What did Jesus do whilst in Jerusalem and Temple on Sunday?........ or Monday?...... or Tuesday?

[oldbadger]

Many of us on Debating Christianity have read the gospels, maybe referring to them quite often.

Some time ago, whilst debating the life of Jesus with a Christian, I discovered that he didn't know what Jesus did in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday nor any of the first days of that last week. I didn't think much of it until it happened again, and then again, and again.

More recently, if Christians mentioned their knowledge of the gospels I would ask them what they thought that Jesus had done on Sunday, or Monday, etc. I never received a reply! Some might tell me how Jesus got to Jerusalem, or how he entered that city and all in splendid detail, but after that....... nothing.

And so, please would folks tell me what 'they think' Jesus did in Jerusalem and Temple during any of those days?

Me? My offering? My opinion and using modern speech, is that Jesus went sightseeing on Palm Sunday... that's what I think, and for those who wonder why I even bother to reason about that, my reply is that as a student of Historical Jesus that is most important.

OK? Over to you....... please...

[oldbadger]

So you both do not believe in a conversion experience?

Correct.

How then is one to explain that Paul wrote that the evangelium was preached to the whole world?

You've already been told that Paul was not interested in anything that Jesus said or did, so his evangelium is his spin.

That he knew the evangelium was preached also to the americas suggests he was told about what is written in Nephi III .
Jesus is said to have visited the Nephites between biblical ascension and appearance to Paul.

Oh yes? But he didn't know anout anything that Jesus ever said or did, as shown to you a few times on this thread, so I for one am not impressed by your claims.

So who else than Christ during his appearance on the road to damascus could have told Paul about Nephi III ?

I would prefer to spend my time researching what Jesus the man might have been, said and done during his brief campaign.
It always amazes me that folks who waffle on about 'Christ' and Christianity can't answer simple questions about what Jesus did; I tell you again that nobody apart from Transponder has been able to answer the most simple questions about Jesus, like 'What did he do in Jerusalem/Temple on Palm Sunday.

So your amazing knowledge about dreamed up incidents is of no interest.

...or have you discovered?.... what did Jesus do in the Great Temple on Palm Sunday?

[oldbadger]

I am not convinced. For one thing, Luke hasn't fitted Antipas into the story, he has used Antipas to change the story. Pilate's men didn't mock Jesus and knock him about, The Herodian's men did (we might look at that in detail). So the dodgy aspect established right away, the doubts about this happennng and nobody but the dubious Luke, already suspect in extensive alteration and addition, got to hear about it are valid ones, even if the Bible apologists can come up with excuses..

I think Luke's detail (about this) is agenda free, innocuous, without agenda, without any angles for Christianity.
Pilate's men DID knock Jesus about in Luke's account, thus:-
{23:15} No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. {23:16} I will therefore chastise
him, and release [him. ]{23:17} (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
.....all Herod's men did was send Jesus back to Pilate in a posh gown...this fits quite well.

Since nobody saw who bashed up Jesus or put on any gown, I rather think that Luke's account might be more accurate, and the matter is not particularly important for Christianity either way.
---------------------------------

You have mentioned that because only Luke mentioned this detail whereas others either didn't bother or know about it, it is dodgy. That is just not workable...... I don't usually fall back on analogy but this might help.:-...............
Barrister to Witness:- In your sworn statement you wrote on line 25 of the first page that the accused wore brown framed spectacles. I put it it to you that this is a complete fabrication intended to mislead the jury in to a wrongful conviction! How is it that no other witnesses have mentioned in their statements about these spectacles, yet they all watched the real killer shoot the victim? And this must surely lead the jury to discount everything else that you have claimed. How do you answer this?

Just because nobody else included a detail, this doesn't destroy that particular account that did mention it.
-------------------------------

By the way........... I don't clutch to this but it's just another possibility amongst many......
You are Pilate, you don't like the Priesthood and you did enjoy the embarrassment caused by the riots and picketing in the Temple during the previous Tuesday and Wednesday. You think that this rebel leader might be useful in some way but you have to appease a difficult bunch of priests who want to see an execution 'on the spot'. So you choose the (or some) other person, you have him whipped bloody, and you ensure that his face and features will be continuously bloody by the use of a thorn ring........ and you crucify that one, taking him down as soon as possible and getting him clear away. By getting another to carry the cross-beam all attention is directed upon that man and not the convict.

[TRANSPONDER]

I am not convinced. For one thing, Luke hasn't fitted Antipas into the story, he has used Antipas to change the story. Pilate's men didn't mock Jesus and knock him about, The Herodian's men did (we might look at that in detail). So the dodgy aspect established right away, the doubts about this happennng and nobody but the dubious Luke, already suspect in extensive alteration and addition, got to hear about it are valid ones, even if the Bible apologists can come up with excuses..

I think Luke's detail (about this) is agenda free, innocuous, without agenda, without any angles for Christianity.
Pilate's men DID knock Jesus about in Luke's account, thus:-
{23:15} No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him. {23:16} I will therefore chastise
him, and release [him. ]{23:17} (For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
.....all Herod's men did was send Jesus back to Pilate in a posh gown...this fits quite well.

Since nobody saw who bashed up Jesus or put on any gown, I rather think that Luke's account might be more accurate, and the matter is not particularly important for Christianity either way.
---------------------------------

You have mentioned that because only Luke mentioned this detail whereas others either didn't bother or know about it, it is dodgy. That is just not workable...... I don't usually fall back on analogy but this might help.:-...............
Barrister to Witness:- In your sworn statement you wrote on line 25 of the first page that the accused wore brown framed spectacles. I put it it to you that this is a complete fabrication intended to mislead the jury in to a wrongful conviction! How is it that no other witnesses have mentioned in their statements about these spectacles, yet they all watched the real killer shoot the victim? And this must surely lead the jury to discount everything else that you have claimed. How do you answer this?

