Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31 and the BD

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... But didn t you claim that Paul s use of PARADIDWMI argued against taking him as one who thought there was a betrayal? If so, then your writer dependent on
    Message 1 of 25 , May 16, 2004
      Martin Edwards wrote:

      > >
      > > Let's leave aside that James was not murdered by Christians.
      >
      > More likely that there was as yet no group known as Christians.
      > Eisenman is far from proving his argument that the leader of the mob
      > was Paul himself, or that he is the same person as the shadowy Saul in
      > "The Jewish War", but it is an interesting line of thought unless,
      > sorry to labour this one, it contradicts the picture you and other
      > conscensus thinkers wish to form.
      >
      > .........and that at the time
      > > of his death the movemen in Jerusalem does not seem to be "pagan",
      > whatever
      > > that means,
      >
      > Predominantly non-Jewish. "Pagan" is not a cuss word to me.
      >
      > ....... may I ask how --even assuming that in his letters Paul mentions
      > > Jesus' brother Judas (which he doesn't so far as I can see) --
      >
      > I concur
      >
      > .........this supports
      > > your conspiracy/interpolation theory?
      > >
      > > Are you actualy saying that it was not Judas Iscariot who arranged
      > for the
      > > "handing over of Jesus"? That it was Jesus' brother Judas? If so,
      > why then
      > > would those who wished to wrest the leadership of the Jerusalem
      > community away
      > > from Jesus family place the blame for Jesus "betrayal" upon Judas
      > Iscariot. It
      > > would be more in there interest to proclaim that Judas, the brother
      > of Jesus was
      > > the real culprit.
      > >
      > > And then there's that little fact of the dissaciciation of the name
      > of the
      > > epitstle supposedly written by Jesus' brother from that of Judas
      > Isacariot that
      > > your conspiract theory doesn't explain.
      > >
      > > Jeffrey
      > >
      > > ********
      >
      > I am saying that there may have been no betrayal and no Judas
      > Iscariot. I do not argue that the interpolation was made by Paul, but
      > by a writer dependent on him.

      But didn't you claim that Paul's use of PARADIDWMI argued against taking him as
      one who thought there was a betrayal? If so, then your "writer dependent on him"
      was not dependent on him -- or at least didn't get the idea of betrayal from
      Paul.

      More importantly, especially if, as seems certain to me, Paul did speak of
      Jesus' betrayal, you fail to note that Paul himself states plainly that what he
      says about this is something that did not originate with him -- that it is
      something that he received from others.

      In other words, Paul testifies that the tradition of Jesus having been betrayed
      is both **pre** and **non** Pauline.

      > I do not claim to have proved any of
      > this,it is only a theory. I think you will agree that many posters
      > lack both your and my contextual knowledge and are too inclined to
      > accept Gospel narrative as fact.

      No, I don't agree, especially -- and please forgive me for being blunt -- about
      your having more contextual knowledge than most posters here. Moreover I bridle
      at the innuendo that the main or only reason that "many posters" here accept the
      historicity of the betrayal by Judas is that they have approached the Gospel
      records uncritically.

      I am minded by this of my teacher George Caird's dictum that the scepticism that
      you advocate about the historicity of the tradition that you think people are
      "too inclined (by what?) to accept vs. the historical reconstruction you think
      is true is generally born of, and goes hand in hand with great credulity .

      > I obviously lack your depth of
      > scholarship, but our trajectories have been very different.

      Sorry, but how the difference in our trajectories makes your speculations worth
      considering is beyond me.

      BTW, have you given up your claims on what the "normal" meaning of PARADIDWMI
      was?

      Jeffrey
      --

      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
      Chicago, IL 60626

      jgibson000@...
    • Martin Edwards
      ... device , let ... reason for those ... No, I haven t shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long way towards establishing motive. Those who wish
      Message 2 of 25 , May 17, 2004
        >
        > Problem is -- is that you haven't shown that it **is** a "literary
        device", let
        > alone "only" a literary device, or that there would be any good
        reason for those
        > whose aim was to discredit the Jerusalem leadership to employ it.
        >
        >
        > Jeffrey
        > --
        >
        > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        >
        > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
        > Chicago, IL 60626
        >
        > jgibson000@c...

