Who was John the Baptist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(16-08-2015 09:34 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 03:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Nazorites FAR preceded the Essenes. By hundreds of years, at least. They were not a "subsect" of the Essenes. The Hebrew root word for Nazir just meant "consecrated". Nazareth was probably a cemetery, and was "consecrated ground". It was not named for the Nazorites.

Nazarenes are not Nazorites.

Just thought i would clear that up.

Big Grin

Please fill me in on your knowledge about or opinion about this.

It is a very complicated, difficult topic.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2015, 10:50 PM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(16-08-2015 05:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yeshua’s stature grew as time went by. The two of them might have planned that once they had established political power in Palestine, John, the heir of Aaron, was to be the new high priest and Yeshua, the descendent of David, the new King of Israel.

I just have a brief comment to make here. And by the way, thanks for the post. It was very informative.

I think it’s safe to assume that John the Baptist did indeed qualify as Kohanim. The given linage implies it, and I can think of no reason to disbelieve it. –Especially since it doesn’t matter.

Jesus, on the other hand, is given two genealogies and four possible explanations. I’ve been told that one of the two is Mary’s genealogy. Keeping in mind that the writers of the NT are first trying to sell their story to the Jews, we must keep Jewish law in mind. Mary’s genealogy is therefore completely irrelevant on the grounds that she lacks a Y-chromosome to pass down to her son. Even if her genealogy counted, it goes through Nathan, so it disqualified for that reason, too.

The second genealogy is attributed to Joseph, but this line is disqualified for two reasons. One is that Jesus was said not to have been fathered by Joseph. He was, of course, a mamzer (having been fathered through a relationship that is forbidden in the Torah. Ie: Mary was legally married to Joseph at the time of conception.) EVEN IF Joseph was his biological father, Joseph’s line is disqualified because his genealogy comes down through Jeconiah. According to Jewish tradition, no descendants of Jechonia can ever be the Messiah or the King of Israel. Jesus had to have known this...

I'm basically suggesting that Jesus lacked the most basic and fundamental requirement of proper lineage to have ever been a possible messianic candidate in the first place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
17-08-2015, 02:29 AM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(16-08-2015 10:50 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 05:35 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Yeshua’s stature grew as time went by. The two of them might have planned that once they had established political power in Palestine, John, the heir of Aaron, was to be the new high priest and Yeshua, the descendent of David, the new King of Israel.

I just have a brief comment to make here. And by the way, thanks for the post. It was very informative.

I think it’s safe to assume that John the Baptist did indeed qualify as Kohanim. The given linage implies it, and I can think of no reason to disbelieve it. –Especially since it doesn’t matter.

Jesus, on the other hand, is given two genealogies and four possible explanations. I’ve been told that one of the two is Mary’s genealogy. Keeping in mind that the writers of the NT are first trying to sell their story to the Jews, we must keep Jewish law in mind. Mary’s genealogy is therefore completely irrelevant on the grounds that she lacks a Y-chromosome to pass down to her son. Even if her genealogy counted, it goes through Nathan, so it disqualified for that reason, too.

The second genealogy is attributed to Joseph, but this line is disqualified for two reasons. One is that Jesus was said not to have been fathered by Joseph. He was, of course, a mamzer (having been fathered through a relationship that is forbidden in the Torah. Ie: Mary was legally married to Joseph at the time of conception.) EVEN IF Joseph was his biological father, Joseph’s line is disqualified because his genealogy comes down through Jeconiah. According to Jewish tradition, no descendants of Jechonia can ever be the Messiah or the King of Israel. Jesus had to have known this...

I'm basically suggesting that Jesus lacked the most basic and fundamental requirement of proper lineage to have ever been a possible messianic candidate in the first place.

Remember that "Jesus" is a comic book character. The gospel authors could write whatever they wanted, and it was not necessary to have their writings based on truth. So the genealogies in the gospels are almost certainly fabricated.

Now there may well have been a real character (lets call him Yeshua.) It's possible some of the details in the gospels are very loosely based on his life. We have no idea what his genealogy was.

I think Yeshua, if he existed, thought he was the Messiah. He tramped around the countryside drumming up support for a war with Rome, made a failed attempt at that in Jerusalem, and got knocked off by the Romans for his efforts.

His brother James took over the leadership of the Nazarenes until he too was knocked off by the Romans in 62CE.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 04:00 AM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(16-08-2015 10:50 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Even if her genealogy counted, it goes through Nathan, so it disqualified for that reason, too.

Joseph’s line is disqualified because his genealogy comes down through Jeconiah. According to Jewish tradition, no descendants of Jechonia can ever be the Messiah or the King of Israel.

