Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 08-14-2013, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:39

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...

According to Mark's way of thought, Christians had to emulate Jesus.

Just how embarrassing would it have been to him if Christians were baptised, and other Christians then pointed out that baptism was hardly necessary - after all, Jesus himself had not been baptised.

So Mark performed a quick baptism on Jesus, and them got his Jesus to tell other Christians to do like him.

The only need for Jesus to have been baptized is if he was a sinner. 1:4 clearly says that baptism by John was for the forgiveness of sins. We reasonably can conclude that Matthew, Luke, and John were embarrassed about the implication that Jesus was a sinner prior to his baptism. We simply don't know if Mark was also. Your 'emulation' theory might be true but if Mark was not an adoptionist -- his pre-baptism Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, the one Isaiah said would come, and was way mightier than John, who baptizes in the Holy Spirit--if Mark also saw Jesus as sinless, then he was writing about an embarrassing event.

One could apply the same reasoning you are using for Mark to Matthew, Luke, and John and yet they clearly had a problem with the idea that Jesus was baptized by John for the forgiveness of sins.

To compound the issue, the gospels place when Jesus recieved his divinity at different times. Birth, resurrection, baptism.

TedM · 08-14-2013, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:39

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...

According to Mark's way of thought, Christians had to emulate Jesus.

Just how embarrassing would it have been to him if Christians were baptised, and other Christians then pointed out that baptism was hardly necessary - after all, Jesus himself had not been baptised.

So Mark performed a quick baptism on Jesus, and them got his Jesus to tell other Christians to do like him.

The only need for Jesus to have been baptized is if he was a sinner.

Tell the author of Mark who has a need for Jesus to be baptized , not as a sinner, but as a precedent.

Aren't you just making that up? How does Mark have any more of a 'need' as a 'precedent' than Matthew, Luke or John did? Again, Mark 1:4 says what the purpose is. Just as he may not show 'embarrassment' (although he does have John seeming to downplay the significance of the event), he also doesn't specifically say that Jesus' baptism was meant to 'set a precedent'.

andrewcriddle · 08-14-2013, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:39

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...

According to Mark's way of thought, Christians had to emulate Jesus.

Just how embarrassing would it have been to him if Christians were baptised, and other Christians then pointed out that baptism was hardly necessary - after all, Jesus himself had not been baptised.

So Mark performed a quick baptism on Jesus, and them got his Jesus to tell other Christians to do like him.

The baptism in Mark 10:38-39 almost certainly refers to Christ's suffering and death. James and John are being asked if they are prepared to die for the faith.

Andrew Criddle

jdboy · 08-14-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:39

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...

According to Mark's way of thought, Christians had to emulate Jesus.

Just how embarrassing would it have been to him if Christians were baptised, and other Christians then pointed out that baptism was hardly necessary - after all, Jesus himself had not been baptised.

So Mark performed a quick baptism on Jesus, and them got his Jesus to tell other Christians to do like him.

The only need for Jesus to have been baptized is if he was a sinner. 1:4 clearly says that baptism by John was for the forgiveness of sins. We reasonably can conclude that Matthew, Luke, and John were embarrassed about the implication that Jesus was a sinner prior to his baptism. We simply don't know if Mark was also. Your 'emulation' theory might be true but if Mark was not an adoptionist -- his pre-baptism Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, the one Isaiah said would come, and was way mightier than John, who baptizes in the Holy Spirit--if Mark also saw Jesus as sinless, then he was writing about an embarrassing event.

One could apply the same reasoning you are using for Mark to Matthew, Luke, and John and yet they clearly had a problem with the idea that Jesus was baptized by John for the forgiveness of sins.

No, the reason Jesus was baptized was to fulfill all righteousness. It's stated right there in Matt. Just like the israelites Moses and Elijah they had to pass thru water. It's simply a reworking of OT ideas.

Steven Carr · 08-14-2013, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Aren't you just making that up? How does Mark have any more of a 'need' as a 'precedent' than Matthew, Luke or John did?

MARK 10:39
'Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...'

How much of a precedent do you want?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Again, Mark 1:4 says what the purpose is. Just as he may not show 'embarrassment' (although he does have John seeming to downplay the significance of the event), he also doesn't specifically say that Jesus' baptism was meant to 'set a precedent'.

Of course, Paul never states that Christians share a baptism with Jesus, although they 'shared' his death and resurrection.

But Mark is clear that Christians have to be baptised, so has Jesus baptised first.

Steven Carr · 08-14-2013, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:39

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...

The baptism in Mark 10:38-39 almost certainly refers to Christ's suffering and death. James and John are being asked if they are prepared to die for the faith.

That must have confused them. After all, they knew what a baptism was, and it wasn't a baptism of fire.