Just because nobody else included a detail, this doesn't destroy that particular account that did mention it.
-------------------------------

By the way........... I don't clutch to this but it's just another possibility amongst many......
You are Pilate, you don't like the Priesthood and you did enjoy the embarrassment caused by the riots and picketing in the Temple during the previous Tuesday and Wednesday. You think that this rebel leader might be useful in some way but you have to appease a difficult bunch of priests who want to see an execution 'on the spot'. So you choose the (or some) other person, you have him whipped bloody, and you ensure that his face and features will be continuously bloody by the use of a thorn ring........ and you crucify that one, taking him down as soon as possible and getting him clear away. By getting another to carry the cross-beam all attention is directed upon that man and not the convict.

Thank you, I'll check that. No. If you read Luke 23. Pilate's soldiers do Nothing to Jesus. The mockery and dressing Jesus up in a purple robe is all done before Antipas before Jesus is sent back to Pilate and the knocking about by the Roman soldiers is gone. I don't think that it can be denied that Luke had shifted that episode and rewritten it to change the whole story, and of course, it's not the first time he does this. Agenda is what Luke is all about, as is the case with the whole NT

It would be interesting to check the references to the crown of thorns and there seems no reference in Luke to where that came from. But it only remains to theorise why Luke rewrote that passage. I propose that Luke wanted to get Rome off the hook not only of the crime of killing Jesus but of maltreating Jesus.

It's clear that Mark and Matthew do the beating up by the soldiers, the robe and crown of thorns ..hang on...yep, John as well makes it clear that Pilate's soldiers did all that and only Luke shifts that to Antipas. Arguing that nobody really could have seen anything of this (if I get you) is a valid point, but I'm talking about what the gospels actually say, whether or not one believes them. I will also point to what the gospels actually say rather than revert to the rather over - used analogy of a slight discrepancy in a court case. I should leave that one to the Bible apologists. My point is not only workable but pretty inescapable. We have a pretty glaring example of Luke altering the story and text there and it would get his testimony slung into the street and him with it.

I don't agree that relations were bad between Pilate and the priesthood. Caiaphas was High Priest all through Pilate's long term of office, until Pilate was recalled in 35 AD as I recall. This must mean that Pilate and Caiaphas dealt very well together. The Sadducees who ran the Temple (mostly) were rich, aristocratic and educated and tended to be sympathetic towards the Roman administration. It was rather the Pharisees, larger, more populist and not well disposed towards the Romans that provided your zealots, rebels and insurrectionists, ever since the Maccabean revolt and right up to Bar Kochba.

I would argue that It was the Pharisee populist element that demonstrated when Pilate used the Temple funds to build an aqueduct. I see no indication that Caiaphas raised any objection to that. No, I see no reason outside of the Gospels wanting to make Pilate blameless and put the blame onto the Priests to suggest that Pilate and Caiaphas were on bad terms. Also I gather (from Josephus) that it was Pilate's job to keep the peace at festivals (when apparently public disturbances broke out) and his job was to prevent disturbances, even if he rather enjoyed them. I see no reason to suppose that he liked seeing the Sanhedrin embarrassed. Effectively they were a part of the Roman administration and a cordial working relationship with them was the key to provincial government in that tricky province.

[oldbadger]

Thank you, I'll check that. No. If you read Luke 23. Pilate's soldiers do Nothing to Jesus. The mockery and dressing Jesus up in a purple robe is all done before Antipas before Jesus is sent back to Pilate and the knocking about by the Roman soldiers is gone. I don't think that it can be denied that Luke had shifted that episode and rewritten it to change the whole story, and of course, it's not the first time he does this. Agenda is what Luke is all about, as is the case with the whole NT

It would be interesting to check the references to the crown of thorns and there seems no reference in Luke to where that came from. But it only remains to theorise why Luke rewrote that passage. I propose that Luke wanted to get Rome off the hook not only of the crime of killing Jesus but of maltreating Jesus.

It's clear that Mark and Matthew do the beating up by the soldiers, the robe and crown of thorns ..hang on...yep, John as well makes it clear that Pilate's soldiers did all that and only Luke shifts that to Antipas. Arguing that nobody really could have seen anything of this (if I get you) is a valid point, but I'm talking about what the gospels actually say, whether or not one believes them. I will also point to what the gospels actually say rather than revert to the rather over - used analogy of a slight discrepancy in a court case. I should leave that one to the Bible apologists. My point is not only workable but pretty inescapable. We have a pretty glaring example of Luke altering the story and text there and it would get his testimony slung into the street and him with it.

I don't agree that relations were bad between Pilate and the priesthood. Caiaphas was High Priest all through Pilate's long term of office, until Pilate was recalled in 35 AD as I recall. This must mean that Pilate and Caiaphas dealt very well together. The Sadducees who ran the Temple (mostly) were rich, aristocratic and educated and tended to be sympathetic towards the Roman administration. It was rather the Pharisees, larger, more populist and not well disposed towards the Romans that provided your zealots, rebels and insurrectionists, ever since the Maccabean revolt and right up to Bar Kochba.

I would argue that It was the Pharisee populist element that demonstrated when Pilate used the Temple funds to build an aqueduct. I see no indication that Caiaphas raised any objection to that. No, I see no reason outside of the Gospels wanting to make Pilate blameless and put the blame onto the Priests to suggest that Pilate and Caiaphas were on bad terms. Also I gather (from Josephus) that it was Pilate's job to keep the peace at festivals (when apparently public disturbances broke out) and his job was to prevent disturbances, even if he rather enjoyed them. I see no reason to suppose that he liked seeing the Sanhedrin embarrassed. Effectively they were a part of the Roman administration and a cordial working relationship with them was the key to provincial government in that tricky province.

