In the Peshitta, the original Aramaic/hebrew bible, it clearly states that John baptizes Jesus in the Gospel of John. Also John is mentioned by name in the other gospels as the one that baptizes Jesus.
@ProfMTH@ProfMTH Oh but there is.It is called the Peshitta, and was created within 10 years of the death of Jesus. The 12 apostles, and their own disciples are the ones who created it.
The Syrian Orthodox Church have fiercely kept it pure, and untouched by the westernized Greek and Latin texts, which are in fact translation riddled texts.
Idk. It depends. If one states contradictions, they generally either want it changed or attributes it to the person being wrong. That's what's in the bible. Contradictions. Many religions have contradictions so that it can be said to hold any, and every stance. Something that is almost exclusively used by charismatic dictators or rulers to make everyone happy with lies. It depends.
@73geneva if someone was deprogrammed after being at a moonie compound, would they be "amazing" if they spent their life talking about it to help others? god is going to send all you christians to hell for being so smug
@pinkus44 Honestly, I don't have the slightest idea of what you're rambling about. ...deprogrammed after being at moonie compound.... What are you talking about?
"...god is going to send Christians to hell..."
Well, I guess you're His Special Adviser on Hell Matters and you'll tell him to grant your desire. How about that?
@73geneva it sounded to me, i'm sorry if i was wrong, that you were implying that profmth, as an athiest, would be wrong to concern himself with the idea of god. well, profmth was at one time a believer - a real one - so that is the correlation to the moonie compound - believing in ANY thought system is a form of brain washing including christianity and brother mth is sharing his testimony to help other people not to be cowed by cosmic terror.
“After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, ‘You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, ‘Today I have begotten You.’ -- Epiphanius, Panarion 30:3 & 30:13 Indicates that Jesus was NOT begotten by God until AFTER baptism.
John also doesn't mention communion at the last supper. I imagine that he leaves out baptism and communion because he thinks they're silly, unnecessary rituals. Notice that when the Jewish leaders ask John the baptist WHY he baptizes, John doesn't even answer the question. John 1:24-27 “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
“I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me" etc.
The Jesus tradition shouldn't be uneasy about John the baptist being seemingly superior to Jesus because Jesus putting himself last is one of the main themes of the Jesus story. All the gospels talk about it. John's gospel talks about Jesus washing his disciples' feet. Matthew, Mark, and Luke repeatedly talk about the first making themselves last.
Jesus' baptism also doesn't mean that Jesus is sinful because baptism is NOT a washing away of sin. If it were, Jesus' death would be unnecessary!
The gospels do not contradict each other about Jesus' baptism. One is more explicit than another and John doesn't mention it, but that does not equate to contradiction. If Matthew said John baptized Jesus, and Luke said John DIDN'T baptize Jesus, that would be a contradiction. The gospel narratives may differ because they were written by diff people with diff perspectives at diff times, but that does not equal contradiction.
@mjc1024 It's been a while since I made (and watched) this video, but I don't believe it was my position that the synoptics contradict as much as they demonstrate a pattern of trying to explain and ultimately minimize the Baptist's role vis-a-vis Jesus. The fourth gospel (John) *does* have a very different story and says nothing about baptism.
@ProfMTH You know, I was reading through John again, and if you read carefully in ch1 v29-33, the baptism of Jesus IS in view. John says in v 31 that he did not know him but that he came baptizing with water so that he (Jesus) could be revealed to Israel. Then he states in v 32 that he saw the HS descend like a dove and remain on him. When did the HS descend on Jesus in the other gospels? When Jesus was coming out of the water during his baptism!
@mjc1024 "When did the HS descend on Jesus in the other gospels?"
At his baptism. But that doesn't settle the question for the fourth gospel. What you're doing here is running the four gospels together and, basically, creating a 5th gospel that no one wrote in order to paper over the fact that the author of John tells a different story. In the fourth gospel, Jesus is not depicted as being baptized by John.
@ProfMTH It is rather clear in v. 29-33 that John the Baptist is speaking in reference to his baptism of Jesus, given the descriptions from the previous gospels. The story is not told the same way because it was written by a diff author 30-40 yrs later. Why would you think that each gospel has to say the same thing? Now THAT would be suspicious. John focused more on Jesus' divine nature, while the others focused more on his humanity.
@mjc1024 "It is rather clear in v. 29-33 that John the Baptist is speaking in reference to his baptism of Jesus, given the descriptions from the previous gospels."
As I said, you're mashing together the gospels to create a 5th gospel that no one wrote but which comports with your belief that the Bible is consistent & inerrant. No where in the passage you've cited does it say John baptized Jesus. It's not there. By your own admission, you're importing it into the text from the other gospels.
@ProfMTH I'm not mashing anything together. I'm simply comparing the narratives from each gospel. Each gospel has a different emphasis because it was written by a diff author. I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. Why do you think that each gospel has to say EXACTLY the same thing? In John's gospel, there is no explicit narrative of the baptism, only an implicit allusion to it. SO WHAT! It's not contradictory or problematic, just different.
@mjc1024 "I don't understand why you have such a problem with this."
Clearly.
"Why do you think that each gospel has to say EXACTLY the same thing?"
That's not what I've said, but I've grown weary of covering the same territory over and over with someone who it seems has his put his shields up against anything perceived to be a threat to the baseless belief that the gospels admit of reconciliation on all points.
But it was in the book of Matthew. Maybe John doesn't want to offend God or as said in Matthew, doesn't feel the action is merit as in who is holier? But Jesus insisted anyway! so he did baptized Jesus!
This is hardly to the credit of Crossan. It's been noted by almost every commentator, theologian, and text critic of note - conservative as well as liberal - for the last 400 years - and by many going back much further than that. If you're only just discovering it, I can only conclude you weren't that well read in the subject to begin with.
@nothingmemorable I discovered this line of thought through Crossan. I credited his work with bringing it to my attention. If I'm supposed to be impressed by your claim to have known that everyone knew about this "for the last 400 years," I'm sorry to tell you I'm not impressed. But no doubt you've impressed yourself and, I suspect, that's probably all that matters to you.
Part 3: So your conclusion doesn't actually make "perfect sense" because you are reaching too broad a conclusion from too narrow a base. At best your "conclusion" is a wide open hypothesis based on your anti - Christian bias, which is no basis for making such an ASSertion at all.
@ors712 " This argument will only suffice if one is insistent on Johannine dependency on the Synoptic tradition."
Even if that were true, the fact remains that the author of the fourth gospel does not include anything about John the Baptist baptizing Jesus and tells a very different story about how the Baptist came to recognize Jesus.
"John does not include stories about Jesus casting out demons, a virgin birth, or the names of all 12 disciples."
@ProfMTH Part 2: The language attributed to Jesus in John was perfectly at home in the Palestine of the early 1st century. The dead sea scrolls have given us a library of terminological paralells discovered for the Johannine Jesus. it is not far fetched to suggest that the evangelist uses this particular language to interpret Jesus within its terminology for a community who would have been familiar with these sensibilities. Your video has yet to prove convincing.
@ProfMTH Part 1: I wonder to what extent you recognize each Gospel as an individual work with a particular sensibility aimed at explaining Jesus to a community of believers with distinct theological tones who are not all from the same background. Your criticism is still unremoved from your subtle presupposition that John is dependent on the Synoptics. To champion the illegitimacy of Jesus by citing a few omissions misses the point of how an evangelist communicates to a particular audience.
@ors712 'I wonder to what extent you recognize each Gospel as an individual work with a particular sensibility aimed at explaining Jesus to a community of believers with distinct theological tones who are not all from the same background."
There's no doubt that each gospel is an individual work & that the author(s) of each were sounding distinct theological notes and telling different stories. I'm kind of shocked (and, frankly, a bit dubious) that you actually wonder whether I recognize this.
(con't) @ors712 "Your criticism is still unremoved from your subtle presupposition that John is dependent on the Synoptics."
As I said in my earlier response to you--do you actually read what I write in response to you or do you just stay on script no matter what?--even if the author(s) of the 4th gospel had nothing whatsoever to do with the synoptics, the fact remains that the author(s) do not have John the Baptist baptizing Jesus & tell(s) a very different story about how the Baptist...
(con't) @ors712 ...came to recognize Jesus. For me, this isn't a problem because I recognize that these *are* individual works, that they're *not* the product of "inspiration" by the same god, and so on. Believers in divine inspiration have far less room to maneuver.
@ProfMTH I question whether you regard them as individual works seeing as how your methodology of establishing legitimacy of each Gospel ultimately rests on how much they differ from one another. Since you claim that they are individual works, your degree of criticism is unwarranted, yet you still proceed as if they are all written to be carbon copies of another (which i'm sure would arise more suspicion from you). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
@ProfMTH If your main point is that there are differences then bravo, point taken. Whether these differences are as destructive to the faith of Christians as you make them out to be is another issue. I have no problem admitting that at times the Christian picture presents moments of tension. I'm not sure how or why that should destroy someones faith. Perhaps it says more about the "type" of faith the person "had" before they "lost" it
@ors712 "If your main point is that there are differences then bravo, point taken."
