I've also heard people state that they not only believe Jesus existed, but they accept that he was crucified as well. They have no compelling reason not to believe this since it seems like a very reasonable way for Him to have died. It seems those people I have heard say this are not alone, as many others accept the historical fact of Jesus' crucifixion as well. (I plan to talk more about His crucifixion in a later post.)
One thing I did not realize, which I would like to address in this post, was that Jesus' baptism is also accepted as fact. In the footnotes on the wikipedia entry on the Historial reliability of the Gospels, I find that "Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these 'two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent'." In my initial post, I outlined Jesus's existence, crucifixion, and resurrection as the three key alleged facts that I must believe as actual facts to consider myself a Christian. It seems people find it pretty easy to accept the first two of these, but the baptism of Jesus is an additional "bonus fact" that was not on my original list. Though I did not initially consider this "fact" to be a key tenant of Christianity, perhaps it is more important than I originally considered.
First, let's investigate the truth of Jesus' baptism a little more closely. What convinces people that Jesus' baptism is a real historical event?
I found references to numerous books asserting that this baptism really happened. Finding the exact reasons these authors believed this event yet did not believe others from the Bible that seem equally possible has proven difficult without having direct access to any of these books. I hope to acquire access to at least some of these books for my next post, but I have found one interesting argument so far.
The argument I found was based on the idea that the baptism of Jesus could portray Jesus as being subservient to or depend upon John, the man who baptized him. Why include mention of such an event that could be seen to counter the divinity of Jesus unless it actually happened? The Gospel texts add bits that, if we accept them, show that Jesus was in fact divine, such as John recognizing Him as the Christ and a voice from heaven claiming Him as the Son of God. Doubters of Christ's divinity would say those bits were added by Christians to attempt to explain that even though Jesus was baptized by John, such an act did not disprove His divinity. But why would these extra bits, whether they are true or not, need to be added if Jesus was not actually baptized to begin with? Wouldn't it have been easier just to not mention the baptism at all? The fact that the baptism is mentioned in the Gospels at all, when it seems like it could have easily been excluded if the Gospels were pure fiction, makes people more apt to accept it as a historical fact.
What are some other reasons people accept the baptism of Jesus as historical fact and what are the implications, spiritual or otherwise, of this historical fact? The answer to that will carry over into my next post.
