How Did Belief In Jesus' Resurrection Get Started?

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

But that's just me. I can't imagine anyone doing such a thing in the name of their religion. What's kind of ironic is your last sentence basically answers the question for itself. Seems Elaine and I see some things in much the same way but we differ in our cart/horse arrangements.

 

mwc

I'm reminded of how when I was growing up in my parents' church, they used to teach us that if the day ever came that people barged into the church and put us to gun point and forced us to denounce our faith or die, we were supposed to die for our faith, but I've noticed that in recent years they haven't been preaching that anymore. I don't know if the congregation's official position has changed but they just don't discuss the subject in sermons anymore.

[Shyone]

I'm reminded of how when I was growing up in my parents' church, they used to teach us that if the day ever came that people barged into the church and put us to gun point and forced us to denounce our faith or die, we were supposed to die for our faith, but I've noticed that in recent years they haven't been preaching that anymore. I don't know if the congregation's official position has changed but they just don't discuss the subject in sermons anymore.

Maybe that scenario reminds people that churches have been invaded by gun wielding nuts and Christians have not been protected. Besides who wants to put ideas into the minds of some crazy paritioner?

[mwc]

I'm reminded of how when I was growing up in my parents' church, they used to teach us that if the day ever came that people barged into the church and put us to gun point and forced us to denounce our faith or die, we were supposed to die for our faith, but I've noticed that in recent years they haven't been preaching that anymore. I don't know if the congregation's official position has changed but they just don't discuss the subject in sermons anymore.

I was taught this in my school. Two basic scenarios. One much like the one you've described and the other in which we would have a mighty war against the evil doers and have to kill or die fighting. After all it's self-defense since "they" (ie. the "world") really want all us xians dead and so we'll die in the faith or kill for the faith (I guess it's not two so different things after all now that I've typed it out).

 

mwc

[ufred7]

The first part of Zeitgeist (movie) discusses the imagery that christianity borrowed from earlier mythologies. The reasons for death and resurrection of a savior are included as well as the reasons for the dates they are celebrated.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I find the whole death/ suicide by proxy (ie martyr) thing to be really creepy and always did. I usually ended up in tears in church when they talked about it. When I was a teenager I used to fantasize about being able to be killed for my faith. Due to all the talking I actually thought it was a possibility. I also thought that it was the only sure fire way I would get to heaven. When I was still a kid I used to hope to die before I was old enough to fall away since we believed children were saved through their innocence. Heh if thats true then I guess God is an asshole letting me live long enough to go to hell.

 

Having kids of my own makes me look back on my childhood with revulsion. I do not want them fantasizing about the glory of dying for god. Its all kinds of messed up.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

I find the whole death/ suicide by proxy (ie martyr) thing to be really creepy and always did. I usually ended up in tears in church when they talked about it. When I was a teenager I used to fantasize about being able to be killed for my faith. Due to all the talking I actually thought it was a possibility. I also thought that it was the only sure fire way I would get to heaven. When I was still a kid I used to hope to die before I was old enough to fall away since we believed children were saved through their innocence. Heh if thats true then I guess God is an asshole letting me live long enough to go to hell.

 

Having kids of my own makes me look back on my childhood with revulsion. I do not want them fantasizing about the glory of dying for god. Its all kinds of messed up.

[Neon Genesis]

When I was still a kid I used to hope to die before I was old enough to fall away since we believed children were saved through their innocence. Heh if thats true then I guess God is an asshole letting me live long enough to go to hell.

 

You should have taken the opportunity to commit as many sins as you could before you reached the Age of Reason and you wouldn't be held responsible:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qixXRkCNrtE

[orlando]

Have any of you read the letters of Saint Ignatius where he pleads with his fiends in Rome not to intervene with the Roman authorities because he wants to be eaten by the lions... pretty crazy stuff. Early Christianity was similar to Islam in that martydom was the only sure way to get to heaven...