Well, it's one among several points. Of course, as you no doubt, many of your coreligionists deny that there are any differences. So, it's important to remind them that their belief is just that: an article of faith with no grounding in the reality of the Bible.
"Whether these differences are as destructive to the faith of Christians as you make them out to be is another issue."
Part 2: This argument will only suffice if one is insistent on Johannine dependency on the Synoptic tradition. For John does not include stories about Jesus casting out demons, a virgin birth, or the names of all 12 disciples. One must be willing to examine the material which guides the information which IS given in the gospel, namely theological emphasis.
Part 1: Your claim "this makes perfect sense" after reading Crossan's book would merit consideration only if you could make a substantial scholarly claim that the author of John omited the baptismal story specifically on the basis of his uneasy feelings about the baptism. Crossan conveniently fails to point out that the current state of Johannine studies is one where scholars are questioning whether John knew of the synoptic Gospels or whether his tradition was dependent on them at all.
To say that John does not record the baptism of Jesus is just a lie. John "seeth"Jesus. If he is in prison how did he see Jesus? God gave him a sign of the Spirit remaining on him. So this one you allowed a heretic to fool you. John 1:29-34
@RepresentingTruth "To say that John does not record the baptism of Jesus is just a lie."
Then quote the passage(s) in which the Gospel of John presents the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. I know there are passages that say John the Baptist *saw* Jesus. But 'saw' =/= baptism.
@ProfMTH I already have. What is John called? John the Baptist. Get it. I thought about it afterwards and realized how silly this video is. To say that John the Baptist does not baptize Jesus is profoundly dumb.
He sees Jesus coming to him. Why did he come to him then? Why did God give him John a sign? Please grow up on this one. Please come back to reality.
No, you haven't. Cite the passage(s) in the Gospel of John that have John the Baptist baptizing Jesus.
"He sees Jesus coming to him."
John 1:29-34 does not portray John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. Moreover, it reports that the Baptist did not even know who Jesus was the first time he saw him (it has John say twice, "I myself did not know him"), while, by contrast, when Jesus approaches John for the 1st time in the Gospel of Matthew, John the...
(con't) @RepresentingTruth ...Baptist knows him immediately--before the Spirit appears or any of the rest--which is demonstrating by the Baptist's saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” These are very different stories. I'm sorry you're having trouble seeing this obvious fact.
@RepresentingTruth I did in the video. I'm still waiting for you to cite a passage in the Gospel of John that depicts John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. The fact that you're assiduously avoiding it demonstrates that you can't. And of course you can't: there is no such passage in the 4th gospel.
@ProfMTH So I am confused. Do you believe that John baptized or not. If he saw the spirit come upon him when did this happen? You don't make any sense.
@RepresentingTruth Nothing to be confused about. I've shown in the video (and the follow-up)--and anyone could determine just from reading the four gospels side-by-side--that the gospels tell different stories about this. The primary difference is between the synoptics and John, with the latter dropping the baptism from the story entirely. You can't cite a single passage in the fourth gospel that has John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. And there's a reason you can't: there is no such passage.
@ProfMTH I will focus on the more important things like the atonement. However, John did see Jesus come to him. Why is that so? Maybe there is an answer. Second, God gave a sign to who? John the Baptist. What was the sign? Why would God give him a sign that came to pass at Jesus baptism if John the Baptist did not baptize him? If you claim it was not John prove by scripture who did it since Jesus was baptized.
@RepresentingTruth " However, John did see Jesus come to him. Why is that so?"
In the fourth gospel, the story does not tell us.
"God gave a sign to who? John the Baptist. What was the sign? Why would God give him a sign that came to pass at Jesus baptism if John the Baptist did not baptize him?"
You're running all four gospels together as if they were one big gospel--in essence, you're writing a 5th gospel. In the 4th gospel, Jesus is not baptized.
This is pure BS (being Stupid) First of all Mat and Mark fine. In Luke's gospel simple shows the fate of John the Baptist. In fact Mark mentions after the baptism of Jesus he was put in prison Mark 1:14 In Luke3 verse3 18-20 sums up many things he did and why he was put in prison. Just as Judas who betray him was called that even before it happen.
The Mandeans, whom were based in Iraq for the better part of two millenia, consider John the Baptist (or Yahya ibn Zakariyya) to be their prophet, while they consider Jesus as a false messiah.
John the baptist did not want to baptise Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus was not a Jew. Jesus was baptized by John the baptist and I'd be willing to bet that a man of letters like yourself has no Idea in who's name John baptized Jesus in. You probably don't know in who's name John baptized Jewish men only?
"This is the truth of God: Jesus came by the Spirit into the world. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan, in this way, Jesus took all the sin of the world on Him and He must die on the cross. Word of God says: the wages of sin is death. Every man is born with 12 sin in his heart, but by the Spirit and the water and the blood Jesus has accomplished salvation. The faith of God is the Spirit and the Water and the blood. Amen God bless. "
"John's Gospel drops Jesus' baptism out of the story entirely."
Not entirely at all. John 1:32 has John the Baptist tell of an unmistakable detail of the baptism, the Spirit coming down like a dove (Mark 1:10, Matthew 3:16, Luke 3:22).
John's Gospel takes for granted that the baptism happened and alludes to it in past tense.
@highwind8124 "John the Baptist tell of an unmistakable detail of the baptism, the Spirit coming down like a dove (Mark 1:10, Matthew 3:16, Luke 3:22)."
It's a detail of Jesus baptism only in the synoptic gospels. The story in the Gospel of John not only doesn't include a baptism of Jesus, it's very different from the stories told in the synoptics. E.g., in Matthew 3:13 John the Baptist immediately recognizes Jesus (before he's even baptized and the dove descends) and tries to talk Jesus...
(con't) @highwind8124 ...out of being baptized. By contrast, in John, the Baptist said that he didn't know who Jesus was *until* he saw the Spirit descend on him (John 1:33, "I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit’"). The stories are obviously different and the tradition is trying to work out what to do with John the Baptist.
"It's a detail of Jesus baptism only in the synoptic gospels."
So you would assume that the writer of the Gospel of John has his fingers crossed hoping no one reads the other three Gospels, and that John the Baptist, who's job it is to baptize, just happened to be a bystander while Jesus was being baptized and the Holy Spirit was seen descending like a dove.
@highwind8124 You're combining the baptism stories from the synoptic gospels with the story of John the Baptist having Jesus' identity revealed to him in the Gospel of John. I've shown you some of the differences. But, of course, such facts don't matter to you because they don't comport with your core beliefs that the Bible is inerrant, that the gospel writers are all telling the same story, & so on. So you do what so many believers do, i.e., you write a 5th gospel that mashes it all together.
Luke 3:19-20 is being misread. Luke is explaining after 3:18, while on the subject of John the Baptist, mentions what ultimately happened to him, and then proceeds with the narrative.
You can even tell this by the use of the words. Luke 3:19 - "BUT when..." as if to contrast with the prior sentence, referring to a different when.
Luke 3:21 jumps back "when all the people were being baptized", an easy reference to Luke 3:16 "I baptize you all..."
Sorry pal, but it says in John 3:21, "Jesus, also BEING BAPTIZED and praying, the Heaven opened".
Never said when.
I have checked many of your video's and so far I have seen almost nothing but you tweaking the scriptures to make them look bad. You are a fraud, and a very dishonest person to be doing such.
Tell me this, according to the Bible, how many animals did Moses gather to the ark?
@johnlewisbrooks "Sorry pal, but it says in John 3:21, "Jesus, also BEING BAPTIZED and praying, the Heaven opened"."
John 3:21 says, "But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." What are you talking about?
"You are a fraud, and a very dishonest person to be doing such."
Feel free to refute the cases I have laid out in each video. If the above-quoted is a sample of how you do...
Ok, so you actually were paying attention. I asked you a trick question on purpose. There are so many people here on youtube, atheist or otherwise, who claim they know so much about His Word, yet when asked simple things they themselves cannot answer.
Another one. How old does Genesis say the Earth is? Most people will say 6,000yrs. I say II Peter 3:5.
Sorry pal, but it says in LUKE 3:21, "Jesus, also BEING BAPTIZED and praying, the Heaven opened".
Never said when.
I have checked many of your video's and so far I have seen almost nothing but you tweaking the scriptures to make them look bad. You are a fraud, and a very dishonest person to be doing such.
Tell me this, according to the Bible, how many animals did Moses gather to the ark?
@johnlewisbrooks "Ok, so you actually were paying attention. I asked you a trick question on purpose."
Don't waste my time or yours posting bullshit here. If you've got something to say in refutation of the video, then say it. Otherwise keep it moving. Thanks. :-)
@PissedFechtmeister Well, I think he *could* have in Luke, but Luke's use of the passive voice there is at least an attempt to minimize John, if not move him off the baptismal stage entirely.
20Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.
