Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonA · 07-05-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Anointing and baptizing are two quite different things. Baptism cleanses impurity. Anointing is...well...ANOINTING - it signifies that the anointed has become either a king or the high priest (or both). If early Christians had needed to invent an anointing, they would have invented an anointing, not a baptism.

And that's exactly what they did

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Mark 14:3 (NRSV):

While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

The baptism would be rather redundant as an 'anointing' story. It also wouldn't fool nobody, as you pointed you.

Jon

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-05-2011, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Anointing and baptizing are two quite different things. Baptism cleanses impurity. Anointing is...well...ANOINTING - it signifies that the anointed has become either a king or the high priest (or both). If early Christians had needed to invent an anointing, they would have invented an anointing, not a baptism.

They would have invented John the Anointer?

More like Elijah the anointer (or a woman in Bethany).

Quote:

They wouldn't have invented a scene where God calls out from Heaven 'This is my Son'?

They wouldn't have invented a scene where an Elijah figure declares '“After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

If the baptism really had been embarrassing, it would have been written out of the story of Jesus before he was cold in the grave.

Sure they would have done all that stuff (and they did), but the historicist argument is that it was all invented as a gloss on a known (and embarrassing) historical fact.

The argument is also that they couldn't write it out because it was already too well known and had to be explained.

For the record, I'm just presenting what the historicist argument IS, not necessarily advocating for it. I am on the fence on HJ myself. It's a question that drives me nuts trying to get a handle on. I honestly don't think there's a smoking gun either way. I don't think some sort of HJ is implausible, though.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-05-2011, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Anointing and baptizing are two quite different things. Baptism cleanses impurity. Anointing is...well...ANOINTING - it signifies that the anointed has become either a king or the high priest (or both). If early Christians had needed to invent an anointing, they would have invented an anointing, not a baptism.

And that's exactly what they did

[HR="1"]100[/HR]
Mark 14:3 (NRSV):

While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.

[HR="1"]100[/HR]

The baptism would be rather redundant as an 'anointing' story. It also wouldn't fool nobody, as you pointed you.

Jon

I was actually going to mention the Bethany story and forgot. Thank you.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-05-2011, 10:36 PM

Incidentally, if JBap was pointed to as an avatar of Elijah, then why does John's gospel have JBap explicitly deny that he is Elijah (1:21)?

maryhelena · 07-05-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratel

Hi folks, please help me understand the view of John the Baptist to Mythicists. Did he exist or is he also considered a mythical creation? If the latter please give the explanations for the supposed historical notices of him and of his disciples. If he did exist please share your view of his influence on the Jesus movement.

Thanks

Ratel, have a look at these two threads that deal with the John the Baptist issue - there are a few other links to other threads within the first link below. The issue is not a simple matter of Josephus mentioning JtB - therefore that's the matter of JtB' historicity settled. Far from it.

Was John the Baptist a historical figure spilit from Mythicist Position

John the Baptist: “destined to be king over Israel’?

JonA · 07-05-2011, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Anointing and baptizing are two quite different things. Baptism cleanses impurity. Anointing is...well...ANOINTING - it signifies that the anointed has become either a king or the high priest (or both). If early Christians had needed to invent an anointing, they would have invented an anointing, not a baptism.

They would have invented John the Anointer?

They wouldn't have invented a scene where God calls out from Heaven 'This is my Son'?

They wouldn't have invented a scene where an Elijah figure declares '“After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

If the baptism really had been embarrassing, it would have been written out of the story of Jesus before he was cold in the grave.

Not if it was an integral part of the story. You can't market your story as being 'about Jesus' if it has nothing in it that your audience considers to be 'about Jesus'.

You can't write a story about the life of George Washington that makes no references to the British, the Revolutionary War of the U.S., or the fact that he was the first president.

You can't write a story about the life of Jesus that makes no reference to any of the things folk would have considered aspects of the life of Jesus.

Jon

Steven Carr · 07-06-2011, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The argument is also that they couldn't write it out because it was already too well known and had to be explained.

For the record, I'm just presenting what the historicist argument IS, not necessarily advocating for it..

No, you must surely have misrepresented it.

You have presented the historicist argument that 'they couldn't write it out'.

But the historicist argument is that it was so embarrassing that the Gospel of John wrote it out.

It can't be both. You must have misunderstood. It is an easy mistake to make. If you try to follow the logical fallacies used by mainstream Biblical scholars, you will become confused and forget what ad hoc argument is used when.

Steven Carr · 07-06-2011, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Incidentally, if JBap was pointed to as an avatar of Elijah, then why does John's gospel have JBap explicitly deny that he is Elijah (1:21)?

Because Jesus claimed John the Baptist was Elijah.

Jesus must have been so embarrassing to Christians that his words were written out.

As there were no historical facts, it was very easy for later Christians to change any bits of the story they did not like.

Steven Carr · 07-06-2011, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

CARR

If the baptism really had been embarrassing, it would have been written out of the story of Jesus before he was cold in the grave.

JON A
Not if it was an integral part of the story. You can't market your story as being 'about Jesus' if it has nothing in it that your audience considers to be 'about Jesus'.

You can't write a story about the life of George Washington that makes no references to the British, the Revolutionary War of the U.S., or the fact that he was the first president.

You can't write a story about the life of Jesus that makes no reference to any of the things folk would have considered aspects of the life of Jesus.

Jon

No wonder John's Gospel has no baptism scene.

It is pointless claiming that early Christians had to include the baptism scene as 'it was an integral part of the story' when the historicist 'argument' is that it was so embarrassing that John's Gospel simply , (I quote) 'erased' the story.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-06-2011, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The argument is also that they couldn't write it out because it was already too well known and had to be explained.

For the record, I'm just presenting what the historicist argument IS, not necessarily advocating for it..

No, you must surely have misrepresented it.

You have presented the historicist argument that 'they couldn't write it out'.

But the historicist argument is that it was so embarrassing that the Gospel of John wrote it out.

It can't be both. You must have misunderstood. It is an easy mistake to make. If you try to follow the logical fallacies used by mainstream Biblical scholars, you will become confused and forget what ad hoc argument is used when.

John does not write it out, it just glosses the actual baptism.

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

07-05-2011, 10:36 PM	#14
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Incidentally, if JBap was pointed to as an avatar of Elijah, then why does John's gospel have JBap explicitly deny that he is Elijah (1:21)?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.