Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[eider]

For me the jury is still a bit out on the Temple. Right now I agree it happened but it was hardly noticed by the many people gathering at the Temple. I do all it was the purposeful acting out of a parable (but still reading) but did it lead to his death?? In John, it doesn't happen at the end (if I remember correctly).

The Temple actions were huge, imo. On the 2nd day Jesus and disciples went in to the Temple and threw down the Sacrificial sellers' stalls and turned over the money exchangers' tables. The Baptist would so have approved of this. Why? The Temple coin itself was an utter disgrace to the Jews for 3 reasons. 1. It had the features of the God Baal on the front! 2. It had a graven Image of raptor on the rear. 3. It had the name of Caesar in Greek initials on the rear. Also, the money exchange rates were a total rip off for the peasantry who were already hard up. Also, if a peasant bought his own sacrifice after carrying it for so far the Priests could condemn it as imperfect, so he had to buiy a Temple lamb anyway! And the prices were a rip off. The whole thing was trash and today if a Brave Man should come out of nowhere offering cleansing and redemption for NOTHING...... guess what? Both Jesus and the Baptist were doing just that.
Now, immediately after their very violenbt demonstration they picketed off the Temple Courts, allowing nobody to pass through either way. There must have been a lot of them by then. All of the above happened on Day 2.
On Day 3 they were back and I'm pretty sure that they were picketing again because the Priesthood came to appeal to Jesus.
A big event, and he got arrested for it three days later. By the way, on Day 1 Jesus and friends just went to the Temple and looked around then left and went back out to Bethany.
If you need to be shown and want links then please ask.
Apostle John never mentioned any of this, in fact he dreamed up a whole different week. More to the point, John never mentioned thosde amazing and exciting experiences that he had when with Jesus, the transfiguration, challengiong a false disciple, etc etc, so for sure I don't believe that John the Apostle was John the Disciple.

Respectfully, I think you're wrong on Jesus' fury at the Temple. In John, he is seen going to Jerusalem a number of times as any good Jew would do in a lifetime and participating in the life of the Temple. So too his followers after his death continue to participate in the Temple. If he was so against it, it is likely that his faithful followers would have followed his lead. I can't speak to the Baptist. Even what was considered the Temple incident was supposedly over what was accepted and necessary for Temple sacrifice and it is probable that disciples of Jesus played the role of changing money so they could sacrifice to God.

I've written above what I think about that. Now, G-John has Jesus going up and down to the Temple so many times. He never did. In G-Mark he made one last Passover visit to the Temple, a last attempt to win the crowds over after failing to gather much support in Galilee.
Apostle-John spun that timeline. Yes he had a brilliant bundle of accounts but he did not know anything about where or when Jesus did anything. G-Mark describes a 11-12 month campaign by Jesus. I do understand how many Christians cling to John, but tyhis is about Historical Jesus.

Paul preached the essentials: we are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus. He had already established communities and was writing to them about specific issues. A Gospel like narrative would not have been appropriate for his letters. As time when on, as people had more and more questions, so we have the gospels. And the scholars are in agreement about the dates, maybe some minor disagreement, for example 70 or 72 CE.

Paul preached Christianity. A very few sentences in his letters can assist the researcher in HJ studies but they only refer to the disciples. Paul's letter don't help HJ studies that much.

Actually we can point to the gospels regarding anti-semitism. After the destruction of the Temple, tensions began to run hot between those traditional Jews and those Jews who claimed Jesus was Messiah. And we get to the ridiculous point where the Jews not only clamor for the execution of Jesus but accept blame for his death through all their future generations.

G-John and parts of G-Luke caused the anti-Semitism that has lasted for two milleniums. Whereas G-Mark showed that Jesus and Baptist were up against a corrup, greedy, Hellenised, Hypocritical Priesthood, G-John turned the enemy in to THE JEWS.
A Disgrace, but he didn't know better. He never knew what Jesus was really about imo..

Historians have shown how such trials took place at that time and the idea that Pilate (a ruthless man who cared nothing for the Jews) of all people would feel guilt or give a choice (of who to execute) to the people is a bit absurd. Plus trials took place inside and there would have been no one there to report the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus, all had abandoned Jesus and they wouldn't have been invited to the trial.