21NOW when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
KJV of luke 3
wen it says NOW, Luke was writing of what happend before John the baptised was put to Jail. The 2 vers's dont go together. reading Mat 3;4 Jesus was led up by the Spirit, He fasted for 40days and nights. and right after that is when Jesus had heard that John the baptzd was put into prison.
@lstdy "When John said that the baptist was baptizing, he knew his audience already knew the story of the baptism."
Really?! However could you possibly know that to be the case?
"It might be wise to take a freshman comp class or a rhetorical criticism class."
Be assured that I've taken both. You might do well to acquaint yourself with New Testament scholarship as it's presently constituted rather than looking for apologetic refuges from it.
ProfMTH, thanks for the link to this. This is certainly currious. A fine example of gospel contradiction, but what can be gleamed from this? By historical tradition the closer to an event an account is written the more more accurate it is considered in relation to the later writings (in this case mark being written first and john last). Of course the bible's in no way a history book so that may not be apt here anyway. In that context one may simply attribute this lack of gospel mention to
@humanistheart *bapstizim mention in the gospel of john' to loss of time, or more probable the evolution of the religion. John is also the only one to mention any pre-existance of jesus, at least as far as I know. He adds a lot of power and history to jesus. Perhaps an omen to the gospel of johns proto-gnostic origins.
Well, that's certainly possible, Humanistheart. But I think Crossan makes a persuasive case for the Jesus tradition's attempt to minimize John the Baptist and eventually all but move him off the stage.
You shouldn't concern your self with the idol chatter of men. All that is good is within Mathew and John, these are the two olive trees Jesus speaks about, who's word brings forth good fruit, whose seed sprout forth hardy fruit trees also. Between the two, you have the truth of Jesus Christ and of Our Father, the Lord God, Yahweh. See that you do not deceive or be deceived, as the kingdom is at hand, and truth will set you free. Say what you need to say. The Lord is calling his children. Seek
our present knowledge of 1st century hebrew litterature makes us place the gospel of john and revelations predate the other gospels. much less helenised.
I'm saying that Johns gospel is the least hellenistic Gospel therefore the oldest Gospel. the church saw Jesus as the sacrificial pascal lamb from the beginning..so the other Gospels added to Johns mystical text. Theology, requires that you actually read the bible. John starts after the baptism. by the time marc wrote his Gospel, no one in greece even cared about j the baptist. its inclusion in the Gospel is probably based on truth. no agenda needed. these men died for their words. no agenda.
First, if when you say "these men died for their words" you mean to say the writers of what have come to be regarded as the canonical gospels, we have no idea what happened to them. We don't even know who they were. Second, you're the first person I've ever seen identify the Gospel of John as the first of the four. I'm not aware of any evidence that supports that claim.
Mark was the first of the synoptics, we know this because Mathew and Luke use it as a source. John isn't really datable because it doesn't use the others as a source. It might be the first written, or the last. What is certainly clear is that the other gospel writers hadn't read John or, failing that, didn't use it as a source in any way
@underpantsjihad There are a number of parallel passages between John and the Synoptics. He used at least one of them as a source. IMO it was Matthew since everywhere there's a parallel with the Synoptics there's a parallel with GMatthew.
John says he has a specific purpose to his gospel (v. 20:31) and explicitly says he doesn't include everything : "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (Jn 21:25)
ProfMTH According to Josephus, John was imprisoned in Machaerus, east of the Dead Sea (Antiquities 18.5.2). This did not occur until sometime after the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Jn. 3:22-24), but Luke mentions it here in order to conclude his section on John's ministry before beginning his account of the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Matt. 4:12; Mk. 1:14). He later briefly alludes to John's death (Lk. 9:7-9).
A plausible take on the events as they're portrayed in Luke. That doesn't diminish my overall point that John the Baptist and the story of Jesus being baptized are explained away, diminished, and (with respect to the baptism) dropped from the story as the Jesus tradition moves forward.
Since your problem is the baptism in John I guess I have an ace:)
Jesus told to Nicodemus "no one can enter in the kingdom of God unless.... referring to the baptism. Clearly that infers even to Himself than that's why he told John the Baptist we have to do to fulfill righteousness. Anyway if you accept the idea it is not my problem, I know that Jesus was baptized and regarding the other stuff I could study the cases. I posted this because I was trying to help:)
John, in my modest opinion, was not interested in giving us details on why he wrote his Gospel. He just wrote it! It is evident that 80% is new material and he wants to gives us a broader understanding of the of Atonement, the eternal mission of Jesus, his mortal mission, the last supper expanded. John, follower of the Baptist, doesn't mention Jesus' baptism because it is already recorded but adds the Jews talking regarding his authority, why? Because it implies that the Rabbis were waiting 3
I think the answer is very simple. John wrote his Gospel many years after the synoptic Gospels and he did it just to fill the gaps of them in fact 80% of John Gospel contains new perspective and a lot doctrine he didn't rewrite what was already in place:)
Sure. Take a look at when the Gospels were written and when John wrote his. Also look John is explaining in details the preexistence of Jesus. Mention a wedding in Cana previous his preaching and above all he writes 5 chapters about the last supper and many other things. Also if you take a look after Cana he mention the cleaning of the Temple which took place the last week of his minister. He was filling gaps!
It's an interesting idea, one that many have proposed. However, what do you make of the fact that the author of John doesn't exclude everything the synoptics address, e.g., Jesus' clearing the Temple (although John places it at different time in Jesus' life than the synoptics). Ultimately (and with all due respect), I think you're arbitrarily assigning a project to the author of John (i.e., filling in gaps) that the author never claims for himself in an effort to make the differences...
It is important to ask ourselves these questions. I cannot prove my points but just because John didn't wrote about Jesus' baptism it doesn't mean it didn't happen, we have already 2 witness for that and according to the Bible they are more than enough:)
The Rabbis were waiting 3 different important people, Messiah, Eliaj and a prophet. He mention a wedding in which Jesus' mother is in charge! Nicodemus,one leader of the Sanhedrin, becoming a disciple. He proves that Jesus is Yavhe, not the Father. his brothers didn't believe in him before, they believed after his resurrection. The born blind proves preexistence. Lazarus' resurrection after 4 days and his relationship with his sisters. What about Joseph Arimatea? Can I prove it? No! and you?:)
"just because John didn't write about Jesus' baptism it doesn't mean it didn't happen"
Nor have I argued that. Rather, I've presented Crossan's argument regarding how the Jesus tradition deals with the baptism over the course of the gospels. If Jesus existed -- and I believe he did -- I suspect the baptism *did* happen and that, like a number of details in Jesus' life, required some apologetic massaging.
"we have already 2 witnesses for that and according to the Bible they are more...
Odd that you're not applying the same rule to, e.g., Jesus' clearing the Temple, the crucifixion (which, of course, John places on a different day from the synoptics -- another "gap" being filled?), and a number of other things that John discusses along with the synoptics.
I went to a site that had estimates from like 15 scholars for when each NT book was written. There seemed to be a range of more than 40 years for each one. How do you know in what order the Gospels were written?
First comment. Like your insights. So, there is one that may be here but I haven't read 181 comments. Anyway. Why does John, while in prison, ask if Jesus is the one if he saw what Matthew states? Ref: Matthew 11:2-3. It seems a silly question. Like when you read Matthew 3:16-17, tell me who heard the voice? It's absurd to think that it was not signs to John. Watching your videos from back to front and think you're doing fine. Oh, and I subscribed but, alas, I don't log in without reason. Thanks
Welcome to the channel and thanks for your comments. You ask good questions here, questions I've raised before about the John story. However, believers don't seem to have any answers. Imagine that.
John doesn't state it explicitly because that was not the purpose of his writing the gospel. Luke had already written a historical account but John was intent on confirming that Jesus was the Son of God. However it is quite clear from John's account of John the Baptist's witnessing of the Spirit descending on Christ that he undertook the baptism of Jesus.
Let's just be clear here, Nick: the author of John doesn't even *imply* that Jesus was baptized. It's dropped out of the story entirely by the time the fourth gospel is written.
"However it is quite clear from John's account of John the Baptists's witnessing of the Spirit descending on Christ that he undertook the baptism of Jesus."
No, it's not clear at all. The Baptist merely talks about a sign he was given. Nothing about baptism is said.
Mar 1:9,10 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
And yes I did watch the video. You have swallowed a red herring in terms of the timing of John's arrest! Check out John 3:23,24 and the rest of the chapter. John was still a free man and even then was proclaiming the superiority of Christ!
The John's arrest thing in Luke is a take-it-or-leave-it sort of thing. I'm not firmly committed to that. The mere fact that the author of Luke uses the passive voice for Jesus' baptism rather than saying John did it is enough to demonstrate the minimization of John and the baptism as the Jesus tradition moved forward.
And just because the author of John still have the Baptist as a free man doesn't mean that the author of Luke does. You make a fundamental error to assume otherwise.
Just because John doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, if it did mention it, it might be odd. If you have four people talking about something from each of there perspectives, they might not see it. Jesus says that it must happen, so it happens. Only Jesus really knows why I suppose, but I'm willing to trust Jesus on this one! The Lord of the world.
