Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Von Bek · 06-30-2013, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But the Jordan River is highly symbolic.

From Jordan River tourist website

Quote:

... Moses stood and looked over the Promised Land stretched out in front of him. He saw the Jordan River before him, ...

After Moses passed away, Joshua, the son of Nun, crossed with the Israelites into the Promised Land.

Elijah and Elisha
But soon after their entrance into the Holy Land the people turned from the worship of God and took to worshipping strange gods. God sent to them many prophets to bring them back to true belief in His oneness and observance of His commandments. One of the most famous prophets was Elijah, who lived during the time of the rule of King Ahab in Israel. Ahab and his wife oppressed Elijah, and when Elijah grew old, God inspired him to leave and settle in what is today Jordan. So he left with his appointed successor, Elisha, who carried on his spirit and message. When they arrived at the River Jordan, Elijah struck it with his cloak and parted the waters of the river. He and Elisha crossed the dry land, and as they were speaking together upon the other side of the river, a fiery chariot came and carried Elijah into the heavens. (2nd Kings: 2)

John the Baptist
Again, hundreds of years passed and John the Baptist appeared at Bethany (Bayt ‘Anya) on the far side of the Jordan River (John 1:28 & John 10:40). He continued the path of faith and took the message from Moses – representative of the Holy Law – and from Elijah – representative of the prophets of the Old Testament (Luke 1:17)

Thank you. I see that I am wrong in underestimating the significance of the river Jordan.

aa5874 · 06-30-2013, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

In the story, John asks Jesus why he is coming to be baptized, and Jesus replies that it is "to fulfill righteousness." The righteous Jew, or tzadik, is one who has fulfilled the Law according to Moses. Perhaps the "righteousness" in the story is a reference to the Law's requirement that a Priest must be ritually washed before entering the Holy of Holies?

I think it is best to make sense of that phrase in light of the context and the patterns of the gospels. In that passage, Jesus was responding to John's objection, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Jesus responds, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness." We can only speculate what that means, because it is never explained, and the meaning is not obvious to any early Christian commentators. I think the ambiguity is intended, because the author of Matthew really did not have a good reason why John was baptizing Jesus. It was a weak ad hoc reason. The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was an embarrassment to the gospel authors, not just because Jesus was supposedly sinless, but because the cult of John the Baptist competed with the cult of Jesus, so the baptism would imply that John was holier than Jesus, and Christians needed an explanation of some sort. Each gospel author dealt with the embarrassment in their own way. Mark has Jesus being declared by God to be his exalted son right in the presence of John as the baptism occurs, and Mark makes John extremely reverent to Jesus. Matthew does the same, but has John objecting to such a baptism and Jesus offering an ambiguous but holy-sounding explanation. Luke has Jesus getting baptized apparently by somebody else (John was jailed before the account of the baptism of Jesus). The gospel of John has John the Baptist relate the events that surrounded the baptism but left out the baptism itself!

It is a complete fallacy, propaganda, that the story of the baptism of Jesus was an embarrassment to Christians.

In fact, AFTER the supposed Baptism, the authors claimed a voice from heaven was PLEASED with Jesus and identified him as his Son.

1. Matthew 3:17 KJV

Quote:

And lo a voice from heaven, saying , This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased .

2. Mark 1:11 KJV

Quote:

And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased .

3. Luke 3:22 KJV

Quote:

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said , Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased .

There was NO embarrassment in the story of Jesus' baptism. It was believed to be a DELIGHTFUL event for early Christians.

arnoldo · 07-01-2013, 06:49 AM

“Trypho” also has the following to say concerning an alleged expectation that Elijah would anoint a true jewish messiah.

Quote:

[And Trypho said]. . But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all.. . . For we all expect that Christ will be a man[born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man[born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He[the Christ].
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO (CHAPTER VIII & CHAPTER XLIX)

To which Justin basically argues that Elijah did annoint Jesus via his baptism in the person of John the Baptist.

Jane H · 07-01-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

While Jesus was alive it is unknown how much he really represented.

More then likely he had a very small rag tag group of a disciples with just his inner circle at best.

There was little community to work with here.

I'm using a different sense of 'represent'. It's more in the sense of David Cameron representing the UK in negotiations, or Jessica Ennis representing the face of London 2012. Jesus saw himself as representing the Jewish nation, as someone called upon to do that which Israel had failed to do.

Quote:

I would not try and apply the Essenes as anything other then a possible similarity.

