Exploring the Possibility that Jesus and John the Baptist were the same Person.

This site is produced by two people who were, until four years ago, fundamentalist Christians of many years standing. We began to test the truth of the Bible with as open a mind as we could and found that we had been misled in the past.

For those who are not fundamental Christians (who unquestioningly believe every word in the Bible as we have it today is the exact word of God) there are many view -points.

These views on the things that do not agree are endlessly aired on the inter-net . So many views on the net and in the many books quoted could be as true as the Bible we have; which was put together by a committee of men with the agenda of deciding what the church would believe 400 years after the events and without the original writings!

What we will try to do on this page is to put forward opposing views for the reader to consider.

We know from the Father Christmas we now have who has emerged from a real person called Saint Nicholas who gave presents to the poor and later called Santa Claus and other persons such as Elvis Presley how real people and events become mythologies, and one person evolve into another.

People who did amazing things can become made into gods.

We have put links to in depth studies elsewhere on the site of points made.

There are many "Johns" associated with the New Testament. Perhaps there was a name change to make identification clear. It must also be remembered that "Jesus Christ" is a title and not a name. It means the "anointed saviour." (see link to the use of "Christ" in the gospels…..)

Christians believe that the "word" here is Jesus the incarnate God, i.e. that God has spoken to us by coming Himself in the flesh of a human being formed from a union of Mary His mother and the Holy Spirit.

Vines Dictionary has 25 meanings for " logos" .including communication, preaching, expression of thought, reasoned speech, work, do, cause, mouth, thing, tidings…etc.

In Hebrew there are several words for "word" such as "debir" (used by the translators of new testament into Hebrew for use by Jews today) and "debirah" means a cause or reason, "malah" , "patigamah" , and "irma" , which also means "lamb" .

As we do not have the originals how do we know which of the alternatives was used? But the Hebrew must be significant.

"From the many Hebrew poems found in the caves [as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls] that have no apparent sectarian bias...we may note the lyrical richness of ancient Hebrew up to the very destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70; and we observe that virtually all of this poetry, as well as over three quarters of the prose texts, was composed in Hebrew, disproving the view that Aramaic had overtaken Hebrew as the main language of the Jews of Palestine in the first century A.D." - Norman Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?, (1995) p. 361

In Josephus' The War of the Jews VI.2.1 he says that" the besieged inhabitants of Jerusalem spoke 'Hebrew', and in V.2 he calls this language e patriw glwssa [father tongue]. In view of the fact that Josephus clearly differentiates between Hebrew and Syriac (Aramaic) in Ant XII.2 how could he mean anything but 'Hebrew' in the two references from The Wars?" - Rolf Furuli (Crosstalk)

That logos can mean cause is significant. This is the sense in which "word" , i.e. God said" , is used in Genesis ch. One.

"The idea that a man could be the Logos, the incarnation of the First Cause, originated in Persia where identical terminology was applied to Zarathustra [Zend Avesta, Mihir Yast 32:137). It meant essentially that Zarathustra (or Jesus) spoke for Ahura Mazda (or Yahweh) as his True Priest."

- William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

Some people think the verses about creation in John chapter one are a hymn used in Jewish circles of the time and it has its parallels in the Dead Sea scrolls "He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." - John 1:2-3

The verses are similar to a passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls (which refers to God, not Jesus as the Logos.) .

"All things come to pass by his knowledge,
He establishes all things by his design
And without him nothing is done." - Community Rule 1QS 11.11

In this case "he" is God Himself.

(see also a book by Eiseman and Wise called "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered." ) and the modern Prayer book of the Reformed Jews page 235 where the human spirit is a lamp and Israel a light to the nation, for similar ideas to John ch. 1.)

.

Both the nouns "light" and "word" are masculine in Hebrew and this could have led to confusion in translation to Greek, and they became a person or persons.

The first verses of John seem to have been adapted using the above ideas to apply them to the "Jesus" figure, who may really have been the one we call John the Baptist.

Also one of the several words for "word" in Hebrew can also be read as "lamb" .

This means where John says he sees the lamb of God he could have been saying he sees the word of God, not a sacrifice!

In John 8 v 58 we have " before Abraham's coming - I am." This is bad grammar. There is no verb " to be" in Hebrew because " I am" is the name of God.

Therefore Jesus was saying simply that God was before Abraham. So it is not confirming the idea that in John 1 Jesus existed with God in the beginning of creation.

Deut.8 v 3 "Man shall live by every word (produce) that comes from the mouth of God."

2 Pet. 3 v 5 " By the word of God the heavens were of old."

So the passage in John 1 could be read as saying that the creation speaks to us to communicate God, but that most men do not understand or know it.

This is equated with the kingdom in the gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi:

Thomas 113 "His disciples said to him, 'When will the kingdom come?' Jesus said, 'It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is'. Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."

The use of the Septuagint (a translation into Greek of the OT done before the time of Christ,) has been a cause of confusion in the NT.

No man has seen God, (John 1 v 18), yet "he who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14v9 and 10). Taken in context it can be seen that Jesus is not saying he is God, but he came to declare God.

