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...

[TRANSPONDER]

Au contraire perhaps. The hero being disregarded mocked, insulted and kicked out by the Authorities and being vindicated at the end (even if it is a Vindication promised in their lifetimes and we are still waiting 2,000 years later) is a recurring story -trope. And there was a basic message to start with. Down with the patriarchy.... No! I mean down with the Jewish Law and customs, we can be God's people without that through Jesusfaith. Which is of course Paul's Thesis. But more immediate is what happened a couple of decades after Jesus' death (assuming there was one). Jerusalem was taken and the Temple destroyed. The Pauline Greek Christians must have cheered. Those Christ -deniers and insisters on the Law before you can be a person of God were shown that God was not on their side. The story (true or not) that already existed was edited early on to predict and prophecy the Jewish war, Sack of Jerusalem, and destruction of the Temple.

So Jesus never sourly remarked that the Temple would be tumbled down or damned a Fig tree for not showing that the Time was Right (another indication that God really didn't know the future) but then, it makes no sense as a story or plot, but perfect sense as an anti -Jewish polemic; and so it continued for a number of centuries.

[oldbadger]

Au contraire perhaps. The hero being disregarded mocked, insulted and kicked out by the Authorities and being vindicated at the end (even if it is a Vindication promised in their lifetimes and we are still waiting 2,000 years later) is a recurring story -trope. And there was a basic message to start with. Down with the patriarchy.... No! I mean down with the Jewish Law and customs, we can be God's people without that through Jesusfaith. Which is of course Paul's Thesis. But more immediate is what happened a couple of decades after Jesus' death (assuming there was one). Jerusalem was taken and the Temple destroyed. The Pauline Greek Christians must have cheered. Those Christ -deniers and insisters on the Law before you can be a person of God were shown that God was not on their side. The story (true or not) that already existed was edited early on to predict and prophecy the Jewish war, Sack of Jerusalem, and destruction of the Temple.

Yes.... all those 'spins' evolved from a bloke who wanted to demonstrate against the disgusting greed, corruption, scams and hypocrisy of the country's quisling leaders. That and no more, yet look at what got borne from just that. Paul and other were spinning all this Christianity out of the name of a rebel, imo.

So Jesus never sourly remarked that the Temple would be tumbled down or damned a Fig tree for not showing that the Time was Right (another indication that God really didn't know the future) but then, it makes no sense as a story or plot, but perfect sense as an anti -Jewish polemic; and so it continued for a number of centuries.

For sure, Jesus never said any of that stuff, imo. If I bin all the Christian fiddlings then the account is short, sweet and over in about 11-12 months. And yet Jesus is followed (in name only) by thousands of different churches and creeds....only the name was necessary for Paul who never wrote a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did apart from the necessary blood-body rituals etc.

Is that why so few Christians know the details about, for example, what Jesus did during that last week?

[TRANSPONDER]

Au contraire perhaps. The hero being disregarded mocked, insulted and kicked out by the Authorities and being vindicated at the end (even if it is a Vindication promised in their lifetimes and we are still waiting 2,000 years later) is a recurring story -trope. And there was a basic message to start with. Down with the patriarchy.... No! I mean down with the Jewish Law and customs, we can be God's people without that through Jesusfaith. Which is of course Paul's Thesis. But more immediate is what happened a couple of decades after Jesus' death (assuming there was one). Jerusalem was taken and the Temple destroyed. The Pauline Greek Christians must have cheered. Those Christ -deniers and insisters on the Law before you can be a person of God were shown that God was not on their side. The story (true or not) that already existed was edited early on to predict and prophecy the Jewish war, Sack of Jerusalem, and destruction of the Temple.

Yes.... all those 'spins' evolved from a bloke who wanted to demonstrate against the disgusting greed, corruption, scams and hypocrisy of the country's quisling leaders. That and no more, yet look at what got borne from just that. Paul and other were spinning all this Christianity out of the name of a rebel, imo.

So Jesus never sourly remarked that the Temple would be tumbled down or damned a Fig tree for not showing that the Time was Right (another indication that God really didn't know the future) but then, it makes no sense as a story or plot, but perfect sense as an anti -Jewish polemic; and so it continued for a number of centuries.

For sure, Jesus never said any of that stuff, imo. If I bin all the Christian fiddlings then the account is short, sweet and over in about 11-12 months. And yet Jesus is followed (in name only) by thousands of different churches and creeds....only the name was necessary for Paul who never wrote a sentence about anything that Jesus said or did apart from the necessary blood-body rituals etc.

