Was Jesus involved in John the Baptist's murder?

[Bob]

Been reading Lynn Pichnett's book, "The Secret History of Lucifer." I don't really recommend this book. The first 25% of the book was interesting but her points were not well developed. The last 75% was just how the church has persecuted women over the last 1700 years, over and over again (required skimming).

But, she made some interesting observations on the relation ship between John the Baptist and Jesus. She notes that John was based in Alexandria and his following was huge (international). She shows from various sources, Gnostic texts, Gospels, Josephus, the rivalry between John and Jesus. Supposedly, Jesus was a follower of John but latter broke off and competed with him.

Example of the feud between them is the quote in the gospels, "Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater that John the Baptist..." She points out that "among those born of women" does not mean everyone, as Westerners might think, but is an "ancient Near-Eastern insult meaning 'fatherless', bastard' (in both the literal and derogatory sense), perhaps 'son of a bitch'.

Even the "old wine skins" could be a reference to what John was famous for wearing, suggesting he was too old to teach anything new.

But, as to John's murder, it was carried out at the behest of Herod's step-daughter after she does her little dance. The Bible does not mention her name but she is named in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Now, if Josephus knew her name, the authors of the gospels surely would have known her name but suspiciously left it out. Her name was Salome.

Salome is mentioned as a disciple of Jesus once in the gospels. She is mentioned more frankly in the Gospel of Thomas, having religious discussions with Jesus. She is also mentioned in a fragment of Mark that was redacted on the order of Clement (because Gnostics were using it to justify one of their beliefs). This fragment was found in a letter to Clement in the 1950's. It is another account of Lazarus' raising from the dead.

So, is this Salome, step daughter of Herod, the same Salome that was a disciple (apparently a close one) of Jesus? If so, it would explain why she is hardly mentioned at all in the Gospels. She would be a bit too controversial for people to swallow.

I know there is a Gnostic on this forum somewhere. Have you heard of this?

[WordWolf]

No he wasn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Bob:

Been reading Lynn Pichnett's book, "The Secret History of Lucifer." I don't really recommend this book. The first 25% of the book was interesting but her points were not well developed. The last 75% was just how the church has persecuted women over the last 1700 years, over and over again (required skimming).

That should tell you a lot about her "objectivity".

quote:

But, she made some interesting observations on the relation ship between John the Baptist and Jesus. She notes that John was based in Alexandria and his following was huge (international).

The Pharisees certainly noticed him, as did Herod.

quote:

She shows from various sources, Gnostic texts, Gospels, Josephus, the rivalry between John and Jesus.

Using that same logic, one would say that Raf and I are "rivals",

because we studied together and worked together at one point,

and now do not.

quote:

Supposedly, Jesus was a follower of John but latter broke off and competed with him.

Or it happened the way it says in the Gospels: John's ministry

started 6 months ahead of Jesus', John baptized Jesus, and maybe

they hung out some here and there. They BOTH certainly would have

benefitted from the company of each other. (How many other people

REALLY understood either of them?)

quote:

Example of the feud between them is the quote in the gospels, "Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater that John the Baptist..."

This is evidence of a feud?

quote:

She points out that "among those born of women" does not mean everyone, as Westerners might think, but is an "ancient Near-Eastern insult meaning 'fatherless', bastard' (in both the literal and derogatory sense), perhaps 'son of a bitch'.

I think Jesus, of all people, would be the LAST person to insult

someone based on whether or not his genetic parents were married

or not.

I imagine someone could find a way to think Jesus was insulting

John the Baptist if they were not reading WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Rather than mention the words, how about reading them IN THEIR

CONTEXT?

Matthew 11:7-15.

quote:

And as they departed, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes

concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to see?

A reed shaken with the wind?

But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment?

Behold, they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses.

But what went ye out for to see? A prophet?

Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet.

For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold I send my messenger

before thy face,which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there

hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding

he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of

heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to

come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Jesuswas saying a lot about his COUSIN. He said John was prophesied

of old, and that he was a super-prophet.

quote:

Even the "old wine skins" could be a reference to what John was famous for wearing, suggesting he was too old to teach anything new.

No, (Matthew 9:14) it was a direct answer to John's disciples,

who wanted to upbraid Jesus for not fasting.

quote:

But, as to John's murder, it was carried out at the behest of Herod's step-daughter after she does her little dance. The Bible does not mention her name but she is named in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Now, if Josephus knew her name, the authors of the gospels surely would have known her name but suspiciously left it out. Her name was Salome.