Hang on. Pilate did not want to execute Jesus. Pilate liked Jesus and was highly amused that he had caused such mayhem. It's all there to read.

Jesus of Nazareth (the Son of Abba) is executed and Jesus Barabbas (son of the father) is set free. Rome would never free a Zealot, a terrorist who killed their own.

Ah ha! Jesus BarYehoshua (or Jesus BarYoshua) 'the Son of Man' was one character, and Jesus BarAbbas Jesus Son of the Father was the other. All I know is that Jesus Son of the Father caused mayhem in the Temple, was convicted, but so loved by the people that he was released by Pilate (quite diplomatic) ...... who was who? One of the Jesus's was seen soon after travelled through Galilee, saw his mates. I'm working on that.
Obviously Christians have Faith. acknowledge all Christian Faiths and Creeds.

Depends on the scholars and the topics........seems there is great agreement on much.

Crosson's Jesus is a shuffling 'magic for meal' player with a few hangers on. Crosson was/is a 'great scholar'..... and so it goes on. Apart from Vermes I've thrown Crosson's and all the scholar books out.

We differ on Mark at the arrest.

OK, but I can show that the writer of G-Mark was there.

John could have been as late as you say but that is not the consensus, so I go with the consensus. John, supposedly the youngest of the disciples was perhaps 20 (?) to Jesus' 33 - so in 110, he would have been around 100 years old. And he wrote the gospels??

Apostle John didn't know what Disciple John did...... that's it for me.

The question was resolved over 20 years before Mark - no longer an issue as there were Christian pagan communities all over the known world.

No longer a Christian issue. But G-Mark remained more or less intact apart from some later additions, and the story of Jesus the man who took over from the Baptist to stand up against Temple corruption remained........... well, that's my opiniion.

Sure there is historical information, what scholars call the historical gist. But they are not histories, they are faith writings about the good news.

Sure. Christians can bathe in it all, but historians trawl those same gospels for evidence rather than 'gist', and evidence there is.

And I respect and appreciate your opinion.
But I do have a question (but if you don't feel like getting into it, I respect that): you identify as a Deist but the NT is written by Theists - do you approach it only as a historian?

True. Yes. I am a Deist. Many HJ scholars left the church eventually, some had even been priests. I loved reading Geza Vermes book about HJ and since he had translated the Dead Sea Scrolls I felt that his strength in languages could provide a trustworthy platform for his findings.
But I do accept that Christians have Faith, and although this can cause much heat in discussions I try to never forget that threy have belief first and foremost.

[thormas]

I get what you're saying about the Temple incident but I doubt, given my reading and research, that the whole of the story is historical or if Jesus was that upset over the coin. Jesus and his followers were and remained faithful Jews who worshipped at the Temple. Jesus' demonstration (if it happened) didn't change anything yet the disciples, after his death, remained good Jews and that included Temple worship. That is the question about John did he dream it up and how would we know either way? And it is probable that Jesus went to the Temple more than once in his life as portrayed in the Synoptics. You, we, nobody can say how many times Jesus went to Jerusalem in roughly 33 years. And even you just said one last passover visit..........implying there were others. This is not clinging to John over anyone else just recognizing that John also hits historical notes in the life of Jesus.

Still the point about Paul holds, he was writing letters not narrative accounts and there is also history within. Scholars can discern the earliest Christian practices and devotional worship by referring to Paul. So he gives his gospel of Jesus, crucified and risen and us saved, but he also, very importantly, gives indications of what, historically, was happening with his followers within possible months after the death of Jesus.

Totally disagree on Pilate, I'll try to get a citation but he was brutal and disregarded the Jewish sensitivities and their lives - that is historical. Pilate did not care an ounce about a common criminal who was accused of sedition and was being proclaimed Messiah and King. Again, you read Mark more literally than I do or most critical scholars.

My understanding is that there was no Barabbas, he was invented.

I like Vermes and I have never really concentrated on Crossan because it seems he has a preconceived take on Jesus that he reads into the gospels.

You may be able to show that about Mark but then the question is, is it historical. And again it is questionable if it was either John or anyone named John.

Those same historians agree on the gist which is the historical stuff. As for evidence we'll have to get into that at a later date. But was are we bathing in?

Again, thanks, good discussion.

