Freethought & Rationalism Archive

discordant · 06-10-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

People LIKE to SEE RED.

Red raises a room’s energy level. It’s a good choice when you want to stir up excitement, particularly at night. In the living room or dining room, red draws people together and stimulates conversation. In an entryway, it creates a strong first impression. Red has been shown to raise blood pressure, speed respiration and heart rate. It is usually considered too stimulating for bedrooms, but if you’re only in the room after dark, you’ll be seeing it mostly by lamplight, when the color will appear muted, rich, and elegant. Red, the most intense, pumps the adrenaline like no other hue.

:constern01: (link)

ApostateAbe · 06-10-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

People LIKE to SEE RED.

Red raises a room’s energy level. It’s a good choice when you want to stir up excitement, particularly at night. In the living room or dining room, red draws people together and stimulates conversation. In an entryway, it creates a strong first impression. Red has been shown to raise blood pressure, speed respiration and heart rate. It is usually considered too stimulating for bedrooms, but if you’re only in the room after dark, you’ll be seeing it mostly by lamplight, when the color will appear muted, rich, and elegant. Red, the most intense, pumps the adrenaline like no other hue.

:constern01: (link)

That settles it. Perfect color for aa5874.

aa5874 · 06-10-2011, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Red raises a room’s energy level. It’s a good choice when you want to stir up excitement, particularly at night. In the living room or dining room, red draws people together and stimulates conversation. In an entryway, it creates a strong first impression. Red has been shown to raise blood pressure, speed respiration and heart rate. It is usually considered too stimulating for bedrooms, but if you’re only in the room after dark, you’ll be seeing it mostly by lamplight, when the color will appear muted, rich, and elegant. Red, the most intense, pumps the adrenaline like no other hue.

:constern01: (link)

That settles it. Perfect color for aa5874.

I told you so.

"IGNORE" is a TOTAL WASTE of time.

Now, let us deal with the OP.

If Jesus was an ordinary man and an ordinary disciple of John there would have been NO Baptism story in the NT.

It was the LEVITATION of Jesus , the Holy Ghost like a DOVE, and the Talking Cloud that are the BASIS of the inclusion of the Story. It is the MYTH that produced the Baptism story so it is a MOST unlikely event.

renassault · 06-11-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

I voted Likely fiction only because -PURELY fiction- was not offered.

I am convinced that the Hebrew 'Joshua the Messiah', and the Greek LXX vorlage based 'Jebus the Christ' tales were common messianic midrash themes long before any 'Jebus' was ever 'born'.
The religion of 'Christianity' came into being when these old pre-'christian', 'messiah/christos' midrashim and 'sayings' writings were arranged into narrative form,
Which then came to be misunderstood and capitalised upon as being actual historical accounts.
(wrested into the service of aggrandising and elevating certain individuals, while demonizing and marginalizing others in the struggle for (bogus) religious 'authority')

The Christian 'religion' expanded from there, NOT from any real life historical 'JC' figure, or claimed NT events.
In short, the so called 'New Testement', a contrived work of religious fiction, has been long mistaken for a historical account.

I admit that at this date this position is only a belief, but I am confident that in due time, -written evidence from PRIOR to the first century- will be found
which will fully validate the correctness of this position.
If no such incontrovertible material evidence ever comes to light, that will in no way affect on my position.
Even as others have faith in the validity of their various positions, so have I in my position. I expect that it will be proven accurate and fully vindicated.

The above outline is what I honestly and personally believe to be what really happened.

Christianity existed long before any of the narratives were written. And for them to have been an oral invention is unlikely due to the stability of the tradition (e.g. 1 Cor 10-11 vs the Synoptic accounts), which would have certainly been much more fluid had there been a "purely fictitious" invention, as well as seeing little things like the very baptism by John. Also, as has been noted as long as 90 years ago by Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition [1921]), the miracles in the NT don't reflect the Talmudic-Jewish miracle-type prevalent in Judea at the time; i.e. they didn't lift anything off pre-Christian traditions.

renassault · 06-11-2011, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That settles it. Perfect color for aa5874.

I told you so.

"IGNORE" is a TOTAL WASTE of time.

Now, let us deal with the OP.

If Jesus was an ordinary man and an ordinary disciple of John there would have been NO Baptism story in the NT.

It was the LEVITATION of Jesus , the Holy Ghost like a DOVE, and the Talking Cloud that are the BASIS of the inclusion of the Story. It is the MYTH that produced the Baptism story so it is a MOST unlikely event.

