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.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:06 am, the scapegoat must take on the sins (and murder and robbery are sins according to the Torah) of the tribe, so that makes Barabbas,
without offence, but you are really ignoring the difference, in an ethical level, between a real criminal and a scapegoat. The child Isaac was a scapegoat of the kind of one who "must take on the sins" of other people. Barabbas was really a killer, he was really a robber, he was justly in prison. Are you able to recognize the difference?

I fear that you know the difference but you are deliberately ignoring it because you are a troll, you post as a troll, you make me feel prideful of my being from this side of the Ocean.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
klewis
Posts: 175
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 »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:38 pm Even Richard Carrier thinks Giuseppe is an unhinged, illogical lunatic.

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/3910
To be fair, the dialog took place in 2013, so we should account for some growth. However, in 2020, it appears that only the venue has changed. For example, in this thread, one must see it through the text through a kaleidoscope resolved through a secret decoder ring that has yet to be replicated.

When you read the entire thread, the evidence that he brings forth is as follows:
  • Lexical Evidence
    Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:38 am
    And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in grace with God and man.

    (Luke 2:52)

    Remember the meaning of "John": "It is YHWH who gives grace". The original hero of story was John, not Jesus (="It is YHWH who gives salvation").
    Basically, John's name means "Yahweh who gives grace" and therefore if the word grace is nearby used in relation to Jesus, it is evidence that it must refer to John. This however, is limited to only places where the two intersect. If something uses grace to you with the name Bubba, it would not apply because Bubba is not Jesus. The problem with this is that it assumes that a person cannot make the statement connecting grace to Jesus without knowing that it must mean John.

    Since there is no manuscript evidence, this is at best wishful thinking.

    Giuseppe appears to do this type of analysis a lot. He makes the assumption that if words are used in a particular order then the author must have derived them from a particular source of his choosing.
    Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:34 am And here is where even the original Judaizing author betrayes himself and the his judaization of whatsoever is "John":

    to give his people the knowledge of salvation
    through the forgiveness of their sins,

    (Luke 1:77)

    The word “Mandaean” (mandaiyi) refers back to an ancient term, manda “knowledge” or “gnosis”.
    The problem with this, is it assumes that if someone said something a certain way then the person saying, or in this case writing it, must have complete knowledge of the writing that Giuseppe is referencing.
  • The idea that someone did something and no one else can do it.
    Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 9:42 am Who could live often in the wilderness? Only John, not Jesus.


    Luke 5:16:
    But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed.

    Luke 1:80:
    And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the wilderness until he appeared publicly to Israel.

    John went into the wilderness, therefore Jesus cannot take a walk into the wilderness. Likewise, John the Baptist goes into Jerusalem, therefore Jesus going into Jerusalem must not be Jesus. Therefore it must be John the Baptist.
  • The ad hominem argument.
    Giuseppe wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:04 pm
    Nasruddin wrote: Sat Jan 18, 2020 5:48 pm John is the precursor. Jesus is the the one who comes after.
    please don't say a so stupid thing. Not in this thread. You are clearly talking as a Christian believer. The option "John precursor of Jesus" is absolutely not contemplated in this thread. I don't like the idea.
    Apparently, only Christian believers believe that John was a precursor to Jesus. The reality, is the vast majority of non-believing scholars believe this.
  • Absence of writing on something == Evidence of absence knowledge of the subject
    Giuseppe wrote: Sun Jan 19, 2020 8:59 am So the steps are the following:

    1) Paul and the Pillars: Christ crucified in outer space. Worship of YHWH. Zero knowledge of a John the Baptist.
    Just because someone does not write about something does not mean they know nothing about it. Socrates, never wrote a thing, so by this definition, he had no knowledge.
  • The Argument of Silence and the assumption that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, a follower of Paul
    Giuseppe wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:44 pm
    Nasruddin wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:26 pmJohn was dead, and his rivalry to Jesus and his disciples was old . 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.
    what escapes completely both Nasruddin and David Martin is that "Mark" (author) was totally a faithful disciple of Paul. This means that:

    the problems of Paul become problems of "Mark".

