Berean

You are correct. That alone would not mean they were not attempting to be factual. It is that plus all the other things in my by-no-means-exhaustive list that demonstrates the evangelists were not much interested in facts. Further, even if they were much interested in facts, there is currently no way to know if they got hold of any.

As I said, I have no pretense to being an expert in the field of history. Nevertheless, your statements defy logic. As regards the presence of facts in the Gospels, then your list is largely inapplicable, with the exceptions of your second and last points. None of the rest of it has any bearing on whether the Gospels contain factual accounts. The rest all has to do with presentation and style.

This is an evasion. To what extent the gospels contain history is an important question whether or not independent accounts contradict them. In any case, independent accounts do contradict them, as we were just discussing re Josephus' account of JBap.

Yes, it is an important question and I probably overstated the point, but as noted above your list is evidently concerned with historical style, not content, and thus remains irrelevant given that we are discussing works that have a wholly different purpose. As to contradictory accounts, I said specifically accounts that are “more credible”. Josephus is clearly not so on this issue. You should examine the work of Saulnier and Chilton on this.

Niether. I am presenting a list that shows that the evangelists were uninterested in getting their facts right, and that the gospels as a result probably contain little, if any, real history of Jesus. At no time do they behave like an ancient historian engaged in doing just that. Can you imagine any of them making a trip to an obscure altar to verify an inscription about Hannibal, like Polybius did?

Well, if your list is intended to apply to ANE histories, that would make it wholly inapplicable. And as pointed out above, your list will generally speaking fail to lead to conclusions as to the factuality of the Gospels. You presumably also reject the conclusions of a large number of NT scholars that Luke was a historian of considerable quality and reliability. As to your final question, Luke again at least was evidently well-traveled, and Matthew, Mark and John probably lived in the geography covered (Mark’s supposed “boners” notwithstanding). A journey such as Polybius’ would not have been necessary and the example is not a propos.

Hmmm. Now here is definitely a case of the pot....

Don’t speak too soon…

When two arcane theological/cosmological systems clash...."only begotten" would appear to imply an engendering; the word appears also in Josephus, I think, where Izates is the "only begotten" son of Queen Helen. I seem to recall Isaac being the only begotten of Abraham too. In any case lots of ancients saw it as meaning an engendering, and Jesus definitely having a beginning in time. Except in this one case, the meaning of "begotten" is always considered to contain an engendering.

No offense meant, but your comments show a typical skeptical carelessness with regard to subtle Bibliological issues. It can be easily shown from the Biblical usage of the word that it does not imply engendering (I do not have it to hand but I have completed an extensive word study on this point; hopefully I still have it if you are interested. There are plenty of others on the ‘Net too). In any event, your own examples of Izates and Isaac (in Hebrews 11:17) only disprove the objection – both Izates and Isaac had brothers and so were not only begotten sons in a literal sense. The word (and its Hebrew equivalent yachiyd) has a dual sense of uniqueness (meaning “of the same kind") and being specially loved which is difficult to render adequately in English.

Really, though, it is irrelevant, except to the people who got killed for picking the wrong side on this one.

Are you implying a Christian persecution of the Gnostics, a la Freke and Gandy? Please.

"True Christianity" is a value; one could identify the Gnostics with True Christianity, or the Marcionites, or the Ebionites, or whoever. This is, in any case, an aside and not relevant.

No, it’s a claim of historical validity. Given his approach, I don’t think Peter Kirby would consider it irrelevant either.

What exactly is unthinkable to the Greeks here? A god becoming flesh? Above you argued that "True Christianity" was Jewish in origin, you seem now to be veering away from that position. Do you reject John's claim that the Word was made flesh because it was blasphemous to the Jews?

Yes, the Greeks would consider a god becoming flesh unthinkable, the flesh being evil, as I had previously discussed. As for veering away from the Jewish origin position, logically this cannot be so, because blasphemy would not be an issue otherwise. If John were based on something else, the Jews would not care. And where do you read from my statements that I reject John’s claim?