"Just because John doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen."
What it means, at the very least, is that it didn't happen in the Johannine version of the story. And in this video, I talk about Crossan's argument about why the baptism doesn't appear in John. It seems you may have missed the point of this video.
yeah,it happened & the reason the Gospel of John don't mention it,was so people would know it wasn't John the baptist ,that wrote St.JOHN or the 3 episles,& or the great book of Revelations ,the diciple that Jesus loved...have a blessed day...
what claim? it's just knowing WHICH John is being mentioned,it's called the GOSPEL,meaning "Good News"& to Christains as myself,Jesus IS the BEST news ever,..but i don't understand what claim,i've made?...
:: sigh :: YOUR claim that John's gospel doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus so people would know that John the Baptist didn't write the fourth gospel. What is the basis for THAT claim, Toonful?
It's not my CLAIM,the Bible was God inspired,use your brain,just look how confused about 99% of people that go to"church"everytime the door opens,most believe they gonna fly outta here"rapture"but it's not in God's word...study,ask God to help u understand,but remember this,He will only give you what you're able to handle,so,patience will be the key.He'll let you know when He knows you're ready...
Again, what I have asked you is the basis for your claim that John's gospel doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus so people would know that John the Baptist didn't write the fourth gospel? Please answer the question you've been asked.
interesting point, which seems to confirm the likely order of writing of Mark Matthew Luke John. Its interesting re. the Baptist how Josephus has a passage about him which seems unobjectionable (not an interpolation etc). Seems like he was a better-known figure in his day than Jesus was. By that way, I would be interested to know what you think of these very liberal Christians like Crossan. Do you entirely warm to them, or get a bit irritated with them..
..for the way they cling to Christiantity in name while not really believing in pretty much everything that Christians have traditionally believed. I personally think the ultra-liberal Christian position is a bit unsatisfactory - like they just can't ditch the label, even though they have pretty much just made it into Humanism
I see. I had a phase where I was exploring the most liberal kinds of Christianity, but which I later rejected along with the traditional kinds. I would include Crossan under this - in this video for example, he talks bout some of his beliefs with another leading liberal Christian, Marcus Borg. I agree though that - as far as I remember - more than some other liberals Crossan writes books that have interesting historical information and speculation, not just vague theological talk
in this video he says it's all too easy for atheists to debunk the God of traditional theism, but that's like thinking you can debunk Christmas by proving there's no Santa -- "thanks but most of us worked that our some time ago", he says. Instead we should see God as the ground of being, or the very essence of "beingness." Crossan and Borg here accuse atheists of being too negative and not having a sense of wonder
Using your logic, Jesus was baptized before He was born because His geeaology follows His baptism in Luke three. Luke does this because he was talking about John the Baptist's ministry and he added that Jesus was also baptized by John. Now, he didn't say that, but in the context it is his clear meaning.
"Using your logic, Jesus was baptized before He was born because His geeaology follows His baptims in Luke three."
Well, no. A genealogy is not an event.
"...he added that Jesus was also baptized by John."
The passage doesn't say he was baptized by John, though, does it? No. I'm perfectly willing to concede that there is ambiguity and the author of Luke may well have meant that Jesus was baptized by John, but he doesn't say it. At the very least, John's role is minimized.
oh im not referring to you if that is what your question implies. based upon my own experience of reading it's just funny b/c for example i would have never noticed that certain gospels have john in prison, and never say john baptized jesus. hope that is clear lol!
no prob. glad to clear things up. hey have you considered making vids on how the bible came to be what it is? you know like who wrote what, why certain things were edited, or whole books taken out etc. ?
Source criticism seems to undermine any sort of problem that can be drawn from this. The problem is that Luke very evidently borrowed from Mark (see: The Synoptic problem & 2-source hypothesis), and John clearly was written for people who had already read/heard Mark (see: Bauckham, 1998, The Gospels for All Christians)
You made an interesting point which leads to all sorts of questions. The earliest copies of Mark have no resurrection, for instance. The Wedding of Canae is only in John's. Indeed the first three are called synoptics (having one view) & differ from John in many ways. The real question is: who wrote The Gospels? Luke was a Greek physician, follower of Paul, neither one ever met Jesus in person. Mark is John Marcus, a follower of Jesus but not one of the 12, etc..ever read The Gospel Of Thomas?
That is amazing, Prof! I didn't realize how the gospels evolved on the matter from Mark to John until you spelt it out like that! Fascinating! Thank you so much! I am reading that book one day.
Yeah, John Shellby explains this evolution. In Paul, Jesus became son of God through resurrection, in Mark and John, he becomes son of god in baptism (this is my son), in Matt. & Luke he is son of god through conception of HS (virgen conception), and finally through John, Jesus was always the son of god who became flesh. Neat ah?
In the Peshitta, the original Aramaic/hebrew bible, it clearly states that John baptizes Jesus in the Gospel of John. Also John is mentioned by name in the other gospels as the one that baptizes Jesus.
foxylord 6 days ago
@foxylord "the original Aramaic/hebrew bible"
There is no "original Aramaic/[H]ebrew" New Testament.
ProfMTH 5 days ago
Comment removed
foxylord 5 days ago
Comment removed
foxylord 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProfMTH @ProfMTH Oh but there is.It is called the Peshitta, and was created within 10 years of the death of Jesus. The 12 apostles, and their own disciples are the ones who created it.
The Syrian Orthodox Church have fiercely kept it pure, and untouched by the westernized Greek and Latin texts, which are in fact translation riddled texts.
foxylord 5 days ago
This is one video I missed ...
Just when you thought there were no more plot holes in The Bible - along comes this 4-year-old video!
jazzx251 1 week ago in playlist Debunk Christianity
Idk. It depends. If one states contradictions, they generally either want it changed or attributes it to the person being wrong. That's what's in the bible. Contradictions. Many religions have contradictions so that it can be said to hold any, and every stance. Something that is almost exclusively used by charismatic dictators or rulers to make everyone happy with lies. It depends.
Darty105 2 weeks ago
I'm amazed how a man can spend his whole life talking about something he doesn't believe in. It never cease to amaze me.
73geneva 2 months ago
@73geneva if someone was deprogrammed after being at a moonie compound, would they be "amazing" if they spent their life talking about it to help others? god is going to send all you christians to hell for being so smug
pinkus44 2 months ago
@pinkus44 Honestly, I don't have the slightest idea of what you're rambling about. ...deprogrammed after being at moonie compound.... What are you talking about?
"...god is going to send Christians to hell..."
Well, I guess you're His Special Adviser on Hell Matters and you'll tell him to grant your desire. How about that?
73geneva 2 months ago
@73geneva it sounded to me, i'm sorry if i was wrong, that you were implying that profmth, as an athiest, would be wrong to concern himself with the idea of god. well, profmth was at one time a believer - a real one - so that is the correlation to the moonie compound - believing in ANY thought system is a form of brain washing including christianity and brother mth is sharing his testimony to help other people not to be cowed by cosmic terror.
pinkus44 2 months ago
@73geneva i think i have a better chance at being god's special adviser on hell matters than most people like you cats
pinkus44 2 months ago
“After the people were baptized, Jesus also came and was baptized by John. And as Jesus came up from the water, Heaven was opened, and He saw the Holy Spirit descend in the form of a dove and enter into Him. And a voice from Heaven said, ‘You are my beloved Son; with You I am well pleased.’ And again, ‘Today I have begotten You.’ -- Epiphanius, Panarion 30:3 & 30:13 Indicates that Jesus was NOT begotten by God until AFTER baptism.
EnnoiaBlog 2 months ago
John also doesn't mention communion at the last supper. I imagine that he leaves out baptism and communion because he thinks they're silly, unnecessary rituals. Notice that when the Jewish leaders ask John the baptist WHY he baptizes, John doesn't even answer the question. John 1:24-27 “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Messiah, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”
“I baptize with water,” John replied, “but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me" etc.
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
The Jesus tradition shouldn't be uneasy about John the baptist being seemingly superior to Jesus because Jesus putting himself last is one of the main themes of the Jesus story. All the gospels talk about it. John's gospel talks about Jesus washing his disciples' feet. Matthew, Mark, and Luke repeatedly talk about the first making themselves last.
Jesus' baptism also doesn't mean that Jesus is sinful because baptism is NOT a washing away of sin. If it were, Jesus' death would be unnecessary!
