TedM

Of course if you believe that then you can dismiss arguments like mine above right off the bat. Fact is you can't prove that the gospel stories of JTB do not represent any tradition, nor mere "copying" with no prior tradition. It's just a belief on your part.

Your conclusion is totally understandable since it is based on your prior belief that is not provable in the slightest. Again your faith is driving your conclusions.


Yes, that's true for this particular point. However, the question is begged--why was JTB water baptism the starting point for Jesus' "made up" ministry? Note the focus on the words "water baptism".


Because those can be supported by scripture. The water baptism of Jesus AFAIK cannot.



You've missed the point. Baptism should NOT be needed from a theological standpoint. Jesus is said to baptize not with water, but with the Holy Spirit. It is a SPIRITUAL cleansing. Jesus preached over and over about the need to clean out the SPIRIT--the inside as the outside was irrelevant.

Why should Christians adopt the JTB method as their own when JTB and/or his followers would have known nothing of Jesus if Jesus were invented? It is against the grain for mythicists to adopt early on a tradition deeply followed by others and call it your own. It is against the grain to have Jesus--the Christ--baptized by water by JTB. And, it is against the grain to have Christians need water baptism when Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit.

All of those against the grain points argue for the knowledge of and acceptance of JTB's mission and water baptism by a historical Jesus moreso than a mythological Messiah created to embrace JTB and water baptism.

ted

aa5874

I have the writings of Josephus to support my position and the authors of the Gospels claimed Jesus was a God.

Also, the authors of the Gospels appeared to have written the JTB stories long after the supposed events, and these authors seemed not to be Jews or to be aware of any Jewish tradition with respect to JTB except what is found in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

Chili

I would argue that water baptism is most important because walking on water is the only way to get to heaven. Remember how Moses parted the water instead that got all the [new born] children of Israel in trouble because they failed to mature in their own promised land.

In the New heaven and New earth the sea will be no longer to say that water is as solid as rock once we know how to walk on it (while yet others try to get there knee-deep throught stone = to clarify to this metaphor). Interesting here now is that not all water is the same (or there would be Buddhist in our heaven) and from here the slippery slope demands that heaven is religion specific that with the ascension of Jesus to heaven while Christ stayed in earth demanded that baptism becomes a prequisite to enter heaven = born of water and spirit.

Jesus also made it clear that the reign of God is in our midst which now must be contained by the water that we walk on that now is worthy to be called the wine that Jesus made.

avi

Notwithstanding Christianity's attempt to conceal Lord Constantine's assignment of the holiest day of the Pagan calendar, the summer solstice, to the nativity of John the Baptist, one wonders whether this assignment by the Roman Emperor represented a corresponding political influence (especially in the Eastern half of the empire) of Mandaeans and Nazarenes (and, ergo, NOT Christians)? In other words, given Constantine's goal of unification, having just consolidated power by military conquest, perhaps he assigned the most important holiday of the year to the birth of John, as a concession to the large quantity of various "monotheistic" cults, all derived from Judaism, and all persecuted by, and enemies of, the Zoroastrian believing Persians, living East of the frontier, i.e. at the Eastern border of the Empire, along the Tigris/Euphrates rivers. We observe the Mandaeans today whithering away, but two millenia ago, perhaps, in that region, they may have been relatively dynamic, possibly even dominant--it may have been THEIR troops, defeated by Constantine, in that final battle to unify his empire. What better way to mollify the resentful Eastern population, than to compel acknowledgement throughout the entire empire, of the supremecy of John the Baptist, the Mandaean's most important prophet, and a figure revered as well by the Nazarenes and other messianic Jews?

But what Constantine really wanted, in my opinion, was unity in order to promote economic development, i.e. to bring wealth into Rome (and later, Constantinople) from the provinces. One of the key components of this policy, then, would have been promotion of stability along the silk route, whose final terminus was Constantinople, so that trade with China and India might continue, uninterrupted. One wonders, in that light, whether the "Ginza", Treasure, or holy book, of the Mandaeans, was influenced, linguistically, if no other way, by those same silk route caravans. Ginza = Treasure for the Mandaeans, and Jin is the word for gold in Chinese, (kin in Japanese, i.e. the sound of the ancient Hakka (KeJiaHua) language, used throughout central China two millenia ago,...) Ultimately, most of politics, including warfare and religious practices, is about accumulating and controlling wealth. In that context, John the Baptist's message, completely disparaging wealth, was utterly incongruous, especially for a ruthless megalomaniacal despot like Constantine. That he could assign the most important holiday of the year to a man eschewing all wealth, by word and deed, demonstrates Constantine's consummate skill as a politician of unsurpassed finesse--the ultimate opportunist.

