Jesus Followed John

[Vinnie]

How do conservatives reconcile the historical reconstruction that Jesus was inititally a follower of John the baptist? Does the Lord incarnate following a religious leader, undergoing his baptism, defending him after his death and so on but then later breaking from his ministry into his own seem a little problematic? Long before the baptism became a divine-foreordained necessity (Matthew) Jesus endured a baptism for the repentence of sins (see GMark). What gives?

And as arguments that Jesus was a follower of John the baptist I cite this paper I just wrote as evidence.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/baptistchrist.html

Vinnie

[Amazing Rando]

How do conservatives reconcile the historical reconstruction that Jesus was inititally a follower of John the baptist? Does the Lord incarnate following a religious leader, undergoing his baptism, defending him after his death and so on but then later breaking from his ministry into his own seem a little problematic? Long before the baptism became a divine-foreordained necessity (Matthew) Jesus endured a baptism for the repentence of sins (see GMark). What gives?

And as arguments that Jesus was a follower of John the baptist I cite this paper I just wrote as evidence.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/baptistchrist.html

Vinnie

I don't see what the big deal is, even if you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus did follow John for a time. Certainly he didn't spring from his mother's womb knowing all there is to know. I see no issue with Jesus as a person changing over time.

Oh, and on a side note, congratulations to me on this, my 1000th post.

[bar Jonah]

I don't see what the big deal is, even if you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus did follow John for a time. Certainly he didn't spring from his mother's womb knowing all there is to know. I see no issue with Jesus as a person changing over time.

Oh, and on a side note, congratulations to me on this, my 1000th post.

Vinnie, I have no interest in clicking on your link. We don't make arguments by hyperlink here at TW. If you want to make a case, you need to make it here.

[Vinnie]

Vinnie, I have no interest in clicking on your link. We don't make arguments by hyperlink here at TW. If you want to make a case, you need to make it here.

First: Its my own article I just wrote. Ergo I am not guilty of argumentation ad hyperlink. There is no functional difference whether I reprint it here or you click. THe real difference is that it saves me some time in formatting the page to make the arguments ubb friendly.

Second: Don't click the link if you don't want to. Answer from the assumption that Jesus was a follower of John and he broke away into a different mission. How would you handle that?

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

I don't see what the big deal is, even if you can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus did follow John for a time. Certainly he didn't spring from his mother's womb knowing all there is to know. I see no issue with Jesus as a person changing over time.

Oh, and on a side note, congratulations to me on this, my 1000th post.

Do you believe in inerrancy? Try reading the Lukan infancy narrative.

Yes it says Jesus grew in wisdom after this event below but check it out:

46After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you." 49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

At age 12 he is already astonishing TEACHERS with his answers and questions. This is of course pure Lukan fiction but I digress.

The point being that these "historically accurate" gospels seem to present a more discerning Jesus. Plus if Jesus makes mistakes, could one then correct their Lord and savior on say a doctrinal point? What if I felt window shopping was okay and their was nothing wrong with lust?

In fact, since Jesus is prone to changing his mind, theology and so on, maybe he inaccurately predicted the second coming as well? He expected an imminent return. I guess he was just wrong. Afterall, thee is nothing wrong with Jesus making doctrinal mistakes according to you.

Vinnie

[Amazing Rando]

At age 12 he is already astonishing TEACHERS with his answers and questions. This is of course pure Lukan fiction but I digress.

The point being that these "historically accurate" gospels seem to present a more discerning Jesus. Plus if Jesus makes mistakes, could one then correct their Lord and savior on say a doctrinal point? What if I felt window shopping was okay and their was nothing wrong with lust?

Again- I don't think Jesus sprung forth from his mothers womb knowing not to poop in his swaddling clothes much less knowing all the secrets of the universe.

It's my personal belief that Jesus led an entirely normal life up until about the time he was baptised and left home to go into the ministry. He was extremely well-read in the Hebrew scriptures when he was a child, and was very wise for his years, but that doesn't mean he wasn't just an average ordinary guy prior to launching into his ministry.

In fact, since Jesus is prone to changing his mind, theology and so on, maybe he inaccurately predicted the second coming as well? He expected an imminent return. I guess he was just wrong. Afterall, thee is nothing wrong with Jesus making doctrinal mistakes according to you.

