proudfootz

It's evident the many, many writings we have about Jesus are often in conflict - they cannot all be true. In fact they could all be false.

The baptism story is one of the later-emerging tales along with Herod's mass murdering of children, the three wise men following a star to Bethlehem, multiplying loaves and fishes, walking on water, and flying bodily into heaven after rising from the grave and eating some fish with his mates.

I take these tales to be fiction. I have no good reason to believe these stories are true. In fact AFAICT not one of the stories is known to be true - we don't even know if this Jesus ever existed at all.

Maybe it's the 'argument from incredulity' but I just have a hard time accepting tales of a god-man who converses with demon-spirits, holds mountain-top confabs with mythical heroes of the past, is ministered to by angels, and goes around re-animating random corpses.

Your mileage may vary. :huh:

aa5874

The Baptism story of Jesus as described in the NT is utter fiction.

It is recorded.

Mark 1 And further gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM.

The Gospels are NOT history---they are Myth Fables of a PHANTOM called Jesus.

It is illogical to ASSUME that a PHANTOM Water-Walker and Transfigurer was Baptized.

outhouse

by this statement I wonder if you know how these text were assembled. You do know this was oral tradition passed on decades after his death, it is mythology.

mythology if they believed it to be true, is not fiction.


there is quite a bit of mythology in the scripture, again it doesnt mean the unknown scribes were creating it, it was just passed on as what they really believed.

Im not saying there wasnt artistic liberties and that it is devoid of fiction, im sure there is some.


but to claim what is and isnt fiction would take more then wild guesses without study of each sentance and applying that to the cultural anthropology of the exact time.

Many people were baptised, and John is said to have lived that time and baptised many people in Galilee. Theres no reason to discount this legend as there is no reason why he would'nt be baptised by John. We see the authors downplaying John and trying to hide the fact he was the real teacher and jesus the student.

true we dont, but at this time its is highly probable that there was in fact a historical core to the legends we were left with.


so do I

but i also accept they lived mythology and all wrote that way. they were primitive people and mythology defined their very lives and was the best health care they had or could afford





One has to look at many different mythologies, and know what historicasl core lies at the center of said mythology. after a while there is a track record of mythology with and without historical cores, and those without historical cores doesnt mean it was fiction, they just believed but didnt possess the knowledge to make or back said claims.

Sometimes we can find the sources, sometimes were left wanting.


this legend seems to have a historical core as there were many poverty stricken Galilean teacher/healers who would have been upset with the roman infection in the temple, this one just got killed for standing up for peasants and dies a horrible death at a jewish holiday with 400,000 ish possible witnesses who would have carried quite the oral history for a long time. And its exactly what we see.

outhouse

case in point, 2000 ish years ago 1 man was trampled at passover.

passover gained a special nickname due to it, a few actually still known today.


Point is we know the temple was so crowded some old peasant was killed at a passover 2000 years ago.

Let alone one who was martyred for fighting agaisnt roman corruption which would have struck the heartstrings of almost half a million jews in attendance


he was important enough that a few different cultures from different areas all had legends of him later compiled together that despite the differenses you note, still tell a very very simular story

aa5874

Please, you are INVENTING stories. What you say is NOT an historical account. It is a LOAD of invented BS.

Mankind deserve better. You have NO evidence for your claims and is continuously SPOUTING stories from your imagination.

Please, please, this is NOT the time for inventions. This is BC&H.

Jesus in the NT was a PHANTOM--See Matthew 14.

Matthew 14:25 KJV Let us do history.

Let us examine the BELIEFS of people of antiquity.

People of antiquity did BELIEVE in Mythology.

The NT is a Compilation of Myth Fables composed in the 2nd century based on the Abundance of evidence and recovered dated Texts.

The NT is Not HISTORY.

proudfootz

I do not know that these tales are based on an oral tradition.

I'm probably using 'fiction' in a rather loose way - I meant to say 'didn't literally happen whether the authors believed it or not'. Basically the opposite of factual, whatever the proper term for that might be.


I'm not convinced the authors were simply 'passing on' what they 'heard' without making choices about what to leave in, what to leave out, and creating new material wherever they thought it appropriate.

It seems to me much of the original narrative is derived from literary sources.

Me, too!

I'm sure there's something in what you say - however it seems to me the trend is toward the non-factual (mythical if you like). Based on my reading it seems to me the authors of the various tales are little interested in dispassionately recording history but in persuading people of certain religious claims (perhaps they even thought such claims were 'truths' better explained by myth than by harsh and messy realities).

The story of this baptism doesn't seem to rear its head until nearly 100 years later. Why should it suddenly be an embarrassing 'fact' that needs explaining away? Surely no one would know about it if the gospel authors didn't tell them.

I don't accept that such a thing is 'highly probable' - it's possible. But to get from there to 'this happened' is a long road to travel. More is needed than the testimony of people who with equal conviction tell us dead men returned to life etc.


I accept that the authors may have been trying to communicate something they felt was important - but I don't think they are of the type to let the facts of what might have happened stand in their way.

Like the story of Jonah and the whale, or of Job: the tale may be simply a teaching tool and not a record of real world events.

Sorry if the word 'fiction' doesn't seem to apply - I merely mean to say 'non-historical'.

Yes, in my opinion this is one where the sources seem to be literary precedents and not historical events.

Sadly none of these 'hundreds of thousands of witnesses' recorded their impressions. All we seem to have is a bundle of tales written by non-witnesses to any of the alleged events.

Diogenes the Cynic

40 years later, not 100 and there was an active John the Baptist movement (the Mandeans) which were still rivals to the Jesus movement when the Gospels were written. The Mandeans still exist today. Mark was writing to counter a competing sect.

aa5874

The existence or non-existence of John the Baptist and a John the Baptist movement has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the existence or non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth in the NT.

In Josephus Antiquities of the Jews there is ZERO claim that John the Baptist ever met Jesus of Nazareth.

You very well know that Jesus of the NT was described as the Son of a Ghost.

Your Presumptions about Jesus are Worthless.

Please, have you forgotten that you PUBLICLY declared TO THE INTERNET WORLD that the Gospels are "BULLSHIT REENACTMENTS".

Come on!!! Mark was written as "Bullshit Reenactments".

gMark is NOT history. gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM.

How did John manage to baptize a Phantom???

With "BULLSHIT REENACTMENTS"!!!!

Vorkosigan

That's an interesting take...

maryhelena

[T2]

Herod Antipas had John executed


[/T2]

And the evidence is ?

Josephus???

A prophetic historian a reliable source of historical events? Seems to me that the Josephan writer is no more reliable as a source of history than the gospel writers. Like the gospel writers, the Josephan writer, being a prophetic historian, is just as able to mix up historical details alongside prophetic interpretations or insights. Thus, recording history alongside historical reconstructions - history mixed with pseudo-history.