Everything we know about the life and ministry of John the Baptist is derived in the first place from a few lines in Josephus and secondly from the gospel traditions. The gospels are all the more valuable because they contain fragments of John's preaching, which are probably copied from some loose leaf circulating among the disciples of the Baptist. Yet in dealing with Christian sources we must be careful not to allow ourselves to be influenced by the specifically “Christian“and therefore necessarily biased view, that John was a ' forerunner ' of Jesus. For even though it was manifest that the son of Zachariah the priest came forward to prepare the way for a mightier one coming after him, who certainly was meant to be the expected Messiah of the Jews, it does not follow that the ministry of the Baptist had anything at all to do with the entirely different one of Jesus and his apostles.

The history of John's infancy in the gospel of Luke is generally admitted by historical biblical scholars to be a pious legend artificially composed to suit a series of parallel motives in the Old Testament. The name of the father may have been faithfully handed down to us, however less reliable but historically unimportant is the tradition as to the mother's name Elisheba, indeed, it is unlikely he was Christened “John”, that name was likely granted him by no less a personage than Jesus at a much later stage as will be shown. Regardless, the priestly descent of John seems quite trustworthy.

In any event, whether John was a priest by birthright or not, nobody can fail to perceive that he was deeply imbued with a knowledge of the scriptures and derived the inspiration for his whole life and ministry almost exclusively from the study of the Old Testament.

To begin with his peculiar dress like that of the prophets of old and most especially like the expected renewer of the world, Elias, he wore garments of skin. Yet his intention was not to engage by the use of cheap means in the artifice of posing as an inspired prophet of God. On the contrary, both the skin cloak of the old Israelite prophets and that of John must be understood with regards to the ancient mythic tradition that Yahweh clothed the first human pair after their fall in coats of skin.

Further, just as the Baptist found the reason for his peculiar dress in the biblical Paradise legends, his peculiar diet seems equally to be determined by the law concerning food, first laid down for primeval man in the Book of Genesis. Only after the deluge had God allowed his creatures, in the so-called Noahide covenant, the use of animal food, therefore a man who refused to profit by this later indulgence, would feel sure of acquiring special merit in the eyes of Yahweh. Moved by such considerations, likely the Baptist abstained from eating animals and lived, according to a rigorous interpretation of the scriptures, on the seed-filled fruit of the carob or locust-tree.

It is easy to understand, that when the Baptist came forward and due to his garb of repentance, he was taken by people for Malachi's Elias reborn and as a result of his Nazirite and penitent's diet, he was taken for the expected “holy one of God,” the Saviour of the Last Days.

It is clear that he himself anxiously avoided any confirmation of the concrete hopes attached to his person. And in fact, the statement of Jn. 1.23, that the Baptist himself claimed to be "the voice of one crying in the wilderness " is wholly unbelievable.

Jesus called him " the greatest among those that are born of women " But at first sight nothing in the ethical teachings of the Baptist seems to justify such a superlative estimation. Afterall John, as Jesus says (Matt.21) came “in the way of righteousness,”

Further, John the Baptist was untouched by those latest Jewish ideals, such as man's forgiveness of his neighbour,and universal love, the influence of which is paramount in the teaching of Jesus in fact by that new ethic of love propagated throughout the Christian world by the Sermon on the Mount, initially taught as well by the Jewish sage of the second century B.C. who wrote The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.

What then could have convinced Jesus to place John above the greatest teachers and reformers of old Israel, above the likes of Isaiah or Jeremiah? Could it be the new peculiar purificatory rite, known to a later age as the ' baptism of John ' or baptism of repentance,' or rather the re-interpretation of the spiritual meaning Jesus himself ascribed to the baptismal ceremony in his teaching? It is worth exploring.

Sarassin:
Jesus called him " the greatest among those that are born of women " But at first sight nothing in the ethical teachings of the Baptist seems to justify such a superlative estimation. Afterall John, as Jesus says (Matt.21) came “in the way of righteousness,”

Further, John the Baptist was untouched by those latest Jewish ideals, such as man's forgiveness of his neighbour,and universal love, the influence of which is paramount in the teaching of Jesus in fact by that new ethic of love propagated throughout the Christian world by the Sermon on the Mount, initially taught as well by the Jewish sage of the second century B.C. who wrote The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.

What then could have convinced Jesus to place John above the greatest teachers and reformers of old Israel, above the likes of Isaiah or Jeremiah? Could it be the new peculiar purificatory rite, known to a later age as the ' baptism of John ' or baptism of repentance,' or rather the re-interpretation of the spiritual meaning Jesus himself ascribed to the baptismal ceremony in his teaching?
It is worth exploring.

