Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 03-22-2012, 03:14 PM

AA, you do not recognize the fact that you have already stated yourself that the Jesus of GMark was not a messiah figure. IF SO, the he did not need a precursorr DID HE? The content of GMark is out of synch with the idea of a messiah figure and his precursor, isn't it??

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Right, but I was thinking that the original GMark didn't have anything about the Baptist at all until after it got added to Matthew and Luke although the GMark account is pretty skimpy even with an implication of adoption.

Furthermore, IF the Baptist story was NOT in an original tale of Jesus the Holy Man, then it wasn't the anchor for the story in the early 1st century. So the anchor could have only been related to "under Pilate" (Mark 15) to reflect the allegory for the concept of "under the rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2.

Your argument is logically flawed.

You Speculated about a scenario that is NOT found in gMark. You assume your OWN story without John the Baptist and then come to a conclusion that CONVENIENTLY satifies your Belief.

Again, John the Baptist is in the earliest known gMark so you got to deal with that fact.

The character called John the Baptist appears to be corroborated in ONLY one non-apologetic source which may imply that John the Baptist was used to historicise Jesus.

aa5874 · 03-22-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, you do not recognize the fact that you have already stated yourself that the Jesus of GMark was not a messiah figure. IF SO, the he did not need a precursorr DID HE? The content of GMark is out of synch with the idea of a messiah figure and his precursor, isn't it??..

You have to answer your own questions about YOUR Precursor. My position is based on the FACT that John the Baptist is IN gMark.

You seem to "tamper" with the evidence to produce the results you want.

It would appear that Whatever destroys your argument magically becomes an interpolation.

The claim in gMark that John Baptized ALL of Judea for the Remission of Sins is an EXTREMELY good piece of evidence to logically deduce that the author was UNAWARE of universal SALVATION through the Sacrifice and Resurrection of Jesus.

Duvduv · 03-22-2012, 03:47 PM

I asked YOU first. Your point is that the GMark Jesus was not the messiah figure, in which case he did not need a precursor, an Elijah figure, right? We weren't talking ONLY about the universal sacrificial savior of GJohn, if you remember.
Yet if an Elijah figure does exist in GMark, EITHER this is because the GMark Jesus IS a messiah figure OR because the Baptist verses were added later when the messiah status was ascribed to Jesus.

The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b] 2 as it is written in Isaiah the prophet:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way”[c]—
3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”[d]
And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8 I baptize you with[e] water, but he will baptize you with[f] the Holy Spirit.”

Indeed, this echos the task of Elijah according to normative Judaism where (according to the mishnah at the end of Eduyot) Elijah will prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah, to bring near those who are far removed, and so on as it is written (Malachi 3:23-24): "Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of God, and he shall turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers." But why would this be necessary if GMark Jesus is not a messiah figure UNLESS the original story did not have the Baptist verses??

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

AA, you do not recognize the fact that you have already stated yourself that the Jesus of GMark was not a messiah figure. IF SO, the he did not need a precursorr DID HE? The content of GMark is out of synch with the idea of a messiah figure and his precursor, isn't it??..

You have to answer your own questions about YOUR Precursor. My position is based on the FACT that John the Baptist is IN gMark.

You seem to "tamper" with the evidence to produce the results you want.

It would appear that Whatever destroys your argument magically becomes an interpolation.

The claim in gMark that John Baptized ALL of Judea for the Remission of Sins is an EXTREMELY good piece of evidence to logically deduce that the author was UNAWARE of universal SALVATION through the Sacrifice and Resurrection of Jesus.

aa5874 · 03-22-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I asked YOU first. Your point is that the GMark Jesus was not the messiah figure, in which case he did not need a precursor, an Elijah figure, right? ...

Again, I do NOT answer "Leading Questions"!!! You must answer your own "Leading Question".

My position is that gMark's Jesus was NOT a Universal Savior and did NOT teach that his crucifixion and resurrection was for the Remission of Sins.

gMark's Jesus waited till the day he was put on trial to PUBLICLY Declare he was the Son of the Blessed and the Messiah but he was REJECTED and executed because of the Jews within a few hours.