[Tassman]

Fair enough.
So, more or less, you follow what reputable scholars agree on. That's ok.

So the Baptist, Jesus, the baptism, the meeting with Pilate, the execution are all true.

Right, that can be built upon. Therefore Jesus did commit some crime, what do you think he did?
And if the Baptist was baptising, what was that all about?

It has not been built upon by scholarly consensus and it's not for me to second-guess them. The only unequivocal facts agreed upon by them about the historical Jesus are as previously quoted. Namely that he existed, was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was a Galilean Jewish preacher and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate.

[eider]

I get what you're saying about the Temple incident but I doubt, given my reading and research, that the whole of the story is historical or if Jesus was that upset over the coin.

I have no doubts at all that it was all true. The Temple 1/2 shekel was a real snub to all Judaism.

Jesus and his followers were and remained faithful Jews who worshipped at the Temple. Jesus' demonstration (if it happened) didn't change anything yet the disciples, after his death, remained good Jews and that included Temple worship. That is the question about John did he dream it up and how would we know either way? And it is probable that Jesus went to the Temple more than once in his life as portrayed in the Synoptics. You, we, nobody can say how many times Jesus went to Jerusalem in roughly 33 years. And even you just said one last passover visit..........implying there were others. This is not clinging to John over anyone else just recognizing that John also hits historical notes in the life of Jesus.

Yes, they did remain Jews. They were Jews.
John's accumulated accounts are very valuable, but 'yes' he then made it up, imo.
I only take interest in that one year as described in G-Mark and Jesus went to Jerusalem for one week, visiting the Temple on three days.

Still the point about Paul holds, he was writing letters not narrative accounts and there is also history within. Scholars can discern the earliest Christian practices and devotional worship by referring to Paul. So he gives his gospel of Jesus, crucified and risen and us saved, but he also, very importantly, gives indications of what, historically, was happening with his followers within possible months after the death of Jesus.

Of course, Paul built Christianity, but unfortunately he didn't write much that helps me with learning about Jesus the person and that last year of his life.

Totally disagree on Pilate, I'll try to get a citation but he was brutal and disregarded the Jewish sensitivities and their lives - that is historical. Pilate did not care an ounce about a common criminal who was accused of sedition and was being proclaimed Messiah and King. Again, you read Mark more literally than I do or most critical scholars.

Pilate was quite ruthless, it's true, be he liked Jesus and he was not displeased about all the rumpus because he absolutely hated the Jewish Sanhedrin, Priesthood, the lot.

My understanding is that there was no Barabbas, he was invented.

Who told you that?
It would have helped Christianity very much if Barabbas had never been mentioned.
But he was mentioned. Jesus Son-of-the-Father, causing much trouble, being loved by the people and being pardoned by Pilate. Interesting account.

I like Vermes and I have never really concentrated on Crossan because it seems he has a preconceived take on Jesus that he reads into the gospels.

Ah ha! Yes! Some HJ writers are great imo, but a whole mass of them started out with an agenda.

You may be able to show that about Mark but then the question is, is it historical. And again it is questionable if it was either John or anyone named John.

I don't mind what the author was really called.
He mentioned things about the arrest that only the author would remember, burned in to his brain for all time, which (almost) nobody else would or could have noticed.

Those same historians agree on the gist which is the historical stuff. As for evidence we'll have to get into that at a later date. But was are we bathing in?

Again, thanks, good discussion.

Thank you very much.

[thormas]

Even it the Temple incident is true, is it all true? We mentioned scholars yesterday so I add two more on this: Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredriksen. Both saying the Temple was so big, the crowd so immense that the incident pretty much was unnoticed and Jesus sn unknown from 100 miles away.

And considering Mark and John, would faithful Jew, like Jesus, only have gone to the Temple, to Jerusalem, to celebrate the festivals only once in 33 years?

The gospels have a vested interest in having Pilate like Jesus, given the growing strife with the Jews but this flys in the face of the historical Pilate, as shown by two historians who were his contemporaries: Josephus and Philo. He simply was not nice, didn't care about the Jews, killed Jews and would not have freed a Zealot, Barabbas, even if he did exist.