Um... what was wrong with Nathan and Jeconiah? Did they do something Yahoo didn't like?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 08:17 AM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(16-08-2015 09:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 09:34 PM)Free Wrote:  Nazarenes are not Nazorites.

Just thought i would clear that up.

Big Grin

Please fill me in on your knowledge about or opinion about this.

It is a very complicated, difficult topic.

The first part of the word "nazar" (also nazir) finds its root to be meaning "to be set apart for sacred purposes." It was really all about ancient Hebrew priests and so-called prophets.

That word can be attached to other words, and formed into a new word, such as Nazarene.

The Nazarene were likely an off-shoot of the Essene, and therefore we have Nazar-ene. We arrive at this conclusion from Josephus' description of the Essene, and comparing the beliefs of the Essene to what we see attributed to Jesus in the Gospel records and other ancient records. They compare very well.

Since we know that nazar denotes priests and prophets, we can reason that Nazareth was a priestly community, inhabited by Nazarenes. Since Jesus purportedly came from Nazareth, and was regarded as a priest, and since James was also regarded as a priest, we just have more evidence to support that position.

You can read more about the Essene in Josephus, and more about the practices of the Nazir here.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(16-08-2015 09:34 PM)Free Wrote:  Nazarenes are not Nazorites.

Just thought i would clear that up.

Big Grin

The root words for nazir (a person who has taken a vow), and Nazarath (the city), are totally different, as Free stated. I have absolutely no knowledge either way about a group of people living at this time as Nazarenes, but I still want to add my two cents about this topic.

To be a Nazir, one had to take a vow which included not cutting their hair, not touching anything that’s dead, and not touching or consuming grapes or grape products.

I know that Jesus was said to have consumed (or touched) wine, and he apparently brought a dead person back to life. Either action nullifies him as a Nazirite.
Oddly enough, the notion that the messiah would have to be characterized as a Nazarene in the first place is mentioned by Matthew in 2:23. He writes, “… And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”” It looks to me that the scripture (that I found) is saying that Jesus would simply come from the city.

…. Except that this prophesy that Matthew is referencing exists absolutely nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Nowhere does it say that the messiah needs to be a Nazarene or a nazir… Whether it’s a person who takes a vow, or a person who comes from the city, the prophesy doesn’t exist. Maybe Matthew never bothered to read the Hebrew Scriptures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
17-08-2015, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2015 07:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(17-08-2015 08:17 AM)Free Wrote:  Since Jesus purportedly came from Nazareth, and was regarded as a priest, and since James was also regarded as a priest, we just have more evidence to support that position.

Jesus was not "regarded as a priest". There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to support that rubbish, and no scholar says that. In fact a case for exactly the opposite could easily be made. The priests in Jerusalem were a specific class and set of families. Just more made up nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-08-2015, 07:40 PM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(16-08-2015 02:01 PM)Free Wrote:  The town of Nazareth was named after the Nazarene sect, just like most towns are named after whoever lives there.
You're kidding! Right?

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2015, 07:47 PM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(17-08-2015 08:17 AM)Free Wrote:  
(16-08-2015 09:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Please fill me in on your knowledge about or opinion about this.

It is a very complicated, difficult topic.

The first part of the word "nazar" (also nazir) finds its root to be meaning "to be set apart for sacred purposes." It was really all about ancient Hebrew priests and so-called prophets.

That word can be attached to other words, and formed into a new word, such as Nazarene.

The Nazarene were likely an off-shoot of the Essene, and therefore we have Nazar-ene. We arrive at this conclusion from Josephus' description of the Essene, and comparing the beliefs of the Essene to what we see attributed to Jesus in the Gospel records and other ancient records. They compare very well.

Since we know that nazar denotes priests and prophets, we can reason that Nazareth was a priestly community, inhabited by Nazarenes. Since Jesus purportedly came from Nazareth, and was regarded as a priest, and since James was also regarded as a priest, we just have more evidence to support that position.

You can read more about the Essene in Josephus, and more about the practices of the Nazir here.

"Nazar" did not denote "priests and prophets". The Nazorites were ascetics, and had no other specific association or attribution.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-08-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: Who was John the Baptist?
(17-08-2015 07:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(17-08-2015 08:17 AM)Free Wrote:  Since Jesus purportedly came from Nazareth, and was regarded as a priest, and since James was also regarded as a priest, we just have more evidence to support that position.

Jesus was not "regarded as a priest". There is not a shred of evidence anywhere to support that rubbish, and no scholar says that. In fact a case for exactly the opposite could easily be made. The priests in Jerusalem were a specific class and set of families. Just more made up nonsense.

I agree with Bucky here. I'm not aware that Jesus was regarded as a priest.

James, his (? half) brother, was though.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: