Loomis

Do you remember your post on this thread last January?

We were discussing the seamless loop between Mark 16:7 --->>> Mark 1:14.

Here’s what you said then:When ‘Paul’ says, “do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death” he is talking about the Mobius-strip thing.

The baptism of Jesus (which preceded his appearance in Galilee) took place at the same time as his death when you rotate/ unroll the loop. The two events overlap.

Think "Twilight Zone.”

Loomis

Or maybe “Groundhog Day.”

neilgodfrey

Yup. Or maybe even all these characters in our narratives were born out of personifications of early theological positions in dialogue/debate/contention. That assumption has about as much rationale, maybe even a bit more, than the presumption that we are discussing historical characters.

Consider, for instance, that our debate is informed exclusively by the western traditions of John the Baptist, and ignores completely questions that must surely be legitimately raised by Mandaean beliefs (from at least the 3rd century) that John was never executed, and was not even Jewish, but belonged to an Medean immigrant community in Palestine.

Given this tradition, why dismiss out of hand Zindler's very rational case for the John the Baptist references in Josephus being at least as questionable as his Jesus/Messiah passage? Is it because a tradition found among a minority group of Arabs does not count the way a tradition among long dominant and more populous white peoples does?

Consider also the almost symbolical nature of John the Baptist's first appearance in the first gospel. Wilderness, wild animal clothing and food, representative of the Prophets, pronouncing from the Law and Prophets the one who was to come to replace all that. All the symbolism is in symbolic contrast to that of Jesus, wearing linen, no physical appearance to compare, drinking wine, incomprehensible to the Old and its legalistic asceticism. Then when Jesus goes into the wilderness of John, he does not find honey and wild locusts to eat, but is given the food of angels. Surely all this is the stuff of literary foils, of theological symbolism. It is not history, let alone biography!

And it all goes to serve the theological interests of the followers of Jesus of the new covenant. Even the execution of Jesus in the first gospel is an obvious literary/theological foil to that of Jesus.

Why assume all of this is in some sense a hint of the historical? Especially when Christianity's rival faith denies it totally? Would there be the same complacent presumption of their being only one correct model if the Western Reformation had divided the western church over the teaching and life of John the Baptist instead of Paul, and we were left with Catholics and Mandaeans instead of Catholics and Protestants?

Is one justified in wondering if there is a bit of white and western presumption of dominance/superiority at play in the way the debate's parameters are so narrowly defined here?


Just thoughts.

Neil Godfrey

TedM

Nope. Just using common sense based on a recognition that the authors may have been incorporating both myth and reality in a story since there is little evidence that they intentionally were lying to us. This recognition is something that you refuse to consider. We clearly are done. It seems you must simply be here to remind people at every step that since there is not the corroberation you require, the authors were not writing anything based on real historical events. I reject that false logic.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I do.

Perhaps I should have made clear that I do not actually agree with the hypothesis that I said had been floated. I was just trying to helpfully point you along.

Ben.

Chili

I see no difference between a religion that is build on 'hope-without-end' and one that is build on 'faith-without-end' and so the Mandaeans are just an early protestant sect still stuck on the wrong gospel. Let me add here that hope cannot be conceived to exist without doubt as the flip-side of faith and so now we have 'doubters' and 'hopers' insisting that they are right while going to the wrong church.

Apart from that can they still be good neighbors but I am not sure if they should be allowed to speak on political platforms.

andrewcriddle

Accepting that the Mandaean community goes back to at least the 3rd century, can we demonstrate that these specific views about John the Baptist were held by that community in its very early stages ?

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It is not logical to claim someone's logic is false without any evidence or just based on your imagination.

You have no evidence at all to claim that any part of the Jesus stories are true. Common sense is not evidence or corroborative material. 2000 years ago, many used their common sense, without any evidenceand accepted as reality the virgin birth, the raising of the dead, the transfiguration, resurrection and ascension of a character called Jesus.

Using common sense as evidence has already been proven to be illogical and produces bogus results.

It is therefore reasonable, logical and common sense to reject the Jesus stories as fiction until evidence is found.

I do not use my common sense to fabricate evidence when there is none.

TedM

You claim things that aren't extraordinary in the slightest didn't happen because you don't have the type of evidence for them that you require, despite claims that they did happen by people that cannot be shown to have intentionally deceptive motives. Jesus being baptized by JTB isn't necesarrily extraordinary. The disciples baptizing isn't necessarily extraordinary either.

Your claim arises from what looks to me to be an unreasonably rigid attitude, and I wonder if you may be driven by other factors than logic.

In any case, I clearly won't change your opinions and it appears that you won't change mine either. We will simply have to let what is..be.

take care,
ted

Chili

Each to his own Ted. Siddharta had to leave his own kingdom to find truth and so did Joseph of Arimethea.

I think that the beginning of all discovery lies in our doubting what we know or think we know. Kind of like (god forbid) Rene Descartes who never did learn but was on the right track.