That is a scholarly opinion and Barabbas helped Christianity because it showed that the Jews preferred to free a violent man rather than the Messiah, thus rejecting the Messiah and accepting the guilt though all their generations. But it is an interesting account.

I think the best of them try to be objective and agenda free, letting the material speak to them.

Or he did have access to a tradition that included the arrest, or he 'created' it as a vehicle for his theology.

Again, thanks

[eider]

Even it the Temple incident is true, is it all true? We mentioned scholars yesterday so I add two more on this: Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredriksen. Both saying the Temple was so big, the crowd so immense that the incident pretty much was unnoticed and Jesus sn unknown from 100 miles away.

I think the description in G-Mark is accurate.
Yes, Bart and Paula got the size of the Temple right. It was huge, and 2000 priests attended the three major events, supported by 6000 Levite Guards. Big.
Jesus unkonown? Yes..... until then.
But a calamitous demonstration at the sales and exchange area would have attracted a crowd big enough to then side with the demonstrators and help them to picket the Temple Courts, an action which was described in G-Mark.

But honestly, I don't rely on any scholars to tell me how to think about anything. If they have discovered evidence or produced strong ideas from evidence then ... fine.

And considering Mark and John, would faithful Jew, like Jesus, only have gone to the Temple, to Jerusalem, to celebrate the festivals only once in 33 years?

No. But in the Mark's account he went once in that one year.
I don't believe John's version of visits at all, although his gospel included some very useful material.

The gospels have a vested interest in having Pilate like Jesus, given the growing strife with the Jews but this flys in the face of the historical Pilate, as shown by two historians who were his contemporaries: Josephus and Philo. He simply was not nice, didn't care about the Jews, killed Jews and would not have freed a Zealot, Barabbas, even if he did exist.

Pilate needed to be ruthless and ended up in trouble for it, but only because he caused mayhem.
Pilate really did not like the Sanhedrin nor neighouring leader Antipas, but he must have enjoyed the Sanhedrin's embarrassment over the Temple riot very much.
And if pardoning one convict could appease hundreds of thousand of Jews (the numbers that attended main feasts) then he would be delighted to. Pilate survived for a very long time which shows how diplomatic he could be.
It certainly was not in Christian interests to name a released convict 'Jesus Son-of-the-Father', the writer's honesty shows through there, and only in later gospels was the name Jesus removed, leaving a name in Eastern Aramaic which might escape notgice for mellenia, which was successful imo.

That is a scholarly opinion and Barabbas helped Christianity because it showed that the Jews preferred to free a violent man rather than the Messiah, thus rejecting the Messiah and accepting the guilt though all their generations. But it is an interesting account.

I really don't adapt my opinions to what any scholars say because they all disagree with each other and what evidence is available is there for you and I to scrutinize.
At no point in the Gospel of Mark are 'The Jews' the enemy of Jesus. It was the greedy, corrupted, hypocritical, quisling and hellenist Priesthood who plotted against him.

I think Jesus Bar Abbas could have been the real Jesus....... had the same name, was involved in a riot, was loved by the people, was released and thus his later appearance before the disciples up in Galilee was real.
It might amuse you to read the the Cornish people of England who supplied Tin to Palestinian ports of Sison and Tyre for thousands of years, and well before the time of Jesus have a strong tradition that Joseph of Arimathea was a merchant who visited them, and they say that he brought a Jesus with him, and they have an island there where they claim Jesus stayed. Cornwall supplied tin to the known World back then. Interesting.

I think the best of them try to be objective and agenda free, letting the material speak to them.

Some are Christians, many are not. They can't all be right.

Or he did have access to a tradition that included the arrest, or he 'created' it as a vehicle for his theology.

Again, thanks

I see Theology throughout John's account, much manipulated to support a young Church, and Luke's gospel definitely stretched in that direction.
But the Gospel that both Matthew and Luke copied (Mark) just told the story of what happened, once the additions have been cut free from it.


I'm sorry I took so long to answer.

[thormas]

I'm not sure on what you base your opinion or if it is just your opinion.

But inseams that Jesus was unknown when he got there and an unknown 'criminal' executed at the end of his life, with even his trusted disciples abandoning him.
And the point of these scholars was that it was not a calamitous demonstration but one that was essentially unnoticed by the immense crowds.

