Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:10 pm

MrMacSon wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:40 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 11:52 am

Basically, what is new in Mark compared to Paul is:
  • Barabbas
  • John the Baptist.
and Nazareth and Galilee
no, I mean "new" as not only not found in Paul, but as not even meant as a theological/midrashic point derived from Paul. Which doesn't apply to Nazareth and Galilee, since Galilee is the "Galilee of Gentiles" (obviously an easy pauline point), while Nazareth may be allusion to davidic lineage of the Messiah (again: a pauline point). Paul could read it and approve it as not totally unknown to him, from a theological POV.

Barabbas refers polemically to the Son of Father of a totally different sect of Christians, i.e. gentile Christians who adored a Jesus who was not the son of YHWH and was rather an enemy of YHWH.

John the Baptist is a Jewish and not a Christian thing (by the time of "Mark") and not even a Jewish thing (before the Book of Revelation) but a Naassene thing: the god fish Oannes.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6081
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:32 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:10 pm

no, I mean "new" as not only not found in Paul, but as not even meant as a theological/midrashic point derived from Paul. Which doesn't apply to Nazareth and Galilee, since Galilee is the "Galilee of Gentiles" (obviously an easy pauline point)
You mean b/c of Isaiah 9:1, -

YLT - "As the former time made light The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, So the latter hath honoured the way of the sea, Beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations."

NRSV - "But there will be no gloom for those who were in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he will make glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations."

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:10 pm
while Nazareth may be allusion to davidic lineage of the Messiah (again: a pauline point).
How? Via Nazarene/Nazorean & Nazarite, etc?

Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:10 pm
John the Baptist is a Jewish and not a Christian thing (by the time of "Mark"), and not even a Jewish thing (before the Book of Revelation) but a Naassene thing: the god fish Oannes.
Huuuhh?

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:54 am

MrMacSon wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:32 am
How? Via Nazarene/Nazorean & Nazarite, etc?
any possible midrashical configuration from these terms fits perfectly to Paul. In this sense it is not absolutely "new" in Paul as it may be the knowledge of a new rival sect (the one parodied behind Barabbas).
John the Baptist is a Jewish and not a Christian thing (by the time of "Mark"), and not even a Jewish thing (before the Book of Revelation) but a Naassene thing: the god fish Oannes.
Huuuhh?
Oannes was one of the names used by the Naassenes to call the Primal Man.

But Oannes is a fish. It is a NUN in his own right.

The Son of Nun is Joshua.

As such, he is the Son of Man (=Nun, = Oannes).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by klewis » Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:22 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:55 am
My Argument from Silence against John the Baptist in Paul is a Strong Argument from Silence if we agree with the premise:

The ambivalence of Christians (Mark, Luke, etc) with John is more expected if the earliest approach of Christians with John was an approach of strong hostility.

The problem with Nasruddin, Klewis and David Martin is that they assume that the baptism of Jesus by John was the "problem". No, I say, the baptism of Jesus by John was a late solution of the problem. We don't know (for the moment) the true problem but we know there was one. Only, not at the time of Paul.
Because otherwise Paul would have mentioned the problem, by naming John.
Did I say that the baptism of Jesus by John was a problem? If so, I missed it. I see no problem with Paul not mentioning John. The logic you bring forward is ludicrous. Just because Paul does not mention something does not represent his hatred for it, his lack of knowledge of it, or a theological reason behind it. What it represents is that he did not mention it.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:24 am

klewis wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:22 am
Did I say that the baptism of Jesus by John was a problem? If so, I missed it.
this your answer is evidence of real ignorance, without offence, but really really true ignorance. The entire consensus is already with me in recognizing the fact that the baptism of Jesus by John was a problem, for "Mark". Pace you. I note that Nasruddin knows more than you, insofar he agrees at least with this fact. This makes you a real Christian apologist.

At any case, once you recognize that the baptism of Jesus by John was a problem for Mark, and once you recognize that Mark was a pauline, then you have to do 2 + 2: John the Baptist had to be a problem for Paul, too.

Note that a rival of Paul in Corinth was Apollos, the same guy who in Acts is said disciple of John the Baptist. Hence a reason in more to expect that Paul addresses a threat called John the Baptist, a threat that could only be more great than it was for the pauline Mark... ...contra factum that Paul ignored totally that threat.
I see no problem with Paul not mentioning John.
insofar you see no problem with how much Mark was pauline. If only you could realize the real measure of the Mark's paulinism, then you may even realize my point, here. But you are worse than Nasruddin as interlocutor, insofar you don't see the Mark's embarrassment for John the Baptist.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by klewis » Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:52 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:24 am
klewis wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 9:22 am
Did I say that the baptism of Jesus by John was a problem? If so, I missed it.
this your answer is evidence of real ignorance, without offence, but really really true ignorance. The entire consensus is already with me in recognizing the fact that the baptism of Jesus by John was a problem, for "Mark". Pace you. I note that Nasruddin knows more than you, insofar he agrees at least with this fact. This makes you a real Christian apologist.