[Guest Valk0010]

The first part of Zeitgeist (movie) discusses the imagery that christianity borrowed from earlier mythologies. The reasons for death and resurrection of a savior are included as well as the reasons for the dates they are celebrated.

Zeitgeist is BS enough said!!!!!!!!

[Neon Genesis]

According to Pagels, not all Gnostics believed Jesus' death was an illusion and some Gnostics believed Jesus literally suffered on the cross. She points out that what the Christian's view of martyrdom is is influenced by how literal they take the death of Jesus. The more symbolic the Christians view the death of Jesus, the less dogmatic their stance on martyrdom was. So like Christians who believed the human side of Jesus suffered but the Christ didn't might take a moderate approach and the Christians who rejected the belief Jesus suffered all-together might reject martyrdom all-together.

[Guest I Love Dog]

A cult movement doesn't delibrately lie.

 

To me how cults operate, and how religion, particularly in that kind of period, operate explains a bundle about xtainity.

 

I haven't really read much about it, but the little I have read, it seems plausible.

 

essentially the resurrection belief started out of a end times desire. I can't remeber the verses exactly, but on is Paul calling Christ, the first Fruits, and correct me if I am wrong there are some references in the letters of Peter, about people getting frustrated that the end times hasn't happened yet.

 

That and between mythological and oral tradition inaccuracy and some overjoyous neediness, you get the belief that Christ rose. Anything you could think of could describe it, because all the even most improbable natural situation is more probable then "God raised jesus."

 

Resurrection is an old story. You can research it. Many gods have been "resurrected" before Jesus times. It was the spin that the Romans put on their new-found "Christianity", anything to get suckers in. It worked, same as the virgin birth, another old theme.

[mwc]

According to Pagels, not all Gnostics believed Jesus' death was an illusion and some Gnostics believed Jesus literally suffered on the cross. She points out that what the Christian's view of martyrdom is is influenced by how literal they take the death of Jesus. The more symbolic the Christians view the death of Jesus, the less dogmatic their stance on martyrdom was. So like Christians who believed the human side of Jesus suffered but the Christ didn't might take a moderate approach and the Christians who rejected the belief Jesus suffered all-together might reject martyrdom all-together.

Is there anything specific you want me to take away from this (or that book in general since I do happen to have a copy of it)? She points out that people couldn't quite get their minds around the gnostic take and tended toward the more literal orthodox view. I believe she also mentions that having a group that literally came into contact with "jesus" (bodily both pre/post-resurrection) allowed them to monopolize the political power structure within the church (with such things as apostolic succession and the appointment of offices in general which allowed them to control the doctrines). So persecution/martyring ones self allowed the orthodoxy to ultimately form a more cohesive unit as opposed to the gnostics who simply wound up separating under the same circumstances.

 

Now, since you're reading it fresh I'm sure you can point out any errors I've made in my summary but I think that's somewhere in the ballpark. I'll go ahead and dig it out if you want to argue what she says but that seems a pointless tangent given the topic.

 

mwc

[mwc]

It was the spin that the Romans put on their new-found "Christianity", anything to get suckers in. It worked, same as the virgin birth, another old theme.

And to support this you have?

 

mwc

[orlando]

Yes, sorry, but it seems pretty clear that belief in the resurrection of Jesus started way before the Romans got interested in it

[Neon Genesis]

And why would the Romans create a religion like Christianity to control the masses when the Romans were already in control of the masses?

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

The same basic thing applies to the family of Jesus stating he's mad. Is this embarrassing?

 

 

 

The best example of the embarrassment criteria is the baptism of Jesus. Most Christians believe Jesus is the perfect son of God and had no sins but the gospels state Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist who baptized for the remission of sins. If it was proved Jesus had sinned and was an imperfect human being, it would disprove these Christians' entire claims that Jesus was the perfect son of God who was the perfect sinless sacrifice. Christians since the days of the early church knew the baptism of Jesus was uncomfortable for many Christians and have tried to come up with all sorts of explanations to justify why the sinless Jesus would need to be baptized, like how Christians claim Jesus was just being baptized as an example to Christians, not because he sinned. But nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus was baptized as an example for Christians and so it is more likely if Jesus did exist that Jesus did have sins and he was baptized for the remission of sins and the doctrine that Jesus was perfect and sinless is a later post-Easter Christian invention.

