How much of Christianity came from Jesus, and how much came from other sources?

[Mountain Man]

I keep telling you guys, he was a pirate! He keeps talking about hiding treasure and he went around drinking at bars and hung around the docks with fishermen.

Careful, our resident luminaries Hypatia_Alexendria and eider are likely to take you seriously.

[Cow Poke]

Careful, our resident luminaries Hypatia_Alexendria and eider are likely to take you seriously.

Yeah, when I post something nutty like that (well, never like THAT) I am fully prepared for the likes of H_A to pounce on it as though it were a serious post.

Kinda like when the liberals go all nuts over an article from The Onion.

[Sparko]

Careful, our resident luminaries Hypatia_Alexendria and eider are likely to take you seriously.

As a pirate, walking on water would be a handy skill. Also it means he probably knew many of the languages around the Mediterranean.

[One Bad Pig]

Seeing as how the post probably got buried, I've reposted it.

Sparko and CP also agree. Altogether too much agreeableness happening here today. Is this an alternative universe TWeb I've accidentally dropped into?

John Oakes is being a bit lazy there, taking the person's word for it that Origen said something - though, luckily for him, he did:

Origen, Contra Celsus, Book 6:
Ch. 16: In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich men, when He said, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that "it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time for riches." Now who is there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs--not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind--that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature--not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews--as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him, had read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding rich men, to the effect that "it was impossible to be distinguished for goodness and riches at the same time," had perverted this, and changed it into, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!"....

Ch. 34: After finishing the foregoing, and those analogous matters which we ourselves have added, Celsus continues as follows:

"They continue to heap together one thing after another,--discourses of prophets, and circles upon circles, and effluents from an earthly church, and from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and a living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, and an earth slaughtered by the sword, and many put to death that they may live, and death ceasing in the world, when the sin of the world is dead; and, again, a narrow way, and gates that open spontaneously. And in all their writings (is mention made) of the tree of life, and a resurrection of the flesh by means of the 'tree,' because, I imagine, their teacher was nailed to a cross, and was a carpenter by craft; so that if he had chanced to have been cast from a precipice, or thrust into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, or had been a leather-cutter, or stone-cutter, or worker in iron, there would have been (invented) a precipice of life beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality, or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a sacred leather! Now what old woman would not be ashamed to utter such things in a whisper, even when making stories to lull an infant to sleep?"

In using such language as this, Celsus appears to me to confuse together matters which he has imperfectly heard. For it seems likely that, even supposing that he had heard a few words traceable to some existing heresy, he did not clearly understand the meaning intended to be conveyed; but heaping the words together, he wished to show before those who knew nothing either of our opinions or of those of the heretics, that he was acquainted with all the doctrines of the Christians. And this is evident also from the foregoing words.

Ch. 36: ...The subject of the "tree of life" will be more appropriately explained when we interpret the statements in the book of Genesis regarding the paradise planted by God. Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the subject of a resurrection,--a doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the present occasion, not satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, "And there is said to be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree;" not understanding, I think, the symbolical expression, that "through the tree came death, and through the tree comes life," because death was in Adam, and life in Christ. He next scoffs at the "tree," assailing it on two grounds, and saying, "For this reason is the tree introduced, either because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter by trade;" not observing that the tree of life is mentioned in the Mosaic writings, and being blind also to this, that in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

Ch. 37: Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this "tree of life" to give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his error upon this point, he adds: "If he had happened to be cast down a precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality." And again: "If the 'tree of life' were an invention, because he--Jesus-- (is reported) to have been a carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter, something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an iron of love." Now, who does not see at once the paltry nature of his charge, in thus calumniating men whom he professed to convert on the ground of their being deceived?

Celsus is making a (deliberately?) ridiculous argument here. I'm not sure what Origen would gain by saying something he knew to be false; he already has a legitimate point with the "tree of life" confusion. Given GMark's relative early scarcity, it's possible that the manuscripts Origen could access said "son of a carpenter" in Mark. He seems to have no issue calling him 'supposedly' the son of a carpenter (with the 'supposedly' due to the virgin birth, not Joseph's trade).

Here is the relevant portion of his commentary on Matthew 13:

17. The Brethren of Jesus.

And the saying, Whence has this man this wisdom,

Matthew 13:54
indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, lo, a greater than Solomon is here. Matthew 12:42 And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) is not this the carpenter's son?

Matthew 13:55
And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?

Matthew 13:55-56
They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19 And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James. Jude 1 With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, And His sisters are they not all with us,

Matthew 13:56
seems to me to signify something of this nature— they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others— the women— as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, How knows this man letters having never learned? John 7:15 which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.

[rogue06]

The claim is that "Jesus was never described as a carpenter in the Gospels" when he very clearly was.

While the Matthean version of the account (Matthew 13:54-56) has it "Is not this the carpenter’s son?" Mark records it as "Is not this the carpenter"

Interestingly, while it is generally assumed that "carpenter" isn't the best translation and that something like craftsman might be better suited (IIRC "construction worker" was in vogue for a time as well), one of the ECFs, Justin Martyr, wrote that Jesus had made plows and wooden yokes for oxen (something one of the later gnostic infancy gospels refer to).

As a final note, at various times I've heard speculation regarding Jesus having been a shepherd and/or fishermen given how often he alludes to those occupations.

[rogue06]

As a pirate, walking on water would be a handy skill. Also it means he probably knew many of the languages around the Mediterranean.

Àrr and Ar̥r is still Arr

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I take that to mean you answered without realizing that you tanked your own argument once again, but once you realized you did, you decided to pretend that wasn't what you really meant and it is MY fault for not understanding you.

It seems that OBP understood what I wrote.

I understood her to be affirming that the Gospel writers used the LXX, not necessarily Jesus himself.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

[/INDENT]

As opposed to

from less than 2 hours earlier.


Just sayin'

I understood her to be affirming that the Gospel writers used the LXX, not necessarily Jesus himself.

At least one person understood what I wrote and intended.

[Cow Poke]

It seems that OBP understood what I wrote.

He's different, so that's further proof!

[Cow Poke]

Àrr and Ar̥r is still Arr

What is it in Arrrrrramaic?

[tabibito]

MORE evidence!!!! This one FRAMED!

Another Joseph and Jesus.jpg

Jesus was framed?

[eider]

A brilliant researcher shouldn't have fallen at the first hurdle

Vermes face Jesus.jpg

Still, it's a common enough mistake, so I'll read on.

He was right in both cases.
The time line in G-John is horribly faked, and yet G-John's date of the crucifixion seems to be more correct.

[eider]

EGGzackly... While there's not a "thus sayeth the Lord" that Jesus was a carpenter, it's entirely logical that He was, at least as a boy.

Jesus was a Nagar, or Tekton (Greek) and as such could have been a worker in mediums like wood, bone, stone, etc..... There's absolutely no reason why Jesus could not have been making anchors on the Capernaum shoreline, might even have been thinking of that when he gave Simon the name 'Cephas'.

[eider]

I have rock solid photographic evidence!!!

dromn_66999__30952.jpg

If Joseph had gone to Nazareth so that he could work at Sepphoris in the reconstruction (there wasn't much other work for such as he, I reckon) then he might have been cutting the stones for that arch rather than woodworking.

[eider]

MORE evidence!!!! This one FRAMED!

Another Joseph and Jesus.jpg

Children would have worked from a very young age. Even the highest order of the peasants was very tough...... the farmers.