Toto

Not "for" - criterion "of" embarrasment.

We have seen that is it used alone, as in the examples above. Are all those scholars mistaken? [trick question. . . ]

And what is this "appeal to ignorance" that you keep mentioning? An appeal to authority is based on an appeal to your own ignorance of the matter, and your need to find an authority, is it not?

outhouse

Many here discount almost all of modern scholarships, education and knowledge on the topic because they discount the totality of their findings.

Instead of responsible research, they appeal to those uneducated people that have a similar faith.

Steven Carr

Mark 10:39

Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with...

According to Mark's way of thought, Christians had to emulate Jesus.

Just how embarrassing would it have been to him if Christians were baptised, and other Christians then pointed out that baptism was hardly necessary - after all, Jesus himself had not been baptised.

So Mark performed a quick baptism on Jesus, and them got his Jesus to tell other Christians to do like him.

outhouse

This is showing ignorance of the topic at hand.

I have already posted examples showing your error here due to the limitations of the rule.

There may be rare examples, but generally other criteria must be used with it.

spin

No, it shows your confusion, not being able to name what you are trying to talk about.

This clearly says that the criterion--if it functioned--is not a sufficient condition, despite the fact that it is used as such. Just see the Ehrman example I cited earlier.

spin

This is nonsense. Most people here question the capacity of religious scholars to do history, which they are usually not trained to do. You wouldn't get a dental hygiene expert to do history, would you?? You get biblical scholars to analyse biblical texts. And I for one frequently use their results.

Sounds like biblical scholars trying to do history.

outhouse

Your solidifying my statemnt.

Scholars are historians.

TedM

The only need for Jesus to have been baptized is if he was a sinner. 1:4 clearly says that baptism by John was for the forgiveness of sins. We reasonably can conclude that Matthew, Luke, and John were embarrassed about the implication that Jesus was a sinner prior to his baptism. We simply don't know if Mark was also. Your 'emulation' theory might be true but if Mark was not an adoptionist -- his pre-baptism Jesus was the Christ, the son of God, the one Isaiah said would come, and was way mightier than John, who baptizes in the Holy Spirit--if Mark also saw Jesus as sinless, then he was writing about an embarrassing event.

One could apply the same reasoning you are using for Mark to Matthew, Luke, and John and yet they clearly had a problem with the idea that Jesus was baptized by John for the forgiveness of sins.

TedM

And they know a hell of a lot more than the amateurs on this board who seem to think that biblical scholars are all either naive bible thumping believers, or are psychologically still in that mindset even if they have turned away from an earlier position of faith.

Steven Carr

Tell the author of Mark who has a need for Jesus to be baptized , not as a sinner, but as a precedent.