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

[Giuseppe]

Really, among Nasruddin, Klewis and Joseph D.L., I don't know who I would reject more as my worst interlocutor. Everywhere the same apologetical folly. Without any interest about the title of the thread and the patience of LISTENING what I am saying.

Only Peter seems to be really curious about my next arguments on proto-John.

I am not a grotesque amateur, differently from Joseph D.L.

I am reporting gradually what I am going to know about Robert Stahl's view on proto-Mark. I place myself along the mythicism of P.-L. Couchoud and Stahl, not inventing again and again atwillist theories à la Joseph D.L. or by judaizing grotesquely Marcion (who had already to face a lot of Judaizers in the his own time).

I recognize the weight of past mythicist studies on Marcion and proto-John, while Joseph D.L. knows about Marcion only from internet. He praises not Carrier but... ...Brandon, which is all say: no comment.

[Giuseppe]

...Hoping that the apologists don't disturb more...

In proto-Revelation the Woman is the community of the author (the original Jewish John). In proto-John Jesus rejects that Woman ("What between us?") because he rejects the entire Judaism and his EVIL god.

Another clue that the original Gospel story (that not derived from proto-John) was about
the Jewish John (= the John not still christianized as "John the Baptist"):

And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

(Mark 9:11-13)

Surprisingly, in this episode the 12 are not idiots. Hence the occasion is good to polemize against the Jewish John. But if Elijah ascended already to heaven a first time, then why should he ascend a second time to heaven? The disciples have realized that the Elijah who talked with Jesus on the mount was John himself.

Jesus answers them that John/"Elijah" was already dead, therefore he had to ascend again to heaven, as he did.

Hence the real question of the disciples was:

“Why do the disciples of John say that John was risen (=ascended to heaven), if the Christians say that only Jesus is risen?”

The answer was simple, once christianized John as "The Baptist": the resurrection of John has sense only insofar it is seen as the second ascension of Elijah.

The corollary of all this is very important:

Elijah transfigured on the mount was the christianized John going to ascend to heaven a second time.

[Peter Kirby]

So you see Giuseppe being antagonistic towards others, and don't feel this is grounds for disciplinary recourse?

I don't spank anyone in this forum. This is not a bondage and discipline forum.

I don't attempt to block people from insulting each other as a rule. Human adults are remarkably adept at dealing with insults. The usual outcome is that one or both parties get to say what they feel, and that's that. The alternative is generally a low, simmering hatred that involves a lot of drama over interventions and really only pleases the ankle biting passive aggressive darlings who know exactly how close they can go to the line in order to be maximally annoying, which is not really a big improvement. The feuds are still there, but there's also a kingmaker and more resentment, an outcome that the forum chose to avoid many years ago. That isn't changing because you ask for it.

I do look after the health of the overall forum. If someone shows that they are significantly and clearly detrimental to the health of the overall forum, they're on the road to being banned entirely. It's not sufficient to be stupid, stubborn, rude, wrong, antagonistic, or even prolific in one of those regards. You've also got to have a pattern of injecting yourself into conversations in a way that you prevent others from benefiting from the forum, and/or you have to be a net negative in terms of contributing to the discussion on the forum.

As you may know by now, I consider Giuseppe to compensate for his many bad qualities by occasionally posting something interesting in one of his many threads and by restraining himself when not posting to one of the threads that he has started. You're not succeeding in the campaign to ban him. You're free to continue a war of words against him, but there will be no cavalry coming and no final victory. To get banned, Giuseppe would have to misstep and significantly change his current modus operandi.

[Peter Kirby]

Why Kirby allows this blight called Giuseppe to spread on his forum is either a sign of an absolutist free speech proponent

This gave me a good laugh. Thank you.

[Giuseppe]

Just as Jesus, as the precursor of the Paraclite (the historical Marcion, then the holy spirit), served to replace the glossolalia of the early Christians ( = hence a schizophrenical holy spirit talking via them), so the Jewish John was reduced to a mere precursor of Jesus. Originally, therefore, John was an enemy of Jesus just as Jesus was an enemy of the holy spirit.

In the field of precursors and (their) predicted people, the rule is always:

the precursor of X was originally an enemy of X.