[sangheili_asylum]

I don't buy the whole "he was baptized to be an example to Christians" cause I mean how hard is baptism? It's not like it's a complicated process that demands instruction. Plus even if it WAS supposed to be an example, if he was sinless, it would be irrelevant cause it wouldn't be the same situation AT ALL.

[mwc]

The best example of the embarrassment criteria is the baptism of Jesus. Most Christians believe Jesus is the perfect son of God and had no sins but the gospels state Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist who baptized for the remission of sins. If it was proved Jesus had sinned and was an imperfect human being, it would disprove these Christians' entire claims that Jesus was the perfect son of God who was the perfect sinless sacrifice. Christians since the days of the early church knew the baptism of Jesus was uncomfortable for many Christians and have tried to come up with all sorts of explanations to justify why the sinless Jesus would need to be baptized, like how Christians claim Jesus was just being baptized as an example to Christians, not because he sinned. But nowhere in the bible does it say Jesus was baptized as an example for Christians and so it is more likely if Jesus did exist that Jesus did have sins and he was baptized for the remission of sins and the doctrine that Jesus was perfect and sinless is a later post-Easter Christian invention.

That's not an application of embarrassment proving something true but simply a case where embarrassment is applied in an attempt to prove something to be true. Do you have some examples of the criterion of embarrassment actually working? How reliable is it?

 

Anyhow, to look at your example briefly...

 

The author of G.Mark obviously thought his "jesus" needed to be baptized (for whatever reason). Apparently "other" xians were "embarrassed" by this.

 

Is it not equally likely that the author of G.Mark would have been "embarrassed" that "other" xians believed "jesus" *didn't* need to be baptized?

 

If G.Mark were to have been "embarrassed" which version of the story would that have made "true?" The one where "jesus" had to be baptized or the one where he didn't need to be baptized? Since we have no response from the Markan community I guess we're left to wonder (but this is true for most all but a few later orthodox writers).

 

As for me the baptism by John is as simple as needing the "blessing" of a prophet (just like in the OT stories).

 

mwc

[Neon Genesis]

I don't know what Mark's author would have thought about the later Christian belief of Jesus being a sinless being not needing baptism, but we do know early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Christian apologists like Justin Martyr defended the baptism of Jesus by arguing either Jesus did it to set an example for Christians or that he was baptized to purify the waters of baptism. But it's clear that the later gospels found something disturbing in Mark's account of the baptism of Jesus or else why do they change the narrative so much? Like in Matthew's gospel, there is no mention of John baptizing for the remission of sins. It only says that people who were baptized by John confessed their sins. It also adds in a dialog where John initially refuses to baptize Jesus and argues that Jesus is greater than him which to me clearly indicates of case protesting too loudly. Luke's account doesn't even want to talk about it and removes the dialog between Jesus and John all-together and simply states Jesus was baptized with no indication as to the reason why. John's gospel doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus at all, so unless they were embarrassed by the baptism of Jesus, why are these later gospel accounts clearly going out of their way to either rewrite the original account in Mark or ignoring it all-together?

 

As for me the baptism by John is as simple as needing the "blessing" of a prophet (just like in the OT stories).

At the bible study class at my parents' church awhile back, they had a class discussion about the baptism of Jesus and even the teacher admitted the baptism of Jesus was a subject he was uncomfortable discussing with non-Christians. He brought up how a non-Christian he knew from his work asked him why Jesus needed to be baptized if he was sinless as a contradiction in the bible and even the teacher admitted that none of the apologetic answers he had heard before were satisfying to him. They ended up deciding Jesus did it to fulfill prophecy and as an example to Christians but he still found the subject uncomfortable to discuss, so even modern day fundamentalists find the baptism of Jesus to be embarrassing to talk about.

