John the Baptist

[Minimalist]

See above. I was editing.


Oh, and nice try at a derail but it has nothing to do with the bullshit which Drippy got called on. "John" (or whoever) indicates that JtheB was preaching at the same time as your godboy. The other 3 say he was not. Another of those fucking contradictions that cause you assholes so many problems.

[ronedee]

Since when was Pilate a king, or a Jew?

John that Baptist was concerned about the sins of the leaders of the Jewish people.

You should include your last statement about your own references.

Where did I say that Pilate was a king or a jew? He was Roman praefect of Judaea which was considerably higher than either at the time.

The only thing we know about JtheB was that he was killed. The rest of it is shit that you clowns have made up.

Unlike you, I do not need "references." Unlike you, I am capable of studying a document and reaching my own conclusions without some pervert priest telling me what it means. You should try it some time. You might find it liberating...but probably not. Sheep are happiest in flocks.

So, why is Pilate mentioned?

Because they were different political entities at the time. That is so simple a concept that even you should be able to process it.

What context is he mentioned in? There was NO REASON to use Pilates name.

Just admit that you screwed up minnie.

---

See above. I was editing.


Oh, and nice try at a derail but it has nothing to do with the bullshit which Drippy got called on. "John" (or whoever) indicates that JtheB was preaching at the same time as your godboy. The other 3 say he was not. Another of those fucking contradictions that cause you assholes so many problems.

You derailed yourself. Stick to your profanity.... you're a lot better at explaining.

[Minimalist]

A prefect higher than a King? By who's standards?

And when Caligula decided that "king" (actually tetrarch) had to go he was out on his kingly ear so fast it made his head spin. A king who rules by the sufferance of a higher power is not much of a king.

---

Stick to your profanity.

Its all you and your horseshit deserve.

[DeistPaladin]

That is so simple a concept that even [Ronedee] should be able to process it.

I've learned not to make any assumptions about what Ronedee can grasp.

[Minimalist]

Good point.

[John V]

Apologists try to claim that Antipas stole his brother's wife while Philip was still alive, pushing the dates of JtB's imprisonment to 27 CE. The three problems here, aside from this being an unsubstantiated ad hoc,

This is from wiki, so take it with a grain of salt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodias#Marriages

According to Josephus:

Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas[5]

[Minimalist]

Where did John "contradict this point flatly?"

That seems like a reasonable conclusion from John 3. I would question the declaration that "According to all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matt and Luke), Jesus only started his ministry after JtB was put into prison." That they don't mention ministry for a time doesn't mean that there wasn't any.

Um....

Mark 1

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted[g] by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Matty 4

12 When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he withdrew to Galilee. 13 Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali— 14 to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah:

15 “Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali,
the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles—
16 the people living in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.”[f]

17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Only in Luke is the message unclear.

[DeistPaladin]

That they don't mention ministry for a time doesn't mean that there wasn't any.

Well, if you're going to invoke this argument from ignorance, that Jesus had an entire ministry that the Synoptics chose to omit for some reason, then you also need to be prepared to claim that:

1. There were two baptisms by John the Baptist
2. That there were two times that Jesus drew Andrew and Peter into discipleship.
3. That there were two temple cleansings*

*Actually, apologists are already forced to make this claim, since John has Jesus kick off his ministry with this event while the Synoptics make it the conclusion.

And while you're at it, you can rationalize how prominent JtB is in the earlier, Synoptic Gospels and how irrelevant he became by the time John was penned. I've posted before how the Mandaens, the Jewish sect that followed JtB continued to be rivals with the early Christians for centuries. Evidently, followers of JtB didn't get the memo.

Mark begins with a put-down of JtB as being merely a forerunner of JC. This same tactic was used by Muhammad who claimed JC was his forerunner. It's a way to assimilate the religion you're in competition with.

Matthew has JtB sink further on his knees, expressing discomfort with the idea that he should baptize Jesus (Matt 3:14), since JC outranks him so much.

John doesn't have JtB baptize Jesus at all. JtB is completely submissive by this point in the evolution of JC's story.

It thus makes sense that the original Gospel writers needed JtB out of the way before JC could begin his ministry. By the time John was written, JtB was almost irrelevant to the story and could be shoved aside for JC to take center stage.

[DeistPaladin]

Josephus also makes it clear that Tiberius wrote to Vitellius which means that Vitellius was already in Syria before this brouhaha between Aretas and Antipas began. So 35 is the terminus ad quo. We also learn that on his march south Vitellius removed both Pilate and Caiaphas from office and Pilate's term ended in 36. It is unthinkable that Vitellius would have delayed so long in obeying Tiberius' orders if they had arrived in 35 so because of the established historical facts late 35/early 36 makes more sense for the incident with Aretas-Antipas.

Devil's advocate here:

Is it possible that JtB was arrested after the death of Philip but BEFORE Aratas' invasion? Thus making it possible for a start of JC's ministry around 34/35 CE?

[Minimalist]

Apologists try to claim that Antipas stole his brother's wife while Philip was still alive, pushing the dates of JtB's imprisonment to 27 CE. The three problems here, aside from this being an unsubstantiated ad hoc,

This is from wiki, so take it with a grain of salt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodias#Marriages

According to Josephus:

Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod Antipas[5]

From the same Wiki article....

Herod Antipas (born - before 20 BC; died - after 39 AD) was also the son of Herod the Great by his fourth wife, Malthace, and half-brother of Herod II. He was a ruler of Galilee and Perea, who bore the title of tetrarch ("ruler of a quarter"). He is best known today for accounts in the New Testament of his role in events that led to the executions of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth.

Antipas divorced his first wife Phasaelis, the daughter of King Aretas IV of Nabatea, in favor of Herodias. According to the New Testament Gospels, it was John the Baptist's condemnation of this arrangement that led Antipas to have him arrested; John was subsequently put to death. Besides provoking his conflict with the Baptist, the tetrarch's divorce added a personal grievance to previous disputes with Aretas over territory on the border of Perea and Nabatea. The result was a war that proved disastrous for Antipas; a Roman counter-offensive was ordered by Tiberius, but abandoned upon that emperor's death in 37 AD.

Phillip - or Herod II - or Herod Phillip apparently all the same person, died without a son which would have meant that his "kingdom" would have reverted to direct Roman rule. The marriage between Antipas and Herodias was meant to forestall that and unite the two territories under Antipas. For whatever reason, it seemed to be Roman policy whenever they could get away with it to have a member of the Herodian family ruling in Palestine. This would have been a marriage of state and Tiberius' approval would have been required. Josephus recounts that Antipas duly sailed to Rome and obtained that approval. BTW, these people would have been pushing 60 in a time when 60 was an advanced age. The idea that this was some sort of passionate love match is ridiculous. Like many state marriages, this was about money and power.

The situation is also not helped by the tendency of that dynasty to stick the name "Herod" onto everyone else's name or use the feminine form (Herodias) when it suited them. Rather than try to sort that nonsense out it is simply easier to keep track of what the Romans were doing as we have coins, inscriptions and historical references for them.