Vinnie

Hey Vinnie, if Strawman Smiting were an Olympic event, you'd be the gold medalist. Did I say he made doctrinal mistakes? Maybe try actually practicing a little humility and listening to the other person before you jump to wild conclusions about what they said.

[Solly]

"How do conservatives reconcile Vinnie's historical reconstruction"

"Answer from Vinnie's assumption that Jesus was a follower of John and he broke away into a different mission"

"This is of course pure Vinnie fiction"

"I guess Vinnie was just wrong"

Oh for the day when sceptics do their homework, instead of always telling us what we believe, or what we should be believing.

[Amazing Rando]

Oh for the day when sceptics do their homework, instead of always telling us what we believe, or what we should be believing.

[jpholding]

How do conservatives reconcile the historical reconstruction that Jesus was inititally a follower of John the baptist? Does the Lord incarnate following a religious leader, undergoing his baptism, defending him after his death and so on but then later breaking from his ministry into his own seem a little problematic?

No.

In the social world of the Bible one received one's identity from others, not from one's own individual searching out of personal identity as we do in the modern West. Associating himself early on with Johnny B's ministry was a way for Jesus to achieve a corporate identity in the eyes of others and associate himself with specific aims (here, the inbeaking Kingdom of God). In other words, to associate himself with John, even as a disciple, would have been the proper way to integrate himself into that society, Lord incarnate or not.

[Reader]

No.

In the social world of the Bible one received one's identity from others, not from one's own individual searching out of personal identity as we do in the modern West. Associating himself early on with Johnny B's ministry was a way for Jesus to achieve a corporate identity in the eyes of others and associate himself with specific aims (here, the inbeaking Kingdom of God). In other words, to associate himself with John, even as a disciple, would have been the proper way to integrate himself into that society, Lord incarnate or not.

Indeed, and this identification of Jesus with John was ordained by God, who revealed the purpose of John to his father, Zacharias, before he was born:

". . Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people for the Lord." Luke 1:13-17
Jesus Christ followed John to fulfill the prophecy of Malachi 4:5&6.

Jesus Christ followed John by ordination of the Father.

Jesus Christ was baptized by John to fulfill all the Law of God; John in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, anointing Christ as Priest.

Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were related; probably cousins through their mothers. (Luke 1:36)

But the Gospel of John was the message of Christ, come from God. Jesus did not follow the teachings of John, but embodied the teachings of John, as John himself confessed:

"John answered, saying to all, 'I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit . . ." Luke 3:16

Jesus did not worship John, but John worshiped the Lord Jesus Christ; even in the womb:


"And it happened when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe (John) leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit." Luke 1:41

[Jaltus]

I do not know if I'll ever say this again, but I would have said pretty much what Reader said.

Vinnie,

Inerrantists are not stupid. In fact, some of us are pretty smart people. We can defend what we believe and why we believe it quite well. Instead of assuming we are stupid, you would be better off just asking a question. Believe it or not, some of us have studied critical theory and yet rejected radical critical conclusions. How do you know that Luke wrote fiction, especially when it is recognized in scholarship that Luke wrote one of the most historically tight books that is extent from Hellenistic literature? As RightIdea would say, your presuppositions are showing.

[Reader]

I do not know if I'll ever say this again, but I would have said pretty much what Reader said.

[emulator]

How do conservatives reconcile the historical reconstruction that Jesus was inititally a follower of John the baptist? Does the Lord incarnate following a religious leader, undergoing his baptism, defending him after his death and so on but then later breaking from his ministry into his own seem a little problematic? Long before the baptism became a divine-foreordained necessity (Matthew) Jesus endured a baptism for the repentence of sins (see GMark). What gives?

And as arguments that Jesus was a follower of John the baptist I cite this paper I just wrote as evidence.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/baptistchrist.html

Vinnie

LOL

[Amazing Rando]

Thanks a lot guys!

I have a feeling Vinnie's going to be a little miffed when he discovers that we reacted to his hard-written article with a big collective "So what?"

[bar Jonah]

As RightIdea would say, your presuppositions are showing.

Exactly!

Egad, Vinnie! Cover yourself up, man!