I agree that the Priesthood was fat, greedy, Hellenised and corrupt bunch of quislings(my version of what you suggest), but Pilate was a Roman officer and the bottom line was that the whole priesthood was just a bunch of foreigners that he had to control. And Antipas was just another. They didn't so much as get on but get by, is my feeling.

Luke altering the story............ yes, of course he did, as did Matthew and to a greater extent John's outrageous stretch. But you've selected a report within Luke which doesn't affect Christianity in any way, so I don't really see why you are so focused upon Jesus meeting Antipas. Christianity stretched so far away from Jesus the man who tried to build a rebellion over 12 months and failed .... to the son of the only God who came to Earth, that whether Pilate's Roman or Herod's Jewish soldiers ................. Hang on...... stop press.

What do you think of that? Is there anything there? Christianity often points at nasty Rome for hurting Jesus, but it also points at Judaism for seeking his death. G-John definitely makes 'the Jews' the insidious scheming, treacherous foe, and I stop to wonder how much (if any) difference there might be to Roman soldiers or Jewish soldiers whipping torturing and ridiculing Jesus.

I need to think about that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you, I'll check that. No. If you read Luke 23. Pilate's soldiers do Nothing to Jesus. The mockery and dressing Jesus up in a purple robe is all done before Antipas before Jesus is sent back to Pilate and the knocking about by the Roman soldiers is gone. I don't think that it can be denied that Luke had shifted that episode and rewritten it to change the whole story, and of course, it's not the first time he does this. Agenda is what Luke is all about, as is the case with the whole NT

It would be interesting to check the references to the crown of thorns and there seems no reference in Luke to where that came from. But it only remains to theorise why Luke rewrote that passage. I propose that Luke wanted to get Rome off the hook not only of the crime of killing Jesus but of maltreating Jesus.

It's clear that Mark and Matthew do the beating up by the soldiers, the robe and crown of thorns ..hang on...yep, John as well makes it clear that Pilate's soldiers did all that and only Luke shifts that to Antipas. Arguing that nobody really could have seen anything of this (if I get you) is a valid point, but I'm talking about what the gospels actually say, whether or not one believes them. I will also point to what the gospels actually say rather than revert to the rather over - used analogy of a slight discrepancy in a court case. I should leave that one to the Bible apologists. My point is not only workable but pretty inescapable. We have a pretty glaring example of Luke altering the story and text there and it would get his testimony slung into the street and him with it.

I don't agree that relations were bad between Pilate and the priesthood. Caiaphas was High Priest all through Pilate's long term of office, until Pilate was recalled in 35 AD as I recall. This must mean that Pilate and Caiaphas dealt very well together. The Sadducees who ran the Temple (mostly) were rich, aristocratic and educated and tended to be sympathetic towards the Roman administration. It was rather the Pharisees, larger, more populist and not well disposed towards the Romans that provided your zealots, rebels and insurrectionists, ever since the Maccabean revolt and right up to Bar Kochba.

I would argue that It was the Pharisee populist element that demonstrated when Pilate used the Temple funds to build an aqueduct. I see no indication that Caiaphas raised any objection to that. No, I see no reason outside of the Gospels wanting to make Pilate blameless and put the blame onto the Priests to suggest that Pilate and Caiaphas were on bad terms. Also I gather (from Josephus) that it was Pilate's job to keep the peace at festivals (when apparently public disturbances broke out) and his job was to prevent disturbances, even if he rather enjoyed them. I see no reason to suppose that he liked seeing the Sanhedrin embarrassed. Effectively they were a part of the Roman administration and a cordial working relationship with them was the key to provincial government in that tricky province.

I agree that the Priesthood was fat, greedy, Hellenised and corrupt bunch of quislings(my version of what you suggest), but Pilate was a Roman officer and the bottom line was that the whole priesthood was just a bunch of foreigners that he had to control. And Antipas was just another. They didn't so much as get on but get by, is my feeling.

Luke altering the story............ yes, of course he did, as did Matthew and to a greater extent John's outrageous stretch. But you've selected a report within Luke which doesn't affect Christianity in any way, so I don't really see why you are so focused upon Jesus meeting Antipas. Christianity stretched so far away from Jesus the man who tried to build a rebellion over 12 months and failed .... to the son of the only God who came to Earth, that whether Pilate's Roman or Herod's Jewish soldiers ................. Hang on...... stop press.

What do you think of that? Is there anything there? Christianity often points at nasty Rome for hurting Jesus, but it also points at Judaism for seeking his death. G-John definitely makes 'the Jews' the insidious scheming, treacherous foe, and I stop to wonder how much (if any) difference there might be to Roman soldiers or Jewish soldiers whipping torturing and ridiculing Jesus.

I need to think about that.

Certainly, in former debates, I saw (in Josephus) hints that the Sadducee - run Sanhedrin were by way of a ruling family (1) that were running Jerusalem under Roman patronage, and they would see off any elected priest who took that Temple control away. Just my suspicions. But the fact is that Caiphas was appointed by Pilate's predecessor and he and Pilate ran Jerusalem from around 18 AD to Pilate's recall in 35. That is a long period of co -operation. They may have been Roman Quizlings, but they and the Romans provincial government worked together. Antipas... well I don't want a long discussion. but after his brother deposed and Judea annexed, Antipas was allowed to rule as a client king, just as Herod had done. I'm not sure how much Rome was involved. Antipas had his own army, fought his wars. I don't think he paid taxes to Rome, and who profited (Roman subsidies or Antipas' tribute) Antipas lasted longer as a ruler than Archelaus did. But anyway, the point is that the Luke discrepancy is just another example of Gospel - fiddling. It's the basis of the debate: whether the discrepancies are just what different witnesses knew or whether they are made up tall stories that debunk their narrative. Given that the Biggies cannot be explained away, the middies like the death or Judas or the figtree discrepancy and this Antipas involvement anomaly, it's a basic debate - whether the Gospels are credible history even with the differences, or whether we can see fabrication. I have no doubt, but others can roll with the excuses, waving away contradictions, weaving together a hanging and falling headlong (just make something up) or just playing the Faith card. But I am working on Faith too, that people don't like to be fooled and they will see through a trick when it's been shown and the truth will out in the end. Till then I must try top peddle my pet theory to anyone who will listen

The point (I have to say a misdirection) that the involvement of Antipas (etc.) doesn't directly affect Christianity (dogma or doctrine). That's not the point. If iis a middling clue that discredits another bit of the narrative, in the end, the whole story fails and Christianity fails with it. As anything more than just another religion built up on a Myth.

