Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-01-2011, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Jewish ritual is the mikvah. It is a purification ritual rather than an cleansing of sin, used to restore ritual purity.

The gospels say that John baptized for the remission of sins, but Josephus says that he did not baptize for the remission of sins, but was for the purification of the body after the soul was purified by a return to righteousness.

I am not an expert on Jewish law, but I think that Jews did not sacrifice to take sin away. They were expected to repent; the sacrifice was a common ritual that might be connected with repentance, or not. I don't think that Jewish law was concerned about sin so much as about ritual purity, so I don't see a basis for stoning someone performing a strange religious rite.

If you don't know what you are talking about then why are you making suggestions about Jewish Laws of Sacrifice that may be totally erroneous.

This is Josephus in "Antiquities of the Jews" 3.9.3

Quote:

....But if any one sin, and is conscious of it himself, but hath nobody that can prove it upon him, he offers a ram, the law enjoining him so to do; the flesh of which the priests eat, as before, in the holy place, on the same day.

And if the rulers offer sacrifices for their sins, they bring the same oblations that private men do; only they so far differ, that they are to bring for sacrifices a bull or a kid of the goats, both males....

Jewish Law required Sacrifice for the Remission of Sins not baptism.

Josephus, a Jew and Pharisee, lived in the 1st century in Galilee BEFORE the Fall of the Temple and wrote "Antiquities of the Jews" c 92-94 CE.

If John Baptized for Remission of Sins and was a Jew then he would have VIOLATED Jewish Laws.

Mishnah 7.4

Quote:

These are they that are to be stoned: he that has connexion with his mother, his father's wife, his daughter-in-law, a male, or a beast, and the woman that suffers connexion with a beast, and the blasphemer and the idolator, and he that offers any of his seed to Molech, and he that has a familiar spirit and a soothsayer, and he that profanes the Sabbath, and he that curses his father or his mother, and he that has a connexion with a girl that is betrothed, and he that beguiles [others to commit idolatry], and he that leads [a whole town] astray, and the sorcerer and a stubborn and rebellious son.

See http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...sanhedrin.html

In the passage you quote Josephus says that (some) people who sin are required by Jewish law to make sacrifices, but he says nothing about any concept of 'remission' of sin. If you know of a reference in Jewish law to this concept, you haven't told us about it.

You don't seem to know what REMISSION of Sin means!!!!

Why did the Jews SACRIFICE Goats and Bulls?

I have to tell you what REMISSION of Sin means?

Read the BIBLE. Read Josephus. Go buy a dictionary.

I know what the concept of 'remission of sin' is supposed to mean, but I have never seen the concept mentioned in any Jewish source. It isn't mentioned in the passage from Josephus that you quoted.

aa5874 · 11-01-2011, 09:13 PM

The claim that John the Baptist BAPTIZED for the Remission of Sins in gMark inadvertently made Jesus OBSOLETE.

Examine Mark 1

Quote:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

In gMark, John the Baptist had ALREADY usurped Jewish Laws and ALL of Judea and of Jerusalem had a MEANS of SALVATION without Jesus.

This is EXTREMELY significant in gMark.

Jesus is OBSOLETE BEFORE his ministry has even began.

The Baptism of John PROVIDED Salvation for ALL.

Now, according to gMark Jesus would BAPTIZE with a Holy Ghost.

What is that?

The author of gMark FORGOT about the Holy Ghost Baptism or what???

There is NO mention of a Holy Ghost Baptism by Jesus in ALL of gMark when it was CLAIMED that Jesus would COME AFTER John to BAPTIZE with a Ghost.

John CLEARED the way for the HOLY GHOST BAPTIZER.

Mark 1

Quote:

.....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.

Let us go through EACH chapter in ALL gMark--Nothing on the Holy Ghost Baptism by Jesus.

Let us go through EACH verse in all gMark---Nothing on the Holy Ghost Baptism by Jesus.

Let us examine EACH word in ALL gMark---Nothing on the Holy Ghost Baptism by Jesus.

What happened???

What went wrong???

The author perhaps FORGOT his story line.

Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured BUT Baptized NO-ONE with the Holy Ghost.

gMark is just a MYTH Fable about a Holy Ghost Bird, a Sea-Water Walking Transfigurer who FORGOT to BAPTIZE people with a Ghost.

Mark 1:8 -

Quote:

I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

The Jesus story in gMark is IMPLAUSIBLE and the character Jesus was OBSOLETE before he met John..

The Jews did NOT NEED Jesus when John BAPTIZED ALL of Judea and Jerusalem for the REMISSION of Sins.

gMark is a REAL STUPID story. The author FORGOT his story line. The author FORGOT to show that Jesus did BAPTIZE with a GHOST.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

gMark is a PURE PHANTOM GHOST story.

Sheshbazzar · 11-01-2011, 09:28 PM

aa's got a solid point. If John's baptism was effective in remitting sins before Jebus showed up (as the tale tells it) then the appearance of Jebus is redundant.
Secondly, Jebus's appearance and eventual 'sacrifice' accomplishes nothing further because it is still necessary for a remission of sins, for every individual to still undergo the ritual of baptism 'for the remission of sins'
IF Jebus's 'sacrifice' had served to satisfy 'for the remission of sins' there would be no need for Christians to continue the ritual of baptism for the remission of sins.
In effect the continued practice of ritual baptism indicates that not only was Jebus redundant, but that his 'sacrifice' was not only unnecessary, but actually worthless.

aa5874 · 11-01-2011, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

aa's got a solid point. If John's baptism was remitting sins before Jebus showed up (as the tale tells it) the appearance of Jebus is redundant.
Secondly, Jebus's appearance and eventual 'sacrifice' accomplishes nothing further because it is still necessary for a remission of sins, for every individual to still undergo the ritual of baptism 'for the remission of sins'
IF Jebus's 'sacrifice' had served to satisfy 'for the remission of sins' there would be no need for Christians to continue the ritual of baptism for the remission of sins.
In effect the continued practice of ritual baptism indicates that not only was Jebus redundant, but that his 'sacrifice' was not only unnecessary, but actually worthless.

It must also be NOTED with extreme significance that Jesus was suppopsed to BAPTIZE with the HOLY GHOST while he was ALIVE according to gMark.

Jesus came PRECISELY to BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.
Mark 1

Quote:

..... 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.

The author of gMark BUNGLED his story.

John the Baptist was totally UN-NECESSARY as a fore-runner to Jesus who baptized NO-ONE with the Holy Ghost.

gMark was TOTAL FICTION from the very start.

J-D · 11-01-2011, 09:46 PM

There is no such thing as 'remission of sin' because there is no such thing as 'sin', but so what? I don't see how that proves anything relevant to the subject of this thread.

If the point is that the story is not consistent with itself, that may well be so, but again, so what?

aa5874 gives the impression of trying extraordinarily hard to prove something without ever making a clear statement of what that something is.

aa5874 · 11-01-2011, 10:12 PM

Upon close scrutiny gMark is a most stupid story filled with Fiction and implausibilities.

The author of gMark makes his Jesus OBSOLETE before he introduces him and then completely FORGETS his story line that Jesus will BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.

In gMark John the Baptist PROVIDED Salvation for the Jews of Judea and Jerusalem by BAPTISM while Jesus is talking in Parables hoping that that the Jews REMAIN in Sin.

Later we learn that Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples that he was Christ it was PETER who suggested that Jesus was Christ but Jesus IMMEDIATELY BARRED the disciples from telling anyone he was Christ.

But in the same gMark, there was ANOTHER person who was called Christ who did NOT follow Jesus.

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

Jesus WAS OBSOLETE even in gMark an apologetic source.

The Jesus character was TOTALLY unnecessary in gMark. His disciples abandoned and denied him.

Sheshbazzar · 11-01-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There is no such thing as 'remission of sin' because there is no such thing as 'sin',

What ever gave you that idea?
At the very least what is identified in the Bible by the word 'sin' is any trespass (violation) against the Laws of Moses.
"Sin is the transgression of The Law" nothing supernatural about that, and it is a truth that all men (and women) violate at least some of those Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances.