    An example: Paul has problems with the Pillars. Accordingly, "Mark" has Jesus having problems with the Pillars.

    If "Mark" shows embarrassment, ambivalence and therefore basic rivalry against John, then why did not Paul show similar signs, too?

    It is not a mere question of showing knowledge of things or hiding it. If someone was a threat for Paul, then Paul mentions that threat. He does effectively so when he signals "some came from James".

    If someone was a threat for Mark, then Mark mentions that threat. He does effectively so when he shows signs of rivalry against John.

    If the Baptist is a threat for Mark, then the Baptist has to be a threat also for Paul, contra factum that Paul ignores totally John.

    The Argument from Silence is Strong in Paul against not only a historical Jesus (per Carrier 2014) but also against John.

    ADDENDA: note that this Paul's ignorance about the Baptist is further evidence of the authenticity of the epistles.
    This is difficult to determine what Giuseppe believes, we cannot make the assumption that the author of the Gospel of Mark and Paul were this close.
    As every Biblical scholar knows, the Gospels are anonymous, we really do not know who the author was. What we do know is that they were later assigned to the various authors we see today.

    The argument of silence is a weak one. If Paul never mentioned the Lord's supper, we would never know that Paul knew anything about it. We really don't know to what extent that Paul knew compared to the gospels writers. The other problem with this is that the Gospels were written well after Paul. So they would have stuff that Paul either did not know or the Gospel writers did not know Paul's material.
  • Mischaracterize people's statements
    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.
    There is not a single post, in which I stated this was a problem.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

klewis wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:48 am There is not a single post, in which I stated this was a problem.
  • Obviously the fact itself that Nasruddin (probably a Christian believer) recognized that this was a problem is a sufficient reason to consider/condemn you, Klewis, as a Christian apologist (basically this means: you are a liar for Christ). The fact that the baptism of John is embarrassing for "Mark" is already (even a Christian) CONSENSUS.
  • About the Birth story about Jesus being a corruption of a previous story about John, it is evident where Klewis fails to confute me: he is totally unable to see that a set of clues (disiepta membra) make an evidence.
    Partially he is justified: I should develop some points. For example, in the original Birth story about John, the foetus John moves himself in the belly of Elisabeth when the archangel stands before his mother and predicts that the child will be possessed by the Holy Spirit (= will become a prophet). The sudden physical movement of the child in the belly is expected if he, just in that moment, was possessed by the Spirit at the words of the Archangel before his mother.
  • And already now Klewis ignores totally the Great Anomaly about the role of Holy Spirit in our Birth stories: usually, in a Jewish milieu (and no doubt that the Birth story was not written by a Gnostic), the Holy Spirit enters to possess a man and make him a prophet. Surprisingly (=unexpected, = improbable), in our Birth stories the Holy Spirit enters to make something of really PAGAN: to fecond a woman.
  • About the Argument from Silence in Paul against the historical Jesus: it is a Strong Argument from Silence, pace Klewis. For the reasons, I refer Klewis to Carrier 2014. I don't waste my time with a Christian apologist about this precise point.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

we cannot make the assumption that the author of the Gospel of Mark and Paul were this close.
I refer you to Dykstra's book.

