sotto voce

It's a lot more than that. If sins could be washed away by water, there would be no need for religion at all— only rivers and bathing facilities to which we could all go, immerse, emerge, with happy shining hearts, ready to die happy and shining- that is, if we are concerned enough about bad conscience. If not, we can die, happy to die just as we are. Yet the first members of the church were very religious, and cannot have supposed that water had any effect in achieving remission of sins. Indication that Christians believe in such a thing is a very serious misrepresentation, not one that should ever be read, anywhere, not merely because it may give offence, but because it potentially has the power to destroy souls.

The first Christians were concerned about the spiritual 'water' that their leader had spoken of. Water can remove dirt, but it cannot make a conscience clean. Neither can anything else. As the murderous Lady Macbeth wailed, "All the perfumes of Arabia cannot sweeten this little hand." Here Shakespeare borrowed the biblical figurative concept, while showing that a bad conscience was not outdated; it was the preoccupation of even the leaders of society. Or had been. Or should be. One sees little evidence of the sensitive conscience today, at any rate.

When John came to an unspiritual Israel, there was still a sense that Israel was the rightful property of Yahweh, to whom obedience was due, and it was not just for appearance' sake that the old religion was kept going. Had there not been that sense, he would have had no response to his preaching. But John never preached that his baptism would be for forgiveness of sins. His baptism was to signify repentance, and even then, baptism had no effectual role. It merely made public an attitude that was already present before baptism. John told his disciples that more was needed if there was to be completion, and that completion was to be through faith in the one who was very soon to come. And likewise, that faith was merely made public, not effected, by water baptism.

Old Abram had had to uproot family, household and livestock to migrate to another country, where a long story was to begin. He there raised his dagger to prove to his own eyes that he was willing to sacrifice his son, that he had faith in his deity. That faith was accounted his perfected conscience by the ground of his being, who is closer than we think. That faith is exactly what John alluded to when he exclaimed, "Look, see the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." That is why indication that Christians believe in such a thing as water baptism as a means of acceptance by God is a very serious misrepresentation.

aa5874

gIn gMark, John the Baptist had ALREADY made Jesus Obsolete as a UNIVERSAL Savior by Sacrifice.

John had in effect made Jewish Law irrelevant when he Baptized for the Remission of Sins. There was ZERO need for any more Sacrifice based on the Baptism of repentance.

Mark 1 Incredibly, and most SIGNIFICANT, in gMark, John was Baptizing For the Remission of Sins while Jesus was preaching the gospel of the Kingdom of God.

In gMark, John was a Contemporary of Jesus and OFFERED Remission of Sins by Baptism to the Jews and ALL of Judea and Jerusalem did Confess their Sins and were Baptized by John.

The story that Jesus was Sacrificed for the Remission of Sins is AFTER the earliest Jesus story in gMark.

All writings where it is claimed Jesus was SACRIFICED for the Remission of Sins is AFTER gMark Jesus story.

Iskander

Why was John the Baptist so important?

The Baptist is not important for the Christian interpretations of the gospels.

Geza Vermes asks who is Jesus and what is he teaching, in his book: the authentic gospels of Jesus.

Vermes says, Jesus turns up suddenly like the hero of a novel or a film [Mark], and it is said that Jesus hailed from an insignificant Galilean village where he was a ‘tekton’, Greek for builder or carpenter. Mark names some brothers of Jesus and refers to his several sisters, Mark also mention his mother Miriam and his father Joseph also a carpenter.


For Jesus, however, the real members of his family are not his flesh and blood, but those who listen to the word of god and are prepared to do his will. One may deduce that during his Galilean activity Jesus was not in good terms with his relations, who wanted to interfere with his calling.


His first appearance in public is associated with john the Baptist, the eremitic prophet who called his Jewish compatriots to repentance, and Jesus like many other of his fellow citizens responded to the Baptist’s appeal.

Jesus was inspired and motivated by the Baptist and preached the same message: “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”

aa5874

Your claim is unsubstantiated.

In the earliest Jesus story, gMark, there is ONLY ONE verse where Jesus was baptized by John. That is all. We find ZERO interaction between Jesus and John except at Mark 1.9.

And further, John preached the Baptism of Repentance for the REMISSION of Sins.

Mark 1 Jesus did NOT preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins and he was supposed to BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.

It is completely in error that Jesus was inspired by John in the Gospels.

Duvduv

The underlying rationale for justifying originally the mention of the Baptist in Josephus was to reconfirm the belief that the gospels were historically true with the Baptist and ergo Jesus living in the early 1st century, which of course makes no sense, long before Josephus wrote his books ...

aa5874

Again, it makes no sense for an author to invent John the Baptist to historicize Jesus.

It is most logical to historicize a fictitious character by claiming the character met or was known by real figures of history.

