Chili

Same thing, the final judgement is the coming of the messiah in a personal world wich is the only place wherein the known world is conceived to exist.

Ben C Smith

Is this a trick question? He was a Baptist! Next you will be asking the religion of Fred the Lutheran.

I am sorry to hear that. I hate it when a culture vanishes, almost as much as I hate it when a living species goes extinct.

Here is an interesting observation from that Wiki page on Mandaeism:

By consulting the colophons in the Left Ginza, Jorunn J. Buckley has identified an uninterrupted chain of copyists to the late 2nd or early 3rd c. AD.

Is this for real? I wonder how many links in the chain there are.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

See The Mandaeans by Buckley

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Thanks.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I don't recall offhand so I'll have to get back to you once I've got access to my books this afternoon.

TedM

The traditional JTB role apparently addressed the expectation of Elijah's return before the coming of the Messiah, and thus can be viewed with some skepticism.. However, the tradition upheld in all 4 gospels of Jesus' being baptised by JTB for sins that he didn't commit is an against-the-grain idea. What necessitated such a bizarre act, since neither the expectation of Elijah's return nor the "voice in the wilderness" prophecy called for the messiah to be baptised? One might argue that the belief that the adoptionist viewpoint (ie Jesus was imperfect until being baptised) necessitated it. However, where would such a belief come from? To my knowledge there is nothing in the scriptures which gives strong support for the idea--the idea that Jesus would need to be baptized by the returning Isaiah. Perhaps then, the adoptionist viewpoint came from a tradition out of historicity. As such, the baptism by JTB can be seen to argue for its historicity.

A few related arguments:

1. In each gospel, Jesus' ministry appears to have begun immediately after being baptised by JTB. If historical, this is perfectly explainable--ie Jesus was profoundly influenced by his experience of being baptised, and felt this was a "calling" of sorts.

2. The brief reference to Jesus' disciples performing baptisms soon after Jesus' baptism, in implied competition to JTB. GJohn doesn't explain it in theological terms. GJohn (and the synoptics) have JTB saying of Jeuss: "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit." It therefore would have made more sense for GJohn to have NOT had Jesus' disciples continue the baptism tradition early on if it wasn't historically accurate, since SPIRITUAL baptism is what JTB said that Jesus performed..With Jesus, water baptism was not necessary, so why make up a story about Jesus' disciples performing it?

3. The ongoing tradition of baptism. With the message of salvation through faith in Paul's gospel, the theological need for water baptism went away. Yet it is clear that this tradition was strong from the earliest days of Christianity. This, despite the existence of JTB followers who seemed unaware of Jesus as messiah.

Why retain these traditions--along with the Nazarite connection you point out--that seem so unnecessary and even counterproductive to the earliest Christian theological message unless there was a historical precedent? An actual historical baptism of Jesus himself and early adoption of JTB as "messiah announcer" AND actual baptisms performed early on by Jesus and/or his disciples provide a reasonable explanation.

ted

aa5874

The Gospel stories of JTB do not represent any tradtion but merely authors copying information from one another or from a single source.

And since nothing in the sciptures give any support to the JTB stories, that is a strong indication that the stories were all made up.

And if not historical, it is still perfectly explainable. An author made up a story about JTB and a character called Jesus many decades after the supposed events, using scriptures and information from Josephus.

But, it can be asked why make up a story that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Ghost, or ascended to heaven, if it was not true.

It would appear the authors of the Gospels were simmply following the same storyline.

How can you show that it was or may have been an historical fact that Jesus was actually baptising in the Holy Ghost or with the Holy Ghost?

There is no need for actual baptisms to have occurred, all that is necessary is for believers to be taught that it is needed. Historicity is irrrelevant.

Chili

No way! To be forgiven for the sins that Jesus did not commit is a necessary condition to be free from sin and the slavery to religion and sin.

It is true that Jesus himself never sinned and that he carried the sins of Joseph but this does not include the sins of his lineage, clan and nation or there would be Jews in heaven while there are no temples there. That is where he became filled with the HS who was there to stay . . . which made Jesus the nazarite after John was imprisoned. Note that John and Jesus are 'bosum buddies' that present the initial stages in the dramatic conversion of Joseph [the upright sinner]. Yes but GJohn is the Catholic gospel after Luke showed us how to do it right. The message of salvation in Jn.20:21 clearly shows that only those who bare the stigmata can be send to spread the good news and these are known as Jesuits who are also set free from sin and slavery to sin (nazarites there). Sure thing ted but we are here in a transition period where water baptism must conceive a different John than Luke's John who there send the HS upon Jesus. A different John means different water that holds the tradition of the clan that no longer is Jewish but Catholic instead. After all, with the sins of the clan paid for by Jesus the scent of our incsense is different and above all is it offered to Christ instead of Abraham's God.

neilgodfrey

According to a Mandaean interview on Encounter, a recent program (5 October, 2008) on Australia's Radio National , The transcript of interviews with Mandaeans discussing their post-invasion lives and struggles, and which includes an extensive coverage of their religion and historical background as well, is available:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/s...08/2378162.htm

Neil

neilgodfrey

According to the above transcript interviews with Mandaean scholars, Mandaean belief is that John the Baptist:

• was not Jewish, but originated among Medean immigrants in Palestine
  
• was whisked back to Medea at his birth by angels in order to be enlightened
  
• returned to baptize at the Jordan
  
• baptized by day and preached by night for 42 years
  
• not in the transcript, but from the wikipedia, Mandaean literature has John dying at the moment he touched an angel

This is according to the Haran Gawaita, a Mandaean text dating at least from the 6th century, and possibly from the 3rd century.

Of course this historical view leads to interesting questions:

1. it does not contradict Zindler's argument that the John the Baptist references in Josephus were no more original than the Jesus references;
   
2. if there was a John the Baptist who was executed around the period of Jesus, and he had been at work 42 years, then we may have an(other) explanation for some of the earliest Christian art depicting John the Baptist as an old man when he baptized a very young Jesus;
   
3. or if there was a John the Baptist who had been at work 42 years, much of that time post-Jesus, then we have another reason to date the gospels very late, well beyond living memory of such;
   
4. we have an analog to Matthew's story of enlightened individuals coming from the East to welcome the Christ
   
5. or best of all, maybe we begin to find an answer to Joseph Campbell's ancient question about the coincidence of finding at Jordan an individual who bore the name of the Mesopotamian god (Ea of Water, Oannes) associated with the ritual he taught
   

I wouldn't place too much strength on the gospels as evidence of details about the John the Baptist tradition. In each, his message and appearance is surely part and parcel of what they were wanting to convey about Jesus, and shaped accordingly. Another religious tradition clearly disagrees with the Christian "records".

But the "nazarene" connection does sound promising.


Neil