Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 12-09-2011, 07:34 AM

Why do I keep getting the impression that the Baptist section 1-8 at the beginning of Mark is a later addition? And the part about john being put in prison seems like it continues from additional text. It sounds as if the only important factor leading to Jesus ministry is the mere fact of john being removed from public preaching.
Although Mark is said to precede the other gospels it would appear that someone went back and inserted more about Mark after the other gospels had come out.
But the question would be why this would have been necessary, and who had the authority to do it ....

Horatio Parker · 12-09-2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

But I think the OP got it right; JtB is superfluous to the Gospels. He's there either as historical buttressing or as an inducement to his followers to join Jesus. Whether JtB needs Jesus is open to debate, but Jesus does not need JtB.

But this is metaphysics too as John is 'born' to the same mind of Joseph as Jesus was and is really the Alpha of Joseph made known in the conscious mind where Jesus is the reborn Joseph and supplied the Omega.

The significance of John is that tranquility prevailed in the mind of Joseph and that is signified by Advent prior to the darkest moment in life wherein Joseph is beyond theology and beyond the measure of time when rebirth takes place in his mind, and that has nothing to do with babies. Significant here is that a period of time must lapse so the NEW (New Year) can take hold as depicted by the journey of the Magi when illumination is confirmed. And so, this time was spend exploring his own soul and came up with his lineage by way of expression. And when the magi arrived he received the baptism of fire, I suppose, and the fruits of the spirit become evident and Jesus went to the temple and started sqaucking.

Interesting is that neither Matthew nor Mark showed evidence of a 'manger' that speaks on behalf of water in 'awakening' as that was set aside in the soul which here then becomes revealed while in 'incubation' at the stable. IOW they should have no knowledge of there even being a John whether he did the right thing or not as he just was not there. . . unless it happened in broad daylight at an evangelistic rally where expectations were high and so had one eye asquint towards 'being king herefater' like Macebth, and this would be a joyful John and kind of like Santa here in anticipation, which so is also a disgrace towards Christ-mass inside Christendom.

Bottom line, there was no Jesus and no John and no Mary and no Zacheriah or Elizabeth as they were all part of the efficient cause during metamorphosis, and so were real but not human, and that is very obvious if you read the thing from this perspective.

However, in symbolism John is very important as that paved the way for baptism now by example as thruth became manifest on earth in Rome and so Revelation therein real as a thing of the past.

One may be able to perform metaphysical and mystical acrobatics with the JtB story, but to take these things too seriously commits the same mistake as literalism ie it assumes the story represents a whole and every part must somehow fit. If instead we assume that different portions were included in order advance different agendas or to include diverse groups("fasting is important" "fasting is not important") we can save ourselves the gymnastic effort.

"Real but not human" is good. I agree that that is the only view that makes sense, but I do not agree that there is any "wholeness" intrinsic to the story. You didn't explicitly say that, so correct me if I'm wrong.

One can find wholeness in one's self through contemplation of Gospel, and that's the point IMO, but that's not the same thing as a story that hangs together as a whole. It's a patchwork of myth, not a philosophical system.

FWIW I think there's a better case for JtB having existed than Jesus, tho I'm no scholar. Again, tho, whether or not JtB existed is less important than whether or not the story speaks.

sotto voce · 12-09-2011, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It sounds as if the only important factor leading to Jesus ministry is the mere fact of john being removed from public preaching.

'After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee' 1:14 NIV

We may suppose that Mark's readers knew why John was imprisoned and indeed executed. This, when added to:

'John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt round his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.' 1:6 NIV

marks out John as one whose testimony was worthy, because he was worthy. That is the author's purpose in mentioning John- to help to validate the ministry and purpose of Jesus.

Duvduv · 12-09-2011, 08:01 AM

Even if the gospels were not yet considered holy writ, even among the literate could anyone simply alter things as they wished, even if it was a marginal gloss of a preacher or simply a commentary?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why do I keep getting the impression that the Baptist section 1-8 at the beginning of Mark is a later addition? And the part about john being put in prison seems like it continues from additional text. It sounds as if the only important factor leading to Jesus ministry is the mere fact of john being removed from public preaching.
Although Mark is said to precede the other gospels it would appear that someone went back and inserted more about Mark after the other gospels had come out.
But the question would be why this would have been necessary, and who had the authority to do it ....

Duvduv · 12-09-2011, 08:03 AM

I disagree. Where would the average reader know all the background information from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It sounds as if the only important factor leading to Jesus ministry is the mere fact of john being removed from public preaching.

'After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee' 1:14 NIV

We may suppose that Mark's readers knew why John was imprisoned and indeed executed. This, when added to:

'John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt round his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.' 1:6 NIV

marks out John as one whose testimony was worthy, because he was worthy. That is the author's purpose in mentioning John- to help to validate the ministry and purpose of Jesus.

aa5874 · 12-09-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

It sounds as if the only important factor leading to Jesus ministry is the mere fact of john being removed from public preaching.

