Chili

Eden will be what our heritage determinates (our dowry in bethrotal receive), but we must be John the Baptist as son of God to receive it and for which Jesus is the key to open by his death on the cross, who therefore was the favorite apostle of Jesus and introduced to as Mary as her son standing with her below the cross.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Trinity_(Masaccio)

This was in John of course where Jesus was the lamb of God to sacrifice.

Chili

I guess to be exact, 'Jesus is the way' and if we must follow him he only showed us the way and we must do the same as a lamb of God to liberate us as God, I suppose.

aa5874

John the Baptist appears to be extremely problematic for the author of gJohn. The author has made Jesus into a God, Creator and Universal Savior and cannot explain why Jesus needs to be baptize by John so he eliminates the claim that John preached the Gospel of the Baptism for Remission of Sins.

gJohn's Jesus was to be SACRIFICED for Remission of Sins.

In John 3.16, Jesus BOASTS that God so loved the world that he himself would DIE to save mankind.

But, gJohn's Jesus has become a DIRECT competitor of John the Bapitist.

Amazingly Jesus and disciples will Baptize MORE people than John in the Gospel.

John 3. In the earliest Gospel, Jesus was supposed to Baptize in the Holy Ghost but in gJohn, the Last gospel, Jesus was Baptizing like John.

THE LAMB of GOD OFFERED BAPTISM and his disciples Baptized more than John.

Why did the LAMB of God OFFER Baptism to the Jews in gJohn?

gJohn's Jesus made JtB OBSOLETE.

And gJohn Jesus would do Miracles" and out-perform JtB.

Chili

Do you think maybe the omniscient writer is trying to tell you something here in the grand finally to show us how it is done and how it is done right? and is it not John here who wrote "It is finished!" instead of "my God, my God, why did you for sake me [on the way out]?" to show that Matthew and Mark had the wrong idea of God and therefore was called "MY God" not just once but twice to give us a double here so we would catch that hint? and is that maybe why both Jesus and John had lots of water to share instead of throwing stones at the Jews from the precicnt of their temple?

I think what they are trying to say here is that 'knowledge frees' and 'sin is an illusion' which is the difference between heaven and earth that can only be seen from above for which the 'son of man' must be raised instead of the serpent as it did for Moses "[who had] scorched the snake, not killed it./ She'll close and be herself, whilst our poor malice/ Remains in danger of her former tooth" (Macbeth III.ii.13-15), and hence the serenade to Nicodemus who was 'the perplexity of Joseph' and so called forth the son of God in him to be set free (and so make it known that we all are son of God first and must emerge from continental transgression that was 'Jewishness for Jews' and 'Englishness for Macbeth' . . . wherefore Varleria stayed home in Rome to send Virgilia to Corioli alone so that the 'My God' of religion was not there at the battle of Corioli where Calvary took place as final event in Coriolanus, to be sure, once known as Volscian in Roman domain).

So Jn 3:16 is true, but in the rhytmic tide that 'his only son' is already alive in us and will be wherein we have eternal life if we are 'lief' to our own self and therein are willing to be, i.e. get that life instead of just read about in Jn.5:39.

Chili

In fairness to literature let me add that Moses raised the wrong serpent where John here raised 'the woman' -- instead of Eve as 'temple tramp' in the chain of command of Gen. 3:15 -- to so be the power for his disciples to heal while in Judea = the foreshadow of Coronation to follow to make omniscience known in heaven on earth = direct link to knowledge itself to so reverse the detour via Eve of Gen.3:15 = make Eden functional, if you wish.

Chili

And please notice dear reader that Moses did not get 'transfigured' but just had his 'hair turn white' as if he had is finger in a light socket already back then and kind of like Mcbeth's 'premature C-section' already back then.

Duvduv

aa5874, Your point highlights the question as to WHY the Baptist had to be included in this gospel when his role is utterly redundant.
Why did the author feel forced to keep the Baptist in his gospel story at all?!

Chili

Of course and the answer is to solidify water so we can walk on it, as it will be gone in the new heaven and earth of Rev.21:1, which so is wrong in "repent and believe' in Matthew and Mark, but must be validated as the omega to be added in Luke where all sinners came forth to be baptized without repenting first, as if to be brought home in material John where understanding is freedom as Jew with a mind of his own.

I think noticeable is that tax collecters are here again in Luke as if they are looking for evidence in a milltant way as opposed great numbers from all over looking for a new broom to sweep cleaner in both Matthew and Mark, except that in Matthew Judean elitism is identified to get a good dunking that in Luke are not part of the show, and maybe it is fair to say that tax collecters and millitants (Volscians) are just opposte to Pharisees and Sadducees (sorry folks, just trying to find a way to show that Matthew and Mark are doing it wrong ).

Chili

. . . but it becomes more and more obvious that both Matthew and Mark did know how it was supposed to be done or they would not have done everything just wrong so that Luke and John could do it just right.

aa5874

Again, I have given you my answer.

In the earliest gMark, John the Baptist was used to Historicise the Jesus character.

There is NO indication that the author of gMark was forced to write about any of the characters in his story.