But I agree with the importance of the community here.

I would suggest a very close similarity. Both the Early Church and the Essenes saw themselves as being the 'remnant' community of Israel that chose the path of righteousness with God. I am using righteousness (dikaiosynēn) in a technical sense, with all its meanings of repentance, forgiveness and being in a covenant relationship with God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...Jesus responds, "Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfil all righteousness." We can only speculate what that means, because it is never explained, and the meaning is not obvious to any early Christian commentators. I think the ambiguity is intended, because the author of Matthew really did not have a good reason why John was baptizing Jesus.

Given the above analysis, and that baptism was a mandatory symbol for entry into the righteous community, using righteous as described above, there isn't as such a problem for a claim of both sinlessness and a historical baptism to be made about Jesus. Jesus was acting as part of a community that was repairing its relationship with God, as described in my last post.

Quote:

The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was an embarrassment to the gospel authors, not just because Jesus was supposedly sinless, but because the cult of John the Baptist competed with the cult of Jesus, so the baptism would imply that John was holier than Jesus, and Christians needed an explanation of some sort.

Although I doubt it'll cut much ice with the FRDB locals of an MJ persuasion, I agree the idea of the Early Church wanting to invent Jesus being baptised by John makes no sense, especially given the likely rivalry between the groups at the time the Gospels were written. It is far more likely that large numbers of people knew this baptism had taken place, and the Early Church tacked a theophany on the end to make it sit better. Or it happened as written.

aa5874 · 07-01-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Although I doubt it'll cut much ice with the FRDB locals of an MJ persuasion, I agree the idea of the Early Church wanting to invent Jesus being baptised by John makes no sense, especially given the likely rivalry between the groups at the time the Gospels were written. It is far more likely that large numbers of people knew this baptism had taken place, and the Early Church tacked a theophany on the end to make it sit better. Or it happened as written.

Actually, the baptism event of Jesus in the Gospels most likely did not happen so it most unlikely that people knew the baptism took place.

The Holy Ghost bird and the voice from heaven are fictional accounts and were supposed to be the direct results of the baptism of Jesus.

Grog · 07-07-2013, 06:40 AM

I have read twice now this claim:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was an embarrassment to the gospel authors, not just because Jesus was supposedly sinless, but because the cult of John the Baptist competed with the cult of Jesus, so the baptism would imply that John was holier than Jesus, and Christians needed an explanation of some sort.

The other instance was in a post by Jane H.

What evidence is there that the "cult of John the Baptist competed with the cult of Jesus?"

If there were such competing cults, why would the author of gMark legitimize John the Baptist in the first place as Isaiah's "voice in the wilderness?" This does not strike me as coming from competing cults.

My take, following on JW, is that one source of material available to the author of gMark was Josephus. The author of gMark has populated his story with a character from Josephus. I do agree that later authors tried to diminish the role of JtB for theological reasons that at "Mark's" time did not exist.

aa5874 · 07-07-2013, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I have read twice now this claim:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was an embarrassment to the gospel authors, not just because Jesus was supposedly sinless, but because the cult of John the Baptist competed with the cult of Jesus, so the baptism would imply that John was holier than Jesus, and Christians needed an explanation of some sort.

The other instance was in a post by Jane H.

What evidence is there that the "cult of John the Baptist competed with the cult of Jesus?"

If there were such competing cults, why would the author of gMark legitimize John the Baptist in the first place as Isaiah's "voice in the wilderness?" This does not strike me as coming from competing cults.

My take, following on JW, is that one source of material available to the author of gMark was Josephus. The author of gMark has populated his story with a character from Josephus. I do agree that later authors tried to diminish the role of JtB for theological reasons that at "Mark's" time did not exist.

It is a complete fallacy that the baptism story was diminished because we have RECOVERED multiple NT Canons of the Jesus cult with gMatthew, gMark,and gLuke.

Up to today, the Baptism of Jesus is found in the Canon.

The apologetic writers of antiquity for the Jesus cult of Christians have not in any way diminished the baptism of Jesus by John.

Examine Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" 88

Quote:

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote.

Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression....

