beliefnet
So what you are saying (see christine3 below) is that it should be John B Christ rather than Jesus Christ.
That
works for me and explains why Christianity has nothing at all in it
from the Gospels that isn't pseudographia. It has always bothered me
that after Paul's conversion event he never showed any interest at all
in the Jesus Cult lore. Following John the Baptist rather than Jesus
makes it much clearer. Both for the origins of the Mandean influence on
Christianity, and the absolute break with the Jesus Cults.
It
doesn't make me like Paul any better, but the clear separation of
Christianity from Jesus makes the Gospels much more interesting and
believable. And makes
Jesuism much more viable as a humanist religion totally independent from Christianity.
John B Christ on a crutch! What a revelation!
christine3 wrote: [with permission from Christine]
By now most of you know
that I think at least 15% of the activities ascribed to Jesus were
really John the Baptist's activities, such as accusing the Pharisees of
becoming corrupt. I've read some of John's writings where he accuses the
priests of living in a brokendown house, a metaphor for corruption,
falling apart. Like Jesus, John was a prophet, teacher and healer; was
considered a criminal and was put to death. The cross did not become a
popular symbol for Christianity until the fourth century, so it is
unlikely that Jesus would have been crucified on a cross. As for the
rest of Jesus' persona, it is taken from Mithras and other cult godmen
from the past.
If you Google Gamaliel, you can read the whole
article, but I copied some interesting information, a couple of
paragraphs. Paul of Tarsus is said to have been "raised at the feet of
Gamaliel," to answer who influenced Paul.
Two sentences caught my
eye. The first, Gamaliel says "a fish from the Jordan River: one who has
learnt everything, but dodsn't know how to respond. This is a very
snide remark, and I think it was said against John the Baptist, because
the Jordan river is where he did all his baptizing and preaching.
The
next sentence that caught my eye was where Peter and the apostles are
brought before the sanhedrin and prosecuted for preaching the gospel. A gospel is
an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of
Nazareth. The prosecutors want Paul, Peter and the apostles to cease
with this teaching as it is considered almost shameful, it is so not
keeping with Jewish teaching.
It's funny, but
I feel the same way about the 'resurrection' story; it just isn't true.
I also feel that the bulk of the the life, death and resurrection reads
like a three act play, written to attract converts. So, I am really
siding with the Jews here. But my problem also comes from not knowing
from the Jewish history what really went on at that time. All we have to
my knowledge is Mark, which turns out to be Peter's account, and
similar accounts which are near duplicates of Mark. The Jewish have no
way to defend themselves other than to ask, "What story, who is Jesus?"
Perhaps
Paul and Peter were initially attracted to John the Baptist, and over
the ensuing 400 years from John's death, the name got changed from John
to Jesus. John the Baptist's descendants are the Mandaeans, and they
have an idea of a multi-leveled heaven (dimensions?) Paul says he went
to the third heaven, which echoes the Mandaean belief.
- A ritually impure fish: one who has memorised everything by study, but has no understanding, and is the son of poor parents
- A ritually pure fish: one who has learnt and understood everything, and is the son of rich parents
- A fish from the Jordan River: one who has learnt everything, but doesn't know how to respond
- A fish from the Mediterranean: one who has learnt everything, and knows how to respond
In some manuscripts of Dunash ibn Tamim's tenth-century Hebrew commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah, the author identifies Gamaliel with the physician Galen.
He claims to have seen an Arabic medical work translated from Hebrew
entitled "The Book of Gamaliel the Prince (Nasi), called Galenos among
the Greeks." [17] However, since Galen lived in the second century and Gamaliel died during the mid-first century, this is unlikely.
In Christian tradition[edit]
The Acts of the Apostles introduces Gamaliel as a Pharisee and celebrated doctor of the Mosaic Law in Acts 5:34–40. In the larger context (vs.17–42), Peter and the otherapostles are described as being prosecuted before the sanhedrin and senate (or elders) for continuing to preach the gospel,
despite the Jewish authorities having previously prohibited it. The
passage describes Gamaliel as presenting an argument against killing the
apostles, reminding them about the previous revolts of Theudas and Judas of Galileewhich had collapsed quickly after the deaths of those individuals. Gamaliel's advice was accepted after his concluding argument:
- "And
now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if
this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it
be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight
against God." —Acts 5:38–39
The Book of Acts later goes on to describe Paul the Apostle recounting that although "born in Tarsus", he was brought up in Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers". (Acts 22:3)
No details are given about which teachings Paul adopted from Gamaliel,
or how much Gamaliel influenced aspects of Christianity. However, there
is no other record of Gamaliel ever having taught in public,[2] although
the Talmud does describe Gamaliel as teaching a student who displayed
"impudence in learning", which a few scholars identify as a possible
reference to Paul.[18] The relationship of Paul the Apostle and Judaism continues to be the subject of scholarly debate. Helmut Koester, Professor of Divinity and of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University,
is doubtful that Paul studied under this famous rabbi, arguing that
there is a marked contrast in the tolerance that Gamaliel is said to
have expressed about Christianity with the "murderous rage" against Christians that Paul is described as having prior to his conversion (Acts 8:1–3).[citation needed]
This is from one of those interminable historical Jesus threads that can't seem to keep a historical Jesus separate from all the Christian accretions and the mythical Jesus arguments based on Mithraic Gnostic and Mandean influences.
If in fact as Christine suggests that Paul's Christ was based on John the Baptist with heavy input from Gamaliel (or even without Gamaleil) we have a clean separation between Christianity and Jesus. It also explains the disconnect between the Gospels and Paul's Christ. Perhaps Paul thought John the Baptist didn't have enough of a following or reputation to be believable as The Christ, and grafted Jesus' name on John the Baptist's ministry.
This is all new to me as I know nothing about John the Baptist. As far as I am concerned he was a minor figure in the life of Jesus which has been my interest in the NT. I am not particularly interested in the influences on Christianity, so for the moment, I will accept the revelation as best guess and let others fill in the details.
Note: Christine will be busy for a few months, so if anyone would like to pick up the connection of John the Baptist to Christianity it would be appreciated. Lots to work on in her quote.
