Rick Sumner

I'm not so sure about this either. As many scholars (though perhaps most notably, and most indebited to, E P Sanders) points out, there are many reasons to suspect that Jesus viewed himself as some sort of Messiah.

To tie in with what I was saying earlier to Vivisector and Ben, I suppose one point that's important in considering whether or not Jesus saw himself and his movement as an extension of JBap's is whether or not JBap saw himself as a harbinger of the Messiah. Which is tough to say for sure, I think. Where do John's words end and the later evangelists' begin?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

I think I agree with that. I did not mean to claim that every word and phrase in those verse ranges was original (and I do not think that attaining the ipsissima verba is a realistic goal anyway); I meant the basic thought.

You and I may be haggling over the semantic meaning of the word extension.

I am not sure about that, but I do think that early Christians got their baptismal rite from John the baptist, one way or another; I do not think the connection is coincidental.

Romans 6.2b-4, 7:

How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into his death? .... For he who has died is freed from sin.

I think this passage intimately connects baptism with a changeover from a life of sinning to a life of not sinning. And that is surely at least part of the thrust of the baptism of repentance in Mark 1.4-5.

Ben.

TedM

Why reject the pathological liar's comment when you don't really know? Why not plead doubting yet agnostic instead when you can't prove it one way or another?


Yes, in order to believe them, sure. However, since I don't equate outrageousness with intent to decieve, I don't consider them to be known lies. That leaves the very real possibility that some of the information is based on real events. That's what against-the-grain analysis attempts to recover.

I don't know any credible info to support this assertion.


Our differences in approach appear to be due to your refusal to see this matter in terms other than black and white. I am ok with grey.


I don't think the authors necessarily lied about any of the outrageous events they claimed happened, because to "lie" implies an intent to decieve. One can argue otherwise but we all know what the word implies. I haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that there was a clear attempt to decieve on the part of the gospel authors.


ted

aa5874

Why accept the pathological liar's comment when you know you are dealing with a known liar?

Why accept events in the NT when you know that the NT is filled with fictitious material that appeared plausible?

Again, all you do is look for material in the NT that you think is plauasible and just believe the material is true or credible. You do not need evidence.

You are doing exactly as people of antiquity.

They believed the Holy Ghost conception of Jesus was plausible so they believed it was true. They needed no evidence.

They believed the temptation of Jesus was plausible, devils can take people on top of mountains, the temptation must be true. No evidence, just plausibility

People of antiquity believed the miracles were plausible, they believed the transfiguration, the crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension were all plausible, they needed no evidence, plausibilty will do.

Now, 2000 years later, you are still using the plausibility method to determine historicity.

You use the 2000 year old approach, (the stone age approach) whatever is plausible is likely to be true.

My approach needs evidence. If an author writes known fiction as if it was true, the author is not credible. His entire work needs corroboration before any part of it can be accepted.


You must think that the Jesus stories are plausible in some way in order to to use your 2000 year old method (stoneage method) to extract history from material where no evidence exists that can corroborate the events.

spamandham

Possibly, but considering the almost trivial roll JtB plays in the gospels, it seems to me he was included for the purpose of making Christianity appeal to the JtB cult.

"Hey look you guys! John said to defer to Jesus!"

Chili

Freedom from the law is required to be free from sin and so Mark's forgiveness of sin has nothing to do with freedom from sin. Mark's idea of repentance is even worse because the very "I" that does the repenting must itself be repented and here I would argue that baptism is into the community of sinners so that "sin might go through the limit of sinfulness" (Romans 6:13) so the very "I" that does the sinning can die instead of repent.

This should tell us that we should like sinners until they die as sinner.

Rick Sumner

In that case I'm tentatively inclined to agree (again, pending occasion to review more commentaries. Too many children make it tough to find time for things like reinstalling libronix.

I'm also inclined to agree that finding a 100% genuinely authentic saying is a silly goal. No matter how many red beads you have in your hand.

That might be the case. I'm thinking more in terms of a direct continuation, in the sense the two movements are frequently related in reconstructions, with Jesus carrying on the message of his mentor while he was incarcerated.

Neither do I. But that doesn't mean that it moved straight from one to the other. That they're related doesn't necessarily mean they're a direct evolution.

What frees you from sin? The baptism? Or the Christ you're intimately connected to because of it? How does Paul think baptism functioned before Christ? Because JBap doesn't seem to have needed Jesus for the rite to work.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ben C Smith

I have a feeling there was debate on this point even among the baptized.

He does not say. He may well have regarded Christian baptism as having started with Jesus himself, with no prehistory at all. That does not mean he was right.

Agreed, of course.

BTW, here is another possible Pauline connection of baptism with the forgiveness of sins. 1 Corinthians 15.29:

Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

If, as I suspect, this obscure reference has 2 Maccabees 12.43-45 (RSV) behind it...:

43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

...then it would support, again, the notion of baptism as an atonement for sin, at least amongst some early Christians (perhaps including Paul himself).

Ben.

aa5874

The letter writer called Paul seemed to think very little of the significance of baptism.

1 Corinthians 1.17

Chili

Baptism doesn't need Jesus to work and in fact is what is meant by 'no strong drink' for John. When Jesus appears John is done and John's work is done or Jesus would be a sinner to feed him the [consecrated] 'bread and wine' that he made (consecrated here means the input of human hands that is absent in 'wild honey and locusts').

Baptism is into the community of saints and sinners wherein we have communion with the saints through the imagery that they left behind . . . if only because saints are in heaven where we are not. We communicate with them with the eye of our soul whereby we see things noetically and so re-cognize the art in their works of art and expressions of faith. In Luke they are represented by Zechariah and his [daily] incense offering of which Elizabeth is the vapor whereby she has an effect in the Sanctuary of men = Sanctuary here is the TOK to say that they were from the TOL = outside the Sanctuary but is wherein the faith of our fathers has an effect on us = the flip side of 'paying for their sins' wherefore faith (including virtue) is a gift of God . . . but only in the absence of Jesus who has not come just yet even in Luke where his annunciation is what put Elizabeth at rest. Jesus, then, is where faith comes to an end as expressed in "get thee behind me satan."

We can now say that the insence offering of Zechariah represents the eternal Hope which must come to an end with the arrival of Jesus (first or second coming).

So now in summary, John is where hope comes to an end and Jesus is where faith comes to an end. It is therefore not wise to build a religion on hope-without-end.


For what it is worth, in Catholicism eternal hope comes to an end when we recognize the white candle in the Advent wreath as our very own Baptism candle that we still have in the silent anticipation of our rebirth from water that is in preparation for our final mass wherein Christ is born unto us. Note that Zechariah's final incense offering in 'the full assemble of his people' is to insure that Jesus would not be 'from his mothers womb untimely ripped' and consequently be an 'apostle short' in Galilee. The full assembly of his people includes Zechariah who was struck dumb to show just that and the beheading of John is to make sure that the TOL remains free from sin until Jesus died (no more clash on Nietzsches anvil for which we must remember that Christ is born on the darkest night for which the anvil is responsible = conviction of sin).

Incidentally, the JtB story replaced the flood wherein the arrival of John announced new life ahead (while still at sea), which in turn is replaced with the period of Advent in Catholicism where the white candle does the same thing in the allegory.