The Jesus Itinerary

[DeistPaladin]

1. John is baptizing. Andrew is an early follower. Both behold the Lamb of God.

2. Andrew wants to tell his brother who earns his living as a professional fishing business about Jesus. Leaves John the Baptist. Jn 1:40

3. Time passes. Andrew and Peter do fishing stuff etc etc. They don't IMMEDIATELY drop everything and run off to find Jesus.

4. John the Baptist is arrested. Lk 3:19

5. Jesus calls Peter to become a disciple Mk 1:16 Mt 4:18

My goodness! Don't hurt yourself with all those contortions. Your timeline should also include an earlier baptism by JtB and a wilderness adventure before the meeting with JtB in the Gospel of John. You did inspire me to re-read the first few chapters of the Gospel of John. You know what I discovered? It wasn't just the John 1:32 that is written in past tense (your justification for assuming there was an earlier baptism prior to the events related in the first chapter of John's Gospel). It's the whole Gospel that's written in past tense. Ergo, there's nothing special about John 1:32 being in past tense.

Now you will still insist that there was an earlier baptism because you want to make all the Gospel accounts consistent. I, on the other hand, am not only reading what's there but also with the knowledge of the history of the early Christian movement.

During the first few centuries CE, the early Christians were rivals of the followers of John the Baptist, known today as the Mandaens. The Mandeans believe that John the Baptist was the messiah. All four Gospel accounts include passages where JtB puts himself down, declaring that he is merely a forerunner for Jesus. One has to either assume that the Mandaens stubbornly refused to listen to their religious leader even as he, on no uncertain terms, told them he wasn't the messiah, or the Christians were using the same tactic of assimilation that the Muslims would later use on Jesus.

As I've written before, JtB becomes increasingly self-effacing and submissive toward Jesus with every successive Gospel. Mark has him declaring himself to be the forerunner of Jesus and then baptize Jesus. Matthew is clearly uncomfortable with Jesus being baptized by JtB, given what the divine pecking order should be. In fact, why should Jesus be baptized at all, since JC was supposed to be sinless? See Matt 3:14. John's Gospel finally ditches the whole baptism completely, having JtB merely witness and testify.

This is exactly the kind of progression we would expect to see if the entire use of JtB in the Gospels was propaganda to assimilate an icon of the rivals of early Christians. The story got better with the telling and awkward theological points, such as JC being baptized at all, let alone by a lesser, were simply edited out.

You, on the other hand, have a different agenda. Instead of seeking to understand the history of Christianity, you seek to find ways to validate your preconceptions as set by your faith. Consequently, if the meetings with JtB are different, it must have been two different meetings. See also the "two temple cleansings" rationalization for the one at the beginning of his ministry in John's Gospel and the one at the end of it as related in the Synoptics.

Now, to turn to your new batch of rationalizations:

1. John is baptizing. Andrew is an early follower. Both behold the Lamb of God.

2. Andrew wants to tell his brother who earns his living as a professional fishing business about Jesus. Leaves John the Baptist. Jn 1:40

3. Time passes. Andrew and Peter do fishing stuff etc etc. They don't IMMEDIATELY drop everything and run off to find Jesus.

Once again, your rationalized version of the story doesn't fit the narrative in the Gospels.

John 1:41-2 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So we have Andrew quite excited, running to tell his brother of the discovery of the long-awaited messiah. By the way, just for historical context, the Jews were chaffing under Roman rule and desperately looking for said messiah to lead them back to glory. The discovery of the messiah should have been met with the same enthusiasm that we might react with if someone were to announce "we've discovered cold fusion".

But what does this "stone" reference mean?

This has some very important meaning in early Christian theology. In Matthew 16:16, Jesus quizzes Peter, asking, "whom say ye that I am?" When Peter gives the correct answer, "the Christ" (or messiah), Jesus gives his reward to Peter as follows:

Matt 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And so Peter is the "rock" upon which the church shall be built. In other words, he's going to be JC's successor and be the first pope. Protestants hate this verse, I should imagine.

Now the story goes differently in Matthew than in John. In Matthew, Peter's only knowledge that Jesus is the Christ came from the Heavenly Father (Matt 16:17). However, in John, Peter learns this information from his brother Andrew. So either Jesus didn't know that Andrew had told Peter (which means he isn't very godly) or we again have a continuity gaffe as we should expect to find with so many authors working independently.

What both stories have in common is that Peter is quickly given the title of "the Rock" right after learning that Jesus is the Christ. So how does this relate to your alternate interpretation? Jesus is appointing Peter as The Rock and his successor, having the keys to Heaven and the right to lead the church on earth. This is not something we'd expect JC to giveaway to someone who was not already in his fold. Ergo, your obtuse reading of scripture isn't supported by the narrative.

4. John the Baptist is arrested. Lk 3:19

And here we have another problem with your timeline. Jesus doesn't start his ministry until JtB is arrested and out of the way in the Synoptic accounts:

Matt 4:12-17 Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee;
...
From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

So the early versions of this story have JtB still prominent enough that he needs to be put away before Jesus can get started. By the time the Gospel of John was written, Jesus had grown bolder and JtB more submissive. John's Jesus not only starts his ministry while JtB is still free and going strong, kicking off that ministry in Jerusalem with a good temple cleansing, he returns to the river Jordan to start a rival baptizing franchise and beat JtB at his own gig.