As to your point about Gospel antipathy, I am sure (but others may not be) that what we have here is Greek Christian Jew -hatred. It was an ongoing hate in Roman times even before Christianity. Paul's railing at Jews who disputed his teachings became (in the hands of Greek Christians) hatred of Jews for Denying Christ, and the stock smears of being corrupt, venial, and wicked are more to do with propaganda than with reliable reporting. I have already pointed out that David and the shewbread would never get past any Jew who knew his stuff and is an apologetic aimed at persuading the Christian (or potential Christian) reader.

Now of course, in any country there are saints and sinners and Antipas' soldiers are as capable of dishing out some tough love as much as Pilate's Auxiliaries or for that matter the Sanhedrin temple police. But the point is, did they? It is the question of - has Luke shifted the knocking about from the Praetorium to the Herodian palace? If so isn't it just another example of Luke fiddling the gospels? And if so, does it matter? Can we still credit the general gospel story? I say, no, we can't. Not if we're honest.

(1) the Boethius clan, with Annas as the patriarch and Caiaphas married into it.

[oldbadger]

Certainly, in former debates, I saw (in Josephus) hints that the Sadducee - run Sanhedrin were by way of a ruling family (1) that were running Jerusalem under Roman patronage, and they would see off any elected priest who took that Temple control away. Just my suspicions. But the fact is that Caiphas was appointed by Pilate's predecessor and he and Pilate ran Jerusalem from around 18 AD to Pilate's recall in 35. That is a long period of co -operation. They may have been Roman Quizlings, but they and the Romans provincial government worked together.

All the Temple priests (about 2000), all the Temple guards (about 6000) and all of these people with other occupations as well....... all were from the Levite clan. Closed shop to any others. But if your family was a very powerful and dangerous bunch and if Rome chose to elevate it to royalty then you could jump above even the Levites..... the Herods.

Antipas... well I don't want a long discussion. but after his brother deposed and Judea annexed, Antipas was allowed to rule as a client king, just as Herod had done. I'm not sure how much Rome was involved. Antipas had his own army, fought his wars. I don't think he paid taxes to Rome, and who profited (Roman subsidies or Antipas' tribute) Antipas lasted longer as a ruler than Archelaus did.

I don't think you've got that right. Antipas, Philip, Archelaus and a sister were all given provinces to rule after their father died, all at the same time.
Antipas never had any control over Idumea, Judea or Samaria, control of these provinces being handed to the Roman prefect. Antipas flowed money back to Rome through taxation from his people and tributes.

But anyway, the point is that the Luke discrepancy is just another example of Gospel - fiddling. It's the basis of the debate: whether the discrepancies are just what different witnesses knew or whether they are made up tall stories that debunk their narrative. Given that the Biggies cannot be explained away, the middies like the death or Judas or the figtree discrepancy and this Antipas involvement anomaly, it's a basic debate - whether the Gospels are credible history even with the differences, or whether we can see fabrication. I have no doubt, but others can roll with the excuses, waving away contradictions, weaving together a hanging and falling headlong (just make something up) or just playing the Faith card. But I am working on Faith too, that people don't like to be fooled and they will see through a trick when it's been shown and the truth will out in the end. Till then I must try top peddle my pet theory to anyone who will listen

Just because the gospels are riddled with fiddles, this doesn't mean that there is no true account within them. As with G-John and G-Matthew, G-Luke was built from spiritual spin, manipulated prophetic fruits, the whole Christian thing, but that there were accounts, reports and anecdotes with truth I have no doubts.
You mention the death of Judas... the idea that a hard nosed ex killer, taxman, swindler, cheat and grass could suddenly feel such guilt that he would return a bag of silver and commit suicide just doesn't click in the same way that this guy bought a field and had an accidental death in it..it may be that that account (was it in Acts?) was in fact a way of explaining that he was murdered in his field. Imagine that a mafia type person was explaining that death...... he bought a field and unfortunately fell over in it!!! I know which I take more notice of. I won't chuck out all versions just because some are obvious junk.

The point (I have to say a misdirection) that the involvement of Antipas (etc.) doesn't directly affect Christianity (dogma or doctrine). That's not the point. If iis a middling clue that discredits another bit of the narrative, in the end, the whole story fails and Christianity fails with it. As anything more than just another religion built up on a Myth.

I'm not interested in supporting or crushing Christianity so much as discovering HJ.

As to your point about Gospel antipathy, I am sure (but others may not be) that what we have here is Greek Christian Jew -hatred. It was an ongoing hate in Roman times even before Christianity. Paul's railing at Jews who disputed his teachings became (in the hands of Greek Christians) hatred of Jews for Denying Christ, and the stock smears of being corrupt, venial, and wicked are more to do with propaganda than with reliable reporting. I have already pointed out that David and the shewbread would never get past any Jew who knew his stuff and is an apologetic aimed at persuading the Christian (or potential Christian) reader.

Yes........ Romans would buy Christianity more easily if they could keep their existing bigotries, some Gods, some traditions.
Christianity reversed itself in to every community that it could. The Brit version of Christianity is riddled with earlier beliefs and superstitions, and many church sites stand upon ancient meeting places.

