Page 1 of 1

Pagan attempts meant to prove that Jesus was never risen

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:59 am
by Giuseppe

At Sebaste, which belongs to the same people, the coffin of John the Baptist was opened, his bones burnt, and the ashes scattered abroad.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27023.htm

I don't believe just that these were banal tomb raiders. They were commissioned by pagan authorities (Julian?) in need of anti-Christian evidence that Jesus was never risen.

But the anomaly is that they found the presumed tomb of John the Baptist. Did they confuse Jesus with John?

Re: Pagan attempts meant to prove that Jesus was never risen

Posted: Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:02 pm
by Giuseppe
An even more great anomaly is that it is not reported the fact that the tomb raiders didn't find the head of John the Baptist.

Was John not beheaded, but crucified?

Re: Pagan attempts meant to prove that Jesus was never risen

Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:14 am
by Ben C. Smith
Giuseppe wrote: Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:02 pm An even more great anomaly is that it is not reported the fact that the tomb raiders didn't find the head of John the Baptist.

Was John not beheaded, but crucified?
I do not think there is any evidence that John was crucified, but I am also very doubtful that we can know for certain that he was beheaded, mainly because his entire death in Matthew 14.1-12 = Mark 6.14-29 (= Luke 9.7-9) seems to me to be based on the beheading of Vashti in Jewish midrash.

Re: Pagan attempts meant to prove that Jesus was never risen

Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:49 am
by Giuseppe
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:14 am I do not think there is any evidence that John was crucified,
Someone has seen that "evidence" in the Jesus's cry on the cross and relative misurderstanding of it by the people around, meant to make it clear that the crucified wasn't invoking the spirit of Elijah abandoning him as John the Baptist. But it is not persuasive.

Frankly, I am Pure Agnostic now about the historicity of John. Is it only a coincidence that the his name means "YHWH gives grace" and that the his baptism is one of grace in evident opposition to the eschatological baptism by Jesus?

It can be only a coincidence, but even in that case I think that not the hypothetical historical John was considered Christ by the his hypothetical historical followers, but the Gospel John the Baptist was considered Christ by some Christians, since what was "special" in John was the his being a giver of grace as described in the Gospels. In Acts the baptism of John is known by Apollos, considered a gnostic rival of Paul in Corinth and not a Judaizer.
For example, the Fourth Gospel is marcionite but it also mentions John without problems about the connection of John with Elijah in the Synoptics.