Clivedurdle

Amaleq - you wrote you are a psychologist. Ok I am going to go Freudian (Joke:devil1 on you - what is the resistance about?

You have a clear description of the holy spirit descending as a dove on water - a story with two of the elements in it - that has a proclamation by God about his son with whom he is well pleased that then continues into the wilderness and a challenge with Satan.


If you accept it as a story then you agree with me that any assumptions about what characters do or their intentions - like to wash away sin - are also part of the story or logical assumptions from the story.

Then why this unacknowledged switch of horses in mid flow from story to real?

Is this magical realism in the vein of Rushdie?

Toto

Why does Mark say that JtB baptized for repentance for sins, but Josephus says the opposite?

Comparison

Josephus: I don't have a good answer for this. Josephus went through Christian hands and has been edited at least in one other place, so the original of both sources is not certain.

If Josephus represents the original sentiment, there is no need to assume that Jesus thought he needed to remove sin - unless sin is just the ritual impurity of normal living. But then was the "removal of sin" in Mark added after baptism became a Christian rite?

Clivedurdle

Maybe it is here

You mean Mark's character Jesus believed he was a sinner?

From the text I would again strongly disagree you have no evidence for making that conjecture - John is part of the scene where God proclaiming his son is enacted in the waters of Jordan - also a very symbolic place. This feels like a deliberate insertion of some historical realism.

Arguing about if this character was going to have his sins washed away is the equivalent of arguing why a director chose a particular colour for something in a scene.

Amaleq13

With regard to this particular discussion, I am considering it as a story with no assumptions about any historical reality it might describe.

It is unacknowledged because it isn't something I'm doing.

Though I have to admit I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about.

Solo

Alexander Gilchrist recounts how ten-year old William Blake ran home once and told is dad he saw angels on an orchard tree.

Why would assume this is not a historical account ? Because you never saw angels in the tree ?

And yeah, almost forgot: William's dad spanked the boy for telling lies.

Jiri

Solitary Man

That depends on what you mean by "historian".

Amaleq13

I don't know that these necessarily contradict one another. The ritual is one of purity but, according to Josphus, John seems to have been emphasizing that simply enacting the ritual was not enough. One must also repent of one's sins.

OTOH, I seem to recall reading somewhere the idea that Josephus' passage was deliberately worded so as to avoid angering or offending somebody with the notion of a repentance baptism while retaining his positive impression of the man.

Amaleq13

I already answered this in a previous post to you:
The lack of apology for the obvious implication combined with the obvious efforts of the subsequent rewrites of the story to avoid that implication says otherwise.

Then why don't you stop?

Solo

Actually there is ample evidence that events like mass charismatic gatherings, or places associated with sacred traditions regularly trigger psychoses even in some apparently healthy individuals.

Jiri

Clivedurdle

It is correct that Blake got spanked for saying he saw angels. I would argue that Blake did see angels and he was not lying.

But could anyone else?

But this is not analagous - Mark is a third party. The starting assumption should be story when we are hearing about gods descending, especially with it came to passes.