Toto

Please do. I'm reasonably sure that Price does not think that there is any credible evidence that John baptized Jesus. As I recall, in the quotes that you provided, at least some of the scholars identified a consensus in order to attack it. A consensus, to be entitled to respect, needs to be more than a majority opinion.

maryhelena

Yes, or as I would put it - remove the mythology and what is left - supposedly - a normal man named Jesus who was crucified - is of no use to theology and of no use to history i.e. no historical hope of ever establishing the existence of such a nobody. This does not, of course, rule out the possibility that an inspirational historical figure was relevant to the creation of the gospel Jesus storyline. Historicists need to change focus from theology, from 'salvation' history, to actual history...Maybe then they might find what they are looking for - a historical individual that was relevant to the early origins of christianity. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, they might just get a fright once they come face to face with the historical figure they seek to find.....And, like the Jews of the gospel story - reject such a figure because that figure does not fit the theologically constructed mold they have created...

GakuseiDon

But that's just it. I'll repeat. SO WHAT?

maryhelena

So, what? It's the difference between living in fantasy land, living a delusion, and living in the real world. Big deal I would say. Sure, some people are quite happy in la-la land - other prefer the often uncomfortable real world - and seek to make the best of what there is.

Solo

Abe, will you kindly re-read Price's chapter on Jesus and JtB in the ISSOM ? Your memory seems to not to be serving.

Best,
Jiri

Chili

Crucifixion itself is a typical religious act wherein only sense perception is removed including our human desire that is bled with the opposite pearcing of the heart. It is all symbolism to show that in the new world 'good and bad' will be no more as our new mind will be in harmony with nature instead of conflict. It shows that we have found the ultimate destiny in life that became our aim after having made our own contribution as co-creator with God first.

The question that became ours was: who am I co-creator with (who am I?) which here is answered in full.

ApostateAbe

Very well. On page 121 of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (my emphasis):

When you strip away the layers of edifying legend and controversial mythology, was Jesus baptized by John? A poll among New Testament scholars would no doubt yield a near-unanimous "yes" vote. The only item in the life story of Jesus considered equally secure is his crucifixion. And the reason for this is perfectly clear by now: the baptism was so embarrassing to Christians, both because it seems to subordinate Jesus to John and because it seems to cast Jesus as a repentant sinner, that the early church would never have fabricated it. Such reasoning is understandable, but it is also easily refuted, as long as one recalls that what offended one generation did not offend another. Mark seemingly had little enough trouble with a repenting Jesus. He appears not to have regarded himself "stuck" with the notion. Anyone who saw nothing amiss in it could have made it up if there were something useful in the story and there was. As some have suggested, the story may simply have originated as a cultic etiology to provide a paradigm for baptism: "Are you able to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"

And originally, Christians may have seen baptism by John as a credential, an authorization, even without an explicit endorsement of Jesus by John, in much the same way President Clinton cherished the videotape showing a youthful version of himself shaking hands with President Kennedy. There may well have been a period (or geographical areas) in which no Christians perceived the followers of John the Baptist as rivals, a period in which both men were venerated side by side in a larger "Essene" community.

show_no_mercy

This is a consistent talking point that you bring up, which isn't actually a very good debating tactic in this sort of discussion. It might be good if you're having a very informal conversation with someone on the street where you don't have time to flesh out more details, but at least at this level of discussion you consistently bring it up to shut down any other sort of dissent.

Go to the Evolution/Creationism form. This sort of rhetoric is almost never used - i.e. 99% of biologists think that evolution is true. If this were a valid and effective type of debating tactic, then there would only be one post in the entire form. Obviously, it isn't very effective because Creationists are still Creationists. Ask any former Creationists if this type of argumentation worked on them. I have yet to hear any Creationist suddenly change stripes because 99% of biologists support the theory of evolution. No, most Creationists are swayed by actual evidence, not appeals to authority or popularity.

So start presenting actual evidence, not appeals to authority or popularity.

ApostateAbe

You replace the rest of my post with ellipses, and you miss a very relevant point. The point was not to convince anyone that Jesus was raised in Nazareth, etc. I anticipated that misunderstanding, and that is why I wrote to prevent it. It is frustrating to have to deal with misunderstandings even after I attempt to preempt them. Do me a favor, please: next time you want to disagree with a small part of what I write, quote the whole post and just put in bold the part that you disagree with. That way, you don't pass on your misunderstandings to anyone else.

The point was to address a specific point that spamandham made, which was that the lack of evidence for the details of Jesus' life reflects the lack of evidence for Jesus himself. I'll repeat my post for you, with extra emphasis on the part you skipped.

I think that the evidence that Jesus existed is the same evidence that gives us a rough profile, not a very detailed profile, of who Jesus was. Almost all of the scholars agree, for example, that Jesus was a traveling Jewish preacher who was raised in Nazareth, was baptized by John and crucified by Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem. He had a mother named Mary, a father named Joseph, a brother named James, and few disciples named Peter, John and Judas. The debates are not over those things, at least not in the scholarship, so maybe that is why they wouldn't come to mind. I am not asking you to believe any of those things. Go ahead and believe whatever you want about how weak the evidence may be. I am just saying don't make the mistake of thinking that the debates over many of the details of Jesus are an indicator that we know absolutely nothing about him.

show_no_mercy

You seem to have misunderstood the point I was making. I'm not actually addressing this specific post. I'm addressing a consistent debating tactic that you use. I'm trying to get you to stop appealing to popularity/authority in this type of context. It is inappropriate - especially for those in this type of discussion that are questioning the very assumptions made by those scholars and/or the reasons for why the "consensus" exists in the first place.

You seem to be the only one in this context who is over and over again appealing to popularity/authority in these historicists/mythicist discussions.