I opened a hydrant only to have the 3" coupling I had just hooked up blow apart, drenching me in water today.... that should count for something too!

 

As to your question Switch, I've never understood that either. Perhaps an apologetic will be along shortly to, well,  apologize for the KJV lack of clarity....

 

More than likely it was left from one of the earlier myths Jesus was copied from, and they didn't realize at the time it didn't make sense for God to have to forgive himself for sinning against himself.

I thought anointing, in a jewish context, implied that oil was used. Anyway, I'm not quite following your explanation, could you expound a little?

Well, how exactly is the baptism connected to the flood? What is the theme going on there? I can understand how one could claim that baptism washes away man's sin and that this parallels god's "baptism" of the earth in a flood to cleanse it of sinful people.

 

But Jesus wasn't supposed to have sinned according to the gospels.

I have only heard of annointing to mean with oil, but I could be wrong. I've got out my strong's exhaustive and haven't seen any different there. Could you please provide an example or two of annointings done with water rather than oil?

IAGAY:

I'm having a debate with a theist on my blog and he thinks that Jesus was a historical person. He cites the baptism of Jesus as fulfilling the principal of embarassment (Why would someone report Jesus as being baptized, implying he was a sinner, unless it was true?).

First one has to understand what baptism is. Personally, I always thought there was some mystical point behind it, but it is just a symbolic gesture. So what is the point of being baptised for anyone?

Yeah , good question zarathustra... 

Actually, the idea of Baptism was completely foreign to Judaism.  There is however another tradition where baptism featured prominently, in the Isis/Osiris mystery cults of Egypt. The story of the baptism of Jesus by John was probably included because it was simply too well known in 1st and 2nd century Palestine to be left out. To understand where it comes from it is necessary to understand that Jesus was probably not Jewish at all (at least not religiously Jewish). There are literally hundreds of different lines of evidence that indicate that John the Baptist was not the forerunner to Jesus, but was in fact his greatest rival, and that BOTH of them were actually spreading a Mystery Cult with its roots in Egypt. Jesus was baptized as part of his initiation in to JOHN'S cult, and then later split to form his own group. There is lots of evidence that there was a rival church that considered John to be the Messiah and that this tradition survived in various secret societies until the present day. What we know as the 'Christian Church' was founded by the people who followed Jesus, but were not a member of his 'inner circle'. They interpreted his words and actions through a Jewish lens, but never really understood what it was he was teaching. Two books that explore this theme are The Templar Revelations and Jesus the Magician. I highly recommend them both.

Yes, Jesus was baptised but no, it was not for the forgiveness of sins.  John the Baptist even said Jesus had no business coming to him for a baptism of repentence.  Jesus said he was coming to fulfil righteousness or justice which probably, to him,  meant some step of obedience to God.  There are some other possibilites as well.  Theologically, as Israel crossed the Jordon to the Promised Land, Jesus entered the Jordan and exited as the New Israel.  He would fulfill the law that the old Israel had failed to do.  And then there is the idea of his baptism being an identification with this new group of baptized people who were now following a new path.

So far we are gospel.

Not of course to himself, right?

Somewhat overwrought. Jesus didn't "cross" the Jordan; he was merely moistened in it.

The old christian anti-Jewish rhetoric oozes out. This is how christianity explains its cuckoo role: it is the real Israel, not the Jews. It belongs in the nest.

That was John's thing. John's messianism didn't need the false messiah, but christianity needed to explain baptism. It's only role in christianity is as an initiation ceremony. For John it marked the admittance into the end time. Earliest christianity accepted that end time until it was clear it wasn't coming as claimed, so baptism, which it was stuck with now -- Jesus was baptized --, needed to be accommodated: why this ceremonial act rather than another? John baptized Jesus, so, if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for you too.

spin

Great word choice

In The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Bob Price states the case that there may be evidence to suggest that the point when Jesus became The Son of God was continually being brought forward. At first it was the resurrection when he became "adopted", then the baptism in the Jordan. At this point then, Jesus would just be another unwashed sinner who was in fact not yet the Son of God, but the adoption papers were about to be finalized as it were. This may be the significance of "this is my own beloved son with whom I am pleased" and the descent of the dove or spirit of God upon Jesus. An apotheosis.

 

Later it went all the way back to the virgin birth, of course as the story grew more fantastical over time.

 

Having John the Baptist feel unworthy to baptise Jesus also may be a nod to the followers of John the Baptist, a rival sect with great popularity who objected to following the upstart Jesus figure. By making John clearly subordinate to Jesus, it's establishing who the real big cheese is in the relationship and makes John a forerunner who is preparing the way for the REAL Christ.

 

What we're lacking of course is clear knowledge of the context of the time in terms of what groups were in play exactly and at precisely what time so we must theorize based on the evidences we have. I would say there's definitely enough evidence when taken together to form such a hypothesis.

ah, my sweet travelling companion avalokitesvara, how i miss him!  as i sit here tonight getting stoned on czech beer and listening to neil young and crazy horse sing "sail away," i feel our anattas are in communion.  may we meet as fat, happy buddhas in that atheist pure land in the sky, drink cuban rum, and discuss alan watts.

depends on which part of asia you're in.  the original indian bodhisattva was male.  the dalai lama is supposedly his incarnation.  to the japanese, she's a goddess named kwannon.

regardless, it was my nickname for the late, great I AM GOD AS YOU and his american zen-style posts.  i think he would get a kick out of the fact that avalokitesvara has a female aspect.

i've always loved neil, though i've never become a serious collector of his albums.  to be honest, my absolute favorite thing he's ever done is his "silver and gold" album that came out in 2000.

i'm sure i would.  i'd love to find out, but our fucking retarded state department has a problem with that and could slap me with an insane fine, or even throw me in jail.

thanks for the good wishes, but no worries.  czech beer always treats me right.  obviously i'm still lucid and hangin' in there, though i'm about to go to bed just from being tired.