Baptism

[Dicky Underpants]

Was going to put this in Sassy's thread.
I'd just like to know how Christians deal with the implications of Mark 1: 4 & 9 -

"[4] John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

-------------
 
[9] In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Hi Dicky

Can you clarify what you see as a problem, or contradiction?

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky

Can you clarify what you see as a problem, or contradiction?

Well, if John was truly baptizing for the forgiveness of sins, then it is astonishing that the Jesus of traditional faith would go to be baptized by him. Jesus, according to developed Christology, is the man without sin, and furthermore, considered by mainstream Christians as God Incarnate. I don't have to explain to you that if you consider Jesus was God in the flesh, then the idea of his being baptized to annul his sins is rather ludicrous* ("For all have sinned, and all have fallen short of the glory of God" - all except the incarnate Son).

The gospel writers show signs of being rather embarrassed by the implications of this, and treat the matter of Jesus' baptism in various ways, such as John the B showing abject deference to Jesus, and his saying that the situation should really be reversed. Or as in John's gospel, hardly referring to the subject at all.

All this presents no problems for me, though. I'm not a believer, though I accept that Jesus definitely did exist as an exceptional human being, and most probably was baptized by John and probably studied with him for a while. Josephus gives much more detail about J the B than Jesus, and the historicity of John is pretty certain.

Another detail about the nature of John's form of baptism seems to suggest that he himself must have been considered as some kind of divine personage, since forgiveness of sins was the prerogative of the deity.

*Floo would probably say that the 'God of the Bible' has quite a lot of sins which he needs to be held to account for. I have to agree with that judgment about some of the portraits of God in the Bible, but think her view is a sweeping generalisation.

[jeremyp]

Well, if John was truly baptizing for the forgiveness of sins, then it is astonishing that the Jesus of traditional faith would go to be baptized by him. Jesus, according to developed Christology, is the man without sin, and furthermore, considered by mainstream Christians as God Incarnate.

Don't forget, when Mark was written, Christology was not developed. The resolution of the conundrum, in Mark at least, is that the baptism is the moment at which Jesus became divine. Before that, he was just a man.

And just as [Jesus] was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.

It bookends the story quite nicely with Mark 15

At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ ... And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom.

Mark's Jesus is a man with divinity thrust upon him, as it were. This changes with the later gospels. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is born divine. In John, he has existed since the beginning of time.

Another detail about the nature of John's form of baptism seems to suggest that he himself must have been considered as some kind of divine personage, since forgiveness of sins was the prerogative of the deity.

That's not a point I had considered before. Moderator Note content removed as not within the ethos of the Faith Sharing Area. Members should read the About This Board thread to understand the approach. (And yes it's easy to miss which board a thread is on)

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator Please note this thread is on the Faith Sharing Area and will be moderated in the ethos of the About This Board thread.

[jeremyp]

Moderator Please note this thread is on the Faith Sharing Area and will be moderated in the ethos of the About This Board thread.

Apologies, I didn't notice which board we were on.

[wigginhall]

This passage is used by some people defending historic Jesus, since it goes against pious estimations of Jesus - since he needs to be saved - therefore is likely to be genuine.   I think,  as Dicky says, it is softened gradually in later passages.   

It's one of of a number of similar passages, where Jesus is not treated all that reverentially. 

[Robbie]

My understanding has always been that Jesus volunteered himself for baptism as an example to everyone else, showing that he was fully human. Baptism is symbolic of cleansing and turning around and whilst Jesus didn't need the outward show he was setting an example.

[Sriram]

My understanding has always been that Jesus volunteered himself for baptism as an example to everyone else, showing that he was fully human. Baptism is symbolic of cleansing and turning around and whilst Jesus didn't need the outward show he was setting an example.

According to Hindu views....even great sages need to go through normal body/mind cleansing.  Just as they require normal food, clothing and medication, they also require cleansing practices such as devotional, yogic and meditative practices....ritual bathing and so on.  People like Krishna, Rama, Mahavira, Buddha and others went through normal processes in spite of being considered Enlightened and Divine.

Probably the same applies to  Jesus also.

[Rhiannon]

Be good to see this debated elsewhere as I cant reply as I would wish.

[Anchorman]

Agreed with the Christians here: the baptism of the Lord Jesus was to "fulfill all righteousness" as another (KJV) verse poetically puts it. A reading of John's reaction when Christ presents Himself for baptism shows that he wasn't expecting Jesus to be the one being baptised - John himself was aware thet Jesus,of all people, didn't need to be baptised.
After all, Baptism is "an outward sign of an inward change" and Christ had no need to change, but went through the motions - just as He did at Passover, or at festivbals at the Temple.

