Corpus-Paul

[SPegler919 AT aol.com]

This position of Jesus as a title that really refers to John is a new one!  HIghly objectional, however.  I will outline some of the reasons why.

1.  Luke records Paul as knowing the difference between John and Jesus, see Acts 19:1-5.  Luke carefully records that Paul said that Jesus came after John, and was a different individual.  The fact Apollos taught about Jesus, although he only knew about John, is easily explained in that Apollos taught that one was coming who would be the sacrifice from sin etc.  Paul has no interest in John because he was a predecessor of the one he is really interested in - Jesus.

2.  Luke records John as coming from a priestly family, but Paul said Jesus was of royal lineage (Rom 1:3).

3.  You'll have to defend your proposition that Jesus was a title.  Jesus is the Jewish name Joshua, and was extremely common in that day.

4.  Where is the evidence that the people of the way were first followers of John? 

5.  Where is the evidence that Paul was the disciple who was Christ?  Where is the evidence that Paul was ever a disciple of John?  What is the meaning of Christ, then?  This is an extremely confusing point.  If Paul is Christ, then who is Jesus/John?  Is he Christ?  Is Paul Christ and Jesus/John?  Maybe Paul is really Jesus and John!!  

You state:  

What was it that motivated four groups of messianic believers to tell the 
Jesus story so late after the events?

My answer is: Another, a greater than John had come on the scene and 
recently been executed for his role in the movement and was believed to have 
been raised from the dead. That person was none other the Paul the Apostle 
whom none of the Gospels call by name but rather -as was the custom with the 
people of the way - was called "Jesus" the salvation of God.

This has got to be the most confusing and unsupported statement that you make.  Where is the evidence that Paul was executed and believed raised from the dead?  This certainly does not square with Paul's own statements about persecuting the church and with Luke's account in Acts.

6.  You state: "Who was it that held this view so prevelant among the Gospel communities that it needed to be addressed in every area? My answer is that all of these communities once believed that John was Christ."

I think you mistake the reason for the writing of the Gospels.  Furthermore, the reason that John is included in the Gospel narratives is to provide continuity with the OT Scriptures and to show their completion in John and Jesus.

In summary, your proposition is wild and unsupported.  You make some large leaps of logic and identification.

Dr. Stephen Pegler  
seeking a teaching position