It is worth discussing the ''superlative'' bit in detail indeed about what made Jesus to say John was the greatest among those born of women of course including prophets the likes of Isaiah or Jeremiah

Fact is, John straddled an old and newly forming or emerging dispensation
John had one foot in the law dispensation and the other foot ''dipped'' in grace dispensation

Unlike other prophets, the likes of Isaiah or Jeremiah, John not only announced Jesus, he actually met Jesus
(i.e. John made formal public statement(s) about Jesus, His occurrence, intention etcetera and importantly saw Jesus)
It is for the above plain reason that Jesus said, as REGARDS, on earth, John was the greatest among those born of women
as everyone else announced the coming, John however announced it is near (i.e. close by)
Also, for the other fact, him being the last prophet, who not only announced Jesus but saw Jesus korokoro too

HOWEVER, as regards in the kingdom of Heaven, it is a different criteria used
as the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven, is greater than John is

PS: Interesting thread, as usual, am anxiously waiting to read the next instalment(s)

MuttleyLaff:
HOWEVER, as regards in the kingdom of Heaven, it is a different criteria used
as the least person in the Kingdom of Heaven, is greater than John is

And what is this kingdom of heaven?

The underlying conviction of John’s entire mission was, that a baptism of repentance was necessary for Israel's salvation in the imminent Last Judgement. We can paint a much clearer picture of Jesus’ perception of John the Baptist if we understand the prevailing attitudes and most importantly how John himself conceived, understood and conducted his baptismal rites.

We know that according to Rabbinical observance a Gentile who wished to join the Jewish church as a newcomer had to submit to a purifying, regenerating, bath in the presence of legal witnesses. While the convert stood in the water, his teacher delivered to him a short lecture containing a series of greater and minor commandments from the Law. At the end of this lecture the Gentile pupil dipped his head completely under the water, thereby symbolically drowning his old impure self.

After the immersion the convert arose from the water reborn as a true Israelite or son of Abraham. Indeed it was taken so literally, that after it the neophyte, or new-born, could, no longer inherit from his former relatives nor even commit the crime of incest with one of them. Legally and spiritually this simulated voluntary death of the Gentile had severed all previous bonds of blood, he had sacrificed his old defiled and forfeited life and received a new life through divine grace, evidently drawing on the promise in Ezekiel 36, 25-28

John concluded that Israel in all its wickedness and corruption had forfeited its natural birthright in the covenant of its righteous ancestor Abraham with God and the promise of God’s special favour and permanent protection, and now that generations had indulged in idolatry and iniquity, the Jews were no better than heathen.

Further, if the present generation of Abraham's sons persisted in their evil ways, God would assuredly destroy them without pity, physical kinship with the patriarchs could in no way be considered a guarantee against the wrath to come. Therefore, the only way leading to salvation was to become a member of the new spiritually created Israel by submitting to the baptism of the Gentiles.

This was a humiliating message for the Jews and it went down like a stone in water. His appearance was derided and apart from a coterie of followers he was largely shunned. The Pharisee’s quite simply refused to go anywhere near the filthy brackish and virtually stagnant waters of the Jordan where John conducted his rites. It was against this background that John the Baptist encountered Jesus of Nazareth.

John's teachings, ideas and asceticism lead to the spreading of his fame even beyond Israel. His traditional name bore a striking resemblance to that of the primeval Babylonian fisher-god, the teacher and lord of all wisdom. The Mandeans, who lived in the marshes around present day Basrah, have preserved rich traditions about Jahja Johanna, in their sacred texts (or Book of John) there are a series of fragments on a divine being called the “fisher of souls” followed by the choral chant alluding to the baptism of Jesus by John :

“He sunk the hook into the deep,
Fished forth the Word of God”.


Therefore there should be no surprises as to John being called a “fisher”, the most enthusiastic followers of the Baptist believed it is by no means impossible that the baptising fisher of souls should have been considered by some of those who believed in him, and not Jesus, to be the Redeemer, who lived hidden and unknown on earth to return with the clouds from the sky on the Day of Judgement,

Historical balderdash awash with hogwash...all that matters is a new creature...

efficiencie:
Historical balderdash awash with hogwash...all that matters is a new creature...

Thank you for your carefully considered opinion.

LoJ:
And what is this kingdom of heaven?

It is the main subject of talk, in most, if not all of Jesus' teachings
The time promised by God has come at last!
so change the way you think and act, and believe the Good News
The kingdom of Heaven/God is here

efficiencie:
Historical balderdash awash with hogwash...all that matters is a new creature...

Sarassin:
Thank you for your carefully considered opinion.

Forget doing riposting jor. Just continue the unreeling, we are reading

All of the superlatives Jesus lauded John the Baptist were fully deserved. The Baptist displayed a fiery brand of “Apocalypticism”, he was contemptuous of the establishment of the day who refused to have anything to do with his baptismal rites, and referred to them as “You brood of vipers……” even though he was taunted by the Pharisees with the retort “We have Abraham for our father!” regardless, the Baptist was uncompromising in his belief that kinship with Abraham was no guarantee of salvation, he was deeply ascetic, an old style prophet, incorruptible and, to borrow a phrase from Julius Ceasar, “as constant as the northern Star”.

