aa5874

The John the Baptist story as a fore-runner to Jesus makes ZERO sense. John the Baptist was already Baptizing for the Remission of Sins which would MAKE Jesus OBSOLETE.

It is claimed that Jesus, the Might One, would baptize in the Holy Ghost but he NEVER did. Amazingly, The Jesus story was a disaster from the start. It was INITIATED with the False prediction of John the Baptist.

If the John the Baptist story is removed from gMark it would make the story perhaps a little more plausible. The JtB story and Baptism of Jesus is UTTER fiction with the Holy Ghost Bird and the VOICE from heaven.

tanya

We understand from history, that there were some Jewish cults, or Jewish-Christian cults if you prefer, which acknowledged a special relationship for John the Baptist, during the second century, if not earlier.

What I find remarkable, is that there is no mention of John the Baptist, and the thousands of Jews who immersed themselves in the River Jordan on his command, in the writings of Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of John (Josephus wrote several decades after John's erstwhile death, circa 30CE).

Considering the large quantity of gossip and drivel in Philo, it is surprising that no mention is made of this erstwhile holy prophet, John, by the author whose writings represent the most believable of our earliest documents.

Chili

John makes the story 'involutionary' in the mind of Josph who's melancholy had determined cause to find the reign of God 'earnestly' that was internally driven by the persistent cry of Zechariah in Luke, and of course that drive is missing in Mark who's Jesus so was from his mother's womb untimely ripped and kind of duffy Macduff who came from Scotland of all places instead of Nazareth of old.

Once the treshold is crossed from the old to the new, and so from involution to evolution, and from the bottom of Yang into the tip if the Yin, it is time for John to shut up, and upon the wish of Herodias was beheaded to set Jesus free from these forces and so Jesus was given the water that John was baptizing from ladle, cradle and all so he could walk on this water on his own. It so resembles a merger of the old with the new and really speaks on the material transfer of the old into the new and in substance transform water into wine, whereas before only a drop of water was added to wine and so the consecration as set aside heretofore finds closure in this and comes to an end (because there is not water left maybe?).

Of course Mark doesn't know things like this and his John is only added to show that 'there was a call to order' like that of a one night stand where Mary got raped because Lady Macduff was a whoosh and did not do her work in good faith, as compared with the valor of Valeria from Rome in Coriolanus where Aufidius loved the maid he had married and her name once was Eve now becoming the bride of the second Adam in Luke there called Mary by name . . . which Mark never does. IOW Mark hasn't got a clue but is the height of concealment as such.

sotto voce

But it was better with him. Much better.

John had four roles that together made the ministry of Jesus more effective, and more convincing.

a) John baptised, in running water, for repentance, or turning from evil and lax habits. That signified washing, and a new attitude to sinfulness that was very sorely missed, due to the great decline in spirituality that had taken place since Moses, Joshua, David, Naaman and even Nehemiah. A sense of guilt is needed if a sense of need for a saviour is to be felt. This humbler attitude was therefore necessary, and at a deep level, because when 'righteous' Pharisees and Sadducees came for baptism, they were turned away. John's refusal to recognise official religious authority was precedent and preparation for the same refusal by Jesus.

b) John announced the imminent arrival of the long-awaited Messiah, a greater one than he. He specifically denied that he was the long-promised Messiah, but that their Messiah was very soon to be known to the Jews. John was born only shortly before Jesus, and his birth was similarly attended by supernatural phenomena, so there was comparison, but also contrast.

c) John used his valued reputation (or notoriety, to the religious establishment) to personally identify Jesus as the Messiah, and even prophesied the means by which he was to be the Messiah, by his death. "Look, see the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" achieved these purposes in a highly momentous way.

d) John baptised Jesus, thereby providing supernatural identification of Jesus as the Messiah. This was seen as sufficiently important (imv) as to provide lasting evidence of Jesus' identity in an essential passage in 1 Jn 5:

'Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the one who came by water and blood — Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.' 1 Jn 5:5-9 NIV

The two historic witnesses are 'water' (divine approbation) and 'blood' (the crucifixion, which Jesus said would draw all to him); the third, the Spirit, validates their witness to the spirit of the believer. This takes the OT principle (typical of John the author) of the need for 'two or three witnesses' to a context much wider than that of Israel, applying it cosmically. That is the ultimate significance of John, the baptist, whose own prophetic words— "All mankind will see God's salvation"— he helped to fulfil.

