Secret Alias wrote: That's cool. My thing is the myth of John the Baptist. Never existed.
Come on
Honestly, your not addressing is historicity with any credibility what so ever.
You have supplied NOTHING that amounts to evidence against his historicity. You have supplied a vivid imagination only.
This is so pathetic, with the same methodology you could literally turn the bible into "snow white and seven dwarfs", you can and do pervert higher criticism to the point it is no longer criticism but absurdity at this point.
A reason to doubt about John in Josephus is that Josephus has a positive view of him (differently from other similar figures). Josephus doesn't say why the people loved John and this is very strange.
Compare the TF where Jesus is not condemned by Josephus and is said to have many followers. Usually, when y limits himself
1) to observe x
2) without his personal opinions about x
3) but reporting that x is loved by "people"
Then you are sure that the only function of y is to witness x.
But his historicity is "useful" in function anti-Jesus: why did Josephus mention John but not Jesus?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Unfortunately Stephen goes on these manic spews of three pages of random disconnected bits and claims his vague theory of conspiracy. I wish he'd take his lithium. (I totally get the Love ya ... my midwestern colloquial we'd say "bless you" with the same meaning).
Real conversations on the subject ends, as Stephen attempts to smother everyone else with 20 or 30 unanswered posts in rapid sucession. Threads die. He's obviously a bit unbalanced, and something of an insecure control freak.
Stephen try limiting your responses to two posts max, and better yet write a short paper on it and sit for a day, re-read it and decide if its worth posting. This spewing is why nobody wants to respond to you. You are a smart guy, and some things you say are interesting (some flat off the wall wrong). Anyway I stopped reading after the third rapid reply, lamenting that you killed another thread.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
But his historicity is "useful" in function anti-Jesus: why did Josephus mention John but not Jesus?
Because John was the popular teacher, Jesus took over Johns movement after Johns death.
Jesus knowing drawing large crowds would get him killed took Johns movement to the road teaching in smaller Aramaic villages avoiding Hellenistic centers Like Sepphoris. By our best accounts.
John gathered the largest crowds that Jesus never did.
The authors also had to downplay John when building divinity, had to say some teachers apostle is a son of god.
Last edited by outhouse on Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Unfortunately Stephen goes on these manic spews of three pages of random disconnected bits and claims his vague theory of conspiracy. I wish he'd take his lithium. (I totally get the Love ya ... my midwestern colloquial we'd say "bless you" with the same meaning).
Real conversations on the subject ends, as Stephen attempts to smother everyone else with 20 or 30 unanswered posts in rapid sucession. Threads die. He's obviously a bit unbalanced, and something of an insecure control freak.
Stephen try limiting your responses to two posts max, and better yet write a short paper on it and sit for a day, re-read it and decide if its worth posting. This spewing is why nobody wants to respond to you. You are a smart guy, and some things you say are interesting (some flat off the wall wrong). Anyway I stopped reading after the third rapid reply, lamenting that you killed another thread.
I have known him for many years from previous forums we both frequented.
While your correct, there is a deeper meaning to his style of study. Which is to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks and what does not stick. No stone left unturned, or thinking out of the box to find what is inside the box.
But sometimes, it is just to far removed from context to ask fellow members of this forum to play in his imagination.
The above may be tied to his desperation to build a background that helps sell his personal hypothesis that never gained traction. We wont let it go.
But we've heard all about the historicity of John the Baptist. The assumption that John the Baptist is historical is entirely based on two pieces of information - (a) the testimonies of the gospel(s) and (b) Josephus. Both these literary traditions ultimately come from the same publishing house as it were so they shouldn't count as separate traditions. It's one claim from two texts likely coming from the same circle of editors or editor.
At least I am bringing in new information. Y'all just keep saying the same thing (my Canadian accent).
So let's look more at Epiphanius's testimony about the heretics. He says:
And this, they claim, is what the Lord said of John, 'What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?' John was not perfect, they say; he was inspired by many spirits, like a reed stirring in every wind.
The idea clearly is that John must have been already dead in the Marcionite gospel narrative too. For the context that the heretics preserve is that they see Jesus and think he is the risen John.
“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
The facts are that people like Stuart are great at memorizing facts but seem incapable of synthesizing or being productive with the information. I may be wrong in my conclusions but at least were not stuck in primary school.
Now my point about the Marcionite gospel stands and it is important.
1. There was no baptism of Jesus by John
2. When John is introduced he is already (already) dead, dead before the beginning of the gospel or at least the circumstances of his death are never discussed. He is above all else John who is dead.
3. Jesus is 'mistaken' as the risen John by numerous people.
These are significant details to consider when we are piecing together the context of the gospel.
“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
Another clue - John is the 'reed' shaken by the wind. Why isn't קנה (= reed) a play on הורקנוס? It may not even be directly related to Hyrcanus but to the underlying concept of ruler which seems incompatible with John the Baptist as described in the gospel. Some context:
The term [canon] as applied to the Bible designates specifically the closed nature of the corpus of sacred literature accepted as authoritative because it is believed to be divinely revealed. The history of the word helps to explain its usage. "Canon" derives ultimately from an old Semitic word with the meaning of "reed" or "cane" (Heb. קנה), later used for "a measuring rod" (cf. Ezek. 40:5), both of which senses passed into Greek (κάννα, κανών). Metaphorically, it came to be used as a rule or standard of excellence and was so applied by the Alexandrian grammarians to the Old Greek classics. In the second century, κανών had come to be used in Christian circles in the sense of "rule of faith." It was the Church Fathers of the fourth century C.E. who first applied "canon" to the sacred Scriptures.
“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
Consider also the ancient fortress הורקניה (Hyrcania) in the Judean Desert of the West Bank. The site is located on an isolated hill about 200 m above the Hyrcania valley, on its western edge. It is about 5 km west of Qumran, and 16 km east of Jerusalem
“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
There is no acknowledged etymology of the name Ὕρκανος apparently nor any agreement whether the name is Greek or Hebrew.
“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