Quote:
Originally Posted by Timotheist
Not at all. The descent of the Spirit is the critical part of my thesis: not the water baptism itself.
I admit that I have perhaps placed on over-emphasis on John's gospel in making my points. But even if I throw out John and use only Mark, I can still make the same points. The Acts and Mark both support each other. Paul does not challenge my thesis. John just helps with other supporting evidence.
|
So you are willing to throw out Matthew, Luke, and now John in order to support your theory. Doesn't that concern you in the least?
I think Acts has to be discarded also, along with the writings of Paul, in order to support your theory, since he has definitively interpreted Psalm 2.7 in his discourse in chapter 13. There he mentioned John the Baptist at the end of his ministry introducing Jesus, and while he had the opportunity to mention the Spirit descending upon Him to make Him God by conceptionism, Paul did not. Why was that? Paul was preaching the Gospel in Gentile lands, so why did he not insert this most important fact?
Then Paul surprised us saying, at least according to your theory, that Jesus became God when He was resurrected from the dead.