I will now prove that you don't exist using your absurd and pre-school logic. This is my account of the life of aa5874, whoever he/she may be:

1. aa5874 exists and is a user at freeratio.org
2. aa5874 can fly like superman
3. aa5874 has X-ray vision

Therefore since 2&3 are false, by your logic, you don't exist, because we would be "cherrypicking" facts. Will you quit advertising your dysfunctional "cherrypicking" hypotheses already???

aa5874 · 06-11-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Christianity existed long before any of the narratives were written. And for them to have been an oral invention is unlikely due to the stability of the tradition (e.g. 1 Cor 10-11 vs the Synoptic accounts), which would have certainly been much more fluid had there been a "purely fictitious" invention, as well as seeing little things like the very baptism by John. Also, as has been noted as long as 90 years ago by Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition [1921]), the miracles in the NT don't reflect the Talmudic-Jewish miracle-type prevalent in Judea at the time; i.e. they didn't lift anything off pre-Christian traditions.

But, 1 Cor. 10-11 has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the baptism of Jesus by John. Those chapters are completely irrelevant to the OP.

1.The Pauline writers did NOT claim Jesus was BAPTISED.

2. The Pauline writers did NOT mention any character called John the Baptist.

3. The Pauline writers did NOT CLAIM Jesus was in the River Jordan.

4. The Pauline writer claimed Jesus did NOT call him to Baptize.

Even If it is supposed that the Pauline writings were FIRST then the Baptism of Jesus was most likely an INVENTION since it was unknown by "Paul" and the story itself is hardly credible.

aa5874 · 06-11-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I told you so.

"IGNORE" is a TOTAL WASTE of time.

Now, let us deal with the OP.

If Jesus was an ordinary man and an ordinary disciple of John there would have been NO Baptism story in the NT.

It was the LEVITATION of Jesus , the Holy Ghost like a DOVE, and the Talking Cloud that are the BASIS of the inclusion of the Story. It is the MYTH that produced the Baptism story so it is a MOST unlikely event.

I will now prove that you don't exist using your absurd and pre-school logic. This is my account of the life of aa5874, whoever he/she may be:

1. aa5874 exists and is a user at freeratio.org
2. aa5874 can fly like superman
3. aa5874 has X-ray vision

Therefore since 2&3 are false, by your logic, you don't exist, because we would be "cherrypicking" facts. Will you quit advertising your dysfunctional "cherrypicking" hypotheses already???

Your post is UTTER MADNESS, TOTALLY RIDICULOUS. You INVENT your own absurdity and then BLATANTLY PRETEND that it is mine. Are you a real person?

Stop your madness now and DEAL with the OP.

I have PRESENTED the Baptism story EXACTLY as it is FOUND in the KJV version of the NT and it is FICTION.

Mark 1:9-11 -

Quote:

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, F2 and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him,

11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The baptism story of Jesus by John is a Ghost story.

JoeWallack · 11-13-2011, 01:43 PM

JW:
I've already demonstrated that "Mark" as a whole consists primarily of the Impossible/Improbable/Contrived. This general evidence means that the default position for any individual story in "Mark" is that it is more likely fiction than history. Similarly, I've already demonstrated that the baptism story in "Mark" likewise consists primarily of the Impossible/Improbable/Contrived. This general evidence means that the default position for any individual item in "Mark's" baptism story is more likely fiction than history. The only piece of "Mark's" baptism story that can survive the criteria curse of Impossible/Improbable is Jesus being baptized. If we pause at this point and compare the criteria for history verses fiction of Jesus' supposed baptism:

Criteria for historicity = No quality evidence due to absence of any hand witness. It would therefore be Impossible to claim Jesus' baptism as a historical fact.

Criteria for fiction = No quality evidence based on Impossibility/Improbability. Josephus, a credible witness, claims that John was a popular baptizer in the early 1st century. Most Jews of the time would not have been baptized so this does reduce the possibility. Let's look at the 3rd leg of fiction though = Contrived.

As noted, most Jews of Jesus' supposed time were not baptized. On the other hand, baptism was a defining act of early Christianity. So we have support for an anachronism here. We also know that Paul was a major source for "Mark". Speaking of which, the parallels between Paul and "Mark" as well as the observation that Paul is the only known significant Christian author before "Mark" has been made many times on these unholy boards. When people reject Paul as a source for "Mark" they generally think that instead of Paul, "Mark" had some type of historical witness for Jesus. But unlike the evidence I mentioned for Paul as a source for "Mark", there are no known parallels between "Mark" and any historical source and of course no known significant Christian author before "Mark" besides Paul and fake Paul.

Regarding Paul and baptism, here are the references and my comments []:

http://truthandgrace.com/Baptism.html

Quote:

(Rom 6:3) Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

[Reference to literal beginning baptism of Christianity and figurative baptism referring to Jesus death]

(Rom 6:4) Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

(1 Cor 1:13) Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

[Same thought as above. The purpose of the literal baptism is to create a figurative baptism with Jesus' death]

(1 Cor 1:14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,

[Literal reference]

(1 Cor 1:15) lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

[Literal reference]

(1 Cor 1:16) Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

[Literal reference]

(1 Cor 1:17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

[Literal reference]

(1 Cor 10:2) all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

[Figurative Type reference]

(1 Cor 12:13) For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body; whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free; and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

[Figurative reference]

(1 Cor 15:29) Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?

