Underseer

Many ex-Christian atheists are very knowledgeable about the Bible. I was never a Christian, so this doesn't include me. I probably understand less about the Bible than even conservative evangelicals. However, I thought some around here more knowledgeable about theology would find this essay interesting:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspo...-his-sins.html

Davka

[STAFFWARN]Great topic, but far better suited for Biblical Criticism and History

Whooosh![/STAFFWARN]

JonA

Realizing the risk involved in trying to reply to a post that makes no mention of the topic, which is itself extremely broad and vague, let me say this:

Jesus was baptized because that's what some folk back then were doing. He followed suit.

Jon

Toto

TGBaker's point, I think, is that Mark was an adoptionist and used the Baptism as a means of getting the Holy Spirit into Jesus. Mark allows for baptism as a purification, to remove sin.

Matthew and Luke have birth narratives and believe that Jesus was imbued with the Holy Spirit from birth, and has no need of remission of sins or for the Holy Spirit to come into him - although they both have the Spirit come onto him. Baker sees a lot of meaning in the revision of this preposition.

In Mark Jesus is baptized into ( eis) the remission of sins. The preposition “eis” means from out of a state to into a different state or place. This preposition in Mark is redacted (re-worked or edited) by Matthew.

The statement of what the baptism is for in Matthew is dropped. We see the term "into the remission of sins' added instead by Matthew to the pericope of the Last Supper. 26:28. There communion becomes for the remission of sin. Matthew creates a conversation where John the Baptist tries to prevent Jesus from being baptized and Jesus tells him to go on with it to fulfill all righteousness.

Godless Raven

I nearly shot my drink out my nose all over my screen when I read this line. One of my favorite laugh out loud comments on here. TFF!!!

ApostateAbe

This has been a hot topic, lately, and you will find a couple of recent threads on the topic of Jesus' baptism. I disagree with TGBaker only a little bit. I don't think Jesus' baptism was for the remission, but, per the doctrine of John the Baptist via Josephus, it was for cleansing the body. Jews were very big on cleanliness, and "sin" was often associated with "unclean." Christians, perhaps Jesus himself but not before he himself was baptized, adapted the purpose of baptism to the forgiveness/remission of sins.

aa5874

Something is wrong.

You do realize that it was a Ghost that was baptized in the Jesus stories.

Jesus was not an ordinary person.

This is the fundamental problem. People do NOT want to ACCEPT the Jesus stories but still want to claim they KNOW another TRUE story based COMPLETELY on their imagination.

Let us FIRST understand the Jesus of the Gospels JUST as it is written and MAKE no assumptions.

Who was Jesus in Synoptics?

The Child of a Holy Ghost.

Who was Jesus in gJohn?

The WORD who was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

It should be OBVIOUS that in gJohn that the Jesus, CREATOR of heaven and earth, God Incarnate, does NOT need to be baptized by John.

The Jesus stories have MASSIVE holes in them and that is why each author must change the story when they are CONFRONTED with problems in the Jesus story.

If changes in a story makes it historical then Jesus was RAISED from the dead since each Gospel writer have a different account of the resurrection.

"Why Jesus was baptized" can only be resolved if Jesus was actually KNOWN to exist. And if Jesus was human then the Baptism story is fiction as described in the Gospels.

Vorkosigan

The question is relevant whether or not Jesus existed.

aa5874

Exactly.

The TRUE STATUS of Jesus MUST be known to resolve the question "Why was Jesus baptized"?

Vorkosigan

I think you misunderstood. The true status of Jesus is not relevant to understanding why the author of Mark had him baptized by John the Baptist. The event is obviously fictional even if you buy an historical Jesus. Paul discusses baptism in several of his letters without ever connecting it to Jesus -- a classic Dohertian silence if ever there was one. The best explanation is that Paul knows of no baptism of Jesus himself.

It seems obvious that the baptism in Mark and in subsequent gospels is literary invention. So the "why" question asks why the author chose to create this scene.

Vorkosigan