There is very little actual evidence about much, what these is are the criteria used by scholars to assess that material and make educated assumptions.

So if you admit that John has useful information, how do you rule out multiple visits by Jesus an not useful? And again, a faithful Jews going to worship at the Temple once in 33 years?

You seem to be ignoring the historical accounts of Pilate. And the 100k Jews were not aware of Jesus' trial and if they clamored for a seditionist they might be linking themselves with a criminal - that's why the disciples fled.

Ehrman, writes on his blog:

"These are enough (sources ,namely Philo and Josephus), though, to show us the basic character of Pilate, his attitude to the Jews that he ruled, and his basic approach to Jewish sensitivities. The short story is that he was a brutal, ruthless ruler with no concerns at all for what the people he governed thought about him or his policies. He was violent, mean-spirited, and hard-headed. He used his soldiers as thugs to beat the people into submission, and he ruled Judea with an iron fist."

And Barabbas, what kind of 'son of the father' did the Jews prefer, a murdering insurrection bent on violent overthrow or one who would give his live? Plus, as Ehrman makes clear, there is no policy anywhere, with any governor or any in similar positions to Pilate, that pardon one criminal in favor of another. Regarding insurrectionists -against Rome -the only solution is execution. A real Barrabbas would have hung next to Jesus.

Unless yo can offer evidence to the contrary - and not just opinion - I go with the scholars.

I am not talking about adapting an opinion because of scholars, I am talking about recognizing the preponderance of expert opinion and years, decades of research and study. And they don't all disagree with one another, that is simply inaccurate. It certainly sounds like the Jews were 'enemies' after all they yelled for Jesus to be crucified (friends don't do this) in Mark and the Priests were also Jews.

Ok, this is pure opinion: Barabbas was Jesus of Nazareth, the real Jesus? So in your scenario, who was crucified? And did Jesus escape the cross and go to live in Cornwall? Shades of the DiVinci Code. And -well before the time of Jesus - they had a tradition that Jesus visited them? What?
But, you're right, I am amused :+}

You keep assuming that the major scholars all disagree, they do not on the major issues. So they can all be right. And the fact that they are not all Christian yet still agree, speaks to their seriousness and professionalism: they follow the 'evidence.'

Mark is also a theological book whose only purpose is to announce the good news.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Temple actions were huge, imo. On the 2nd day Jesus and disciples went in to the Temple and threw down the Sacrificial sellers' stalls and turned over the money exchangers' tables. The Baptist would so have approved of this. Why? The Temple coin itself was an utter disgrace to the Jews for 3 reasons. 1. It had the features of the God Baal on the front! 2. It had a graven Image of raptor on the rear. 3. It had the name of Caesar in Greek initials on the rear. Also, the money exchange rates were a total rip off for the peasantry who were already hard up. Also, if a peasant bought his own sacrifice after carrying it for so far the Priests could condemn it as imperfect, so he had to buiy a Temple lamb anyway! And the prices were a rip off. The whole thing was trash and today if a Brave Man should come out of nowhere offering cleansing and redemption for NOTHING...... guess what? Both Jesus and the Baptist were doing just that.
Now, immediately after their very violenbt demonstration they picketed off the Temple Courts, allowing nobody to pass through either way. There must have been a lot of them by then. All of the above happened on Day 2.
On Day 3 they were back and I'm pretty sure that they were picketing again because the Priesthood came to appeal to Jesus.
A big event, and he got arrested for it three days later. By the way, on Day 1 Jesus and friends just went to the Temple and looked around then left and went back out to Bethany.
If you need to be shown and want links then please ask.
Apostle John never mentioned any of this, in fact he dreamed up a whole different week. More to the point, John never mentioned thosde amazing and exciting experiences that he had when with Jesus, the transfiguration, challengiong a false disciple, etc etc, so for sure I don't believe that John the Apostle was John the Disciple.

I've written above what I think about that. Now, G-John has Jesus going up and down to the Temple so many times. He never did. In G-Mark he made one last Passover visit to the Temple, a last attempt to win the crowds over after failing to gather much support in Galilee.
Apostle-John spun that timeline. Yes he had a brilliant bundle of accounts but he did not know anything about where or when Jesus did anything. G-Mark describes a 11-12 month campaign by Jesus. I do understand how many Christians cling to John, but tyhis is about Historical Jesus.