KayBeeEee1983 3 months ago
The gospels do not contradict each other about Jesus' baptism. One is more explicit than another and John doesn't mention it, but that does not equate to contradiction. If Matthew said John baptized Jesus, and Luke said John DIDN'T baptize Jesus, that would be a contradiction. The gospel narratives may differ because they were written by diff people with diff perspectives at diff times, but that does not equal contradiction.
mjc1024 6 months ago
@mjc1024 It's been a while since I made (and watched) this video, but I don't believe it was my position that the synoptics contradict as much as they demonstrate a pattern of trying to explain and ultimately minimize the Baptist's role vis-a-vis Jesus. The fourth gospel (John) *does* have a very different story and says nothing about baptism.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH You know, I was reading through John again, and if you read carefully in ch1 v29-33, the baptism of Jesus IS in view. John says in v 31 that he did not know him but that he came baptizing with water so that he (Jesus) could be revealed to Israel. Then he states in v 32 that he saw the HS descend like a dove and remain on him. When did the HS descend on Jesus in the other gospels? When Jesus was coming out of the water during his baptism!
mjc1024 6 months ago
@mjc1024 "When did the HS descend on Jesus in the other gospels?"
At his baptism. But that doesn't settle the question for the fourth gospel. What you're doing here is running the four gospels together and, basically, creating a 5th gospel that no one wrote in order to paper over the fact that the author of John tells a different story. In the fourth gospel, Jesus is not depicted as being baptized by John.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Comment removed
mjc1024 6 months ago
@ProfMTH It is rather clear in v. 29-33 that John the Baptist is speaking in reference to his baptism of Jesus, given the descriptions from the previous gospels. The story is not told the same way because it was written by a diff author 30-40 yrs later. Why would you think that each gospel has to say the same thing? Now THAT would be suspicious. John focused more on Jesus' divine nature, while the others focused more on his humanity.
mjc1024 6 months ago
@mjc1024 "It is rather clear in v. 29-33 that John the Baptist is speaking in reference to his baptism of Jesus, given the descriptions from the previous gospels."
As I said, you're mashing together the gospels to create a 5th gospel that no one wrote but which comports with your belief that the Bible is consistent & inerrant. No where in the passage you've cited does it say John baptized Jesus. It's not there. By your own admission, you're importing it into the text from the other gospels.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
(con't) @mjc1024 "John focused more on Jesus' divine nature, while the others focused more on his humanity."
What, if anything, has that to do with the lack of a baptism story? Think about it.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
@ProfMTH I'm not mashing anything together. I'm simply comparing the narratives from each gospel. Each gospel has a different emphasis because it was written by a diff author. I don't understand why you have such a problem with this. Why do you think that each gospel has to say EXACTLY the same thing? In John's gospel, there is no explicit narrative of the baptism, only an implicit allusion to it. SO WHAT! It's not contradictory or problematic, just different.
mjc1024 6 months ago
@mjc1024 "I don't understand why you have such a problem with this."
Clearly.
"Why do you think that each gospel has to say EXACTLY the same thing?"
That's not what I've said, but I've grown weary of covering the same territory over and over with someone who it seems has his put his shields up against anything perceived to be a threat to the baseless belief that the gospels admit of reconciliation on all points.
"only an implicit allusion to it"
It's not.
ProfMTH 6 months ago
Ah John did quit his job as a repenter of sins after he met and followed Jesus. That what I think he said in his book.
UnitedPebbles 7 months ago
But it was in the book of Matthew. Maybe John doesn't want to offend God or as said in Matthew, doesn't feel the action is merit as in who is holier? But Jesus insisted anyway! so he did baptized Jesus!
UnitedPebbles 7 months ago
This is hardly to the credit of Crossan. It's been noted by almost every commentator, theologian, and text critic of note - conservative as well as liberal - for the last 400 years - and by many going back much further than that. If you're only just discovering it, I can only conclude you weren't that well read in the subject to begin with.
nothingmemorable 8 months ago
@nothingmemorable I discovered this line of thought through Crossan. I credited his work with bringing it to my attention. If I'm supposed to be impressed by your claim to have known that everyone knew about this "for the last 400 years," I'm sorry to tell you I'm not impressed. But no doubt you've impressed yourself and, I suspect, that's probably all that matters to you.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
Part 3: So your conclusion doesn't actually make "perfect sense" because you are reaching too broad a conclusion from too narrow a base. At best your "conclusion" is a wide open hypothesis based on your anti - Christian bias, which is no basis for making such an ASSertion at all.
ors712 8 months ago
@ors712 " This argument will only suffice if one is insistent on Johannine dependency on the Synoptic tradition."
Even if that were true, the fact remains that the author of the fourth gospel does not include anything about John the Baptist baptizing Jesus and tells a very different story about how the Baptist came to recognize Jesus.
"John does not include stories about Jesus casting out demons, a virgin birth, or the names of all 12 disciples."
You make one of my points for me...
ProfMTH 8 months ago
(con't) @ors712 ...i.e., that the fourth gospel presents a very different Jesus from the one portrayed in the synoptic gospels.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH Part 2: The language attributed to Jesus in John was perfectly at home in the Palestine of the early 1st century. The dead sea scrolls have given us a library of terminological paralells discovered for the Johannine Jesus. it is not far fetched to suggest that the evangelist uses this particular language to interpret Jesus within its terminology for a community who would have been familiar with these sensibilities. Your video has yet to prove convincing.
ors712 8 months ago
@ProfMTH Part 1: I wonder to what extent you recognize each Gospel as an individual work with a particular sensibility aimed at explaining Jesus to a community of believers with distinct theological tones who are not all from the same background. Your criticism is still unremoved from your subtle presupposition that John is dependent on the Synoptics. To champion the illegitimacy of Jesus by citing a few omissions misses the point of how an evangelist communicates to a particular audience.
ors712 8 months ago
@ors712 'I wonder to what extent you recognize each Gospel as an individual work with a particular sensibility aimed at explaining Jesus to a community of believers with distinct theological tones who are not all from the same background."
There's no doubt that each gospel is an individual work & that the author(s) of each were sounding distinct theological notes and telling different stories. I'm kind of shocked (and, frankly, a bit dubious) that you actually wonder whether I recognize this.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
(con't) @ors712 "Your criticism is still unremoved from your subtle presupposition that John is dependent on the Synoptics."
As I said in my earlier response to you--do you actually read what I write in response to you or do you just stay on script no matter what?--even if the author(s) of the 4th gospel had nothing whatsoever to do with the synoptics, the fact remains that the author(s) do not have John the Baptist baptizing Jesus & tell(s) a very different story about how the Baptist...
ProfMTH 8 months ago
(con't) @ors712 ...came to recognize Jesus. For me, this isn't a problem because I recognize that these *are* individual works, that they're *not* the product of "inspiration" by the same god, and so on. Believers in divine inspiration have far less room to maneuver.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH I question whether you regard them as individual works seeing as how your methodology of establishing legitimacy of each Gospel ultimately rests on how much they differ from one another. Since you claim that they are individual works, your degree of criticism is unwarranted, yet you still proceed as if they are all written to be carbon copies of another (which i'm sure would arise more suspicion from you). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
ors712 8 months ago
@ors712 You're pretty much just repeating yourself, which indicates that you're not listening.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
@ProfMTH If your main point is that there are differences then bravo, point taken. Whether these differences are as destructive to the faith of Christians as you make them out to be is another issue. I have no problem admitting that at times the Christian picture presents moments of tension. I'm not sure how or why that should destroy someones faith. Perhaps it says more about the "type" of faith the person "had" before they "lost" it
ors712 8 months ago
@ors712 "If your main point is that there are differences then bravo, point taken."
Well, it's one among several points. Of course, as you no doubt, many of your coreligionists deny that there are any differences. So, it's important to remind them that their belief is just that: an article of faith with no grounding in the reality of the Bible.
"Whether these differences are as destructive to the faith of Christians as you make them out to be is another issue."
Quite right. That's...
ProfMTH 8 months ago
(con't) @ors712 ...a far more complex case that I've been building here on YouTube in a body of video work, not just one video.
ProfMTH 8 months ago
Part 2: This argument will only suffice if one is insistent on Johannine dependency on the Synoptic tradition. For John does not include stories about Jesus casting out demons, a virgin birth, or the names of all 12 disciples. One must be willing to examine the material which guides the information which IS given in the gospel, namely theological emphasis.
ors712 8 months ago
Part 1: Your claim "this makes perfect sense" after reading Crossan's book would merit consideration only if you could make a substantial scholarly claim that the author of John omited the baptismal story specifically on the basis of his uneasy feelings about the baptism. Crossan conveniently fails to point out that the current state of Johannine studies is one where scholars are questioning whether John knew of the synoptic Gospels or whether his tradition was dependent on them at all.
ors712 8 months ago
To say that John does not record the baptism of Jesus is just a lie. John "seeth"Jesus. If he is in prison how did he see Jesus? God gave him a sign of the Spirit remaining on him. So this one you allowed a heretic to fool you. John 1:29-34
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth "To say that John does not record the baptism of Jesus is just a lie."
Then quote the passage(s) in which the Gospel of John presents the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. I know there are passages that say John the Baptist *saw* Jesus. But 'saw' =/= baptism.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I already have. What is John called? John the Baptist. Get it. I thought about it afterwards and realized how silly this video is. To say that John the Baptist does not baptize Jesus is profoundly dumb.
He sees Jesus coming to him. Why did he come to him then? Why did God give him John a sign? Please grow up on this one. Please come back to reality.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth " I already have."
