The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by Giuseppe »

The original text is not this:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God

(John 1:29)

...but this:

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Son of God

(John 1:29)

Since:
  • the Lamb was introduced to make a link with the Lamb of Revelation;
  • in verse 34 the same John the Baptist says:

    I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by Giuseppe »

It is really strange the absence of evidence of John the Baptist in the Book of Revelation.

That book knows even two witnesses, but not John the Baptist.

This is very strange since John the Baptist, being considered a Jew eager adorer of YHWH by the modern scholars (real scholars?), could be used as icon by the author of Revelation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by davidmartin »

It is not strange at all. The Clementine literature hammers John the Baptist as leader of a deviant sect!
Since Revelation is from that side of the church it's no surprise it omits John the Baptist
Revelation and the Clementine 'Judaiser' faction are related

This is a case of multiple John's. The real John that baptised Jesus probably wasn't John the Baptist of Josephus is what I suspect and the author of Revelation knew it. Neither was the real John the leader of a deviant sect, but a solid, good guy the 'Ebionites' had a problem with and they didn't 'play the game' of going along with the harmonised history so are a useful source. The 'John the Baptist' of the gospels is a mix of these two Johns i recon
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by Giuseppe »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:55 am It is not strange at all. The Clementine literature hammers John the Baptist as leader of a deviant sect!
what do you mean as "deviant" for a Jew (pseudo-Clement) about another Jew (John)?

At Qumran, the Teacher of Righteousness hated the Wicked Priest because of political reasons, not religious ones. But you are arguing that the Clementine literature hated John the Baptist for religious reasons. For me this is possible only if the memory of John was connected someway with some anti-YHWH message. In other terms, only if the "baptism of John" is the euhemerization of the "baptism" of Hermes Trismegistus.

Since Revelation is from that side of the church it's no surprise it omits John the Baptist Revelation and the Clementine 'Judaiser' faction are related
I disagree about the view that Revelation is catholic. Surely it in our version is a catholicized text. But in the original version it is a Jewish-Christian text. But if John preached the coming of YHWH (or a figure related to YHWH) on the earth, why was he not used by who wrote Revelation?

This is a case of multiple John's. The real John that baptised Jesus probably wasn't John the Baptist of Josephus is what I suspect and the author of Revelation knew it.
excuse me, but I am not able at all to reason according to historicist paradigm. If a real John baptized Jesus, then Jesus existed and the presence itself of Giuseppe on this forum is pure nonsense.
Neither was the real John the leader of a deviant sect, but a solid, good guy the 'Ebionites' had a problem with
again: I can't imagine how much possible was that some Jews had "a problem with" a John the Baptist, one who was praised even by Josephus. Again, ancient Jews could hate only who hated YHWH.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by davidmartin »

what do you mean as "deviant" for a Jew (pseudo-Clement) about another Jew (John)?
I meant the Clementines are not referring to John the Baptist but another John. I didn't mean they are referring to 'John the Baptist' we are familiar with but are referring to some other John who may also have baptised hence the confusion.
I disagree about the view that Revelation is catholic. Surely it in our version is a catholicized text. But in the original version it is a Jewish-Christian text. But if John preached the coming of YHWH (or a figure related to YHWH) on the earth, why was he not used by who wrote Revelation?
The Clemetines are Jewish-Christian and so is Revelation, broadly speaking. They both fantasise about hell strongly, why not?
These people didn't know any 'John the Baptist' only the John they disagreed with. If a traditional 'John the Baptist' existed they never connected him to Jesus in any way to mention him, but since they already had (via Clementines) a John they disagreed with, why should they mention him in Revelation?
excuse me, but I am not able at all to reason according to historicist paradigm. If a real John baptized Jesus, then Jesus existed and the presence itself of Giuseppe on this forum is pure nonsense.
I'm able to reason with the idea 'Jesus' wasn't a man but appeared in one or more people as a hypothetical
If so one of those people ended up being called Jesus, so what? He was baptised, whats the problem?
It's only a question of whether he physically existed or not, or gained physical existence through someone else or not, there's still a dude in the equation somewhere
again: I can't imagine how much possible was that some Jews had "a problem with" a John the Baptist, one who was praised even by Josephus. Again, ancient Jews could hate only who hated YHWH.
Josephus is scarcely reliable, who knows who this John the Baptist guy is
Come on Jews and anyone else always hates their own people more than outsiders, if you want real hate look at family feuds!! They were duking it out with each other not evenly filing into two clean love YHWH and hate YHWH camps that's not messy enough for real life, no way is it that simple or obvious. Some priest slept with some other priests wife and now they hate each other, nothing to do with YHWH
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by Giuseppe »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:18 am If so one of those people ended up being called Jesus, so what? He was baptised, whats the problem?
The problem is that if John the Baptist existed, then he was a figure that the original author of Revelation had to mention. Even the clementine literature is against the followers of the Baptist, but not against the Baptist himself. Hence my strong suspicion in this thread is that the entire "Baptism of John" is an invention meant to mask something of very embarrassing that was related someway with the original meaning of the baptism. What I'm saying, is that the name "John", the reduction of the entire idea to a mere Baptizer, is part of the Conspiracy.

