aa5874

You present a most absurd argument which is nothing but BAIT and Switch. An Historical Jesus CANNOT be expected to be EXACTLY the Jesus found in gMark, the Canon or the forgeries of Josephus.

Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible was a Well known Son of a Ghost, the Son of God, God the Creator, the King of the Jews, that walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven so YOUR Apocalyptic Jesus is NOT the Jesus of the Bible, or the forgeries of Josephus.

Please, tell us the source of YOUR Jesus of Nazareth the Apocalyptic preacherman.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Son of a Ghost in the Bible. Your preacherman was NOT.

Jesus of Nazareth Commisioned the Disciples to preach the Gospel after he was RAISED from the dead--Your Apocayptic preacherman did not.

ApostateAbe's Apocalyptic Preacherman was INVENTED from WHOLE CLOTH.

Solo

I don't think I would agree with this, Andrew. Assuming that Paul would have agreed with Mark's allegorizing of his theology (and that is a big "if"), he would have been ok with the portrayal of Jesus' as a repentant sinner. Paul knows that when he is "out of his mind" it is for God, so he would have unlikely found it embarrassing that Mark had the closest relatives assess the ecstatic Jesus the same way. Similarly with the baptism: Mark's community would have read it through Paul's paradox : "God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." (1 Cr 1:28-29). To them Jesus undergoing cleansing would have been an act of Christ-like humility (which they were called upon to emulate !). The idea that John, by dint of his performing baptism on Jesus, would have been his senior or superior, is voided by the "foolishness of God" which is "greater than the wisdom of men". If Jesus was worthy of the Holy Spirit, he would have humbled himself in baptism sent to John from heaven (Mk 11:30). This is what Mark's community apparently believed.

Best,
Jiri

sotto voce

Paul is not talking about Jesus there, but of many members of the church.

'Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.' 1 Co 1:26-27 NIV

Moreover, he is making no reference whatever to moral condition, only to worldly status. So this is total eisegesis.

John saw no reason to baptise Jesus precisely because his moral condition was uniquely spotless, he being 'the Lamb of God'. John's water baptism is anyway not to be compared to water baptism for the Christian, which is, or rather was, before infant baptism was introduced by paganism, a public statement of faith in Jesus, more likely an act of courage than humility. And it should be noted that John's baptism was not a public statement of faith in John. John did not have disciples in the same way; only those ignorant of Jesus stayed as John's 'followers'.

Mark's 'community' believed that John was sent by God, but there was no belief that Jesus had need for baptism of any kind. Indeed, he was the final baptiser, in spiritual 'fire' that consumes whatever is perishable in the one baptised.

aa5874

Well, this shows that the gMark Baptism story PREDATES the Pauline writings.

In the earliest Jesus stories the short-ending and long ending gMark and the Synoptics, the Baptism of Jesus was PLEASING to God but in the Later writings the Baptism of Jesus became Problematic when Jesus was Later URGRADED to be God Incarnate.

In gJohn, Jesus was God from the beginning BEFORE he became Flesh. See John 1

It is NOT claimed the Baptism of Jesus was pleasing to God in gJohn. Those words are missing.

In the Pauline writings, Jesus was already existing as God's Son BEFORE he was sent. See Galatians 2.20 and 4.4.

The Pauline writer claimed he was NOT called to Baptize--See 1 Cor. 1.17

And may I remind you that the Synoptic argument will destroy any claim that gMark used the Pauline writings.

It is absurd that gMark could have used the Pauine writings when it contains perhaps 0.01% or less of the Pauline letters and has a complete different Christology.

andrewcriddle

I think Paul regarded Jesus as sinless from the beginning: see 2 Corinthians 5:21 made to be sin may mean made to be a sin offering and almost certainly refers to the crucifixion and related events.

Andrew Criddle

Solo

But, this verse may also signify (and I believe that it does) that by Paul's witness Jesus was not aware of sinning but objectively (legally) there were grounds for his execution:

Gal 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"-

This I read as meaning that Paul considered Jesus condemned under the law.

Rom 8:3-4 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law (ἵνα τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου) might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

IOW, Paul believed that Jesus was condemned in law and condemned justly, (i.e. there was substance to the charge(s) that led to his execution) in order (for God) to demonstrate that not law but faith (of Jesus Christ - read both ways) was the key to salvation.

This fits well with another saying by Paul - 1 Cr 2:8 "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." IOW, the ecstatic Jesus was out of his mind for God. He was led by the Spirit of God, and emptied of himself, doing what the spirit told him. Only those elected by God (Rom 8:33), i.e. having the wisdom to interpret their experience of Christ, could see this.

FWIW, my take on Paul's "silence" on the words and deeds of Jesus, is that his revelation of Christ (in becoming an ecstatic himself), led him to realize that God sacrificed Jesus' by making him a mad prophet (Hsa 9:7-11) for the kingdom of God. Jesus might have transgressed the law but only because God willed it.

Best,
Jiri

Grog

Although I don't necessarily agree with Solo, I will concede that this resolves the Ro 13 paradox.

Grog

And, so...?

Adam

It proves that the original Passion Narrative was not copied from Josephus' portrayal of Jesus Ananias. The simple PN in gJohn helps disprove MJ.

Grog

How do you know this is the original PN? How can it "disprove" something when the hypothesis that it is the original has not been "proved?"