[Literal reference]

(Gal 3:27) For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

[Literal reference]

(Eph 4:5) one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
[Fake]

(Col 2:12) buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. [Fake]

JW:
In summary, Paul refers to two types of baptisms:

1) A literal baptism which is a starting Christian ritual.

2) A figurative baptism, connected to the literal baptism, but symbolically referring to Jesus' supposed death.

Looking through "Mark" (so to speak) for parallels, we of course have the obvious literal parallel to baptism in the offending story which is the subject of this Thread. "Mark" also has a parallel to the figurative reference:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_10

Quote:

10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:

Jesus of course is here referring to figuratively being baptized with death. The liquid of the symbolic cup of death represents the liquid of the literal baptism.

We have a strong parallel to Paul here in that both refer to a literal and figurative baptism that are connected to each other. It's possible but extremely unlikely that Jesus historically referred to a figurative baptism into his death before he was even supposedly arrested and even more unlikely that he would be instigating such a ritual in his time that was a starting and significant ritual for Christianity. It's much more likely to be an anachronism which is Contrived.

In summary, while Jesus being baptized survives the criteria for Fiction of Impossible/Improbable, it does not survive the criterion of Contrived. "Mark's" use of Baptism parallels very well with Paul and looks anachronistic anyway. So we have quality evidence for Fiction and and again no quality evidence for history. Thus, Jesus being baptized is more likely fiction than history based on the evidence (including the argument based on Authority provided by the accompanying poll). Word.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874 · 11-13-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

...We have a strong parallel to Paul here in that both refer to a literal and figurative baptism that are connected to each other. It's possible but extremely unlikely that Jesus historically referred to a figurative baptism into his death before he was even supposedly arrested and even more unlikely that he would be instigating such a ritual in his time that was a starting and significant ritual for Christianity. It's much more likely to be an anachronism which is Contrived....

There is no strong parallel at all in gMark with the Pauline writings.

In the very first chapter of gMark it is claimed by John the Baptist that Jesus would BAPTIZE with the Holy Ghost.

In gMark Jesus did NOT baptize a single person with the Holy Ghost.

Mark 1

Quote:

There cometh one Mightier than I .......I indeed have Baptized you with WATER but he shall Baptize you with the Holy Ghost...

In gMark, Jesus came SPECIFICALLY to Baptize with the Holy Ghost but there is NO written evidence in gMark that Jesus baptized any one in WATER or by the Holy Ghost.

gMark's Jesus was Obsolete from the very first chapter.

John ALREADY Baptized for the Remission of Sins and Jesus NEVER did baptise anyone with the Holy Ghost.

JoeWallack · 11-15-2011, 08:15 AM

JW:
Super Skeptic Neil Godfree is at it again questioning the originality of Josephus' supposed reference to John the Baptist:

Sifting fact from fiction in Josephus: John the Baptist as a case study

Neil identifies the following criteria for Interpolation:

Quote:

William Walker works with six criteria that he sets out in “Interpolations in the Pauline Letters”:

text critical evidence — includes a study of other texts in which references are made to the document

contextual evidence — contextual flows or breaks within the document

ideational evidence — how does the idea at the heart of the questioned passage compare with the ideas throughout the main document?

comparative evidence — compare the thought expressed in the questionable passage with related thoughts expressed elsewhere.

motivational evidence — what do we know of the motivations of various interest groups relating to the thoughts expressed in both the larger document and the questionable passage?

locational evidence — what is the impact of the questionable passage being located at this point in the text?

I think my Thread here already demonstrates that every significant assertion in "Mark's" baptism story is more likely fiction than history, including that Jesus was baptized at all. The main supposed historical anchor that supporters of the historicity of "Mark's" baptism story carry, is Josephus' description of John the Baptist. If this anchor is thrown overboard than there is not much tangible to support historicity.

Starting with the first criteria above for Interpolation = Textual Criticism, and going External, I have Faith that the same Oannomoly that exists for the TF also exists for the BF (Baptism shower Flavium), which is little/no early Patristic identification. I've documented this phenomenon for the TF in my Legendary:

“Say It Ain’t So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court?”

Thread. Naturally, there would be a much greater expectation of Patristic interest in Jesus in Josephus, than there would be John the Baptist, but still, the early lack of Patristic identification of John the Baptist in Josephus is strange/bizarre/macabre.

Okay, so evidence against the originality of John the Baptist in Josephus. 5 more criteria to go.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.