Amaleq13

Why did Jesus go to John who baptized for the remission of sins?

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply..."(Gen 1:27-28, emphasis added)

rlogan

hi Amaleq13 - Not the answer you are looking to elicit, but:

Isa.40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

The gospel perps were just prophesy sluts. Can you believe these guys? No originality.

I'm thinking JBapt was also literary fiction. The idea of baptism predates Christianity. John is only necessary for having a guy in the wilderness/desert certify Jesus is the man.


Anybody for some honey-dipt locusts?

Asha'man

You said he had no desire for a wife. That's exactly the opposite from being sexually promiscuous. Hate to break it to you, but having sexual desires is part of being human, not a perversion of nature like your sick religion teaches. If man was supposed to be created sexless, then why did God start by creating a man and a woman?

Amaleq13

I think it is quite possible the link to the Baptist is a literary fiction, if not the actual guy. I know Zindler argues that the Baptist references in Josephus are interpolations...

Still, the author of Mark doesn't just leave it at "John was Jesus' Elijah". He makes a point of stating that the baptisms were for remission of sin just before he depicts Jesus going to see John. IMO, this is the result of the author's adoptionist beliefs.

So as to avoid a total hijacking of this thread, it is strange that the "gay historical Jesus" was never criticized by his fellow Jews (or anyone else for that matter) for such an unorthodox lifestyle.


Is "prophecy sluts" trademarked?

Vinnie

Toto and Amaleq, I wil lget back to your criticisms soon.

""""So as to avoid a total hijacking of this thread, it is strange that the "gay historical Jesus" was never criticized by his fellow Jews (or anyone else for that matter) for such an unorthodox lifestyle. """

For now I jest. It is strange that the non-existent Christ was never claimed as such

Vinnie

Toto

I have split out certain posts that did not fit this forum and merged them with the other thread of comments, and moved them all to ~Elsewhere~. Please keep this discussion on a scholarly level (or go to the thread in Elsewhere if you feel the need to.)

rlogan

[QUOTE=Amaleq13]I think it is quite possible the link to the Baptist is a literary fiction, if not the actual guy. I know Zindler argues that the Baptist references in Josephus are interpolations...[/quote

Ya.

Not quite sure I understand - you mean he adopted the remission idea? That is, the Christians adopted it?

Sometimes I'm stupid.

Ha! Vinnie came back on this. You know vinnie that the first response of "my type" is that Jesus did not exist as such. So we have all these HB features cribbed together. There's nothing in the HB about his wife and kids. So they don't give him any.

If the HB had said the prophet will have ten wives - then that is what JC would have had.


You liked that? Thank you.

Amaleq13

Don't confuse a non-existent historical Jesus with Christ. Paul's beliefs depend upon the existence of Christ but a historical Jesus doesn't appear to have been relevant.

Amaleq13

No, I was referring to a belief that, upon his anointing, Jesus was "adopted" by God as his Son. Prior to this he was presumably just a normal man. I think Mark's baptism story suggests the author believed the Messiah would be unknown even to himself until he was anointed by "Elijah". We find this belief described in Justin's dialogue with Trypho.

rlogan

Thank you Amaleq13.

I see why this can be put forth - the birth narrative is missing and we just storm right into the the material in question.



It occurrs to me that Jesus cannot have a wife and kids in the gospel because that means he would have had a lineage that could be verified (or falsified).

So not having kids is just like the body disappearing. They have a story that is harder to falsify.

If he had a wife but no kids then you run into the necessity of explaining the impotent messiah, or the barren wife of god.