Tertullian's "Against Marcion" 4.38

Quote:

Christ knew the baptism of John, whence it was. Luke 20:4 Then why did He ask them, as if He knew not? He knew that the Pharisees would not give Him an answer; then why did He ask in vain? Was it that He might judge them out of their own mouth, or their own heart? Suppose you refer these points to an excuse of the Creator, or to His comparison with Christ; then consider what would have happened if the Pharisees had replied to His question. Suppose their answer to have been, that John's baptism was of men, they would have been immediately stoned to death. Some Marcion, in rivalry to Marcion, would have stood up and said: O most excellent God; how different are his ways from the Creator's! Knowing that men would rush down headlong over it, He placed them actually on the very precipice. For thus do men treat of the Creator respecting His law of the tree. But John's baptism was from heaven.

There was no time that Jesus cult of antiquity diminished the baptism of Jesus up to at least when their NT Canons were composed--Never happened.

HJers invented their own "diminishing story" of the baptism of Jesus by John.

For hundreds of years and even today, it is claimed by Jesus cult Christians and even by HJers that Jesus was baptised by John.

Vallhall · 07-17-2013, 01:52 AM

Thanks for feedback. Not that I found or expected some kind of final answer. But I have wondered about this, and figured different thoughts and aspects could provide information or ideas that eludes me.

One interesting element I seem to find, is that John and Jesus have almost identical pasts. Almost as they could be the one and the same. But at the mentioned scene where Jesus is baptized is the defining moment where the one who preceded becomes the follower, while the one who followed succeed his predecessor?

Anyway, it was the foundational gospels and their presentation of the scenario that I found confusing. It seems that Jesus is said to be filled with the holy ghost. Alas, he is not the holy ghost. Of course in terms of logic in text, and not historical, scientific or theological sense.

As seen here

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Examine Justin's "Dialogue with Trypho" 88

Quote:

And then, when Jesus had gone to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, and when He had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the Jordan; and when He came out of the water, the Holy Ghost lighted on Him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very Christ of ours wrote.

Now, we know that he did not go to the river because He stood in need of baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified, not because He needed such things, but because of the human race, which from Adam had fallen under the power of death and the guile of the serpent, and each one of which had committed personal transgression....

The interpretation implies that the act of baptism have no meaning for Jesus, and decent of spirit that shines upon Jesus with grace along with the proud father expressing that Jesus is his son. Is close to a deliberate show as if the audience had to be impressed. If he stood in no need for baptism, but did it for the human race. One might think choice and free will was retracted ( at least for a moment ).

Nonetheless. Thank you for providing me with some thoughts to consider. Not that I seem to be other than less certain of my held views,
have more questions than answers, the more I read or try to
expand my knowledge.:grin:

neilgodfrey · 07-17-2013, 03:18 AM

Not all scholars believe the baptism of Jesus was historical. Neither William Arnal nor Leif Vaage do. There are a range of theological reasons authors might have constructed the story from scratch. Vaage writes in "Reimagining Christian Origins":

Quote:

That the historical Jesus was baptized by the historical John is still taken by many scholars to be simply a historical fact . . . . The reasons for this assumption, however, and furthermore its presumed importance . . . are essentially theological . . . (p. 281)

Mark has pulled on all the classical symbols of a noble death to introduce his Jesus (the bird, the heavenly ascent/descent, the heavenly voice, the message of the beloved son) to balance the conclusion that portrays an otherwise ostensibly ignoble death.

Mark makes little sense at the best of times as history. The actions of crowds and individuals, the movements of characters, people being persuaded by things they don't understand, absence of motivations for 180 degree turnabout of intentions, etc etc make no sense in natural terms. If the gospel is read as symbolic it does make sense theologically.

It was later attempts to "historicize" the symbolic that ran into the problems of embarrassment.

Neil

Will Wiley · 07-17-2013, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallhall

What purpose would be given to explain baptism of Jesus?
Not sure why or how the question suddenly struck my ignorant mind. But now I simply struggle to let it go.
Was the divine born in sin? could he be reborn, if not cleansed from his former presence? Does something about the situation even make sense?

This is christian theology not the gospels.

Quote:

Without going to far out on a limb, I am reminded of the painting The Virgin by Da Vinci. If considering linguistics and theory of reference and name, one could almost speculate in the two being aspects of the same. Both being function with reference to each other names.

What?

Quote:

I struggle with how baptism in literal terms could in any way make sense, without doing so purely on faith. So hopefully someone can add the obvious I fail to see.

Everything in the gospels, pretty much, can be applied to the destruction of Jerusalem at Romes hand. John comes in that vein and so does jesus.
Jesus doesn't compete with john but agrees with him. Judgement is coming on Israel, people should wake up and repent.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.