[Dicky Underpants]

Moderator Please note this thread is on the Faith Sharing Area and will be moderated in the ethos of the About This Board thread.

Hi Mods

I shouldn't have put this topic in the Faith Sharing Area - I thought that there might be more chance of getting across specific points here than the Christian Topic, though I suppose that's where it naturally belongs.

Anyway, Sriram has broadened the perspective now, and I don't doubt that Rhiannon would do so also. Perhaps, therefore, it might be moved to the Theism and Atheism section.
Look forward to further comments from Jeremy and Wiggi  - and indeed anyone from wherever they stand on matters of religious faith.

[Dicky Underpants]

Don't forget, when Mark was written, Christology was not developed. The resolution of the conundrum, in Mark at least, is that the baptism is the moment at which Jesus became divine. Before that, he was just a man.

It bookends the story quite nicely with Mark 15

Mark's Jesus is a man with divinity thrust upon him, as it were. This changes with the later gospels. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is born divine. In John, he has existed since the beginning of time.
That's not a point I had considered before. Moderator Note content removed as not within the ethos of the Faith Sharing Area. Members should read the About This Board thread to understand the approach. (And yes it's easy to miss which board a thread is on)

Thanks for that, Jeremy. Since it appears that I've posted this on the wrong board, I look forward to your further comments if and when it appears somewhere else. Till then, I'll just say "I agree with what you say".

[Dicky Underpants]

This passage is used by some people defending historic Jesus, since it goes against pious estimations of Jesus - since he needs to be saved - therefore is likely to be genuine.   I think,  as Dicky says, it is softened gradually in later passages.   

It's one of of a number of similar passages, where Jesus is not treated all that reverentially.

wiggi

See above, as in my reply to Jeremy.

[Dicky Underpants]

Be good to see this debated elsewhere as I cant reply as I would wish.

Very much looking forward to your comments - elsewhere

[Robbie]

I think thread was fine where it was, good actually. Nothing to stop someone starting a thread with similar theme on another forum, being as many religions have some type of baptism even if not called that.

[jeremyp]

Thanks for that, Jeremy. Since it appears that I've posted this on the wrong board, I look forward to your further comments if and when it appears somewhere else. Till then, I'll just say "I agree with what you say".

The bit that was moderated out was only a sarcastic comment about the claimed inerrancy of the gospels. It didn't really add anything to my post.

[Nearly Sane]

I think thread was fine where it was, good actually. Nothing to stop someone starting a thread with similar theme on another forum, being as many religions have some type of baptism even if not called that.

moderator moved at the request of the poster who started the thread.

[Dicky Underpants]

According to Hindu views....even great sages need to go through normal body/mind cleansing.  Just as they require normal food, clothing and medication, they also require cleansing practices such as devotional, yogic and meditative practices....ritual bathing and so on.  People like Krishna, Rama, Mahavira, Buddha and others went through normal processes in spite of being considered Enlightened and Divine.

Probably the same applies to  Jesus also.

Hi Sriram

Interesting that you say that Eastern sages needed to go through ritual cleansing even after Enlightenment. Even so, the Buddha was considered an enlightened man. More difficult to see how this would apply to incarnate deities like Krishna, though I believe that there is no insistence on the historicity of the stories surrounding Krishna as there is in the case of Jesus.
Regarding John the Baptist, according to Josephus - probably the most reliable source for information about J the B - the latter did not baptize "for the remission of sins" (as Mark's gospel asserts) but for the purification of the body. This would help to remove any embarrassment felt by Christians over the implications that Jesus had to have his sins forgiven, but it would also involve the admission that Mark's gospel is erroneous on this point (it's erroneous on many points, as a matter of fact). That even the early Christians were uncomfortable about the implications of Mark's assertion is demonstrated by the way the other Synoptics reported the incident, adding emphasis and inserting details which they thought Mark had missed. John's gospel in fact does not refer to Jesus' baptism at all. The latter evangelist is so concerned about asserting Jesus' divinity from all eternity that the idea of his 'being cleansed' of anything was simply unthinkable.

[Dicky Underpants]

I think thread was fine where it was, good actually. Nothing to stop someone starting a thread with similar theme on another forum, being as many religions have some type of baptism even if not called that.

Robbie

That would have been fine, except that Jeremy and myself (and no doubt others) are not believers. We are - along with wiggi and Rhiannon - among that small band of odd-ball eccentrics who are actually interested in biblical criticism and who don't think that the last word to be said about the Bible is "Thass a load of ole bollocks".
However, since the Faith Sharing board was set up for people of faith, then it would have been inappropriate for people like myself to start holding forth there.