Right, we know her name, also. She's got a bad reputation.

The gospels mention her but not by name. There are several possible

reasons for this, but she seized on one as if it was the only

possible one.

quote:

Salome is mentioned as a disciple of Jesus once in the gospels.

"A" Salome is a disciple of Jesus mentioned TWICE-

Mark 15:40 and Mark 16:1.

There's also at least 2 Marys in the SAME verses, and neither is

Jesus' mom. There's 2 Ananais' in Acts-Saphira's husband and

the one who was sent to Paul. There's a Saul in Acts and one

who's King of Israel before David. Somehow, though, she jumped to

the conclusion this is the ONLY Salome in all of Palestine.

Am I supposed to take this writer seriously?

quote:

She is mentioned more frankly in the Gospel of Thomas, having religious discussions with Jesus. She is also mentioned in a fragment of Mark that was redacted on the order of Clement (because Gnostics were using it to justify one of their beliefs). This fragment was found in a letter to Clement in the 1950's. It is another account of Lazarus' raising from the dead.

Or maybe it wasn't in the original Gospel at all. Judging from her

sloppy work so far, I'm dubious as to ANY claim she makes.

quote:

So, is this Salome, step daughter of Herod, the same Salome that was a disciple (apparently a close one) of Jesus?

If so,

the daughter of Herodias, an evil woman,

who saw nothing wrong with seducing an evil man who was her UNCLE,

or having John the Baptist KILLED,

is perfectly comfortable as a disciple of Jesus-John's COUSIN.

And Jesus is comfortable with her around while she's complicit in

a murder...which, this writer asserts, was something Jesus

WANTED.

This "Jesus" she knows is foreign to me,

and she does not know MY Jesus.

quote:

If so, it would explain why she is hardly mentioned at all in the Gospels. She would be a bit too controversial for people to swallow.

Or she had nothing to do with it beyond what was mentioned.

That IS the most obvious explanation.

quote:

I know there is a Gnostic on this forum somewhere. Have you heard of this?

[TheInvisibleDan]

As I recall, Burton Mack (but I can't the title of his book) had recently expounded upon the notion that Jesus and John the Baptist were rivals.

And then, there is the gnostic Mandaean sect (located somewhere in Iraq), an Aramaic speaking group to which John the Baptist represented their heavenly, savior figure over "the Roman Christ" as they called him in their scriptures ("Ginza").

Then there is a consideration of how the ancient Marcionites' viewed John the Baptist.

But this will have to wait for later, if you're interested.

Danny

[WordWolf]

The suggestion that the Gospels support the idea that Herod was

fine with John the Baptist living, and it was Jesus' idea to kill

her, is ridiculous and easily refuted by reading them.

Luke 3:19-20.

quote:

But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him for

Herodia his brother Philip's wife, and for all the evils which

Herod had done,

Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.

Matthew 14:3-11.

quote:

For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him

in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.

For John said unto him, it is not lawful for thee to have her.

Ahe when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude,

because they counted him as a prophet.

But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias

danced before them, and pleased Herod.

Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she

would ask.

And she, being before instructed of her mother, said,

Give me here John the Baptist's head in a charger.

And the king was sorry:nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them

which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her.

And he went, and beheaded John in the prison,

And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel,

and she brought it to her mother.

Jesus faced the news (verse 12) by trying to go alone to pray.

(verse 23.)

Mark 6:14-28.

quote:

And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread

abroad:)--> and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the

dead, and therefore mighty works do show forth themselves in him.

Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a

prophet, or as one of the prophets.

But when Herod heard thereof, he said, It is John, whom I

beheaded: he is risen from the dead.

For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound

him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he

had married her.

For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy

brother's wife.

Therefore Herodia had a quarrel against him, and would have killed

him; but she could not:

For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man, and an holy,

and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and

heard him gladly.

And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made

a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee;

And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced,

and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto

the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give

it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.

And she went forth, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask?

And she said, The head of John the Baptist.

And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked,

saying, I will that thou give me by and by in a charger the head

of John the Baptist.

And the king was exceeding sorry; yet for his oath's sake, and for

their sakes which sat with him, he would not reject her.

And immediately the king sent an executioner, and commanded his

head to be brought: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,

And brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel, and

the damsel gave it to her mother.