Now of course, in any country there are saints and sinners and Antipas' soldiers are as capable of dishing out some tough love as much as Pilate's Auxiliaries or for that matter the Sanhedrin temple police. But the point is, did they? It is the question of - has Luke shifted the knocking about from the Praetorium to the Herodian palace? If so isn't it just another example of Luke fiddling the gospels? And if so, does it matter? Can we still credit the general gospel story? I say, no, we can't. Not if we're honest.

(1) the Boethius clan, with Annas as the patriarch and Caiaphas married into it.

I can't see any deep conspiracy or agenda within Luke's report of Antipas interviewing Jesus. It may be a true anecdote on the side of Luke's main story.

[TRANSPONDER]

Certainly, in former debates, I saw (in Josephus) hints that the Sadducee - run Sanhedrin were by way of a ruling family (1) that were running Jerusalem under Roman patronage, and they would see off any elected priest who took that Temple control away. Just my suspicions. But the fact is that Caiphas was appointed by Pilate's predecessor and he and Pilate ran Jerusalem from around 18 AD to Pilate's recall in 35. That is a long period of co -operation. They may have been Roman Quizlings, but they and the Romans provincial government worked together.

quote=oldbadger the Temple priests (about 2000), all the Temple guards (about 6000) and all of these people with other occupations as well....... all were from the Levite clan. Closed shop to any others. But if your family was a very powerful and dangerous bunch and if Rome chose to elevate it to royalty then you could jump above even the Levites..... the Herods.

I'd be interested in your source for the numbers and background of the Levites. That's obviously very important for putting the Holy Week into context.Too often the Gospels are understood as a sort of Mystery play with Jesus spouting his lines while scriptsmacking a bunch of stage villains to make him look good.

Antipas... well I don't want a long discussion. but after his brother deposed and Judea annexed, Antipas was allowed to rule as a client king, just as Herod had done. I'm not sure how much Rome was involved. Antipas had his own army, fought his wars. I don't think he paid taxes to Rome, and who profited (Roman subsidies or Antipas' tribute) Antipas lasted longer as a ruler than Archelaus did.

quote=oldbadger don't think you've got that right. Antipas, Philip, Archelaus and a sister were all given provinces to rule after their father died, all at the same time.
Antipas never had any control over Idumea, Judea or Samaria, control of these provinces being handed to the Roman prefect. Antipas flowed money back to Rome through taxation from his people and tributes.

True, Herod's sons (and the Herodian tetrarchess) ruled over split up 'Israel' after Herod died and Antipas got Galilee and also Peraea on the Nabatean border. That was wear the war broke out and was when Aretas took Damascus, which Paul had to escape (36/7 according to numismatic negative evidence). This is significant as Peraea was a place outside of Roman rule but was politically sensitive for Antipas. This is supported by Josephus, so it gas to be given weight. It's also interesting that Bethsaida (where the loaves and fishes thing happened) looks like it was in the Tetrarchy of Philip, so again is was outside of both Roman rule and that of Antipas..

But anyway, the point is that the Luke discrepancy is just another example of Gospel - fiddling. It's the basis of the debate: whether the discrepancies are just what different witnesses knew or whether they are made up tall stories that debunk their narrative. Given that the Biggies cannot be explained away, the middies like the death or Judas or the figtree discrepancy and this Antipas involvement anomaly, it's a basic debate - whether the Gospels are credible history even with the differences, or whether we can see fabrication. I have no doubt, but others can roll with the excuses, waving away contradictions, weaving together a hanging and falling headlong (just make something up) or just playing the Faith card. But I am working on Faith too, that people don't like to be fooled and they will see through a trick when it's been shown and the truth will out in the end. Till then I must try top peddle my pet theory to anyone who will listen

quote=oldbadger because the gospels are riddled with fiddles, this doesn't mean that there is no true account within them. As with G-John and G-Matthew, G-Luke was built from spiritual spin, manipulated prophetic fruits, the whole Christian thing, but that there were accounts, reports and anecdotes with truth I have no doubts.
You mention the death of Judas... the idea that a hard nosed ex killer, taxman, swindler, cheat and grass could suddenly feel such guilt that he would return a bag of silver and commit suicide just doesn't click in the same way that this guy bought a field and had an accidental death in it..it may be that that account (was it in Acts?) was in fact a way of explaining that he was murdered in his field. Imagine that a mafia type person was explaining that death...... he bought a field and unfortunately fell over in it!!! I know which I take more notice of. I won't chuck out all versions just because some are obvious junk.

Well, that's the debate isn't it? Is there a true story at bottom even if one dismisses some or all of the discrepancies? I'm in two minds but I lean towards a real Jesus, but if so, a Jewish, Pharisee messiah of the zealot persuasion, rather than a proto-Christian reformer targeting Priestly corruption. Because that's what we are left with if all the fiddling and contradictions are removed. But we do have to credit stuff like Lazarus and propose that it was left out because it looked too fake. Which has never bothered anyone since the Bible was issued as State dogma by Constantine.if so,

The point (I have to say a misdirection) that the involvement of Antipas (etc.) doesn't directly affect Christianity (dogma or doctrine). That's not the point. If iis a middling clue that discredits another bit of the narrative, in the end, the whole story fails and Christianity fails with it. As anything more than just another religion built up on a Myth.

quote=oldbadger not interested in supporting or crushing Christianity so much as discovering HJ.

It's a bit like Archaeology for me. I want to know just how that amazing stonework was done by the Incas and Egyptians. That we have this annoying 'Alien advanced technology' thing spun off from Daaniken is something that I would prefer to see reduced to a few believers who don't spread their misinformation to the public mind. I feel the same about religion. I want to see all the public wised up and taking social power away from religion, so no atheists are jailed or thrashed in public or no crazies are given political posts because they swear they love the Bible.