        No, I haven't shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long
        way towards establishing motive. Those who wish to discredit the
        Jerusalem leadership, non-Jews, posit a betrayal by a figure symbolic
        of both "the Jews" and Jesus's family. If there was such a project it
        was successful, as the Roman Church began its drive for domination
        after the revolt and actually installed a Bishop of its own in Jerusalem.

        Mart.
      • Martin Edwards
        ... taking him as ... dependent on him ... betrayal from ... You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul thought that there was any
        Message 3 of 25 , May 17, 2004
          --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
          <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
          >
          > > I am saying that there may have been no betrayal and no Judas
          > > Iscariot. I do not argue that the interpolation was made by Paul, but
          > > by a writer dependent on him.
          >
          > But didn't you claim that Paul's use of PARADIDWMI argued against
          taking him as
          > one who thought there was a betrayal? If so, then your "writer
          dependent on him"
          > was not dependent on him -- or at least didn't get the idea of
          betrayal from
          > Paul.
          >
          You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul
          thought that there was any betrayal, but a later writer read one into
          what he wrote. As for the invective, I shall not engage.

          Mart.
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Martin Edwards To: Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:59 PM Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 25 , May 17, 2004
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Martin Edwards" <martin.edwards5@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:59 PM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31 and the BD


            > >
            > > Problem is -- is that you haven't shown that it **is** a "literary
            > device", let
            > > alone "only" a literary device, or that there would be any good
            > reason for those
            > > whose aim was to discredit the Jerusalem leadership to employ it.
            > >
            > >
            > > Jeffrey
            > > --
            > >
            > > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
            > >
            > > 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
            > > Chicago, IL 60626
            > >
            > > jgibson000@c...
            >
            > No, I haven't shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long
            > way towards establishing motive. Those who wish to discredit the
            > Jerusalem leadership, non-Jews, posit a betrayal by a figure symbolic
            > of both "the Jews" and Jesus's family. If there was such a project it
            > was successful, as the Roman Church began its drive for domination
            > after the revolt and actually installed a Bishop of its own in Jerusalem.


            Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are talking
            about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members of the
            Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the Jerusalem
            Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem during the
            Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias, Benjamin,
            Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and Judas at
            which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.

            Jack


            -----
            ______________________________________________

            Dakma daEBadton l'chad min hoLEYN AHi zeUOreh ly haw EBadton

            Jack Kilmon
            San Marcos, Tx
            jkilmon@...

            http://www.historian.net

            sharing a meal for free.
            http://www.thehungersite.com/
          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
            ... And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were Hebrews and were circumcised and none of whom were installed by Rome . So Martin, if you have evidence to
            Message 5 of 25 , May 17, 2004
              Jack Kilmon wrote:

              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Martin Edwards" <martin.edwards5@...>
              > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 12:59 PM
              > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31 and the BD
              >
              > > No, I haven't shown it conclusively, but I think I have gone a long
              > > way towards establishing motive. Those who wish to discredit the
              > > Jerusalem leadership, non-Jews, posit a betrayal by a figure symbolic
              > > of both "the Jews" and Jesus's family. If there was such a project it
              > > was successful, as the Roman Church began its drive for domination
              > > after the revolt and actually installed a Bishop of its own in Jerusalem.
              >
              > Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are talking
              > about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members of the
              > Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the Jerusalem
              > Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem during the
              > Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias, Benjamin,
              > Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and Judas at
              > which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.

              And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were "Hebrews" and were circumcised and
              none of whom were installed by "Rome".

              So Martin, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

              Jeffrey
              --

              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

              1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
              Chicago, IL 60626

              jgibson000@...
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... But you do concede 1. that both he and those to whom he is writing in 1 Cor. are aware that Jesus was handed over/delivered up by someone on the night
              Message 6 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                Martin Edwards wrote:

                >
                > You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul
                > thought that there was any betrayal, but a later writer read one into
                > what he wrote. As for the invective, I shall not engage.
                >

                But you do concede

                1. that both he and those to whom he is writing in 1 Cor. are aware that Jesus
                was "handed over/delivered up" by someone on the night before he died to those
                who subsequently put him to death, and

                2. that this tradition of Jesus being "handed over" to his executioners is not
                something that Paul invented

                yes?

                And given

                1. that PARADIDWMI did not mean "arrest", and

                2. that when used, as in 1 Cor, of a person who, as a result of his handing
                over, meets his death, the verb means "betrayal",

                why do you insist that the interpretation (interpolation?) that this "handing
                over" was a betrayal is something that is only later read into Paul's text?