Above all else, the Baptist had an instinctive interpretation of the scriptures that was far advanced that of any of his contemporaries, bar Jesus.

So what exactly did John the Baptist believe? Evidently he believed that his people, the Jews had descended into heatheness. he also believed that a “baptism of repentance was necessary for Israel's salvation in the imminent Last Judgment”. He was convinced that he by his own preaching was to bring about the outburst of the longed-for Messianic Fountain, which would heal the brackish waters of the Jordan and remove sin and uncleanliness from the house of David. (Ezekiel 36, 25-28)

Furthermore, John the Baptist was fully convinced that the “completion of time was at hand” and that Zechariah's and Ezekiel's Fountain had already begun to flow down from the sanctuary to the desert and on towards the Jordan, a belief, without which he would certainly not have dreamt of using the unclean Jordan waters for his purificatory purpose.

This deep insight into scripture gave the Baptist the inner conviction of being indeed the humble instrument chosen by God to work the final purification of Israel. He oscillated between a spiritual symbolism and a material reality, In other words, he thought it necessary at the same time to fulfil as far as possible the literal as well as spiritual meaning of scripture.

In the great Messianic drama of the last days, John appears to carve for himself the role of the 'just man ' who is to save a righteous remnant of Israel, ' through the water, by means of sincere repentance, even as Noah did. This is important because we know fully that Rabbinical writings show that Jews really attributed the functions of a second Noah to their expected Messiah.

The above represents the doctrinal attitude that prevailed at the time that Jesus underwent the baptism of John, and that notwithstanding the later addition to the Gospel of Mathew, Jesus never considered instituting another different baptism of his own.

The relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth is somewhat complex. We can establish that John the Baptist had a more powerful influence on the psyche of majority of the people of the time than did Jesus. John's death was, in the eyes of the people, avenged afterwards by God with real actions, (witness the abject destruction of Herod’s army) but no such divine support for Jesus was visible.

Yet before John’s death in prison at the hands of Herod some of John's followers attached themselves to Jesus on his public appearances when he was a “proclaimer”. In fact the Gospel of John tells us categorically (Jn.1:40) that Andrew, the brother of Simon-Peter, had been a disciple of John the Baptist.

But if some of John's actual 'disciples' followed Jesus before any question of Messiahship arose, many equally refused to recognize the Jesus Messianic claims. It was fairly obvious that some of the great symbolisms employed by Jesus in his exhortations and teaching were not original to him, but that these ideas together with other apocalyptic and prophetical teachings, originated if not directly from John, then from groups that had been taught by him.

Therefore if John is considered the forerunner of Jesus, then that appellation rests on the supposition that many of the Baptist’s eschatological beliefs are probably the forerunners of earliest Christian general doctrine. And with all this in mind, it is difficult not to believe that Jesus not only knew more of John personally and what his motivations were, but that Jesus himself used more of John’s ideas and symbolisms much more than the gospels would have us believe.

Even though the gospel writers in some passages go to great lengths to make it appear that John recognized the Messiahship of Jesus, and we can see that the later and correcting Gospel of John emphatically affirms that he did so from the baptism onwards, there was evidently considerable doubt. John at the end had no conviction (Mat11:3) much less prior spiritual precognition.

To the clear question the Baptist posed in Mat 11:3, no direct answer is obtained. John's disciple-messengers are simply to report to their master the wonderful healings of which they have been told or which they have witnessed. The proof of Messiahship is made here to rest solely on wonder-doings, any prior spiritual recognition by John of Jesus as the Expected One is unknown, nor can we say that John accepted the wonders as proof of the fulfilment of his expectation. Many of John’s disciples continued in their own path and refused to subsequently recognize the Messiahship of Jesus, because above all else they had no authority from their master to do so, it was indeed complicated.

If John the Baptist was ultimately non-committal with respect to the Messiahship of Jesus, Jesus on the other hand was unequivocal about the antecedents of John. Jesus' conviction was that, according to the Scriptures, John was the prophesied Elias, who was also doomed to suffer martyrdom. The Passion of Elias had been foretold in pre-Christian Jewish writings. In addition, in the opinion of Jesus, the Baptist was not only the reborn Elias but also a “greater Jonah”, therefore he was doubly destined to be swallowed by the Great Fish, whose belly is Sheol.

It appears that the sermon of Jesus in Mat 12:39-42 as well as Mat 11:7-12, a testimony of Jesus to John was changed by the Q source to a testimony of Jesus to himself. We can see that Jesus plays on the equivalence of 'Jonah ' with the Baptist's name ' Johanan.' (Both names were considered the same) Therefore, it is an apt question to ask: was the Forerunner already called Johanan when Jesus delivered this important sermon, or does he not rather owe that name indirectly of course to this very comparison of him with the prophet Jonah through the authority of Jesus?

In fact, if Jesus surnamed the Baptist 'Jonah ' as he nicknamed Simon 'Cephas' and the Zebedaids “Bene Reges,” recorders of the oral traditions may easily have taken Jonah for what it often is, an abbreviation of Johanan, while at the same time they retained the good old tradition that this was the true, significant or 'spiritual' name of the Baptist, given him by Jesus, which for a Christian author, means by God himself.

There is some support for the above supposition (I will be clear and say that it is no more than speculation) what strikes one is a detail concerning the name or rather the names of the Baptist in Luke's infancy gospel where we are told that on the eighth day, when the family assembled to circumcise the child, "they called him Zachariah after the name of his father." We are duly informed that none of the Baptist's kindred was called John.

Now since we know other cases of Jews being called by the name of their fathers although the practice is unusual and seems to have always been rather uncommon and, as the dissension about the child's name is not derived from the Old Testament parallels which have been used to build up the pious legend of the Baptist's earliest life, I would suspect that his real name was Zachariah ben Zachariah and that Johanan, for Jonah was only another nickname, even as was the “Baptist”

It then becomes clearer that just as the prophecy of the angel in Lk 1:13 " he shall not drink wine or strong drink," is devised to explain the well-known and historical fact that the Baptist was a Nazarite so also the angelic order," thou shalt call him John," (a throwback to Gen 17:19) is probably a much later device to explain the hero's more popular name ' Johanan.'

In any event, very slight importance should be attached to the question of whether the Baptist's original name was Johanan ben Zachariah or Zachariah ben Zachariah. What really matters is that he was certainly likened to Jonah and Elijah by Jesus, and most probably also to the Babylonian fisher-god Oannes-Hani by some of his disciples.

sarassin please let us know when you've finished, docked and tied up at wharf,
so to know when the coast is clear to start querying some of the contents in your posts, towards checking their validity(ies) or accuracy(ies)
(e.g.
¹it is unlikely he was Christened “John”,
that name was likely granted him by no less a personage than Jesus at a much later stage as will be shown.
²It was against this background that John the Baptist encountered Jesus of Nazareth
³''Many of John’s disciples continued in their own path and refused to subsequently recognize the Messiahship of Jesus,
because above all else they had no authority from their master to do so, it was indeed complicated.'')

PS: Still an interesting and tantalising thread as usual, and am already anxiously waiting to read the next instalment(s)

In this final series on the life of that most charismatic of Jewish prophets I would start by acknowledging that there is a lack of “mainstream” information regarding the Baptist, however, in spite of this lack it is clear that the Christian NT rarely if ever tells us the full story and nor can it be expected to, particularly where such information may represent an opposing view to that of Christian orthodoxy. There is of course another source of information on the teachings and core beliefs of John the Baptist and these teachings represent the views of the supposedly gnostic aspects of the followers of the Baptist.

It would be remiss to completely ignore those who claimed to be the actual disciples of John the Baptist who adhered strictly to his teachings. Just as the early Ebionites who formed the early Jerusalem Church and followed the “actual” teachings of Christ have been marginalized, so have this particular group. I refer of course to the Mandaeans.

The Mandæans of the lower Euphrates (present day Iraq) are the only known surviving community of ancient Gnostics. It is a remarkable testimony to the strength of their convictions and of loyalty to a tradition which they claim to go back to pre-Christian days, that they have survived. The Christian texts call them Nāzōræans. But Christians they certainly are not, on the contrary they have always been strenuously opposed to Christianity.

The Mandæans provide us with the richest direct sources of ancient Gnostic thought available today. These documents are also all the more valuable because they are purely without any Hellenistic influence. To put not too fine a point on it, their writings represent pre-Christian era devoid of interference by Greek biblical writers. Perhaps the most important of the writings of the Mandaeans is the Gnostic Book of John or the Sidra d’Yahya.

Without delving too deeply into the thoughts and writings of the Gnostic followers of John the Baptist, presented below is the curious exchange that purportedly occurred between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth at the instance of the baptism of Jesus, recorded in the Book of John it presents an entirely different perspective to that of the NT. I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

'Who told Yeshu Messiah, son of Miryam, who told Yeshu, so that he went to the shore of the Jordan and said [unto Yahyā]

"Yahyā, baptize me with thy baptizing and utter o'er me also the Name thy wont is to utter. If I show myself as thy pupil, I will remember thee then in my writing; If I attest not myself as thy pupil, then wipe out my name from thy page,"

Thereon Yahyā answered Yeshu Messiah in Jerusalem: "Thou hast lied to the Jews and deceived the priests. Thou hast cut off their seed from the men and from the women bearing and being pregnant. The sabbath, which Moses made binding, hast thou relaxed in Jerusalem. Thou hast lied unto them with horns and spread abroad disgrace with the shofar."

Thereon Yeshu Messiah answered Yahyā in Jerusalem:

"If I have lied to the Jews, may the blazing fire consume me. If I have deceived the priests, a double death will I die. If I have cut off their seed from the men, may I not cross o'er the End-Sea. If I have cut off from the women birth and being pregnant, then is in sooth a judge raised up before me. If I have relaxed the sabbath, may the blazing fire consume me. If I have lied to the Jews, I will tread on thorns and thistles. If I have spread disgrace abroad with horn-blowing, may my eyes then not light on Abathur. So baptize me then with thy baptizing, and utter o'er me the Name thy wont is to utter. If I show myself as thy pupil, I will remember thee then in my writing; if I attest not myself as thy pupil, then wipe out my name from thy page......"

End of quote

The abbreviated conversation above, although quite extreme in the view of modern Christianity represents the thoughts of the followers of the Baptist even if not the exact thoughts of John himself. It is sufficient to alert us to the fact that there were real issues with the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth by John the Baptist as the long awaited Messiah, which such facts, save for one verse in the Christian NT, are largely absent.

We see Jesus heap high praise on the not-undeserving Baptist, in particular the insistence that the Baptist was indeed Elias reborn. The Baptist himself gives no indication that he accepted such a sobriquet, in fact he goes well out of his way not to give that impression. Why then the insistence by Jesus, that John the Baptist even if not in person…then in spirit was Elias reborn?

The answer has to be rather more mundane. The old prophets have made it clear that the arrival of the long awaited Messiah must be heralded by the re-birth of Elias (Mal 4:5-6) without this prophecy being seen to be fulfilled by the Jewish people, it was inconceivable that Jesus could present or ever be accepted as the “Messiah” and by the same reasoning for John the Baptist, if he accepted that Jesus was the Messiah, then, by implication, he had to accept that he himself was indeed Elias reborn. In other words, if John the Baptist had doubts about Jesus the Messiah,(and he clearly did) he was not about to validate said Messiah by claims that he was Elias incarnate.

In the final analysis, we see that the Christian NT presents John the Baptist as ‘forerunner’ of Christ and it is important to the texts that John is presented as ‘before’ Jesus. But a third source, the Roman Jewish historian Josephus in his antiquities gives us a description of John the Baptist that occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus. Implying that John came later.

In addition we are given the year 36CE by Josephus as the date of the year of the death of the Baptist, yet the Christian canons inform us that Jesus having been tried for sedition was dead by the year 30CE. His earthly ministry lasting no more than 3 years. It therefore follows that the conversation recorded by the Gospel author of Mathew purportedly depicting a conversation of John raising his doubts as well as all talks of “wonderous happenings” attributed to Jesus (Mat 11:3) could not have taken place whilst the Baptist was in prison since we know he was not released by the murderous Herod before his death.

We know from other Gnostic writings that Jesus himself was reluctant to avail himself of the Baptismal rites of John only being prevailed upon at a much later stage. Could it be that the ministry of Jesus commenced much earlier than is being presented in the NT? Perhaps, could it be that both men had rival ministries completely un-related? More likely than not, can we be entirely sure that John the Baptist was a forerunner of Christ as depicted in the NT? Most assuredly not. Thank you all.

Sarassin:
In the final analysis, we see that the Christian NT presents John the Baptist as ‘forerunner’ of Christ and it is important to the texts that John is presented as ‘before’ Jesus. But a third source, the Roman Jewish historian Josephus in his antiquities gives us a description of John the Baptist that occurs several paragraphs after his description of Jesus. Implying that John came later.

Knowing who Flavius Josephus is, helps a lot, to understand the reason behind his inconsistencies
It also let you guess why certain information in his works can be misleading and not be connected to Christian interpretations
What was Josephus' ethnicity?
What was Josephus' original or real name?

Sarassin:
In addition we are given the year 36CE by Josephus as the date of the year of the death of the Baptist, yet the Christian canons inform us that Jesus having been tried for sedition was dead by the year 30CE. His earthly ministry lasting no more than 3 years. It therefore follows that the conversation recorded by the Gospel author of Mathew purportedly depicting a conversation of John raising his doubts as well as all talks of “wonderous happenings” attributed to Jesus (Mat 11:3) could not have taken place whilst the Baptist was in prison since we know he was not released by the murderous Herod before his death

When was Flavius Josephus born? (i.e. what year was Josephus born?)
You probably have guessed where answering the date of birth question is leading to :-)

Sarassin:
We know from other Gnostic writings that Jesus himself was reluctant to avail himself of the Baptismal rites of John only being prevailed upon at a much later stage. Could it be that the ministry of Jesus commenced much earlier than is being presented in the NT? Perhaps, could it be that both men had rival ministries completely un-related?
More likely than not, can we be entirely sure that John the Baptist was a forerunner of Christ as depicted in the NT? Most assuredly not.

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God
- Isaiah 40:3

As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying,
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight
- Luke 3:4

John said,
"I'm a voice crying out in the desert,
'Make the way for the Lord straight,' as the prophet Isaiah said."
- John 1:23

Old testament Isaiah 40:3 above, make it entirely sure that John the Baptist was a forerunner of Christ
John the Baptist confirmed with it with new testatament John 1:23 along with other NT narration as provided above

Sarassin:
Thank you all

The submission(s) are so full of holes that anyone who knows the facts can see right through them. No, thank you

MuttleyLaff:
Knowing who Flavius Josephus is, helps a lot, to understand the reason behind his inconsistencies
It also let you guess why certain information in his works can be misleading and not be connected to Christian interpretations
What was Josephus' ethnicity?
What was Josephus' original or real name?

When was Flavius Josephus born? (i.e. what year was Josephus born?)
You probably have guessed where answering the date of birth question is leading to :-)

As you know, the Historian Yosef ben Matityahu otherwise known as Josephus lived circa 37CE-100CE. He was an ethnic Jewish turncoat who was the head of the Jewish forces in Gallile (and so would have obtained historical accounts from better sources) he was granted Roman citizenship.

I concede that Josephus’ dating of certain events can be problematic but on a balance of probabilities, his accounts were far more reliable. He was not a Christian Historian therefore he had no bias in his accounts either for…or against Christianity. In fact his treatment of John the Baptist is quite sympathetic.

Christians often point to the Testimonium Flavium as evidence of the historicity of Jesus, and yet will cast aspersion on the historian when his accounts do not conform to orthodox beliefs.

The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness,
Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God
- Isaiah 40:3

I agree that Isa 40:3 heralds a ‘forerunner’ it does not specify ‘Who’

As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying,
The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight
- Luke 3:4

Luke is merely quoting the Prophet Isaiah and writing long after the facts. We should remember that the author of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts. The volumes were composed during the reign of the last Flavian Emperor Domitian (81CE-96CE) and was still being revised much later. By no stretch of the imagination is the gospel author of Luke an eyewitness to the accounts he wrote nor is he an historian.

Old testament Isaiah 40:3 above, make it entirely sure that John the Baptist was a forerunner of Christ

This is simply not true. Is 40:3 simply announces a forerunner.

John the Baptist confirmed with it with new testament John 1:23 along with other NT narration as provided above

John the Baptist is unlikely to have uttered those words. Those words are incompatible with the Baptist’s earlier denials that he was Elias reborn (Jn1.21) The reasoning here is quite simple. John the Baptist was well versed in the scriptures. If he denies that he is Elias reborn, why would he then admit to being the “herald “ or “forerunner of the Messiah” knowing full well that only Elias reborn could make such a claim?

The submission(s) are so full of holes that anyone who knows the facts can see right through them. No, thank you

I agree that there are holes, but in my view, on the balance of probabilities, the holes are more glaring in the biblical accounts.

Sarassin:
As you know, the Historian Yosef ben Matityahu otherwise known as Josephus lived circa 37CE-100CE. He was an ethnic Jewish turncoat

from frying pan into fire by ''upgrading'' from a non believing Jewish to a traitor
who not only denies Jesus as Messiah but also betrayed his people by siding with the Romans (i.e. double-crossed his own people)

Sarassin:
who was the head of the Jewish forces in Gallile (and so would have obtained historical accounts from better sources) he was granted Roman citizenship

and had a change of name from the Yosef ben Matityahu Jewish name to a Roman name of Flavius Josephus

Sarassin:
I concede that Josephus’ dating of certain events can be problematic but on a balance of probabilities, his accounts were far more reliable. He was not a Christian Historian therefore he had no bias in his accounts either for…or against Christianity. In fact his treatment of John the Baptist is quite sympathetic.

Christians often point to the Testimonium Flavium as evidence of the historicity of Jesus, and yet will cast aspersion on the historian when his accounts do not conform to orthodox beliefs

Am not surprised, afterall he was pro John the Baptist and a non believing Jew for that matter

Sarassin:
I agree that Isa 40:3 heralds a ‘forerunner’ it does not specify ‘Who’

Luke is merely quoting the Prophet Isaiah and writing long after the facts. We should remember that the author of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts. The volumes were composed during the reign of the last Flavian Emperor Domitian (81CE-96CE) and was still being revised much later. By no stretch of the imagination is the gospel author of Luke an eyewitness to the accounts he wrote nor is he an historian.

Josephus too wrote about things when he wasnt even born when they happened

Sarassin:
This is simply not true. Is 40:3 simply announces a forerunner.

John the Baptist is unlikely to have uttered those words. Those words are incompatible with the Baptist’s earlier denials that he was Elias reborn (Jn1.21) The reasoning here is quite simple. John the Baptist was well versed in the scriptures. If he denies that he is Elias reborn, why would he then admit to being the “herald “ or “forerunner of the Messiah” knowing full well that only Elias reborn could make such a claim?

I agree that there are holes, but in my view, on the balance of probabilities, the holes are more glaring in the biblical accounts

That will be, if based on Josephus' biased and miscalculated accounts

MuttleyLaff:
from frying pan into fire by ''upgrading'' from a non believing Jewish to a traitor
who not only denies Jesus as Messiah but also betrayed his people by siding with the Romans (i.e. double-crossed his own people)

Josephus does not deny the Messiahship of Jesus, in fact if you read the Testimonium Flavium you will find it is quite the opposite.