As to your point about Gospel antipathy, I am sure (but others may not be) that what we have here is Greek Christian Jew -hatred. It was an ongoing hate in Roman times even before Christianity. Paul's railing at Jews who disputed his teachings became (in the hands of Greek Christians) hatred of Jews for Denying Christ, and the stock smears of being corrupt, venial, and wicked are more to do with propaganda than with reliable reporting. I have already pointed out that David and the shewbread would never get past any Jew who knew his stuff and is an apologetic aimed at persuading the Christian (or potential Christian) reader.

quote=oldbadger ........ Romans would buy Christianity more easily if they could keep their existing bigotries, some Gods, some traditions.
Christianity reversed itself in to every community that it could. The Brit version of Christianity is riddled with earlier beliefs and superstitions, and many church sites stand upon ancient meeting places.

Yes, Men make gods in their own image. It's interesting to see how different cultures adapted (and even rewrote) religion to suit their own socio -political needs. I'm glad you mentioned this as I was toying with the near joke of 'Buddy Jesus'. Originally Roman Jesus was shown as a youthful blond god and I will bet that the later long haired deep eyed Jesus is derived from Byzantine art - which influenced the medieval. And apart from his briefly becoming a blonde -bearded blue - eyed Saxon, Jesus has now become (rather like ETs - thanks to the film- are now known by everyone to be 'Greys') iconically with long dark hair and beard, with the grinning thumbs up rebranding (rather than the pitiful martyred - eyed depiction) being a bit of a joke.

Now of course, in any country there are saints and sinners and Antipas' soldiers are as capable of dishing out some tough love as much as Pilate's Auxiliaries or for that matter the Sanhedrin temple police. But the point is, did they? It is the question of - has Luke shifted the knocking about from the Praetorium to the Herodian palace? If so isn't it just another example of Luke fiddling the gospels? And if so, does it matter? Can we still credit the general gospel story? I say, no, we can't. Not if we're honest.

(1) the Boethius clan, with Annas as the patriarch and Caiaphas married into it.

quote=oldbadger can't see any deep conspiracy or agenda within Luke's report of Antipas interviewing Jesus. It may be a true anecdote on the side of Luke's main story.

I can or there is no reason to do it. The fact is that the mocking and knocking about has been shifted from Rome to Jews. That's the agenda all along - to excuse Rome and blame it on the Jews.

[oldbadger]

True, Herod's sons (and the Herodian tetrarchess) ruled over split up 'Israel' after Herod died and Antipas got Galilee and also Peraea on the Nabatean border. That was wear the war broke out and was when Aretas took Damascus, which Paul had to escape (36/7 according to numismatic negative evidence). This is significant as Peraea was a place outside of Roman rule but was politically sensitive for Antipas. This is supported by Josephus, so it gas to be given weight. It's also interesting that Bethsaida (where the loaves and fishes thing happened) looks like it was in the Tetrarchy of Philip, so again is was outside of both Roman rule and that of Antipas..

Yes.... only the provinces previously ruled by Archelaus were governed by a Roman Prefect. All others were ruled by Herods. Minor point.... Archelaus had not been a tetrarch but a 'half-king' because Idumea, Samaria and Judea held about half the whole population. Only Philip and Antipas held the title 'Tetrarch'..... I read that so long ago, it would take all day to find a source in my files.
I don't tend to follow the history of Israel/Palestine after Jesus.

Well, that's the debate isn't it? Is there a true story at bottom even if one dismisses some or all of the discrepancies? I'm in two minds but I lean towards a real Jesus, but if so, a Jewish, Pharisee messiah of the zealot persuasion, rather than a proto-Christian reformer targeting Priestly corruption. Because that's what we are left with if all the fiddling and contradictions are removed. But we do have to credit stuff like Lazarus and propose that it was left out because it looked too fake. Which has never bothered anyone since the Bible was issued as State dogma by Constantine.if so,

I don't perceive Jesus as being any kind of Pharisee any more than the Baptist was. These people acted against Temple corruption.... that's how I see it.
Lazarus? I haven't got a single page or file holding anything about Lazarus.
But shredding out the dogma, bulldust and waffle doesn't leave us with very much.

It's a bit like Archaeology for me. I want to know just how that amazing stonework was done by the Incas and Egyptians. That we have this annoying 'Alien advanced technology' thing spun off from Daaniken is something that I would prefer to see reduced to a few believers who don't spread their misinformation to the public mind. I feel the same about religion. I want to see all the public wised up and taking social power away from religion, so no atheists are jailed or thrashed in public or no crazies are given political posts because they swear they love the Bible.

Ah, yes..... there are churches, big churches, in the USA that believe in a country ruled by Judges with cherry-picked OT laws and sentences for (painful) public execution, a theocracy so terrible that anything before would look quite reasonable by comparison. A Pastor who recently died of Covid, Pastor Bob Enyart, drew up a Theocracy for the USA. If you research such a proposal you might be struck with shock. True.
But I visit an extreme atheist forum where the regulars are so fanatical that they might be even worse, if in charge of a country.
Extremism is very dangerous, however found.

Yes, Men make gods in their own image. It's interesting to see how different cultures adapted (and even rewrote) religion to suit their own socio -political needs. I'm glad you mentioned this as I was toying with the near joke of 'Buddy Jesus'. Originally Roman Jesus was shown as a youthful blond god and I will bet that the later long haired deep eyed Jesus is derived from Byzantine art - which influenced the medieval. And apart from his briefly becoming a blonde -bearded blue - eyed Saxon, Jesus has now become (rather like ETs - thanks to the film- are now known by everyone to be 'Greys') iconically with long dark hair and beard, with the grinning thumbs up rebranding (rather than the pitiful martyred - eyed depiction) being a bit of a joke.

