The Virgin Mary

[bcuster]

Well my question is, if Jesus was born as God why does he need to be baptised? You can't cleanse God surely? And Mark reports this event unembarressed and it is  the event, not Jesus's birth that makes Jesus divine. So Mark did not have something like a trinitarian theology.

To set the example for us

 

[bcuster]

That's a fun comment, but it is missing the point. It's not God's logic It's the author of Mark's logic (who probably wasn't called Mark, but I'll call him Mark out if convention). The way I read Mark is that he is less concerned with reporting events and more concerned about making theological points, often quite cryptic points. So the fact that this is at the start of Jesus's ministry, the fact that it is near the start of the gospel, the fact that it is not just recounted but beefed up with heavens opening, the Holy Ghost descending and God declaring Jesus his son... means that this is theologically very significant to Mark. So I don't see Mark just skipping birth narratives but telling against them.

Or mark had no reliable information about Jesus’ birth. Mark’s main source is thought to be Peter

 

[Knotted]

To set the example for us

So of no particular importance?

I think your faith maybe preventing you of taking your faith seriously.

 

[bcuster]

So of no particular importance?

I think your faith maybe preventing you of taking your faith seriously.

What more signifance can the particular event have, then to show in a dramatic way, the importance of baptism?

 

[Humberto]

What more signifance can the particular event have, then to show in a dramatic way, the importance of baptism?

A lot of people who would, in an ideal situation, perform the ritual don't have the opportunity for a baptism. Indeed some creeds specify it as a necessary condition to avoid eternal wrath. Notably Billy Graham.

 

[Humberto]

Actually it appears Mr Graham didn't state that, although there are strands who do. Mea culpa.

 

[bcuster]

A lot of people who would, in an ideal situation, perform the ritual don't have the opportunity for a baptism. Indeed some creeds specify it as a necessary condition to avoid eternal wrath. Notably Billy Graham.

God's mercy knows no bounds.

 

[Knotted]

What more signifance can the particular event have, then to show in a dramatic way, the importance of baptism?

By showing the significance of baptism for people who aren't already God.

That episode doesn't end there, the forty days and nights in the desert and the temptations follow immediately afterwards. So baptism has consequences for Jesus.

 

[Knotted]

Or mark had no reliable information about Jesus’ birth. Mark’s main source is thought to be Peter

That latter seems very unlikely. Peter does not come out well in Mark. That Jews including even the disciples and especially Peter don't understand Jesus is a strong and repeated theme in Mark. They get it wrong all the time. "Get behind me satan". Jesus wanders around misunderstood, almost cursed by his blessing he received at his baptism. You should read it and forget everything else you know. Read it as its own book.

 

[bcuster]

That latter seems very unlikely. Peter does not come out well in Mark. That Jews including even the disciples and especially Peter don't understand Jesus is a strong and repeated theme in Mark. They get it wrong all the time. "Get behind me satan". Jesus wanders around misunderstood, almost cursed by his blessing he received at his baptism. You should read it and forget everything else you know. Read it as its own book.

I really appreciate your perspective. What do you think of the notion that Luke’s primary, or at least important, source is Mary?

 

[Knotted]

I really appreciate your perspective. What do you think of the notion that Luke’s primary, or at least important, source is Mary?

Thanks.

Well, my non expert understanding is that there are two competing theories about the sources of Luke among scholars. Either Mark + Matthew or (more popularly I think) Mark + a lost sayings gospel denoted "Q". Under the latter theory Matthew is also Mark + Q. These are all written sources and Mary would very likely not have been literate.

There are some things that appear in Luke but not Mark and Matthew. The crucifixion is different and the birth narrative is different to Matthew (not in Mark at all). I think there are also some parables in Luke that don't appear elsewhere (maybe).

Now maybe Luke interviewed Mary about Jesus's birth which I guess would be possible. The problem with that idea is that Luke gets mundane facts wrong. No other historian records a census at thar time and if there was one the idea that you travel back to your ancestral town is ridiculous, impossible to do in practice and a strange thing to want to do in the first place. No reason as far as I can see for Mary to tell him that.

It doesn't seem likely to me, but I'm no expert.

 

[PTK]

It amazes me how people can accept, or at least think plausible, the idea that the Romans required everyone to travel to their home town in order that a census could be conducted. I have spoken to people who are not religious who entertain the notion that it could have been the case. If you want to know how many people live in a town now, you don't require that those who are incomers move out. A requirement that everyone moved to their home town would have created massive disruption, and would have taken months to implement. Of course, we know that the political reason for the claim is so that it can be claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem, in order to match a prophecy and give legitimacy to the claim that he was indeed the king of his people.