Stuart wrote:
posts. He can't throw 10, 20, 30 long posts out there and expect any response. Who has time for that? And worse he defends like rabid dog in a junkyard. Who wants to bring that on themselves?
.
I have always viewed it, right or wrong as thinking out loud in literary prose. hoping someone else would be sharp enough to further add to it.
Adam wrote:C'mon, guys, it's "you're" not "your" in your second and first lines respectively above. By now we should all know not to imitate outhouse's spelling (and grammar).
This is just "too" (4th line above) much.
Making grammar mistakes is one thing.
Making failed hypothesis from bad conclusions, or following dead conclusions only apologetic trash does, is another Adam.
You will not gain traction by attacking others grammar that shows your weaknesses. It is a desperate ad hominem
In other terms, I think that prof Vinzent is open to the idea that sometimes the Jews thought that the death of Jesus could make coming soon the true Messiah ben David (Jesus being the suffering Messiah ben Joseph precursor of Messiah ben David) and sometimes the Jews thought that Jesus himself was the triumphal Messiah ben David (John the Baptist being the failed Messiah ben Joseph).
if the Jews of Nazaret thought (wrongly, in Mcn) that Jesus was the failed Messiah ben Joseph, then the paradox is that the pharisees killed him (via Pilate) because they believed in him as a particular messiah (ben Joseph) -- whoose death would facilitate the arrival of the Messiah ben David --, not because they did hate him (as the canonical gospels suggest).
Curious to know your views about.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Under that view, the other Jesus, Jesus Son of Father (Barabbas), may be seen by the pharisees as the coming Messiah ben David only once the Messiah ben Joseph is put to death (hence the desperate need of killing Jesus son of Joseph).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote:
what do you think about the suggestion of prof Vinzent on Jesus = the Messiah son of Joseph according to the Jews of Nazaret?
Along these lines, is it possible to see John the Baptist as someone thought (after his death) to be the Messiah ben Joseph, hence Jesus being seen (wrongly, in Mcn) as the future Messiah ben David?
In other terms, I think that prof Vinzent is open to the idea that sometimes the Jews thought that the death of Jesus could make coming soon the true Messiah ben David (Jesus being the suffering Messiah ben Joseph precursor of Messiah ben David) and sometimes the Jews thought that Jesus himself was the triumphal Messiah ben David (John the Baptist being the failed Messiah ben Joseph).
It has no traction. It is an oddball hypothesis.
The people that recorded John and Jesus were Hellenist in the Diaspora who were divorcing Judaism. Not pious Jews resurrecting a failed messiah.
These people were competing directly with the Emperors divinity, and were not Jews using this Jewish context.
Now if there were tidbits to be stolen from said character to build divinity, small amounts of material could be plagiarized, but that's not the case Vincent overstates.
The whole point of this thread is for Stephen to assume the gospels are later or same time then Marcion, and John is dependent on later theology.
Instead of what we actually see. John has historicity as a first century Baptist teaching in Israel.
Even if John the Baptist did exist, how can you remove the doubt that he was coopted only in anti-marcionite function (to work as important link between OT and NT) ?
I remember you that even a Catholic priest and historicist academic, Adamczewski, thinks that Jesus never met John the Baptist face to face. That meeting is all Christian invention (Herod killing John during a banquet being Peter conflicting with Paul in Antioch).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe wrote:Even if John the Baptist did exist, how can you remove the doubt that he was coopted only in anti-marcionite function (to work as important link between OT and NT) ?
Important link?
These text are the product of Diaspora Proselytes perverting Judaism.
The only way to study John is by using very limited resources here. For me only the gospel text and Josephus matter. Anything else ONLY reflect later beliefs that were very diverse in nature.
The Gospel text we do have ONLY reflects a later belief anyway that has to be picked a part for content, leaving only a sliver of possible historicity here.
There is no credible doubt the tradition predates Marcion.
It would be great if we simply acknowledged that outside of recensions of texts preserved by the orthodox there is no evidence for the existence of "John the Baptist" near contemporary of Jesus. The Marcionite gospel is very important here. As Origen noyes the expectation of a resurrected John make little sense if John died during the gospel narrative as the orthodox texts have it. What the solution is here is up for debate. But let's not pretend that a stronger case for the historicity of John than Jesus. If you believe Jesus was a historical person you probably also think that John the Baptist was historical. But you'd expect mythicists to apply the same standard to John that they do to Jesus
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
hoping someone else would be sharp enough to further add to it.