https://vridar.org/2014/07/13/mark-canonizer-of-paul/
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
klewis
Posts: 175
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:14 am
klewis wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:48 am There is not a single post, in which I stated this was a problem.
  • Obviously the fact itself that Nasruddin (probably a Christian believer) recognized that this was a problem is a sufficient reason to consider/condemn you, Klewis, as a Christian apologist (basically this means: you are a liar for Christ). The fact that the baptism of John is embarrassing for "Mark" is already (even a Christian) CONSENSUS.
  • About the Birth story about Jesus being a corruption of a previous story about John, it is evident where Klewis fails to confute me: he is totally unable to see that a set of clues (disiepta membra) make an evidence.
    Partially he is justified: I should develop some points. For example, in the original Birth story about John, the foetus John moves himself in the belly of Elisabeth when the archangel stands before his mother and predicts that the child will be possessed by the Holy Spirit (= will become a prophet). The sudden physical movement of the child in the belly is expected if he, just in that moment, was possessed by the Spirit at the words of the Archangel before his mother.
  • And already now Klewis ignores totally the Great Anomaly about the role of Holy Spirit in our Birth stories: usually, in a Jewish milieu (and no doubt that the Birth story was not written by a Gnostic), the Holy Spirit enters to possess a man and make him a prophet. Surprisingly (=unexpected, = improbable), in our Birth stories the Holy Spirit enters to make something of really PAGAN: to fecond a woman.
  • About the Argument from Silence in Paul against the historical Jesus: it is a Strong Argument from Silence, pace Klewis. For the reasons, I refer Klewis to Carrier 2014. I don't waste my time with a Christian apologist about this precise point.
Wow, this is getting exciting.

It is good to see the ad hominem statement did not discourage you from further posts.

Just curious, what evidence do you have that I am:
  • A Christian Apologist?
  • A liar for Christ?
I can say for what I have read, that you will distort all reality to convey your belief in that Jesus was an afterthought? Obviously, you go through novel means of providing evidence for such a belief. I don't mind a good discourse on any subject, but bear in mind, you have an apologetic agenda and you attack all who oppose it. Regardless of religious views, philosophical differences, or political views, that should not be the deciding factor as to discredit them.

Furthermore, something like the Baptism of Jesus may be a problem in one part of history does not mean that it was a problem in the time that it was written. The differences in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John is evident of that. You are taking a theology of one time and retrofitting it to the text in which it was written and using that as a hunch that it is because of your supposition.

The argument as to the Silence of Jesus in Paul about the historical Jesus does not validate your idea that the birth of Jesus narrative is really the birth of John narrative. In fact, it has nothing to do with it. It is like saying:
The reason for mini skirts is because of the invention of the "Law of Gravity." We can see that because after the articulation of the Law of Gravity, miniskirts was invented.
Just because you see the birth narrative as a Gnostic text does not mean that it is true. It only means that you see it as a Gnostic text. For example, most scholars see the Song on Anna as the Song of Hannah re-expressed (Greek has no 'H' letter -- a clue). So that would mean Jewish of sorts.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

klewis wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:01 am Just curious, what evidence do you have that I am:
  • A Christian Apologist?
  • A liar for Christ?
The evidence is that you deny, differently from Nasruddin, that Mark has a problem with John the Baptist and he attempts to give a naive solution for that problem. The problem was that someway John was a threat for the Jesus cult. A possibility is that the disciples of John claimed that John, and not Jesus, was the Messiah.

The second evidence is that you deny that Mark is strongly pauline and his corollary: the enemies and problems of Mark can only be inherited by enemies and problems of Paul, UNLESS they were enemies and problems entered on the scene after Paul and before Mark.
you have an apologetic agenda and you attack all who oppose it. Regardless of religious views, philosophical differences, or political views, that should not be the deciding factor as to discredit them.
the precise thing I think about you. Which makes you basically not the apt person, in this forum, to teach something to me.
The differences in the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John is evident of that. You are taking a theology of one time and retrofitting it to the text in which it was written and using that as a hunch that it is because of your supposition.
you have absolutely no idea about how much Marcionite and anti-Jewish is proto-John. I don't waste my time to explain it to you. Only read this and learn a good time.

http://sgwau2cbeginnings.blogspot.com/p ... 5.html?m=0
The argument as to the Silence of Jesus in Paul about the historical Jesus does not validate your idea that the birth of Jesus narrative is really the birth of John narrative. In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
That is not my argument. My point is that if you despise the force of the Argument from Silence in Paul against Jesus, even more so you are not able to like the force of the Argument from Silence in Paul against any knowledge about John "the Baptist". Basically, this is equivalent to say that in this thread I would like to have as interlocutors people who already agree with me about the not-historicity of Jesus. Otherwise the game doesn't count the candle.

