So tell me Rod, were you posting under the name Omnedon? I really am curious. I know that you have jumped names in the past and your tactics are suspiciously similar.

You want to have good faith discussions with me and thought such a thing was possible. Well it is, but not when you don't act in good faith. You asserted that the statement "Jesus existed" went "beyond the boundaries set by historians." In effect, you made an appeal to authority. But when asked to produce what those boundaries are and which historians set them, you just pretend that you have nothing to prove.

If you realize that your statement was overreaching, just admit it.

Layman,
I'm attempting to make a judgement without appearing judgemental. Everyone is biased. You stated earlier:

"First, prove that most of these scholars are biased Christians. I doubt you even know who they are. Not that some internet searches couldn't help ya out there.

Second, atheist scholars like Michael Grant and Sherman-White arrive a pretty much the same conclusions. Heck, even Richard Carrier (biased Christian?) places a 98% probability on Jesus' death by crucifixion."

If Grant is an atheist, he appears to me to be a Christian atheist, which is certainly possible. He was once a Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge, 1977, judging from the cover of his book. I'm only stating that if he were a Buddhist atheist, he would be truly neutral on the Jesus' histority issue.

I just want to comment on a little thing:
Jesus baptism was not embarrassing to the early church/Jewish believers at all - it was, as a matter of fact, necessary to his claims and would've been very embarrasing if he wasn't baptized.

According to Jewish law, a man around the age of 30 who wanted to enter into ministry would need to be anointed by a high priest. Jesus wasn't about to be baptized by any of the then-operating priests, so he went to someone who had impeccable credentials: the son of the High priest Zechariah, John himself.
Jesus baptism was his ordination (at 30 - see Luke) into his ministry. Hardly embarrassing. More embarassing would've been a Jesus who did not "fulfill the Law" by starting his ministry without the proper anointing.


Thank you and have a great weekend.
JMAC

I thought you were saying he was baised because of his Chapter Headings. I asked you to explain how the chapter headings demonstrated bias. You have not attempted to do so.

Have you abandoned that notion?

Hello again jm

This is an interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence of any other Jewish "minister" being baptized by anyone?

As for giving Jesus a proper annointing, I agree that this would have been expected, but why not just have a secret disciple like Joseph of Arimathea or some such perform the ritual, and use oil (like for the kings of old) instead of the new innovation of baptism first introduced by the Essene community?

Nomad

Just to follow up -
Jesus is commonly referred to as Prophet Priest and King.

All 3 of the above required ceremonial sprinkling/baptism/anointing by someone with the correct credentials as they started into their work.

It was part of the Law: see Numbers 8.
Jesus came to fulfill all righteousness - see Matt 3.

Jesus was not becoming a junior acolyte of John's - Jesus started his official ministry upon his baptism(anointing). Jesus' baptism was not for repentance - it was an anointing into ministry.

John was well suited for this purpose since he was of the Levite lineage and his father had served as HP (Matt 1).

Note well the exchnage between Jesus and John in Matt 3 - John protests, but then realizes what is going on and goes ahead and does the honors.

It would have been much more embarrassing if Jesus had not been baptized/anointed. He could not have been said to "fulfill all righteousness" in that case.

JMAC

Nomad = don't you read the Bible?
Numbers 8 is water not oil. And it was done by a Levite (HPs are Levites). Quite publicly too......

It's high time to deep six the "embarassment" criterion over the baptism of Jesus - it was not embarrassing - in the least. Not only would a Jew expect it, but they would've been very suspicious if a ceremonial anointing did not take place.

JMAC - btw this is not a new theory - the Reformed tradition has known about it for quite some time - perhaps you should upgrade?

Hello again jm

I asked you a very specific question. Do you have any examples from history of a Jewish "minister" (what is that BTW?) being baptized?

Thanks for the tip, but I do not find very many of the innovations in the Reformed movement to be very convincing, so I will pass.

In the meantime, I would appreciate an answer to my question.

Thank you.

Nomad

Nomad - are you thick? Numbers 8 is a good beginning, then think real hard - this rite then continues and goes on and on...all the Levites are "Jewish ministers" -all are anointed in this fashion. Numbers 8 is just the opening salvo.....

Give me evidence of one who wasn;t so ordained..

Get a grip man.

Numbers 8:5-10 The LORD said to Moses: "Take the Levites from among the other Israelites and make them ceremonially clean. To purify them, do this: Sprinkle the water of cleansing on them; then have them shave their whole bodies and wash their clothes, and so purify themselves. Have them take a young bull with its grain offering of fine flour mixed with oil; then you are to take a second young bull for a sin offering.
Bring the Levites to the front of the Tent of Meeting and assemble the whole Israelite community. You are to bring the Levites before the LORD, and the Israelites are to lay their hands on them.

Was Jesus a Levite? I thought that he was from the House of David, Judah. Did He shave his body? Did John lay hands on Him? Was he presented to the whole community of Israel by John at the Temple?

Why did the Gospels not report the remainder of the rituals listed in Numbers 8? Why only the sprinkling of water?

Yes, but John's lineage is only given by Luke (not Matt), and this could easily have been invented for apologetic reasons (connected to your theory). We cannot accept it as being historically probable that John was a Levite.

While this is possible, you are mixing up a few stories here. If Mark wrote first (as is commonly believed), then he did not mention the requirements that you have listed from Numbers 8, and if Matthew was referring to them, then he forgot to explain why none of the other rituals (which were equally important to the Jews) were performed by John.

I'm sorry jm, but your theories do not help to explain away the embarrassment of the baptism, and if the law of Numbers 8 needed to be fulfilled, then we have no reports from anyone (including the Gospels) that they were fulfilled.

Nomad