Duvduv

Interesting points, but you have to admit that the absence of the Baptist in the Pauline sect of the epistles doesn't seem to detract from that ideology at all, where Elijah doesn't even play a part in the advent of the Christ and the eschaton.
Indeed, unlike the author(s) of the epistles (except for the reference to the seed of David which is probably an interpolation), the gospelists and later Orthodox attached themselves specifically to the Pharisee rabbinic messianic tradition.

sotto voce

They cannot be merely that.

The successful results of John's ministry are taken as read in all the NT letters, as is the great bulk of Jesus' ministry. Only rarely is any actual gospel event other than the cross and resurrection mentioned. In 1 John there is (imv) specific allusion to John the B.'s presence.

Chili

"Living water" that was bright shiny and bright for us to play in and wade on but for Moses it was murky and dark and therefore 'parted' the water to get into the promised land where he did not belong as his time had not yet come, and so led a whole generation of children astray like a pied evangelist piping away until they followed and came in the promised land one must be blind not to see fornication in that.

aa5874

Your claim is wholly erroneous.

There is ONE SINGLE verse in gMark, the earliest gospel, where Jesus and John interacted with each other.

John MERELY IMMERSED Jesus in a RIVER and that is the END of the ONE verse story.

Mark 1:9 - That is it.

Jesus was supposed to Baptize people with a Holy Ghost in gMark but he NEVER did.

Duvduv

John the Baptist plays a wholly introductory role in Mark until verse 11, NOT just in that single verse you mentioned. It is true that the Jesus of Mark does not baptize anyone with the holy spirit or anything else. But it is clear that the first 11 verses are later additions to a story about what is essentially a Jewish holy man, nothing more.

However the verses up to verse 15 don't make much sense in terms of continuity, i.e. what does temptation have anything to do with anything to be followed for a second by a mention of John being put into prison (with no previous discussion of this subject)?? Repenting and believing the "good news" doesn't in and of itself have anything to do with Jesus at all. Probably the gospel Mark story started with verse 15.


So we see that for some reason later literati decided that the rabbinic tradition of Elijah of a Davidic messiah tradition NEEDED TO BE ADDED more explicitly to Mark, and was even MORE IMPORTANT than a birth story despite the fact that it would appear that Jesus is adopted as the messiah only upon his being baptized in the soon-to-be-outdated baptism of John. For some strange reason whoever wanted the Elijah element didn't seem to care to be explicit about Davidic genealogy. Probably it was added when the believers also had access to the other gospels which ALREADY had a birth story, so they didn't feel it appropriate or necessary to add one to Mark.

Indeed, one could say that if John's baptism was good enough for God it should be good enough for everyone else later.

I would guess that this change developed in the 3rd or 4th century under pressure from gentile masses who inclined to believe in traditional Jewish messianism, probably to reconcile Mark more with the other gospels.

The question though is, why wasn't this added somewhere in the epistles as well (leaving aside Acts)?

aa5874

It is NOT clear at all that the first 11 verses are later additions just because you say so. You must either show a text of gMark without the 11 verses or that some source claimed that gMark did NOT have the first 11 verses.

You have NOT provided any evidence at all only your BELIEF.

Why must gMark be actual history? gMark reads like Fiction. Why do you want to historicise and change the fiction story?

Why don't you try to understand gMark itself instead of making stuff up from your imagination?

Jesus did NOT even tell his OWN disciples he was a MESSIAH before Peter did so.

It was PETER who FIRST told the disciples that Jesus was Christ in gMark.

Jesus did NOT tell Peter he was the Messiah.

In gMatthew, Jesus even told Peter that it was GOD who told Peter that he was the Messiah.

Jesus did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ and did NOT want the Jews to be Converted.

Jesus as a SAVIOR and Messiah of the Jews is A LATE ADDITION in the Gospels.

You WILL not find these words of Jesus in gMark.

John 3 gMark's Jesus wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin. See Mark 4.

gMark has DESTROYED the chronology of the Pauline Epistles.

The Pauline Epistles are about UNIVERSAL SALVATION through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

gMark was written BEFORE the Belief that Jesus died for the SINS of all mankind. gMark's Jesus came fundamentally to the Jews.

The death of gMark's Jesus SIGNIFIED REJECTION by the Jews and then destruction of Jerusalem not Salvation.