'After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee' 1:14 NIV

We may suppose that Mark's readers knew why John was imprisoned and indeed executed. This, when added to:

'John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt round his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.' 1:6 NIV

marks out John as one whose testimony was worthy, because he was worthy. That is the author's purpose in mentioning John- to help to validate the ministry and purpose of Jesus.

What!!!

John is "worthy" because of his clothes and diet!!!

So, what about BANUS in the "Life of Flavius Josephus"?

BANUS must be worthy.

Life of Flavius Josephus

Quote:

....... I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years....

BANUS wore "VEGGIE" clothes and ATE "VEGGIE" food.

Josephus has Shown that John the Baptist was NOT really unique. There were other Jews who did bathe in water and had special diets.

sotto voce · 12-09-2011, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

'After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee' 1:14 NIV

We may suppose that Mark's readers knew why John was imprisoned and indeed executed. This, when added to:

'John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt round his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.' 1:6 NIV

marks out John as one whose testimony was worthy, because he was worthy. That is the author's purpose in mentioning John- to help to validate the ministry and purpose of Jesus.

I disagree. Where would the average reader know all the background information from?

What background information? John was famous even before his involvement with royalty.

Duvduv · 12-09-2011, 08:41 AM

So what made John so much more special than Banus or anyone else as a character in the gospels? You made my question stronger!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

'After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee' 1:14 NIV

We may suppose that Mark's readers knew why John was imprisoned and indeed executed. This, when added to:

'John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt round his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.' 1:6 NIV

marks out John as one whose testimony was worthy, because he was worthy. That is the author's purpose in mentioning John- to help to validate the ministry and purpose of Jesus.

What!!!

John is "worthy" because of his clothes and diet!!!

So, what about BANUS in the "Life of Flavius Josephus"?

BANUS must be worthy.

Life of Flavius Josephus

Quote:

....... I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day, in order to preserve his chastity, I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years....

BANUS wore "VEGGIE" clothes and ATE "VEGGIE" food.

Josephus has Shown that John the Baptist was NOT really unique. There were other Jews who did bathe in water and had special diets.

Chili · 12-09-2011, 08:50 AM

. . . but nevertheless was a Lamb of God to show continuation on the religious foundation that was laid by his forefathers, imputed on his own soul to which he was true and so found direction in longevity as Man now to finish the mansion they had started . . . and most unlike Camus who found it a horrible experience in Hart of Darkness, or Billy Grahamites who set the whole country on fire (and the rest of the world if given a chance) while totally ignorant of their own incarnation = no manger there to nurse the lamb because it was not the tranquil sea that made the call to order, and please notice his calendar in disarray that you will see (and never mind what critics say):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melencolia_I

It so is that religion is the generational mainstay of life to be encountered while in the netherworld between Christmas and Epiphany, which is when and where the Cana event takes place and so the conversion of water into wine of which Consecration is a foreshadow that takes place in the mind of man and not in the [stupid] cup no matter how fancy it is made.

In Buddhism it entails the post mortum "no soul" concept wherein we have permanence is individuals but must die to get it (Hebrews 9:17) and just be on the leading edge of life itself = 'in charge of destiny' that so gives rise to infallibility . . . but for which the persona first must die and so no sin in Rome can be.

Duvduv · 12-09-2011, 08:54 AM

Who says he was famous before?! More famous than Banus or anyone else??

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I disagree. Where would the average reader know all the background information from?

What background information? John was famous even before his involvement with royalty.

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

12-09-2011, 07:34 AM	#91
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Why do I keep getting the impression that the Baptist section 1-8 at the beginning of Mark is a later addition? And the part about john being put in prison seems like it continues from additional text. It sounds as if the only important factor leading to Jesus ministry is the mere fact of john being removed from public preaching. Although Mark is said to precede the other gospels it would appear that someone went back and inserted more about Mark after the other gospels had come out. But the question would be why this would have been necessary, and who had the authority to do it ....

12-09-2011, 08:50 AM	#99
Chili Banned Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Alberta Posts: 11,885	. . . but nevertheless was a Lamb of God to show continuation on the religious foundation that was laid by his forefathers, imputed on his own soul to which he was true and so found direction in longevity as Man now to finish the mansion they had started . . . and most unlike Camus who found it a horrible experience in Hart of Darkness, or Billy Grahamites who set the whole country on fire (and the rest of the world if given a chance) while totally ignorant of their own incarnation = no manger there to nurse the lamb because it was not the tranquil sea that made the call to order, and please notice his calendar in disarray that you will see (and never mind what critics say): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melencolia_I It so is that religion is the generational mainstay of life to be encountered while in the netherworld between Christmas and Epiphany, which is when and where the Cana event takes place and so the conversion of water into wine of which Consecration is a foreshadow that takes place in the mind of man and not in the [stupid] cup no matter how fancy it is made. In Buddhism it entails the post mortum "no soul" concept wherein we have permanence is individuals but must die to get it (Hebrews 9:17) and just be on the leading edge of life itself = 'in charge of destiny' that so gives rise to infallibility . . . but for which the persona first must die and so no sin in Rome can be.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.