Who was Jesus anyway?

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it was an invention to solve the problem of why John baptized Jesus that means that the writers of the Gospel accounts were not too concerned about the truth. And if they were not too concerned about the truth then why would they even include that it was John who in fact baptized Jesus? Why not just lie and say Jesus baptized John? Why would these writers who care not for the truth, hurt their story like this? You'll find this kind of intrinsic evidence throughout the Gospels, which in fact strengthens the view that they were simply reporting what they had experienced and saw even if it meant adhering to facts that hurt their story. When I say hurt their story I mean they include facts that might make it harder for readers to believe in Christ as the Son of God, like John baptizing Him.

Off the top of my head two possible explanations come to mind.

(1) John the Baptist was a well known figure in 1st Century Judea, a bit of a celebrity. The Gospel authors wanted Jesus to be associated with John so didn't cover the story up. By having a relationship between John and Jesus lended credibility to Jesus.

(2) The story of John baptising Jesus may have been very well known at the time. Perhaps ommitting it would not have been a valid option as so many people knew about it.

Schuhart

Charco wrote: »

I do think that during the early years of Islam it is quite possible that various non-orthodox Christian communities converted and brought their understanding of Jesus into the Islamic faith.

That sounds perfectly possible, and it would seem quite certain that the Quran is written in a context where Christian and Jewish communities are a well known feature of the landscape.

Soul Winner wrote: »

if they were not too concerned about the truth then why would they even include that it was John who in fact baptized Jesus? Why not just lie and say Jesus baptized John?

In fairness, just to go some way towards your point, I would agree that some parts of the Gospel do raise the thought in my mind of 'that's hardly helpful to the message', which does make me feel the author is trying to respect the story that he believes to be true. For me, the prime example is the way it seems quite clear that, during his career, Jesus saw himself delivering a message to the Jews. Its only after his death that, with a touch of Deus ex Machina, he comes back to say 'now I want you to spread the message to everyone'.

This makes me sympathetic to the view that early Christians, frequently in the face of persecution, did their best to keep an accurate account of the sacred message they believed they had been given. But, you'll understand, there is still a large distance between accepting their sincerity and believing they were correct in their sincerity.

aidan24326

robindch wrote: »

Have a read of Patrick Tilley's 1981 book, Mission.

I'll check it out!