Originally posted by Nomad:
Umm... Michael? You know that there is NO Q2 right? Unless you are prepared to defend the stratification of Q theory, please do not use it in your appeals to authority.

A typical Nomad misrepresentation. Whether or not there is a Q2, the whole point is that there is no Baptism in Q. John didn't even meet Jesus until Mark. So please explain why the earliest legends do not contain the baptism story, if it reflects historical fact.

You do not understand or accept the Criterion of Embarrassment. That is your right. But your increasingly lame efforts to grasp at every straw to argue against it is really getting to be tiresome.

Translation: I have no effective counter for the fact that the earliest legends contain no baptism story. I have no effective way to refute anyone's assertions here, because I have no way to prove that it was embarrassing to Mark, the writer. I have no effective come-back for the evidence from Mark himself that the story was not embarrassing. Therefore, I will attempt to attack my opponents with irrelevant rhetoric.

You have not addressed why Matthew, Luke and John added their own apologetic layers to the story of the baptism, you have not addressed the fact that ancient and modern Jews reject the baptism as being appropriate for the Messiah, and you have failed to offer more than conjecture and speculation in support of your own ideas.

That's because those facts are not relevant, as many have said. The issue is whether Mark saw it as embarrassing. Since JCanny has already annihilated your position by showing from Mark himself what he thought, you now have no case.

Are you ever going to present any evidence about what Mark thought? Speaking of tiresome, it's now up to 70 posts and still no evidence in sight.

I would say there isn't much left to say to you is there? You just don't get it, nor do you believe it, and that is cool.

On the contrary, I get it all too well.

Michael

Okay, so you didn't know that there is no such thing as a Q2, and you don't know what Q is either. I thought as much. When you appeal to authority, it is my suggestion that you at least familiarize yourself with the arguments involved Michael.

Hmm... and you did know that the definitions of Q is that the passage cannot be found in Mark right?

Do not use circular reasoning, pile it on top of appeals to weak authorities, and then think you have made a valid point Michael.

Well, since you have not demonstrated that the earliest stories do not include a baptism, but have merely assumed it (and done so on the basis of Q no less, how naive can you get?), I think you need to research this question a bit more carefully in the future.

You do not even know how to identify the earliest stories on Jesus Michael. You are in over your head.

Bringing up "Q2" helped me to see that much better. Thank you for that insightful revelation.

And here you are appealing to the authority of the "many" who post here! LOL!

This is even better Michael. I'll tell you what. Go read some actual Biblical scholarship and history, then come back so we can talk.

No, as I explained to Philip, the issue is whether or not 1st Century Jews saw the event as embarrassing since the evangelists and apostles were claiming that Jesus was the Messiah. Since the Messiah was not supposed to be baptized (let alone KILLED, none of you have even bothered to get to that issue yet), you have missed the point comletely.

I do appreciate the irony of sceptics who buy into Christian apologetics.

Go get jm, and ask him to explain again how the baptism fulfilled all of the requirements of Numbers 8. I believe that he has abandoned this devastating line of reasoning. Try not to be so credulous in the future please.

Like I said, you still do not understand the criterion of embarrassment. Mark and the other evangelists wanted to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. Unfortunately, they had a number of problematic historical events from Jesus' life to contend with, and had to make them fit within those Messianic expectations. I am pleased to see so many sceptics buying their arguments, but find it extremely odd coming from sceptics who consider themselves to be free thinkers who are not trapped by Christian dogma.

Who knows Michael, maybe there is hope, even for you.

Nomad

Hmmm, is this what I meant by a "buy the pot" debater?

Toto

Nomad - 'Q' is a hypothesized earlier set of sayings that Matthew and Luke allegedly relied on. 'Q' is used to argue that there were much earlier traditions that the Gospels were based on.

The major alternative hypothesis to 'Q' is that Luke copied directly from Matthew. How would the non-existence of 'Q' help your case at all?

Since you are on the JesusMysteries list, you know that there has been speculation there (by Doherty) that the early Christians were Hellenistic Jews or Gentiles who were attracted to Judaism, but not full converts. There has also been some evidence presented of the extent of Hellenistic influence on the Jews. This would also shoot holes in your embarrassment theory, would it not?

FADED GLORY (to Nomad): Why do you assume that Mark was writing to Jews? Do you know where and when his gospel was written? If so, you seem to know more than most people.