That something of very embarrassing could be the following "baptism":

Hermes also spoke of a "herald" (Greek: kerux). In Corpus Hermeticum IV, this herald was sent by God to manking with a bowl of nous (divine mind) in which men could be baptized if they chose to heed the call and accept the offer of gnosis or higher, divine knowledge and consciousness. The "mixing bowl" or krater in which the willing initiate could be baptized also enjoyed an alchemical meaning. We see an obvious link between John the Baptist and the Hermetic revelation: John as Baptist, or spiritual operator and agent of transformation.

(from The Mysteries of John the Baptist: His Legacy in Gnosticism, Paganism, and Freemasonry, Tobias Churton)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
klewis
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by klewis »

In Revelation, the "Lamb" is a synonym for Joshua / Jesus and has its origins in the Deuteronomy-Joshua Draft (DJD) in which John inserted the last six chapters of Deuteronomy and the first six chapters of Joshua into the prior draft of Revelation (see https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-CVjXj ... sp=sharing for the DJD draft and https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QLNLgG ... sp=sharing to see how the book of Revelation was constructed and where in the process the DJD was created).

The reason why the writer of Revelation used "Lamb" instead of Jesus / Joshua is that it would reveal the source of the text. Revelation uses a lot of synonyms for items in reference to the Hebrew scriptures such as the mighty angel as seriphim and God. Revelation also tweaks the text to bring it up to the history of the day, such as changing the four chariots in Zechariah 6:1-8 to the four horsemen in Revelation 6:1-8.

Also, hell was not initially part of Revelation. If hell was added at the beginning of the writing of Revelation you would not see passages such as:
21:25 Its gates will in no way be shut by day (for there will be no night there), 21:26 and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it so that they may enter. 21:27 There will in no way enter into it anything profane, or one who causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

22:1 He showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, 22:2 in the middle of its street. On this side of the river and on that was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations
22:10 He said to me,
“Don’t seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
22:11 He who acts unjustly, let him act unjustly still.
He who is filthy, let him be filthy still. He who is righteous, let him do righteousness still.
He who is holy, let him be holy still.”

22:12 “Behold, I come quickly. My reward is with me, to repay to each man according to his work.
22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last,
the Beginning and the End. 22:14 Blessed are those who do his commandments,
that they may have the right to the tree of life,
and may enter in by the gates into the city.
22:15 Outside are the dogs, the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
22:16 I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify these things to you for the churches.
I am the root and the offspring of David; the Bright and Morning Star.”
Hell was added in when John incorporated Daniel into his work. BTW: Daniel is the only place in the Hebrew scriptures that talk about a "hell".
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by Giuseppe »

ok klewis but here the topic is John the Baptist not Revelation.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by davidmartin »

The problem is that if John the Baptist existed, then he was a figure that the original author of Revelation had to mention. Even the clementine literature is against the followers of the Baptist, but not against the Baptist himself. Hence my strong suspicion in this thread is that the entire "Baptism of John" is an invention meant to mask something of very embarrassing that was related someway with the original meaning of the baptism. What I'm saying, is that the name "John", the reduction of the entire idea to a mere Baptizer, is part of the Conspiracy.
Sure, he appears as a mere baptiser in the synoptics that grafted in the description out Josephus maybe, while in the gospel of John he is more mystical. You're right i recon there was attempt to make John look all pious like a character out of a 50's bible movie, instead of a teacher and mystical prophet that John's gospel reveals fairly plainly. That hermetic stuff isn't far off normal mysticism you find everywhere, it's just different to the stock image which orthodoxy projected. You're saying the same as me, that this 'projection' covers over the truth. All I'm saying is the Revelation author knew John was this mystical prophet and his community didn't like that stuff. They liked fire and brimstone stuff.
And the Clementines do cast John in an unfavourable light for sure it all makes sense why Revelation doesn't mention John - only if the real John is not like John the Baptist image which is what you're saying and I'm saying
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The "Lamb" interpolated where the Son of God appeared in proto-John

Post by Giuseppe »

davidmartin wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:23 am All I'm saying is the Revelation author knew John was this mystical prophet and his community didn't like that stuff. They liked fire and brimstone stuff.
And the Clementines do cast John in an unfavourable light for sure it all makes sense why Revelation doesn't mention John - only if the real John is not like John the Baptist image which is what you're saying and I'm saying
Correct, also if I would be reluctant, for the moment, to say that "John" was the original name, since the meaning of "John" is "YHWH-gives-grace" therefore already something that the author of Revelation would have accepted as a positive thing.

I can't expect the arrival - next days - of a book from France by a mythicist who saw this same anomaly in (what is connected originally with) John in the eyes of genuine Jewish-Christians. If I will find more "missing rings" in the connection between "John" and the "embarrassing thing" (you know what I refer to), then I will report it in this forum. :popcorn:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply