aa5874

This is just highly illogical and pathetic. Silence cannot be used to argue history.

Once a story is fiction or parts of a story is believed to be fiction, the ommision of the fictitious parts or the parts beleved to be fictitious by another later writer or all later writers will then make the fiction become true using Meier's approach.

John's Jesus was the Creator, who was equal to God. John the Baptist could not have met such an entity in the flesh and then to baptise him.

Doug Shaver

Of course it is. Paul doesn't mention Jesus' baptism, either.

Steven Carr

That proves it happened, because Paul must have been too embarrassed to mention it.

spamandham

I use John's silence on Washington's cherry tree episode as proof that George did in fact chop it down. There was obviously contention when John wrote as to whether or not George really chopped it down, and he left out mention of it for that reason.

I find the best way to corroborate historical events is to find places in the record where they are not mentioned.

aa5874

So, who would you suggest that could have baptized Jesus if he did exist?

An unknown NON-baptizer?

John the Baptist was supposedly well-known for his baptisms as found in the writings of Josephus and to historicise Jesus it must be far better and appear more credible to claim he was baptized by a well-known baptizer than an unknown character not found in writings of antiquity like the writings of Josephus.

The mention that John the Baptist baptized Jesus is an indication that the authors may have written their Jesus story after the writings of Josephus and used John the Baptist to historicise their fabricated Jesus character, off spring of the Holy Ghost.

By the way, it would have been far more embarrassing for John the Baptist to have refused to baptize Jesus if he did exist.