[QUOTE=Daldianus;382502]Why don't you just answer the actual question of how John was able to recognize Jesus as the one who was suppose to baptize with the Holy Spirit when he didn't yet know who Jesus was?[/quote]

How do you derive the conclusion that in St. Matthew’s Gospel, the Baptist didn’t know who Jesus was? You cannot possibly derive that conclusion from anything that St. John’s Gospel said.

All St. John’s Gospel says is that the Baptist knew upon Christ’s baptism that Christ would be the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with Fire.  That’s a far cry from “The Baptist only knew who Jesus was.”

#1 – The Baptist didn't know who Jesus was before his baptism, period.  No name, number, Social Security, distinguishing feature, you name it.  The Baptist didn't know jack about who this man was that said, "Baptize me."

#2 – The Baptist didn't know Jesus was "the Baptizer by Fire and the HS," which was a special designation signifying a special individual, the meaning of which God had apparently impressed upon the Baptist in some form or fashion of which the text doesn't elaborate.

They are two different things altogether.  You’re arguing the first one because only by arguing it can you sustain your erroneous charge that there’s a contradiction.  Of course, it isn’t logical argumentation because the two accounts are speaking of two different facts that the Baptist knew about Christ – one of which was not revealed until the Latter’s baptism.  The second premise above does not preclude the Baptist from knowing Christ on a personal basis.  Given that they were cousins, that seems a more likely interpretation.

It’s a “fallacy of accident” – you’ve destroyed the qualifiers because your argument folds if they’re considered.

Apparently your belief system affords you the freedom to misrepresent information.  Unfortunately for me, I must be encumbered by the ethics of correct representation and logic. 

Oh to have the liberty that is yours!

[QUOTE=jlb32168;382667]How do you derive the conclusion that in St. Matthew’s Gospel, the Baptist didn’t know who Jesus was? You cannot possibly derive that conclusion from anything that St. John’s Gospel said.

All St. John’s Gospel says is that the Baptist knew upon Christ’s baptism that Christ would be the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with Fire.  That’s a far cry from “The Baptist only knew who Jesus was.”

#1 – The Baptist knew who Jesus was.
#2 – The Baptist knew Jesus was the Baptizer by Fire and the HS.

They are two different things altogether.  You’re arguing the first one because only by arguing it can you sustain your erroneous charge that there’s a contradiction.  Of course, it isn’t logical argumentation because the two accounts are speaking of two different facts that the Baptist knew about Christ – one of which was not revealed until the Latter’s baptism.

It’s a “fallacy of accident” – you’ve destroyed the qualifiers because your argument folds if they’re considered.

Apparently your belief system affords you the freedom to misrepresent information.  Unfortunately for me, I must be encumbered by the ethics of correct representation and logic. 

Oh to have the liberty that is yours![/QUOTE]




Yea,what he said!  LOL :D

Selah

selah wrote:

Selah:How did He know what??  Just because JtB recognized that Jesus was a 'greater'man than He,did not mean that He knew that He was "The Christ".

How did he recognize or know that Jesus was this person that was supposed to baptize with the Holy Spirit and therefore wouldn't need to be baptized by him?

selah wrote:

Yea,what he said!  LOL :D

Actually, no. That doesn't make sense either. See my reply to him.

jlb32168 wrote:

No that’s NOT what St. John’s Gospel says, Daldianus. 

It says that the Baptist did not know that Christ was the same person [which baptizes with the Holy Ghost.]

It does NOT say that the Baptist did not know who Christ was at all.  That’s what you wish it said.  Somehow, by argumentum ad nauseam, you are hopeful that reality with contort itself to reflect your opinion. Oh if only things worked that way.

Let's use some decent English first:

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34 I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

John he clearly says that he would NOT have known him, and especially not as the Son of God, (v31 + v33) if it hadn't been for seeing the Spirit coming down on him (v33). That's what this text says black on white.

And the Spirit came down AFTER the baptism. Or did he come down a few times?

So if John the Baptist only knew who Jesus was, namely the Son of God, AFTER the baptism then how could he have known, according to 'Matthew' that he needed to be baptized by this person (Jesus) BEFORE the baptism?

There is still a huge discrepancy that you can't justify or reconcile.

If you find the exposure of your dissemblance amusing then that’s wonderful.  I certainly enjoy demonstrating how you contort biblical text to manufacture contradictions out of thin air.  It also teaches others to do the same thing.

You better try again then ;)

Dald:  Seeking answers to his doubt is a sign of faith? That sounds rather like wanting to have your faith confirmed again. Exactly the thing that believers always say isn't necessary if unbelievers ask for a confirmation ... how ironic

You clearly don't understand faith.  Not that you should be expected to, of course.  You're apparently not "wired" with whatever wires are plugged into the minds of the faith-based people.

Faith is a struggle, Dald.  People believe in supernatural things, but they also have times of doubt or uncertainty.  There probably never has been a human being who hasn't doubted their religious beliefs at times.

So John was human.  So the gospel writers were human too.  None of that negates the possibility that Jesus was in fact God's son, that doves did in fact descend at the baptism, or that the voice came out from the sky.  That's all stuff to be taken on faith by Christian believers.  You're not one, and you clearly don't understand the ways of faith. 

Sometimes believers doubt, Dald.  That's something I'm sure you never, ever do.