So, if the Gospels are to be believed,

Herod the tetrarch was a sick puppy who saw his brother's wife and

wanted to know her, and PLANNED for it. John the Baptist said

"No dice-adultery is wrong!" so Herod sent him to prison.

(Hm, this sounds familiar. Guy gets in trouble for saying adultery

is wrong...)

Herod put him in prison and WANTED to kill him but was worried the

people would produce an uprising. (In Herod's time, that was the

most annoying single thing for a tetrarch to have to handle,

uprisings.)

Herodias was a sick puppy who wanted to know her husband's brother,

and PLANNED for it. John had angered her by saying "No dice-

adultery is wrong". He was in prison, but she sought his death.

So, she figured out how to trick Herod into agreeing to kill

John the Baptist. She used Salome, her daughter. This plan worked,

and Herod killed John, which Jesus regretted.

This is NOT difficult to understand.

Why would I believe this is false but that woman's made-up

"interpretation" was true?

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by TheInvisibleDan:

As I recall, Burton Mack (but I can't the title of his book) had recently expounded upon the notion that Jesus and John the Baptist were rivals.

There's also the people who've suggested that Jesus was having

homosexual relations with all or some of the 12 Apostles.

Dan Brown claimed Mary Magdalene had kids with Jesus, with Jesus

having sex out of wedlock and choosing not to marry her.

Just because someone holds an idea, I DON'T have to seriously

consider it.

[Bob]

quote:

So, if the Gospels are to be believed,

To be honest, I don't take the Gospels seriously. I've studied enough about their history and development to realize they are basically propaganda texts promoting a mystic Jesus and contain very little factual data.

If the topic is an affront to your beliefs, fine. No big deal. Not looking for a battle. I just enjoy exploring topics as this (my favorite so far was comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the New Testament -- very interesting).

Dan, I would be interested Burt Mack's book if you can find the title. Picknett's book perked my interest but lacks substance.

[Bob]

quote:

Just because someone holds an idea, I DON'T have to seriously

consider it.

No. But dismissing ideas because they disagree with held beliefs is dangerous. It's one of TWI's most powerful methods that keeps people under their thumb. They are not allowed to consider any alternative other than what they sanction.

Just because an idea sounds far fetched, doesn't mean it's wrong. It's wrong when an examination of the facts prove it such.

[CM]

quote:

To be honest, I don't take the Gospels seriously. I've studied enough about their history and development to realize they are basically propaganda texts promoting a mystic Jesus and contain very little factual data.

now this i don't understand

if this is true then why take any writings seriously?

[Bob]

By seriously, I mean them being what they claim to be -- a true account of the life of Jesus and/or, as some take them, God-breathed.

As an example of how a religion develops, they're fascinating. Plus, since you can't exist in this culture without them impacting you in some way, it's prefered to have a good handle on them.

[CM]

people claim them to be whatever

what they are will be self-evident

[TheInvisibleDan]

quote:

Originally posted by WordWolf:

quote:

Originally posted by TheInvisibleDan:

As I recall, Burton Mack (but I can't the title of his book) had recently expounded upon the notion that Jesus and John the Baptist were rivals.

There's also the people who've suggested that Jesus was having

homosexual relations with all or some of the 12 Apostles.

What lends a certain weight to the theory of John the Baptist and Jesus having possibly been rivals (though I haven't encountered the notion that their rivalry actually led to one murdering the other),- in contrast to some of other zany beliefs you noted - is the existence of the Mandaean sect that exalts John the Baptist over Jesus. E.S. Drower had translated many of the Aramaic Mandaean scriptures that indeed confirms the belief of this sect, which claims its descendants to have emigrated from Palestine following the fall of Jerusalem.

Then there are some peculiar lines preserved in our scriptures which might suggest traces of such a rivalry, as for example, Luke 7:28 -

"I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

It's a rather bizarre way to speak of one's supposed pre-cursor. As if to say, "he's the greatest guy born into this world but he doesn't even amount to the lowest in God's kingdom."

Danny

[George Aar]

quote:

if this is true then why take any writings seriously?

Boy, there's a question that doesn't get near enough air play, if you ask me (but then, few do)...

[Bob]

One thing that Picknett pointed out is that Salome appears in the section of Mark that was removed by Clement (found in the 1950s, quoted in a letter to Clement -- he had it removed b/c a Gnostic group was using it to justify one of their doctrines). The section is another version of the Lazarus incident.

