Originally Posted by Duvduv

Isn't that explicit proof then thst the author of GJohn did not know the canonical gospel of Mark? Or does it mean that the JtB element in Mark was a much later addition? I tend towards the first possibilit which also suggests that GMark was not the first gospel story and all the canonical gospels drew from that earlier source or sources.
They were probably more than the collections of maxims that the original Justin knew about in his day. The canonicals probably emerged in the period leading up to Nicaea as finished texts....

Originally Posted by sotto voce

John had four personal roles that together made the ministry of Jesus more effective, and more convincing. But beside that, like Jesus, John's birth was attended by supernatural events and promise, and, like Jesus, John's existence and purpose were prophesied in the Hebrew Scripture. John's mere existence validated the Messianic fulfilment in the view of contemporaries.

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.

However, even for ordinary Jews, John's ministry came as a wake-up call. Most then believed that simply by being born into Jewish family, one would be saved, provided one did not actively disown the faith of Israel. John told them that this was insufficient, and that Jews were no ultimately no more favoured than Gentiles, and all needed to repent, and thereafter to accept the Christ.

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 Christ, 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. John's reputation was enhanced by his independence from conventional Jewish society and his willingness to live in the wilderness for the sake of necessary repentance, and for the Christ whom he preached. So people believed him because he 'walked the walk'.

John was the first to identify Jesus as the Christ. He told two who were to become disciples, who repeated the message to others, including to Peter, the brother of one of them. This was long before Peter belatedly agreed with what John had passed on to him via his own brother.

d) John baptised Jesus, thereby providing supernatural identification of Jesus as the Messiah. Even though John recognised Jesus before his supernatural identification, his testimony was confirmed by that event. This event was seen as sufficiently important (imv) as to provide lasting evidence of Jesus' identity in an essential apostolic motif 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 an ultimate significance of John, the baptist, whose own prophetic words— "All mankind will see God's salvation"— he helped to fulfil.

The Baptist is not important for the Christian interpretation of the gospels, because that is internally self-evident, even without the consequent and unanimous Greek witness, and without the Hebrew Scripture that was obviously intended to provide copious pre-figurement, promise and prophecy, the whole written context for the Christ. But John was of great importance for the preparation of contemporary Jews, whose awareness of that context of Hebrew Scripture was dimmed, and whose attitude to moral behaviour was compromised. John was therefore also instrumental in the eventual spread of the gospel that forced Europe to call itself 'Christendom'.

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity is nothing more than the washing of individual sins

Originally Posted by sotto voce

...John was the first to identify Jesus as the Christ. He told two who were to become disciples, who repeated the message to others, including to Peter, the brother of one of them. This was long before Peter belatedly agreed with what John had passed on to him via his own brother....

Originally Posted by aa5874

The author of gJohn MUST be aware of the earlier story of John the Baptist since he has CHANGED and REDUCED the role of John the Baptist to just a baptizer and have TRANSFORMED Jesus into a UNIVERSAL Savior of ALL mankind and that Jesus came directly to be SACRIFICED for the Remission of Sins.

It is NOT chronologically logical for gMark to have been written AFTER gJohn.

It does not make much sense for gJohn to claim Jesus was Sacrificed for Remission of Sins and then a LATER author would claim that John the Baptist Baptized for the Salvation of Jews and make the Jesus character OBSOLETE.

The author of gJohn simply re-worked the Synoptics in order to IMPROVE the Jesus story. It was gJohn who made Jesus into a God that was in existence BEFORE anything was made and the Creator of heaven and earth.

Originally Posted by sotto voce

How does one wash a sin?

Originally Posted by Iskander

They worship blood, they call it precious blood and they drink it and wash their sins in it.

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Could there be the smallest touch of fundamentalism in this view?

Originally Posted by Iskander

It is standard Catholic doctrine.

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Fundamentalist, then.

Back to the topic?