The interlinear Greek has .."and God was the word." Which way do you read that?

A Hindu would know - they would say " God is everything!" others would say it is merely a reversal of the nouns around the verb that is different in Greek to English.

Greek has only two words for "word" one is "logos" , which has 25 readings for it, and the other is "rhema" , which is how something speaks to you.

Light comes to all men coming into the world and life was the light. (John 1 v 4 and 9) So life and light come to all men through the creation?

Verses 10-13 speak of who….This "he" must refer to the light coming into the world and those who receive it (him) and believe on the Name become children of God. The light is not a human being, but spiritual knowledge or revelation.

"There was a man sent by God to be a witness to the light and his name was John" ; a human being, a man of flesh witnessing to the word that is light.

If John was only the forerunner of Jesus, why was John still baptising when Jesus himself had already begun his ministry?

.

The word came into being as flesh (v14). The Greek is the same as used in v 3 and 10 for "came into being" . The word for flesh is "sarx" which can mean mankind or human being or person, as opposed to "kreas" which is literal flesh or meat.

This could just as easily mean that God has spoken to us through a person as that that person was God incarnate.(See reference from William Harwood about Zarathustra above)

The witness to the light and word was John according to John 1. So he could also be called a "logos" .

Many ideas were imported from the Babylonian exile and added to Jewish thought - such as the personification of evil in a Satan or Devil and good and evil angels

When questioned by the religious leaders John denied being the Messiah (Christ) who he said would be greater than he, and was before him and would come after him.

(v19-27). The Greek translated for us as " before" or "precedence" can also mean " anticipate" . Notice he does not say who this person is. In Jewish thought the Messiah figure has always been with God and is still to come, [after the Jews have got it right spiritually!].

The Son of Man "first appears as pre-existent in the apocryphal First Book of Enoch, which was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic about 150 B.C.E. From that period on, the concept of the Messiah who was created in the six days of Creation, or even prior to them or who was born at variously stated subsequent dates and was then hidden to await his time, became a standard feature of Jewish Messianic eschatology." -Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts

"The Psalms of Solomon 17:35-42 give us a first century BC image of this 'Messiah of Righteousness', a man of God:" And a righteous king and taught of God is he that reigneth over them: and there shall be no iniquity in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy and their king is the Lord Messiah. For he shall not put his trust in horse and rider and bow, nor shall he multiply unto himself gold and silver for war, nor by ships shall he gather confidence for the day of battle ... For he shall smite the earth with the word of his mouth even for evermore ... He himself also is pure from sin, so that he may rule a mighty people, and rebuke princes and overthrow sinners by the might of his word. And he shall not faint all his days, because he leaneth upon his God: for God shall cause him to be mighty through the spirit of holiness, and wise through the counsel of understanding, with might and righteousness."

He is a perfect Israelite. 'Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows ... Then said I, Lo I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea thy law is within my heart." (Ps 45:7 50:7).

Such a view was expounded by the Pharisees, but the more diffuse sects such as the Essenes kept their knowledge to themselves."

[Taken from "This day has the Scripture been fulfilled" on the "Genesis in Eden" site by Chris King.]

Compare the above with Revelation chapter 19.

John was preparing people for the coming of Messiah by calling them to repentance.

If you read the gospels carefully Jesus also never said he was Messiah and said his disciples should not say he was. (link to other page "Was Jesus the Messiah?)

John 1v 26 "one stands "ephistemi" in the midst of you" means "a middle one is present or coming whom you know not" , literally. This is taken to mean Jesus; but does it?

Could it not mean the light or word they have not understood? Or could be the Messiah the Jews hoped would come soon.

Translators have been Christians who have always chosen the meaning of the words closest to their own understanding of Christianity.

John 1 v29 on the morrow the saviour comes to John and he says see the (word) lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world. The idea that the word of God had a cleansing effect comes again in John ch. 15 v 3 " You are clean by the word that I have spoken to you." Jesus was speaking the word of God to them.

V 33. How can John say he does not know Jesus who was his cousin, according to Luke?

V34. The term son of God does not mean a person who is God incarnate; as it was used by OT prophets of Israel! (e.g. Ezekiel, Hosea, Daniel) To them that would be blasphemy and breaking the first commandment.

The word translated as " delivered up" or "imprisoned" can mean "removed" or "abandoned self" This latter could be very significant meaning a change of personality!

Jesus came to John for baptism, and not John to Jesus ;which is odd because Middle east culture would expect the lesser to come to the greater. So is it possible this really means that the new personality of "Jesus" came into John at the beginning of his mission?

.So the hypothesis is that John became "Jesus" .

Two people?

Christians will cry "But there are two people in scripture!" "Who was beheaded?" "Who was crucified?"

Herod thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen again. Why?

Why was a man released called Barabbas (meaning "son of the father) who was a known criminal and leader of insurrection? An innocent man was crucified in his place! There is nothing to substantiate a practise for the Romans to release a criminal at a feast day to keep the people happy. Could the reason Barabbas is in the story at all be because the analogy between Jesus' death and atonement for sin was being stressed? On the day of atonement (which, oddly, is not when Jesus is supposed to have died!) there were two goats; one killed and the other set free.

In the Book of Jubilees the rituals of the Day of Atonement are connected with Joseph and the blood of the goat is taken to his father as a "proof "of his death: chapter 34 v 18 &19: "For this reason it is ordained children of Israel that they should afflict themselves on the tenth of the seventh month -on the day that the news which made him weep for Joseph came to Jacob his father- that they should make atonement for themselves thereon with a young goat on the tenth of the seventh month, once a year, for their sins; for they had grieved the affection of their father regarding Joseph his son. And this day has been ordained that they should grieve thereon for their sins, and for all their transgressions and for all their errors, so that they might cleanse themselves on that day once a year."

Hyam Maccoby in his book Revolution in Judea puts forward that Jesus and Barabbas were one and the same. He also puts a good case for the triumphal entry into Jerusalem as being at the feast of tabernacles in the autumn, which comes 5 days after the Day of Atonement!

Given all the uncertainties and anomalies and alternative translations and "doctoring" by those with the agenda that Christ Jesus was the incarnate word of God and God Himself, which were done centuries after the events, it stands up just as well that there have been at least two sets of confusions.

That John was an Essene who baptised for repentance and hated the establishment of the temple at that time under a corrupt priesthood, and who was a Nazarite who drank no wine, is probable. His parents were of the true Aaronic line of the High Priests, but the High priests of the day were chosen from non- priestly families.

"But Jesus was accused of being a wine drinker and glutton!"

Accused, yes, but he is supposed to have said he would not drink wine until the kingdom came, i.e. the messianic kingdom. Was that his Nazarite vow as John?

" ...The Persian Mazda worshippers looked for the birth of a Savior from a virgin mother." - Frederick Thomas Elworthy, The Evil Eye

"We worship the guardian spirit of the holy maid Esetât-Jedhri, who is called the all-conquering, for she will bring him forth who will destroy the malice of the demons and of men."
- Sacred book of Zoroaster

John's birth from an elderly barren mother is in keeping with the births of the patriarchs and Samuel etc. and so more Jewish than the virgin birth stories of the gentiles. These seem to have been imported to make a gentile religion from a Jewish.

A God Incarnate ?

"Whereas Providence...has...adorned our lives with the highest good: Augustus...and has in her beneficence granted us and those who will come after us [a Savior] who has made war to cease and who shall put everything in p[eaceful] order...with the result that the birthday of our God signaled the beginning of Good News for the world because of him...therefore...the Greeks in Asia Decreed that the New Year begin for all the cities on September 23...and the first month shall...be observed as the Month of Caesar, beginning with 23 September, the birthday of Caesar." - Decree on marble stelae dedicated to the Roman Empire and Augustus, its first emperor

The Jews, however, believed that someone born of woman could not bear the glory of God.

"Blessed be thou my God, who hast opened the heart of thy servant to thy knowledge. Direct all his actions in righteousness, and give to the son of thy servant woman that which it hath pleased thee to accord to thy Chosen, To serve thee among men eternally! ... Who could bear thy glory? What is the son of man [human] among thy wondrous works? How could a child born of woman bear thy presence? For he is made of dust and his body shall be food for worms. He is made but of molded clay and will return to dust. What could this clay, shaped by the hand, reply? What plan could it understand?" - Community Rule 1QS 11.15-17, 20-22

"The Genesis Apocryphon (1 Qap-Gen) (and 1 Enoch 106-107) prefigure the divine birth: In the latter texts, it is suspected that Noah does not have a natural father. His father Lamech suspects that his mother Batenosh has had an extramarital affair with an angel. In Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35, Mary's conception is through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.
- Chris King, "The Apocalyptic Tradition"

"Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary?" - Mark 6:3a

" ...Mark, the first gospel writer, accorded the mother of Jesus no status. He did not place Mary at the scene of the crucifixion, nor did he locate her at the tomb of Jesus on Easter day. He certainly did not honor her as a special receptacle of God's divine favor. There was also a hint of scandal in the phrase that this second Marcan passage used when it referred to Jesus as 'the son of Mary' [Mark 6:3]. To call a Jewish man, in this era, the son of a woman was to suggest that his paternity was in question or at least unknown. That scandalous note would be heard again in the later gospels, the most noteworthy reference being found in a verse in John where an angry crowd hurled an enigmatic charge at Jesus in the words, 'We were not born of fornication' (John 8:41)....These verse remain in the New Testament as unsuppressed clues to an early battle that clearly centered on the legitimacy of Jesus' origins." - John Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels, p. 205

If Mary had raised John after Elizabeth died, perhaps she was accused of him being her illegitimate son?

There are also the stories about a Roman soldier, called Joseph Pandera, being the father of Jesus.

