Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 09-16-2002, 05:13 AM

Yuri,
In my view, the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist is one of the more historically reliable details in the gospels

Sounds more like a statement of faith coming from you.

From the secret book of James (the protoevangelium), JBaps birth is as miraculous as Jesus' birth in The (Secret) book of James (protoevangelium) we have a story similar to Jesus' birth story where Elizabeth also had to flee with infant John from Herods baby-killing spree as Herod looked for John - Just like Mary had to flee with baby Jesus. And oh, remember JBaps conception was also "virginal" since no man made Elizabeth pregnant (she was too damn old).
What does that tell you?

Luke 1: 41-42 says"

Quote:

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Some questions:
Why did Mary have to greet Elizabeth before the baby leaped in(to) Elizabeth's womb?
What was the significance of the baby leaping in Mary's presence?
How did Elizabeth know Mary had anything in her womb yet Mary had not yet told her about angel Gabriel's visit?

The JBap of the Gospels (including in GThomas) seems equally mythical to me what with foetuses jumping in wombs (basically a foetus jumping from one womb to another)!

Antiquities of the Jews 18 Chapter 5, Josephus tells us that JBap was killed as a prisoner because Herod thought he could fuel some rebellion (heh, heh, Josephus could actually read Herods mind).

Mark tells us JBap died because Salome wanted his head as a gift (now how beleivable is that?) - and of course Herodias is the one who advised her to ask for such a bizarre gift. Josephus also portrays her as some kind of Jezebel because she married Herods brother (incidentally also called Herod) while still married to Herod!

Both Mark and Josephus do NOT cite their sources (of course they knew everything!)

They both portray Herods wife as an unpleasant character.

Herod kills JBap in both narratives.

None of them tell us from whence JBap got the concept of Baptism by water and why that practice was not questioned.

In Antiquities, JBap is a shadowy character (comparable to Joseph of Arimathea in the Gospels) who only comes into the story to get killed for being suspected of fueling an insurrection. No birthdates, no parents, no major activities/ mission.

From the above similarities between Marks and Josephus' version, we can deduce that Josephus got the info from word of mouth and cut off the myth and made the story more rational.

Luke 9: 18-20:

Quote:

Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say I am?"
19They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life."
20"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Heck, this mythical narrative tells us that even the people then thought Jesus was JBap - he (JBap) was such a Legend. This is myth upon myth because the writer expects us to beleive that the Jews then beleived in incarnation and/or resurrection. How could they have thought Jesus was JBap unless they had never seen JBap? If they did not see JBap, where did he (JBap) dwell?

So I think JBap was as mythical as Jesus.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Radorth · 09-16-2002, 08:54 AM

Quote:

How could they have thought Jesus was JBap unless they had never seen JBap? If they did not see JBap, where did he (JBap) dwell?

For a minute there, I thought you asked a good question. But verse 8 tells you the answer :

"...because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead."

So if we are going to use scripture to assert anything, this means that JBap WAS MANIFESTLY NOT A MYTH.

Right Intensity?

I guess your own faith blinded YOU.

Radorth

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]

Ted Hoffman · 09-16-2002, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


For a minute there, I thought you asked a good question. But verse 8 tells you the answer :

"...because it was said by some that John had risen from the dead."

So if we are going to use scripture to assert anything, this means that JBap WAS MANIFESTLY NOT A MYTH.

Right Intensity?

Wrong Radorth and you are being incoherent. We can use the scripture to assert that the scriptures contain mythical characters, so using the scripture to assert anything does NOT give a historical quality to the mythical characters contained therein.

I demonstrated that it is illogical for some of the Jews to have thought that Jesus was JBap resurrected if they has seen JBap because if they did see JBap, then they could have been able to tell that Jesus was NOT JBap - unless they were assuming JBap and Jesus were identical.

The fact that they thought Jesus was JBap shows JBaps appearance was not known by the people - just the same way the appearance of the messiah was not known. So JBap actually never existed except as a mythical figure since no one even knew how he looked like.

Of course the NT writers did not expect us to see the error.

I guess your own faith blinded YOU.

This is an irrelevant and incorrect observation.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]

Yuri Kuchinsky · 09-16-2002, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Intensity:


Yuri wrote:
In my view, the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist is one of the more historically reliable details in the gospels

[snip]

So I think JBap was as mythical as Jesus.

Hello, Intensity,

I'm sure that, for the most part, those who don't believe in the Historical Jesus will also not believe in the Historical JB, and probably for the same reasons, some of which you've outlined. And yet, what I said was not meant for those who don't believe in the Historical Jesus. Because I certainly don't expect anyone to believe that the Historical Jesus existed simply because the Historical JB existed...

All those questions that you ask about JB were really meant for those who believe that the gospels are inerrant, and should be taken at face value as historical accounts. But, sorry, I'm not one of those.

And I repeat, [assuming that there was a HJ] what reason would there have been for this theme [i.e. a strong connection between Jesus and JB] to be invented in a later period, when Gentile-oriented Christians were so very busy minimising the connections of Jesus to Judaism?

Yours,

Yuri.

Toto · 09-16-2002, 10:58 AM

There is more credible historical evidence for John the Baptist than there is for Jesus. John the Baptist is mentioned in Josephus, in a passage that does not show evidence of being a later Christian forgery, and which does not match the Biblical account of JBap.