Paul preached Christianity. A very few sentences in his letters can assist the researcher in HJ studies but they only refer to the disciples. Paul's letter don't help HJ studies that much.

G-John and parts of G-Luke caused the anti-Semitism that has lasted for two milleniums. Whereas G-Mark showed that Jesus and Baptist were up against a corrup, greedy, Hellenised, Hypocritical Priesthood, G-John turned the enemy in to THE JEWS.
A Disgrace, but he didn't know better. He never knew what Jesus was really about imo..

Hang on. Pilate did not want to execute Jesus. Pilate liked Jesus and was highly amused that he had caused such mayhem. It's all there to read.

Ah ha! Jesus BarYehoshua (or Jesus BarYoshua) 'the Son of Man' was one character, and Jesus BarAbbas Jesus Son of the Father was the other. All I know is that Jesus Son of the Father caused mayhem in the Temple, was convicted, but so loved by the people that he was released by Pilate (quite diplomatic) ...... who was who? One of the Jesus's was seen soon after travelled through Galilee, saw his mates. I'm working on that.
Obviously Christians have Faith. acknowledge all Christian Faiths and Creeds.

Crosson's Jesus is a shuffling 'magic for meal' player with a few hangers on. Crosson was/is a 'great scholar'..... and so it goes on. Apart from Vermes I've thrown Crosson's and all the scholar books out.

OK, but I can show that the writer of G-Mark was there.

Apostle John didn't know what Disciple John did...... that's it for me.

No longer a Christian issue. But G-Mark remained more or less intact apart from some later additions, and the story of Jesus the man who took over from the Baptist to stand up against Temple corruption remained........... well, that's my opiniion.

Sure. Christians can bathe in it all, but historians trawl those same gospels for evidence rather than 'gist', and evidence there is.

True. Yes. I am a Deist. Many HJ scholars left the church eventually, some had even been priests. I loved reading Geza Vermes book about HJ and since he had translated the Dead Sea Scrolls I felt that his strength in languages could provide a trustworthy platform for his findings.
But I do accept that Christians have Faith, and although this can cause much heat in discussions I try to never forget that threy have belief first and foremost.

Where on earth are you getting your information?

Most of this reads [I regret to inform you] as utter rubbish.

[eider]

Where on earth are you getting your information?

Most of this reads [I regret to inform you] as utter rubbish.

The gospels, and some other sources.

You would have to show which parts are rubbish.

Did you think that Jesus did not visit and look around on day one, visit,demonstrate and picket on day two and visit picket and debate on day three? Is that rubbish? Do you need me to show you about that?

I can show you reason for all that I wrote.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The gospels, and some other sources.

What other sources?

You would have to show which parts are rubbish.

Your comments are italicised.

The Temple actions were huge, imo. On the 2nd day Jesus and disciples went in to the Temple and threw down the Sacrificial sellers' stalls and turned over the money exchangers' tables. The Baptist would so have approved of this. Why? The Temple coin itself was an utter disgrace to the Jews for 3 reasons. 1. It had the features of the God Baal on the front! 2. It had a graven Image of raptor on the rear. 3. It had the name of Caesar in Greek initials on the rear. Also, the money exchange rates were a total rip off for the peasantry who were already hard up. Also, if a peasant bought his own sacrifice after carrying it for so far the Priests could condemn it as imperfect, so he had to buiy a Temple lamb anyway! And the prices were a rip off. The whole thing was trash and today if a Brave Man should come out of nowhere offering cleansing and redemption for NOTHING...... guess what? Both Jesus and the Baptist were doing just that.
Now, immediately after their very violenbt demonstration they picketed off the Temple Courts, allowing nobody to pass through either way. There must have been a lot of them by then. All of the above happened on Day 2.
On Day 3 they were back and I'm pretty sure that they were picketing again because the Priesthood came to appeal to Jesus.
A big event, and he got arrested for it three days later. By the way, on Day 1 Jesus and friends just went to the Temple and looked around then left and went back out to Bethany.
If you need to be shown and want links then please ask.
Apostle John never mentioned any of this, in fact he dreamed up a whole different week. More to the point, John never mentioned thosde amazing and exciting experiences that he had when with Jesus, the transfiguration, challengiong a false disciple, etc etc, so for sure I don't believe that John the Apostle was John the Disciple.

Where is your evidence?

I've written above what I think about that. Now, G-John has Jesus going up and down to the Temple so many times. He never did. In G-Mark he made one last Passover visit to the Temple, a last attempt to win the crowds over after failing to gather much support in Galilee.
Apostle-John spun that timeline. Yes he had a brilliant bundle of accounts but he did not know anything about where or when Jesus did anything. G-Mark describes a 11-12 month campaign by Jesus. I do understand how many Christians cling to John, but tyhis is about Historical Jesus

You appear to be using the contradictions found within the four canonical gospels to support your own pet theory.

G-John and parts of G-Luke caused the anti-Semitism that has lasted for two milleniums. Whereas G-Mark showed that Jesus and Baptist were up against a corrup, greedy, Hellenised, Hypocritical Priesthood, G-John turned the enemy in to THE JEWS.
A Disgrace, but he didn't know better. He never knew what Jesus was really about imo..

Really? What about Matthew? Or the invented Passover amnesty we first find in Mark?

Hang on. Pilate did not want to execute Jesus. Pilate liked Jesus and was highly amused that he had caused such mayhem. It's all there to read.

That is arrant nonsense. Being acclaimed as, or claiming Messianic status carried a capital sentence.

Ah ha! Jesus BarYehoshua (or Jesus BarYoshua) 'the Son of Man' was one character, and Jesus BarAbbas Jesus Son of the Father was the other. All I know is that Jesus Son of the Father caused mayhem in the Temple, was convicted, but so loved by the people that he was released by Pilate (quite diplomatic)

Why would a Roman Praefectus release a Jew accused of sedition given what we know about the region at this period?

Crosson's Jesus is a shuffling 'magic for meal' player with a few hangers on.

On what evidence from Crossan?

OK, but I can show that the writer of G-Mark was there.

I look forward to reading your accredited accredited historical evidence for that claim.

Apostle John didn't know what Disciple John did...... that's it for me.

That is opinion not fact.

Did you think that Jesus did not visit and look around on day one, visit,demonstrate and picket on day two and visit picket and debate on day three? Is that rubbish? Do you need me to show you about that?

I would be very interested in what you have to offer.

[eider]

What other sources?


I look forward to reading your accredited accredited historical evidence for that claim.

I had written:-
Originally posted by eider View Post
Did you think that Jesus did not visit and look around on day one, visit,demonstrate and picket on day two and visit picket and debate on day three? Is that rubbish? Do you need me to show you about that?

That is opinion not fact.

I would be very interested in what you have to offer.

The background and source material for that one post amounts to a massive amount of material.
And so I am prepared to show you sentence by sentence that none of it is/was rubbish.

The above sentence is all there in the Gospel of Mark, you just didn't know it, is all.
And so I have got to show you an important park of a Gospel that I presumed that you would know.

Here we go.......
1. Did you think that Jesus did not visit and look around on day one...? (He did!)
Mark {11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about
upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

2 .........visit,demonstrate and picket on day two.......
Mark ]{11:15} And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; {11:16} And would not suffer that any man should carry [any] vessel through the temple.

3.........and visit picket and debate on day three.
Mark {11:27} And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, {11:28} And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

On day three he was still 'doimng these things.

Professor Erhmann doesn't need his opinions. He just needs to read his bible more closely, maybe?

The Gospel of Mark is not rubbish.

Now, if you would care to pick one other sentence that you said is rubbish I would be pleased to support it.
One sentence at a time, because the material to support it could be extensive.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I had written:-
Originally posted by eider View Post
Did you think that Jesus did not visit and look around on day one, visit,demonstrate and picket on day two and visit picket and debate on day three? Is that rubbish? Do you need me to show you about that?



The background and source material for that one post amounts to a massive amount of material.
And so I am prepared to show you sentence by sentence that none of it is/was rubbish.

The above sentence is all there in the Gospel of Mark, you just didn't know it, is all.
And so I have got to show you an important park of a Gospel that I presumed that you would know.

