What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[Minimalist]

Nah just an idiot.

In this instance, an idiot who does not know what "empirical" means.

[KUSA]

I dont know if you are aware but Christians typically deal with empirical data, not just blind faith.

More like empirical stupidity.

[DeistPaladin]

Nah just an idiot. [instead of a troll]
...

It's often hard to tell the difference.

[Minimalist]

Long association with him.

[watchamadoodle]

As I'm rereading "Lost Christianities" by Ehrman, a recurring them is celibacy. Even married couples were encouraged to be celibate.

This is a clue to Christian origins IMO. What pre-Christian groups practiced celibacy?

[Cato]

I dont know if you are aware but Christians typically deal with empirical data, not just blind faith.

I know we're only in early March, but this is without a doubt the absolute dumbest thing I've encountered in 2015.

[Godscreated]

On your part it's called manipulation to support what you want to believe,

Says the Christian apologist, who, by definition, begins with the conclusion and looks for reasons to believe it.

This is a show of your intellect. Prove I started from a conclusion, I like all others was not born a believer.

You've completely ignored the fact no baptism took place in those verses,

In fact, I pointed that out. He completely glossed over the baptism because JtB had, by that point, sunk so far onto his knees that the Christians didn't even want to give him credit for that.

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. He did not gloss over the baptism, he was answering questions put to him, we actually do not know when this conversation took place, except that it was after the 40 days.

John does mention the dove, though, which tells us that he was talking about the events around the baptism.

Of coarse he does, it's written for us to know, but there is no time that can be put to this other than it was after the 40 days, this ties all four Gospels together, I know you see this you're just to defensive to admit it.

John was answering questions that happened earlier.

Prove it.

John 1:19 And this is the testimony of John the Baptist, when the Jews sent priest and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" 20) He confessed , and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21) And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah." He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." 22) So they said to him, "Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23) He said, "I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said." 24) Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. 25) They asked him, Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" 26) John answered them, I baptize with water, but among you stands one you do not know, 27) even He who comes after me, the strap of whose sandal I am not worth to untie." 28) These things took place in Bethany across the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Now the next verse
29) the next day he saw saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!
The next few verses go on to explain how John knew who He was, this means by John's own explanation he had already baptized Jesus. Also in verse 26) John states Jesus is standing among them and they did not know Him. In verse 27) John states he is not worthy of the Christ, not only was he not worthy to tie Christ's sandals, he wasn't worthy to untie them.
John could not have know Jesus was the Christ unless he had already baptized Him and seen the dove land upon Him.

It's not me with the fevered imagination, I seek the truth for scripture, I've even questioned God about scripture, yet kept searching them until I was able to see the truth, without manipulating them,

You didn't answer my question.

To repeat, what do you base your assertions on aside from your imagination?

You're deflecting again, trying to lay all the questions at my feet will not get you any closer to proving your delusion. As far as I know I've answered all your questions and given verses for the base of my knowledge.

you blatantly took the verses out of order to make them say what you wanted them to.

No, I quoted the entire passage and then said, "OK, here he said this and there he said that." The entire passage is quoted for everyone to read and review for themselves.

Yes the verses were presented in order, then you took then and place them out of order to deceive those who you place yourself among, it's you who was trying to deceive the unbelievers here, you had no chance with the Christians, you first directed your explanation toward then, not Christians. Then you were called out on your deception.

Go back and look at every scripture I've discussed here and you'll see I do not use such tactics

But you do. You say, (paraphrase) "well, John wasn't giving us an order of events". You're making excuses for blatant contradictions rather than admit the contradictions exist.

John's whole Gospel was about the spiritual aspect of Christ, he did not care about having a step by step chronology of Jesus life. I'm not making any excuses, I do not have to, there are no contradictions. John is writing from the spiritual part of Jesus life. By the way I was speaking of all the scriptures I've argued here, not just in this thread.

What events, you've pulled up a few verses and not even used a context with them. poor on your part.

Oh sweet reason, you're going to make me read your Bible to you?

You believe you're being clever with your deflections, you're insulting the intelligence of most the unbelievers here.

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.

Like I said yesterday and today John could not have known who He was until after the baptism.

1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John is referring to what he said the day before.

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.

These verses plainly state that John was telling what had happened at an earlier time, more than the 40 days.

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.

John affirms that this is why he was able to tell them in verses 26 and 29) who the Christ was, this could have only happened after the baptism and the 40 days in the wilderness.

1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

John states, this is the Son of God who I saw the Spirit come upon.

1:35 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
1:36 And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!

This is the next day after John had identified Jesus as the Son of God, to those who were sent to question him, meaning the baptism took place at an earlier time, a time at least 40 days before these men came too question him.

1:37 And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.
1:38 Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
1:39 He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.
1:40 One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.
1:41 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
1:43 The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
1:46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
1:48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
1:50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
1:51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

These verses fall in line with the other Gospels, in one way or another.