Is that why so few Christians know the details about, for example, what Jesus did during that last week?

But the 'Quisling leaders' were not the Pharisees. They were the Sadducee - controlled Sanhedrin who were effectively the Roman administration of Judea. The Pharisees were a more populist group who taught the Law and set up synagogues, which the Sadducees didn't do. I suspect (a discussion for another time) that the hostile portrait of the Pharisees is never what Jesus would have said (I'm sure he and his followers were all Pharisees) and is the Christian view. I already argued that the objections to Sabbath observance are nonsense and would not have silenced the Pharisees and are a one - sided argument presented by Christians and not what Jesus could or would have said, and I suspect it is the same with accusations about ritual cleanliness, corban and cheating widows out of their savings. Which is pretty rich when you see Acts 1 where a Christian couple are done to death for the crime of selling their possessions and only giving half to the Church.

The way I think the evidence points is that there must have been an actual Jesus - if you believe Paul was real (you couldn't make that guy up) and thus so were the disciples he knew and the leader they followed. I've also said that an invented Jesus would have been a Judean stoned by the Sanhedrin, not a Galilean executed for sedition by the Romans. I detect a constant underpainting of a zealot messiah (failed) and that is the basic story that Paul showed no interest in (though it is why he originally persecuted the Nazoreans).

I think the Pauline Churches (Clement I think suggests the Corinthians were significant) has this Pauline messiah who died to make the new Covenant and already the story had been changed to make Jesus a Christian and the Romans excused and the Jews blamed. But at least after the Jewish war that became retrospective prophecy. We had (I argue) the basic fudged and Christianised Jesus story before the 2nd c, but there were several more editions to go through.

That's at least where I argue from - that quite a lot of Jesus' doings could be true, but nothing he supposedly said was what he actually said. Just clarifying my position on that ... and now back to Jesus' activities during Holy Week. Including Jesus never sending to a house in the city for Passover but he already had a house where he could eat 'Supper' In Bethany. Apart from the ride from Bethany to the Temple (which never would have taken him into the city) all the action would be on the Mount of Olives and Jesus would not ever need to enter Jerusalem.

[oldbadger]

But the 'Quisling leaders' were not the Pharisees. They were the Sadducee - controlled Sanhedrin who were effectively the Roman administration of Judea. The Pharisees were a more populist group who taught the Law and set up synagogues, which the Sadducees didn't do. I suspect (a discussion for another time) that the hostile portrait of the Pharisees is never what Jesus would have said (I'm sure he and his followers were all Pharisees) and is the Christian view. I already argued that the objections to Sabbath observance are nonsense and would not have silenced the Pharisees and are a one - sided argument presented by Christians and not what Jesus could or would have said, and I suspect it is the same with accusations about ritual cleanliness, corban and cheating widows out of their savings. Which is pretty rich when you see Acts 1 where a Christian couple are done to death for the crime of selling their possessions and only giving half to the Church.

I agree, the quisling leaders were the Levite Priests who controlled the Great Temple and the Levites in important positions, such as the 6000 Levite Temple guards, all the important positions such as tax officers and publicans under Roman observation (I expect).
A Levite Priest could be a Pharisee but not all Pharisees were Levites. Pharisees probably did organise local gathering places around the whole country but I don't know how they were paid or what kind of places where they held their gatherings. When I think of a synagogue I imagine a fairly large building but synagogues might have often been large tents..... tents were very popular and common in early first century Palestine and many labourers, hauliers and hand-workers were itinerants, and maybe synagogues could move as well. I can't load pics in to posts yet so if you 'google' 'Jesus tents Galilee' or something like that and go to images you can see some very fine examples both large and small.

The way I think the evidence points is that there must have been an actual Jesus - if you believe Paul was real (you couldn't make that guy up) and thus so were the disciples he knew and the leader they followed. I've also said that an invented Jesus would have been a Judean stoned by the Sanhedrin, not a Galilean executed for sedition by the Romans. I detect a constant underpainting of a zealot messiah (failed) and that is the basic story that Paul showed no interest in (though it is why he originally persecuted the Nazoreans).

