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.