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]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #108]

Paul's epistles predate the Mark gospel, so a reading of Paul's epistles prior to reading Mark might reveal to you where the author of Mark is coming from.

Which you've never done, apparently, or you would have discovered that Paul never wrote a sentence about what Jesus did or said in any of his letters (apart from during that last day).

Or do you know better? Please show us a piece from a Pauline letter and verses from G-Mark which show that G-Mark was influenced by Paul.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #111]

Seems you already know everything. I'll leave you to continue assuming whatever it is you are trying to prove since that is what you are good at.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #111]

Seems you already know everything. I'll leave you to continue assuming whatever it is you are trying to prove since that is what you are good at.

That looks to me like a win for the old badger. If you had anything you'd make your case rather than march off with a 'you are so smart, aren't you?' remark.

It's what we in the trade call "A Flounce".

A p. s. Our Pal Venom made an apologetic for the resurrection accounts, here or on another thread. It pushed the explanation that the women split up. I have been comparing all the accounts to see whether this could work, even if it wasn't probable, because if there is no indication that Mary Magdalene ran off without hearing the angelic message, reasonably we should conclude that she didn't. But (Venom will argue) that doesn't refute it. I may post a rather tedious analysis here with particular attention to the mess with the angels and message at the outset and specifically Matthew saying that Jesus appeared to the women and Luke saying (by omission) that he didn't. But to sum up, Luke says that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and the others he claims all reported back that they at least knew that the angels had claimed that Jesus had risen.

That surely totally conflicts with John's account who has no angelic message at the tomb first thing, and certainly no account of any of the women running into Jesus, thus refuting Matthews claim that they all (or both) ran into Jesus, which Luke also (tacitly) refutes.

I'd say it's done and dusted as I said - Matthew totally conflicts with the other accounts about Jesus appearing to the women. Just as we can have doubts about his tomb guard, descending angel, disciples going to Galilee and pretty much everything else.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #113]

Who am I to try and convince someone otherwise, especially one such as oldbadger, that reads his Bible literally and sees everything historical? I pointed out what was necessary to point out and so if oldbadger ever gets around to reading Paul's epistles while bearing in mind that they predate Mark then fine, until then oldbadger's mind is already made up.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #111]

To be fair I will explain it to you this way. Paul, a religious fanatic, Christian evangelizer, knows zero about Mark's Jesus because Mark's gospel wasn't written until after Paul died. Paul reveals his sources, he tells us what his sources are. Mark knew who Paul was and we don't have to look further than Paul to see Mark's sources, and we don't have to look further than Paul to find his sources because he tells us as he goes to great lengths to explain Christianity. Mark also used the OT as a source.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #111]

Seems you already know everything. I'll leave you to continue assuming whatever it is you are trying to prove since that is what you are good at.

You see? So you obviously read that G-Mark was built from Paul's letters. But when challenged you couldn't offer a single line as an example.
And so I'll leave you to continue assuming whatever it is that you were trying to prove but couldn't.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #116]


You stated "or you would have discovered that Paul never wrote a sentence about what Jesus did or said in any of his letters"

Paul is obsessed with Jesus, he lives Jesus through every fibre of his body and breaths Jesus with every breath, he reads Jesus into all his ancient scripture, page after page after page, that's all he writes about, how did you miss that?

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #111]

To be fair I will explain it to you this way. Paul, a religious fanatic, Christian evangelizer, knows zero about Mark's Jesus because Mark's gospel wasn't written until after Paul died. Paul reveals his sources, he tells us what his sources are. Mark knew who Paul was and we don't have to look further than Paul to see Mark's sources, and we don't have to look further than Paul to find his sources because he tells us as he goes to great lengths to explain Christianity. Mark also used the OT as a source.

Oh! You came back! That was quick.....
To be fair I'll explain it to you this way. Paul was building up congregations as fast as he could, prepared to let gentiles join and was also dumping Jewish Traditions, etc. People (like Cephas?) were much opposed to Paul's stuff and wanted their story to be told. Later, Christianity fiddled with that story with the kind of inclusions which you must be clinging on to for dear life. Christianity used OT prophesy in its editions.

You will notice that G-Mark's Jesus tried to carry on a campaign built by the Baptist (against Temple/Priesthood corruption) for about a year.

[oldbadger]

You stated "or you would have discovered that Paul never wrote a sentence about what Jesus did or said in any of his letters"

Paul is obsessed with Jesus, he lives Jesus through every fibre of his body and breaths Jesus with every breath, he reads Jesus into all his ancient scripture, page after page after page, that's all he writes about, how did you miss that?

And you're still coming back! So I'll not take too much of your departures in future, methinks.
Paul didn't give a hoot about Jesus and merely used his built up title and claims of his being God.....he never bothered to leave a single line about anything that Jesus the man actually said or did.

Now..... why don't you show a verse from a Pauline letter from ancient prophesy and then show how G-Mark includes this, and then I can show how this piece in G-Mark was right outside the account about his attempts to build up a following.

Waiting...........

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #118]

Mark used ancient scripture to write all the major scenes in his story such as:

Psalm 22:
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

7 All who see me mock at me;
they make mouths at me, they shake their heads.

18 they divide my clothes among themselves,
and for my clothing they cast lots.

Amos8:
9 On that day, says the Lord God,
I will make the sun go down at noon,
and darken the earth in broad daylight.