No, you haven't. Cite the passage(s) in the Gospel of John that have John the Baptist baptizing Jesus.
"He sees Jesus coming to him."
John 1:29-34 does not portray John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. Moreover, it reports that the Baptist did not even know who Jesus was the first time he saw him (it has John say twice, "I myself did not know him"), while, by contrast, when Jesus approaches John for the 1st time in the Gospel of Matthew, John the...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @RepresentingTruth ...Baptist knows him immediately--before the Spirit appears or any of the rest--which is demonstrating by the Baptist's saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” These are very different stories. I'm sorry you're having trouble seeing this obvious fact.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Then what happen in those verses? Give a detail of account of why John said what he said in those verses.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth I did in the video. I'm still waiting for you to cite a passage in the Gospel of John that depicts John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. The fact that you're assiduously avoiding it demonstrates that you can't. And of course you can't: there is no such passage in the 4th gospel.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH So I am confused. Do you believe that John baptized or not. If he saw the spirit come upon him when did this happen? You don't make any sense.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth Nothing to be confused about. I've shown in the video (and the follow-up)--and anyone could determine just from reading the four gospels side-by-side--that the gospels tell different stories about this. The primary difference is between the synoptics and John, with the latter dropping the baptism from the story entirely. You can't cite a single passage in the fourth gospel that has John the Baptist baptizing Jesus. And there's a reason you can't: there is no such passage.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH I will focus on the more important things like the atonement. However, John did see Jesus come to him. Why is that so? Maybe there is an answer. Second, God gave a sign to who? John the Baptist. What was the sign? Why would God give him a sign that came to pass at Jesus baptism if John the Baptist did not baptize him? If you claim it was not John prove by scripture who did it since Jesus was baptized.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth " However, John did see Jesus come to him. Why is that so?"
In the fourth gospel, the story does not tell us.
"God gave a sign to who? John the Baptist. What was the sign? Why would God give him a sign that came to pass at Jesus baptism if John the Baptist did not baptize him?"
You're running all four gospels together as if they were one big gospel--in essence, you're writing a 5th gospel. In the 4th gospel, Jesus is not baptized.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH So what happen in John 1:29-34?
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
@RepresentingTruth Read the verses. They tell you what happened.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
This is pure BS (being Stupid) First of all Mat and Mark fine. In Luke's gospel simple shows the fate of John the Baptist. In fact Mark mentions after the baptism of Jesus he was put in prison Mark 1:14 In Luke3 verse3 18-20 sums up many things he did and why he was put in prison. Just as Judas who betray him was called that even before it happen.
RepresentingTruth 1 year ago
The Mandeans, whom were based in Iraq for the better part of two millenia, consider John the Baptist (or Yahya ibn Zakariyya) to be their prophet, while they consider Jesus as a false messiah.
Vexille1983 1 year ago
John the baptist did not want to baptise Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus was not a Jew. Jesus was baptized by John the baptist and I'd be willing to bet that a man of letters like yourself has no Idea in who's name John baptized Jesus in. You probably don't know in who's name John baptized Jewish men only?
Downfacingdog 1 year ago
@Downfacingdog "John the baptist did not want to baptise Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus was not a Jew."
So the New Testament is wrong about Jesus being a Jew, is that correct?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
"This is the truth of God: Jesus came by the Spirit into the world. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan, in this way, Jesus took all the sin of the world on Him and He must die on the cross. Word of God says: the wages of sin is death. Every man is born with 12 sin in his heart, but by the Spirit and the water and the blood Jesus has accomplished salvation. The faith of God is the Spirit and the Water and the blood. Amen God bless. "
benjaminlovespuma 1 year ago
"John's Gospel drops Jesus' baptism out of the story entirely."
Not entirely at all. John 1:32 has John the Baptist tell of an unmistakable detail of the baptism, the Spirit coming down like a dove (Mark 1:10, Matthew 3:16, Luke 3:22).
John's Gospel takes for granted that the baptism happened and alludes to it in past tense.
highwind8124 1 year ago
@highwind8124 "John the Baptist tell of an unmistakable detail of the baptism, the Spirit coming down like a dove (Mark 1:10, Matthew 3:16, Luke 3:22)."
It's a detail of Jesus baptism only in the synoptic gospels. The story in the Gospel of John not only doesn't include a baptism of Jesus, it's very different from the stories told in the synoptics. E.g., in Matthew 3:13 John the Baptist immediately recognizes Jesus (before he's even baptized and the dove descends) and tries to talk Jesus...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @highwind8124 ...out of being baptized. By contrast, in John, the Baptist said that he didn't know who Jesus was *until* he saw the Spirit descend on him (John 1:33, "I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit’"). The stories are obviously different and the tradition is trying to work out what to do with John the Baptist.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
"It's a detail of Jesus baptism only in the synoptic gospels."
So you would assume that the writer of the Gospel of John has his fingers crossed hoping no one reads the other three Gospels, and that John the Baptist, who's job it is to baptize, just happened to be a bystander while Jesus was being baptized and the Holy Spirit was seen descending like a dove.
highwind8124 1 year ago
@highwind8124 You're combining the baptism stories from the synoptic gospels with the story of John the Baptist having Jesus' identity revealed to him in the Gospel of John. I've shown you some of the differences. But, of course, such facts don't matter to you because they don't comport with your core beliefs that the Bible is inerrant, that the gospel writers are all telling the same story, & so on. So you do what so many believers do, i.e., you write a 5th gospel that mashes it all together.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
"I've shown you some of the differences."
???
highwind8124 1 year ago
@highwind8124 "???"
See the comments above *and* the video.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Luke 3:19-20 is being misread. Luke is explaining after 3:18, while on the subject of John the Baptist, mentions what ultimately happened to him, and then proceeds with the narrative.
You can even tell this by the use of the words. Luke 3:19 - "BUT when..." as if to contrast with the prior sentence, referring to a different when.
Luke 3:21 jumps back "when all the people were being baptized", an easy reference to Luke 3:16 "I baptize you all..."
But some forbid this.
highwind8124 1 year ago
Sorry pal, but it says in John 3:21, "Jesus, also BEING BAPTIZED and praying, the Heaven opened".
Never said when.
I have checked many of your video's and so far I have seen almost nothing but you tweaking the scriptures to make them look bad. You are a fraud, and a very dishonest person to be doing such.
Tell me this, according to the Bible, how many animals did Moses gather to the ark?
johnlewisbrooks 1 year ago
@johnlewisbrooks "Tell me this, according to the Bible, how many animals did Moses gather to the ark?"
I didn't know Moses gathered animals to an ark. Perhaps you mean Noah?
EruditeScythian 1 year ago
@johnlewisbrooks "Sorry pal, but it says in John 3:21, "Jesus, also BEING BAPTIZED and praying, the Heaven opened"."
John 3:21 says, "But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God." What are you talking about?
"You are a fraud, and a very dishonest person to be doing such."
Feel free to refute the cases I have laid out in each video. If the above-quoted is a sample of how you do...
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(con't) @johnlewisbrooks ...refutation, I must confess, with all due respect, that I'm not all that concerned.
"Tell me this, according to the Bible, how many animals did Moses gather to the ark?"
Moses had an ark? Do you read the same Bible everyone else reads?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH
Ok, so you actually were paying attention. I asked you a trick question on purpose. There are so many people here on youtube, atheist or otherwise, who claim they know so much about His Word, yet when asked simple things they themselves cannot answer.
Another one. How old does Genesis say the Earth is? Most people will say 6,000yrs. I say II Peter 3:5.
johnlewisbrooks 1 year ago
@johnlewisbrooks Err, you answered the wrong person. I was the one who corrected you about Moses.
EruditeScythian 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Honest mistake...
Sorry pal, but it says in LUKE 3:21, "Jesus, also BEING BAPTIZED and praying, the Heaven opened".
Never said when.
I have checked many of your video's and so far I have seen almost nothing but you tweaking the scriptures to make them look bad. You are a fraud, and a very dishonest person to be doing such.
Tell me this, according to the Bible, how many animals did Moses gather to the ark?
johnlewisbrooks 1 year ago
@johnlewisbrooks "Ok, so you actually were paying attention. I asked you a trick question on purpose."
Don't waste my time or yours posting bullshit here. If you've got something to say in refutation of the video, then say it. Otherwise keep it moving. Thanks. :-)
ProfMTH 1 year ago
(John 13:23, 19:26)
Need I remind EVERYONE there was also a disciple named John?
John The Baptist more than likely isn't the author of the Gospel Of John, but Jesus follower who may or may not have witnessed many of the events.
But I also doubt it was John the Baptist because he was busy getting his head cut off.
Kinda hard to see a pen and paper without a head, right?
johnlewisbrooks 1 year ago
I never noticed that John couldn't have baptized Jesus in GLuke. Nice catch!
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@PissedFechtmeister Well, I think he *could* have in Luke, but Luke's use of the passive voice there is at least an attempt to minimize John, if not move him off the baptismal stage entirely.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
20Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.