                Was the work of this unknown, but "Pauline dependent" person who originated the
                betrayal theme known to Matthew? To Mark?

                Jeffrey

                >
                > Mart.
                >
                > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >

                --

                Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                Chicago, IL 60626

                jgibson000@...
              • Matthew Estrada
                Bob MacDonald wrote: Does the history of baptism justify the question of those sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)? It seems to imply
                Message 7 of 25 , May 17, 2004
                  Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
                  Does the history of baptism justify the question of those
                  sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)?

                  It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires
                  that he be one of the three: Messiah, Elijah or the prophet.

                  Thanks

                  Bob

                  Hello Bob,

                  I would encourage you to read an unpublished paper I wrote which argues for the thesis that the Baptist in John's Gospel is a personification of "the Law and the Prophets". The Baptist is placed into the role of "the Law and the Prophets", and as such, testifies in favor of seeing Jesus as the Messiah, and against "the Jews of Jerusalem who would elevate the role of the Law and the Prophets to a higher stature than where it was originally intended to stand. John the author is rewriting Pauline theology using allegory as his genre, in my opinion. You may read the paper at the link below, or by going to Joe Gagne's website on Johannine Literature.
                  http://www.fourthgospel.com/unpub.htm#e






                  Matthew Estrada

                  113 Laurel Court

                  Peachtree City, Ga 30269


                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Martin Edwards
                  ... talking ... of the ... Jerusalem ... during the ... Benjamin, ... Judas at ... circumcised and ... After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                    --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                    <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                    >
                    > >
                    > > Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are
                    talking
                    > > about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members
                    of the
                    > > Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the
                    Jerusalem
                    > > Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem
                    during the
                    > > Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias,
                    Benjamin,
                    > > Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and
                    Judas at
                    > > which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.
                    >
                    > And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were "Hebrews" and were
                    circumcised and
                    > none of whom were installed by "Rome".
                    >
                    > So Martin, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
                    >

                    After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there was a
                    "Catholic" bishop in Jerusalem. As noted above, I just haven't got
                    time to look it up on a weekday. Perhaps "Roman" is premature, as
                    Rome had only just begun its bid for power. The Desposyni tried to
                    get their rights restored on several occasions, with little effect.

                    Mart.
                  • Martin Edwards
                    ... that Jesus ... died to those ... executioners is not ... Not necessarily. I was just reluctant to broaden the debate to unmanageable dimensions. It has
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                      <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Martin Edwards wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > > You have me nearly right but not quite. I do not think that Paul
                      > > thought that there was any betrayal, but a later writer read one into
                      > > what he wrote. As for the invective, I shall not engage.
                      > >
                      >
                      > But you do concede
                      >
                      > 1. that both he and those to whom he is writing in 1 Cor. are aware
                      that Jesus
                      > was "handed over/delivered up" by someone on the night before he
                      died to those
                      > who subsequently put him to death, and
                      >
                      > 2. that this tradition of Jesus being "handed over" to his
                      executioners is not
                      > something that Paul invented
                      >
                      > yes?

                      Not necessarily. I was just reluctant to broaden the debate to
                      unmanageable dimensions. It has been argued (and I can give you the
                      reference) that the story grew up (not necessarily invented by Paul)
                      as a legend of origin for the Mass, which was actually absorbed from
                      the mystery religions.
                      >
                      > And given
                      >
                      > 1. that PARADIDWMI did not mean "arrest", and
                      >
                      > 2. that when used, as in 1 Cor, of a person who, as a result of
                      his handing
                      > over, meets his death, the verb means "betrayal",
                      >
                      > why do you insist that the interpretation (interpolation?) that this
                      "handing
                      > over" was a betrayal is something that is only later read into
                      Paul's text?
                      >
                      > Was the work of this unknown, but "Pauline dependent" person who
                      originated the
                      > betrayal theme known to Matthew? To Mark?
                      >
                      > Jeffrey
                      >
                      > >
                      Again this is going to go way OT and Felix is sure to stop us fairly
                      soon, but Enoch Powell argues that Matthew is a composite document
                      and, incidentally makes the point that there was not much for Judas to
                      do, without taking this line of thought any further. My unknown
                      author's work could have got into it without the author being well
                      known. As you say, much of this is speculation; but the concensus is
                      speculation piled on speculation for centuries. Christians only think
                      that it is historical fact because they have been taught it from
                      childhood.