"Luke was essentially a novelist, and as such wanted to tell a complete story. Since nothing was (or is) known of Jesus prior to his immersion by John, Luke invented a birth fable borrowed from the now-lost Nativity of John the Immerser, supplemented by passages from Jubilees and Josephus." - William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

"Working from the index of the complete works of Josephus we find reference to no less than fourteen people named 'Jesus'."
1. Jesus, son of Phabet - priest
2. Jesus, son of Ananus - prophesied the destruction of the temple.
3. Jesus, or Jason
4. Jesus, son of Sapphias, governor of Tiberias
5. Jesus, brother of Onias - priest
6. Jesus, son of Gamaliel - priest
7. Jesus, eldest priest after Ananus - priest
8. Jesus, son of Damneus - priest
9. Jesus, son of Gamala (Josephus' friend)
10. Jesus, [or Joshua] son of Nun
11. Jesus, son of Saphet - ringleader of robbers
12. Jesus, son of Thebuthus - priest
13. Jesus, son of Josedek
14. Jesus of Galilee & his 600 followers
15. Jesus, the Christ (dubious reference)
"In the works of Josephus, Jesus, as a name, is exceeded only by Simon (20 times) and Joseph (16). Josephus was a close personal friend of several Jesuses, especially the Jesus who was one of the last high priests before the war.
"Most of the Jesuses were either priests, prophets or bandits. It was not only a popular name, but one of distinction."
- Cliff Carrington, "The Flavian Testament"

The virgin birth may have been copied from another religion History records that:

In ancient times it was often claimed that important people had miraculous births. Plato was said to have been born by the union of the god Apollo with his mother. Likewise, Alexander the Great was said to have been conceived when a thunderbolt fell from heaven and made his mother Olympias pregnant before her marriage to Philip of Macedon. In the book of Genesis we read that sons of gods had intercourse with women to produce heroes (Gen. 6:4). Even the recently discovered Dead Sea Scrolls tell of the miraculous birth of Noah and how his father Lamech was suspicious that his wife had been made pregnant by an angel. Also the writings of Philo of Alexandria, who was born about 20 B.C., contain evidence that some Jews of the period were speculating about miraculous births of religious heroes. Philo relates how Hebrew notables such as Isaac and Samuel were conceived by barren women by the intervention of the divine Spirit. Mary was not old and barren - this more like the story of John's birth.

The parallels between the "Jesus" figure and Adonis (Tammuz in OT meaning "son of life" , see Ezekiel 8v14) are unnerving. Particularly how he was loved and served by women.

It is said that an early Latin manuscript of Luke 1 v 34 does not have the phrase "I know not a man" - it could be an addition later.
According to Luke John the Baptist was a relative of Jesus and even knew of Jesus' divine nature when John was in his mother's womb (Luke. 1:41,44). Yet in a later chapter of Luke, the adult John did not know who Jesus was (Luke.7:9).

It is also interesting to note that Luke uses Old Testament motifs about the births of Isaac and Samson as models for the angelic annunciation to Elizabeth and Mary (Genesis 17:15-21; Judges 13:2-24). The description of Mary's divine vocation is in a format similar to Gideon's mission, which is also announced by an angel (Judges 6:11-16). Likewise, the beautiful "Magnificat" or song of Mary (Luke. 1:46-55) in which Luke has Mary acknowledge her special role in history, is hardly original, but based on the prayer of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10), who also gave birth through divine intervention. It is improbable that the illiterate peasant girl called Mary could have been so poetic. These accounts suggest more of a reliance on Old Testament parallels than eyewitness memories.
Therefore, having thrown doubt on the accounts of Jesus' birth stories in that it is possible they are an addition to satisfy a need for him to have miraculous and divine origin. Again we suggest that there was only one child, John, who may have reared by Mary after the death of the elderly Elizabeth. It could also be that Mary acted as a wet nurse as Elizabeth was old and so Jesus and John were like twins at the breast together. The gospel of Thomas suggests that Thomas was Jesus' twin brother.

If it is so that Jesus had a twin, whether identical or fraternal, then his conception was not in a virgin as we mean it!

It is through Jesus' adopted father, Joseph, that the connection with line of David and the claim to Messiah is made for him. Yet the point made above about Barabbas and the two goats at atonement gave rise to some Jews saying the Messiah would die (but in battle) and would come from the line of Joseph -i.e. from Ephraim or Mannasseh.

So have Christians made use of the varied opinions among the Jews about the origin and type of Messiah?

(see "The life of Jesus" for discussion on the genealogies and Barabbas)

Is the Magnificat in Luke 1 really Elizabeth's song as it resembles Hannah's (1Sam. 2), who also was barren and had a son, Samuel, who was a prophet and anointed David king of Israel? It does seem that the John/Jesus figure believed the coming of the Messiah and the kingdom was immanent.

It was a woman who anointed Jesus. This would make John thought to be the forerunner of the Davidic messiah, but "Jesus" was not he.

The prophecy given by Zechariah in Luke 1 is more applicable to Jesus Christ (a saviour messiah) than John. But the child John would go before the face of the Lord (God) to prepare His way and to give knowledge of salvation to His people in the remission of their sins. Nowhere is John recorded as predicting the death as a substitute sacrifice of Jesus, except to say (as we have it) that he was the lamb of God. We have already explained that is probably a convenient choice of translation instead of "word."

Zechariah was wrong if he was saying John heralded the Messiah to save them from their enemies, because that was not the mission of Jesus Christ it seems.

His mission was more about the new covenant as proclaimed in Ez. 36 and Jer. 31 ; which was to be written in the heart. It is too much of a symbolic coincidence that John, of the old covenant, was born to an old woman and Jesus,of the new covenant, to a young woman. This idea of the new and young replacing the old covenant by a young woman and an old woman having sons is used by Paul who uses Hagar and Sarah; forgetting that Hagar had her son first! Paul never mentions the virgin birth so essential to believing Jesus was divine!

Simeon, in Luke 2, prophesies over the child in the temple that a sword will pass through Mary's soul because of it. We are told John was beheaded with a sword so this is more appropriate for him than crucifixion.

John would have been brought up to know scripture as the son of an Aaronic priest and would have had the right to finance from the temple. He would have had connections with the priests in Jerusalem. It seems the writer of John's gospel, or at least one of the disciples with Jesus at his trial, was a friend of (known to) the high priest (John ch. 18 v15 & 16). This unlikely to be a poor fisherman! Could the person we call John the Baptist be the writer of John's gospel; if so then he was not beheaded before "Jesus" began his ministry!

Jesus is recorded by Luke as having extraordinary knowledge for a twelve year old when talking with the people at the temple, saying he was about his father's business - the priest Zachariah's?

Even Josephus records himself as being a precocious boy of fourteen to whom men of learning came to discuss, in his Life 2! He was of Levitical stock too!

(It is interesting that Josephus, although in charge of Galilee in his service to the Romans, never mentions Nazareth, even though it was said to have been the capital of Galilee chosen by Herod Antipas for a short time. It was only a tiny hamlet about four miles from the great city of Sepphoris, which is never mentioned in NT!)

Several of the great OT prophets were sons of priests: e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Samuel, and the first of all was Moses. Deuteronomy 18 v 15-18 speaks of a prophet to come like Moses. As a Levite John the Baptist was more like Moses and the other OT prophets than "Jesus" . We do not know the tribe of Elijah who John resembles.

The Mandeans were a group who continued to follow John the Baptist and went eastward to settle. In their sacred writings they have John saying he is the shepherd of the sheep! {c/f John ch. 10]

The John we call the disciple and assume wrote the Gospel of John seems to have had connections in the priesthood of Jerusalem too (John ch. 18 v 15,16); This begs the question How much of "John's" writings is really of John the Baptist? And if John is Jesus then we do have something he wrote! There is no doubt that John's gospel gives a different picture from the three synoptic gospels. There are no birth or childhood stories and no mention of the baptism of Jesus or his exorcisms. In the gospel of John Jesus speaks much about himself and has little to say about the poor and oppressed. The foot washing episode replaces the last supper. The temple incident is early.

But if John later became an Essene he would have rejected the temple as corrupt.

It is interesting that Jesus also seems to have thought so and did not go Jerusalem at the usual feast times.(John 7v8) This was the case with Essenes who had a different calendar.

John was a prophet who performed no miracles (John 10 v41), but was not in the kingdom that he proclaimed was coming.

Jesus was performing miracles and said the kingdom is among you (Luke 17v21), and if I do these things by the finger of God then the kingdom is come.(Luke 11 v 20).

Either they are two separate people with different missions, or one person who had a profound change of direction and power at the coming of the Holy Spirit upon him.

It is noticeable that John disappears off the scene as Jesus begins his ministry, after baptism with water and the Holy Spirit and 40 days in retreat in the desert fighting a spiritual battle. Was this when John became "Jesus" the saviour messiah?

John baptises people for repentance of sins which was normally for Gentile converts and suggests preparation for a change. Jesus does not baptise (John 4 v1&2) - was this because the change had come, he believed, and the kingdom beginning?

The preaching was at first by word and baptism and later by the word and miracles.

Both Jesus and John were asked if they were Elijah come again. This was because Malachi had prophesied that Elijah would come and turn the hearts of the children to the fathers and the fathers to the children before the Day of the Lord came.(Mal. 4 v 5,6) Both denied being Elijah. As the day of the Lord did not come then, they were right in that they were not the Elijah figure the Jews still await.

Matt.11v12-14 Jesus said: " From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven is taken by violence and the violent seize it. For all the prophets and the law until John prophesied. And if you are willing to receive it he is Elijah who is about to come." (from the interlinear Greek) .

John looked like Elijah and visited many of the same places. He called them back to the original faith, but he did no miracles, unlike Elijah.

We do not know how Jesus looked, but he was asked if he was Elijah, and he did miracles similar to Elijah and Elisha.

The transfiguration of Jesus in Matthew has the comments about John the Baptist and Elijah, but Mark's version does not mention John at all, this indicates that it is an addition in Matthew. Luke's version does not have Jesus comment on Elijah either, and John's gospel does not have the transfiguration at all (nor the birth story, nor the beheading of John, nor the communion)! The word in Greek for transfiguration is "metamorphoo" which means to change shape, but Luke uses " egeneto heteron" which means to be altered. So what really happened and why is it connected with John the Baptist and why does John's gospel not include such an event when he was supposed to have been present?