Am not surprised, afterall he was pro John the Baptist and a non believing Jew for that matter

Surely, if Josephus was "pro John the Baptist" then that was a good thing ...no?

Josephus too wrote about things when he wasnt even born when they happened

My point exactly. Virtually all the gospel authors wrote fanciful accounts of events decades after Jesus had passed, but none of them were historians.

That will be, if based on Josephus' biased and miscalculated accounts

Even if you discount the contentious dates given by Josephus, it still does not deal with pertinent issues, for instance;

"John the Baptist is unlikely to have uttered those words. Those words are incompatible with the Baptist’s earlier denials that he was Elias reborn (Jn1.21) The reasoning here is quite simple. John the Baptist was well versed in the scriptures. If he denies that he is Elias reborn, why would he then admit to being the “herald “ or “forerunner of the Messiah” knowing full well that only Elias reborn could make such a claim"?

He who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.

orunto27:
He who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.

and.......!

orunto27:
He who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.

Sarassin:
and.......!

Yeah orunto27 and....!

Sarassin:
Josephus does not deny the Messiahship of Jesus, in fact if you read the Testimonium Flavium you will find it is quite the opposite

I am sure you know that is an interpolation

Sarassin:
Surely, if Josephus was "pro John the Baptist" then that was a good thing ...no?

I am sure you know what I meant by this
Josephus, like The Mandeans and most Jews were and are "pro John the Baptist" but dont believe in Jesus as they reject Him to be the Messiah

Sarassin:
My point exactly. Virtually all the gospel authors wrote fanciful accounts of events decades after Jesus had passed, but none of them were historians

¹Many have attempted to write about what had taken place among us.
²They received their information from those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of God's word from the beginning, and they passed it on to us.
³I, too, have followed everything closely from the beginning. So I thought it would be a good idea to write an orderly account for Your Excellency, Theophilus.
⁴In this way you will know that what you've been told is true
- Luke 1:1-3

''By no stretch of the imagination is the gospel author of Luke an eyewitness to the accounts he wrote nor is he an historian.''
- Sarassin

Please you never had any exact point dear old friend.
Notice from above, how Luke, in Luke 1:1-3, though a medical doctor, took upon himself to be regarded as a historian

Sarassin:
Even if you discount the contentious dates given by Josephus, it still does not deal with pertinent issues, for instance;

"John the Baptist is unlikely to have uttered those words.
Those words are incompatible with the Baptist’s earlier denials that he was Elias reborn (Jn1.21)
The reasoning here is quite simple. John the Baptist was well versed in the scriptures. If he denies that he is Elias reborn, why would he then admit to being the “herald “ or “forerunner of the Messiah” knowing full well that only Elias reborn could make such a claim"?

Bro you're about embarrassing me, so please get a grip.
What did you expect John the Baptist to say?
Of course, John the Baptist wasnt Elijah reborn now (i.e. John the Baptist wasnt Elijah physically reborn)

John the Baptist, was right in denying he was Elijah reborn and was right again in admitting being the ''herald'' or ''forerunner of the Messiah''

⁵Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
⁶And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. {THE END OF THE PROPHETS.}
- Malachi 4:5-6

⁵In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.
⁶Both of them were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly.
⁷But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.
⁸Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God,
⁹he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense.
¹⁰And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.
¹¹Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense.
¹²When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear.
¹³But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John.
¹⁴He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth,
¹⁵for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born.
¹⁶He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God.
¹⁷And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
¹⁸Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.”
¹⁹The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. ²⁰And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”
- Luke 1:5-19

John the Baptist was well versed in the scriptures, equally knew what Malachi 4:5 really meant, as this was explained to Zechariah, his father, in Luke 1:17, by an angel
The reality check is that, John the Baptist, is not Elijah physically reborn but is another person with the spirit and power similar to that of Elijah
(i.e. John the Baptist is a different person with the character, qualities, power of speech etcetera of Elijah)
If John the Baptist doesnt have any facial or physical likeness of Elijah, why would he claim to be Elijah reborn?
If John the Baptist was Elijah, why didnt the disciples at the Transfiguration incident and appearance, recognise him as John the Baptist but instead recognised whom they saw, as Elijah, they thereafter called him thus and not call him John the Baptist?

The Transfiguration
²There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light.
³Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
⁴Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
⁵While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
⁶When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified.
⁷But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.”
⁸When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.
⁹As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”
¹⁰The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
¹¹Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things.
¹²But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
¹³Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist
- Matthew 17:2-13

Jesus testifies about John
¹³"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.
¹⁴"And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
¹⁵"He who has ears to hear, let him hear
- Matthew 11:13-15

MuttleyLaff:
I am sure you know that is an interpolation

Kudos, you are the first Christian to admit an interpolation in the Testimonium Flavium, my point was that Josephus was not biased against Jesus or Christianity as you seek to pursue. He simply recorded his own knowledge of events.