[Me]One might more easily ask why there is no infancy narrative in Mark.

Yes, but we're discussing John 1.

Obviously. My point was that the question is better suited to an analysis of Mark than of John and therefore tangential to the current study.

It doesn't seem ungainly when Luke does it; she carried it off rather well, I thought. There's nothing inherently ungainly about that particular chiasmus. I think this is rather weak. If you want to argue from aesthetics, perhaps John eliminated it because it would have seemed an ungainly swoop to have a caterwauling, diaper-wearing dingus juxtaposed with the lofty philosophy of the prologue.

If you seriously believe that a woman wrote Luke, then I fear that my initial conclusions that the SecWeb has a higher quality of atheist thought may have been rather hasty. And if you’re going to follow Helms on this, then why not follow Brown and Jusino and assert Mary Magdalene was the author of John? On the other hand, for some reason I had it in mind that chiasm is a form of interpolation, so your latter point is essentially what I meant, albeit pejoratively phrased. That having been said, exactly what chiasmus in Luke did you mean?

[Me]So, if we were to amplify the passage, we might render it so: “John the Baptist made it clear, he didn’t just deny it, but made it very clear…”

The issue is the necessity of the rhetorical overkill. It reeks of too much protestation.

You jump way too quickly to conclusions in terms of your own sensibilities – Anglophone ones particularly in this case. Quite simply, in order to achieve emphasis in many languages the easiest way to do so is merely to repeat the words. This is dome in the NT frequently and especially in the Gospels (e.g., Jesus often says “Truly, truly…”, which sounds a little odd to modern English ears, but not to speakers of many other languages). Besides, it may well be that the questioners pressed the Baptist repeatedly on the point, leading him to strong protestation.

Was claiming to be the Messiah a capital crime? I have heard both ways.

Perhaps; but it is clear that the Evangelists thought so, given Christ’s trial and crucifixion. Thus, whether true or not, it would fit in the context of the story.

Why did you label this kind of thinking "pointless speculation?" It makes interesting and thought-provoking reading the way you've handled it here.

The pointless speculation comment related only to the idea of differing traditions behind the differences in the Gospels, not to the differences themselves, as in the part of my post you cited before your comment.

You mean BF Westcott from the turn of the last century? Has time stood still? John the son of Zebedee was probably dead by the time this gospel was written. In any case there are multiple and conflicting traditions on the authorship of John, as Peter's website notes, and the Gospel has been heavily redacted. Further, John 21 appears to know that the BD is dead. In any case Acts 4:13 says that John Z was illiterate. Who the BD was will probably never be resolved. Erhman states in his intro that the final redactor was a native speaker of Greek who lived outside of Palestine, although they obviously had access to sources and individuals from that area.

Yes, that is the Westcott I meant, and as far as his argument is concerned, time has indeed stood still. I know of no refutation of it. In fact, one of the commentators Peter linked to in this thread cites it extensively. And you should be careful of arguments that imply newer is better, which is of course a fallacy. As regards “traditions” again, then you have to go with the Apostle as author, don’t you? That is after all the only ancient tradition, all others arising since the eighteenth century at the earliest. The redaction idea is a conclusion of form criticism, and therefore to my mind highly suspect. Chapter 21 is jumping the gun big time at this stage, but although the inference that John is dead is certainly justifiable from verse 23, it is not a necessary inference and appears to conflict with the following verse. The Acts verse does not say that John and Peter were illiterate (another example of careless reading), but that they were “unlearned and ignorant”. Usage of those terms indicates for the former a lack of higher education (i.e., rabbinic teaching) and for the latter merely that they were private individuals with no established (humanly given) authority.

[Me]Do you know by sight every relative you have? I certainly don’t.

Looks like a good argument to me. Although Jesus is god, and could probably be expected to know his relatives, being omniscient and all.

Certainly, but the issue related to the Baptist, not Jesus.

I don't think this will really fly. The timing and context of events is totally different…Don't think that really makes sense. I'll have to go with the contradiction on this one.