Was this when the person of John changed into Jesus? The Spirit may have come on him at the baptism and now something else happened to empower his ministry even more.

Both were put to death for political reasons, not religious ones.

We have already pointed out the strange connection with Barabbas, which could suggest a substitution; Barabbas really being Jesus who is freed.

The concept of resurrection had only come during the Babylonian exile - there is no indication of it in the earlier books of OT. (see other pages " Is there a Resurrection" and "Studies in Job." )

Herod hated John for denouncing his marriage to Herodias in public, but he was afraid that public opinion was on John's side. If he did anything to harm John there may be rioting. We have the events describing what appears to be his death in Mark ch. 6 and Matthew ch. 14. Herod, in a drunken state at a birthday banquet is overcome by Salome when she dances and promises her anything she fancies, even half his kingdom. Salome confers with her mother Herodias, who tells her to ask for the head of John the Baptist. This puts Herod in a fix, but he agrees and tells the executioner to go ahead. Could he have said kill someone else and bring his head on a platter; as long as the hair was similar etc. who would know the difference?

The body (which is still intact and alive) is given to John's disciples to take away and another put in a tomb. John becomes "Jesus" and Herod jokes about Jesus being John resurrected and that is way he does mighty works! (Matt. 14v1, Mark 6 v14 and 16).

"The territory of the desert round Machaerus where John baptised and was imprisoned is right on the border with Edom*. Herod was of Idumean descent. John appears to have been sacrificed as a surrogate king for Herod at a feast after challenging his marriage to Herodias. The cast-off wife was the daughter of King Aretas IV of Edom.

The Talmudicum refers to Jeshu-ha-Notzri [Jesus of Nazareth] by mention of the wicked kingdom of Edom, since that was his nation. He was hanged on a Passover Eve. Likewise the Qur'an refers to Jesus as Isa after Esau the red man of Edom. It thus appears that both the Jews and the Arabs recognised the Edomite character of Jesus' mission in a way not understood by Christians themselves" [From Genesis of Eden}

*Others say that Machaerus was in Edomite territory.

This again suggests confusion between John and Jesus.

. "We find no less that twelve mythical-historical personages before the advent of Christ, who are said to have suffered crucifixion/death and to have risen from the dead. Among them are:
Krishna [the incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu],Wittoba [ a form of Vishnu, who was the preserver, said to have been crucified in space], Osiris [Egyptian god of the underworld, the realm of the dead and the setting sun], Attis [associated with the old new year of April 1^st and resurrection], Indra [Hindu god of storm and battle], Prometheus[Greek god who created humans and animal sacrifice], Mithra [Persian god of light and wisdom sun god born Dec. 25^th, his worship came to Rome in 68BC and rapidly spread through all Roman provinces, beliefs and rites almost identical with Christianity], Dionysus or Bacchus [who died in winter and was reborn in spring], Hesus (the Gaul Druid sun god who was born again as a child at the winter solstice!), Aesculapius or Aesclepius [ Greek god of medicine, son of god Apollo, who raised a man from the dead and was killed by Zeus for it], Adonis who spent half his life (in winter) in the underworld, and Apollonius of Tyana (see more about Apollonius below).

Several of these figures are said to have been crucified at the spring equinox and to have risen on the third day." - The Christian Conspiracy: The Orthodox Suppression of Original Christianity

"Savior-gods and fertility-goddesses held their resurrection festivals at the full moon following the vernal equinox. Christianity celebrated its resurrection feast on the same date. One of the best-known fertility-goddesses was Easter, also spelled Ishtar, Astarte and Ashtaroth." - William Harwood, Mythologies Last Gods: Yahweh and Jesus

"He descended into the cave. So, for two days he continued in hiding. On the third, his secret was revealed by a woman who had been with them. The death of J. was found to be a fiction, it became known that he was alive."
This is a description of a resurrection after three days in a cave in War 3.8.1. No, J. is not Jesus, but Josephus! This is from the account of the fall of Jotapata where Josephus hides in a cave for three days before he was found out by a captured woman who knew of their hiding place. He arose from the cave. After a short time he ascended to the right hand of the Father, Vespasian, the Emperor. Josephus went on to live in the mansion of his Lord. [ Cliff Carrington. The Flavian Testament.]

If Jesus was God incarnate in the way Christians mean why was his coming, life and death and resurrection not unique? The gospel stories about him lose all credibility when one reads of other myths from around the world from earlier times that parallel them so closely.

Christians would still claim the death of Jesus to be a substitute sacrifice for sin, but he never claimed it was (see other page " Questions around the Communion" }.

It is interesting that the first 10 Bishops of Jerusalem kept the Day of Atonement and so did not regard Jesus as an atoning for sin.