Duvduv · 03-23-2012, 05:26 AM

Any thoughts on any of these observations. Why didn't Luke like the reference to the Baptist 's clothes and food or Jesus originating from Galilee or Nazareth? And why is Jesus just one of the crowd?
And why doesn't Matthew want to say that Jesus came from Nazareth? What difference does it make? And why is there a difference about carrying the sandal versus untying it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Looking at the three stories of the Baptist's involvement with Jesus we find some interesting differences. The voice from heaven apparently makes use of Psalm 2 and Isaiah 42 together.

GMark - Jesus simply passes through from Nazareth and gets baptized. The Baptist is in the wilderness with his special garments and food and declares his lesser role before the one whose sandals he is not worthy to stoop and untie, but baptizes with water while the greater one will baptize with the holy spirit. But then once the one greater than he arrives there is no interaction between them at all. Jesus emerges from the water and saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending like a dove. The heavenly voice says "with you I am well pleased."

GMatt - The Baptist, with the same clothes and food has a more extensive conversation with the crowd and claims that he is not worthy to carry the sandals as opposed to untying them. Unlike GMark the Baptist states explicitly that he baptizes for repentance but the other will baptize with the Holy Spirit AND FIRE, etc. No Nazareth is mentioned, only Galilee. However, instead of just happening to be baptized by John, Jesus came to him with that intention. And here we DO see an interaction between them. Here Jesus does not see heaven opening, only the descending dove. The heavenly voice says "with him I am well pleased (instead of with HIM which seems to reflect more directly Isaiah 42).

GLuke - Unlike the other two stories, no mention of the Baptist's clothes and food is made, and here the crowd wonders whether John might be the messiah and it appears as if John is answering their unstated question by stating he is not worthy to UNTIE (like GMark) the shoes of the next one who will baptize with the holy spirit and fire but not the entire statement that appears in GMatt. Then there is the part about Herod locking John in prison but does not explain how he was released to baptize (which must be why it doesn't say explicitly that John did the baptizing).

There is no mention of Jesus' place of origin, and the baptism of Jesus sounds like he was just baptized as one of the crowd, with no special intention involved. Jesus does not see the heaven opening or the dove descending. However the voice from heaven is the same as in GMark rather than GMatt. As in GMark there is no interaction with the Baptist.

It appears that both GMark and GLuke follow GMark, and GLuke prefers the narrative (with some embellishments) of GMark over GMatt but changes some elements based on other unknown sources of the story, i.e. the mention of Herod, what happened when Jesus emerges from the water, and the notion that Jesus was just one of the crowd (which itself has an echo in the story in GJohn where there is no baptism of Jesus but where Jesus is just one of the crowd).

GMatt makes some slight changes and puts more flesh on the bones, also based on elements from other stories.

Duvduv · 03-23-2012, 06:33 AM

So in that part what happened to the Baptist who was Elijah? And if Elijah is now there making Jesus the Davidic messiah, then why doesn't king David also appear with Elijah and Moses? The quandary of the Elijah motif is complicated by the lack of a genealogy for Jesus in GMark. In the other Synoptics it is even more complicated because not even Mary is a descendant of David. She is a cousin of Elizabeth who is a Levite, thus in fact making her a daughter so to speak of Aaron as claimed in the quranic story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Within the context of the first chapter of GMark we see the metaphor of the Baptist fitting the role of Elijah in announcing the coming of the Messiah. But is merely alluding to it because despite paraphrasing of Isaiah and Malachi (according to Wikipedia some manuscripts refer to "the prophets" instead of Isaiah as the source), nowhere in GMark is it unambiguously stated that Jesus was the messiah with Elijah as his forerunner.

So it got me wondering whether all references in the other gospels (which follow the lead from GMark), were only added much later AFTER the Baptist in GMark itself was added in order to at least conform to the idea of Jesus as the explicit Jewish messiah who is preceded by Elijah.

Even the reference to Elijah in Malachi 4 is not explicit that he is the precursor to the Messiah. GMark without the Baptist does not really say anything more about Jesus than that he was a Jewish holy man who himself spoke about the Son of Man ambiguously.

The author of gMark did manage to Place ELIJAH in the presence of his Jesus up in a mountain AFTER HE had TRANSFIGURED.

