real Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.