Just because you see the birth narrative as a Gnostic text does not mean that it is true.
never said that the birth story was Gnostic. Really it was 100% Jewish insofar it is anti-marcionite (Marcion denied the birth for Jesus). My point is that I think that I have found traces of the original birth story as being a JEWISH birth story about John.
the Song on Anna as the Song of Hannah
I am not interested about Jewish fables.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

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

Post by Giuseppe »

At any case, the reader has still to see a conplete list of arguments about the birth story as originally about John.

In future posts I can be more clear.

I ask only: patience and tolerance for my views.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
klewis
Posts: 175
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:55 am
klewis wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:01 am Just curious, what evidence do you have that I am:
  • A Christian Apologist?
  • A liar for Christ?
The evidence is that you deny, differently from Nasruddin, that Mark has a problem with John the Baptist and he attempts to give a naive solution for that problem. The problem was that someway John was a threat for the Jesus cult. A possibility is that the disciples of John claimed that John, and not Jesus, was the Messiah.

The second evidence is that you deny that Mark is strongly pauline and his corollary: the enemies and problems of Mark can only be inherited by enemies and problems of Paul, UNLESS they were enemies and problems entered on the scene after Paul and before Mark.
you have an apologetic agenda and you attack all who oppose it. Regardless of religious views, philosophical differences, or political views, that should not be the deciding factor as to discredit them.
the precise thing I think about you. Which makes you basically not the apt person, in this forum, to teach something to me.
So what you are saying is that I hold to certain ideas that no one can possibly can hold to except for the Christian Apologists. On that basis alone you have the right to make prejudicial statements against me.

At least you don't have a note from my mom, written in Coptic saying so.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8022
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:38 am13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:38 amProto-John is the first gospel.

Because three reasons:
  • 1) there is no trial before sinedrites, but only before Pilate
  • 2) the episode Barabbas is a Judaizing parody just against the Son of Father of Proto-John (therefore proving that Mark comes after proto-John).

  • 3) Proto-John is very closely related to the Johannine Apocalypse and particularly to its old part (Revelation 12) because it attributes to the public life of Jesus the duration of three and a half years, it speaks with insistence of the his presumed mother and who also represents for him the community of the faithful to God and of the Messiah, finally proto-John also presents Jesus under the figure of the sheperd.
Giuseppe wrote: Mon Jan 20, 2020 10:38 am The Apocalypse exposed a thesis,

proto-John is the antithesis. The Synoptics are presented as a synthesis.

They materialize the evangelical tradition, which first presented itself as a Gnostic novel of a spiritual character, and they give it as a true and well attested story. They make, for example, the mother of Christ, who represents the Judeo-Christian community, the wife of the Northern Israel: Joseph. Carpenter is a misunderstanding of nazarene.
This is interesting. I've been waiting for someone to attempt a John-first theory. Hopefully you'll develop this further.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Nasruddin
Posts: 137
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 »

Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 10:14 am
  • Obviously the fact itself that Nasruddin (probably a Christian believer) recognized that this was a problem is a sufficient reason to consider/condemn you, Klewis,
Giuseppe wrote: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:55 am The evidence is that you deny, differently from Nasruddin, that Mark has a problem with John the Baptist and he attempts to give a naive solution for that problem.
Giuseppe, do not draw me in as a supporter of your viewpoint that the baptism of Jesus was a problem for Mark, nor as a foil againgst klewis. You clearly have no regard for even recent written evidence, where I responded to you with a reply;

Nasruddin wrote: Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:14 pm The problem was not the baptism.
If you can fail to pick up on something so clear and blatent in my writing, and then insist I wrote the opposite and use it as support for your theory, then it is an indication of how little trust anyone should put in your logic or opinion of what can be interpreted or inferred from what Paul, Mark, or anyone else did or didn't write.
Post Reply