You have misunderstood what I said. This is, BTW, the standard harmony of this passage going back at least to St. Augustine (see <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602217.htm)." target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602217.htm).</a> Here’s the sequence:

1. Jesus travels from Galilee to the Jordan (location unspecified but probably in Judea not too far from Jerusalem).

2. John baptizes Jesus in the Jordan.

3. Jesus goes into the wilderness to be tempted.

4. Later, He meets John again, who has apparently traveled up to Bethany beyond the Jordan (likely just south of the Sea of Galilee on the east side of the Jordan). The travels of John are confirmed by Luke. This also supports the separateness of the two meetings of Jesus and John.

5. John is quizzed by the priests and declares the Lamb of God to two disciples – Andrew and an unnamed individual.

6. Andrew goes and gets his brother Simon to come and see the Messiah (this could have taken some time, if Simon were at home in Bethsaida and depending on the location of Bethany btJ).

7. Peter’s response to Jesus at this point is NOT recorded – which is key to the harmony. If Peter does not decide to follow Him, he and Andrew go home.

8. Philip and Nathanael (also from Bethsaida) have a similar meeting with Christ the next day as he is fixing to leave for Galilee (which is immediately across the Jordan from Bethsaida and not too far from the putative location Bethany btJ) and do decide to follow Him.

9. Jesus and His disciples (unnamed) go to a wedding in Cana.

10. Some time later, Jesus hears of John’s imprisonment and finds his disciples, including Simon, Andrew, James and John fishing near Capernaum (across the river from Bethsaida and home to Simon’s mother-in-law). Simon is persuaded by the miraculous catch (per Luke, the healing of his mother-in-law would also have happened around this time) and they all follow Jesus.

It works just fine. And I don’t see why extensive traveling is an issue – there isn’t that much of it and we are not talking of brief time frames either.

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Berean ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Bearn -- I'll get back to you tomorrow. Been away from the computer, except for snatches -- my teaching job down south turned out to take more time than I thought, and the computer they promised to provide will "certainly be there next week, or at least the week after."

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Berean:
As I said, I have no pretense to being an expert in the field of history. Nevertheless, your statements defy logic.

Show this please.

As regards the presence of facts in the Gospels, then your list is largely inapplicable, with the exceptions of your second and last points.

There are facts in many fictional presentations. Sherwood Forest is a real place, and Prince John a real ruler, but Robin Hood is a myth. Other accounts widely regarded as fictitious from the ancient nevertheless refer to real events, people and rulers. The key issue is not the presence of facts, but the treatment of Jesus' life.

None of the rest of it has any bearing on whether the Gospels contain factual accounts. The rest all has to do with presentation and style.

That's nonsense. The gospels were clearly unconcerned with historical fact, but instead are writing Sacred History that mixes their myth with fact, legend, and history. Note that the most basic information is not even given; in what year did Jesus die, and what was the date?

Yes, it is an important question and I probably overstated the point, but as noted above your list is evidently concerned with historical style, not content, and thus remains irrelevant given that we are discussing works that have a wholly different purpose.

The purpose of the gospels is religious propaganda. There is nothing of Jesus' life that can be shown to be fact by any current methodology. If it can, bring it on.

As to contradictory accounts, I said specifically accounts that are “more credible”. Josephus is clearly not so on this issue. You should examine the work of Saulnier and Chilton on this.

Saulnier, as far as I know, merely attempted to redate JtB's death to an earlier time, so it could follow the gospel order. Chilton dates it to 21, making hash of the gospel chronology and the gospel stories. You can't advise me to follow Chilton, and then ignore him as it suits you in your "harmonization" below. Either the gospel stories are fictions, or Chilton is wrong.

In other words, Chilton and I both agree that the gospels contain no facts here. As Chilton said of the Synoptic chronology, "[its] usage as a catechetical instrument makes it an unreliable historical tool." That's, um, exactly one of the "illogical" and "stylistic" points I make above.

Well, if your list is intended to apply to ANE histories, that would make it wholly inapplicable.

As I said, it applies to the gospels and other legendary and sacred histories.