Gentiles were (and are) not directly subject to these 'Moses given' laws. However Gentiles have always had their own laws, if not formal, then informal, and in having these 'laws' transgressions of those laws do happen, and when they happen guilts accrue.
Guilt that is so incurred is the Gentile functional equivalent of sin. Knowledge of ones guilt is knowledge that one has trespassed against a just and right law of ones society and committed a wrong against his fellow man, and most often him or her-self also.

If you steal or if you murder you are guilty before the law, and even though you may escape detection, the stain upon your conscience, and that corrosive corruption upon your character will remain as an indelible part of your personality (nephesh)
Unless you make amends, in paying whatever price or penalty the Law requires, along with sincere contrition, your guilt will remain upon you, polluting your life in myriad subtle ways. Your pleasures well be less pleasing, your relationships with others will be a little less open and honest that they could be. Your sleep will be less refreshing, and even the food you eat will be less satisfying.

Even the little 'social' trespasses such as talking-trash about an acquaintance, telling 'white lies', or thinking what you know to be inappropriate thoughts. They all add up, and do rob you of being that 'clean' and 'whole' person that you would otherwise be, and it also robs your family, and society as a whole of those benefits and contributions that you might have otherwise made if you were not carrying around that load.
All of us that have a conscience and a sufficient level of comprehension to recognize when we are guilty of something, have experienced and know what 'sin' is.

(Like Eskimos have several identifying words for differing qualities of snow, the Hebrew actually has several idioms for identifying different aspects and qualities of 'sin'. Our English word 'sin' is generic, whereas the Hebrew terms are quite specific in identifying what type of sin the sin is)

J-D · 11-01-2011, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There is no such thing as 'remission of sin' because there is no such thing as 'sin',

What ever gave you that idea?
At the very least what is identified in the Bible by the word 'sin' is any trespass (violation) against the Laws of Moses.
"Sin is the transgression of The Law" nothing supernatural about that, and it is a truth that all men (and women) violate at least some of those Laws, Statutes, and Ordinances.

Gentiles were (and are) not directly subject to these 'Moses given' laws. However Gentiles have always had their own laws, if not formal, then informal, and in having these 'laws' transgressions of those laws do happen, and when they happen guilts accrue.
Guilt that is so incurred is the Gentile functional equivalent of sin. Knowledge of ones guilt is knowledge that one has trespassed against a just and right law of ones society and committed a wrong against his fellow man, and most often him or her-self also.

If you steal or if you murder you are guilty before the law, and even though you may escape detection, the stain upon your conscience, and that corrosive corruption upon your character will remain as an indelible part of your personality (nephesh)
Unless you make amends, in paying whatever price or penalty the Law requires, along with sincere contrition, your guilt will remain upon you, polluting your life in myriad subtle ways. Your pleasures well be less pleasing, your relationships with others will be a little less open and honest that they could be. Your sleep will be less refreshing, and even the food you eat will be less satisfying.

Even the little 'social' trespasses such as talking-trash about an acquaintance, telling 'white lies', or thinking what you know to be inappropriate thoughts. They all add up, and do rob you of being that 'clean' and 'whole' person that you would otherwise be, and it also robs your family, and society as a whole of those benefits and contributions that you might have otherwise made if you were not carrying around that load.
All of us that have a conscience and a sufficient level of comprehension to recognize when we are guilty of something, have experienced and know what 'sin' is.

(Like Eskimos have several identifying words for differing qualities of snow, the Hebrew actually has several idioms for identifying different aspects and qualities of 'sin'. Our English word 'sin' is generic, whereas the Hebrew terms are quite specific in identifying what type of sin the sin is)

Violation of a human law may be a crime, but not a sin. Sin is violation of the law of God. But there is no God, so there is no sin.

J-D · 11-01-2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Upon close scrutiny gMark is a most stupid story filled with Fiction and implausibilities.

The author of gMark makes his Jesus OBSOLETE before he introduces him and then completely FORGETS his story line that Jesus will BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.

In gMark John the Baptist PROVIDED Salvation for the Jews of Judea and Jerusalem by BAPTISM while Jesus is talking in Parables hoping that that the Jews REMAIN in Sin.