''By no stretch of the imagination is the gospel author of Luke an eyewitness to the accounts he wrote nor is he an historian.''
- Sarassin

Please you never had any exact point dear old friend.
Notice from above, how Luke, in Luke 1:1-3, though a medical doctor, took upon himself to be regarded as a historian

The point is with the exception of a few verses in the Book of Acts known as the "We"documents where it is apparent that your Dr. Luke was an eyewitness to certain events pertaining to the movements of Paul, everything else he wrote, particularly in the Gospel of Luke was based on pious hearsay and tittle-tattle. His infancy gospel of John the Baptist is especially dubious, Luke may have regarded himself an historian but he was no more an historian than the authors of the Gospels of Mark or Matthew.

If John the Baptist doesnt have any facial or physical likeness of Elijah, why would he claim to be Elijah reborn?

This also begs the question, If John bore no such resemblance to Elijah, why then would anybody claim on John's behalf that he was Elijah?

What did you expect John the Baptist to say?
Of course, John the Baptist wasnt Elijah reborn now (i.e. John the Baptist wasnt Elijah physically reborn)

John the Baptist, was right in denying he was Elijah reborn and was right again in admitting being the ''herald'' or ''forerunner of the Messiah''

The reality check is that, John the Baptist, is not Elijah physically reborn but is another person with the spirit and power similar to that of Elijah

We should be clear that John the Baptist never applied Mal. 4:5 to himself when pressed, in fact he took refuge in the prophecy of Isa. 40:3 which would apply more aptly to his mission of bursting forth the "messianic spring" and hastening the arrival of the kingdom of God

But here is the problem. The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself (not someone "like" him or someone "similar" to him, but Elijah[i]himself[/i]) would return before the advent of the Messiah. Jesus declared that John the Baptist was Elijah who had returned, stating quite bluntly "Elijah has come".

So, based on that statement alone, one of the following must be true:

(i) John the Baptist was Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah was reborn.

(ii) John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah himself had not returned. And if this is so, then either:

The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the Messiah failed to come to pass OR quite simply Jesus was not the Messiah. That prophecy leaves no room for speculation as to likeness, resemblance, spirit or any other mechanism of obfuscation.

In my view, Jesus or more pertinently, gospel writers had a vested interest in identifying the Baptist as Elijah, since by so doing, they identify Jesus to the Jews as the Messiah. John the Baptist denied he was Elijah reborn hence the Jews rejected Jesus as their Messiah.

It boils down to this: Jesus said John was Elijah, and John said he wasn't. Which of the two is to be believed - Jesus or John?

Sarassin:
It boils down to this: Jesus said John was Elijah, and John said he wasn't. Which of the two is to be believed - Jesus or John?

Hello Sarassin,

I have enjoyed reading the thread. It was very educative and informative. I discovered that Book of John and had a copy on the web.
On a side note, I would like to stress that it is not my opinion that Jesus claimed that John was Elijah. There is a difference about what the authors of the Bible claimed Jesus said and did, and what Jesus actually said and did.

Heu... I would like to ask a question, that has nothing to do with the topic, but I need your analysis and opinion.

I tried to have a look at flashy pentecostal preachers and miracle workers. I could easily identify their gimmicks, hypnotism, mesmerism, suggestion and similar techniques that most of them use to claim any spiritual mastery.

But I am intrigued by one of them. The so called Tb joshua. (Btw I'm not a nigerian). I have the impression that the guy maybe somehow different, and may truly have some spiritual knowledge, initiation and gifts.

What's your opinion? Pastor AIO your opinion would also be welcomed.

Greetings.

LoJ:

Hello Sarassin,

I have enjoyed reading the thread. It was very educative and informative. I discovered that Book of John and had a copy on the web.
On a side note, I would like to stress that it is not my opinion that Jesus claimed that John was Elijah. There is a difference about what the authors of the Bible claimed Jesus said and did, and what Jesus actually said and did.

Heu... I would like to ask a question, that has nothing to do with the topic, but I need your analysis and opinion.

I tried to have a look at flashy pentecostal preachers and miracle workers. I could easily identify their gimmicks, hypnotism, mesmerism, suggestion and similar techniques that most of them use to claim any spiritual mastery.

But I am intrigued by one of them. The so called Tb joshua. (Btw I'm not a nigerian). I have the impression that the guy maybe somehow different, and may truly have some spiritual knowledge, initiation and gifts.

What's your opinion? Pastor AIO your opinion would also be welcomed.

Greetings.

Hi there LoJ,

Thank you for your comments on the thread, I think you are right on the money when you state that that there's a difference between what Jesus actually said and what biblical authors claimed he said. I alluded as such when I made the remark that "gospel writers had a vested interest in portraying John as Elijah". You can count the authentic sayings of Jesus himself on the fingers of one hand.

With regards TB Joshua, I would just say that I am not a fan, his roots appear to be grounded elsewhere.