[Shyone]

I don't know what Mark's author would have thought about the later Christian belief of Jesus being a sinless being not needing baptism, but we do know early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Christian apologists like Justin Martyr defended the baptism of Jesus by arguing either Jesus did it to set an example for Christians or that he was baptized to purify the waters of baptism. But it's clear that the later gospels found something disturbing in Mark's account of the baptism of Jesus or else why do they change the narrative so much? Like in Matthew's gospel, there is no mention of John baptizing for the remission of sins. It only says that people who were baptized by John confessed their sins. It also adds in a dialog where John initially refuses to baptize Jesus and argues that Jesus is greater than him which to me clearly indicates of case protesting too loudly. Luke's account doesn't even want to talk about it and removes the dialog between Jesus and John all-together and simply states Jesus was baptized with no indication as to the reason why. John's gospel doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus at all, so unless they were embarrassed by the baptism of Jesus, why are these later gospel accounts clearly going out of their way to either rewrite the original account in Mark or ignoring it all-together?

 

As for me the baptism by John is as simple as needing the "blessing" of a prophet (just like in the OT stories).

At the bible study class at my parents' church awhile back, they had a class discussion about the baptism of Jesus and even the teacher admitted the baptism of Jesus was a subject he was uncomfortable discussing with non-Christians. He brought up how a non-Christian he knew from his work asked him why Jesus needed to be baptized if he was sinless as a contradiction in the bible and even the teacher admitted that none of the apologetic answers he had heard before were satisfying to him. They ended up deciding Jesus did it to fulfill prophecy and as an example to Christians but he still found the subject uncomfortable to discuss, so even modern day fundamentalists find the baptism of Jesus to be embarrassing to talk about.

This is very interesting. I hadn't thought much about it except as a peculiar episode, but it would appear that John was considered a big deal as a prophet before Jesus. Big enough that Jesus himself took note and sought him out.

 

It's hard to dismiss that when writing a "gospel". Even harder to explain it.

[mwc]

I don't know what Mark's author would have thought about the later Christian belief of Jesus being a sinless being not needing baptism, but we do know early church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch and Christian apologists like Justin Martyr defended the baptism of Jesus by arguing either Jesus did it to set an example for Christians or that he was baptized to purify the waters of baptism.

Right. There are a number of later apologies used, and still used, to explain this event.

 

But it's clear that the later gospels found something disturbing in Mark's account of the baptism of Jesus or else why do they change the narrative so much? Like in Matthew's gospel, there is no mention of John baptizing for the remission of sins. It only says that people who were baptized by John confessed their sins. It also adds in a dialog where John initially refuses to baptize Jesus and argues that Jesus is greater than him which to me clearly indicates of case protesting too loudly. Luke's account doesn't even want to talk about it and removes the dialog between Jesus and John all-together and simply states Jesus was baptized with no indication as to the reason why. John's gospel doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus at all, so unless they were embarrassed by the baptism of Jesus, why are these later gospel accounts clearly going out of their way to either rewrite the original account in Mark or ignoring it all-together?

In G.Mark we have:

1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

G.Luke follows with:

3:3 and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

G.Matthew moves away from this with:

3:6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. ... 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, ...

 

G.John does not have JtB preaching this type of baptism. This would leave us to wonder what the baptism of John was about? The Acts tells the same story as the rest of the above that the baptism of John was basically about a having a "change of heart." This being the case it would make no sense for JtB to be baptized by "jesus" since that isn't the purpose of the ritual. What would be John's "change of heart?"

 

The purpose of the rewrite would be to place "jesus" in a superior position over JtB. As his "inferior" JtB would desire to have his "better" perform the ritual upon him. But the full quote used in G.Matthew is:

3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." ... 14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" ... 12 Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee;

I guess JtB missed out on the baptism with the spirit and will instead get the baptism of fire? Or did they just not think this all the way through?