I think you've got that about right. There's nothing much to see and there still wouldn't be even in high definition. I should move on but somehow have hung around

I think the Pauline Churches (Clement I think suggests the Corinthians were significant) has this Pauline messiah who died to make the new Covenant and already the story had been changed to make Jesus a Christian and the Romans excused and the Jews blamed. But at least after the Jewish war that became retrospective prophecy. We had (I argue) the basic fudged and Christianised Jesus story before the 2nd c, but there were several more editions to go through.

Which is why HJ is nought to do with Historical Christianity. In fact, the more accurate that HJ can become, the further it leads away from Christianity.

That's at least where I argue from - that quite a lot of Jesus' doings could be true, but nothing he supposedly said was what he actually said. Just clarifying my position on that ... and now back to Jesus' activities during Holy Week. Including Jesus never sending to a house in the city for Passover but he already had a house where he could eat 'Supper' In Bethany. Apart from the ride from Bethany to the Temple (which never would have taken him into the city) all the action would be on the Mount of Olives and Jesus would not ever need to enter Jerusalem.

I take great interest in what Jesus said if it is unhelpful to Christianity.
But the donkeys, passover-meal house, etc are of no interest to me.

The Palm fronds are of interest! Yep. I reckon that the people of Jerusalem often welcomed visitors to the great feasts, and chucking down leaves in the way seems possible to me....but please don't ask why any such custom might not be known by historians, I just think that's possible. The people would have been welcoming the money brought by hundreds of thousands of visitors.

[TRANSPONDER]

But the 'Quisling leaders' were not the Pharisees. They were the Sadducee - controlled Sanhedrin who were effectively the Roman administration of Judea. The Pharisees were a more populist group who taught the Law and set up synagogues, which the Sadducees didn't do. I suspect (a discussion for another time) that the hostile portrait of the Pharisees is never what Jesus would have said (I'm sure he and his followers were all Pharisees) and is the Christian view. I already argued that the objections to Sabbath observance are nonsense and would not have silenced the Pharisees and are a one - sided argument presented by Christians and not what Jesus could or would have said, and I suspect it is the same with accusations about ritual cleanliness, corban and cheating widows out of their savings. Which is pretty rich when you see Acts 1 where a Christian couple are done to death for the crime of selling their possessions and only giving half to the Church.

I agree, the quisling leaders were the Levite Priests who controlled the Great Temple and the Levites in important positions, such as the 6000 Levite Temple guards, all the important positions such as tax officers and publicans under Roman observation (I expect).
A Levite Priest could be a Pharisee but not all Pharisees were Levites. Pharisees probably did organise local gathering places around the whole country but I don't know how they were paid or what kind of places where they held their gatherings. When I think of a synagogue I imagine a fairly large building but synagogues might have often been large tents..... tents were very popular and common in early first century Palestine and many labourers, hauliers and hand-workers were itinerants, and maybe synagogues could move as well. I can't load pics in to posts yet so if you 'google' 'Jesus tents Galilee' or something like that and go to images you can see some very fine examples both large and small.

The way I think the evidence points is that there must have been an actual Jesus - if you believe Paul was real (you couldn't make that guy up) and thus so were the disciples he knew and the leader they followed. I've also said that an invented Jesus would have been a Judean stoned by the Sanhedrin, not a Galilean executed for sedition by the Romans. I detect a constant underpainting of a zealot messiah (failed) and that is the basic story that Paul showed no interest in (though it is why he originally persecuted the Nazoreans).

I think you've got that about right. There's nothing much to see and there still wouldn't be even in high definition. I should move on but somehow have hung around

I think the Pauline Churches (Clement I think suggests the Corinthians were significant) has this Pauline messiah who died to make the new Covenant and already the story had been changed to make Jesus a Christian and the Romans excused and the Jews blamed. But at least after the Jewish war that became retrospective prophecy. We had (I argue) the basic fudged and Christianised Jesus story before the 2nd c, but there were several more editions to go through.

Which is why HJ is nought to do with Historical Christianity. In fact, the more accurate that HJ can become, the further it leads away from Christianity.

That's at least where I argue from - that quite a lot of Jesus' doings could be true, but nothing he supposedly said was what he actually said. Just clarifying my position on that ... and now back to Jesus' activities during Holy Week. Including Jesus never sending to a house in the city for Passover but he already had a house where he could eat 'Supper' In Bethany. Apart from the ride from Bethany to the Temple (which never would have taken him into the city) all the action would be on the Mount of Olives and Jesus would not ever need to enter Jerusalem.

I take great interest in what Jesus said if it is unhelpful to Christianity.
But the donkeys, passover-meal house, etc are of no interest to me.

