Duncan Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 In John 1:33 it says'And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." I know that their Mums were cousins but how did John not know Jesus? wouldn't they have had some contact? 1
rongo Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) John was raised/grew up in the wilderness (locusts and wild honey) to protect him (his father was a martyr). They probably didn't know each other or have contact, even though they were cousins. There are probably people today who wouldn't recognize some of their cousins if they saw them . . . Edited April 12, 2015 by rongo 1
canard78 Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 In John 1:33 it says'And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."I know that their Mums were cousins but how did John not know Jesus? wouldn't they have had some contact?At best, Jesus and John were second cousins (if Mary and Elizabeth's parents were siblings).First, the King James translation of the term syngenis as “cousin” (Luke 1:36) is unwarranted and somewhat misleading to those who normally interpret the word to mean “first cousin.” The Greek term syngenis simply means “relative” (NKJV, NASB, NIV) or “kinswoman” (ASV, RSV). It is “a general term, meaning ‘of the same family’” (Vincent, 1997). Thus, Mary and Elizabeth may have been first cousins, or they may have been fourth cousins. All we know for sure is that they were kin.http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2532If Jesus and John were 4th or 5th cousins then they are very distant relatives. You share a great, great, great grandparent with your 4th cousins as a common ancestor. How many of your 4th cousins do you know?
Duncan Posted April 12, 2015 Author Posted April 12, 2015 At best, Jesus and John were second cousins (if Mary and Elizabeth's parents were siblings).http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=2532If Jesus and John were 4th or 5th cousins then they are very distant relatives. You share a great, great, great grandparent with your 4th cousins as a common ancestor. How many of your 4th cousins do you know? absolutely zero!
The Nehor Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 (edited) If Jesus and John were 4th or 5th cousins then they are very distant relatives. You share a great, great, great grandparent with your 4th cousins as a common ancestor. How many of your 4th cousins do you know? Three that I know of and I knew them for years (they were all in one family) before we discovered we were cousins. The Scripture could also mean they knew each other but that John did not know Jesus was the Son of God until later in life. Edited April 12, 2015 by The Nehor 1
bcuzbcuz Posted April 12, 2015 Posted April 12, 2015 The Gospel of John contains many stories, miracles and events only recorded in John. The styles of writing, such as John 1:1-18 are a completely different form of narrative than the verses that follow. Considering that the Gospel of John was written long after the death of Jesus and definitely long after the life and death of John the Baptist, the reason that the baptist didn't recognize Jesus, even though cousins, was because that detail to the story was added afterwards, as a detail of poetic license.John chapter 21 was added onto the text. The story of the adultrous woman was also added long after the Gospel of John was written.See "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D. Ehrman, p. 61-62 1
The Nehor Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 The Gospel of John contains many stories, miracles and events only recorded in John. The styles of writing, such as John 1:1-18 are a completely different form of narrative than the verses that follow. Considering that the Gospel of John was written long after the death of Jesus and definitely long after the life and death of John the Baptist, the reason that the baptist didn't recognize Jesus, even though cousins, was because that detail to the story was added afterwards, as a detail of poetic license.John chapter 21 was added onto the text. The story of the adultrous woman was also added long after the Gospel of John was written.See "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D. Ehrman, p. 61-62That does not make the added bits false. 1
bcuzbcuz Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 That does not make the added bits false.No, except that putting forth an idea, a story, a parable, under someone else's name to thereby gain credence is not exactly awe inspiring. Things don't have to be false to be not true.
The Nehor Posted April 13, 2015 Posted April 13, 2015 No, except that putting forth an idea, a story, a parable, under someone else's name to thereby gain credence is not exactly awe inspiring. Things don't have to be false to be not true.That is a modern take on what was considered to be an inoffensive practice anciently. If the stories were made up it was wrong but if the stories were true there was no moral issue with adding details and actual events back then no matter how wrong it seems to modern sensibilities with our conceptions of authorship and plagiarism.
Recommended Posts