aa5874

I have come across these verses in Mark 1.6-8, ' And John.........preached, saying....I indeed have baptized you with water but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
The declaration of this Holy Ghost baptism by the Messiah is also found in Luke 3.16 and Matthew 3.11.

Now, there is no indication from Josephus that the Messianic ruler was to be a Son of the God of Moses and would be baptizing Jews with a Holy Ghost, making them multilingual. And up to around 93 CE, Josephus' writings do not record any figure that was regarded as the Son of the God of Moses or made mention of any one who had been baptized with the Holy Ghost with the gift of "tongues"

Even after reading Philo, there are no passages in his writings about any person believed to be the Son of the God of Moses, who was baptizing Jews with a Holy Ghost. Both Josephus and Philo made references to a sect called the Essenes, and this sect had no leader called or believed to be the Son of the God of Moses or had the gifts of multilingualism supernaturally bestowed upon them by a Holy Ghost.

The concept of the Messiah as the Son of God of Moses and baptizing Jews with a Holy Ghost appears then to be have been conceptualized after Philo and Josephus. These writers have no information that can corroborate the gifts of the Holy Ghost or the presence of the Son of the God of Moses as described in the Pauline Epistles, Acts or the Synoptics.

This is "Paul" in 1 Corinthians 12.3, "Wherefore I give to you understanding that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost".
And, 1 Corinthians 14.18, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all."

It would appear to me that such a phenomenon, speaking in tongues by thousands, would probably not have escaped Philo or Josephus, and that the concept of the Messiah as the Son of God and baptizing in the Holy Ghost post- dates these writers as described in the Pauline Epistles, Acts and the Synoptics.

besleybean

Yes, we all know Paul invented Christianity.

aa5874

But, it seems to me that Paul was himself invented by the author of Acts. So, in effect, the author of Acts may have been the "rock" on which the Church was built.

besleybean

Luke?

aa5874

The author of Acts! I don't know his real name.

Nero's Boot

I've read about this theory and others like it before, both online and off-. I find it much more valid than any sort of "real-life Jesus," as we have zero records describing Jesus, his works, his miracles, and even his vaunted crucifiction from his lifetime. All we have is a post-fact insertion of a sentence into writings by Josephus, and the writings of Christian theologians who lived well after Christ supposedly did his Las Vegas magician stunt.

--it's almost as if a historical Jesus never really was ever around, much like Mithras, Zeus, and Osiris NB

besleybean

Well they might have done. Does it matter? Take from them what is good, and discard the rest.

aa5874

And we also have zero records of "Saul/Paul" outside Christian circles. If Acts is a fictitious account of "Paul", why is it no early Church Father ever challenged the authenticity of Acts?

Huon

What if they belonged to the Pauline sect ?