21NOW when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
KJV of luke 3
wen it says NOW, Luke was writing of what happend before John the baptised was put to Jail. The 2 vers's dont go together. reading Mat 3;4 Jesus was led up by the Spirit, He fasted for 40days and nights. and right after that is when Jesus had heard that John the baptzd was put into prison.
reflectinglight87 1 year ago
@ProfMTH lol
InFluXadVenT333 1 year ago
Comment removed
lstdy 1 year ago
@lstdy "When John said that the baptist was baptizing, he knew his audience already knew the story of the baptism."
Really?! However could you possibly know that to be the case?
"It might be wise to take a freshman comp class or a rhetorical criticism class."
Be assured that I've taken both. You might do well to acquaint yourself with New Testament scholarship as it's presently constituted rather than looking for apologetic refuges from it.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
ProfMTH, thanks for the link to this. This is certainly currious. A fine example of gospel contradiction, but what can be gleamed from this? By historical tradition the closer to an event an account is written the more more accurate it is considered in relation to the later writings (in this case mark being written first and john last). Of course the bible's in no way a history book so that may not be apt here anyway. In that context one may simply attribute this lack of gospel mention to
humanistheart 2 years ago
@humanistheart *bapstizim mention in the gospel of john' to loss of time, or more probable the evolution of the religion. John is also the only one to mention any pre-existance of jesus, at least as far as I know. He adds a lot of power and history to jesus. Perhaps an omen to the gospel of johns proto-gnostic origins.
humanistheart 2 years ago
Well, that's certainly possible, Humanistheart. But I think Crossan makes a persuasive case for the Jesus tradition's attempt to minimize John the Baptist and eventually all but move him off the stage.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
You shouldn't concern your self with the idol chatter of men. All that is good is within Mathew and John, these are the two olive trees Jesus speaks about, who's word brings forth good fruit, whose seed sprout forth hardy fruit trees also. Between the two, you have the truth of Jesus Christ and of Our Father, the Lord God, Yahweh. See that you do not deceive or be deceived, as the kingdom is at hand, and truth will set you free. Say what you need to say. The Lord is calling his children. Seek
MovinbackStBernard 2 years ago
I haven't a clue what you're struggling to say here or what it has to do with this video, MovinbackStBernard.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@MovinbackStBernard
Your 'christ' did not fullfill the messianic prophicies, in any way. Applying the term christ to him is extreamly dishonest.
humanistheart 2 years ago
our present knowledge of 1st century hebrew litterature makes us place the gospel of john and revelations predate the other gospels. much less helenised.
so your theory is ......old.
zebb1111 2 years ago
What?! lol I haven't a clue what you're struggling to say here, Zebb1111.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I'm saying that Johns gospel is the least hellenistic Gospel therefore the oldest Gospel. the church saw Jesus as the sacrificial pascal lamb from the beginning..so the other Gospels added to Johns mystical text. Theology, requires that you actually read the bible. John starts after the baptism. by the time marc wrote his Gospel, no one in greece even cared about j the baptist. its inclusion in the Gospel is probably based on truth. no agenda needed. these men died for their words. no agenda.
zebb1111 2 years ago
First, if when you say "these men died for their words" you mean to say the writers of what have come to be regarded as the canonical gospels, we have no idea what happened to them. We don't even know who they were. Second, you're the first person I've ever seen identify the Gospel of John as the first of the four. I'm not aware of any evidence that supports that claim.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Mark was the first of the synoptics, we know this because Mathew and Luke use it as a source. John isn't really datable because it doesn't use the others as a source. It might be the first written, or the last. What is certainly clear is that the other gospel writers hadn't read John or, failing that, didn't use it as a source in any way
underpantsjihad 2 years ago
@underpantsjihad There are a number of parallel passages between John and the Synoptics. He used at least one of them as a source. IMO it was Matthew since everywhere there's a parallel with the Synoptics there's a parallel with GMatthew.
PissedFechtmeister 1 year ago
@zebb1111
Zebb, historians date John as the last of the 4 primary gospels to be written. Why dont you look it up?
humanistheart 2 years ago
John says he has a specific purpose to his gospel (v. 20:31) and explicitly says he doesn't include everything : "Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (Jn 21:25)
So you really have no point here.
LogosApologia 2 years ago
"So you really have no point here."
LOL! It's no wonder you believe your god magically dispatches tornadoes.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
@ProfMTH I'm glad you stand corrected on the John the Baptist canard. non sequitir aside
He does dispatch tornados. I suggest you repent. Here's the long answer to that
v=6jSEmXKgMcQ
LogosApologia 2 years ago
@LogosApologia
"I'm glad you stand corrected...."
Only in your very fevered imagination.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ProfMTH According to Josephus, John was imprisoned in Machaerus, east of the Dead Sea (Antiquities 18.5.2). This did not occur until sometime after the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Jn. 3:22-24), but Luke mentions it here in order to conclude his section on John's ministry before beginning his account of the beginning of Jesus' ministry (Matt. 4:12; Mk. 1:14). He later briefly alludes to John's death (Lk. 9:7-9).
Henok30 2 years ago
@Henok30
A plausible take on the events as they're portrayed in Luke. That doesn't diminish my overall point that John the Baptist and the story of Jesus being baptized are explained away, diminished, and (with respect to the baptism) dropped from the story as the Jesus tradition moves forward.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
well as you noticed in the gospel john is last and you would have known about his baptism in the first 3 gospel .....hahahahahahahahh
DocumentaryGuy 2 years ago
That doesn't address the issue I raised in the video.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Since your problem is the baptism in John I guess I have an ace:)
Jesus told to Nicodemus "no one can enter in the kingdom of God unless.... referring to the baptism. Clearly that infers even to Himself than that's why he told John the Baptist we have to do to fulfill righteousness. Anyway if you accept the idea it is not my problem, I know that Jesus was baptized and regarding the other stuff I could study the cases. I posted this because I was trying to help:)
docbible 2 years ago
John, in my modest opinion, was not interested in giving us details on why he wrote his Gospel. He just wrote it! It is evident that 80% is new material and he wants to gives us a broader understanding of the of Atonement, the eternal mission of Jesus, his mortal mission, the last supper expanded. John, follower of the Baptist, doesn't mention Jesus' baptism because it is already recorded but adds the Jews talking regarding his authority, why? Because it implies that the Rabbis were waiting 3
docbible 2 years ago
I think the answer is very simple. John wrote his Gospel many years after the synoptic Gospels and he did it just to fill the gaps of them in fact 80% of John Gospel contains new perspective and a lot doctrine he didn't rewrite what was already in place:)
docbible 2 years ago
So you're suggesting that the author of John opted not to address things that the authors of the synoptic gospels had already addressed?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Sure. Take a look at when the Gospels were written and when John wrote his. Also look John is explaining in details the preexistence of Jesus. Mention a wedding in Cana previous his preaching and above all he writes 5 chapters about the last supper and many other things. Also if you take a look after Cana he mention the cleaning of the Temple which took place the last week of his minister. He was filling gaps!
Docbible
docbible 2 years ago
It's an interesting idea, one that many have proposed. However, what do you make of the fact that the author of John doesn't exclude everything the synoptics address, e.g., Jesus' clearing the Temple (although John places it at different time in Jesus' life than the synoptics). Ultimately (and with all due respect), I think you're arbitrarily assigning a project to the author of John (i.e., filling in gaps) that the author never claims for himself in an effort to make the differences...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...between John and the synoptics seem unproblematic.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
It is important to ask ourselves these questions. I cannot prove my points but just because John didn't wrote about Jesus' baptism it doesn't mean it didn't happen, we have already 2 witness for that and according to the Bible they are more than enough:)
docbible 2 years ago
The Rabbis were waiting 3 different important people, Messiah, Eliaj and a prophet. He mention a wedding in which Jesus' mother is in charge! Nicodemus,one leader of the Sanhedrin, becoming a disciple. He proves that Jesus is Yavhe, not the Father. his brothers didn't believe in him before, they believed after his resurrection. The born blind proves preexistence. Lazarus' resurrection after 4 days and his relationship with his sisters. What about Joseph Arimatea? Can I prove it? No! and you?:)
docbible 2 years ago
"just because John didn't write about Jesus' baptism it doesn't mean it didn't happen"
Nor have I argued that. Rather, I've presented Crossan's argument regarding how the Jesus tradition deals with the baptism over the course of the gospels. If Jesus existed -- and I believe he did -- I suspect the baptism *did* happen and that, like a number of details in Jesus' life, required some apologetic massaging.