And as pointed out above, your list will generally speaking fail to lead to conclusions as to the factuality of the Gospels. You presumably also reject the conclusions of a large number of NT scholars that Luke was a historian of considerable quality and reliability.

Where Luke borrowed from Josephus, he is reliable to the extent that he follows Josephus. However, his quality plummets mightily when dealing with Jesus himself. For example:

• The birth narrative is a clear legend, both of Jesus and of John. No birthdate is given for either, and Luke appears uninterested in the exact date. The famous census may well refer to a local census, but we only know that Jesus was born around that time, not precisely when. Luke appears to be confused about the census.
• When Jesus was 12 years old he went to the temple. This was when?
• When was Jesus baptized? What year? If it is so important, why isn't it dated?
• After being tempted, when did Jesus return to Galilee? Go to Capernaum? Go to Simon's home?
• Luke 5 -- many events, again no date.
• Luke 6 -- again many events, again no date. Luke follows standard legend format: "One day..." One could read Robin Hood or similar, and read the same forms.
• Luke 7 -- what was the name of the centurion -- how is it in Luke so many centurions are believers? -- and when did these events take place. Note that messengers from John come -- but isn't John already imprisoned and executed? How much time is passed? How are these events related? Luke the "Historian" makes no attempt to find out, and appears not to care. In Luke, as in all legends, events exist merely as vehicles for the transmission of myth.
• By Luke 9 John is dead and Jesus is named by the crowds as the resurrected John -- interesting if they were born within a few months of one another -- Herod consequently takes an interest in Jesus. Note that if Chilton, whom you recommended above, is correct, then this "history" is pure shit. Either Chilton is wrong, or Luke is. Take your pick.
• Luke 9 brings us the transfiguration and again -- you guessed it -- no date.
• Luke 10 is the usual ensemble of stories with -- of course -- not even the slightest attempt at a date.

Well, there's no need to go on. Suffice to say Luke is uninterested in dates and times, and the order of the story is not really important to him. Sometimes he relates events to previous events, sometimes he simply tosses out "One day...." Luke's pattern is clear: whenever an event occurs in Jesus' life, it has no good date.

Of course, when was Jesus executed? After writing "the fifteenth year of Tiberius, etc, etc.....suddenly we find ourselves in limbo. Luke the Historian has fallen flat on his face in the most crucial event of all. There is no attempt at all by Luke to fix the date of this all-important event.

As to your final question, Luke again at least was evidently well-traveled, and Matthew, Mark and John probably lived in the geography covered (Mark’s supposed “boners” notwithstanding). A journey such as Polybius’ would not have been necessary and the example is not a propos.

Right. They live in Palestine, but they don't bother to ask anyone simple questions like "When was Jesus executed?"

No offense meant, but your comments show a typical skeptical carelessness with regard to subtle Bibliological issues. It can be easily shown from the Biblical usage of the word that it does not imply engendering (I do not have it to hand but I have completed an extensive word study on this point; hopefully I still have it if you are interested.

Uninterested. You are welcome to make whatever eccentric interpretations of words you like and call it "subtle." But I do not see why I should pick one interpretation over another. History shows that these interpretations acquired "correctness" through enforcement by the Church, and for no other reason.

Really, though, it is irrelevant, except to the people who got killed for picking the wrong side on this one.

Are you implying a Christian persecution of the Gnostics, a la Freke and Gandy? Please.

No, I am merely making a general statement about the fate of people who wind up on the wrong side of theological disputes among Christians.

If you seriously believe that a woman wrote Luke, then I fear that my initial conclusions that the SecWeb has a higher quality of atheist thought may have been rather hasty. And if you’re going to follow Helms on this, then why not follow Brown and Jusino and assert Mary Magdalene was the author of John?

Well, given logic like the kind you've shown above, I can see why you don't like what goes on at the SecWeb. I do not "seriously believe" that Luke was a woman, I merely note that Helm's arguments are interesting and compelling. Your suggestion here is fatuous -- I should buy female authorship for everything because I find one argument interesting? I don't see any way to demonstrate the gender of the writer of the gospels for certain; we do not even know who wrote and redacted them.