Mark 9

Quote:

2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

3 And his raiment became shining , exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias....

Duvduv · 03-26-2012, 05:43 AM

Are there any indications that any ancient sources of the gospels or ancient writers did not include the Baptist story?

Adam · 03-27-2012, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Are there any indications that any ancient sources of the gospels or ancient writers did not include the Baptist story?

The original Q said nothing about John the Baptist, according to Burton Mack's The Lost Gospel (1993). Of course, his Original book of Q section only runs from page 73 to 80.

The document underlying the Q found in Matthew and Luke includes, however, material found both in the Gospel of Thomas and in Mark. These verses in Mark include narrative about John the Baptist, in my opinion. For a fuller discussion see my post #5 here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/

At the same site see my Post #6 for my presentation of L (special Luke) within Proto-Luke, which does seem to be lacking anything about John the Baptist.

Duvduv · 03-27-2012, 06:49 AM

A later interpolator in Romans could say Jesus was of the seed of David because he already believed that the Baptist was Elijah in the gospels, but how could the original author claim to his audience that Jesus was of the seed of David if he didn't identify the Elijah figure preceding Jesus, which only makes sense in the case of an earthly messiah following the prophecy of Malachi?

Duvduv · 03-27-2012, 08:54 AM

Hi, Adam. I couldn't exactly find the point in your postings 5 or 6. You would say the case is that the Baptist is not mentioned at all, which would include the allusions in Luke 1 about John being the "spirit of Elijah" although the voice in the wilderness is not explicitly a reference to Elijah in Luke 3, Matthew 3 and Mark 1. Indeed, in Jewish tradition that verse coming from Isaiah 40 has nothing to do with Elijah or the Messiah.

By contrast in Matthew 17 Jesus says Elijah has already come, presumably confirming the description of John in Matthew 3 and Mark (not in Luke) wearing clothes like Elijah. Mark 1 uses the word "messenger" for "malach" (angel) which is the same interpretation as in rabbinic commentaries on its use in Numbers.

GJohn has the Baptist deny he is Elijah in John 1 but then Jesus says he is the one who came before (in John 3), as stated in Matthew 11. Neither Luke nor GJohn make the explicit case of the Baptist as Elijah. In Matt 11 the disciples understand that the reference of Jesus to Elijah already having come was to the Baptist, whereas interestingly enough GJohn, who is usually so different than the synoptics in so many areas has the Baptist explicitly state that he is the one who comes before the messiah.

For some reason the authors of GLuke and GJohn equally want to cover up the role of the Baptist as Elijah for the messiah of the Malachi.

Yet the very fact that all four gospels have the Baptist lower himself below the one who is yet to come has no basis in the Jewish tradition, where no one would mistake Elijah for the Messiah at all since all he does is prepare the world for the Messiah and thus doesn't have to provide any disclaimer about his lower station. It would be obvious to all.

The idea of different baptisms has a sense of finality to it, that when Jesus comes the people will no longer need the baptism of John at all. Yet why would anyone bother with John's baptism if Jesus's baptism is superior?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Are there any indications that any ancient sources of the gospels or ancient writers did not include the Baptist story?

The original Q said nothing about John the Baptist, according to Burton Mack's The Lost Gospel (1993). Of course, his Original book of Q section only runs from page 73 to 80.

The document underlying the Q found in Matthew and Luke includes, however, material found both in the Gospel of Thomas and in Mark. These verses in Mark include narrative about John the Baptist, in my opinion. For a fuller discussion see my post #5 here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/

At the same site see my Post #6 for my presentation of L (special Luke) within Proto-Luke, which does seem to be lacking anything about John the Baptist.

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

03-26-2012, 05:43 AM	#137
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Are there any indications that any ancient sources of the gospels or ancient writers did not include the Baptist story?

03-27-2012, 06:49 AM	#139
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	A later interpolator in Romans could say Jesus was of the seed of David because he already believed that the Baptist was Elijah in the gospels, but how could the original author claim to his audience that Jesus was of the seed of David if he didn't identify the Elijah figure preceding Jesus, which only makes sense in the case of an earthly messiah following the prophecy of Malachi?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.