The Jesus Itinerary

[DeistPaladin]

Your theory is an argument from silence. Where are your Mandaean historical texts to the contrary?

What?

B. Only some of the early followers of John the Baptist didnt follow Jesus.

Prove any of them did follow Jesus. Good luck.

Your theory assumes that John the Baptist told them Jesus was not the Messiah and they were obeying him.

No. My "theory" comes from reading history. That's what the followers of John the Baptist believed. That's why they were followers of John the Baptist.

C. Huge numbers of Johns' early followers DID then become followers of Jesus.

Prove it. Good luck.

D. John the Baptist, (the Old Testament Jew) was preaching repentance and baptism for a very specific reason.
Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Make straight paths. If not Jesus then WHO????

That's what the Bible says he said, all right.

[DeistPaladin]

I propose Option #3, D-P. "Jesus" was a much later interpolation into the story.

Baby steps, Min. Baby steps. He's still unable to wrap his head around the concept that the Gospels didn't accurately depict the teachings of John the Baptist. Just notice his floundering on his "counter points".

[Minimalist]

He has to recover from his baby brain, first.

[Lion IRC]

Your theory is an argument from silence. Where are your Mandaean historical texts to the contrary?

What?

Yeah. Thats what I thought.
It's OK. Kids do that too as a defence mechanism when asked....did you eat all those cookies?

B. Only some of the early followers of John the Baptist didnt follow Jesus.

Prove any of them did follow Jesus. Good luck.

Now you are being disingenuous.
YOU were the one who was basing a theory on rival followers. Jesus' followers versus John the Baptist's followers.
Man that is lame!

Your theory assumes that John the Baptist told them Jesus was not the Messiah and they were obeying him.

No. My "theory" comes from reading history. That's what the followers of John the Baptist believed. That's why they were followers of John the Baptist.

I have asked you to consider the likelihood that a very small number of Johns early followers (a.k.a. Mandaeans) may have not heard John the Baptist speak of Jesus because they werent there with John the Baptist non-stop 24/7/365 and that is why they, (unlike people who DID see and hear John speak with and to and about the Lamb of God) remained unconvinced about the Messiah. The Christ. The One who John the Baptist must have been thinking of as he was calling people to repent and be baptised - a voice crying out in the wilderness exactly the way Isaiah had.
You STILL havent answered me on this. Whose advent was John preaching about?

C. Huge numbers of Johns' early followers DID then become followers of Jesus.

Prove it. Good luck.

Now you are being disingenuous. AGAIN!
YOU were the one who was making assertions about Jesus' followers versus John the Baptist's followers.
Man that is lame! I'm leaving this thread.

D. John the Baptist, (the Old Testament Jew) was preaching repentance and baptism for a very specific reason.
Prepare ye the way of the Lord. Make straight paths. If not Jesus then WHO????

That's what the Bible says he said, all right.

Amen.

bye.

[John V]

This is a deliberate mistranslation, as I recall. The Tanakh gives it a present tense(no messianic future tense express or implied), and further, the 'counselor, Mighty god...' bit are actually adjectives describing yahweh who then 'called him prince of peace'. (Reversal of word order.)

It wouldn't surprise me if you've heard this. Charges of mistranslation are a main strategy of Jewish counter-missionaries. I used to debate one. However, if you check their claims against a mainstream Tanakh, the counter-missionary is usually the one deliberately mistranslating.

My Jewish Publication Society 1985 Tanakh has it:

For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
The Mighty God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler."

While there are differences, this Jewish version also calls the child "The Eternal Father," supporting my essential point.

[DeistPaladin]

Yeah. Thats what I thought.
It's OK. Kids do that too as a defence mechanism when asked....did you eat all those cookies?

Why don't you try stating a coherent argument and I'll answer it. "What" means you failed to do so.

YOU were the one who was basing a theory on rival followers. Jesus' followers versus John the Baptist's followers.

It's not conjecture. It's history. Hell, it's current events.

I have asked you to consider the likelihood that a very small number of Johns early followers (a.k.a. Mandaeans) may have not heard John the Baptist speak of Jesus because they werent there with John the Baptist non-stop 24/7/365 and that is why they, (unlike people who DID see and hear John speak with and to and about the Lamb of God) remained unconvinced about the Messiah. The Christ. The One who John the Baptist must have been thinking of as he was calling people to repent and be baptised - a voice crying out in the wilderness exactly the way Isaiah had.