The Palm fronds are of interest! Yep. I reckon that the people of Jerusalem often welcomed visitors to the great feasts, and chucking down leaves in the way seems possible to me....but please don't ask why any such custom might not be known by historians, I just think that's possible. The people would have been welcoming the money brought by hundreds of thousands of visitors.

Josephus is a good source on Pharisees. Their income was generated from their work. They had jobs. Though I suppose (like present day rabbis) they could be paid by the community to be Rabbis. I gather that synagogues were proper buildings - a converted home or purpose -built by donation.

Now to me what Jesus said is of no interest (I care nothing for Theology or Dogma) helpful to Christianity or not, other than logical and evidential problems. Thus the donkeysm House in the city (or not) and etc. are of particular interest to me. Which is fine. I appreciate a different view and approach.

I think the donkey ride custom is known to historians. It's true that Palm fronds strewn on the road doesn't quite link up with the Lulav of Sukkhot, but it is absolutely identified with tabernacles for me by the shouts of 'Hosannah' which as Hoshanah is specifically associated with the feast of tabernacles. And John hints that the feast of Tabernacles is what Jesus went for (John 7) though he delays through the feast of Dedication until passover when the detour via the Jordan brings Jesus back in line with the synoptics.

Yes, IF any of this is based on a real history, the whole tabernacles thing 'Son of david' and liberating messiah (king of the Jews) is like the Galilean crucified (for sedition) along with 'robbers' )lestes or insurrectionists). And of course Christian Jesus swapped for insurrectionist Barrabbas.j . I see a pretty clear picture of Jesus whitewashed over by Christianity and repainted to suit themselves.

Even the arrest sends up a forest of little red flags. Luke 22.52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders, who had come out against him, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?" also in Matthew and Mark.

I suspect they had, and for good reason. The protests that Jesus was firmly against violence "Dead against it" and the horror at the disciples having swords "Put that offensive weapon away" and even healing the injured enemy just makes me think they had something to cover up. Just like the Temple Fracas is never even considered as a charge, even though being a dangerous subversive is what he is eventually charged with.

But of course Pilate knew that Jesus had never done anything like that, even though he's been keeping watch at the Temple when Jesus had done it. And it was all a trumped up charge by the Sanhedrin. So we are asked to believe.

Incidentally, do you have any source for the )Jewish) Temple Guards? Order was kept by the 500 man garrison in the Antonia fortress, boosted to 1,000 when the governor brought his troops from Caesarea at festival times.

[oldbadger]

Josephus is a good source on Pharisees. Their income was generated from their work. They had jobs. Though I suppose (like present day rabbis) they could be paid by the community to be Rabbis. I gather that synagogues were proper buildings - a converted home or purpose -built by donation.

I think that any educated person could be a Pharisee, quite distinct from Levite blood and class.
But the power was all centred in the Levite 'clan' and those within it who were Priests, about 2000 attended a great feast, but since the (male?) attendance at a great feast could be up to 500,000 (from Herod Agrippa's kidney-count-census) then that all makes sense.

Incidentally, do you have any source for the )Jewish) Temple Guards? Order was kept by the 500 man garrison in the Antonia fortress, boosted to 1,000 when the governor brought his troops from Caesarea at festival times.

I've brought this question up to join with your first para.
Yes, thus:- It might have been Crosson or Sanders who quoted this passage below.... please notice the inclusion of the words 'Historical figure of Jesus' at the end.
Josephus:- Jerusalem was policed by the Temple guards, commanded by the high priest. ....... 6000. Not all these men were Temple guards during times of peace. There probably were, however, several thousand guards in all, who ordinarily served in rotation, as did the priests. ............................. 8500 died defending Ananias. Historical Figure of Jesus. Sources: War 4.313: cf 4.206

In great feasts a guarding force of 6000 was absolutely necessary.
Roman soldiers were absolutely banned from entering the Great Temple but they could and did patrol the top of the Temple Walls. Have you read the account of an enormous riot (after Jesus's time) caused by Roman guards making obscene gestures down in to the crowds? I've got that somewhere.

Now to me what Jesus said is of no interest (I care nothing for Theology or Dogma) helpful to Christianity or not, other than logical and evidential problems. Thus the donkeysm House in the city (or not) and etc. are of particular interest to me. Which is fine. I appreciate a different view and approach.