Here we go.......
1. Did you think that Jesus did not visit and look around on day one...? (He did!)
Mark {11:11} And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about
upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

2 .........visit,demonstrate and picket on day two.......
Mark ]{11:15} And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; {11:16} And would not suffer that any man should carry [any] vessel through the temple.

3.........and visit picket and debate on day three.
Mark {11:27} And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, {11:28} And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

On day three he was still 'doimng these things.

Professor Erhmann doesn't need his opinions. He just needs to read his bible more closely, maybe?

The Gospel of Mark is not rubbish.

Now, if you would care to pick one other sentence that you said is rubbish I would be pleased to support it.
One sentence at a time, because the material to support it could be extensive.

You cannot cite the gospel texts as evidence for the gospel texts.

However, you are welcome to respond to my points with some reliable and accredited historical evidence that supports your contentions.

[eider]

You cannot cite the gospel texts as evidence for the gospel texts.

However, you are welcome to respond to my points with some reliable and accredited historical evidence that supports your contentions.

Of course I can.
I feel confident that a great deal of info in the gospels is valuable, and a sifted version of G-Mark I consider to be a deposition from a partial observer and a writer of the rest for a bloke called Cephas. And that folks in the 2nd century felt the same doesn't hurt me too badly.

Even the Christian enemy Celcius wrote about Jesus and his ten boatmen-two taxmen followers.

If you want chuck away the evidence then that is up to you, but on occasions (such as with that coin) you have shown me that you positively cling to the gospels, and then you dump them all. That is a kind of academic schizophrenia isn't it? ........ you don't want any of it but you will cling to this bit, and that bit as it suits you. You can't do that with an HJ student.

I must to bed........ it's 11.30pm and I'm an old man.
Thank you very much for your interest and the time you have taken with your posts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Of course I can.

That is circular logic. You cannot use the account in a text to verify that account in that text. You need corroborating evidence. Otherwise it may be contended that any fictional character in any novel actually existed because they appear in that particular work.

I feel confident that a great deal of info in the gospels is valuable, and a sifted version of G-Mark I consider to be a deposition from a partial observer and a writer of the rest for a bloke called Cephas. And that folks in the 2nd century felt the same doesn't hurt me too badly.

Your confidence in these texts is not evidence these texts are reliable historical [as we now understand the term] accounts of purported events. These texts were written to preach and teach. They are semi-aretalogies and they were all written at different times, in different places, for different Christian communities.

Even the Christian enemy Celcius wrote about Jesus and his ten boatmen-two taxmen followers.

What we know of Celsus is only from what Origen quotes us in his polemical Contra Celsum. Celsus' writings, as with so many other non-Christian texts, works of art, and architecture were destroyed by the Daesh of the ancient world [i.e. the Christians].

Origen quotes Celsus writing disparagingly of Jesus that “According to the Jews, Jesus collected around him ten or eleven unsavoury characters-tax collectors, sailors, and these scurried about making a living as best they were able, usually through double dealing and in otherwise questionable ways.“ Celsus continues with the tale that an angel persuaded Jesus' family to escape and comments “One wonders why more could not have been sent by the great God above you being his beloved son”. [See: Celsus On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians. Translated by R Joseph Hoffman, OUP, 1987]

If you want chuck away the evidence then that is up to you, but on occasions (such as with that coin) you have shown me that you positively cling to the gospels, and then you dump them all.

You misunderstand. I am not alleging that the incident that is recounted in all three Synoptics, as those texts have come down to us, was an actual event. However, these texts, as we now have them, are all we have when considering this life of this man.

The incident might have occurred but that remains speculative. If it did occur as the texts recount it, then in each text Jesus requests a denarius. It should also be noted that if such an event did occur then different interpretations may be applied to Jesus’ words and therefore what he intended may not necessarily mean precisely what so many have come to understand him to mean.

[thormas]

You cannot cite the gospel texts as evidence for the gospel texts.

However, you are welcome to respond to my points with some reliable and accredited historical evidence that supports your contentions.

I agree with HA here, you stated that background material and sources are a massive amount of material, then you simply quote Mark. Where is the massive supporting material? Again, respectfully, I simple see a literal reading to the text. Even your follow up response to her, provides no actual sources (and aren't you trying to wave your own 'scholar' flag?).

If you give a source, you should be able to not just drop a name but cite the exact reference. Do you have such references?