One cannot help but note, in passing, the obvious possibility that the supposed "church", with its frescoes conveying "new testament" themes, found at the French/Yale excavation in the 1920's at Dura, along the same river on the eastern edge of Syria (in those days) was in fact a place of worship for the Mandaeans, not the "Christians". As for the fragment of papyrus, discovered in the same locale, shown by Ben, and others, to reveal "Christian" themes, specifically, reference to Joseph of Arimathea, IE, stavros, and Salome, though not specifically corresponding to any existing canon, precisely, is it not possible that the Mandaeans living there acquired texts from other groups, including Zoroastrians, and Jews, and Pauline Trinitarians, who would one day become known as Christians. When did the Christians first refer to themselves as Christians?

TedM

Chili, I'm always mystified by your writings. You have an ability to connect things I would never connect. Not saying you can't be right, just that I can't see how you are. Anyway, take care,

ted

TedM

Josephus' writings are traditionally viewed as after the earliest gospels, and belief that Jesus was a God in no way discounts the likelihood of tradition based on some interpretation of actual history. Based on the culture in which these stories arose, I'd say it is much more likely than not, though others here would disagree of course.

The fact that their version includes information not found in Josephus yet agrees in major respects with Josephus suggests tradition at work in either or both the gospels AND Josephus--though not just because of the existence of differences (which could be explained by creative invention). I"m saying those differences are against-the-grain that would NOT have been made up unless they were trying to deal with known traditions based on real history.

ted

aa5874

The "traditional view" is faith-based.

There is no evidence that can show that it is impossible that all the gospels were written after the writings of Josephus.

The authors of the gospels are unknown and the names given to the authors may have been as a result of deliberate fraud, i.e, it may have been known in advance by Eusebius that there were no such persons as Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

Well, what exactly are you saying? You must be saying that you have no evidence to support your position.

It is illogical to claim that you know what would not have been done. And based on your logics, Jesus did resurrect and ascend to heaven, there must have been a tradition based on real history.

You cannot show that it is impossible that the authors copied Josephus and then made stuff up about John the Baptist.

In Antiquities of the Jews, it is recorded that Tiberius ordered that Aretas be captured, or be killed and his head sent to him. In the gospel called Mark, the author claimed the daughter of Herodias asked for the head of John the Baptist.

This may have been stuff made up about John the Baptist.

TedM

aa, I don't know why I bother with you. You always are unable to perceive the points I make because you have already made up you mind. IOW you have concluded that the gospels have no credibility: therefore everything in them is invented and there can be no tradition based on history in them. That is a fallacy in your thinking, and that is why we never get anywhere in discussions. You are not open to the point because you refuse to concede possibilities that really do exist.

ted

motorhead

John the Baptist was a religious Jew. He taught the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, which meant God would come in final judgement soon. As I understand it, there is confusion over the nature of John's baptism. I think Josephus stated it was a baptism of purification (along the lines of purification rituals in the Jewish religion) and the gospels say it was for repentance of sins. I don't think the two are the same thing.

In any case, John baptized Jesus. Jesus believed John's message that the Kingdom of God was coming very soon. After John was put in prison, Jesus basically picked up where John left off, same basic message. Even though the gospels in one place make it sound as if John knew all along he was the precursor for Jesus, in another place it doesn't sound that way at all. When John is in prison, he sends his disciples to ask Jesus if Jesus is the one to come or if John should expect another. Jesus answers by quoting from Isaiah, which is meant to mean, yes, I'm the one.

It's not clear that Jesus ever saw himself as any version of the Jewish Messiah. The titles given to Jesus after his death (e.g. Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man) seem to all have been givent to him by his early followers. Jesus never actually seems to give himself a title. He just preached John's message of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God, what it would be like, and who would be welcomed into it.

aa5874

Well, I am extremely interested in the things you write. Very, very interested.

You reject whatever you think is implausible and think that the plausible must be true. And this you do without any extrnal support.

You have failed to recognise that the entire NT may be fiction written for the express purpose to make the false and mis-leading claim that a God called Jesus was on earth during the time of Tiberius.

You have failed to recognise that all the stories in the NT were deemed as plausible and credible and it is for that reason those stories are in the NT.

The baptism of Jesus by John was believed to be just as plausible and credible as the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like doves.

The author of Luke wrote a completly outrageous fable about the conception of John the Baptist where an old barren woman named Elizabeth would have a child named John the Baptist after a visit by an angel to her husband who was made dumb.

The so-called prophecy for John the Baptist is nothing but an out-of-context unrelated passage found in Isaiah 40.3.

These stories about John the Baptist are just blatant fiction, but they appeared to be quite plausible, credible and believeable in antiquity.

Without external corroboration, I must reject them as fiction.

You, on the other hand, cherry pick the information in the NT that support your theories and unilaterally, with your imaginative skills, decide what you think is true.