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.

 

[ouirdeaux]

Very little in the Bible stands up to rational analysis. But hey, when you want to believe, you want to believe.

 

[Humberto]

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.

Jews were oppressed at the time. Unrest and simmering tension in a far flung backwater. Doesn't necessarily mean it was an empire wide policy of the Romans.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Jews were oppressed at the time. Unrest and simmering tension in a far flung backwater. Doesn't necessarily mean it was an empire wide policy of the Romans.

So is the bible wrong then? It states in Luke that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

So is the bible wrong then? It states in Luke that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered.

Yes the Bible was wrong. Shock horror!

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Yes the Bible was wrong. Shock horror!

Just wondering what the posters who believe all this stuff think. What with the bible being the word of God. How do they explain the (many) errors in the bible?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Just wondering what the posters who believe all this stuff think. What with the bible being the word of God. How do they explain the (many) errors in the bible?

Speaking on their behalf (maybe a tad risky) it's quite simple. You either say the Bible is inspired by God and any errors are the fault of sinful humanity. This means that interpretation is needed by the priesthood or Church or whatever. Or the Bible is truly inerrant and either some complicated tricky explanation is needed or the Devil has created alternative documentation to threaten the faith of the true believers. Or summat else equally improbable.

 

[andysays]

Speaking on their behalf (maybe a tad risky) it's quite simple. You either say the Bible is inspired by God and any errors are the fault of sinful humanity. This means that interpretation is needed by the priesthood or Church or whatever. Or the Bible is truly inerrant and either some complicated tricky explanation is needed or the Devil has created alternative documentation to threaten the faith of the true believers. Or summat else equally improbable.

Or you say that the Bible isn't all intended to be interpreted literally, and that although the various human authors were inspired by God, they were each still writing on the basis of their own imperfect human understandings of the world at the time they were writing.

This does indeed imply that interpretation is needed by the Church, and it also means that interpretation can (and does) change over time.

 

[PTK]

Or you say that the Bible isn't all intended to be interpreted literally, and that although the various human authors were inspired by God, they were each still writing on the basis of their own imperfect human understandings of the world at the time they were writing.

This does indeed imply that interpretation is needed by the Church, and it also means that interpretation can (and does) change over time.

I thought that a central part of Protestantism was that the individual believer could interpret the Bible for themselves, and did not need a priest to do it for them.

 

[andysays]

I thought that a central part of Protestantism was that the individual believer could interpret the Bible for themselves, and did not need a priest to do it for them.

I'm a Catholic, I can't speak for what the Protestants do or believe.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I'm a Catholic, I can't speak for what the Protestants do or believe.

Nor what all other Catholics do or believe.

 

[andysays]

Nor what all other Catholics do or believe.

True, but I don't think I've actually claimed that

 

[PTK]

That the Bible is described as a book is the root of some misonceptions.
It is of course a collection of books. Each one was not written in order to be consistent with all subsequent books.

 

[andysays]

That the Bible is described as a book is the root of some misonceptions.
It is of course a collection of books. Each one was not written in order to be consistent with all subsequent books.

Yeah, it's best to view it as some sort of Greatest Hits compilation album.

 

[ElizabethofYork]

Or you say that the Bible isn't all intended to be interpreted literally, and that although the various human authors were inspired by God, they were each still writing on the basis of their own imperfect human understandings of the world at the time they were writing.

The gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus are wildly different. Which one do you believe is correct - Matthew or Luke? And how did the other one get it so terribly wrong, do you think?

 

[andysays]

The gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus are wildly different. Which one do you believe is correct - Matthew or Luke? And how did the other one get it so terribly wrong, do you think?

I'm genuinely not interested in attempting to explain or reconcile the differences.

Matthew and Luke, were originally written by different authors, for different audiences and with different aims or intentions.

The crucial parts of the story of the birth of Jesus are the fact that he's the Son of God, and the Virgin Birth.

The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered isn't important in a literal sense.

 

[ouirdeaux]

They just put that in for shits and giggles?

So how do you know that the part about Jesus being the son of God, or Mary being a virgin, isn't there for the same reason?

 

[ElizabethofYork]

I'm genuinely not interested in attempting to explain or reconcile the differences.

Matthew and Luke, were originally written by different authors, for different audiences and with different aims or intentions.

The crucial parts of the story of the birth of Jesus are the fact that he's the Son of God, and the Virgin Birth.

The idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem because a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be registered isn't important in a literal sense.

I wonder what the aims and intentions were of the person who wrote untruths?