I've seen several references to Lazarus and Mary Magdalene being related. Also wealthy and probably financing Jesus. In the quote, Salome is right there with them.

quote:

And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved and his mother and Salome were there..

Picknett also points out that the Mandaeans' texts state that Lazarus was originally a disciple of John. And Bethany was a place frequented by John, and the home of Lazarus.

So putting two and two together, Lazarus and his house switch over to Jesus and Salome uses her influence to have John removed. Jesus then starts taking over John's followers.

It's an interesting mental exercise. I'm doing worse in discussing it than Picknett did though.

[CM]

if writings can't be taken seriously

then neither can talking

not seriously as in SERIOUSLY

but saying or writing something can be understood by the hearer or reader

words are dead without the life of the writer

saying something means something to the one saying it, and here is where the understanding is

more then words thrown around but thoughts, ideas of the one

talking or writing

[Bob]

Huh?

-->

[CM]

And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped? For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

...thinkin' to myself a little here...

it's a matter of knowing what the person is going thru and understands and thinks Bob

just like you got an understanding of the person who wrote that book you read

to get an understanding of what Mathew Mark Luke John and other writers wrote you need to know what they were going thru, their understanding, seeing, living, learning

this is their life...

their life must be understood

and that life, once understood brings their words to life

so rather then dismiss their words

why not just say you don't understand?

[CM]

same goes for Jesus too...what he said

what do you want to talk about that

we both understand in our lives...the weather?

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by TheInvisibleDan:

quote:

Originally posted by WordWolf:

quote:

Originally posted by TheInvisibleDan:

As I recall, Burton Mack (but I can't the title of his book) had recently expounded upon the notion that Jesus and John the Baptist were rivals.

There's also the people who've suggested that Jesus was having

homosexual relations with all or some of the 12 Apostles.

What lends a certain weight to the theory of John the Baptist and Jesus having possibly been rivals (though I haven't encountered the notion that their rivalry actually led to one murdering the other),- in contrast to some of other zany beliefs you noted - is the existence of the Mandaean sect that exalts John the Baptist over Jesus. E.S. Drower had translated many of the Aramaic Mandaean scriptures that indeed confirms the belief of this sect, which claims its descendants to have emigrated from Palestine following the fall of Jerusalem.

Then there are some peculiar lines preserved in our scriptures which might suggest traces of such a rivalry, as for example, Luke 7:28 -

"I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

It's a rather bizarre way to speak of one's supposed pre-cursor. As if to say, "he's the greatest guy born into this world but he doesn't even amount to the lowest in God's kingdom."

Danny

It makes perfect sense in light of the end of Hebrews 11 and

the beginning of Revelation 20.

Unless you're a post-tribber or amillenialist.

John the Baptist was beheaded by Herod before Pentecost.

The kingdom of God was a substantial upgrade to the existing

"prophet" package. John the Baptist was as good as a

prophet could possibly get-

until the next-generation "Kingdom of God" package was

released. Had he received the upgrade, that statement would

no longer have applied to him. Frankly, I think he would have

been tops in the post-Pentecost church in that event.

Being beheaded for the witness of Jesus threw a monkeywrench

into that.

[TheInvisibleDan]

quote:

Originally posted by WordWolf:

It makes perfect sense in light of the end of Hebrews 11 and

the beginning of Revelation 20.

Unless you're a post-tribber or amillenialist.

Wherein is believed a general resurrection of both OT folks and Christians at the same time?

quote:

Being beheaded for the witness of Jesus threw a monkeywrench

into that.

But was John actually beheaded for that reason?

Danny

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by TheInvisibleDan:

quote:

Originally posted by WordWolf:

It makes perfect sense in light of the end of Hebrews 11 and

the beginning of Revelation 20.

Unless you're a post-tribber or amillenialist.

Wherein is believed a general resurrection of both OT folks and Christians at the same time?

That's the post-tribber position. The pre-tribber position makes a distinction between

Born-Again Ones (aka the Kingdom of Heaven) and the OT folks.

Hebrews 11 lists amazing things about those before Pentecost. It says (11:38) that the

world was not worthy of them. That's not an insult.

It ends (11:39-40)

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made

perfect."

John the Baptist didn't survive to the Day of Pentecost either, thus he did not receive

the promise-and the world was not worthy of HIM, either.

Revelation 21:4 spoke of those beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God,

and their resurrection, the first resurrection, the resurrection of life, the resurrection

of the just.

quote:

quote:

Being beheaded for the witness of Jesus threw a monkeywrench

into that.

