Littlejohn

Although John the Baptist was a truly historic figure (see the Mandaeans), however, the flavian passage citing JtB is a resounding historical false: just like the notorious 'testimonium flavianum'!... Probably, considering the descriptive style, the two passages were written by the same counterfeiter hand

John the Baptist, like all the Nazarenes, was disliked by the priests of the temple of Jerusalem, and Josephus, closely related to the priestly world, because of the well-known family relationships, would never have spoken about John the Baptist with those conciliating words!. .



Greetings


Littlejohn

.

JonA

Can you show where I have relied on it? I think an appeal to consensus is a serious argumentative fallacy; I avoid committing such errors whenever I can.

Like I said earlier, though; if anyone can show where I tried to support either an HJ or MJ argument by appealing to the consensus, I'd be glad to address the matter and, most likely, admit that what I said was in error.

So far no one has shown that I've made such a claim.

And I have: I have not attempted to use a consensus as proof for an HJ or MJ position. My position is that a consensus proves nothing about the truth of the propositions. My position is that I never claimed that it did.

But once again, if someone can show where I did make such a claim, I suppose I can change my position that I didn't.

Not at all. But there are threads for discussing it and threads where such a discussion is off-topic.

On the matter of John the Baptist and Jesus? Well, check this post out.

Jon

Toto

You could avoid confusion then by not describing one position as "fringe."

JonA

I was not aware that the word 'fringe' contained implications of falsehood.

I meant it in its most literal sense: outside of the mainstream.

Jon

Toto

Fringe_science

In the context of the HJ debate, "fringe" is a typical taunt leveled against mythicists.

Doug Shaver

The most literal sense of nigger is person of sub-Saharan African ancestry.

OK. Now you know.

jgoodguy

Yea, much more polite to taunt with minority view or non peer reviewed position. :devil3:

The wiki on fringe theories. Identifying fringe theories

Technically it is a fact that the JMer position is a minority view. IMHO that fact should not be used in and of itself to attack the JM position, but it a fact of life for any person holding minority view is that they are fringe.

As far as I am concerned, as a member of a fringe group called agnostics, no one has any primary, tangible or credible evidence.

aa5874

It is just absurd when atheists use words as "fringe" and "conspiracy theory" against other atheist as if atheists give a hoot about being regarded as "fringe".

All RECENTLY or NEWLY developed theories will ALWAYS be considered "fringe" for some time.

At one time It was FRINGE to even suggest that God was NOT a STONE.

Vivisector

I'm glad now that I unblocked you. Now, if you could just do a little something about those caps, guy ...

Well said.

Cheers,

V.

aa5874

I already told everybody that "IGNORE" does NOT work.

You will just HAVE to see the RED and the CAPS.

Some People are DELIGHTED to PURCHASE RED-LETTER Bibles and see the words of JESUS in RED.

People LIKE to SEE RED.

Now, back to the OP.

The events at the Baptism of Jesus by John as described in the NT is most likely FICTION and it is NOT known who FIRST wrote the story and if it is based on some actual historical accounts, or if the writer knew he was writing fiction and wanted to DUPE his readers.

What has amazed me is that people don't even seem to realize the the so-called disciples of Jesus, Mary and Joseph may ALL be MYTHS.

There is simply ZERO corroboration for any event and event of people ASSOCIATED with Jesus.

It MUST be understood that the Baptism of Jesus by John if he was just a man and just a disciple of John would NOT have been significant at all. There is NO evidence in the NT that John Baptised any other supposedly ordinary man with the same RESULTS as Jesus.

It is CLEAR that we have a fiction story. The ordinary baptism of an ordinary man would NOT have been of any THEOLOGICAL significance.

In effect, if Jesus was human, there would be NO baptism story in the NT.