 

G.Luke also says the same basic thing:

3:16 John answered them all, "I baptize you with water; but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

You get spirit and fire.

 

In G.John we do have this about the whole baptism:

1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

It sounds like JtB baptized him or was there when it happened. He also mentions that his reason for baptizing was so he'd make his appearance which generally involved a change of heart in the people (ie. his relationship to Elijah) but perhaps not. He destroys the idea of G.Luke's birth narrative since he should know his own cousin was the messiah. You would think that Mary and Elizabeth wouldn't keep something like that under wraps (they were hopping around in the womb after all).

 

It seems that people were taking baptism to either cleanse themselves from their sins (similar to Catholic confession but with a little bath) or maybe as a way to bring about a messianic kingdom (as G.John indicates instead). There were probably other reasons but these seem to be the two indicated. These two systems needed to give way to a new system. A system that was based on faith and this was a way of introducing it. In all four gospels, without fail, the baptism leads to the spirit descending on "jesus" in the form of the dove.

 

G.John even adds these two curious statements:

3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.

So "jesus" and friends went off and baptized too? Interesting. But "jesus" only baptizes with spirit and fire, right?

4:1 Now when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples),

Oh, well that makes more sense. It's only his disciples that were baptizing people even though baptizing people doesn't amount to anything but apparently it's how you make disciples. But that would mean "jesus" was a disciple to JtB unless it's a case of Elija/Elisha were the master "goes away" and it doesn't matter (I wonder if JtB lives long?) or something of that nature. But "jesus" never "baptizes" anyone until he blows on his disciples at the end of G.John and gives them the spirit (as far as I know he never sparks anyone up).

 

None of these look to be embarrassing. They have a ritual and they usurp it and supersede it with another ritual. They have the cult leader of the former ritual "pass the torch" to the new cult leader through the old ritual which just so happens to introduce the new ritual at the same time (in this one case the ritual of baptism leads to the giving of the holy spirit). JtB, having played his role, then goes away leaving the new cult rituals to fill the void.

 

At the bible study class at my parents' church awhile back, they had a class discussion about the baptism of Jesus and even the teacher admitted the baptism of Jesus was a subject he was uncomfortable discussing with non-Christians. He brought up how a non-Christian he knew from his work asked him why Jesus needed to be baptized if he was sinless as a contradiction in the bible and even the teacher admitted that none of the apologetic answers he had heard before were satisfying to him. They ended up deciding Jesus did it to fulfill prophecy and as an example to Christians but he still found the subject uncomfortable to discuss, so even modern day fundamentalists find the baptism of Jesus to be embarrassing to talk about.

JtB never mentions that "jesus" is without sin but simply that he (JtB) is unworthy to untie his sandal. That's a long way from being a sinless person. It's like YHWH/elohim way back in Genesis. He walks around and has to see things for himself since he's just some anthropomorphic type of god. This isn't a problem *if* you keep in mind that this isn't simply how he's supposed to be in those stories. He evolves a bit and is different in different stories that come from different places and at different times. In Exodus he's a shrub and a tower of smoke. Not the image we'd think of reading Genesis. Nowadays these types of images of YHWH simply will not do. He's something that can't be imagined at all. So in Genesis we have to apply some anachronistic apologetic so that the YHWH that walked in the garden did so but in some way that works for us today. It will always fail since the YHWH of today can't literally walk in a garden with Adam and Eve. It can't be done. The "jesus" of the gospels that got baptized may be an issue for 2nd century apologists and people of today that require a sinless god-man but that's not the fault of the gospel writers. We can't say it is embarrassing to them even it is for later believers that have different requirements.

 

So a YHWH that was a "super" man and walked with his creation is not embarrassing to the author of Genesis. It's what he wrote and it makes perfect sense. A "jesus" that wanted/needed a baptism is not embarrassing since that the author wrote and it makes sense. He apparently needed it to get the spirit.