EARL: You beat me to it. Nomad has indeed been assuming that Mark's readers were "Jewish." And even if they called themselves Jews, there were several different kinds of Jews, such as the Essenes, Pharisees, including those with a more or less Hellenistic influence. Mark's gospel narrative doesn't sound particularly Jewish. Nomad has also been assuming that John the Baptist wasn't considered a genuine prophet by Jews. How do we know there weren't any Jews who regarded John as a genuine prophet? How do we know Jesus' baptism was a significant factor in the Jews' eventual separation from Christianity, as opposed to the colossal issues of Christian idolatry, polytheism, and the repudiation of Jewish law? Where in the OT does it say the Messiah was not permitted to be baptized? Where does Mark say Jesus was sinless at birth? Mark has no virgin birth or pre-existence story. Where does Mark call Jesus God? How do we know Mark made up 11:27-33 in which he says simply that John had a large following that believed he was a genuine prophet? We know there were a number of preachers at that time, and John is mentioned in a relatively unproblematic passage in Josephus.

As a matter of fact, Josephus clears up a couple of points about John. First, he says John "had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue," had a "strong influence over the people," presumably the Jews who he had "urged," and that for John's murder "it was the opinion of the Jews that out of retribution….God willed the destruction of the army so as to afflict Herod." So much for Nomad's claims that the Jews didn't regard John as a prophet.

Moreover, Josephus says that for John (my emphasis) "immersion in water, it was clear to him, could NOT be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions." So much for Nomad's claim that John's baptisms were for the forgiveness of sins and that Jesus wouldn't therefore have needed any baptism. See Antiquities 18.5.2 116-119.



[This message has been edited by Earl (edited May 31, 2001).]

Post #75: the Nomad watch continues.

Still no sign of argument from Nomad, as Earl and I have asked several times now, that for all jews/christians/gentiles/hellenized jews/essenes/Markan communties whatever, Jesus' baptism would be an embarrassing event. Some Jews even practiced Baptism.

Still no sign of argument of mind of Mark, either

Just the usual sweeping declarations about the state of mind of all jews in first-century Palestine:

No, as I explained to Philip, the issue is whether or not 1st Century Jews saw the event as embarrassing since the evangelists and apostles were claiming that Jesus was the Messiah. Since the Messiah was not supposed to be baptized (let alone KILLED, none of you have even bothered to get to that issue yet), you have missed the point comletely.

Where does it say the Messiah is not supposed to get baptized? I can't recall anything on the Messiah in the OT or the DSS that specifically says he will not be baptized.

I'm sure we'll get to "killed" one of these days, never fear.

Michael

This keeps getting better and better...

We have now moved to arguments from silence (and Michael has abandoned the field on his ridiculous notions about Q1 Q2 Q3...) realizing, no doubt, that he is in over his head. Perhaps he will find some other way to help demonstrate that the Gospels are not embarrassing. As an apologist, I can certainly hope that he will do this, as I am learning a great deal by it.

In the meantime, it is on to Philip again:

Tell me about he Messianic expectations of ANY of these Jews Philip, and show us how they could have believed that a dying and rising man could be Messiah.

From there, go on to show me which ones, if any, thought he would be baptized (or even anointed) by a theological nobody in the desert like John.

Well, since there is not one single Jewish source (outside of the Gospels of course ) that calls him a prophet, I figured it was a pretty safe bet to say that they do not think he is a prophet. Do you have such a source?

Oops... you missed the part about dying and rising God-man Philip. I am surprised by your sloppiness.

There are no prophesies or expectations for the Messiah to require a baptism Philip. THAT is the whole point. In fact, where in the OT does it say that ANYONE needs to be baptized? We are talking about Jewish expectations here, and while I think jm's speculations on Numbers 8 are interesting, the baptism hardly fits within that context does it?

Now now Philip, you said that Mark thought Jesus was NOT sinless. This is a positive assertion on your part, and I asked you where he said this. I told you that answering a question with a question is rude, so please answer my own question first.

Once again you are arguing from silence, and very rudely answering my own question with another question. I asked you where Mark said that Jesus is not God. Please show us.

I told you that the Jews did not see John as a prophet, so on what basis do you believe that Mark was not making this story up. Please answer my questions before asking your own.

And notice how Josephus did not call John a prophet. I told you that the Jews did not see John as a prophet Philip. Some may have thought he was a pretty good guy, but a prophet? It doesn’t look like it.

So you have helped to demonstrate that Josephus (and presumably the Jews) did not see the baptisms performed by John the same way as Mark reported in chapter 11. How does this help your case again?

You guys really are making this too easy on me. Thank you for the light reading.

Nomad

Toto

Nomad continues to evade issues.

One thing at a time:

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro...ohnBaptist.htm

There is speculation that John was an Essene, or from the Essene community, although it cannot be verified.

So - no particular problem if the Messiah is baptized. It would be in keeping with the practices of many Jews of that time, especially Essenes.