It is possible that the baptism scene with JB and Jesus was invented to connect Jesus to the existing followers of the Baptist, to show that they needed to follow the greater power.

Robert Price "proves" that Jesus was John the Baptist in his paper <a href="http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/pricejj.html" target="_blank">Was Jesus John the Baptist Raised from the Dead?</a> (But then he tells you he was just showing how you can prove about anything from the texts . . .)

Quote:

In short, the New Testament texts are like a constantly shifting kaleidoscope, and the application of our methods is the twisting of the tube. The results may be quite spectacular, fascinating, intriguing, entertaining. But the next twist will yield something else, and we may not judge it more "true" or "accurate" than the one before. None can carry any particular conviction.

Arouet · 09-16-2002, 11:59 PM

Having attended an academic seminary in my (futile) search for god, let me tell you how the Xian scholars see Paul & the church in Jerusalem.
The issue between Paul and Peter was over circumcision, a Jewish practice which Peter held as necessary. Paul did not yield to this view and
went back to Asia Minor in a huff and did what he wanted anyway. Acts is largely a bid by Paul's partner to justify Paul as a great evangelist and apostle, like Peter and the others. Jesus (or, properly, Jeshua ben Joseph) was a practicing Jew.
A common joke in seminary is that it was Paul who made Jesus a "Christian".

Radorth · 09-17-2002, 08:03 AM

Quote:

The fact that they thought Jesus was JBap shows JBaps appearance was not known by the people - just the same way the appearance of the messiah was not known. So JBap actually never existed except as a mythical figure since no one even knew how he looked like.

You still don't get it. It doesn't say "they thought...." It says "some say...." SOME thought Jesus was a resurrected Jbap, recently killed by Herod, which is precisely what it says. Your logic is certainly unique- I'll say that for it.

Radorth

Arouet · 09-17-2002, 08:35 PM

In the midst of all this discussion over the "historicity" of the gospels and their origins (Q or Mark or ?), it might help to remember the purpose of these accounts: to proclaim that Jeshua was the Jewish Messiah and had relevance to all people. Like other documents of that time, these texts are not meant to be "historical" but "narrative." Our concept of history, with its facts and dates, is a modern one and cannot be applied to the accounts of Jeshua of Nazareth. And that muddies up the water considerably here.

Plebe · 09-18-2002, 11:30 PM

AROUET has just admitted what scholars know-"The cat's out of the bag!" Scholars know there was much disagreement between the Early Jerusalem Church/Peter and Paul with his gospel, in fact, Paul frightened them [it's somewhere in Acts]..Thanks Arouet You might like <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com</a>
Having attended an academic seminary in my (futile) search for god, let me tell you how the Xian scholars see Paul & the church in Jerusalem.
The issue between Paul and Peter was over circumcision, a Jewish practice which Peter held as necessary. Paul did not yield to this view and
went back to Asia Minor in a huff and did what he wanted anyway. Acts is largely a bid by Paul's partner to justify Paul as a great evangelist and apostle, like Peter and the others. Jesus (or, properly, Jeshua ben Joseph) was a practicing Jew.
A common joke in seminary is that it was Paul who made Jesus a "Christian".

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Plebe ]

09-18-2002, 11:30 PM	#129
Plebe Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Contra Costa County Posts: 168	AROUET has just admitted what scholars know-"The cat's out of the bag!" Scholars know there was much disagreement between the Early Jerusalem Church/Peter and Paul with his gospel, in fact, Paul frightened them [it's somewhere in Acts]..Thanks Arouet You might like <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com</a> Having attended an academic seminary in my (futile) search for god, let me tell you how the Xian scholars see Paul & the church in Jerusalem. The issue between Paul and Peter was over circumcision, a Jewish practice which Peter held as necessary. Paul did not yield to this view and went back to Asia Minor in a huff and did what he wanted anyway. Acts is largely a bid by Paul's partner to justify Paul as a great evangelist and apostle, like Peter and the others. Jesus (or, properly, Jeshua ben Joseph) was a practicing Jew. A common joke in seminary is that it was Paul who made Jesus a "Christian". [ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Plebe ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-16-2002, 11:59 PM	#126
Arouet Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Johnson county, Tx Posts: 13	Having attended an academic seminary in my (futile) search for god, let me tell you how the Xian scholars see Paul & the church in Jerusalem. The issue between Paul and Peter was over circumcision, a Jewish practice which Peter held as necessary. Paul did not yield to this view and went back to Asia Minor in a huff and did what he wanted anyway. Acts is largely a bid by Paul's partner to justify Paul as a great evangelist and apostle, like Peter and the others. Jesus (or, properly, Jeshua ben Joseph) was a practicing Jew. A common joke in seminary is that it was Paul who made Jesus a "Christian".

09-17-2002, 08:35 PM	#128
Arouet Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Johnson county, Tx Posts: 13	In the midst of all this discussion over the "historicity" of the gospels and their origins (Q or Mark or ?), it might help to remember the purpose of these accounts: to proclaim that Jeshua was the Jewish Messiah and had relevance to all people. Like other documents of that time, these texts are not meant to be "historical" but "narrative." Our concept of history, with its facts and dates, is a modern one and cannot be applied to the accounts of Jeshua of Nazareth. And that muddies up the water considerably here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.