ApostateAbe

Sheshbazzar, what if material comes to light that directly refutes your faith?

Sheshbazzar

Got any idea of what that 'material' might consist of?

I can think of nothing post 1 AD that would have any such ability.

And anything about 'Jebus' positively dated -PRIOR- to 1 AD would only serve to confirm the correctness of my position and faith.

ApostateAbe

It could be a number of things--lost writings of the baptist cult, lost writings of Philo, lost writings of a counselor to Herod. I think it speaks to the difference between faith and reasonable conclusion. A reasonable conclusion can change with a new or better examination of the evidence, and a faith can not.

maryhelena

I can’t vote as there is no ‘NO’ option to answer your question: “Was The Baptism of Jesus by John Likely Historical?”

The main reason why I would vote ‘NO’..............I don’t consider John the Baptist a historical figure. The context in which Josephus has used this figure deals with a war between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV - a war over a divorce of Herod Antipas from the daughter of Aretas. Josephus has the people saying that the destruction of Herod’s army is a result of him having killed John. The dating of this war, around 36/37 ce, a war in which Aretas IV is the victor, is 100 years since 64 b.c. - a time period in which another Aretas, Aretas III, had laid siege to Jerusalem, and on being made to retreat, by Rome, suffered a crushing defeat at the hands of the Jewish King, Aristobulus II. The result of this new war in 36/37 ce being a reversal of fortunes for Aretas IV from his earlier counterpart, Aretas III. What is Josephus doing here? Is the war between Aretas IV and Antipas historical - or is it a replay, with a reverse outcome, of the earlier war, siege of Jerusalem, between Aretas III and Aristobulus II?

If Josephus is replaying the historical tape of 64 b.c. - history repeating itself with new faces in a new time slot (100 years later) then questions can also be raised regarding the Josephan character of John the Baptist. What historical figure is Josephus ‘remembering’ here? Perhaps more than one.

Aristobulus II was poisoned in 49 b.c. His son Alexander was later beheaded by the Romans. His son, Antigonus was crucified and beheaded by the Romans in 37 b.c. Is Roman and Jewish history, since 64/63 b.c., being ‘remembered’ by Josephus 100 years later in 36/37 c.e. Is the Josephan character of John the Baptist nothing more than a symbol of past Jewish history - a history where it’s Hasmonean Kings and High Priests were brutally killed by Rome? Under continuing Roman occupation, what avenues were open for a Jewish prophetic historian, as was Josephus (or whoever is writing under that name) besides having to resort to symbolism? John the Baptist as a figure not for ‘baptism’ as the “purification of the body” - but as a remembrance of Jewish political identity and Jewish hopes for restoration, for freedom from oppression and occupation.

(The Irish, in their own long years of occupation by the British, are known for their songs - rebel songs and love songs for Ireland as love of a maiden. Jewish identity expresses itself in ‘salvation history’, interpretation of past history in order to find meaning and hope for the future).

So, excuse the long winded reason for not accepting John the Baptist as a historical figure - that’s the basic reasoning behind why I don’t believe John the Baptist baptised, outside of the gospel storyline, the gospel JC figure. They are both fictional characters. With the John the Baptist character, Josephus is writing “inspired historiography”, not history.

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Robert Karl Gnuse.

In this context, John the Baptist, it's worth remembering how this character is portrayed in Slavonic Josephus.

Sheshbazzar

Lost writings (contemporary) of a Baptist cult would only prove the existence of a Baptist cult_ if they mentioned the baptism of a miracle working 'Jebus', it would only evidence that they had 'bought into' and incorporated a popular urban myth/legend into their writings. Same for Philo, or some 'lost' writing of Josephus et. al.
As for one proposed to be by 'a counselor to Herod', if such did surface I'd dismiss it as being a forgery.

I already have a reasonable conclusion, and if all of the -thousands- of Christian forgeries produced over the last 2 millenia have not served to shake it, why would you think that bringing forth yet another forgery would?

dog-on

Likely fiction. John simply plays the role of the fanfare and what's a messiah without a fanfare...

Juststeve

Shesh:

When someone says that "I have my conclusion and no additional evidence can change it" they are basing belief on faith, not reason. You are to complimented for admitting it.

Steve

Atheos

Seems I was remiss in my previous post.

I voted "Who cares? Bring back the earlier, funnier JoeWallack". This is because I honestly don't care and JoeWallack used to make me chuckle. Now he just makes me smile. I miss chuckling.

aa5874

Well, you have no basis for claiming that Jesus was probably baptized by John when you cannot establish the existence of Jesus in the first place.

In the NT Jesus is established as NON-HUMAN when the Gospels authors claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea, was the Child of a Ghost, the Word, the Creator of heaven and earth, was God, TRANSFIGURED, RESURRECTED and ASCENDED to heaven.

There is ZERO probability that Jesus of the NT did exist.

You MUST remember we are DEALING with a character found in the NT itself and the character is described as the Child of a Ghost and was Baptized BY John.

That is the story. One CANNOT ASSUME there is some other story.

Even the story of LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD cannot be ALTERED.

This very POLL is using characters that are FOUND in the NT Canon and John baptized Jesus who was the CHILD of a Ghost.

Once you cannot establish that Jesus of the BAPTISM story did exist then you have not established any real probability for the baptism.

Sheshbazzar

I said no additional christian 'FORGED' evidence can change it.

As far as 'reason', I have thousands of reasons for not accepting the christian accounts. So I don't.