Speaking of evasions, has anyone else noticed that Nomad never explained, if the baptism is really an embarrassment, how Jesus can be divine? Nor how his apologetic for that (whatever it might turn out to be) wouldn't have worked for Mark?

[This message has been edited by JubalH (edited May 31, 2001).]

NOMAD: Tell me about he Messianic expectations of ANY of these Jews Philip, and show us how they could have believed that a dying and rising man could be Messiah.

From there, go on to show me which ones, if any, thought he would be baptized (or even anointed) by a theological nobody in the desert like John.

EARL: The OT wasn't in the business of stating what exactly would happen to the Messiah every second of his life. Your challenge is therefore ridiculous. The OT doesn't say the Messiah would have to be baptized but nor does the OT say that the Messiah necessarily could NOT be baptized or would have to be born sinless. This fits in perfectly well with Mark's baptism story in which he says just off-handedly that Jesus was baptized by John. Mark doesn't say that Jesus HAD to have been baptized by John. Do you know what a red herring is, Nomad? Your challenge that the OT doesn't state that the Messiah would necessarily have to be baptized is a big fat red herring.



NOMAD: Well, since there is not one single Jewish source (outside of the Gospels of course ) that calls him a prophet, I figured it was a pretty safe bet to say that they do not think he is a prophet. Do you have such a source?

EARL: This is irrelevant. Whether John was remembered by later generations of Jews as a prophet has no bearing on whether John had a large following of Jews during his lifetime. Yet of the two only the latter claim bears on whether Mark 11:27-33 was likely made up and whether Mark would have been embarrassed by the baptism story. You've thrown out another red herring here Nomad. The lack of Jewish sources calling John a prophet doesn't mean John wasn't regarded as one during his lifetime. As to whether John had a large following and was considered by many to be a prophet and highly favoured by God, Josephus gives us good evidence for this claim.



NOMAD: Oops... you missed the part about dying and rising God-man Philip. I am surprised by your sloppiness.

EARL: No, I didn't. That's included in the charge of Christian "idolatry."



NOMAD: There are no prophesies or expectations for the Messiah to require a baptism Philip. THAT is the whole point.

EARL: That's only the point of your red herring. The OT also doesn't say the Messiah could not be baptized, and that's perfectly acceptable because the OT doesn't lay out a second by second expected history of the Messiah. Mark doesn't say Jesus "required" the baptism. Mark says only that Jesus was baptized, and later on he implies that Jesus got his authority from God through John. Thus Jesus asks the chief priests whether his baptism was from heaven or men. For Mark the baptism was obviously a heavenly event, since God interrupts and praises Jesus. There's nothing at all in Mark that says Jesus necessarily required the baptism or that John as opposed to God gave Jesus his authority through the baptism.



NOMAD: In fact, where in the OT does it say that ANYONE needs to be baptized? We are talking about Jewish expectations here, and while I think jm's speculations on Numbers 8 are interesting, the baptism hardly fits within that context does it?

EARL: Fits into what context? A non-existent OT blueprint of each and every activity the Messiah was expected to engage in? Jesus' baptism was neither necessitated nor proscribed by ancient Judaism. Period. Hence no embarrassment from Mark or his readers.



NOMAD: Now now Philip, you said that Mark thought Jesus was NOT sinless.

EARL: We're entitled to say Mark didn't believe Jesus was born sinless because Mark nowhere says any such thing. He has no virgin birth story and no pre-existence story, contrary to Matthew and John. On the other hand, I also said from my May 30, 2001 12:57 PM post that "There is no evidence that Mark believed Jesus was born sinless." This latter more easily established claim suffices to refute the claim that you have made (from your May 29, 2001 05:05 PM post), that "It makes no difference if Mark sees Him as God (and he does), since the fact that Christians saw Jesus as not only the Messiah, but as sinless makes the baptism even more problematic." The issue is not whether "Christians" saw Jesus as sinless, but whether Mark and his readers did. Since there is no evidence that they did, no one is entitled to say THOSE particular Christians were embarrassed about the baptism because THEY believed Jesus was sinless.



NOMAD: This is a positive assertion on your part, and I asked you where he said this. I told you that answering a question with a question is rude, so please answer my own question first.

EARL: And your claim that Mark and his readers would have been embarrassed by Jesus' baptism because the baptism was a way of forgiving sins presupposes that these Christians believed Jesus was sinless at birth. That is a positive claim on your part which you have supported with no evidence whatsoever. My claim that Mark believed Jesus was not sinless at birth is justified by the fact that Mark doesn't anywhere state that Jesus was sinless at birth whereas this would have been an extraordinary claim which he would have been expected at least to mention in his narrative were he to have accepted it. And my more qualified claim that there is no evidence to suggest that Mark believed Jesus was sinless at birth has certainly been well supported, since there is indeed no mention in Mark of this more theologically developed point. You have the burden to show that Mark and his followers believed Jesus was sinless and therefore would have been embarrassed by the baptism story. Where is your evidence for this claim? Where does Mark say Jesus was born sinless?



