But here is the kicker, I think what we have here is temporal dislocation. Maybe impossible to prove, but I suspect that in Act of the Apostle, it did say, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, in Jesus.”
But this was talking about John the pillar, a contemporary of Paul's. So in the original story, which was prior to any Gospel, John the pillar was using a baptism that talked about the future coming of Jesus. From the perspective of John the pillar, Jesus had not come yet.
The writer of the first Gospel, however, took this John figure and made a new John figure who came before Paul and to whom Jesus came. And not only that he divided this real historical John into two fictitious Johns, John "the Baptist" and John "Zebedee", neither of which existed.
The real John, John the pillar, who was a contemporary of Paul's, preached that Jesus was "yet to come". But what the writer of the Gospel did was he took the story of Pau's ministry and prefigured it all with the story of Jesus, so that basically the things that happened during Paul's time he presented as having happened just prior to Paul. So whereas in reality people in the second half of first century were preaching that Jesus was "yet to come" and were baptizing people with the expectation of the coming of Christ, the writer of the Gospel cast those actives into the first half of the first century. But in reality, people in the second half of the first century had n concept of a Jesus who had come, only a Jesus who would come. It was not until the Gospel stories that people thought he had already come a "first time". Thus what was originally thought to be the "first coming" of Christ was re-imagined as a "second coming" of Christ.
But this was talking about John the pillar, a contemporary of Paul's. So in the original story, which was prior to any Gospel, John the pillar was using a baptism that talked about the future coming of Jesus. From the perspective of John the pillar, Jesus had not come yet.
The writer of the first Gospel, however, took this John figure and made a new John figure who came before Paul and to whom Jesus came. And not only that he divided this real historical John into two fictitious Johns, John "the Baptist" and John "Zebedee", neither of which existed.
The real John, John the pillar, who was a contemporary of Paul's, preached that Jesus was "yet to come". But what the writer of the Gospel did was he took the story of Pau's ministry and prefigured it all with the story of Jesus, so that basically the things that happened during Paul's time he presented as having happened just prior to Paul. So whereas in reality people in the second half of first century were preaching that Jesus was "yet to come" and were baptizing people with the expectation of the coming of Christ, the writer of the Gospel cast those actives into the first half of the first century. But in reality, people in the second half of the first century had n concept of a Jesus who had come, only a Jesus who would come. It was not until the Gospel stories that people thought he had already come a "first time". Thus what was originally thought to be the "first coming" of Christ was re-imagined as a "second coming" of Christ.
Statistics: Posted by rgprice — Tue Apr 16, 2024 3:56 pm