John 4:1 When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

But do continue to work at trying to square this circle. I do enjoy watching the breathtaking mental gymnastics.

[DeistPaladin]

I'm older than you and ran out of patience years ago.

Yeah, I'm starting to notice that particular effect of aging. It seems I have a lot less patience these days than I did when I was in my 20s.

EDIT: All I can say is I'm glad I'm married now. I look back on the time, money, energy I had to spend, all the useless activities I took up to "meet women" (like actually going to church, believe it or not) and chick-flicks I had to sit through and am amazed I stuck with it, even with the periodic payoffs. There's no way I could do all that now.

[Minimalist]

I saw that movie.

Just as boring as fucking jesus.

[DeistPaladin]

I saw that movie.

Just as boring as fucking jesus.

...and about as rooted in reality.

[Cyberman]

Rest assured, Min and I are not tag teaming. We just have different styles.

Not tag teaming, no. More like spitroasting.

[Lion IRC]

1. John is baptizing. Andrew is an early follower. Both behold the Lamb of God.

2. Andrew wants to tell his brother who earns his living as a professional fishing business about Jesus. Leaves John the Baptist. Jn 1:40

3. Time passes. Andrew and Peter do fishing stuff etc etc. They don't IMMEDIATELY drop everything and run off to find Jesus.

4. John the Baptist is arrested. Lk 3:19

5. Jesus calls Peter to become a disciple Mk 1:16 Mt 4:18

My goodness! Don't hurt yourself with all those contortions.

Do you find this excessively complex?
I think you are the one doing the contortion of scripture.

…Your timeline should also include an earlier baptism by JtB and a wilderness adventure before the meeting with JtB in the Gospel of John.

No, one baptism is enough.

…You did inspire me to re-read the first few chapters of the Gospel of John. You know what I discovered? It wasn't just the John 1:32 that is written in past tense (your justification for assuming there was an earlier baptism prior to the events related in the first chapter of John's Gospel). It's the whole Gospel that's written in past tense. Ergo, there's nothing special about John 1:32 being in past tense.

No, the Gospel of John is NOT entirely written with characters testifying what they themselves had done (past tense.)

John 1:32 is. Yep. Sure.
Eg…here is an account of what John did yesterday. John told people (testified) that he had already seen something ‘xyz’ which happened earlier last week/last fortnight/ last month.

The account is being told, (of a past event,) where of a person is (present tense) telling others about what he had (past tense) done earlier.

But the characters in John 3:5, for example, aren’t talking about past events that had already happened to them. It’s different to John 1:3.

In John 1:3 we read of a character giving present tense testimony about their past action.
But in John 3 we read of a character simply talking to someone else in the present moment.

In fact John 3 verses 5 to 12 shows the distinction clearly. There is a narrative transition from an immediate conversation being recorded, (Jesus and Nicodemus are talking - present tense) into a narrative of Jesus speaking about something He had done in the past.

John 3:3 “Verily I tell you…” (present tense)
John 3:12 “I have spoken to you about….” (past tense)

…Now you will still insist that there was an earlier baptism because you want to make all the Gospel accounts consistent. I, on the other hand, am not only reading what's there but also with the knowledge of the history of the early Christian movement.

No, I don’t insist. The text insists. I am sticking to the text. You are the one attempting to import stuff with your Jesus myther eisegesis and selective extra-biblical stuff.

[Godscreated]

Now, to turn to your new batch of rationalizations:

1. John is baptizing. Andrew is an early follower. Both behold the Lamb of God.

2. Andrew wants to tell his brother who earns his living as a professional fishing business about Jesus. Leaves John the Baptist. Jn 1:40

3. Time passes. Andrew and Peter do fishing stuff etc etc. They don't IMMEDIATELY drop everything and run off to find Jesus.

Once again, your rationalized version of the story doesn't fit the narrative in the Gospels.

I do not see where this is different, it's the same as I introduced.

John 1:41-2 He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

So we have Andrew quite excited, running to tell his brother of the discovery of the long-awaited messiah. By the way, just for historical context, the Jews were chaffing under Roman rule and desperately looking for said messiah to lead them back to glory. The discovery of the messiah should have been met with the same enthusiasm that we might react with if someone were to announce "we've discovered cold fusion".

But what does this "stone" reference mean?

The acceptance of Christ at the time was accepted the same way as people today have reacted to people shouting they have discovered cold fusion. DP you're trying to look at Christ's story without taking the whole story into consideration. This is not a science experiment, it's the life (ministry) of Christ. Jesus ministry never meet the expectations of the Jews because they were not paying attention to the prophecies written about Him, the same attitude that always got them into trouble with God in the OT.

Christ meant that Peter would be an early leader of the church, He never meant that Peter would be the foundation, that would undermine His ministry and who He was and is.