                      Mart.
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... So is Catholic -- at least in the sense of Roman Catholic . So while you are looking up the name of the post war bishop of Jerusalem this weekend,
                      Message 10 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                        Martin Edwards wrote:

                        > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey B. Gibson"
                        > <jgibson000@c...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Hold on a sec. My historical nose is getting tweaked. If you are
                        > talking
                        > > > about the 1st Jewish War, there was no "Roman Church" and members
                        > of the
                        > > > Desposynoi continued to be "Bishops" (wrong word, really) of the
                        > Jerusalem
                        > > > Assembly for decades. Shymeon led the group out of Jerusalem
                        > during the
                        > > > Roman destruction. He was followed by Judas, Zaccheus, Tobias,
                        > Benjamin,
                        > > > Yohanon, Mattaya, Philip, Seneca, Judas, Levi, Ephraim, Joseph and
                        > Judas at
                        > > > which time the Bar Kochba revolt began 148ish CE.
                        > >
                        > > And all of whom, according to Eusebius, were "Hebrews" and were
                        > circumcised and
                        > > none of whom were installed by "Rome".
                        > >
                        > > So Martin, if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
                        > >
                        >
                        > After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there was a
                        > "Catholic" bishop in Jerusalem. As noted above, I just haven't got
                        > time to look it up on a weekday. Perhaps "Roman" is premature, as
                        > Rome had only just begun its bid for power.

                        So is "Catholic" -- at least in the sense of "Roman Catholic". So while you are
                        looking up the name of the post war "bishop" of Jerusalem this weekend, perhaps
                        you'll also look up and provide us with the evidence that grounds your claim
                        that this "bishop" was "Catholic". In the meantime, since it doesn't involve
                        looking up anything, perhaps you'd provide us with what your definition of
                        "catholic" is?

                        > The Desposyni tried to
                        > get their rights restored on several occasions, with little effect.

                        May we have the evidence for this please? As well as the evidence that any of
                        post war "bishops" who, according to Eusebius, held sway over the Jerusalem
                        church up to the Bar Kochba revolt were puppets of Rome?

                        Jeffrey
                        --

                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                        Chicago, IL 60626

                        jgibson000@...
                      • Bob Schacht
                        ... It does not help your case to continue using anachronistic words to describe First Century history. I can t really take your speculations seriously as long
                        Message 11 of 25 , May 18, 2004
                          At 05:29 PM 5/18/2004 +0000, Martin Edwards wrote:

                          >After Simeon led the community out of Jerusalem, there was a "Catholic"
                          >bishop in Jerusalem.

                          It does not help your case to continue using anachronistic words to
                          describe First Century history. I can't really take your speculations
                          seriously as long as you continue to do that.
                          Bob

                          >As noted above, I just haven't got
                          >time to look it up on a weekday. Perhaps "Roman" is premature, as
                          >Rome had only just begun its bid for power. The Desposyni tried to
                          >get their rights restored on several occasions, with little effect.
                          >
                          >Mart.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          >MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                          >Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
                          Northern Arizona University
                          Flagstaff, AZ

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bill Bullin
                          ... for the thesis that the Baptist in John s Gospel is a personification of the Law and the Prophets . John the author is rewriting Pauline theology using
                          Message 12 of 25 , May 19, 2004
                            > Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:
                            > Does the history of baptism justify the question of those
                            > sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)?
                            >
                            > It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires
                            > that he be one of the three: Messiah, Elijah or the prophet.
                            >
                            Matthew replied:
                            > I would encourage you to read an unpublished paper I wrote which argues
                            for the thesis that the Baptist in John's Gospel is a personification of
                            "the Law and the Prophets". John the author is rewriting Pauline theology
                            using allegory as his genre, in my opinion. You may read the paper at the
                            link below, or by going to Joe Gagne's website on Johannine Literature.
                            > http://www.fourthgospel.com/unpub.htm#e
                            >

