The Jesus Itinerary

[DeistPaladin]

There is no unbroken day-by-day chronology of events in the Johannine Gospel which would prevent Jesus from having been out in the wilderness prior to John 1:29.

What Bible are you reading? JtB makes it clear he is seeing JC for the first time at that point. JC couldn't have had his wilderness adventures with Satan prior because the Synoptics maintain this happened after his meeting with JtB.

John
1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me
1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;

I don't know how he could be more clear that this is the day the two met and the next day...

The text of John's testimony of a past event is plain enough to most Christians. But even if you find it ambiguous enough to re-interpret another way, you cannot shoe-horn in your abstract interpretation when it directly conflicts with the equally plain account in Mark which has Jesus in the wilderness for 40 days SOON after the baptism in the Jordan.

Mark uses the word "immediately".

Answer this. Do you think the writer/presbyter of John was unaware of Matthew, Mark and Luke's accounts of the baptism?

OK, note to you and John V, I'm not responsible for reading the minds of the original authors, who's very identity is highly dubious in the first place, knowing what they actually knew and accounting for why they fucked up as badly as they did or why the early Christians failed to notice it. All I'm responsible for in this debate is reading what's written in the pages of your scripture and pointing out what contradicts and where.

That said, yes, it is quite possible that the author of John was either unaware of the other accounts or simply dismissed them as "wrong". Just as it would make no difference to you if I were to show you "look, the Bible and the Koran contradict each other about what Jesus said", it would make no difference to the early Christians to point out contradictions between the different Gospels.

Try to imagine that for a moment. Someone says to you, "look, the Bible and the Koran contradict each other about what Jesus said."

I'm guessing you would shrug and say, "yeah, so?" You could care less what the Koran has to say about Jesus, right?

Now you understand what early Christians must have thought of Gospels that were not the ones they preferred and why contradictions between them were of no concern to them.

There... was... no... New Testament!

There... was... no... single... unified... "early Church".