On the other hand, for some reason I had it in mind that chiasm is a form of interpolation, so your latter point is essentially what I meant, albeit pejoratively phrased. That having been said, exactly what chiasmus in Luke did you mean?

Between, on one hand, angelic intervention and OT prophecy, and on the other, the appearance of the squalling babe, who is, at the end, once again presented as the son of god in the temple. Very deftly handled; Luke had a fine sense of literary structure.

...other languages). Besides, it may well be that the questioners pressed the Baptist repeatedly on the point, leading him to strong protestation.

Quite true. But as it is preserved, in combination with the existence of a community of John Followers that the gospels know of, it seems that the passage is there to establish Jesus' primacy over John, and has nothing to do with history.

Perhaps; but it is clear that the Evangelists thought so, given Christ’s trial and crucifixion. Thus, whether true or not, it would fit in the context of the story.

Yes, but if it wasn't true that blasphemy was a capital crime, then the story becomes what I've claimed it is -- legend.

The pointless speculation comment related only to the idea of differing traditions behind the differences in the Gospels, not to the differences themselves, as in the part of my post you cited before your comment.

So what you mean is, you don't think any sources were used by the gospel writers? Where does there information come from, then?

...the earliest. The redaction idea is a conclusion of form criticism, and therefore to my mind highly suspect.

No, highly reasonable. The presence of seams, repetition, and stylistic differences are all signs of redaction. Therefore Westcott's conclusions are amply and firmly refuted by modern scholarship. Even very conservative writers like Raymond Brown believe John was redacted several times.

Chapter 21 is jumping the gun big time at this stage,

Yes, if our discussion here is any indication, Chap 21 will be great fun.

The Acts verse does not say that John and Peter were illiterate (another example of careless reading), but that they were “unlearned and ignorant”. Usage of those terms indicates for the former a lack of higher education (i.e., rabbinic teaching) and for the latter merely that they were private individuals with no established (humanly given) authority.

We've had this discussion here. The translations are clear -- the word "agrammatos" used means "unlettered," clear indication that John was unable to write. Your explanation is an apologetic dodge, Bearn.

I'll deal with the harmony in a moment.

Vorkosigan

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Peter,

Would you take the appearance of John the Baptist in the opening section of John's gospel as evidence of dependence on the Synoptic story?

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I would take it as evidence that the fourth gospel, like the synoptics, needed a way to show Jesus to be superior to John.

best,
Peter Kirby

Joe Mendoza

Before going on to chapter 3, I have decided to backtrack a little and deal with chapter 1, which I missed.
I'm going to start by dealing with only the first five verses of chapter 1, later I will deal with the rest.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

At John's beginning we have a reference to the Book of Genesis. From Genesis we have "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth", from John we have "In the beginning was the Word".

The Heavens represents the Psychic (the social) which represents notions of good and evil, right and wrong, all those things that the law deals with. And the Earth represents the Hylic (the natural) which represents all the instinctive passions and desires of the body.

But John is saying that there is something that proceeds the creation of the Heavens and the Earth (the Hylic and the Psychic). This is something that John calls "the Word". This "Word" is both not-God and God. It encompasses both. We are told that "The Word was with God" (which would imply that it is something other than God) and then we are told that the Word is God. This Word contains that which is not-God plus that which is God. I am reminded of a saying from the fragments of Heraclitus "Listen not to me, but to my Word, All is One".

From this "Word" did everything come. Everything that was made, & also the life which fills all that was made, & also the light that shines through the life. (This is the light that Moses saw shining through the burning bush, a light that did not tell Moses that it was Yahweh of Jehovah or who-ever, but told Moses "I am that which I am").

This Light shines through the darkness, and this is the light which John tells us that we should be looking for.

The light is transcendent, it is before and beyond the physical (instinctive, mechanical) and it is before and beyond the social (Good & Evil, Right & Wrong). Neither the Physical (Hylic) nor the Social (Psychic) can understand the transcendental.