Didache or Doctrine of the Two Ways was initially an early Christian text, but reflects strongly the Manual of Discipline. You have the baptism . and you have the sacred repast, which involves broken bread and a cup of wine: "We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the Holy Vine of David thy child . and concerning the broken bread: We give thee thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou didst make known to us through Jesus thy child" (Didache, IX, LLC, The Apostolic Fathers, P. 323). The Christian atonement is missing here and although attributed to Jesus may thus have arisen later. Also known as the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, this work was composed in the first half of the 2nd century. The Didache makes no reference to the death of Jesus and has no notion of a divine, sacramental food. The Ebionites (deserving poor) an ancient Jewish Christian sect closely associated with Jesus' brother James who was the first bishop of Jerusalem interpreted the Eucharist as a memorial of Jesus, substituting a chalice of water for the chalice of blood. They did not view Jesus' death as a bloody act of atonement. Irenaeus observed that in denying the virgin birth - the power of the most high "they deny the heavenly wine and wish to know nought but the water of this world" (Ranke-Heinemann 1992 173, Wilson I 154, Grollier). The Ebionites followed the Elchasaite vision of the Christ as the recurrent 'secret Adam' a supernatural figure which embued Jesus at his baptism (adoptionist) and left him at the crucifixion.

But did not Jesus say his death was a ransom for many (Mark 10 v 45)? "lutron" the Greek word used means " a loosing" signifying equivalence . Vines dictionary page 247 says some interpret this as a ransom price paid to Satan, or death or evil. " Such ideas are largely conjectural, the result of an attempt to press the details of OT illustrations beyond the actual statements of the NT doctrines,"

It is Paul who changes the Greek to "antilutron" in 1 Tim. 2 v 6 to make it a substitutionary ransom.

Jesus died a political death; which he knew was inevitable for his teachings and seeming plans to lead a revolt. So he was put to death to prevent riots in which many Jews would have been killed, as did happen later in AD70.

The idea of the body and blood of the god giving eternal life is from Mithraism.

Just about everything about Jesus is shown to be myth. So why should Jesus not really be a man who was a prophet like an OT prophet calling the people of Israel back to the true faith in readiness for the coming Messianic kingdom of God? That person was John.

As to fulfilled prophecies of his coming and mission - they are all misapplied, usually from a lack of understanding of the Hebrew in which the originals were written and the use of quotations in the NT from the Septuagint Greek version (see other page "Was Jesus the Messiah?" ).

When this kingdom and the Messiah did not materialise then the Jews gave up on it and the stories were added to bring the accounts in line with those of Gentile pagan gods.

Luke is guilty of using proof texts in the way Christians do today. For example : he adds ox and ass as a fulfilment of Isaiah 1 v3 "The ox hath known its owner and ass knows the crib of its master, but Israel does not know, My people hath not understood." because Israel had rejected Jesus as being Messiah, and so introduces the stable with ox and ass into the birth story. If it really was true, why does not Matthew, who is inclined to use the OT for the sake of the Jews have this?

Shepherds and angels feature in other birth stories in Greek mythology so they are added because Jesus had to be acceptable to Gentiles now.

What about the miracles Jesus is said to perform - were they unique proving him to be divine in the Christian sense?

The Pharisees could cast out demons as long as they knew the names of them. (Matt. 9 v 33, where the people say that such a thing had not happened in Israel when Jesus caste out a demon causing a man to be dumb and therefore unable to give its name. Knowing the name was thought to give you power over or knowledge about and was why they would not use the Name of God. Also there is the case of the boy in Mark 9 v 28 and 29, where the disciples ask why they were not able to caste this one out, and the answer given was that kind only come out by prayer and fasting. Which does indicate that Jesus had superior power because of his prayer and fasting, not because he was God!)

Others were credited with miracles and so became divine - for example Vespasian, who lived from 9-79Ad and so was a contemporary of Jesus. He invaded Galilee and Judea.

When the new emperor was in Alexandria preparing for the journey to Rome several portentous events happened. When Vespasian went to the temple of Serapis for an oracle he is recorded by both Tacitus and Suetonius to have received an oracle associated with the name Basilides, ie. ‘king’s son’. This was taken to mean that the god had acknowledged Vespasian’s right to the Principate.

Then there were the blind and lame whom Vespasian cured with his ‘royal touch’. They were brought to him with the assurance from the god Serapis that he could heal them by spitting into the blind man’s eyes and healing the lame man with his heel. He was reluctant considering that if he failed he would look the fool. His followers reassured him that he could do it, he did and the two men were healed. This was obviously stage-managed, by whom we will never know. Most likely it was the followers of the new emperor who concocted the circumstances to give more confidence to Vespasian in his new role. Other miracles concerning his birth were now ‘remembered’, and favourable portents came from all over the empire, including Greece. The stories spread quickly, no doubt helped on their way by the official post.

Flavius Vespasian became emperor and god. His two sons followed him to the rule and the Flavian dynasty was a fact. While oracles and miracles assisted him in his rule by establishing a supernatural awe around his person Vespasian remained wryly sceptical to the end. He had a great sense of humour. On his death bed he said, as he felt himself dying; "Now I feel myself becoming a god." This recorded in Tacitus 4.81.

(Cliff Carrington The Flavian Testament.)