Ah..... anything spoken with a spiritual connection or suggestion goes in my bin, but there's stuff which interests me, all those words which don't quite fit with Christianity's interests or 'policies'. But bloody donkeys, useless fig trees, miracles with no temporal or natural possibilities, prophecy fulfilments, sudden departures to the temple from Galilee(a two day walk for a young man), ...all junked.

And bloody teaching! That really irritates me. Have I ranted about this before? Jesus was a lousy teacher who was often beyond comprehension amongst his mates let alone any crowd. I expect that Jesus made speeches to crowds just like any speaker at Hyde Park Corner might do today, or a politician visiting a big company's employees. But imagine a headline such as 'Boris visited a (UK) railway terminal facility in Bolton yesterday and taught the staff there'. Christianity constantly refers to junk like this without spending a second in thought to just consider what it's saying. .....meh, rant over.

[TRANSPONDER]

Josephus is a good source on Pharisees. Their income was generated from their work. They had jobs. Though I suppose (like present day rabbis) they could be paid by the community to be Rabbis. I gather that synagogues were proper buildings - a converted home or purpose -built by donation.

I think that any educated person could be a Pharisee, quite distinct from Levite blood and class.
But the power was all centred in the Levite 'clan' and those within it who were Priests, about 2000 attended a great feast, but since the (male?) attendance at a great feast could be up to 500,000 (from Herod Agrippa's kidney-count-census) then that all makes sense.

Incidentally, do you have any source for the )Jewish) Temple Guards? Order was kept by the 500 man garrison in the Antonia fortress, boosted to 1,000 when the governor brought his troops from Caesarea at festival times.

I've brought this question up to join with your first para.
Yes, thus:- It might have been Crosson or Sanders who quoted this passage below.... please notice the inclusion of the words 'Historical figure of Jesus' at the end.
Josephus:- Jerusalem was policed by the Temple guards, commanded by the high priest. ....... 6000. Not all these men were Temple guards during times of peace. There probably were, however, several thousand guards in all, who ordinarily served in rotation, as did the priests. ............................. 8500 died defending Ananias. Historical Figure of Jesus. Sources: War 4.313: cf 4.206

In great feasts a guarding force of 6000 was absolutely necessary.
Roman soldiers were absolutely banned from entering the Great Temple but they could and did patrol the top of the Temple Walls. Have you read the account of an enormous riot (after Jesus's time) caused by Roman guards making obscene gestures down in to the crowds? I've got that somewhere.

Now to me what Jesus said is of no interest (I care nothing for Theology or Dogma) helpful to Christianity or not, other than logical and evidential problems. Thus the donkeysm House in the city (or not) and etc. are of particular interest to me. Which is fine. I appreciate a different view and approach.

Ah..... anything spoken with a spiritual connection or suggestion goes in my bin, but there's stuff which interests me, all those words which don't quite fit with Christianity's interests or 'policies'. But bloody donkeys, useless fig trees, miracles with no temporal or natural possibilities, prophecy fulfilments, sudden departures to the temple from Galilee(a two day walk for a young man), ...all junked.

And bloody teaching! That really irritates me. Have I ranted about this before? Jesus was a lousy teacher who was often beyond comprehension amongst his mates let alone any crowd. I expect that Jesus made speeches to crowds just like any speaker at Hyde Park Corner might do today, or a politician visiting a big company's employees. But imagine a headline such as 'Boris visited a (UK) railway terminal facility in Bolton yesterday and taught the staff there'. Christianity constantly refers to junk like this without spending a second in thought to just consider what it's saying. .....meh, rant over.

careful with the curses. They are hot on Bad language here. I was fingerwagged here by referring to a video out there with a Bad Word in the Title. I might try to research the Temple guards, how many were normally on duty and what their duties were.

Yes, I had read the story of the Roman guard making an obscene gesture in the Temple. I gather they patrolled the galleries around the court of the women, which I gather included the 'Treasury' or the collecting trumpets for gift/sin offerings. The galleries were level with the altar -platform so the Romans could watch what was going on.

I don't believe any of the speeches which I just see as the writers stuffing Christian views into Jesus; mouth. The supposed silence of the Pharisees in the face of nonsense like David and the shewbread convinces me this is one -sided Christian apologetics and nothing that Jesus ever said. And that applies to the speeches in the synagogues as though Jesus was some notable who was called on by the ruling rabbi to speak, never mind just pushing out front and lecturing the assembly. It is, like Luke in Acts showing Paul lecturing a wad of Athenian Philosophers on the Areopagus. This is just Christian propaganda of the time.

