aa5874

There are NO descriptions of the supposed family of Jesus, normal or abnormal, in gMark. The author of gMark NEVER claimed Jesus had a NORMAL father.

But, in gMark Jesus ASKED a very ABNORMAL question about his family and gave a STRANGE answer.

Mark 3. And again, there is SOMETHING ABNORMAL about gMark.

In gMark, it is IMPLIED that Jesus was a carpenter but "Origen" claimed NONE of the Gospels state Jesus was a Carpenter.

"Against Celsus" 6.36 Only gMark implies Jesus was a Carpenter.

It is just ABSURD to ASSUME the NT contains history because some people were described as "NORMAL".

The MYTHS Romulus and Remus were described as human.

[ Now, Jesus was condemned to be GULITY of DEATH because he claimed he was NOT a NORMAL Son.

Jesus was the Son of the BLESSED.

Mark 14. Jesus did NOT have a NORMAL family in gMark and it was for that very REASON why he was Condemned to be GULITY of DEATH.

PhilosopherJay

Hi bacht,

I am not sure if Paul really knows about the existence of Christian baptism in his letters.

Here is an excellent study of the word βαπτíζω by Gary Martin:

The word can refer to a Christian ceremony, but it can also just mean to dip, immerse, plunge, submerge, drown or dye. It can also be a ritual washing after death.

Here are the only places that Paul uses the Greek word "baptizo"

1. 2. 3. 1 Cornthians 10:
4. Galatians 3
26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

It seems that the term "immersed" is probably best in case #1. The word "submerged" is best in cases #3 and #6. In case #4, "dyed" fits best. Ritual Washing of the dead fits for #5. Only #2 seems to refer to an initiation ceremony. However, what that ceremony was is anybody's guess.

Acts, unlike Paul's letters, is familiar with John the Baptist and his baptism ceremony. This is another indication that Paul is playing a whole different sport than the writers of the gospels and Acts.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

couch_sloth

It could also be that the original ending of Mark indicates that the empty tomb story was a later fabrication that many Christians doubted, i.e. Doubted because this story had only started to circulate around the time Mark was written...
e.g. The empty tomb story could have been started by some of those who believed Jesus was literally & physically resurrected as oppose to those who believed that Jesus re-appeared in a purely spiritual form or with a completely new body (Did Paul believe this?).
IOW These Christians possibly created the empty tomb story because they found it important to emphasize that Jesus was physically (literally) resurrected.

Any way, I agree with you that the ending of Mark (So the women told no-one because they were afraid.) sounds like a way of justifying why this particular aspect of the Jesus story had not been well known up to that point

avi

Thank you Jay, for this thread, which has been quite educational for me. I enjoyed your blog, as well.

a. "Christian baptism" yes, I am sure Paul would not have known about it, since he was a Jew, so it is Jewish baptism that is relevant here, I would think.

b. Paul would have agreed, as I understand the situation, with the revisionist school of thought, that circumcision was not obligatory to maintain the covenant with Yahweh. Baptism could have sufficed in lieu thereof.

c. John the Baptist: well here a couple of ideas pop up:
1. what could be more embarrassing than to read that THE messiah had arrived, but needed, first, to be purified by an ordinary mortal, in order to perform his duties? Is such a requirement elaborated in the old testament?

2. why did Constantine, two centuries after the Christian fables' origins, proclaim that the single most important holiday of the Roman Empire, the summer solstice, would henceforth be celebrated as the birthdate of John the Baptist? To me, that suggests that in 325, John the Baptist was a very important figure in the Christian religion. I am unconvinced by your theory of John's supposed failure in the desert, as the cause for regarding his life as embarrassing.

avi

andrewcriddle

Hi Avi

What is your evidence that this festival is linked to Constantine ?

Andrew Criddle

spamandham

...an interesting blog entry. But suppose Mark *wasn't* embarrassed at all by the baptism? I don't see anything internal to Mark that indicates that he finds the story embarrassing. I think there is validity to the idea that John was a Christ, of which there seem to have been many.

Suppose though that Jesus never existed at all, and his story is the ancient equivalent of Superman. How can you introduce a character as the magical Jewish son of god when no-one has yet heard of him and no one is even expecting him? You have to have a backstory of some kind, and that's all the baptism is.

By having Jesus baptized by John, Jesus get's instant authority. Then by tying the baptism to Jewish scriptures, Jesus becomes plausibly prophesied. Now throw in a bit of magic and the background is set.

It might be valid to say that the later gospel writers came to find the story embarrassing, but only because by the time those gospels were written, the ancient equivalent of the cult of the Jedi was well established and it's followers already accepted the bogus prophesy of Jesus and his magic and authority. By then, the baptism scene was no longer necessary and provided fuel for detractors of the Jesus cult. So the introductory backstory was changed to prove that Jesus was the reincarnated David with tie-ins to Moses and other OT prophets.

The CoE is completely bogus. We can discern when later rewrites of a story are attempting to make the story more harmonious, or more relevant, but then to say that since a subsequent author didn't like the original story, therefor the original author was embarrassed and therefor it must have been historical, is thoughtless stupidity.

This CoE is the backstory Christian apologists pretending to be scholars use so they don't have to get caught with there pants down making absurd arguments. They can just say "CoE", and the absurdity is given credibility.

avi

Happy New Year, Andrew!

As far as I am aware, there is no definitive evidence on the subject.

Early third century author, Hippolytus (oldest extant manuscript dated 10th century) claimed that JC was born on or about the date of the winter solstice.

The gospels claim that John was born six months before JC, so that would be consistent with the christian assignment of summer solstice for his birthdate.

I think one should not overlook the fact that BOTH eastern and western branches of Christianity agree on this date, which, suggests to me, at least, that Constantine decreed the fact. Alternatively, if someone else had issued the proclamation, I envision civil strife causing a repudiation of that particular monarch's decree, upon his death or demise.

I acknowledge having mere conjecture, not data, to support the hypothesis. What little I have studied of the "patristic" evidence, suggests to me, if no one else, that Eusebius' finger prints are all over the documents. It is simply very easy to rationalize a megalomaniacal murderer like Constantine, with absolute power, instructing his scribes, including Eusebius, to create unity and harmony, for the sake of the empire.

I believe, largely without evidence, just on faith, that Eusebius followed Constantine's instructions, and destroyed as many controversial documents as possible, in order to ensure uniformity, in an environment of chaos and confusion, as there surely was in the early fourth century....

avi

bacht

Thanks Jay, that's very interesting. I didn't realize the evidence was so thin.

There is the protest in 1 Cor 1: "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" which does sound like something Paul would say.

Can we assume that baptism came from Jewish Christians, and was broadly accepted by gentile Christians only after Paul's time, say late 2nd C?

show_no_mercy

What gives you the idea that Mark is trying to portray Jesus as the sinless son of god?