 

What is embarrassing is creating a doctrine that ignores this and then having to come up with an after the fact apologetic for it. The best explanation I can think of for this is "they" (the eventual orthodoxy) didn't originate these ideas but usurped them and had to deal with them since they were already established (well beyond the point of fundamentally altering them).

 

Hopefully I got a decent reply somewhere in there. I'm trying to do several things at once and my mind is all over the place.

 

mwc

[orlando]

I think Neon Genesis's arguments make good sense - MWC, you just seem a bit determined to rubbish anything that doesn't fit with your certainty that Jesus didn't exist. Why do you have to be dogmatic about it? Yes, there isn't a huge amount of really good evidence about the historical Jesus, but that doesn't therefore mean he certainly didn't exist. I get the impression you have a need to hold a definite opinion one way or the other and can't cope with a bit of doubt and grey areas - you can't find complete proof he existed, so you're going to say he definitely didn't instead (or maybe I'm misjudging you and you just have a robust debating style and aren't 100% sure).

 

We're talking (for arguments sake, I'm saying he existed) about a preacher who grew up in rustic villages in ancient times, who died young quite shortly after he took it into his head to start preaching the coming Kingdom (and legends then grew up about him) - and we don't have a lot of solid evidence about him. That doesn't mean he didn't exist, it just means we have to make do with looking for hints about him - subtle things like these embarrassment criteria. If we had really obvious evidence about him we wouldn't need to use things like that, so to ask for evidence that using embarrassment criteria is successful is not very productive. Such proof would be the kind of solid things - a hand-written first century copy of a Gospel according to Jesus, for example - that we don't have. However it certainly makes intuitive good sense that if you are writing about someone who is your personal hero you probably don't make up things that put them in a dubious light.

 

I personally do think it is interesting that Mark, thought to be the earliest gospel, has John "proclaiming a baptism of repentence for the forgiveness of sins" and then Jesus turning up to take part; the same Jesus who he has just called "Jesus Christ, the Son of God." I think Josephus's passage about John reads convincingly as history, and it is not generally questioned by anyone, so I am convinced there is good evidence he existed. I find it quite likely that getting baptised by John - who was supposedly a relative - who was himself preaching about the coming Kingdom of God, started Jesus off on his own mission to do something similar.

 

Re. the historical Jesus, we have to just go on a balance of probabilities. If most of the evidence, for example, showed clearly that the first Christians worshipped a deity called Christ who was never supposed to have had a recent life on earth and no one from around the 1st Century or start of the second actually claimed to have met him or his apostles, then the myth theory would be a no-brainer, but as things are, it isn't.

[orlando]

 

I guess JtB missed out on the baptism with the spirit and will instead get the baptism of fire? Or did they just not think this all the way through?

 

mwc

 

At Pentecost the disciples were baptised with tongues of fire" - but yes, JtB seems to have missed out, after all he got beheaded a long time before that, which probably hindered him from getting baptised...

[Shyone]

What is embarrassing is creating a doctrine that ignores this and then having to come up with an after the fact apologetic for it. The best explanation I can think of for this is "they" (the eventual orthodoxy) didn't originate these ideas but usurped them and had to deal with them since they were already established (well beyond the point of fundamentally altering them).

 

Hopefully I got a decent reply somewhere in there. I'm trying to do several things at once and my mind is all over the place.

 

mwc

The whole thing stinks to me.

 

All of the narratives seem to suggest some form of supernatural revelation to JtB - the very kind of thing that is not given to anyone today, and the kind of thing that would demonstrate unequivocally the divinity of Jesus, but then this is embarrassing:

 

Mat: 11

2. When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples

3. to ask him, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?"

 

WTF!?

 

That sure doesn't square with this:

 

1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

[Shyone]

But "jesus" never "baptizes" anyone until he blows on his disciples at the end of G.John and gives them the spirit (as far as I know he never sparks anyone up).

 

mwc

There. I fixed it.