bacht

I spent a few years in a fundamentalist cult, I know how they operate. It's anti-intellectual emotionalism, with generous dollops of paranoia.

I know you're sincere Abe, but don't waste your time defending Steve. He's a sophist.

jgoodguy

I consider myself to be agnostic in that it is not possible to know with any certainty if a HJ existed and if so what impact did he have on Christianity. In a situation where 90% of written material in the ancient world is missing and almost 100% from Judea is missing I am not certain of any evidence. Add the editing of what is left by the orthodox victors and it is all speculation.

Assuming a Jewish HJ figure in the 30s and assuming a Jewish culture; is it possible that figure was the inspiration for orthodox Christianity? That has a bit better grounding in that 2nd Temple Jewish thought and society is better known. IMHO there is no way. At that point there is no detectable difference between a HJ and a JM.

ApostateAbe

Very well. I wrote another thread some time ago that is more relevant to making sense of early Christianity as a strong cult. Here it is:

Jesus the apocalyptic cult leader and the checklist of cult characteristics

So, the point is to find the best explanation for early Christian beliefs, not just explain it with, "We all know that cults can believe just about anything, so who cares?" and leave it at that, because, as I said before, cults follow patterns. I think the theory of a historical cult leader of Christianity much like the gospel Jesus does very well to explain the evidence surrounding the origins of Christianity, including its rapid growth from the alleged time of Jesus and onward. How well do you think a merely-mythical Jesus explains the origins of Christianity? The best explanation, be it historical Jesus or mythical Jesus, is the best thing to conclude, not just in this issue, but in all matters of objective reality, in my opinion.

Toto

Getting back to the baptism, Neil Godfrey has summarized arguments Doherty makes in Chapter 6 of his new book, including this:

The absense of any early indication that John the Baptist had baptized Jesus supports the idea that Mark invented this scene, with no thought of how embarrassing it would be to have his savior baptized for whatever reason.

Juststeve

Toto:

What are the possible inferences that can be drawn from Paul's failure to mention John's baptism of Jesus in any of his extant writings? It seems there are a number of possibilities.

With Doherty we might infer that Paul had never heard of the baptism.

We might infer that Paul had heard the story but didn't believe it.

We might infer that Paul believed the story but didn't think it particularly germane to any point he was making.

We might infer that Paul heard the story but found it embarrassing for the exalted figure Paul believed Jesus to be to have been himself baptized.

With a little time we could probably come up with a lot more possible inferences but I do not think Paul's silence on the subject justifies your conclusion: "that Mark invented this scene, with no thought of how embarrassing it would be to have his savior baptized for whatever reason". The most powerful conclusion that can be drawn from the silence is that Mark, being the earliest extent source that mentions the baptism, might have made it up. If you're satisfied with "Mark might have made it up" I would agree, he might have.

Steve

"

jgoodguy

OTOH Paul does not mention his baptism except in Romans 6:3 and in passing. "2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?"

If Baptism was important to Paul then why not put emphasis the most important one of all, his. If not important then the silence is understandable.

Also we don't know if aMark invented stuff or used traditions of his Christianity in creating his gospel.

mountainman

Not so fast. The history of the orthodox christians from the year 324/325 CE is only preserved in very late Christian sources. Although many histories were written of the crime scene specified, very few survive. They are written by powerful christians in the early 5th century. The books of Ammianus were conveniently "lost" and his history starts in the 350's.

Hostile witnesses to the "Christian Orthodox Story" were removed and rubbed out and censored. Damnatio memoriae was pronounced on living authors by Constantine,and 5th century christians burnt the writings of Emperor Julian, and took the pains to prepare a "Refutation of his Lies" (which were to the effect that "the fabrication of the christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness".)

Examine the pattern of evidence after Nicaea and you will find the evidence of massive censorship by the Imperial Christian State Church. The 1600 year old crime scene has been "looked after" by the church. It has been "swept clean" by the Vatican. Business was business, and authenticity was required. The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (a list of prohibited books) was commenced by Eusebius. This was a hit list. The army had the power to search and destroy anti-christian writings. And they did.

Tangible evidence has been purposefully destroyed and professionally censored and refuted. The ONLY witnesses coming forth for the period (in which we suspect a crimeto have been perpetrated) are the Christians. The history of the conflict was written by the 5th century Christians. The Christians burned books all through the 4th century - the burned dissident opinion. They fascistly got rid of all the so-called heretical opposition. They ended up burning down the library of Alexandria for christ's sake.

Keep asking questions. History always has at least 2 sides. It never has the One Side Only, as the 5th century "Ecclesiastical Histories" portray. What is other side's account of history? Are we interested in Christian history only? Or are we interested in the ancient historical truth of the political history of Nicaea onwards? These two things are not the same.

jgoodguy

I have this fantasy of finding original documents to see what the heck they said.

I've chased a few rabbits down the rabbit hole regarding any number of interesting speculations only to find the documentation is untrustworthy. Yes, overtly and covertly the documentation was lost, destroyed, edited and otherwise changed.

Toto

This seems most likely. And, of course, we would also infer that the audience of Paul's letters had never heard of this baptism.

Perhaps he considered it associated with one of those "other Christs" that he railed against? But he did mention these other Christs, and other heresies.

This seems the least likely.

This is a possibility, but why would this embarrassment lead the evangelists to mention the baptism and try to spin it one way, while Paul just clammed up?

We are looking for the most probable explanation. If this were the only aspect of Jesus' life that Paul forgot to mention, it might not be signficant.

But when you combine Paul's silence on Jesus' baptism with his silence on a number of other signficant issues that he discusses in his letters - marriage, circumcision, etc. - the probabilities point toward Paul not knowing anything about an earthly Jesus.

blastula

I've seen church father letters that do quote Jesus. It's an ad hoc canard that Paul should be expected to leave out those kind of details. He might have done that even if HJ were true, that could be just the way he rolls, but is it likely?

On the other hand, if Paul had mentioned the baptism, would MJers automatically call it an interpolation or a creed?