Posted: Mar 01, 2010 10:34 am
If you were writing a back story for your hero, who else would be known for baptising?
And would you want your hero to be baptised by a nobody? Naturally not. Who did Meier expect 'Mark' to have baptising Jesus?
Of course , if Jesus had been baptised by somebody that nobody had heard of, Christians would simply claim that it must be historical, as arguments against baptism by somebody unknown to history are arguments from silence.
'If you know the story of Jesus being baptised by John, then you can read the account in the fourth gospel and think that it's pretty much like the other three gospels.'
Of course!
If John does not mention the baptism, then it is historical by the criterion of embarrassment.
If John does mention the baptism, then it is historical by the criterion of multiple attestation.
You lose again,atheist suckers! And no whining that the game is rigged!
And would you want your hero to be baptised by a nobody? Naturally not. Who did Meier expect 'Mark' to have baptising Jesus?
Of course , if Jesus had been baptised by somebody that nobody had heard of, Christians would simply claim that it must be historical, as arguments against baptism by somebody unknown to history are arguments from silence.
'If you know the story of Jesus being baptised by John, then you can read the account in the fourth gospel and think that it's pretty much like the other three gospels.'
Of course!
If John does not mention the baptism, then it is historical by the criterion of embarrassment.
If John does mention the baptism, then it is historical by the criterion of multiple attestation.
You lose again,atheist suckers! And no whining that the game is rigged!