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.
davidmartin
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:54 am

But you could also say "Paul didn't like talking about John the baptist"

I mean - for Paul Christ is very nearly a cosmic, spiritual being

He didn't want to talk about Jesus's earthly life, at all. Not his life, his teachings, his story
So he isn't going to mention others either, like John

He was forced to mention James and Peter because they were active in his time, as rivals
He mentioned Apollos, another rival

No... I recon Paul knew all about the history of the whole movement!!!
Of course - he was there, he knew everything
He chose to reveal nothing at all. Nothing. Why?

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 21, 2020 5:43 am

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:54 am
He didn't want to talk about Jesus's earthly life, at all. Not his life, his teachings, his story
So he isn't going to mention others either, like John
the problem with your point is that the name of John is not an allusion per se to an earthly life of Christ. The name of John is an allusion per se to the claim, made by not-Christians, about a guy - that is NOT Jesus - who was called the Christ. At least, that is the problem represented by John, for "Mark": some there out were saying that John, and not Jesus, was the Christ.

The my last point (John called Christ by some in the time of Mark) may be put partially in discussion, ok. But at any case, in the time of Mark, John represented a threat for Christians in virtue of something that is not the baptism of Jesus by John. Because the baptism of Jesus by John was precisely the expedient invented by Mark to neutralize someway the threat connected with John and to co-opt John.

Why was John not a threat for Paul?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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

davidmartin
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin » Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:18 am

Maybe he does mention the problem... always Paul has to repeat again and again the name 'Jesus'. Maybe this is because there were other names in use by various others. This tendancy is muted in Paul, but by the time of say 1 John it's more in the open, there it clearly says some opponents say Jesus is not the name of Christ
I'm not saying I believe this, but you can imagine Paul says 'his name is Jesus' to all his followers:
Then when they come into contact with other groups these folk have another name!

Maybe in the very early church this was not a big problem at first - but become a defining issue later
The problem then, is the identity of the Christ's name?

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 21, 2020 6:20 am



And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

35 When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

36 Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

37 With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

A curious way, by "Mark", to signal that the man on the cross was not abandoned by Elijah, but by God (=YHWH). But who was possessed by Elijah (and, as such, the best candidate to be abandoned by him)? John the Baptist. Hence "Mark" is signaling criptically that the Crucified Christ was not John, but Jesus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 21, 2020 6:23 am

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:18 am
Maybe he does mention the problem... always Paul has to repeat again and again the name 'Jesus'. Maybe this is because there were other names in use by various others.
the pre-pauline hymn to Philippians is evidence that the Pillars gave the name Jesus to their angel, not Paul.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

davidmartin
Posts: 218
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

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

Post by davidmartin » Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:55 am

i doubt that Giuseppe - is that hymn Jewish or Greek in style? I bet you Ignatius of Antioch that it's not Jewish.
no.. that hymn is a Pauline church concoction i'm sure of it

Interestingly there are 2 early writings that fail to mention the name Jesus (The Shepherd, and the Odes)

The Pillars you mention we can only assume to have the same name as well, but even if they did, it doesn't mean other pillars had the same name

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 21, 2020 7:10 am

I have written:
Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:43 am
The my last point (John called Christ by some in the time of Mark) may be put partially in discussion, ok.
...because I think that I have have found (eureka) how John was represented in the time of Mark (and before that "Mark" invented his story):
as the True Prophet, not as the Messiah.

The evidence of this are three items:

  • They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

    (John 1:21)

  • She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the Wilderness

    (Revelation 12:5)

  • The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

    (Revelation 1:1)
John was famous to be the name of the author of the original text of Revelation. As such, he was the Prophet who "knew" by divine revelation that the Messiah was born around the 70 CE (cfr Rev. 12:5). Born on the earth, but invisibly. From this POV, the Prophet John was the first euhemerizer.

John was embarrassing because his Messiah was the Warrior Messiah. It is sufficient to read the book of Revelation to realize that he was a failed apocalypticist.

As reaction against his anti-Roman failed apocalypticism, "Mark" (or another in his place) invented another Messiah, lived 40 years before the invisible earthly birth of the Messiah preached by the Prophet John.