I can already hear the chorus of disagreement but it doesn't matter. The evidence is clear to me, at any rate and they may believe what they like, but I know already that the Gospels contain probably not a word of what Jesus actually said and it is too late to convince me that it is an accurate record. As I said on what would persuade me that the earth is flat and the planets revolve around us. Too much water under the bridge. I already know better, whether they disagree or not.

I already know that the messianic declaration and attempted murder in Nazareth never happened. Nor the birth in Bethlehem or the Tomb -guard. The only work is making a case to others (including doubters and skeptics) who have been sold the mainstream lie that the gospels are a fairly reliable record.

I can't help gnawing a grape (1) when I hear people seriously debate what Jesus actually meant by 'Get thee behind me, Satan', as I know he never said it. But it's just my view after all. My rant over.

(1) as they say here, blessed if I know why.

[oldbadger]

careful with the curses. They are hot on Bad language here. I was fingerwagged here by referring to a video out there with a Bad Word in the Title. I might try to research the Temple guards, how many were normally on duty and what their duties were.

Yes, I had read the story of the Roman guard making an obscene gesture in the Temple. I gather they patrolled the galleries around the court of the women, which I gather included the 'Treasury' or the collecting trumpets for gift/sin offerings. The galleries were level with the altar -platform so the Romans could watch what was going on.

Thankyou for your concern over my naughty words in last post. I will remember that.
Yes, with a great feast 'gate' of over 400,000 it's easy to see why 2000 priests and 6000 guards (all Levites) needed to be on duty. And Romans could only patrol the tops of the walls.

I don't believe any of the speeches which I just see as the writers stuffing Christian views into Jesus; mouth. The supposed silence of the Pharisees in the face of nonsense like David and the shewbread convinces me this is one -sided Christian apologetics and nothing that Jesus ever said. And that applies to the speeches in the synagogues as though Jesus was some notable who was called on by the ruling rabbi to speak, never mind just pushing out front and lecturing the assembly. It is, like Luke in Acts showing Paul lecturing a wad of Athenian Philosophers on the Areopagus. This is just Christian propaganda of the time.

Snap. Anything that leans towards a sell for Christianity doesn't fit, imo. But reports such as a jailed Baptist sending friends to enquire after Jesus because of the company he keeps and his drinking are hardly a Christian 'sell', so I take more notice of such as those. Christianity insists that such stories couldn't possibly be true and must have been spun by nasty enemies, but then they make large with tales about Jesus and his friends drinking all the wine at a wedding and his Mum insisting that he uses his powers to make loads more. Daft.

I can already hear the chorus of disagreement but it doesn't matter. The evidence is clear to me, at any rate and they may believe what they like, but I know already that the Gospels contain probably not a word of what Jesus actually said and it is too late to convince me that it is an accurate record. As I said on what would persuade me that the earth is flat and the planets revolve around us. Too much water under the bridge. I already know better, whether they disagree or not.

Your beliefs (about it all) are yours. My opinions are not that far from yours.

I already know that the messianic declaration and attempted murder in Nazareth never happened. Nor the birth in Bethlehem or the Tomb -guard. The only work is making a case to others (including doubters and skeptics) who have been sold the mainstream lie that the gospels are a fairly reliable record.

Of those four I haven't discarded any attempted killing on Nazareth; Jesus certainly didn't cut much of a dash there.
Bethlehem....the only parts of that story that click with me are those about 'full houses', in fact I reckon that every bed and board was full up anywhere around the suburbs of Jerusalem at Great Feasts; just another rip off of visitors to great feasts. I don't take notice of anything about Jesus until his meeting with the Baptist. Messianic declaration? Like you I binned that a long time ago.
The Tomb guard is rubbish.

I can't help gnawing a grape (1) when I hear people seriously debate what Jesus actually meant by 'Get thee behind me, Satan', as I know he never said it. But it's just my view after all. My rant over.

(1) as they say here, blessed if I know why.

Ha ha! I wonder how Christianity figures out that somebody was there, present and listening during such conversations to report them!
All that's left is a Jesus bigging himself up to his mates as in 'And there your Devil was, so I looked him in the eye and I says......'
Unless the Devil told somebody about it all? ......... 'So I offers this Jesus guy the sky and moon etc if only he would join up with me.' No, that won't work.