                            Dear Bob and Matthew

                            Without wishing to commit the offence of cross-threading unduly, may I
                            briefly take this opportunity to say, first to Matthew that I have now
                            started to read his thesis. I will do my determined best to read it in its
                            own terms despite my prejudice that 'John' was not a follower of Paul but
                            an equally profound thinker with a priestly symbolic and Jewish mystical
                            background; a Jerusalemite and witness to some aspects of Jesus ministry,
                            including a connection with the Baptist movement, a cousin of Barnabas. I
                            suspect that he may have been a member of the Sopherim mentioned by the
                            later rabbis, not merely a counter of Hebrew words and letters but a
                            christological composer, and that there may be a connection between the
                            Sopherim and the Hebrew root seph as in 'Joseph' and 'Aseph'; a root being
                            radically re-interpreted recently, following MacLaurin's article, in terms
                            of the Akkadian and Sumerian concepts of healing and exorcism. Somehow I
                            think this approach might help sort out the conundrum that 4G seems both
                            late and early, historical reliable yet theologically symbolic, symbolic yet
                            reaching further into the mystical world of Enochian ascents and decents;
                            combining narrative and numerically repetitive discourses that seem (quite
                            paradoxically), geared for the more advanced believer rather than for less
                            advanced catechumens. As I say, I respect the position you take in relation
                            to Pauline dependence as so many scholars do, and however much we disagree
                            on such fundamental issues, I am sure I will learn a great deal from your
                            approach, esp. in relation to Moses and Joseph.

                            Second, may I make a very brief response to Bob? My poor mind has been
                            buzzing away on 'the Holy Seed' which appears to be connected with a myth
                            concerning Cain, Abel, and Seth; Noah's flood, re-birth and Baptism. My
                            response to you then is this: it is important to note that a question posed
                            by those from one of the sects of Judaism may not necessarily reflect the
                            the views held by a Christian writer with origins in another sect, say an
                            Enochian Essene Priest, though I suspect that a continuum of beliefs existed
                            accross the sects accounting for why the Jesus phenomenon drew different
                            responses to those from differing Second Temple sects. If, for a moment we
                            imagine a sociological grouping that had access to the kind of theology
                            found in Wisdom 10: 1-4 and Malachi 1:6-7, 3:1-4, 16-18, might they not
                            produce a movement somewhat akin to the movement of John the Baptist, a
                            movement with not insubstantial attestation outwith the New Testament and
                            with attestation from varying documents within it? Indeed, might we not see
                            a connection to the Johannine trinity of the spirit, the water and the
                            blood. Without wishing to drift off to readily into the complex historical,
                            Jewish Greek and doctrinal world of
                            'the soul' and its mortality and immortality, I have always considered that
                            New Testament theology, particularly Johannine theology offers a little more
                            than either Christus Victor or an atoning sacrifice offered to right the
                            balances of the eternal scales of justice held in one anthropomorphic hand
                            of the Father; it seems that we are confronted with the death of the cosmic
                            creator who was in the beginning with God, somehow the death of one creation
                            as a means, a raft, a piece of wood, a doorway into a New Creation. In terms
                            of practical or applied theology, this cosmic salvic dimension related to
                            the sacred nature of the environment, a divine poem we trash at our peril,
                            whether we are either capitalists or communists or merely idealist
                            international mutualists if we fail to recognise a continuity, in some form,
                            between the old and the new. This, anyhow is my 'odd take' on baptism and I
                            delight to be corrected by better (wiser) hearts, and souls and minds and
                            pragmatic designs than mine, within the wise restrictions of the list's
                            protocol.

                            Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
                          • mr_atoz@yahoo.com
                            I don t believe it was baptisms themselves that prompted such a question from his peers but rather their sheer volume. The historian Josephus recounts that
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 24, 2004
                              I don't believe it was "baptisms" themselves that prompted such a
                              question from his peers but rather their sheer volume. The historian
                              Josephus recounts that Herod Antipas was concerned that John's
                              following was such that he feared a scenario in which these people
                              would be completely obedient to John. Likewise these numbers--esp. in
                              those times--almost certainly would have led to questions about
                              John's potential political ambitions as a prophet--or messiah.
                              --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Bob MacDonald
                              <bobmacdonald@s...> wrote:
                              > Does the history of baptism justify the question of those
                              > sent from the Pharisees (John 1:24)?
                              >
                              > It seems to imply that for John to be baptizing requires
                              > that he be one of the three: Messiah, Elijah or the prophet.
                              >
                              > Thanks
                              >
                              > Bob
                              >
                              > Bob MacDonald
                              > http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
                              > http://peleyah.ca
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.