[Nearly Sane]

Robbie

That would have been fine, except that Jeremy and myself (and no doubt others) are not believers. We are - along with wiggi and Rhiannon - among that small band of odd-ball eccentrics who are actually interested in biblical criticism and who don't think that the last word to be said about the Bible is "Thass a load of ole bollocks".
However, since the Faith Sharing board was set up for people of faith, then it would have been inappropriate for people like myself to start holding forth there.

Note there is nothing to stop non believers commenting and starting threads on the FSA. Indeed your OP looked exactly right asking for believers opinions.  It is definitely worth reading the About This Board for the FSA.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?board=23.0

[Dicky Underpants]

Don't forget, when Mark was written, Christology was not developed. The resolution of the conundrum, in Mark at least, is that the baptism is the moment at which Jesus became divine. Before that, he was just a man.

It bookends the story quite nicely with Mark 15

Mark's Jesus is a man with divinity thrust upon him, as it were. This changes with the later gospels. In Matthew and Luke, Jesus is born divine. In John, he has existed since the beginning of time.

Indeed, though as we have noted in the past, there are dissenting voices who try to suggest that Jesus was the Deity himself all along. The view you have been outlining has a posh name for it 'Adoptionism', and I once had the temerity to suggest this viewpoint to Vlad, who replied something like "I don't think mainstream Christianity has ever considered Mark's gospel to be an adoptionist one".
Maybe not, but it's a view that presents a very cogent argument. Just how far Mark came to consider Jesus 'divine' after his baptism is a bit difficult to judge. Jesus himself is recorded as having been granted 'power on earth to forgive sins' - which must have made both him and J considered blasphemers, if they did believe this about themselves. Yet John at least seems to have been universally popular.

[Dicky Underpants]

Note there is nothing to stop non believers commenting and starting threads on the FSA. Indeed your OP looked exactly right asking for believers opinions.  It is definitely worth reading the About This Board for the FSA.


http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?board=23.0

Well, it's here now. Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nicht anders. But you blocked some comments from Jeremy, and Rhiannon was put off from saying what she wanted to over there, and I'm interested in comments from both of them

[Nearly Sane]

Well, it's here now. Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nicht anders. But you blocked some comments from Jeremy, and Rhiannon was put off from saying what she wanted to over there, and I'm interested in comments from both of them

I removed a small sentence  from Jeremy's post and let 95% + stand. It has its ethos as laid out and that's fine. Posting here means people can comment baptism is a pile of shite etc.

[Sriram]

Hi Sriram

Interesting that you say that Eastern sages needed to go through ritual cleansing even after Enlightenment. Even so, the Buddha was considered an enlightened man. More difficult to see how this would apply to incarnate deities like Krishna, though I believe that there is no insistence on the historicity of the stories surrounding Krishna as there is in the case of Jesus.
Regarding John the Baptist, according to Josephus - probably the most reliable source for information about J the B - the latter did not baptize "for the remission of sins" (as Mark's gospel asserts) but for the purification of the body. This would help to remove any embarrassment felt by Christians over the implications that Jesus had to have his sins forgiven, but it would also involve the admission that Mark's gospel is erroneous on this point (it's erroneous on many points, as a matter of fact). That even the early Christians were uncomfortable about the implications of Mark's assertion is demonstrated by the way the other Synoptics reported the incident, adding emphasis and inserting details which they thought Mark had missed. John's gospel in fact does not refer to Jesus' baptism at all. The latter evangelist is so concerned about asserting Jesus' divinity from all eternity that the idea of his 'being cleansed' of anything was simply unthinkable.

Regardless of the fact that Rama and Krishna were avatars....they were still human.   Both were born of a mother and a father. 

We Hindus  believe in something called the degree of godhood.  Krishna for example is considered as a 'Purna avatar', compared to Rama and other avatars. Purna avatar means a complete incarnation.  He had a higher level of Consciousness and was always aware of his own highly evolved state.  He even used his special knowledge and powers sometimes. But even he was not born miraculously. He had both a biological mother and a father. He lived, had fun and fought battles like everyone else.  He had a teacher (Sandipani) and learned from several sages of that time.  Many a time he  worshipped Shiva before any special event.

Rama of course lived a very normal, very human, if very disciplined life. He learnt under Sages Vashista and Vishwamitra. He also worshipped Shiva before the war.

Buddha had two gurus, Alara Kalama and Uddhaka Ramaputra.  He learnt from many people at Kasi and even from Mahavira at Patna.   

My point was that, according to Hindu views, enlightenment and divinity are qualities that we acquire as we evolve and develop spiritually. Please read about the avatars and their parallel to evolution.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/evolution-and-spirituality/

Every person born as a human, however evolved, will need to learn, get cleansed and follow the path of other humans. 

Let me add that Enlightenment is not a single event. It is a continuous process.