Ted Hoffman

Joe Mendoza and Gringo,
I have an interpretation (borrowed from Alan Alfords ideas) that makes sense of the following:

• The word being with God from the beginning
• The word also being God
• All things being made through him
• The word being flesh
• In him (the word) being life
• The word being the son of God
• The light shining in the darkness

First of all, you must appreciate the fact that christianity started as a gnostic religion whose beliefs were shrouded in secrecy (JBap was among those who broke the tight circle of secrecy and went out to proclaim the coming of the messiah). To gain acceptance from the surrounding people while at the same time retain the secrecy of their beliefs, they dumbed down their "mysteries" and eheumerized their deities and following the Jewish war, the sects got scattered and disorganized, Constantine concerted and the idea of historicizing the religion arose. Thats why we get caught up using the wrong paradigm.
I will move closer to the original meanings of "the word".
Where else in the bible do we find reference to "the word"?
In Jeremiah 23 :: King James Version (KJV)
Why was the word like fire? What word is this that could, like ahammer crush a rock to pieces? Was it a hot hammer? What does it mean?
In the Egyptian Coffin Texts it says the following about the word:
Alan Alford When The Gods Came Down pp.306.
Here too, we see that the word contained the "efflux of Osiris" (ie life) and had fire - ie a meteorite.

A comet/ meteorite, on falling upon the earth at a high speed, cools and becomes a rock. Did the ancients beleive life could come from a rock?
Deut 32:17
Any other evidence?
Meteorites, come while heated to very high temperatures and when they hit the earth, because of their speed and heat, they sink deep into the dark earth, their heat of course produces light (so this is the light shining in the darkness):
Did the ancient people (hebrews ect) beleive they came from a meteor? Lets look at the following verse:
Isiah 55:1
Its simply all there when we look closely.
In Luke 1:35 How could the holy Ghost come upon Mary and how could a virgin give birth?
God was a planet, the primeval Jesus was a (flood of) meteorites and therefore, logically, since Jesus was NOT a human being, his mother was not a real human and thus could give birth without having sex - thus virgin birth.

In The Gospel of Philip
So who was virgin Mary?
The ancients embraced the idea of a sacred marriage in which a falling sky (God) impregnated a fertile earth - which was like a giant womb able to bring forth all sorts of creatures. This idea is clear in a sumerian legend:
Samuel Kramer History Begins at Sumer as quoted by Alan Alford in When The Gods Came Down pg. 388.
This same idea is also clear in the birth of Horus by virgin Isis in ancient Egyptian texts. Osiris, was born in a similar fashion to Samson of the bible. The Egyptian texts describe Isis' conception thus:
The word became flesh by bringing forth mankind.

Because God was seen as an exploded planet, and the word/ his son, meteorites from the exploded planet, the word was with God and the word was God.
After bringing forth mankind, God arose from the earth sphinxlike - ie spiritually without his hitherto physical body - back to the heavens.

You should be asking me why we had two contrary Marys: one being a prostitute (Magdalene) and the other being a virgin. And Why Pilate, who Tacitus mentions in the Annals has a name so close to French pilote and the medieval latin pilotus and what pontus or Pontius means.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

atrahasis

.....LET THE WISE TEACH THE MYSTERY TO THE WISE....

--A.HEIDEL

Joe Mendoza

Here is the rest of my take on John Chapter 1.

6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

John represents the Psychic (social) man. He is from God (the lawgiver) not from the Word or from the Light. He is a witness to the light (the pneumatic, i.e. spiritual man) but is not himself the pneumatic. John represents the most advanced stage of the Psychic man. He suspects that there is more than just the natural and the social, and although he doesn't yet know what it is, he is seeking and preparing himself to know. He is the one who is trying to know himself.

10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

Is this talking about John or about Jesus? I'm going to assume that it is still talking about John. He was in the world (the Hylic) but the world did not recognize him. He came to his own (the Psychic) but his own did not receive him. The three states of mankind Hylic-Psychic-Pneumatic have problems seeing themselves. Or at least they do when a person does not know one's self. Verses 10 & 11 describe the person who does not know himself.

