A question addressed to John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 4502
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

A question addressed to John

Post by Giuseppe » Wed May 16, 2018 11:25 am

The Seven (rulers/planitary spirits) put question to me
, the Dead who have not seen Life, and they said unto me;
"In whose strenght dost thou stand there, and with whose
praise dost thou make proclamation?
"
Thereupon gave to them answer:
I stand in the strenght of my Father and with the praise of
the Man, my creator. I have built no house in Judea,
I have set up no throne in Jerusalem.
I have not loved the
wreath of the roses, not commerce with lovely women.
http://www.essene.com/B'nai-Amen/vjohn2.htm

Isn't the same question addressed to Jesus?
Mark 11:27-33

27 They arrived again in Jerusalem, and while Jesus was walking in the temple courts, the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders came to him. 28 “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you authority to do this?”

29 Jesus replied, “I will ask you one question. Answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 30 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? Tell me!”

31 They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 32 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’ …” (They feared the people, for everyone held that John really was a prophet.)

33 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
And obviously John is the Son of Man:
I have built no house in Judea,
I have set up no throne in Jerusalem
"And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
(Luke 9:58)

So if the Son of Man is just John, then he could be the man baptized by the spirit of Christ on the Jordan.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9964
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A question addressed to John

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 16, 2018 11:32 am

It's different insofar as Jesus's god is in secret.

Moreover, by His not replying to those who said to Him, "By what power doest Thou this?"(4) but by a question on His own side, put them to utter confusion; by His thus not replying, according to their interpretation, He showed the unutterable nature of the Father. [Adv Haer 1.20.2]
“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

Giuseppe
Posts: 4502
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: A question addressed to John

Post by Giuseppe » Wed May 16, 2018 11:37 am

The secrecy of Jesus's god could be an anti-marcionite apology (or anti-John=Christ-apology?), as I explain here.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4148#p86640
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4502
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: A question addressed to John

Post by Giuseppe » Wed May 16, 2018 11:52 am

It would seem that Mark was introducing an answer by the man Jesus where in a previous similar source it was the spiritual Christ who answered (to the scribes or to the celestial powers).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Giuseppe
Posts: 4502
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: A question addressed to John

Post by Giuseppe » Wed May 16, 2018 11:56 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Wed May 16, 2018 11:32 am
Moreover, by His not replying to those who said to Him, "By what power doest Thou this?"(4) but by a question on His own side, put them to utter confusion; by His thus not replying, according to their interpretation, He showed the unutterable nature of the Father. [Adv Haer 1.20.2]
it is even so a show of something: a divine being (Christ), not a man (Jesus).
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9964
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: A question addressed to John

Post by Secret Alias » Wed May 16, 2018 12:29 pm

You have a really fucking annoying way of seeing only the things in the text which agree with your theses and plainly ignoring the differences that challenge your assumptions. It's like you would buy a jumbo chocolate milk shake and take the cherry on top and throw away the chocolate milk shake and exclaim 'it was all cherry!' No it wasn't. It was a chocolate milk shake.
“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

Giuseppe
Posts: 4502
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Vicenza (Italy)

Re: A question addressed to John

Post by Giuseppe » Thu May 17, 2018 5:20 am

I see the difference. But I don't see still what this difference implies. The thesis I would like to test is the possibility that John the Baptist was used as the actor for the part of the Son of Man in the earliest Gospel where a Son of Man is mentioned (not the Marcion's Gospel). As first step of the progressive post-70 judaizing of the just fabricated "historical" Jesus. Something of similar to the mythico-historical approach described by Ben but with an exception: the actor was only during a short time considered as the "man possessed by Christ", before of becoming reduced to a mere precursor of the entirely invented Jesus Nazarene.

And surely I see a difference between my view and your view. I like to think that the Christian origins are in the Jews Diaspora, not in Jerusalem and not among the ebionites (even if there was a pre-Christian Joshua cult in Jerusalem). In communities where the Jewish God was far from being adored.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply