Of the many things which could be said, let's just say he's no John the Baptist

Jesus clearly says workers deserve a living wage. -- What Would Jesus Pay Workers? C. Don Jones, Plough 

 

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. 

 

-- Luke 3:14

 

 

The superstition around baptism remains strong in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

Our Lady of Guadalupe, patron saint of the Diocese

Thousands of baptisms over 20 years were declared "invalid" and "nullified" in St. Gregory parish because the priest in question routinely said "We baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," instead of "I baptize you . . .", an "incorrect formula" which failed to indicate that it is Christ who baptizes in the sacrament since it is the ordained priest who is uniquely invested with the spiritual power and presence of Christ:

"The issue with using 'We' is that it is not the community that baptizes a person, rather, it is Christ, and Him alone, who presides at all of the sacraments, and so it is Christ Jesus who baptizes."

More.

This is pure magical thinking, an example of decadence, the degeneration of the original conception of baptism, from sign of repentance, renunciation of the world, and attachment to the new community of the elect to mysterious, wonder-working ritual imparting divine grace and forgiveness of sins.

The evidence of the Synoptics shows that Jesus himself did not baptize anyone like John the Baptist did. Only the Fourth Gospel says that Jesus so baptized, in John 3, but that is deliberately corrected in John 4 to state that Jesus himself did not baptize, and that only his disciples did.

Well, set aside the contradiction and ask, what formula did they use?

Did the disciples of Jesus use the formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"? 

The idea is preposterous.

So did that make those baptisms "invalid" and therefore null?

Totally kooky.

Magic is for a world continuing on into the indefinite future, with billions of possible customers. The baptism of repentance was for salvation from a world soon coming to an abrupt end. The failure of the latter paved the way for the former.

The funny thing about Acts 1 is how there are about 120 "disciples" of Jesus after the "ascension", but only 2 are candidates to replace Judas because only they were witnesses to the baptism of John and to the resurrection

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

-- Acts 1:15

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

-- Acts 1:21ff.

Yet Paul claims Jesus was seen resurrected by more than 500 "brethren":

After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

-- I Corinthians 15:6f.

By the time of Acts 1, the twelve disciples of Jesus have become the (almost) twelve apostles, and the not quite disciple followers of Jesus have now been promoted as it were to full disciples.

But Acts poses far fewer "disciples", now more broadly conceived, than Paul's even more broadly conceived "brethren", who were witnesses to the resurrection.

The key to apostleship according to Acts is NOT simply the terminus ad quem of Paul (And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time -- I Corinthians 15:8), but the terminus a quo involving the ministry of the Baptist AND the terminus ad quem of the resurrection.

This is why Paul's apostleship was considered illegitimate during his lifetime. He was part of the more expansive group associated with the 500, not with the more restrictive group associated with the 120.

The deal breaker was the missing link to John the Baptist.

Him he knew not.

Paul's insistence on the "apostleship" as a gift of the Spirit (I Corinthians 12:28) is an expansive interpretation based on his own ecstatic conversion experience, which in the final analysis is the basis for his gospel and his claim to be an apostle. Everything about it hangs on his claim to have experienced "seeing" the Lord, simply the "back end" of the deal. It has absolutely nothing to do with seeing the historical Jesus from the time of Jesus' baptism at the hands of the Baptist right on through all the events to the end and witnessing his actual resurrection. Which, in fact, he utterly eschews.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

-- I Corinthians 9:1

Paul an apostle--not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

-- Galatians 1:1, 11f.

Christianity as we know it today is based entirely on this, and it is sinking sand.

Madonna as Salome, who got John Baptist's head on a platter through seduction

Madonna: Something ‘Poetic and Sometimes Sexual’ About Jesus Hanging on the Cross:

“There’s something really extreme and dramatic about the idea that you know, in any church you go and you see a man on a cross, practically naked, bleeding from his wounds, and everyone genuflects and prays to him,” Madonna said of Christ. “I find that so intriguing, poetic and sometimes sexual, sensual. And the idea that people are – in a way, it’s pagan because people are worshipping a thing.”

And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. 

-- Matthew 14:8

The Synoptic tradition places the start of Jesus' ministry in Galilee after John's imprisonment, but the Fourth Gospel disagrees

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. ... Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

-- Matthew 3:1f., 5f.

Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; ... From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

-- Matthew 4:12, 17

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. ... Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

-- Mark 1:4f., 14f.

And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. ... And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching. And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits; ... And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

-- Mark 6:1, 6f., 12

After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

-- John 3:22ff.

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.

-- John 4:1ff.

Quelle surprise: Rob Bell speaks up for a version of progressive revelation

Quoted here:

'See? It completely contradicts itself.' And it does, unless you read it as an unfolding story and you realize that these two different passages were written at two different times, and they reflect a growing sophistication in thinking. Now we have something very interesting. We see that people were growing and evolving in their thinking about the divine. That’s a story that we are much more likely to find ourselves in. 

Well, why shouldn't Rob Bell go for progressive revelation?