But those who recognize him (who know themselves) have a right to become children of God (they do not necessarily become children of God, but have the 'right to become' children of God). They become:
1. Not born of this world (not Hylic, not a genetic person)
2. Not born of Human decision or a husband's will (not Psychic, not a social person)

Interesting that it mentions not under "a husband's will". Is the Gospel of John a feminist Gospel, was it written (as some have suggested) by a woman?

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

What does this mean? The traditional reading is that this means that God became a human being in the person of Jesus Christ.

But I'm reminded of all those witty sayings, "Actions speak louder than words", "Put your words into actions", "Stick and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me."

I think that this statement is describing the moment of enlightenment (salvation) when the words become more than just word, when what had just been words and formulas becomes wisdom and truth.

15 John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 16 From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

The Pneumatic (the spiritual) is always in us, it comes before us, and it also comes after us. The law is from Moses (representing the Psychic, the social man), but Grace comes from Jesus Christ (representing the pneumatic, spiritual man). No one can see God expect God, that means that you must be seeing through the part of you that is God in order for you to see God. No one who is not experiencing their God-hood can comprehend their God-hood.

This book is non-linear. After describing John's enlightenment, it jumps back to John's pre-enlightenment and asks the question who is John?

19 Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20 He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely,
"I am not the Christ."
21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No."
22 Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23 John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' 24 Now some Pharisees who had been sent 25 questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
26 "I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. 27 He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie."
28This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John is not:
1. The Christ
2. Elijah (Whose name means Yahweh is God)
3. The Prophet (note that it says "the" prophet, not "a" prophet).

John is the "voice in the wilderness crying 'make straight the way of the Lord'." He remains under the voice of the "Law", the psychic, social god. He baptizes with water, that is with symbolic, external substance, not with spirit, not with what is interior. His baptisms are only for the exterior, social world. But although John is a Psychic (one with the Pharisees who do not receive him, see verse 11) John knows (or suspects) that there is more than just the Psychic.

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel." 32 Then John gave this testimony: "I saw the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on him. 33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, 'The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.' 34I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God."

John sees Jesus (recognizes his own Christ nature). John baptized with water so that this might happen, that is he was a Psychic (Social Man) who was seeking something greater. He did not know who or what he was seeking, but he finally found it, he saw the spirit come down.
"The one who sent me" that is the spirit (although John did not know it was the spirit when it sent him, he knew it only after it came down). John (potentially I) only knew who sent him when he saw who sent him (the spirit).

From this point Jesus becomes the focus of the rest of the chapter. & I will consider the rest of the chapter at a latter time.

Ted Hoffman

Joe Mendoza,

• Why does John baptise in water? From whence did he get the idea of baptism from?
• Was John a flesh and blood man according to your understanding?
• When JBap's head was cut and presented to Salome (Herods stepdaughter) what did that represent? Did it actually happen?
• What/ who does Elizabeth represent and how is she different from Mary, given they both had "virgin births"? Was Elizabeth a flesh-and-blood woman?
• Are you aware, that in The (Secret) book of James (protoevangelium) we have a story similar to Jesus' birth story where Elizabeth also had to flee with infant John from Herods baby-killing spree as Herod looked for John?
  What does that tell you?
• Luke 1: 41-42 says"
  
  Quote:

  41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

  Why did the baby (have to) leap in Elizabeth's womb before Elizabeth was filled with the holy ghost?
  What was the significance of the baby leaping in Mary's presence?
  How did Elizabeth know Mary had anything in her womb yet Mary had not yet told her about angel Gabriel's visit?
• Why did JBap baptize Jesus yet he was supposedly born sinless? What did that baptism symbolize?
• What did baptism with fire mean as John spoke of in Luke 3:16 and Matthew 3:11? And in what way was it different from Baptism with the spirit(or Holy Ghost) and from Baptism with water?
  

I think its imperative that you give a coherent answer to the above questions before you proceed.
Thank you.