But was John actually beheaded for that reason?

Danny

He was definitely beheaded for the witness of the word of God.

Did he bear witness of Jesus?

John 1 says he did.

1:15 "John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, 'This was he of whom I spake, he that

cometh after me is preferred before me:for he was before me.'

The rest of the chapter makes the same point-I trust it's not necessary for me to quote it.

Going back to what Jesus said of John, then....

If the Gospels are to be believed,

then Jesus made a statement of fact concerning the Kingdom of Heaven, which was not to

say John was inferior (duh). That would make his claims John was

"more than a prophet"

and

"Elijah which was for to come", prophesied of, SENSELESS.

EVERYBODY, especially the disciples, knew who John was, and knew he was a heavy hitter.

John was big news, and controversial for it.

Using John as a comparison wasn't to make John look less,

it was to use an obvious measure to explain an UNKNOWN QUANTITY (the Kingdom of Heaven.)

If I was trying to explain how hard an unknown boxer hits,

and I said "he hits like Mike Tyson and weaves like Mohammed Ali",

I would explain an UNKNOWN by comparing him to the known.

This would NOT insult Tyson and Ali.

Mike Tyson is famous for throwing a heavy punch,

and Mohammed Ali is famous for his speed "float like a butterfly, sting like a bee",

and his famous "rope-a-dope").

By using THEM as a comparison,

I am saying he's as strong and as fast as the famous greats.

Similarly, if I sang

"Superman and Green Lantern ain't got nothing on me",

I would not be saying they were powerless,

I would be comparing MYSELF to characters famous for having surpassing ability.

(I'd also be making a BIG brag.)

I haven't seen any evidence to support any claim of otherwise.

Jesus respected his cousin, and mourned his death.

[Bob]

Makes more sense to me the other, straight-forward way. Doesn't requires other books of the Bible to circle round and bring in a theology, and with less assumptions.

How's this for a transaltion of Luke 7:28 (the common man's, street translation)?

"I'm telling you, John is the biggest son of a bitch there ever was. God's toilet cleaners are better than him."

Well, that's one way to read it, maybe. ;)-->

Maybe it's just my warped brain? More likely though the lack of nicotine in my blood this morning (damn cancer sticks -- get thee hence!!!).

[CM]

For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

this is the wisdom that confounds the wise of this world

[CM]

want more?

46Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. 47And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, 48And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

[WordWolf]

quote:

Originally posted by Bob:

Makes more sense to me the other, straight-forward way. Doesn't requires other books of the Bible to circle round and bring in a theology, and with less assumptions.

How's this for a transaltion of Luke 7:28 (the common man's, street translation)?

"I'm telling you, John is the biggest son of a bitch there ever was. God's toilet cleaners are better than him."

Well, that's one way to read it, maybe. ;)-->

Maybe it's just my warped brain? More likely though the lack of nicotine in my blood this morning (damn cancer sticks -- get thee hence!!!).

WHICH reading makes more sense in a clear, straight-forward way?

According to you, the verses around it, plus that verses, would read something like

this....

Matthew 11:7-12, 15 (street version)

quote:

As they left, Jesus said this to the crowd about John,

'What did you go out to see, a reed shaking with the wind?

What were you looking for? A man in a rich robe?

THOSE guys are in royal manors.

Did you go to see a prophet?

Yes, and I say he's MORE than a prophet.

He's the fulfillment of a prophecy: "I send my messenger before you to prepare your path."

I'm telling you, John is the biggest S.O.B. there ever was. God's toilet cleaners

are better than him.

If you're ready to hear it, he's the 'Elijah' who was foretold."

Sounds like YOUR version has a 180-degree twist in the middle.

"John's more than a prophet, he's the fulfilment of a prophecy,

he's the biggest S.O.B. in history, he's the Elijah who was foretold."

Everything EXCEPT your 'verse' fits together neatly.

"John's more than a prophet, he's the fulfilment of a prophecy.

He's the Elijah who was foretold."

That's the OPPOSITE of what your "verse" said.

Now, if you want to believe that this type of 180-degree reverse from sentence to

sentence happens all the time-like TWICE in the verses if you are correct-

than that is your privilege. However, I don't go around with that low a set of

expectations when reading books written for 5-year-olds, and I certainly don't

have it for the Gospels.

[Bob]

I thought I was translating Luke, not mathew?