sotto voce

Paul's perception would have been that Jesus' baptism was part of his humbling. He was fully aware that John's baptism was for repentance, i.e. was to signify remorse for sins committed. Jesus had made himself look like a sinner, even though John protested that this was inappropriate for him. John had indicated Jesus' sinlessness by his description of him as 'the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world'. Paul would have seen this willingness as entirely consistent with Jesus' later sacrifice, by which 'God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God' (2 Co 5:21 NIV).

Paul nowhere mentioned this event in his letters; but then, it was early indication of a more important event; and anyway, he was not present. It is perhaps of interest that John, in another context, that of identifying Jesus, seems to have reckoned Jesus' baptism of particular significance:

'There are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.' 1 Jn 5:7-8 NIV

Here John takes up the OT precept of the necessity of testimony of two or three witnesses. 'The blood' can be taken as the witness of the crucifixion; 'the water' as that of the baptism, at which it was recorded that heavenly approval was expressed.

aa5874

Please, please, please!!! This is NOT Sunday School. Your claims are erroneous.

Jesus did NOT confess any Sins when he was Baptized by John in the Myth Fables called Gospels.

In fact, it is claimed Jesus would baptize people with a Ghost and a Holy Ghost Bird somehow landed on or entered in Jesus and A VOICE from heaven claimed he was Pleased with Jesus.

The Baptism of Jesus in all the Canonized Gospels are Myth Fables and could NOT have happened as described.

If Jesus was an ordinary man he should have CONFESSED his Sins and there would ber NO Holy Ghost Bird and Voice from heaven.

In gMark, Jesus came to Baptize with a Ghost.

Mark 1 The Gospels are Myth Fables, Ghost stories of antiquity that were accepted by those who Believed in Greek and Roman Mythology.

ApostateAbe

My claim is that Mark corrected for the embarrassment of the baptism account, much like Matthew, Luke and John. In Mark,

• John is over-the-top subservient to Jesus
• God speaks from the heavens during the baptism and chooses Jesus to be his son. God did not choose John.

I think the original historical reality was that John baptized Jesus for the remission of Jesus' sins because Jesus was a disciple of John. Because Mark thought Jesus to be sinless and religiously superior to John the Baptist, this explanation for the baptism was not available, so the Christian myths gave the baptism of Jesus a different purpose, and those myths were shaped by the competition with the cult of John the Baptist.

Richard Carrier missed those points, and he thinks Mark's account of the baptism is free of embarrassment. The objection is both implausible (if Matthew, Luke and John were embarrassed, it is much more likely that Mark would be, too) and seemingly ignorant of the contents of Mark's account (the subservience and the snubbing).

sotto voce

Why would Mark think Jesus to be sinless?

Grog

Why wouldn't you just argue that your apocalyptic preacher is Jesus Ananias? The author of gMark just recasts him to the time of Pilate to avoid potential unpleasant repercussions. Here you have an apocalyptic preacher, corroborated by a contemporary source, who underwent similar trials as gMark's Jesus. gMark's author dramatized the end a bit, but who could be against a little poetic license?

Juma

I must say that in this sympetize with aa5874: This discussion is as futile as discussing Bilbo Baggins...

aa5874

Again, you are NOT doing history. You are acting on FAITH.

You have NOT established that gMark is history.

You have NOT established that the author of gMark was a contemporary of John the Baptist, Pilate, Caiaphas and Tiberius.

In gMark, there is NO claim that Jesus was a disciple of John.

You are an INVENTOR. There is no such story in the Gospels.

In gMark, Jesus came from Nazareth was baptized and a Holy Ghost bird landed on Jesus and there was a voice from heaven.

The story is TOTAL fiction.

Again, you NEED to read gMark.

It is completely erroneous that the author of gMark was embarrassed by the story of the Baptism.

God was PLEASED that John Baptised his SON in gMark.

Mark 1:11 KJV And, to show that you Wholly wrong--the Baptism story about God's Son by John in gMark is the ONLY event where God publicly delared his PLEASURE for the Baptism.

Matthew 3:17 KJVLuke 3:22 KJV
The HJ argument is just a load of BS based on imagination.

It is utterly absurd that John the Baptizer would have been embarrassed to baptise a man when the man came to be baptized by John if Jesus was a man.

ApostateAbe

The similarities between the accounts of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus ben Ananias are not nearly close enough to be explained as shared sourcing. They are best explained as two apocalyptic preachers in first-century Jerusalem. It is otherwise not a plausible hypothesis, and we have reliable evidence that some Christian texts and Christian traditions were composed before the time of Jesus ben Ananias.

ApostateAbe

Mark belonged to the cult of Jesus.

aa5874

Which Mark??? You very well know that Mark is Falsely attributed to be the author of the many versions of gMark.

Please, you have ZERO evidence that any version of gMark is an historical account and besides every event with Jesus in gMark is either total fiction or implausible.

You have NOT established when any version of gMark was written and the short-ending gMatk found in the Sinaiticus Codex has NOTHING whatsoever about a Jesus cult under the name of Christ.

The very day Jesus admitted publicly he was Christ he was executed in gMark After the disciples had either betrayed, abandined or denied him.


gMark's Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted, commanded his disciples NOT to tell anyone he was Christ, and no-one preached the Jesus story after Jesus body vanished in the short-ending gMark.