The evidence is that John the Baptist was a strong candidate for being Messiah and it turns out he fits Bible predictions better than Jesus!
The gospels portray John as the prophet paving the way for Jesus.
People were expecting John to be the Messiah. John did not fit the bill as
a warrior king so you can wonder if he claimed to be Messiah?
The prophecies that were thought to be about the Messiah in the Old Testament
fit John better than Jesus. The Christians of course have to use contrived
interpretations to be able to think they see predictions about Jesus in the Old
Testament.
They say for example that the Old Testament predicted the birth of Jesus the
Messiah at Bethlehem. John was not born at Bethlehem as far as we know though he
might have been. Luke says John’s parents lived in the hill country of Judea but
doesn’t say where John was born. Also, the Messiah coming from Bethlehem doesn’t
mean he will be born there.
Micah 5:2. In Bethlehem of Judea, will come one who had his origin from of old.
In The Case for Jesus the Messiah we learn that quedem or from old “literally
means from ‘ancient time, aforetime’ (page 74)”. Or it can mean from eternity.
Or it can refer to a character like Elijah who lived as a man and went to Heaven
and was reborn as John the Baptist. You might argue that texts should be
interpreted as naturally as possible. Positing that John was the reincarnation
of Elijah would fit the text better for it has a very old man being reborn.
The prophecy says that when his mother gives birth to him the exiles of Israel
will come back to it which did not happen when Jesus was born (v3). The verse
says that when she who is in travail has given birth then the rest of his
brothers will return to the people of Israel. If John was the Messiah then how
do we explain that the exiles didn’t return when John was born? But John more
than Jesus claimed to be the one who would do the gathering – he saw himself as
calling the wayward sons of Israel back into the fold by bringing them to
repentance.
The prophecy says only that the man will come from Bethlehem so he was not
necessarily born there. The man will have existed before he was born perhaps as
an angel or man or something. The man will lead Israel to war against its
enemies. Though classed as messianic the prophecy isn’t necessarily so. But John
didn’t lead his people to war. Messiah meant king and was expected to be a
warrior. If John was the Messiah then the time is yet to come when he will lead
his people to war.
Zechariah 13:7 says, “Awake O sword against my shepherd. Awake against the man
who is my associate, says the Lord of Hosts. Strike the shepherd that the sheep
may be scattered. I will turn my hand against the little ones.”
It was John who gathered the people together as a shepherd would. Jesus just
built on the work John did and may have stolen his sheep. Jesus even said that
his own disciples were to preach to the lost sheep.
Jesus said this prophecy referred to his own arrest when the disciples were
scattered. But Jesus was never struck by the sword and John was. He was beheaded
by a sword on the orders of Herod Antipas. Also, no God is going to predict the
scattering of Jesus’ disciples for we read that they soon got back together.
When God predicts something it has to be a totally disastrous scattering
otherwise the prophecy can mean anything. That is why it is totally credulous to
say the prophecy just means that Jesus was arrested by men carrying swords for
that was too easy to fulfil. God would predict better than that. In any case,
what Jesus said shows the prophecy was believed to be messianic. The prophecy
refers to the Baptist if it is a true prophecy.
The scattering of John’s sheep is to be totally disastrous. This is true of
John’s disciples. They never got back into becoming a Church and the followers
of Jesus poached many of them away into apostasy.
In Zechariah 12 we read that somebody from the house of David was to be wounded
or pierced and mourned over by his relatives who are of the house of David and
the house of Levi. This also can be made to fit the Baptist. His father was a
priest of Levi and his mother Elizabeth was said to have been related to Mary
the mother of Jesus from the house of David. It fits the Baptist best because
Jesus had no links with the Levitical priesthood.
It is not enough to say that Mary had some Levitical blood in her lineage. First
of all, the records aren’t necessarily right. We can safely assume that any one
of the people listed in her lineage listed as a father of so and so may not have
been the father at all due to his wife’s discreet infidelity. Secondly the link
with Levi is stronger with John whose father was a priest of Levi. Thirdly, we
know that the Christians made stuff up to make the prophecies fit Jesus. They
were less likely to do that with the Baptist for he was not their Messiah.
Was John really Jesus' cousin as specified in the gospel of Luke? If Jesus
really had royal blood as the gospels say, then John had it too. He would have
been eradicated before he got crowds to follow him as a possible threat to the
fragile political cohesion. If John had royal blood, then nobody knew about it.
Or maybe John was not related to Jesus at all.
Matthew includes Jechoniah or Coniah in his list of Joseph’s progenitors and
accordingly as an ancestor of Jesus’. Matthew must have forgotten or not known
that if Coniah was indeed a forefather of Jesus’ then Jesus was debarred from
the throne of David, disqualified by divine edict from holding an authentic
messianic office because of God’s everlasting curse on King Jechoniah’s blood
line in Jeremiah 22:30. The record says then that Jesus was not the Messiah so
the only alternative is to recognise John as the Messiah instead. John could
only be Messiah if he were not related to Jesus assuming Jesus really was
descended from Jechoniah.
The prophecy says its subject was mourned by his family. There is no record of
Jesus having been mourned by his family. But the gospels say that John was
mourned by Jesus his relative and his disciples. If God declares a prophecy God
will make sure its fulfilment is recorded so clearly the pierced one was not
Jesus.
Jesus said that when John was slain that John came to restore all things. That
is he came to restore the true message of God and the correct understanding. He
called him the Elijah and he said they did to him whatever they pleased as it
has been written (Mark 9:13). So Jesus declared that the Old Testament
scriptures predicted the execution of John. Jesus then at this time had taught
that John was predicted in Zechariah 13 for there is nothing else that can be
reasonably thought to be possibly referring to John’s fate. Here, Jesus declares
John to be the Messiah. That John was restoring all things shows that John was
the real Son of God and the supreme mouthpiece of God not Jesus.
When the gospel of John spends so much time in chapter 1 and 3 trying to make
John say he came to prepare the way for Jesus when John no longer had any
influence and his disciples gone it is clear that it was trying to fight the
knowledge that John had been the real Son of God. The gospel says that John said
he was predicted in Isaiah 40 that he was the messenger before the coming of
God. It twists this to make him mean that he was to be the precursor of Jesus.
There is no hint of this meaning in the text and the coming of God refers to the
triumph of God over evil in the world and the salvation of Israel from its
temporal enemies. John has the Baptist denying to the Jews that he was the
Christ, the Prophet predicted by Moses and even that he was Elijah!
Jesus says, that “nobody born of woman was ever greater than John the Baptist
and yet the least entered into the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.” Jesus
says of John, “This is the one of whom it is written, Behold, I send My
messenger ahead of You, who shall make ready Your way before You” from Malachi
3:1. Jesus seems to contradict himself. This can be explained by bad editing of
the text or story. The gospeller is trying to pervert the story to remove any
trace of the original strata of data which says John was the Son of God, the man
better even than Jesus.
If you read the verse from Malachi you can see that it was altered by Jesus in
his speech. Malachi had it, “Behold, I send My messenger ahead of me, who shall
make ready my way before me.” Jesus changed the me’s to you’s to make it seem
that God was not promising to send a messenger to prepare for the day of the
Lord when God judges and triumphs over evil and exercises political control over
the world but promising to send a messenger before Jesus who was purporting to
be the you in the verse. Jesus makes the verse stop saying that John was the
only preparation for the day of the Lord for it would mean that John was the
only saviour and messenger and Messiah and Jesus was a fake.
The Malachi passage was surmised without proof to be Messianic by the Jews. The
gospel claim that Jesus made these alterations is a lie for that reason. Rather
than make alterations he had to just go along with the Jewish understanding.
Also, saying the text referred to John the Baptist when people regarded the text
as messianic would only encourage the Jews to consider John the Messiah
especially when they would see Jesus changed the text to try and distort it to
make it seem that John only came as his messenger. Jesus would have been
unlikely to do that for for aren’t we after seeing his reluctance to tell even
John that he was the Messiah?