But perhaps you are right, and early Christians thought of Jesus suffering and death as a 'baptism', and were symbolically baptised, and then realised that their Jesus had to have been baptised as well.

aa5874 · 08-14-2013, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

The only need for Jesus to have been baptized is if he was a sinner. 1:4 clearly says that baptism by John was for the forgiveness of sins. We reasonably can conclude that Matthew, Luke, and John were embarrassed about the implication that Jesus was a sinner prior to his baptism. We simply don't know if Mark was also. Your 'emulation' theory might be true but if Mark was not an adoptionist -- his pre-baptism Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, the one Isaiah said would come, and was way mightier than John, who baptizes in the Holy Spirit--if Mark also saw Jesus as sinless, then he was writing about an embarrassing event.

One could apply the same reasoning you are using for Mark to Matthew, Luke, and John and yet they clearly had a problem with the idea that Jesus was baptized by John for the forgiveness of sins.

Again, the authors of the Jesus stories specifically claimed when Jesus was baptized that the Holy Ghost descended upon Jesus and that the Heavens were WELL-PLEASED with the Son of God.

The authors specifically described the myth fable.

The Baptism event with the Holy Ghost was a Sign to IDENTIFY the Son of God.

The Baptism of Jesus
Mark 1 NAS

Quote:

9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens : "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

You cannot change the story. It is cast in stone.

It is ONLY the JESUS character on whom the Holy Ghost descended in ALL the Gospels AFTER Baptism which was the sign that he was the Son of God.

John 1 NAS

Quote:

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world ! 30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' 31 "I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water." 32 John testified saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

33 "I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, 'He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.'

34 "I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God."

TedM · 08-14-2013, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark 10:39

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...

The baptism in Mark 10:38-39 almost certainly refers to Christ's suffering and death. James and John are being asked if they are prepared to die for the faith.

That must have confused them. After all, they knew what a baptism was, and it wasn't a baptism of fire.

But perhaps you are right, and early Christians thought of Jesus suffering and death as a 'baptism', and were symbolically baptised, and then realised that their Jesus had to have been baptised as well.

I"ve never been confused about what that passage refers to, and it never has occurred to me that someone might think it refers to a water baptism.

rlogan · 08-14-2013, 09:03 PM

Christians have no shame in this kind of dishonesty.

The crucifixion proves Jesus was the son of God because it fulfilled a scriptural mandate for the messiah.

So they proudly roll out this "proof by fulfilling prophecy" argument, but never at the same time as saying how horribly embarassing it is. Because it isn't.

It is the greatest joy for the theologans of the time and now as well that in doing so, the everlasting burden upon all of us to sacrifice for attonement of sins has been forever eliminated.

So the deceit here is that within Christian circles, this is a most joyous event. The embarassment criterion is used manipulatively with non-Christians, who are easily duped into thinking Christians would actually be embarassed by the very thing they are actually most proud of.

What happens if you remove the crucifixion? There's no Christianity.

aa5874 · 08-14-2013, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Christians have no shame in this kind of dishonesty.

The crucifixion proves Jesus was the son of God because it fulfilled a scriptural mandate for the messiah.

So they proudly roll out this "proof by fulfilling prophecy" argument, but never at the same time as saying how horribly embarassing it is. Because it isn't.

It is the greatest joy for the theologans of the time and now as well that in doing so, the everlasting burden upon all of us to sacrifice for attonement of sins has been forever eliminated.

So the deceit here is that within Christian circles, this is a most joyous event. The embarassment criterion is used manipulatively with non-Christians, who are easily duped into thinking Christians would actually be embarassed by the very thing they are actually most proud of.

What happens if you remove the crucifixion? There's no Christianity.

The people who are now claiming that the baptism of Jesus was an historical account in the fables called Gospels may not all be Christians---some may be atheists.

Even though it is clearly stated that the baptism account of the Son of God was WELL PLEASING some still continue to spout the absurdity that it was embarrassing.

Only Two events in the fables called Gospels were PLEASING to the "heavens"--the Baptism and the Transfiguration.

Embarrassingly, the Criterion of Embarrassment cannot apply to a WELL PLEASING event.

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

08-14-2013, 09:03 PM	#59
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Christians have no shame in this kind of dishonesty. The crucifixion proves Jesus was the son of God because it fulfilled a scriptural mandate for the messiah. So they proudly roll out this "proof by fulfilling prophecy" argument, but never at the same time as saying how horribly embarassing it is. Because it isn't. It is the greatest joy for the theologans of the time and now as well that in doing so, the everlasting burden upon all of us to sacrifice for attonement of sins has been forever eliminated. So the deceit here is that within Christian circles, this is a most joyous event. The embarassment criterion is used manipulatively with non-Christians, who are easily duped into thinking Christians would actually be embarassed by the very thing they are actually most proud of. What happens if you remove the crucifixion? There's no Christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.