Agreed! If you research 'effeminate Jesus' you will find that early Roman effigies of him were delicate, sweet, gentle, long haired, etc..... until Mary could fulfil various needs.
But in Britain, many of our churches have effigies from past religions, superstitions, etc around and to be found. They are full of previous superstition, taboo, and more.

I can or there is no reason to do it. The fact is that the mocking and knocking about has been shifted from Rome to Jews. That's the agenda all along - to excuse Rome and blame it on the Jews.

Good point. G-John's tale is about sneaking, plotting, insidious, nasty....... Jews.

[TRANSPONDER]

True, Herod's sons (and the Herodian tetrarchess) ruled over split up 'Israel' after Herod died and Antipas got Galilee and also Peraea on the Nabatean border. That was wear the war broke out and was when Aretas took Damascus, which Paul had to escape (36/7 according to numismatic negative evidence). This is significant as Peraea was a place outside of Roman rule but was politically sensitive for Antipas. This is supported by Josephus, so it gas to be given weight. It's also interesting that Bethsaida (where the loaves and fishes thing happened) looks like it was in the Tetrarchy of Philip, so again is was outside of both Roman rule and that of Antipas..

Yes.... only the provinces previously ruled by Archelaus were governed by a Roman Prefect. All others were ruled by Herods. Minor point.... Archelaus had not been a tetrarch but a 'half-king' because Idumea, Samaria and Judea held about half the whole population. Only Philip and Antipas held the title 'Tetrarch'..... I read that so long ago, it would take all day to find a source in my files.
I don't tend to follow the history of Israel/Palestine after Jesus.

Well, that's the debate isn't it? Is there a true story at bottom even if one dismisses some or all of the discrepancies? I'm in two minds but I lean towards a real Jesus, but if so, a Jewish, Pharisee messiah of the zealot persuasion, rather than a proto-Christian reformer targeting Priestly corruption. Because that's what we are left with if all the fiddling and contradictions are removed. But we do have to credit stuff like Lazarus and propose that it was left out because it looked too fake. Which has never bothered anyone since the Bible was issued as State dogma by Constantine.if so,

I don't perceive Jesus as being any kind of Pharisee any more than the Baptist was. These people acted against Temple corruption.... that's how I see it.
Lazarus? I haven't got a single page or file holding anything about Lazarus.
But shredding out the dogma, bulldust and waffle doesn't leave us with very much.

It's a bit like Archaeology for me. I want to know just how that amazing stonework was done by the Incas and Egyptians. That we have this annoying 'Alien advanced technology' thing spun off from Daaniken is something that I would prefer to see reduced to a few believers who don't spread their misinformation to the public mind. I feel the same about religion. I want to see all the public wised up and taking social power away from religion, so no atheists are jailed or thrashed in public or no crazies are given political posts because they swear they love the Bible.

Ah, yes..... there are churches, big churches, in the USA that believe in a country ruled by Judges with cherry-picked OT laws and sentences for (painful) public execution, a theocracy so terrible that anything before would look quite reasonable by comparison. A Pastor who recently died of Covid, Pastor Bob Enyart, drew up a Theocracy for the USA. If you research such a proposal you might be struck with shock. True.
But I visit an extreme atheist forum where the regulars are so fanatical that they might be even worse, if in charge of a country.
Extremism is very dangerous, however found.

Yes, Men make gods in their own image. It's interesting to see how different cultures adapted (and even rewrote) religion to suit their own socio -political needs. I'm glad you mentioned this as I was toying with the near joke of 'Buddy Jesus'. Originally Roman Jesus was shown as a youthful blond god and I will bet that the later long haired deep eyed Jesus is derived from Byzantine art - which influenced the medieval. And apart from his briefly becoming a blonde -bearded blue - eyed Saxon, Jesus has now become (rather like ETs - thanks to the film- are now known by everyone to be 'Greys') iconically with long dark hair and beard, with the grinning thumbs up rebranding (rather than the pitiful martyred - eyed depiction) being a bit of a joke.

Agreed! If you research 'effeminate Jesus' you will find that early Roman effigies of him were delicate, sweet, gentle, long haired, etc..... until Mary could fulfil various needs.
But in Britain, many of our churches have effigies from past religions, superstitions, etc around and to be found. They are full of previous superstition, taboo, and more.

I can or there is no reason to do it. The fact is that the mocking and knocking about has been shifted from Rome to Jews. That's the agenda all along - to excuse Rome and blame it on the Jews.

Good point. G-John's tale is about sneaking, plotting, insidious, nasty....... Jews.

Ok, Point noted that Archaelaus was not called a 'Tetrarch'. And I certainly do see Jesus as being in the Pharisee fold, even if one credits the Gospels sayings at all. He might have been criticising and revising from within, but Pharisee is where he was. Why else would he frequent the synagogue every Saturday? Why the disputing with the teachers of the law? That's even without the constant hints that he was the zealot - leaning type of Pharisee, too. But that requires rejection of the Christian overpainting of any Real Jesus with a Jew -hating, Gentile preferential proto Christian created pretty much in their own image.

Lazarus....to long to go into here. But deleting (Just to see what's left) all the serious contradictions to see what the Common original was for all four, and we get the basics:

Jesus went to join John's reform baptising.
He took over the Mission after John was arrested and Executed
He went to Bethsaida and fed 5,000 men. Not to mention women and children (yes ALL the Galilee material goes before then)
He went to Peraea, the old Baptising place.
Then to Bethany, Donkey ride and temple fracas. Probably anointing beforehand.
Last supper, Gethsemane and arrest, (Peter's denial may be common material) trial, Pilate being coerced into executing Jesus.
Crucifixion, Arimathea put Jesus in the tomb. Friday as the next day is the Sabbath.
The day after (Sunday) The women find the tomb open and empty.

