Juststeve

But none of the other Gospel writers omit the episode altogether. As Toto acknowledges, they alter the episode to make it less embarrassing to them.

On the hypothesis that Matthew Luke and John were writing fiction, and that they understood that Mark was writing fiction as well, why not just omit the story they found embarrassing altogether? Could it be that the episode was well enough known in the communities for which they were writing so that it was hard to deny altogether, it was a fact that later Gospel writers found necessary to spin. Do the mythers have a better explanation to the inclusion of an embarrassing tale in the fictional accounts of Matthew, Luke and John?

Steve

dog-on

The messiah required an Elijah...

Next...

ApostateAbe

We can directly spot the embarrassment in later accounts only because we can do a comparison between the earlier accounts and later accounts. Since Mark is the earliest, we can not do that kind of analysis. However, we do see some of the same material in Mark as we see in later accounts--the extreme humility of John the Baptist, the display by God favoring Jesus in the presence of John--present in the later accounts apparently for the same purpose, to paint Jesus as the superior figure.

aa5874

Who is talking about "PROOF"? You always tend to use the phrase "IN MY HONEST OPINION" (IMHO) yet when others put forward the theory that Jesus was MYTH you seem to want PROOF and CONCLUSIVE evidence.

You don't seem to want to accept that there are others with HONEST OPINIONS based on the EXTANT evidence.

Well, HONESTLY, and you will agree, that if Jesus did NOT exist then the historical evidence for Jesus MUST be INCONCLUSIVE.

Again, let us be HONEST, the historical evidence for HJ is INCONCLUSIVE.

Let us continue to proceed with HONESTY. Jesus was DESCRIBED as the Child of a Ghost and a Virgin in gMathhew 1.18 and a supposed contemporary of Jesus Christ under the name of Paul claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a Man in Galatians 1.

So, in the HONEST OPINION of the author of gMatthew Jesus was NOT human and in the HONEST OPINION of "PAUL" Jesus was NOT a Man.

Well, now this is MY HONEST OPINION, based on the HONEST opinions of the authors of the NT and the Pauline writings, Jesus Christ was a MYTH character.

Jesus Christ was ONLY HONESTLY BELIEVED to have EXISTED based on the evidence from antiquity.

And we know Christians of antiquity HONESTLY BELIEVED Marcion's PHANTOM did exist which was WITHOUT birth and WITHOUT Flesh.

Now, it has been drawn to my attention some may also have DISHONEST OPINIONS that are NOT based on the EXTANT evidence from antiquity but their OWN imagination.

You should know the criteria for a THEORY.

The Myth Jesus theory is well SUPPORTED and FAR superior to HJ.

Juststeve

Dog-on:

Nothing in the Hebrew Bible requires or even suggests that the Messiah will be Baptized by Elijah. It is the Baptism that is embarrassing, not only because John's Baptism was for remission of sin, but because the act of baptism implies the subservience of the baptized to the baptizer.

Next...

dog-on

Your mixing your salad here...

Why do you think Mark thought that a Baptism of Jesus was embarrasing?

Juststeve

Dog-on:

It doesn't matter to this argument what Mark thought because it is clear that Matthew, Luke and John found it embarrassing and left the story in their Gospels, although they spun the tale to make it less embarrassing. My argument is they wouldn't have done that if they had regarded Mark's account as fictional, something to which Doug Shaver and Toto have attached credence. If they had been writing pious fiction there would have been no need to include the baptism story at all, unless 1) they believed it happened, or 2) they were compelled by the wide spread belief that John baptized Jesus to deal with the story.

Steve

jgoodguy

The other possibility is that the other gospeliers were interested other times that Jesus became divine. aMark's viewpoint is that Jesus became divine at the time of baptism. aLuke's and aMatthew's is that Jesus became divine at birth. aJohn's viewpoint is before birth. Link

In those cases, the diminishing view of the baptism is not embarrassment but theology.

dog-on

Why do you think Matthew or Luke found it embarrassing?

Do you have any evidence, other than speculation, that they did?

dog-on

Bingo!