On page 140, the following is stated under
Embarrassment.
... one such event in the life of Jesus was his baptism by John. John summoned Israel to repent and be baptized. In what sense did Jesus need to repent? According to Christian theology, Jesus was sinless, so he did not need to repent. Hence, the story of Jesus baptism is potentially awkward or embarrassing. Surely the early church would not invent a story like this if it had no basis in historical fact. Therefore, even the most server critics concede that the story of Jesus' baptism is authentic.
The questionable logic is that since this story was included, and potentially embarrassing, it proves the authentic nature of what was written. This questionable logic assumes the modern English meaning of
repent. Greek had two words that are translated as
repent.
Think about what is being said (used by John, including the baptism of Jesus)
Change what you are doing which is used when in context and action is meant.
IIf the author understood the underlying Greek meanings and implications, the
embarrassment issue disappears. Why then is this not pointed out?
Romans 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. [kjv]
αμεταμελητα γαρ τα χαρισματα και η κλησις του θεου [gnt]
… paenitentia … dona … vocatio … [v]
Matthew 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. [kjv]
λεγων μετανοειτε ηγγικεν γαρ η βασιλεια των ουρανων [gnt]
… paenitentiam … [v]