...and I have already answered this. The conjecture of yours that the followers of John the Baptist missed the CORE MESSAGE of his teachings and made of a completely different fantasy about him seems as likely as the followers of Jesus deciding that Jesus' message was to worship Jupiter and Poseidon.

You STILL havent answered me on this. Whose advent was John preaching about?

Who's advent was Jesus preaching about if not Muhammad? After all, Jesus came as a forerunner for Muhammad, right?

Oh, that's right, you don't believe what the Koran says about Jesus. Now you understand how I feel about you citing the Bible to understand what John the Baptist was preaching.

YOU were the one who was making assertions about Jesus' followers versus John the Baptist's followers.

And once again, there are no bare assertions here. The followers of John the Baptist thought that JtB was the messiah. They didn't think John the Baptist was a mere forerunner any more than YOU consider Jesus to be a forerunner of Muhammad.

Try really hard. Think for just a minute about how you feel about Muslim claims that Jesus was a forerunner of Muhammad.

...

Concentrate on that for just a moment.

...

Think hard. I know it's difficult but even atrophied muscles can be rehabilitated.

...

OK, now you understand what the Christians did to the followers of John the Baptist.

Man that is lame! I'm leaving this thread.

Try putting together a coherent argument and maybe you won't be so frustrated.

[Minimalist]

Concentrate on that for just a moment.

You ask for much, D-P!

[Einharjar]

I just read up this whole thread.
It's amazing how many brick walls one can talk too in a single debate.

I'll say this however, as an ex-Christian? Taking the historical context of the Bible literally is a mistake at times. Obviously, Genesis didn't really happen in 6 - 7 days and even the Bible gives doubt onto how any believer is to treat the historical time lines. Enter 2nd Peter, 3:8, the verse that says "A day to God may be a thousand years to man" (not a direct quote, just drawing from memory).

To my fellow new friends debating the constancy of the NT texts? Even if the historical facts are wrong, it wouldn't stop the Christian faith at all. Every Gospel generally has Christ repeating the same messages over and over. The moralistic and spiritual views are what's "important" to their faith, not the historical accuracy. This is why I know for sure that even when we are settling on entirely new worlds and have unified Earth under a single governing body without any signs of the Tribulation actually happening, the Christian belief will still go on, turning Christ into a western Buddha.
So, I'm just saying; arguing the logic of the Biblical scriptures is a pointless effort.
I could even go off and prove how the Judean faiths were simply evolution of older mythos but even then, that wouldn't convince any Christian of much at all.
And it's all because of the morals. Some of them, do in fact, make sense. I blame this on memetics.

Quote Ben Franklin who himself, was an Atheist. While he believed in no God nor the need for some Christ to save us from "sin", he did still, support the usage of "God" in the founding of the USA because of the Ethics that the Bible provides. Not all are good, but that time? It was better than most and was already in wide spread practice. What best way to translate new laws about Freedom of Choice than to utilize a religion that could other wise, do it for you? If the USA was founded by all Atheists, I dare say the country would have fell apart from the inside well before the Civil War even came to scratch old wounds.
That is a matter of a debate on a different thread though.
Cheers.

-=Ein=-

[Minimalist]

I just read up this whole thread.

Wow. You're a glutton for punishment. We're used to dealing with this collection of fools but you're a newcomer. I'm impressed with your stamina!

[Einharjar]

I just read up this whole thread.

Wow. You're a glutton for punishment. We're used to dealing with this collection of fools but you're a newcomer. I'm impressed with your stamina!

Haha, I try to give both sides some respect as to their argument. Now, obviously I'm against the religious theories but still; I try to be as unbiased as possible to the arguments themselves... least up until the point that it's simple mindless back peddling and denials.
For example, can't count how many times theists deliberately ignored the Herod-Quirinius paradox. Herod was alive at one time, Quirinius at another. A big problem in terms of the "accuracy" of the texts and depending on which one you choose, the purpose of the Manger, Bethlehem or fleeing to Egypt at all loses foundation.

Anyways. Onward!

-=Ein=-