And that is your lot. Anything else I think is arguable and added individual or shared material. It's what - 10% of the gospel dogpile, but it's a solid basic story.

Yes, the pretty young Gaulish Gentile Jesus rather familiar from Arianist Lombard Churches was replaced by the Byzantine persecuted Martyr. Though I still find it funny how he was replaced in Victorian to Edwardian Englansd with a blue - eyes Saxon with a blond beard. Who says race -changing of cultural Icons is anything new in socio -political propaganda?

Speaking of which, it's up to us to look to our freedoms, and be careful where we put our vote. There are those who would force their Ism, of one extreme or the other, upon us, and use any and all media to do it, if we let them. And I'm going to say it - in the US it is religion is the Key, in the UK it is racism. Appeal to xenophobia is a sure vote -winner. In the US give something a Religious -shibboleth status and you have the support of half the country for granted.

But never mind that, but back to the borrowed religious Iconography. I'm much diverted by how much the Mary and child Icon is identifiably and directly derived from the Isis and Horus icon. The most fascinating evidence was a Ptolemaic paining (Alexandria) of Horus and Isis, but in Greek dress. And any Christian would immediately say 'Mary and Jesus' except they hadn't happened yet. To add a bit of extra weight, Isis was called 'the star of the sea' - Stella Maris in Latin. Taken over and applied to Jesus mother, without permission or compensation. Which is pretty much how Christianity operated. Obliterate the opposition.

[oldbadger]

Ok, Point noted that Archaelaus was not called a 'Tetrarch'. And I certainly do see Jesus as being in the Pharisee fold, even if one credits the Gospels sayings at all. He might have been criticising and revising from within, but Pharisee is where he was. Why else would he frequent the synagogue every Saturday? Why the disputing with the teachers of the law? That's even without the constant hints that he was the zealot - leaning type of Pharisee, too. But that requires rejection of the Christian overpainting of any Real Jesus with a Jew -hating, Gentile preferential proto Christian created pretty much in their own image.

Do you have a source which suggests that he visited a synagogue every Saturday? But if he did then he was going with his friends, and they weren't Pharisees either.
Jesus didn't seem to have much time for Pharisees, he was more at home with boatmen and publicans, I think.
Jesus was campaigning against a very corrupted Priesthood.... a rebel, as was the Baptist.

Lazarus....to long to go into here. But deleting (Just to see what's left) all the serious contradictions to see what the Common original was for all four, and we get the basics:

Jesus went to join John's reform baptising.
He took over the Mission after John was arrested and Executed
He went to Bethsaida and fed 5,000 men. Not to mention women and children (yes ALL the Galilee material goes before then)
He went to Peraea, the old Baptising place.
Then to Bethany, Donkey ride and temple fracas. Probably anointing beforehand.
Last supper, Gethsemane and arrest, (Peter's denial may be common material) trial, Pilate being coerced into executing Jesus.
Crucifixion, Arimathea put Jesus in the tomb. Friday as the next day is the Sabbath.
The day after (Sunday) The women find the tomb open and empty.

And that is your lot. Anything else I think is arguable and added individual or shared material. It's what - 10% of the gospel dogpile, but it's a solid basic story.

OK...... so an 11-12 month timeline, but you focused closely upon a feast near Bethsaida while overlooking a huge attempt to gather support with the disciples (in pairs) travelling throughout Galilee...... and failing. It's after all that that Jesus tries to gather a massive following in Jerusalem....the end.

Yes, the pretty young Gaulish Gentile Jesus rather familiar from Arianist Lombard Churches was replaced by the Byzantine persecuted Martyr. Though I still find it funny how he was replaced in Victorian to Edwardian Englansd with a blue - eyes Saxon with a blond beard. Who says race -changing of cultural Icons is anything new in socio -political propaganda?

Any reference to Victorian Christianity makes me feel sick. Dickens describes the filthy corruption perfectly in Great Expectations. I sometimes think that humans are absolutely the worst lifeform around. The corruption and hypocrisy, the greed and carelessness, no different in Victorian (or any other) times than back in the early first century in Palestine. The trouble is that government in an atheist nation doesn't develop too well either. I must be in a 'humanity sucks' mood this morning!

Speaking of which, it's up to us to look to our freedoms, and be careful where we put our vote. There are those who would force their Ism, of one extreme or the other, upon us, and use any and all media to do it, if we let them. And I'm going to say it - in the US it is religion is the Key, in the UK it is racism. Appeal to xenophobia is a sure vote -winner. In the US give something a Religious -shibboleth status and you have the support of half the country for granted.

Yes. I think you've got that about right. In the UK we are pushing hard to reduce racism but it's being replaced by so many other bigotries. I notice that in Western countries the new fashion is to strut academic success and intelligence quotients. Humanity finds levels in every possible way.

But never mind that, but back to the borrowed religious Iconography. I'm much diverted by how much the Mary and child Icon is identifiably and directly derived from the Isis and Horus icon. The most fascinating evidence was a Ptolemaic paining (Alexandria) of Horus and Isis, but in Greek dress. And any Christian would immediately say 'Mary and Jesus' except they hadn't happened yet. To add a bit of extra weight, Isis was called 'the star of the sea' - Stella Maris in Latin. Taken over and applied to Jesus mother, without permission or compensation. Which is pretty much how Christianity operated. Obliterate the opposition.

Yes. I don't study Christianity but the manipulations, fiddles, body swerves and adaptations are just a sad embarrassment for religion in general when they are exposed and spread out for scrutiny.
But look at what happens when people expose these. When John Lennon announced to the American people that he was more famous than Jesus I was very saddened, because the chances of anyone surviving that behaviour was slim. In the UK our taboos are different to those in the USA but we sure do have our taboos.