John the Baptist becomes the focal point of the religion now known as Christianity.
WI: John the Baptist was the Messiah
- Thread starter Count Dearborn
- Start date
Do you mean apart from Mandeanism and the other Johnnite Gnostic religions?
Yes, he gets accepted by those people who in otl accepted Josuha-ben-Joseph.
John the Baptist Denies Being the Christ
19Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.[g]" 21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No."
22Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
23John 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.' "[h]
24Now some Pharisees who had been sent 25questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
26"I baptize with[i] water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. 27He 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.
Jn 1:19-28
19Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. 20He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.[g]" 21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No."
22Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?"
23John 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.' "[h]
24Now some Pharisees who had been sent 25questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
26"I baptize with[i] water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. 27He 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.
Jn 1:19-28
I'm still confused as to what exactly you mean. Are you suggesting an additional Johnnite sect, that Christianity is replaced by an existing Johnnite sect, or that John and Jesus simply switch names?
It sounds like the easiest answer to your question is to replace Christianity with Mandeanism, the main religion focused on John the Baptist (and which considers Jesus an evil false prophet). Mandeanism is a widely accepted religion and a minor religion.
Doing away with Christianity and adding another Johnnite sect in it's place just seems to be a case of reinventing the wheel. switching the names may have a small butterfly effect, but I wouldn't expect anything major to change.
One would expect the Gospels that were written to support Jesus' being the messiah to be written rather differently if it were John the Baptist, no? If the OP is doing what I suspect he wants to do, and replacing Christianity with Mandeanism.
It's not uncommon in world religions for one sect to supplant another, then portray the previous sect's central figure/diety in a subordinate role to their own (see the goddess Bride becoming St. Brigid in Ireland, Set being the villain in the passion play between Horus, Osiris and Isis when Upper Egypt conquered Lower Egypt, etc).
If John were the Messiah he would have said, behaved and acted as Jesus did. He would have understood the mission he'd been sent on by his heavenly Father and carried it out to the letter, as Jesus did.
Leo Caesius
Banned
The Early Church Fathers Papias, Ireneus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome all attest to the fact that the Gospel of Matthew was the first of the Gospels and was originally composed in the Hebrew language (although there is some debate as to whether they intended Hebrew or merely the local Jewish dialect of Aramaic, as the two were rarely distinguished at the time). As it happens, several (relatively late) Hebrew versions of the Gospel of Matthew has survived. The majority of these reflect the Greek and Latin versions and were probably translations from one or the other of these languages. There is, however, one that was preserved by a 14th Castilian Jewish physician, ibn Shaprut, that comes from a completely different manuscript tradition.
It agrees with the earliest (Greek) manuscripts of the New Testament in some surprising ways. It also seems to have some relationship with the Gospel of John; it is not entirely impossible that the author of John had this version or one very much like it before him, to which he was reacting (as Garbageman suggests above).
I won't get into all of the peculiarities of this text, but among them is Matthew 11:11. The standard text of Matthew has the following:
This Hebrew version of Matthew lacks the part in bold, reading simply:
Could this be the original? Likewise, the standard text of Matthew has the following:
This version never once refers to Jesus as "the Christ" (ham-Moshiach). In fact, in place of the following verse:
This version of Matthew simply reads as follows:
Likewise, the Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32) is addressed to the Temple Elders and the Pharisees in the standard versions of Matthew, but in this version, it is addressed to the Disciples. This is important, because it concludes:
Now, I'm sure that some will suggest that this was a Jewish fabrication, but why would a 14th c. Jewish physician in Castile feel moved to edit the Gospel of Matthew to improve John the Baptist's role in it? He wouldn't have recognized John as a Prophet, either, so what possible motivation could he have?
Finally, in the section on the End Times (Matthew 24), the standard version reads:
It agrees with the earliest (Greek) manuscripts of the New Testament in some surprising ways. It also seems to have some relationship with the Gospel of John; it is not entirely impossible that the author of John had this version or one very much like it before him, to which he was reacting (as Garbageman suggests above).
I won't get into all of the peculiarities of this text, but among them is Matthew 11:11. The standard text of Matthew has the following:
Matthew 11:11 said:
This Hebrew version of Matthew lacks the part in bold, reading simply:
Hebrew Matthew said:
Could this be the original? Likewise, the standard text of Matthew has the following:
Whereas this version has:Matthew 11:13 said:
Hebrew Matthew said:
This version never once refers to Jesus as "the Christ" (ham-Moshiach). In fact, in place of the following verse:
Matthew 28:19-20 said:
This version of Matthew simply reads as follows:
Intriguingly, this seems to agree with certain manuscripts that Eusebius reports having discovered in Caesaria.Hebrew Matthew said:
Likewise, the Parable of the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32) is addressed to the Temple Elders and the Pharisees in the standard versions of Matthew, but in this version, it is addressed to the Disciples. This is important, because it concludes:
Hebrew Matthew said:
Now, I'm sure that some will suggest that this was a Jewish fabrication, but why would a 14th c. Jewish physician in Castile feel moved to edit the Gospel of Matthew to improve John the Baptist's role in it? He wouldn't have recognized John as a Prophet, either, so what possible motivation could he have?
Finally, in the section on the End Times (Matthew 24), the standard version reads:
...but this version reads:Matthew 24:14-15 said:
What could this possibly mean?Hebrew Matthew said:
I thank Leo Caesius for his always insightful contributions, and for sharing his broad knowledge on topics pertaining to the history and development of religions. That said, I'm not it is right to go about in this thread-as Lord Grattan I think did, but Leo Caesius did not-assuming that Christianity is inherently correct. If John the Baptist is to be seen as the messiah, then the divergent course needs to be in the actions of people rather than depending on notions of spiritual destiny.