All Malachi says is that the Lord will send his messenger to prepare for the
coming of God himself. And then the angel or messenger of the covenant will
suddenly come to the Temple. Nothing in the passage indicates that this poetry
is referring to a messenger coming to prepare for ANOTHER one coming to the
Temple. It could be the messenger comes to prepare for the Lord and then after a
long space comes back to the Temple. This is poetry so we must not read too much
into how it is worded. It can look like two messengers are prophesied. But
whatever it says, the supreme messenger of God must be the Baptist if the
prophecy really was a prediction of the future given by God.
The bit about the least entered into the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is
an insertion by somebody who didn’t like Jesus saying John was the top man with
God instead of Jesus. We know that for Jesus said to people that they were not
far from the kingdom of God and we can be sure he didn’t think they were better
than the Baptist! And would Jesus really say John was the best man ever and then
say that as if John was outside the kingdom? The passage is confused but it
tells us that John was the true Christ and that he was outside Jesus’ kingdom.
The prophecy of the suffering servant widely thought to refer to the sufferings
and death of Jesus Christ in Isaiah 53 fits the Baptist better.
The growing up of the servant like a weed from desert ground fits the Baptist
who lived in the desert.
Unlike Jesus who had a little pomp for he dressed as a rabbi, the Baptist went
about in skins and rags which fits the verse saying the servant has nothing
attractive about him in clothes or physically.
It says the servant was led like a lamb to the slaughter. Lambs die by getting
their throats cut or heads cut off.
Jesus was not led like a lamb to the slaughter. The Baptist was. Jesus was
crucified not slaughtered and the Baptist had had his head cut off. He was
slaughtered. Christians will say it is only an expression not to be taken too
literally. You could describe children going to face their fathers after a day’s
vandalism as lambs for the slaughter. Also the next verse says that he was
like a sheep before its shearers that is dumb which seems to show that the
slaughter reference is metaphorical. But metaphorical or not, you would be more
likely to describe the Baptist as being a lamb led to the slaughter than Jesus.
Also, Jesus wasn’t dumb but was deliberately provocative when he opened his
mouth during his trial for his life.
A grave with the wicked and the rich was assigned to him but it's not said that
he used it. The burial place of John is unknown so he might have been buried
with the rich and the wicked. This was definitely not so of Jesus of whom no
indication is given that he was buried anywhere but alone in a new tomb. So John
could be a better fit here and Jesus doesn’t suit the situation at all. Jesus
was not buried with the rich but buried only in a rich man’s tomb.
John did no violence (as in 53:9) and Jesus did by rioting in the Temple. It is
said that the Temple was ripping off the poor by over-inflating charges for this
and that and sacrificial animals and that Jesus' behaviour there was not
intended to incite a riot but to symbolically show that the overthrow of the
corrupt Temple system was at hand. That is a lie because we read that Jesus
forbade people to carry anything through the Temple (Mark 11:16). He didn't need
to go that far to make his point. It was a riot.
John never deceived to our knowledge and was highly regarded even by the
secular historical Josephus. Jesus did deceive for he gave the Jews who didn’t
believe in the afterlife a piece of evidence that didn’t work. He told them that
when God told Moses he was the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob he was
declaring these men alive. Nothing in the text indicates any such thing. The
prophecy says the servant didn’t do any violence and was totally honest. It was
his honesty he died for. He condemned the adulterous relationship between
Herodias and Herod. John died because he was true to his beliefs. Jesus died
because he rode into Jerusalem as king and rioted in the Temple and showed a
wish to die by refusing to try and escape from the arrest that led to his death.
Jesus’ death was more of a suicide than a noble death.
Isaiah 53 says that the servant made his grave with the rich. Christians adopt
the strained interpretation that this is referring to Jesus being buried in a
rich man's empty tomb. We don't know where John is buried but it could be with
the rich. The gospels say John was taken and buried by his own disciples. This
seems to have been in a secret place. And perhaps John was dumped in a common
grave with the rich before his disciples took the body away. He would have died
with rich prisoners in Macherus.