Chili

Enough to show exactly why, where and how they went wrong ((Jn.5:39-40 where he spoke against their scripture reading and all over chapter 6 where Mana was like second hand oats to the lost children of religion.That is a big warp to hang on Catholic as Universal salvation as they are the very people to claim exclusive right and ownership of heaven.Correct as we use him to show how hell came crashing down when Luke and John's Jesus went to heavenfailed attempt or [properly interpreted] prophesies.Sloppy with words as they are all allegories and he cannot transfigure but was transfigured himself to remove unbelieve by enlightenment (the opposite to gutwrenching words that frosts balls when you are made to shit bricks).The only problem here is that he never ascended where they had to be raised so that reason could prevail.no such thing as universal salvation but salvation in Universal religion that could overshadow all minor mythologiesCorrect, and nobody could do that better, literally, than Mark.

aa5874

It is interesting to note that by the time gJohn was written the author has virtually eliminated John the Baptist from his story.

In gJohn, John the Baptist does NOT preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins and the author appears to be CONFUSED about the significance of the Baptism of John.

Examine John 1. John the Baptist has been reduced to Mumbo Jumbo.

The author of gJohn cannot explain the significance of John's Baptism.

The author has CHANGED the gMark story it is Jesus who will die for the Sins of all mankind and John the Baptist will NOT preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins.

In gMark, John the Baptist made Jesus Obsolete as a Savior but in gJohn the roles are REVERSED.

Duvduv

Isn't that explicit proof then thst the author of GJohn did not know the canonical gospel of Mark? Or does it mean that the JtB element in Mark was a much later addition? I tend towards the first possibilit which also suggests that GMark was not the first gospel story and all the canonical gospels drew from that earlier source or sources.
They were probably more than the collections of maxims that the original Justin knew about in his day. The canonicals probably emerged in the period leading up to Nicaea as finished texts.

sotto voce

John had four personal roles that together made the ministry of Jesus more effective, and more convincing. But beside that, like Jesus, John's birth was attended by supernatural events and promise, and, like Jesus, John's existence and purpose were prophesied in the Hebrew Scripture. John's mere existence validated the Messianic fulfilment in the view of contemporaries.

a) John baptised, in running water, for repentance, or turning from evil and lax habits. That signified washing, and a new attitude to sinfulness that was very sorely missed, due to the great decline in spirituality that had taken place since Moses, Joshua, David, Naaman and even Nehemiah. A sense of guilt is needed if a sense of need for a saviour is to be felt. This humbler attitude was therefore necessary, and at a deep level, because when 'righteous' Pharisees and Sadducees came for baptism, they were turned away. John's refusal to recognise official religious authority was precedent and preparation for the same refusal by Jesus.

However, even for ordinary Jews, John's ministry came as a wake-up call. Most then believed that simply by being born into Jewish family, one would be saved, provided one did not actively disown the faith of Israel. John told them that this was insufficient, and that Jews were no ultimately no more favoured than Gentiles, and all needed to repent, and thereafter to accept the Christ.

b) John announced the imminent arrival of the long-awaited Messiah, a greater one than he. He specifically denied that he was the long-promised Messiah, but that their Messiah was very soon to be known to the Jews. John was born only shortly before Jesus, and his birth was similarly attended by supernatural phenomena, so there was comparison, but also contrast.

c) John used his valued reputation (or notoriety, to the religious establishment) to personally identify Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, and even prophesied the means by which he was to be the Messiah, by his death. "Look, see the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" achieved these purposes in a highly momentous way. John's reputation was enhanced by his independence from conventional Jewish society and his willingness to live in the wilderness for the sake of necessary repentance, and for the Christ whom he preached. So people believed him because he 'walked the walk'.

John was the first to identify Jesus as the Christ. He told two who were to become disciples, who repeated the message to others, including to Peter, the brother of one of them. This was long before Peter belatedly agreed with what John had passed on to him via his own brother.

d) John baptised Jesus, thereby providing supernatural identification of Jesus as the Messiah. Even though John recognised Jesus before his supernatural identification, his testimony was confirmed by that event. This event was seen as sufficiently important (imv) as to provide lasting evidence of Jesus' identity in an essential apostolic motif in 1 Jn 5:

'Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is the one who came by water and blood — Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.' 1 Jn 5:5-9 NIV

The two historic witnesses are 'water' (divine approbation) and 'blood' (the crucifixion, which Jesus said would draw all to him); the third, the Spirit, validates their witness to the spirit of the believer. This takes the OT principle (typical of John the author) of the need for 'two or three witnesses' to a context much wider than that of Israel, applying it cosmically. That is an ultimate significance of John, the baptist, whose own prophetic words— "All mankind will see God's salvation"— he helped to fulfil.

The Baptist is not important for the Christian interpretation of the gospels, because that is internally self-evident, even without the consequent and unanimous Greek witness, and without the Hebrew Scripture that was obviously intended to provide copious pre-figurement, promise and prophecy, the whole written context for the Christ. But John was of great importance for the preparation of contemporary Jews, whose awareness of that context of Hebrew Scripture was dimmed, and whose attitude to moral behaviour was compromised. John was therefore also instrumental in the eventual spread of the gospel that forced Europe to call itself 'Christendom'.