[TRANSPONDER]

The point about the attempted killing at Nazareth is the point that the synoptics all report the same event 'Is this not the carpenter's son?' (and variants). And all four have the 'prophet without honor' remark. IF so, they all would have heard of Jesus declaring his Messiahship at Nazareth and the subsequent attempt to kill Jesus. There is no credible way all three would have left it out. Luke must have invented it.

By itself, that's the conclusion.

Even without:
In Luke this is at the start of his mission but the others have it later.
These were all Jesus' relatives and neighbours. But to Luke they are merely 'Jews' who rejected Jesus and eventually killed him.
There are doubts there was a Nazareth (a town large enough for a synagogue) in the 1st c A.D or had a nearby cliff.
Luke makes up other stuff, too.

John the Baptist is absolutely a 'Christian sell'. I have read that there were in Christian times followers of the Baptist who maintained that John was the messiah and not Jesus. In any case it looks strongly to me that Jesus (if the basic story is true) went to join the Baptist. That won't do at all, so John has to grovel "I'm not worthy!!" And Jesus says "I know, but baptise me anyway, it's in the script".

So there's a passage just to ram this point home, and it's been used by just..guess who? Matthew and Luke, and thus looks like more "Q" material with John sending his disciples to ask whether Jesus was the messiah. Well, according to John's account, John not only knew Jesus was the messiah but had seen the Holy Spirit descending on him (which Mark tells us was only something that Jesus claimed to have seen). If John had sent messengers to Jesus it would have been more 'For Pete's sake get me out of here!' and Jesus would have replied 'You're doing a great job and your name will be honored by my disciples as the greatest of men after me of course'. Even the lowest of Jesus' people are greater than he. Yes, John can be valued as someone to give Jesus a leg up, but the Gospels spare no effort to make it clear who is the real Boss. John 3.25 labours the point.

[oldbadger]

The point about the attempted killing at Nazareth is the point that the synoptics all report the same event 'Is this not the carpenter's son?' (and variants). And all four have the 'prophet without honor' remark. IF so, they all would have heard of Jesus declaring his Messiahship at Nazareth and the subsequent attempt to kill Jesus. There is no credible way all three would have left it out. Luke must have invented it.

By itself, that's the conclusion.

Even without:
In Luke this is at the start of his mission but the others have it later.
These were all Jesus' relatives and neighbours. But to Luke they are merely 'Jews' who rejected Jesus and eventually killed him.
There are doubts there was a Nazareth (a town large enough for a synagogue) in the 1st c A.D or had a nearby cliff.
Luke makes up other stuff, too.

I don't go to Luke for more than isolated anecdotes. Nothing more.

The Markan account is quite different to Luke's imagined waffle. In Mark, while at Nazareth Jesus had no credibility at all, they all knew he was just a carpenter (not a carpenter's son) and a 'nobody', and while there he couldn't impress them at all. It was down in Capernaum that some officials were planning to 'get' him.... another story altogether. thus:-
Mark {6:3} Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here
with us? And they were offended at him. {6:4} But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. {6:5} And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed [them. ]{6:6} And he marvelled because of their unbelief.

........... now that sounds better to me.

John the Baptist is absolutely a 'Christian sell'. I have read that there were in Christian times followers of the Baptist who maintained that John was the messiah and not Jesus. In any case it looks strongly to me that Jesus (if the basic story is true) went to join the Baptist. That won't do at all, so John has to grovel "I'm not worthy!!" And Jesus says "I know, but baptise me anyway, it's in the script".

So there's a passage just to ram this point home, and it's been used by just..guess who? Matthew and Luke, and thus looks like more "Q" material with John sending his disciples to ask whether Jesus was the messiah. Well, according to John's account, John not only knew Jesus was the messiah but had seen the Holy Spirit descending on him (which Mark tells us was only something that Jesus claimed to have seen). If John had sent messengers to Jesus it would have been more 'For Pete's sake get me out of here!' and Jesus would have replied 'You're doing a great job and your name will be honored by my disciples as the greatest of men after me of course'. Even the lowest of Jesus' people are greater than he. Yes, John can be valued as someone to give Jesus a leg up, but the Gospels spare no effort to make it clear who is the real Boss. John 3.25 labours the point.

The whole New Testament is a Christian sell. It's for folks like us to sieve through all that sand for the occasional gem of truth. But there is that trace of truth there, just for a man who tried to carry on the mission of another and failed.