Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-06-2011, 10:24 AM

The Book of Acts refers to Apollos (conjectured to be Apelles) who only knew the baptism of John, not that of Jesus.

The Mandeans are presumed to have adopted John the Baptist from Christian traditions, not to be direct descendents of John's followers. But their origins are obscure.

aa5874 · 07-06-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

No, you must surely have misrepresented it.

You have presented the historicist argument that 'they couldn't write it out'.

But the historicist argument is that it was so embarrassing that the Gospel of John wrote it out.

It can't be both. You must have misunderstood. It is an easy mistake to make. If you try to follow the logical fallacies used by mainstream Biblical scholars, you will become confused and forget what ad hoc argument is used when.

John does not write it out, it just glosses the actual baptism.

So, what is the big deal with the baptism of Jesus then.

An ordinary unknown man is baptized in an ordinary way.

John dips an unknown ordinary man in the river Jordan. The unknown ordinary man walks away.

What is this??

avi · 07-06-2011, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

It seems to me that I read somewhere in one of the early heresiologists of groups in the Tigris/Euphrates area that were followers of JBap who had never heard of Jesus. Mandaeans and/or Sabu'a of the Marshes sticks in my mind, but I don't have time right now to look through my notes to confirm. If such groups existed, it would seem to argue for a historical JBap.

Anyone know what I'm talking about right off the top of their head? I have an engagement this afternoon, but I'll see if I can find it after I return (if no one else has come up with it by then).

Ebionites, or, more particularly, Elcesaites .

avi

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-06-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

John does not write it out, it just glosses the actual baptism.

So, what is the big deal with the baptism of Jesus then.

An ordinary unknown man is baptized in an ordinary way.

John dips an unknown ordinary man in the river Jordan. The unknown ordinary man walks away.

What is this??

The big deal is that for those who later came to believe Jesus was the Messiah, it had to be explained why he would subordinate himself to a baptism by an inferior.

Doug Shaver · 07-06-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratel

Hi folks, please help me understand the view of John the Baptist to Mythicists.

If the view you're referring to something that all mythicists believe about John the Baptist, there is no such view. Many of us who doubt Jesus' historicity have no problem thinking John was probably a real person. Others doubt the historicity of both.

Ratel · 07-06-2011, 12:40 PM

Thank you, i was looking for a quick survey of views on this issue

andrewcriddle · 07-06-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarai

It seems to me that I read somewhere in one of the early heresiologists of groups in the Tigris/Euphrates area that were followers of JBap who had never heard of Jesus. Mandaeans and/or Sabu'a of the Marshes sticks in my mind, but I don't have time right now to look through my notes to confirm. If such groups existed, it would seem to argue for a historical JBap.

Anyone know what I'm talking about right off the top of their head? I have an engagement this afternoon, but I'll see if I can find it after I return (if no one else has come up with it by then).

Regards,
Sarai

The Mandaeans reverence John the Baptist as a great teacher while rejecting Jesus as a false prophet.

Some have regarded the Mandaeans as pre-Christian but this is dubious.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 07-06-2011, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, what is the big deal with the baptism of Jesus then.

An ordinary unknown man is baptized in an ordinary way.

John dips an unknown ordinary man in the river Jordan. The unknown ordinary man walks away.

What is this??

The big deal is that for those who later came to believe Jesus was the Messiah, it had to be explained why he would subordinate himself to a baptism by an inferior.

Before people started to believe the story if Jesus was an ordinary obscure man who John did not even know and he was ordinarily baptized then the baptism of Jesus in the NT was of ZERO significance.

HJ as an unknown obscure man would have been baptized and nobody would have even remembered obscure HJ was even baptized.

The baptism story only makes sense with the hocus-pocus Holy Ghost .

The baptism story is FICTION since it was the hocus-pocus Holy Ghost that entered Jesus like a dove and gave him his POWER.

The very same thing happened in Acts of the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. It was the Hocus-pocus Holy Ghost that POWERED up the apostles.

Dave31 · 07-07-2011, 08:36 AM

There's an entire chapter on this issue in Christ in Egypt titled "Anup the Baptizer." It appears that Anubis was the Egyptian version of John the Baptist. The concept of a purifier / baptizer can be found in ancient Egypt and most likely got "borrowed" by Christianity like so many other concepts.

Quote:

"...Anubis is often portrayed with the head of a jackal, while the jackal constellation is also called the “Jackal of Set,” the latter god at times being identified with Anubis.2 Hence, this god of the underworld is sometimes deemed “Set-Anubis” or “Sut-Anup.” Furthermore, Anubis is at times also depicted as a human being,3 an important fact to know when comparing him to John the Baptist. Sired by either Set or Osiris,4 depending on the myth, Anubis is the son of their sister Nephthys. Thus, like John’s mother, Elizabeth, who was the Virgin Mary’s cousin, Anubis’s mother, Nephthys, was related to Horus’s mother, Isis.5 Hence, as John and Jesus are related to each other, Anubis and Horus are also relatives, even sharing the same father, Osiris."

- Christ in Egypt, 236-7

Quote:

“The Egyptian baptismal rite has its origins in the Heliopolitan worship of the sun early in the Pyramid Age. The Egyptians believed that each morning the sun passed through the waters of the ocean before being reborn, emerging purified and revitalized. The ritual baptism of the pharaoh each morning symbolized this event and renewed life and vigor of the recipient.”

- Dr. Richard A. Gabriel, Gods of the Fathers (184)

Quote:

“...all religious ceremonies of Pharaonic times, whether performed on behalf of a deity, a deceased noble, or the living king, were prefaced by some act of ritual cleansing...”

- Sir Dr. Alan H. Gardiner, “The Baptism of Pharaoh,” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 36 (3)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-06-2011, 10:24 AM	#31
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Book of Acts refers to Apollos (conjectured to be Apelles) who only knew the baptism of John, not that of Jesus. The Mandeans are presumed to have adopted John the Baptist from Christian traditions, not to be direct descendents of John's followers. But their origins are obscure.

07-06-2011, 12:40 PM	#36
Ratel Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: SD, USA Posts: 268	Thank you, i was looking for a quick survey of views on this issue

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.