"we have already 2 witnesses for that and according to the Bible they are more...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...than enough. :)"
Odd that you're not applying the same rule to, e.g., Jesus' clearing the Temple, the crucifixion (which, of course, John places on a different day from the synoptics -- another "gap" being filled?), and a number of other things that John discusses along with the synoptics.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Comment removed
highwind8124 2 years ago
Indeed.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I went to a site that had estimates from like 15 scholars for when each NT book was written. There seemed to be a range of more than 40 years for each one. How do you know in what order the Gospels were written?
tifforo1 2 years ago
First comment. Like your insights. So, there is one that may be here but I haven't read 181 comments. Anyway. Why does John, while in prison, ask if Jesus is the one if he saw what Matthew states? Ref: Matthew 11:2-3. It seems a silly question. Like when you read Matthew 3:16-17, tell me who heard the voice? It's absurd to think that it was not signs to John. Watching your videos from back to front and think you're doing fine. Oh, and I subscribed but, alas, I don't log in without reason. Thanks
AlVlen 2 years ago
Welcome to the channel and thanks for your comments. You ask good questions here, questions I've raised before about the John story. However, believers don't seem to have any answers. Imagine that.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Mat 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
Mat 3:14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
Mat 3:15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.
NickMudge 2 years ago
John doesn't state it explicitly because that was not the purpose of his writing the gospel. Luke had already written a historical account but John was intent on confirming that Jesus was the Son of God. However it is quite clear from John's account of John the Baptist's witnessing of the Spirit descending on Christ that he undertook the baptism of Jesus.
NickMudge 2 years ago
"John doesn't state it explicitly...."
Let's just be clear here, Nick: the author of John doesn't even *imply* that Jesus was baptized. It's dropped out of the story entirely by the time the fourth gospel is written.
"However it is quite clear from John's account of John the Baptists's witnessing of the Spirit descending on Christ that he undertook the baptism of Jesus."
No, it's not clear at all. The Baptist merely talks about a sign he was given. Nothing about baptism is said.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Mar 1:9,10 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove.
NickMudge 2 years ago
Yeah, I know what the *other* gospels say, Nick. The gospel attributed to John doesn't tell that story. Did you watch the video?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
It simply doesn't contribute anything substantial to your theory of revisionist tendencies in the early church though.
NickMudge 2 years ago
And yes I did watch the video. You have swallowed a red herring in terms of the timing of John's arrest! Check out John 3:23,24 and the rest of the chapter. John was still a free man and even then was proclaiming the superiority of Christ!
NickMudge 2 years ago
The John's arrest thing in Luke is a take-it-or-leave-it sort of thing. I'm not firmly committed to that. The mere fact that the author of Luke uses the passive voice for Jesus' baptism rather than saying John did it is enough to demonstrate the minimization of John and the baptism as the Jesus tradition moved forward.
And just because the author of John still have the Baptist as a free man doesn't mean that the author of Luke does. You make a fundamental error to assume otherwise.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I disagree. Crossan makes a persuasive case for why the baptism story keeps getting modified and eventually dropped.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Just because John doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In fact, if it did mention it, it might be odd. If you have four people talking about something from each of there perspectives, they might not see it. Jesus says that it must happen, so it happens. Only Jesus really knows why I suppose, but I'm willing to trust Jesus on this one! The Lord of the world.
MrJeffrey316 2 years ago
"Just because John doesn't mention it, doesn't mean it didn't happen."
What it means, at the very least, is that it didn't happen in the Johannine version of the story. And in this video, I talk about Crossan's argument about why the baptism doesn't appear in John. It seems you may have missed the point of this video.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
yeah,it happened & the reason the Gospel of John don't mention it,was so people would know it wasn't John the baptist ,that wrote St.JOHN or the 3 episles,& or the great book of Revelations ,the diciple that Jesus loved...have a blessed day...
toonful 2 years ago
On what do you base this claim, Toonful?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
what claim? it's just knowing WHICH John is being mentioned,it's called the GOSPEL,meaning "Good News"& to Christains as myself,Jesus IS the BEST news ever,..but i don't understand what claim,i've made?...
toonful 2 years ago
"what claim?"
:: sigh :: YOUR claim that John's gospel doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus so people would know that John the Baptist didn't write the fourth gospel. What is the basis for THAT claim, Toonful?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
It's not my CLAIM,the Bible was God inspired,use your brain,just look how confused about 99% of people that go to"church"everytime the door opens,most believe they gonna fly outta here"rapture"but it's not in God's word...study,ask God to help u understand,but remember this,He will only give you what you're able to handle,so,patience will be the key.He'll let you know when He knows you're ready...
toonful 2 years ago
Again, what I have asked you is the basis for your claim that John's gospel doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus so people would know that John the Baptist didn't write the fourth gospel? Please answer the question you've been asked.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
interesting point, which seems to confirm the likely order of writing of Mark Matthew Luke John. Its interesting re. the Baptist how Josephus has a passage about him which seems unobjectionable (not an interpolation etc). Seems like he was a better-known figure in his day than Jesus was. By that way, I would be interested to know what you think of these very liberal Christians like Crossan. Do you entirely warm to them, or get a bit irritated with them..
orlando098 2 years ago
..for the way they cling to Christiantity in name while not really believing in pretty much everything that Christians have traditionally believed. I personally think the ultra-liberal Christian position is a bit unsatisfactory - like they just can't ditch the label, even though they have pretty much just made it into Humanism
orlando098 2 years ago
I'm impressed by Crossan's scholarship. I've not really given any thought to his personal beliefs.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I see. I had a phase where I was exploring the most liberal kinds of Christianity, but which I later rejected along with the traditional kinds. I would include Crossan under this - in this video for example, he talks bout some of his beliefs with another leading liberal Christian, Marcus Borg. I agree though that - as far as I remember - more than some other liberals Crossan writes books that have interesting historical information and speculation, not just vague theological talk
orlando098 2 years ago
/watch?v=b80UXZi7F74
in this video he says it's all too easy for atheists to debunk the God of traditional theism, but that's like thinking you can debunk Christmas by proving there's no Santa -- "thanks but most of us worked that our some time ago", he says. Instead we should see God as the ground of being, or the very essence of "beingness." Crossan and Borg here accuse atheists of being too negative and not having a sense of wonder
orlando098 2 years ago
Using your logic, Jesus was baptized before He was born because His geeaology follows His baptism in Luke three. Luke does this because he was talking about John the Baptist's ministry and he added that Jesus was also baptized by John. Now, he didn't say that, but in the context it is his clear meaning.
pasnitro 2 years ago
"Using your logic, Jesus was baptized before He was born because His geeaology follows His baptims in Luke three."
Well, no. A genealogy is not an event.
"...he added that Jesus was also baptized by John."
The passage doesn't say he was baptized by John, though, does it? No. I'm perfectly willing to concede that there is ambiguity and the author of Luke may well have meant that Jesus was baptized by John, but he doesn't say it. At the very least, John's role is minimized.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
it is so funny that you read the bible over and over again and don't notice what is sitting right in your face.
lawskiner 2 years ago
And what might that be, Lawskiner?
ProfMTH 2 years ago
oh im not referring to you if that is what your question implies. based upon my own experience of reading it's just funny b/c for example i would have never noticed that certain gospels have john in prison, and never say john baptized jesus. hope that is clear lol!
lawskiner 2 years ago
Ah! Gotcha. OK. Thanks, Lawskiner.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
no prob. glad to clear things up. hey have you considered making vids on how the bible came to be what it is? you know like who wrote what, why certain things were edited, or whole books taken out etc. ?
lawskiner 2 years ago
I've done a bit of that here and there in various videos. I may well do a series on it though. Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
Source criticism seems to undermine any sort of problem that can be drawn from this. The problem is that Luke very evidently borrowed from Mark (see: The Synoptic problem & 2-source hypothesis), and John clearly was written for people who had already read/heard Mark (see: Bauckham, 1998, The Gospels for All Christians)
migkillertwo 3 years ago
Comment removed
migkillertwo 3 years ago
By Allah, I have read the NT so many times and preached out of it and never noticed this. Thanks guy!
torresut 3 years ago
You're welcome.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
You made an interesting point which leads to all sorts of questions. The earliest copies of Mark have no resurrection, for instance. The Wedding of Canae is only in John's. Indeed the first three are called synoptics (having one view) & differ from John in many ways. The real question is: who wrote The Gospels? Luke was a Greek physician, follower of Paul, neither one ever met Jesus in person. Mark is John Marcus, a follower of Jesus but not one of the 12, etc..ever read The Gospel Of Thomas?
kidcalabria 3 years ago
That is amazing, Prof! I didn't realize how the gospels evolved on the matter from Mark to John until you spelt it out like that! Fascinating! Thank you so much! I am reading that book one day.
Antichrist4Life 3 years ago
Yeah, John Shellby explains this evolution. In Paul, Jesus became son of God through resurrection, in Mark and John, he becomes son of god in baptism (this is my son), in Matt. & Luke he is son of god through conception of HS (virgen conception), and finally through John, Jesus was always the son of god who became flesh. Neat ah?
torresut 3 years ago
Yes, that's another interesting thread in the Jesus tradition: when did he "become" the Son of God.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
He became the Son of God at the incarnation.
Acts238IsNotOptional 2 years ago
"He became the Son of God at the incarnation."
Romans 1:4 says otherwise, Acts238IsNotOptional.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
ProfMTH, are you a Christian, or are you just interested in what Christians believe?
Acts238IsNotOptional 2 years ago