I could go on but suffice to say, this is not only a timeline but one detailed enough that we get a day-by-day account.

Yes you are right, this is a three day event out of a three year ministry and the days are one after the other, yet they are after the 40 days in the wilderness. The 4 Gospels are consistent, unless you hold a bias against them to prove a point that doesn't exist and as such the point is at least a delusion and at worst a lie.

GC

[robvalue]

Ok well, Jesus is a smashing geezer. Quality bloke, we had a few pints, played some darts. Got some hookers, snorted some sand.

I told him what his story has been made out to be, well that cracked him up a good'n! Can you imagine? Some carpenter guy being told people think he's the son of God, and God, and he's going to sacrifice himself to himself to allow himself to change rules he himself made but which he refuses to change without first nailing up himself?

Well, once he stopped laughing, we punched a few peasants and called it a day.

Nice bloke.

[ManMachine]

Growing up as a Christian, I was taught that Jesus, the early Christians, and their early theology were the gold standard that modern Christians should follow.

Lately I've been wondering if they were all just a bunch of loony tunes, and anything positive in Christianity was added later after the religion became more respectable.

Any thoughts?

Early Christianity was a branch of mainstream Judaism, albeit a slightly weird one (as far as 1st Century Jews were concerned).

It's a bit like going to the future and finding scientology has become the mainstream religion and everyone thinks it's normal.

MM

[DeistPaladin]

Oh, the question of what Jesus was doing in the days after the baptism is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a reason Christians refer to the first three Gospels as "Synoptic", acknowledging that John sits oddly along side of them.

OK, let's assume you're correct that John was telling a retrospective of what happened earlier. This would make Jesus' appearance at least a second one, presumably after the 40 days in the wilderness but before JtB was put into prison. Jesus begins to gather disciples and starts his ministry. Not only does Jesus not wait for JtB to be put away before he starts his ministry, he starts a rival baptism business and beats JtB at his own game.

3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
3:24 For John was not yet cast into prison.
...(JtB speaks about "he must increase but I must decrease")...
4:1 When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

Yet when I read the Synoptic Gospel accounts, Jesus is baptized, Jesus goes into the Wilderness, JtB is thrown into prison, Jesus starts his ministry. He doesn't gather disciples until after JtB was out of the picture.

1:13 And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, ... 1:16 Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
1:17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. 4:12 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; ... 4:18 And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

4:13 And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
4:14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.

So in your retcon of John chapter 1, when did JtB have the opportunity to have his second meeting with Jesus when he says "behold the lamb of God"? When did he have the opportunity to baptize along side Jesus at Salim? In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus gets back from the Wilderness and hears that JtB was put into prison. You'll probably say that some time passed between Jesus' return from the Wilderness and the imprisonment of JtB, long enough to allow for that second meeting, but even so, Jesus in the Synoptics doesn't start his ministry or gather the disciples Simon and Andrew until after JtB was put away.

Now all of this makes sense if you read the Gospels not as a consistent timeline but a work of fiction that gets better with the telling.

John was clearly written much later than the other Gospels, evidenced not just by the more theologically advanced Jesus who proclaims himself one with his father but also by how "the Jews" are constantly referred to as a separate and rival religion. The Synoptics write of "the priests", "scribes" or "pharisees", apparently written at a time when the emerging Christian sect had not yet fully split off into its own.

JtB's nature also changes in John's Gospel. In history, JtB had his own following that clearly dwarfed the one of Jesus, as evident by how his ministry gets a mention in history while Jesus' did not. Strangely, there was no mention of JtB being a warm-up act for anyone to come and his followers continued to be rivals to the early Christians. The first three Gospels were written to assimilate JtB, have him kneel before Jesus and then get out of the way so Jesus could take center stage. However, in John's Gospel, JtB is so insignificant and submissive that there is no need for him to get out of the way. He remains on the stage so Jesus can show how awesome he his by beating him at his own game, racking up more baptisms with JtB as his cheer leader.

So even granting your whole apology that JtB was offering testimony of an earlier meeting, the Synoptic Gospels don't allow for Jesus to start his ministry or gather disciples prior to JtB's arrest and hence, the two different stories still fail to mesh.

This is a show of your intellect. Prove I started from a conclusion, I like all others was not born a believer.

Correct. You were indoctrinated to believe. Apologetics, by definition, is the art of defending the faith. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence and against all evidence. You start with the faith, meaning you have no evidence, and then practice apologetics, which is looking for reasons to believe the things you already believe by a process of faith. And the great thing about this fallacious approach to defending the faith is no matter what you believe, you can always find reasons to believe it by selectively looking.

This is not just my opinion. This is the definition of faith and the definition of apologetics, the defense of the faith.

So it is pure psychological projection when you accuse skeptics who simply pick up the Bible and read what is there with a critical mind (the same critical mind by which you would read anyone else's sacred scriptures) of reading the Bible with an agenda. Skepticism is not an agenda. Apologetics, by definition, is.