This has some very important meaning in early Christian theology. In Matthew 16:16, Jesus quizzes Peter, asking, "whom say ye that I am?" When Peter gives the correct answer, "the Christ" (or messiah), Jesus gives his reward to Peter as follows:

Matt 16:18-19 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And so Peter is the "rock" upon which the church shall be built. In other words, he's going to be JC's successor and be the first pope. Protestants hate this verse, I should imagine.

No,no,no and no. Jesus is saying He is the foundation on which the church will be built, why would Christ make Peter a very flawed individual, the foundation. Peter was never intended to be Christ's successor and scripture never says Peter will be, nor pope, only one of the early leaders in the church.

[quote='DP']Now the story goes differently in Matthew than in John. In Matthew, Peter's only knowledge that Jesus is the Christ came from the Heavenly Father (Matt 16:17). However, in John, Peter learns this information from his brother Andrew. So either Jesus didn't know that Andrew had told Peter (which means he isn't very godly) or we again have a continuity gaffe as we should expect to find with so many authors working independently.

You are jumping to your own conclusions, you're not taking the scriptures as they are. Peter heard from Andrew that Jesus was the Messiah, Peter never acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God. However in Matthew Peter does acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus knew what Andrew said to Peter and there is no continuity gaffe, except in your unbelieving mind (not trying to put you down, only that you are letting bias into your conclusions).

What both stories have in common is that Peter is quickly given the title of "the Rock" right after learning that Jesus is the Christ. So how does this relate to your alternate interpretation? Jesus is appointing Peter as The Rock and his successor, having the keys to Heaven and the right to lead the church on earth. This is not something we'd expect JC to giveaway to someone who was not already in his fold. Ergo, your obtuse reading of scripture isn't supported by the narrative.

Jesus does call Peter the rock or stone, He never says Peter will be His successor ( to be a successor one must be gone or out of power, Christ was never either of those). In actuality Jesus says He will always be with them through the Holy Spirit. Only when Peter acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew's gospel) did Jesus say those things to Peter. Remember when Andrew introduced Peter to Jesus he did not acknowledge Jesus as God's Son. So again it's your misunderstanding of scripture that is incorrect.

GC

[Minimalist]

This must be a red-letter day. G-C got one right....mostly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_...to_primacy

Of course, this has nothing to do with any stupid "god" and everything to do with a sordid power-grab among priests in Rome and Constantinople but at least you are on the right track.

The church can survive without jesus. It cannot survive without power.

[Lion IRC]

…During the first few centuries CE, the early Christians were rivals of the followers of John the Baptist, known today as the Mandaens.

I think you have made a typo here.
Surely you mean… there were rivals. Not,…'they were' rivals.
It is obviously false that all early Christians were automatically rivals of John the Baptist and/or his followers.
John the Baptist was in jail and executed. His followers were, therefore, obviously perplexed and fragmented.
But…..
Jesus told His followers, whoever is not against us is for us.
Does that sound like a them and us paradigm?

…The Mandeans believe that John the Baptist was the messiah. All four Gospel accounts include passages where JtB puts himself down, declaring that he is merely a forerunner for Jesus.

John the Baptist is elevated by all four Gospels and by Jesus.
Jesus compares John to Elijah.
Yes, of course John is humble.
Sorry if humbleness doesn’t fit your idea of a servant of The Lord.
Have you read Psalms lately?

[DeistPaladin]

Again, sorry for being slow and sporadic in my responses. Real life has been demanding of late.

…During the first few centuries CE, the early Christians were rivals of the followers of John the Baptist, known today as the Mandaens.

I think you have made a typo here.
Surely you mean… there were rivals. Not,…'they were' rivals.

No, I mean what I wrong. It's a historical (and contemporary) fact. Sorry this is inconvenient to your theology. The followers of John the Baptist to this day reject Jesus and insist that JtB was the messiah. Don't ask me how this is supposed to work since JtB didn't do what the messiah was supposed to but then again, neither did Jesus.

It is obviously false that all early Christians were automatically rivals of John the Baptist and/or his followers.

Again, no. Sorry this isn't convenient to your theology. The followers of JtB were rivals of the early Christians.

John the Baptist was in jail and executed. His followers were, therefore, obviously perplexed and fragmented.

So perplexed that they forgot their leader repeatedly and overtly told them to follow Jesus, that he was but a forerunner?

Or maybe it's all a load of crap, religious propaganda that the Muslims would later pull on Jesus.

But do go ahead and write your Fan Fic about the followers of JtB.

But…..
Jesus told His followers, whoever is not against us is for us.
Does that sound like a them and us paradigm?

The followers of JtB rejected Jesus. That sounds like "against".

John the Baptist is elevated by all four Gospels and by Jesus.
Jesus compares John to Elijah.
Yes, of course John is humble.

Oh yes, JtB was "elevated" to being a good, submissive bitch-boy for Jesus. It's just like how the Koran and the Muslims "elevate" Jesus as the 2nd best prophet and a forerunner for Muhammad.

Do you agree the Koran "elevates" Jesus? When you understand why you don't, you understand a little more fully what the Christians did to JtB.