After all, it's a convenient justification for jettisoning things in the Bible he objects to . . . like hell. To Rob Bell, hell isn't an example of our current state of evolved, sophisticated thinking, so the interpretive principle permits him to relegate it to an earlier, now obsolete stage of God's revelation to man.

But progressive revelation is also basic to the dispensational theology of Bell's former Evangelical faith.

You can take the man out of the Evangelicalism, but you can't take the Evangelicalism out of the man.

The modernist prejudice behind the theory of progressive revelation here is obvious, if little noticed by its critics, implying that the Biblical ancients weren't as enlightened as we are.

This is the sort of dismissive attitude toward the past which makes it impossible to understand them on their own terms, meaning there is a predisposition to misunderstand them.

But Evangelicals, former or otherwise, are particulary vulnerable to this lurch because of the degree to which their own heritage struggled with and assimilated modernism.

Rob Bell is only late heir of an age which long before us was already digesting modernism from the Christian point of view, for example in Thomas Dehany Bernard's The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, the Bampton Lecture from 1864.

More specifically, however, progressive revelation was the essential modernist presupposition of J. N. Darby's dispensationalist theology, without which we wouldn't have Evangelicalism in the first place, with its easy compartmentalization of features of God's revelation which are an effront to post-Enlightenment reason: food laws, animal sacrifice, capital punishment, just war, etc.

Apart from the obvious, that there is a development of ideas in the Bible which can be demonstrated historically, the very idea of progress itself remains, however, an unquestioned value of our time which we've inherited from modernity, which overthrew the ancient world's agriculturally inspired ideas of cyclicality, birth and death, and eternal return.

And Christians and secularists alike share it . . . in droves.

But it must be asked: Is it really progress in divine thinking to travel from the age of faith under the Patriarchs, to the slaughter of animals under Moses, to the human sacrifice of the Son of God under Paul, to the mass murdering of tens of millions of the age of the Enlightenment?

The more I look at the ceaseless ages run the more the pattern looks like degeneracy to me.

Over 7 billion people inhabit the planet today. But by 1 AD over 40 billion were already dead. What do we know that they did not? Only that Princess Leia is dead, too.

The prophets of the Old Testament, whose heirs John the Baptist and Jesus were, dreamed by contrast with our Christian world of the interminable Sacrifice of the Mass of a world finally founded by God eternally upon justice, without violence, without tears and without death, however mediated that must be through judgment. Appropriately, they were tortured and killed.

I fancy that we have been fooled into thinking that we have made progress at all by the times in which we have been living, that is, by the Holocene, which began approximately 11,700 years ago.

We don't grasp that we bask in the glow of a dying interglacial, and cannot bear that The Ice Man returneth.

The next round is on me!

What if the Jesus Movement wasn't originally a resurrection cult at all?

For a resurrection cult which came to believe in Jesus' resurrection, Jesus' closest followers seem like the biggest bunch of dimwits about it despite all of Jesus' "predictions" that he would rise on the third day.

One begins in Matthew 12:40 with the prediction that the Son of Man would be "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth".

Then follow all the rising-on-the-third-day predictions in Matthew 16:21, 17:23, 20:19 and 26:32.

Mark has these in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34 and 14:28.

Luke in 9:22, 44, 18:33, and ex post facto 24:6ff., 21, 26, 46.

Yet there is unaccountable bewilderment on the part of the disciples about Jesus' prediction: "what the rising from the dead should mean" (Mark 9:10).

There is even fear to inquire: "But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him" (Mark 9:32).

You have to wonder about such dumbfoundedness given the ubiquity of the topic in the gospels otherwise.

In Matthew 10:8 Jesus sent out these same disciples to "raise the dead"! Well, did they?

Resurrections are proof of Jesus' ministry (Matthew 11:5, Luke 7:14, 22 and 8:54).

And speculation existed that Jesus himself was John the Baptist risen from the dead (Matthew 14:2), or one of the prophets (Luke 9:8, 19). Like they hadn't heard that.

You also have to wonder about other perplexing behavior.

Why would the women followers of Jesus bother to prepare spices for the burial of his body and bring them on the third day if he actually predicted that he would die and rise, and they believed this? (Mark 16:1, Luke 23: 56, Luke 24:1)

Even the authorities knew of this prediction, we are led to understand, and took measures to secure against it. (Matthew 27:63f. "that deceiver said 'After three days I will rise again'") The unbelievers knew, but Jesus' own followers did not? (John 20:9 "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead")

None of this is satisfactory.

The predictions of Jesus' death and rising on the third day all look to be revisionist history, imported into the narrative from the future when reflection had settled on a resurrection narrative.

That narrative was largely Pauline. It made resurrection the centerpiece of the religion, replacing Jesus' original message of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God. As such the narrative was a Christian form of Pharisaism, in which Paul's genius as a theologian invented the new availability of individual holiness apart from the temple cult, secured through the once for all sacrifice of God's own son.