Hence, the rivalry along the line "Jesus versus the Paraclite" reflects the original rivalry along early Christians (=adorers of YHWH) and new Christians (=enemies of YHWH), the Paraclite being originally Marcion. This rivalry is shown by the accusation thrown by Marcion himself against the Judaizers.

The rivalry between John the Baptist and the Gospel Jesus reflects therefore a conflict preceding Marcion. A conflict among early Christians (=adorers of YHWH) and Zealots.

A dangerous Zealot, the more dangerous for the Romans in absolute, was allegorized by an angel who was the "father" of seven thunders.

10 Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, 3 and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. 4 And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, “Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down.”

5 Then the angel I had seen standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven. 6 And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and all that is in it, and said, “There will be no more delay! 7 But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accomplished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets.”

8 Then the voice that I had heard from heaven spoke to me once more: “Go, take the scroll that lies open in the hand of the angel who is standing on the sea and on the land.”

9 So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, “Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but ‘in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey.’” 10 I took the little scroll from the angel’s hand and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. 11 Then I was told, “You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings.”

(Revelation 10)


These 7 thunders were 7 Leaders of Zealots just as their historical father.

They were demonized by the early Christians as seven demons. And their mother was sanitized by the Gospel Jesus himself, who freed her from "7 demons".

Hence Zebedee == Thunder == the husband of Mary Magdalene == the dangerous Zealot I was talking about.

Then "John son of Zebedee" is merely John son of Mary Magdalene. Just as James his brother. "Mary Magddalene" is the caustic Christian parody of the original mother of John the Baptist.

Now it is more clear why the Gospel story having John as hero was christianized by having Jesus in the place of John.

Zechariah == the father of the christianized John. But per above Zecharia == Zebedee. Just as Elizabeth == Mary Magdalene, mother of 7 demons.

Therefore if Jesus replaces John, the putative father of Jesus coincides with the biological father of John.

But this only by a religious paradox.

"Joseph" is the masked father of the masked "Jesus".

The antithesis of Joseph is JUDAS.

But we have already seen that Jesus replaced John in an original birth story with John as hero.

Therefore John son of Judas was the original "John the Baptist".

John son of Judas the Galilean.

[Giuseppe]

The 7 thunders,in the original narrative about John, were de-politicized/sanitized/gentilized as the 7 breads multiplied by a guy of which the name was "YHWH gives grace":

When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them

(Matthew 936)

The OT Elijah multiplied breads. Elijah redivivus is John, of which the name means "YHWH gives grace/ has compassion". There, also, a John original hero of the story was replaced by Jesus (="YHWH gives salvation").

[Giuseppe]

BAR-ABBAS STRIKES BACK!!!!

"You are my beloved son!" was addressed, in the original story with John as hero, to John the son of Judas the Galilean.

The reader had already read the following post, before the irrational pollution caused by the fool apologetical duo Klewis/Nasruddin:

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").

We see again the "Father" of the "Son" (Bar-Abbas) in action in the words of the same son, when he was 12 years old and his real name was John (in the original story):

When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

49 “Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” 50 But they did not understand what he was saying to them.

(Luke 1:41-54)

Here John proclaimed, already by that time, at the age of 12 years, that he was the true "SON OF FATHER" (=Bar-Abbas).

Hence not "Jesus Bar-Abbas", but "John Bar-Abbas".

[Giuseppe]

the origin of the "confusion" of Acts:

But since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each passage, we shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after whose death his deluded followers were completely dispersed. And after him, in the days of the census, when Jesus appears to have been born, one Judas, a Galilean, gathered around him many of the Jewish people, saying he was a wise man, and a teacher of certain new doctrines. And when he also had paid the penalty of his rebellion, his doctrine was overturned, having taken hold of very few persons indeed, and these of the very humblest condition. And after the times of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he appears to have gained over some to his views.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04161.htm

Hence there was really a historical Theudas before Judas the Galilean and distinct from the other Theudas (mentioned by Josephus). Acts was basically correct.

[Giuseppe]

Another interesting clue: Herod was persecutor not of the child Jesus, but of the child John. For obvious reasons: John was the son of Judas the Galilean.

[Giuseppe]

Another clue: the denial of Jesus by Peter.

In the previous story having John as hero, Simon Peter denied John.

This is expected since the pseudo-Clementines say us that Simon Magus was a disciple of Dositheus who was rebel against his teacher, by winning him at the end.

Hence, John == Dositheus.