At any case, once you recognize that the baptism of Jesus by John was a problem for Mark, and once you recognize that Mark was a pauline, then you have to do 2 + 2: John the Baptist had to be a problem for Paul, too.

Note that a rival of Paul in Corinth was Apollos, the same guy who in Acts is said disciple of John the Baptist. Hence a reason in more to expect that Paul addresses a threat called John the Baptist, a threat that could only be more great than it was for the pauline Mark... ...contra factum that Paul ignored totally that threat.
I see no problem with Paul not mentioning John.
insofar you see no problem with how much Mark was pauline. If only you could realize the real measure of the Mark's paulinism, then you may even realize my point, here. But you are worse than Nasruddin as interlocutor, insofar you don't see the Mark's embarrassment for John the Baptist.
So I guess, scholars such as Bart Ehrman would be considered a Christian Apologist in your view as well.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Jan 27, 2020 10:16 pm

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

klewis
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:39 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by klewis » Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:31 pm

I see, you truly worship Richard Carrier. Anyone thing stated outside of what he believes must be wrong and therefore stupid. Wow, talk about free thinking thrown outside the window.

Giuseppe
Posts: 7009
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy, or wherever Joseph D.L. is not there

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Jan 28, 2020 12:55 am

klewis wrote:
Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:31 pm
I see, you truly worship Richard Carrier. Anyone thing stated outside of what he believes must be wrong and therefore stupid. Wow, talk about free thinking thrown outside the window.
Sorry, but this is not a political discourse. Richard Carrier has merely fixed the obvious thing: that for Paul Jesus was crucified in outer space. Period. No need of inventing again the wheel. From my first post in this forum, I am interested only to inquiry about how and why (and by who) Jesus was euhemerized.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Was the birth story in Luke/Matthew originally referred to John the Baptist

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:08 am

Sorry, but this is not a political discourse. Richard Carrier has merely fixed the obvious thing: that for Paul Jesus was crucified in outer space.
And he is wrong, as usual. Just as you are wrong, as usual.

Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again* he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

*Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse 7

Image

As the Logos is born in heaven of the virgin during the eclipse, Ophiuchus lifts the serpent up to Cygnus, the Northern Cross

I make known to you, brethren, the gospel - that gospel announced by me, that it is not according to man. For I neither from a man received it, nor was I taught, but by revelation of Isu Chrestos. But when the Supreme God was well-pleased, having selected me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His goodness, to reveal his Son in me, in order that I might proclaim him among the nations, immediately I did not confer with flesh and blood.

For Abraham had two sons, the one by a slave-maid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the slave-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. This is allegorized: these are two revelations, indeed the one from Mount Sinai is the synagogue of the Jews, giving birth, according to the Law, into slavery; The other gives birth into freedom, Above every Principality, Power, Dominion, of every name that is named, not only in this destiny, but also in that which is to come- the holy assembly promised to us, which is our “mother”. So then, brethren, we are not children of the slave-woman, but of the free.

For myself, by His law to the law I died, so for God I may be living. With Chrestos I was crucified. I live but it is no longer I living but Chrestos [‘s life] with me. That life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who ransomed himself for me.

I must go on boasting. Though there is nothing to be gained by it, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter. On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses— though if I should wish to boast, I would not be a fool, for I would be speaking the truth; but I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.

[...] the road. And he spoke to him, saying, "By which road shall I go up to Jerusalem?" The little child replied, saying, "Say your name, so that I may show you the road". The little child knew who Paul was. He wished to make conversation with him through his words in order that he might find an excuse for speaking with him. The little child spoke, saying, "I know who you are, Paul. You are he who was blessed from his mother`s womb. For I have come to you that you may go up to Jerusalem to your fellow apostles. And for this reason you were called. And I am the Spirit who accompanies you. Let your mind awaken, Paul, with [...]. For [...] whole which [...] among the principalities and these authorities and archangels and powers and the whole race of demons, [...] the one that reveals bodies to a soul-seed."

Then we went up to the seventh heaven, and I saw an old man [...] light and whose garment was white. His throne, which is in the seventh heaven, was brighter than the sun by seven times. The old man spoke, saying to me, "Where are you going, Paul? O blessed one and the one who was set apart from his mother`s womb."

Paul doesn't know a Christ crucified in Heaven, just as he doesn't know of a Christ born of a virgin. He only knows of his own heavenly crucifixion and his own heavenly rebirth.

Niente è ingannevole o depravato come Guiseppe.

Post Reply