But miraculous powers were not limited to emperors, or even to people from the empire's social and political elite. Miracles were a sign of a special relationship between the gods and particular individuals. People who were thought to possess great wisdom or virtue were also frequently credited with performing miracles.

In Matthew's gospel, Jesus' birth is heralded by the heavenly portent of a star rising in the East, which guides certain wise men (or astrologers) who travel from a distant land to Bethlehem to see the future king (Matt 2:1-2). In all of the gospels Jesus performs numerous healings, and on several occasions he even brings the dead back to life. And in the Book of Acts, a vision of the risen Jesus appears to Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-7). As a result of this encounter, Saul is converted and eventually becomes Paul, who devotes the rest of his life to the service of Christ.

Although all of these religious claims seem remarkable to the modern reader, none of them would have astounded the average citizen of the early Roman empire. Stories of heavenly portents, miraculous healings, mystical visions, and even resurrections were told about a number of demi-gods or heroes. In fact, a number of supernatural phenomena were even attributed to certain philosophers and emperors.

The Slavonic addition to Josephus has a different time for John to live than the gospels and suggests there might have been two Johns who baptised and became confused.

"Now at that time there walked among the Jews a man in wondrous garb, for he had put animals’ hair upon his body wherever it was not covered by his own hair; and in countenance like a savage. He came to the Jews and summoned them to freedom, saying: "God hath sent me to show you the way of the Law, whereby ye may free yourselves from many masters; and there shall be no mortal ruling over you, but only the Highest who hath sent me." And when the people heard that, they were glad. And he did nothing else to them, save that he dipped them into the stream of the Jordan and let them go admonishing them to desist from evil works; so they would be given a king who would set them free and subject all the insubordinate, but he himself would be subject to no one - he of whom we speak. Some mocked, but others put faith in him.

And when he was brought to Archelaus [ruled 4 BCE to 6 CE] and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he was and where he had been until then. And he answered and spake: "I am a man [pure] and hither the spirit of God hath called me, and I live on cane and roots and fruits of the tree." But when they threatened to torture him if he did not desist from these words and deeds, he spake nevertheless: "It is meet rather for you to desist from your shameful works and submit to the Lord your God."

And Simon, of Essene extraction, a scribe, arose in wrath and spake: "We read the divine books every day; but thou, but now come forth from the wood like a wild beast, dost thou dare to teach us and seduce the multitude with thy cursed speeches?" And he rushed upon him to rend his body. But he spake in reproach to them: "I will not disclose to you the secret that is among you, because ye desired it not. Therefore has unspeakable misfortune come upon you and through your own doing." And after he had thus spoken, he went forth to the other side of the Jordan; and since no man durst hinder, he did what he had done before. [Jewish War, Slavonic Addition 9. ]"

"Tiberius died and Caius Caligula succeeded to the empire in the year 37 CE. This puts the Baptist passage in the middle of two paragraphs dating from 37; or several years after the traditional dates, 29 to 30 CE, of John the Baptist’s execution and, incidentally, Jesus’ baptism.

Therefore, I have grave suspicions about the historical reference to John the Baptist in Josephus. It is out of context with the surrounding paragraphs - Macherus was subject to the Arabs, not Herod - The passage is located far too late in time to fit the traditional date of John’s death, by about seven or eight years." (Cliff Carrington. The Flavian Testament.)

That a Jesus who was "politically correct" may have been superimposed on John the Baptist is possible. This was done to suit the gentiles and the agenda of Constantine.

To show how confusion between parallels in people's lives can cause the truth to be hidden here are excerpts from:

W. B. Wallace, writing on "The Apollonius of Philostratus," calls Philostratus's biography a "pagan counter blast to the gospel of Galilee, representing a Greek saviour as an alternative to the Semitic one." (Westminster Review, July-Dec. 1902). Furthermore, the main events of the lives of both men were so closely parallel that the reader cannot help but conclude that if Jesus is not a fictitious imitation of Apollonius, then Apollonius must be an imitation of him, since it would be highly improbable for two such similar men to have been born the same year and to have such similar biographies

.

If the above is true then the person we call Jesus did not exist. It is possible that John the Baptist is the real Jesus.

Parallels to the life, birth, death, and miracles abound. He is like Adonis, Apollonius, the last king of Israel Agrippa 1, Dionysius, Vespasian, Barabbas, etc .

Some of the sayings that are attributed to him are similar to recorded sayings of Rabbis in the Talmud, which we would expect if he, too, was a Rabbi, and parts of the Bagavad Gita of the Hindus, which is surprising!

To really understand his teaching one has to think more like an eastern mystic than a westerner.

Therefore it seems there is good reason to think the gospels we have now are a patchwork of ideas suitable for gentiles taken from well known figures of the time.

Somewhere in there is a Jew of his time preaching that his people should return to their original faith so that the promised messiah would come and rid them of their oppressors and restore Israel to her former glory and bring the whole world into that kingdom of God.

John is said to have performed no miracle, but was a powerful preacher. Could it be that he escaped both being beheaded and crucified and went to live in exile in Patmos?

The writings we have attributed to "John" could have been based on the writings of John the Baptist.

next section : So what IS it all about?