FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

Poll: Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?
Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.
Poll Options
Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-26-2011, 06:10 AM   #1
JoeWallack
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Nazareth
Posts: 2,357
Default Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?

JW:
Okay, so the world did not end and you still have to go to work and make your minimum monthly credit card payments. Well here's something to cheer you up. A poll asking you what your position is regarding the historicity of Jesus' supposed baptism by John. All votes are treated alike whether you are Dr. Richard Carrier (PhD in Ancient History and author of Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2006)) or 7 year college student ApoState Abe (author of "who, who". Excuse me, a flock of owls just flew into the room. Out you damn owls. Author of Chat Roullete Kid)

Lest you think your vote will not make a difference the Republicans have now become so desperate for a real candidate that John the Baptist is currently running 3rd in the polls ahead of John McCain but behind Herman Cain (Cain? Isn't that proof that they are evil?). If John (the Baptist) wins they plan on than bringing back Jesus, having him baptized by John, and than putting together a Merger of Church and State (for a 10 percent Commission).

In addition to your precious vote, please also indicate the main reason for your vote.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki
JoeWallack is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:25 AM   #2
Vivisector
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 415
Default

Can you make it so that I can vote more than once? Like, maybe four times?

Cheers,

V.
Vivisector is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 06:48 AM   #3
Juststeve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
Default

I voted that the baptism was probably historical without accepting for a moment the supernatural hocus pocus.

My reason are:

We have good reason for believing that John the Baptizer existed and was baptizing;

There is not anything particularly unusual about a religiously oriented fellow like Jesus getting baptized;

I do not think there is a credible reason for members of the early Jesus movement to have made up the story if it didn’t happen.

I am not a myther and therefore have no a priori reason to explain away the incident.

Steve
Juststeve is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:03 AM   #4
aa5874
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

The baptism of Jesus of the NT by John is MOST certainly fiction.

Once we are using INFORMATION found in the NT then we MUST FIRST establish who Jesus was in the very SAME books.

Jesus of the NT was NOT HUMAN but a Child of a Ghost in the NT.

So the very same Canon which provided the baptism story is the same which described the NATURE of Jesus as the Child of a Ghost.

We cannot CHERRY-PICK what we want to BELIEVE.

The CANON stories are FIXED.

Jesus, the Child of a Ghost, was Baptised by John.

The story of Jesus in the NT is a GHOST story.

Mt 1:18 -
Quote:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise....... his mother ...... was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
I did NOT make this stuff up. It is in the NT.

It is just TOTAL FICTION that a man BAPTIZED a Ghost.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:07 AM   #5
ApostateAbe
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

The historical baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist is by far the best way to explain the early and widespread myth of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, given the strongly-inferred evidence of embarrassment surrounding the baptism event contained in all of the first-century Christian gospels. The embarrassment emerges from the potential inferences that John the Baptist is a religious authority of Jesus and that Jesus would have sins that need to be washed away. The historical plausibility of the baptism event is strongly reflected in the evidence of the existence of a concurrent cult of John the Baptist contained in the gospels (i.e. Matthew 21:25) and in Josephus, the great respect that the gospels grant John the Baptist (i.e. Matthew 11:11), and the ritual of baptism upheld by the Christians (i.e. 1 Corinthians 1:16). For a fuller explanation, see my thread:

The awkward fact of the baptism of Jesus

For extra fun, see the Ultimate Dog Tease video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGeKSiCQkPw
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:21 AM   #6
Diogenes the Cynic
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

I think the most parsimonious explanation for the existence of the story is that it happened. It's independently attested by John and the Synoptics. It really does fit the criterion of embarrassment. JBap is attested as historical by Josephus. Jesus and John's movements were both Messianic and apocalyptic. Jesus getting baptized by John does not contain any inherent historical implausibilities, nor is there any obvious reason it would have been made up.