Jesus meanwhile had intended none of this, not to die for the sins of Israel let alone the whole world. If he intended the replacement of the temple cult, it was with individual repentance and mercy, prayer, and delight in the law of the Lord, bringing an end to the shedding of blood in preparation for the descent of the heavenly temple when God himself would establish justice and peace once and for all, and remove everything from Israel which offended. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done . . .."

The historical kernel on which was built a religion wholly different from this was simply Jesus' own conviction that as a prophet he would likely be killed.

Out of the molehill of this sober expectation and its unfortunate realization was made the historical accident, the mountain we call Christianity.

Jesus did not "lay aside his divinity" at the incarnation as Bill Johnson says, but is already "from the Holy Ghost" in his mother's womb and becomes "God with us"

A heretic of Christianity is discussed here who teaches that Jesus laid aside his divinity in the incarnation and performed his ministry entirely according to his human nature by the subsequent gift of the Holy Spirit received at his baptism by John, in order to pave the way and make it possible for his followers to receive the same, and do the same and greater things.

Utter nonsense, of course, which the author of Matthew would not have accepted:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. ... But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. ... "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

-- Matthew 1:18, 20, 23

John the Baptist's version of repentance was downright un-American: "Be content with your wages"

And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. 

-- Luke 3:14

What marriage used to mean

'In publicly advocating that the king’s marriage was indissoluble, Fisher argued that “this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or Divine.” For this principle, he said, he was willing to give his life. He continued by noting that John the Baptist saw no way to “die more gloriously than in the cause of marriage,” despite the fact that marriage then “was not so holy at that time as it has now become by the shedding of Christ’s Blood.” Like Thomas More and John the Baptist, [Bishop John] Fisher was beheaded, and like them, he is called “saint.”'

Read the whole thing, here, from Archbishop of Denver Samuel Aquila.

Paul's idea of the kingdom of God would have been foreign to Jesus and John the Baptist

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

-- 1 Corinthians 15:50

And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

-- Matthew 5:29f.

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

-- Matthew 18:8f.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched . . . And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

-- Mark 9:43, 47

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

-- Matthew 24:22

And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

-- Mark 13:20

And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

-- Luke 3:6

The popular understanding about Jesus was that he was a prophet, and perhaps the coming prophet like unto Moses

Moses Aaron and Hur by John Everett Millais

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

-- Matthew 16:13f.

And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

-- Matthew 21:10f.

And Jesus went out, and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am? And they answered, John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

-- Mark 8:27f.

And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people. ... Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

-- Luke 7:16, 39

Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead; And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again. ... And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them, saying, Whom say the people that I am? They answering said, John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again.

-- Luke 9:7f., 18f.

Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

-- Luke 13:33

And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:

-- Luke 24:18f.

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. ... And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

-- John 1:19ff, 25.

The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.

-- John 4:19

Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world. When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

-- John 6:14f.

Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. ... They [the Pharisees] answered and said unto him [Nicodemus], Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

-- John 7:40, 52

They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

-- John 9:17

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

-- Acts 3:22f.

This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

-- Acts 7:37

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; ... And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

-- Deuteronomy 18:15, 17f.

And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses. And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

-- Deuteronomy 34:9f.

Jesus ate with just about every member of his community, but not so Paul with every member of his

So says the triple tradition about Jesus (Matthew 9:10ff., Mark 2:15ff. and Luke 5:27ff.):

And after these things he went forth, and saw a publican, named Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he said unto him, Follow me. And he left all, rose up, and followed him. And Levi made him a great feast in his own house [a going away party?]: and there was a great company of publicans [tax collectors] and of others that sat down with them. But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 7: 33ff. adds that he ate also with Simon the Pharisee, the setting for the absolution of the harlot who washed Jesus' feet with her tears:

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children. And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

And Luke 14:1ff. puts Jesus in the house of another Pharisee to eat, the setting for his remarkable teaching about divestiture to the poor:

And it came to pass, as he went into the house of one of the chief Pharisees to eat bread on the sabbath day, that they watched him. ... 

So Jesus eats with just about everybody, except perhaps Sadducees.

But here in 1 Corinthians 5:9ff. Paul tells Gentile believers not to eat with fellow believers who openly sin, nor to keep company with them, but to put them out of the Christian community:

I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Methodist Adam Hamilton can't stand the apocalyptic Jesus

Methodist Adam Hamilton has to edit out of the Bible the apocalyptic Jesus, and much else, here:

The violence attributed to God in the Bible is a serious issue that Christians must address. It is inconsistent with the character of God described in many places in the Old Testament, and certainly inconsistent with the Word of God revealed in Jesus Christ who calls his followers to love their enemies.

John the Baptist begged to differ:

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

-- Matthew 3:11f.

John The Baptist Is Eli'jah

Head shrine of San Silvestro in Capite

And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli'jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. And Eli'sha saw it and he cried, "My father, my father! the chariots of Israel and its horsemen!" And he saw him no more. Then he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two pieces.

-- 2 Kings 2:11f.

Behold, I will send you Eli'jah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes.

-- Malachi 4:5 (Hebrew 3:23)

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli'jah who is to come.
-- Matthew 11:13f.