by Nosferatu 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I've been thinking about the whole baptism issue, and it doesn't make any sense. Jesus was baptized. Why did Jesus have to get baptized? Did he really need to make a public display of his dedication to his dad? Was Moses or Noah baptized? (Noah had enough water, LOL!) Are any of the angels baptized? Did Satan the Devil ever get baptized?
Pretty stupid if baptism was only required of Jesus, and not for any of the other angels.
Just giving this a little thought. I wonder if it has similar reasons for it as discussed in Ozzie's "Who is Sovereign" post.
Was this just done as a "show" for humans?
Kwin
Wasn't this done to show the people that what John the Baptist had been preaching was coming to pass?
He was just doing this with water until the real thing came along and would baptize with the Holy Spirit.
I seem to remember Paul saying things like - I didnt' baptize anyone but A & B - so no one can say that they were baptized in MY name.
WT likes to baptize in the name of the organization now. ! blasphemers.
will
Most of the prime rituals of Christianity are adopted from prior religious rites. Two good examples are baptism and communion. Although the Society makes much fuss about the purity of their worship and their refusal to adopt any celebrations that originate in paganism, they seem to have a blind spot regarding their only two observances.
1. The memorial, which is just another form of communion, began as an ancient ritual where worshippers would kill their totem, eat its flesh, and drink its blood. The memorial is a very transparent adaptation.
2. Baptism was practiced for thousands of years prior to John the Baptist.
In both cases, the Jesus myth adopts and alters these rites by having Jesus legitimize them.
So, why did Jesus have to be baptized? Simply so that Christianity could annex a powerful ritual from paganism.
So, why did Jesus have to be baptized? Simply so that Christianity could annex a powerful ritual from paganism.
Runningman, I love this explanation! It never fails to amaze me that when the bible is proved to be bogus, it suddenly makes a lot of sense.
Nos,
It never fails to amaze me that when the bible is proved to be bogus, it suddenly makes a lot of sense.Now that's a quote worth remembering!
I've found the same thing. When you read the Bible literally, it comes off really stupid. When you read it from the point of view of comparative mythology, it makes perfect sense.
For example, take the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac. Ab hears a disembodied voice telling him to kill his son. The society claimed that this was a lesson in unconditional obedience. I always thought that if this was indeed a test, then Abraham failed miserably. He would have made a good Nazi.
In reality, the story is a powerful and beautiful object lesson. You see, in early days, the Jews practiced human sacrifices (eg Jephthah's daughter). The remnants of this practice lingered for a long time. To the credit of the Hebrews, they moved away from human sacrifices very early, but pockets still remained. It was very difficult to eradicate it, because it was such a powerful ritual. So, one day, a priest wrote a story. In that story, the founder of the nation (Abraham) is told by God himself that human sacrifices were no longer necessary - animals would suffice. And there you have the story of Abraham and Isaac. It marked a very positive turning point in Israelite development.
A comparison of the Gospels may be interesting:
1) In Mark (1:9ff) Jesus is baptized by John like anybody else: in repentance for forgiveness of sins (v. 4). He is not an "angel", he is not the heavenly Son of God, he is not even a "sinless man". But he becomes the "Son of God" on this occasion. It is a revelation to him ("he saw...")
(Notice that this is already a secondary historicization of the earlier christology where Jesus became the Son of God only at his death / resurrection, Romans 1:3f; Acts 13:33.)
2) In Luke Jesus is "Son of God" already from birth. So Luke doesn't say he was baptized "by John"; he conveniently gets rid of John by sending him to jail before Jesus' baptism in the narration (3:19ff). Then Jesus is baptized "with all the people" and is revealed to them as the Son of God (which he already was).
3) In Matthew too Jesus is "Son of God" from birth. Jesus is baptized by John, but the baptism is explicitly performed "only for a show", as kwin said (3:13ff).
4) In John Jesus is not baptized at all. He is a rival baptizer instead (3:22,26; cf. the correction in 4:1f).
What happened in reality? Nobody can tell. What we have here is just the evolution of a story made out of the later rivalry between the "Jesus" movement and the ongoing "John" movement (which would have not occurred had John really proclaimed Jesus his successor, as the Gospels have it; for the later Mandeans who claim John as their prophet, Jesus is a false prophet). Another strange version faintly echoed in Mark is "Jesus is John raised from the dead" (6:14; 8:28), at least implying that they were not exactly contemporaries (or even "cousins" as Luke 1--2 implies and John explicitly denies in John 3:31,33).
The significance of Jesus' baptism, at least for canonical Mark (which is the second edition of the book, more mystical than the version used by Matthew and Luke), lies in its mythic symbolism of Jesus' death and resurrection. The baptism serves as a foreshadowing of the Passion and resurrection, building on the "predictions" that structured the earlier version of the gospel (cf. Mark 10:33-34). See especially the additions in Mark 10:35-45, which inserted "baptism" as signifier for martyrdom. The canonical version of Mark, if an abridgement of Secret Mark as Koester believes, has other baptismal motifs that are used to signify death and resurrection. That early Christian baptism was intended to have Christians join into the mystery of Christ's death is explicitly stated by Paul: "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Romans 6:4).
The significance of Jesus' baptism, at least for canonical Mark (which is the second edition of the book, more mystical than the version used by Matthew and Luke), lies in its mythic symbolism of Jesus' death and resurrection.
Agreed. That's the specific Pauline/Markan interpretation of Christian baptism, which explains why the convenient time for being declared "Son of God" was "just as he was coming up out of the water" (the last step of the symbolic act corresponding to "resurrection" in the earlier "Gospel," Romans 1:3f; Acts 13:33). However, the problem of connecting Jesus to John the Baptist is another issue.