I think that IF Jeus existed, then he was probably baptized by John.
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:29 AM   #7
Juststeve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
Default

I would want to address the rather simplistic notion that one cannot "CHERRY-PICK what we want to BELIEVE", without addressing the particular proponent of this asinine view. The fact is that reasonable people in considering accounts, verbal or written, often accept some of the account as true while rejecting other parts as unlikely or just plain false. When juries are charged at trial they are routinely told that they are the judges of credibility and they may credit all, some or none of a witnesses' testimony. When we read a history or the Civil War for example we are free to believe some of what the author has to say while doubting other parts. Its not a matter of cherry picking what we want to believe, its a matter of critical thinking. It is quite reasonable for me to accept some things a Gospel writer said about Jesus while rejecting the claim that he walked on the water. That's what reasonable people do.

Steve
Juststeve is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:32 AM   #8
Vivisector
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 415
Default

Basically the reasons DtC gave. I believe that, if the Matt and Luke authors could have dispensed with the story, they would have.
Vivisector is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 08:06 AM   #9
Sheshbazzar
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

I voted Likely fiction only because -PURELY fiction- was not offered.

I am convinced that the Hebrew 'Joshua the Messiah', and the Greek LXX vorlage based 'Jebus the Christ' tales were common messianic midrash themes long before any 'Jebus' was ever 'born'.
The religion of 'Christianity' came into being when these old pre-'christian', 'messiah/christos' midrashim and 'sayings' writings were arranged into narrative form,
Which then came to be misunderstood and capitalised upon as being actual historical accounts.
(wrested into the service of aggrandising and elevating certain individuals, while demonizing and marginalizing others in the struggle for (bogus) religious 'authority')

The Christian 'religion' expanded from there, NOT from any real life historical 'JC' figure, or claimed NT events.
In short, the so called 'New Testement', a contrived work of religious fiction, has been long mistaken for a historical account.

I admit that at this date this position is only a belief, but I am confident that in due time, -written evidence from PRIOR to the first century- will be found
which will fully validate the correctness of this position.
If no such incontrovertible material evidence ever comes to light, that will in no way affect on my position.
Even as others have faith in the validity of their various positions, so have I in my position. I expect that it will be proven accurate and fully vindicated.

The above outline is what I honestly and personally believe to be what really happened.







.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 05-26-2011, 08:12 AM   #10
Atheos
Talk Freethought Staff
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Heart of the Bible Belt
Posts: 5,807
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
I think the most parsimonious explanation for the existence of the story is that it happened. It's independently attested by John and the Synoptics. It really does fit the criterion of embarrassment. JBap is attested as historical by Josephus. Jesus and John's movements were both Messianic and apocalyptic. Jesus getting baptized by John does not contain any inherent historical implausibilities, nor is there any obvious reason it would have been made up.

I think that IF Jeus existed, then he was probably baptized by John.
GJohn never says Jesus was baptized by JTB, only that JTB claimed to have seen the spirit descend from heaven like a dove and sit on Jesus. Do you actually believe the spirit descended in the form of a dove and remained on Jesus? If not then whatever is recorded in GJohn is not independent verification of the baptism in the synoptics.

To suggest that GMatt and GLuke are "independent" attestation is stretching things IMO. Few would argue that either of these documents are not heavily dependent on GMark.

As far as an obvious reason it would have been made up, I can think of several. JTB was an independently attested historical figure, and influenced a number of disciples before his death. If Jesus was a fictional character, placing him into a historical timeframe and having him interact with JTB would lend credence to his historicity.

Also, having JTB proclaim the superiority of Jesus would make it easier for early christians to assimilate former disciples of JTB. After all, JTB was merely dead. Jesus, on the other hand was resurrected and sitting on the right hand of God in heaven.

To me the evidence is consistent with a developing myth. GMark's Jesus encounters JTB in Jordan with no evident history behind them. GMatt's Jesus belies a bit of history between them: "You should be baptizing me, why do you ask me to baptize you?". GLuke's Jesus turns out to be a 2nd cousin to JTB, complete with family history and a 3 month visit between his mother and JTB's mother while they were pregnant.
Atheos is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:41 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.