Later we learn that Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples that he was Christ it was PETER who suggested that Jesus was Christ but Jesus IMMEDIATELY BARRED the disciples from telling anyone he was Christ.

But in the same gMark, there was ANOTHER person who was called Christ who did NOT follow Jesus.

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

Jesus WAS OBSOLETE even in gMark an apologetic source.

The Jesus character was TOTALLY unnecessary in gMark. His disciples abandoned and denied him.

The story of Mark contains a number of implausibilities. I don't see what conclusion that's supposed to prove.

aa5874 · 11-02-2011, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Upon close scrutiny gMark is a most stupid story filled with Fiction and implausibilities.

The author of gMark makes his Jesus OBSOLETE before he introduces him and then completely FORGETS his story line that Jesus will BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.

In gMark John the Baptist PROVIDED Salvation for the Jews of Judea and Jerusalem by BAPTISM while Jesus is talking in Parables hoping that that the Jews REMAIN in Sin.

Later we learn that Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples that he was Christ it was PETER who suggested that Jesus was Christ but Jesus IMMEDIATELY BARRED the disciples from telling anyone he was Christ.

But in the same gMark, there was ANOTHER person who was called Christ who did NOT follow Jesus.

gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE.

1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews.

2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ.

3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism.

4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

Jesus WAS OBSOLETE even in gMark an apologetic source.

The Jesus character was TOTALLY unnecessary in gMark. His disciples abandoned and denied him.

The story of Mark contains a number of implausibilities. I don't see what conclusion that's supposed to prove.

It PROVES Jesus was a man?????

ALL I KNOW it is claimed Jesus WALKED on sea and Transfigured. Those claims SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

I really don't care about your problems. You can't see, you don't know what words mean. I can't help you.

In gMark, it is claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead so I don't give a hoot about you and you conclusions.

I have SOURCES of antiquity to support the MYTH Jesus theory.

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

11-01-2011, 09:28 PM	#183
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	aa's got a solid point. If John's baptism was effective in remitting sins before Jebus showed up (as the tale tells it) then the appearance of Jebus is redundant. Secondly, Jebus's appearance and eventual 'sacrifice' accomplishes nothing further because it is still necessary for a remission of sins, for every individual to still undergo the ritual of baptism 'for the remission of sins' IF Jebus's 'sacrifice' had served to satisfy 'for the remission of sins' there would be no need for Christians to continue the ritual of baptism for the remission of sins. In effect the continued practice of ritual baptism indicates that not only was Jebus redundant, but that his 'sacrifice' was not only unnecessary, but actually worthless.

11-01-2011, 09:46 PM	#185
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	There is no such thing as 'remission of sin' because there is no such thing as 'sin', but so what? I don't see how that proves anything relevant to the subject of this thread. If the point is that the story is not consistent with itself, that may well be so, but again, so what? aa5874 gives the impression of trying extraordinarily hard to prove something without ever making a clear statement of what that something is.

11-01-2011, 10:12 PM	#186
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Upon close scrutiny gMark is a most stupid story filled with Fiction and implausibilities. The author of gMark makes his Jesus OBSOLETE before he introduces him and then completely FORGETS his story line that Jesus will BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost. In gMark John the Baptist PROVIDED Salvation for the Jews of Judea and Jerusalem by BAPTISM while Jesus is talking in Parables hoping that that the Jews REMAIN in Sin. Later we learn that Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples that he was Christ it was PETER who suggested that Jesus was Christ but Jesus IMMEDIATELY BARRED the disciples from telling anyone he was Christ. But in the same gMark, there was ANOTHER person who was called Christ who did NOT follow Jesus. gMark's Jesus is TOTALLY OBSOLETE. 1. He was NOT KNOWN as Christ to the Jews. 2.There was ANOTHER person KNOWN as Christ. 3. John the Baptist ALREADY Provided Salvation for the Jews by his Baptism. 4. Jesus did NOT Baptise any one with the Holy Ghost at all in gMark. gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer. Jesus WAS OBSOLETE even in gMark an apologetic source. The Jesus character was TOTALLY unnecessary in gMark. His disciples abandoned and denied him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.