Thread 18073418

Evidence points to Jesus as being a follower of John the Baptist, and at some point even being a rival to John.
>John 3:22-30.
The obvious question is, why would Jesus, free of sin, need to be baptized?
In addition, what was Jesus baptized into? Christianity wasn't a thing yet. Judaism doesn't have baptism.
In addition, Mary and Elizabeth were related which would mean that Jesus and John grew up together and shared the same context of upbringing and influences.
Lastly, Jesus did not begin his ministry until after John was imprisoned and many of John’s disciples became disciples of Jesus.

All of this points to Jesus as a continuance of John’s ministry and modern Christianity being an invention, for lack of a better word, after the imprisonment and death of John.

John said Jesus was greater than him

>>18073419
You mean a guy wrote, decades or centuries later, that John said so. Probably because there were John worshippers he wanted to shut up.

Jesus did not need to be baptized, nor did Jesus NEED to do ANYTHING. He got baptized to set a good example, simple as.

>>18073425
>baseless modern scholar nonsense with no evidence

good take anon!

>>18073431
>my priest said that his pope said that the latin translator wrote that the greek translator wrote that Luke wrote that Matthew wrote that Mark wrote that a guy wrote that a guy heard that John said that.....

>>18073431
When do you think that the John gospell was written?

>>18073440
During the life span of the apostle John, or very soon after by one of John's disciples.

The oral gospel of John started in 30ad when John met Jesus.

>>18073449
All the top results in Google say 70–130 AD. This is up to almost a century after Jesus died.

>>18073458
>all the top results of google

>baseless modern scholar nonsense with no evidence

I see no contradiction in my 2 statements, moron. Bro actually just sourced the top of Google AI

>>18073465
You are not a keeper of secret knowledge, and God didn't give you secret insight. Why do you pretend so?

>>18073469
>The oral gospel of John started in 30ad when John met Jesus.

Did I say the written gospel? you are very bright and intelligent and I really appreciate your effort and honesty.

>>18073473
You sure do be saying things. And I'm saying its wrong and you are retarded.

>>18073480
Hey buddy, lets all recall your previous argument

>All the top results in Google say 70–130 AD.

Good contribution, thanks for playing. I'll have a quarter pounder.

>>18073488
Unlike your "argument", mine is a fact, and a fact you can check. Just Google it.

>>18073418 (OP)
John is the old testament.

The new testament follows the old testament, and some see them as rivals.

Mary is the church.
Elizabeth is the oath.

The old testament is born from old covenents.
The new testament is born of a parthenon body.

The new testimony did not begin until the old testament was band, and those who use to be dsiciplined in their oaths, became disciplined in righteousness.

>>18073431
>>18073465
>scholars just say stuff arbitrarily with no basis
Very accurate and honest, anon, you definitely seem like you want to get at the truth (this is sarcasm).

>>18073497
If this is the same anon who sourced google top results I think you are not retarded

>>18073502
Different guy

The secular historian larpers have already poisoned the well by admitting they have never read a book on any of this and their source is google.

therefore for the purposes of this debate you have already lost, come back with proof that is not arbitrarily picked up this very moment for the purposes of winning the debate,

>>18073502
Is the Cambridge Companion to the New Testament a good source?

>>18073496
>John is Old Testament
>looks in New Testament
>John
??????

I’m gonna give benefit of the doubt that English isn’t your first language, because otherwise this post is schizophrenic.

>>18073525
>come back with proof that is not arbitrarily picked up this very moment for the purposes of winning the debate

Nothing you say can recover you from admitting you are debating with google. I don't care about anything you say

>>18073527
different anon, correctly understood John is from the old covanent because he is before Jesus, that is what foreigner anon mean't by that post

>>18073532
Google is a way to parse information. The sources are the results in Google. I gave a source, as you are begging for authority instead of substance. Is Cambridge enough authority?

>>18073521
Whatever you need to do to cope and ignore evidence.

>>18073521
>no arguments
>no facts
>just feels and retreat
Another notch on my blade *tips fedora*

lol the destiny redditors are mad i wont argue with their post-hawk google evidence. Losers

Nobody is mad, but you're desperately trying to cope and it's sad to see

lol he got his faith shattered and lost his religion by googling something

>Another notch on my blade *tips fedora*

>Nobody is mad, but you're desperately trying to cope and it's sad to see

>lol he got his faith shattered and lost his religion by googling something


Reddit, i think we have a problem.

r/christianity bros i think we have a problem

>>18073542
IMO the Cambridge citation provides an accurate date for the gospel of John’s writing (in the earlier part of that, c. 70-100), because there is Church tradition that John didn’t write his gospel until very near the end of his life explicitly stressing the divinity of Jesus as God to battle the Gnostic heresy that just started gaining traction.

I don’t agree on Cambridge’s assessments of the other canonical gospels being post AD 70 though. There are IMO strong arguments to be made that they’re from before then, at latest with Luke finishing his gospel when Paul was executed c. 64, with Matthew and Mark being written some decades before that.

>>18073584
>21:24 - This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

Why would John write this? Who is "we" here?
It makes more sense that disciples of John wrote this, and need credability.

>>18073584
What are those strong arguments? Because most biblical scholars are putting Mark and Matthew way later than that.

