(John 1:29)
...but this:
(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.
what do you mean as "deviant" for a Jew (pseudo-Clement) about another Jew (John)?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!
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?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
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.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.
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.Neither was the real John the leader of a deviant sect, but a solid, good guy the 'Ebionites' had a problem with
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.what do you mean as "deviant" for a Jew (pseudo-Clement) about another Jew (John)?
The Clemetines are Jewish-Christian and so is Revelation, broadly speaking. They both fantasise about hell strongly, why not?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?
I'm able to reason with the idea 'Jesus' wasn't a man but appeared in one or more people as a hypotheticalexcuse 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.
Josephus is scarcely reliable, who knows who this John the Baptist guy isagain: 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.
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.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?
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
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".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.”
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.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.
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.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