Since the legacy of the Prophet John was embarrassing for Mark, "Mark" invented John the Baptist to place temporally that Prophet John before the his invented Jesus, and make him the anointer/baptizer of the his invented Jesus (and not more of the Warrior Messiah who was born in 70 CE).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

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 21, 2020 9:03 am

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:10 am
I have written:
Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:43 am
The my last point (John called Christ by some in the time of Mark) may be put partially in discussion, ok.
...because I think that I have have found (eureka) how John was represented in the time of Mark (and before that "Mark" invented his story):
as the True Prophet, not as the Messiah.

The evidence of this are three items:

  • They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No."

    (John 1:21)

  • She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the Wilderness

    (Revelation 12:5)

  • The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

    (Revelation 1:1)
John was famous to be the name of the author of the original text of Revelation. As such, he was the Prophet who "knew" by divine revelation that the Messiah was born around the 70 CE (cfr Rev. 12:5). Born on the earth, but invisibly. From this POV, the Prophet John was the first euhemerizer.

John was embarrassing because his Messiah was the Warrior Messiah. It is sufficient to read the book of Revelation to realize that he was a failed apocalypticist.

As reaction against his anti-Roman failed apocalypticism, "Mark" (or another in his place) invented another Messiah, lived 40 years before the invisible earthly birth of the Messiah preached by the Prophet John.

Since the legacy of the Prophet John was embarrassing for Mark, "Mark" invented John the Baptist to place temporally that Prophet John before the his invented Jesus, and make him the anointer/baptizer of the his invented Jesus (and not more of the Warrior Messiah who was born in 70 CE).
This scenario fits perfectly the hypothesis that the First Gospel was written as reaction to the Fall of Jerusalem. Without the First Jewish War, there would be no original Revelation of the Prophet John, there would be no birth cerificate of the Messiah (Revelation 12:5) on earth, there would be no need of a Christian Gospel to eclipse the Prophet John and his Warrior Messiah.

It explains why "Jesus Bar-Abbas" was a killer: the Gnostics accused rightly that the Messiah born in 70 CE and predicted by John the Prophet was a Moral Monster, an accusation retorted against them (=the Gnostics) by who invented "Jesus Bar-Abbas".

It explains why the original author of Revelation has the same name of John the Baptist and of John son of Zebedee. Once the figure of John the Baptist was invented to eclipse the John the Prophet (author of the original Jewish Revelation: Revelation 12), the expanded Christianized version of Revelation was given to John son of Zebedee: it could be preserved in Christian hands only if the his John was not more identified with the original John the Prophet.

Richard Carrier is right:
The fact that the Prophet John placed the birth of his Jesus on earth in 67-70 CE (cfr Revelation 12:5) is strongly expected if Jesus never existed. A similar case is the Christ lived under Janneus, according to Toledot Jeschu: 100 BCE.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Nasruddin
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:58 pm

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

Post by Nasruddin » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:26 pm

Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:09 am
davidmartin wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:34 am
not going to find the answers in Paul Guiseppe i think
Paul adopts a method of never naming his opponents
I disagree. Paul mentions by name the his enemies when he has really enemies. He is open and frank in Antiochia: just this his openness is his persuasive way to win the Galatians. Peter was really a false person when he feared the followers of James.

I insist: there is really EVIDENCE that:
  • (1) John the Baptist was a problem for Mark, since Mark wants to resolve/neutralize it,
  • (2) while John the Baptist was not a problem for Paul
  • (3) "Mark" is pauline;
The simplest explanation of (1), (2) and (3) is that Paul didn't know John the Baptist.

ADDENDA: That is equivalent to say that "John the Baptist" became a problem for Paulines only AFTER the death of Paul. That is equivalent to say that "John the Baptist" was known by the Christians only AFTER the death of Paul.
Paul's letters were specific to the problems that were addressed to him by the congregations he wrote to. Just because he doesn't mention things that appear in the Gospel of Mark, it does not mean that it proves he was ignorant of them and that Mark must have made them up.

Paul was also a convert to Christ after the crucifixtion. John was dead, and his rivalry to Jesus and his disciples was old news. Paul would only get his information about any rivalry from those who experienced it (the early disciples of Jesus), and not only was it no longer important to the faith, but Paul was in no hurry to view those apostles as a higher authority to himself. John the Baptist was just not relevant to anything Paul wanted to say.

Post Reply