>>18073418 (OP)
>all the evidence from book A point to hypothesis 1
Actually here's a verse from book A pointing to hypothesis 2
>thats not true because book A is unreliable

I'm betting on Muslim.

>>18073608
>the infallible text is contradicting the infallible text
>you are a muslim for pointing it out

>>18073613
anti muslim was saying

All evidence from bible points to john baptist baptize jesus
actually there is a verse from bible that point to quran
thats not true because bible is unreliable

i think

>>18073613
I don't believe in infallibility.
>>18073642
The argument went:
>Jesus was a follower/rival of John the Baptist because he was baptized by him and John's disciples followed Christ after John's death
But John the Baptist says Jesus is greater than him
>the gospel of John is unreliable because scholars say it was written 50-100 years after christ.
>(ignoring that John says this in all 4 gospels)

Muslims use the same argumentative style to argue that the Bible points to Muhammad and the Quran - but when you point out the contradictions between the two, the Bible is suddenly corrupted and unreliable and no longer qualified to appeal to.

>>18073535
John the Baptists IS the Old Testament, in a symbolic and functional sense

>>18073605
One argument I’d give is the gospel of Luke, because it was written as the first part of a 2 part book/collection. That second part is the book of Acts. The book of Acts documents the journeys of Paul as Luke, one of his followers, journeys with him across the Roman world.

The book of Acts ends when Luke documents Paul being arrested by the Romans and sent to Rome to be put on trial, but the book ends on a cliffhanger of Paul waiting for his trial to start instead of going any further to describe the trial or Paul’s execution at the hands of the Romans. From Paul’s letters, those of the Church fathers, and a marble tombstone found buried in Rome, we know that Paul was eventually executed in Rome as a martyr. Given Luke was traveling with Paul and documenting his journey, him stopping right before Paul goes to trial and is killed is unusual for Luke, especially since he describes the deaths of several other followers of Jesus during their travels (Stephen, James the brother of Jesus, etc).

Thus it follows that by the time he sends the book to Theophilus (the guy the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are addressed to) the trial and execution of Paul didn’t happen yet, thus the date of writing Luke-Acts must be before his execution c. 64. Since Luke shares much material from Matthew and Mark, and those two gospels are believed earlier than Luke, then they by necessity must have been written earlier.

>>18073700
>John's disciples followed Christ after John's death
There is a group called the manaens who follow John the Baptist and call Jesus a false prophet.
>
Muslims use the same argumentative style to argue that the Bible points to Muhammad and the Quran - but when you point out the contradictions between the two, the Bible is suddenly corrupted and unreliable and no longer qualified to appeal to.
They use sometimes common sense to attack their religious enemies. But they don't use this common sense to justify their religion because that would show it being untrue.

>>18073959
*mandaens

>>18073996
*Mandaeans

>>18073418 (OP)
>All of this points to Jesus as a continuance of John’s ministry and modern Christianity being an invention, for lack of a better word, after the imprisonment and death of John.
Which Jesus are we trying to confirm? The king or the prophet? Were they even the same person?

Was he revolutionary or thoughtful? Militant or peaceful? Of course, not all contradictions are real if you break them down, but the fact is that we have very different directions that people in Syria, people in Jerusalem, people in Rome, and even people in Egypt took what we call Christianity today. At the time, did they even all agree that what they were practicing was the same movement, or did we later summarize these disparate groups as one group, and now with biased eyes we just project that unity onto them?

And once we've reached that point in the analysis, we also have to ask historically what we'd be looking for to satisfy the question of who he really was. We could be looking at a militant leader in Syria, a peaceful prophet who lived somewhere else but visited the region, a group in Rome who idealized and mythologized everything that happened, a group in Judea who mythologized everything that happened also (for different reasons).

There's a real psychosis going on here, I think.

>>18073418 (OP)
>Jesus was a follower
retard

>>18073418 (OP)
Enjoy Hell.

He was baptized so that when later his followers would be, it would be according to his own holiness. It is this holiness that is imparted via grace to the initiate in the sacrament, and leaves an indelible mark on their soul forever.

Through him, with him, in him.
Not complicated, they share this thing with him.

Anyways, baptism represents dying to this world and being born again for the next. So it's a fitting way for his ministry to begin.

Another thing is the biblical reference. The waters of the Jordan parted for Joshua when he led the Israelites into the holy land, and he commanded 12 river stones be taken as a monument. This is after he circumcised the children of the wilderness. Therefore, this water of the Jordan is identified with circumcision and baptism becomes the new circumcision for the church.

Jesus and Joshua are two forms of the same name, in Greek they are identical. Joshua is a prefigurement of Jesus, who fulfilled the promise.

>>18073418 (OP)
>>18074248
Seems like there could be a chance Jesus was a false prophet and not divine. How trustworthy are Mandaean texts?

>>18074214
not engaging with the question at all, just chanting mantras

>>18073584
Considering all the data we have indicates Christian Gnosticism only really started coming into its own by the mid 2nd century I find this tradition hard to believe.
>>18074910
Not very. They all post date Islamic conquest iirc. There is chance they did not venerate John the baptist before then.
Btw, Mandeans post date Jews.