EARL: Mark has no virgin birth or pre-existence story. Where does Mark call Jesus God?

NOMAD: Once again you are arguing from silence, and very rudely answering my own question with another question. I asked you where Mark said that Jesus is not God. Please show us.

EARL: First of all, I was not answering a question and therefore could not possibly have answered a question with a question. Second, your challenge is ridiculous. Mark nowhere says that Jesus was NOT a plate of spagetti with meatballs and tomato sauce. Does that mean we're entitled to say that Mark believed Jesus was a plate of spagetti with meatballs and tomato sauce? Mark nowhere says Jesus was NOT a weeping willow tree. Does that mean Mark believed Jesus was a weeping willow tree? Likewise Mark nowhere says that Jesus was NOT God, but that doesn't mean we're entitled to say that Mark believed Jesus was God.



NOMAD: I told you that the Jews did not see John as a prophet, so on what basis do you believe that Mark was not making this story up. Please answer my questions before asking your own.

EARL: I already answered this question in my last post by pointing to Josephus. Josephus gives unproblematic confirmation of John's existence and popularity. You have offered no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim that the Jews of Mark's time didn't regard John as a prophet. You have said that there are no Jewish documents speaking highly of John as a prophet, but that doesn't mean John wasn't regarded as a prophet at a particular time. Josephus gives us give reason to believe John was indeed a popular prophet of his time. Why should I believe Mark was making up his claim that John was a popular prophet? Mark 11:27-33 doesn't cover up any embarrassment because there's no reason at all to believe there was any embarrassment for Mark and his readers regarding the baptism story. Why would Mark try to cover up the baptism story in chapter 2 with an episode located way at the other end of the narrative in chapter 11?

By the way, Mark's account of the purpose of John's baptism ritual doesn't contradict Josephus's. Mark says that the followers "confessed their sins" and were baptized (1:5). That fits well with Josephus' account that the baptism didn't by itself amount to forgiveness of sins, but merely cleansed the body when coupled with a soul that was already purified by "right actions," such as confession of sins. Thus Mark's baptism story is indeed compatible even with the view that Jesus was sinless from birth. In that case, Jesus' soul would already have been purified, he would have had no sins to confess, and the baptism would have amounted merely to a sanctification of the BODY. Nowhere does Mark say that John's baptism by itself forgave people's sins, and thus nowhere does Mark presuppose that Jesus must have been sinful to be baptized. On the other hand, nowhere does Mark say Jesus was in fact sinless from birth, so either way the baptism wouldn't have been embarrassing to Mark, his readers, or the Jews in general who had no prohibition against baptism for the Messiah. Again, your case is dead in the water. I'm sure the readers of this thread, though, are amused to watch you squirm away from answering the tough questions.



NOMAD: And notice how Josephus did not call John a prophet. I told you that the Jews did not see John as a prophet Philip. Some may have thought he was a pretty good guy, but a prophet? It doesn't look like it.

EARL: A quibble. The point is that according to Josephus John was a very popular spiritual leader among the Jews. Hence there's no reason to believe Mark made up 11:27-33 where he states that John was believed by many Jews to be a prophet, a spokesperson from God. On the other hand, Josephus doesn't say merely that John was a "pretty good guy." He says rather that John "had a strong influence over the people," and that the Jews evidently thought John was so favoured by God that they attributed the destruction of Herod's army to divine retribution for John's murder. You have misrepresented Josephus. Would God destroy an army for retribution against the murder merely of a "pretty good guy"?



NOMAD: So you have helped to demonstrate that Josephus (and presumably the Jews) did not see the baptisms performed by John the same way as Mark reported in chapter 11. How does this help your case again?

EARL: False. The accounts are compatible, as shown above. But even if they weren't, Josephus' account is more detailed than Mark's, so it would be reasonable to stick with Josephus's.

Regarding Mark 11, there's a confusion here. Mark doesn't say John's baptism by itself gave Jesus his authority. According to Mark 11:29-33 Jesus' authority came from heaven THROUGH the prophet John who mediated God's power. That's why Jesus asked, "John's baptism--was it from heaven or from men," knowing that Jews generally believed John was a spokesperson for God. Jesus' baptism was evidently for Mark a special one in that Jesus was highly favoured by God and received special praise from God during the baptism. The special case of Jesus' baptism doesn't contradict Josephus' account of John's general baptism process and expectations, nor Mark's for that matter in chapter 1.



[This message has been edited by Earl (edited June 01, 2001).]