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...

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #137]

Everything we know about Jesus comes from gMark and not a word of that can be verified.

You claim Paul was not interested in Jesus and I ask how could Paul have known either way about Jesus when the story about Jesus wasn't written until after Paul died. Now you double down insisting chronology doesn't matter, well OK then, carry on, as you were. I've heard of the gospel truth but sheesh, I had no idea it could be this bizarre.

[TRANSPONDER]

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #142]

Paul was not preaching that Christ would come again, Paul and the early Christians were waiting for Christ to come to earth for the first time. Christ was crucified in a heavenly realm and according to Paul would come down to earth on a cloud of glory during their lifetime. Paul and others worshipped a heavenly mythical Christ.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #142]

Paul was not preaching that Christ would come again, Paul and the early Christians were waiting for Christ to come to earth for the first time. Christ was crucified in a heavenly realm and according to Paul would come down to earth on a cloud of glory during their lifetime. Paul and others worshipped a heavenly mythical Christ.

Paul clearly accepted that "Christ" (The Messiah) had been incarnated into Jesus as an earthly being and had been crucified. That earthly Jesus, in the flesh, possibly or the incarnated spirit (as I propose) went to heaven and would come again in their lifetimes. I'm pretty sure that's what Paul says. How your non earthly being fits into that I'm not sure.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #138]

I am well aware of that tradition, folklore as it were, it has no basis in fact.

The above a reply to:-
The author of G-Mark may have been the only (partial) witness, and probably writing the memoirs of Cephas, in which there WAS a person to verify words written in G-Mark..... the letters of Cephas!

Cephas and Paul had face to face confrontation. Cephas clearly didn't like what Paul was doing, his invitation to non-Jews to join, Paul's disregard for anything that Jesus ever said or did up until those last hours, and more. G-Mark clearly shows a more-likely account, the 'miracles' are mostly possible and the campaign only lasted one year......... and Cephas had been there.

If you don't think it has basis in fact then you don't, but I don't think you've spent any time in researching any of it. If you had then you wqould know what Jesus did in Jerusalem/Temple in Palm Sunday.....or Monday......or Tuesday. Easy.

PS: You have referred to historians before, and I asked you to name an historian who you like, respect who comments upon Jesus. So far no reply.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #144]

The earliest Christians worshipped a heavenly Christ that had yet to come to earth. It is post gMark Christians that worship an earthly Christ.

[oldbadger]

I like it a lot. I just doubt it simply because nobody else has heard of it. It is a principle (or argument, at least) that a significant part of the narrative that only one person knows, suggests that it is made up. I concede that this still isn't an accepted part of apologetics and fiddling the disparate elements together still seems to get more traction than it merits.

What's more suspicious about Luke is that the beating up and mockery carried out by Pilate's soldiers is suddenly not done by them but is done by Antipas' guards. And then it becomes clear - Luke couldn't live with the idea that Pilate, having been bullied into reluctantly crucifying Jesus, lets his men to carry out the crucifixion with particular brutality. Clever idea to have Herod Antipas do it, instead. However as is the common problem, changing the narrative throws up a stark contradiction with the other versions.

Or it would if anyone noticed.

Nobody else thought it worth mentioning...... why would they, particularly?
But Luke had heard about it, had that anecdote and included it. There was no agenda within it, Antipas wasn't being blamed for sentencing Jesus, he had just wanted to speak to and listen to him...had heard much about him. There's no angle to it, that's why I notice it.

Don't know what the Badger thinks about it, but I have no doubts that Paul (already primed with the belief in Pharisee resurrection) was familiar with the disciples' belief that Jesus had resurrected and would come again, probably in their lifetimes.

The later gospels built on this Pauline belief. Or that's my story, anyway.

I think Saul was contracted to confront and enforce non-attenders to the Temple to pay their temple tax on the spot, wherever they were. One day he, now Paul, had a blinding idea about how to control masses of people more easily with offer of heaven-forever or hellfire-eternally if they would do as required.

He didn't know much about the disciples, didn't care about them and just let them do their thing; I don't think he wrote much about anything that they did or said but haven't investigated that closely.

[The Nice Centurion]

I like it a lot. I just doubt it simply because nobody else has heard of it. It is a principle (or argument, at least) that a significant part of the narrative that only one person knows, suggests that it is made up. I concede that this still isn't an accepted part of apologetics and fiddling the disparate elements together still seems to get more traction than it merits.

What's more suspicious about Luke is that the beating up and mockery carried out by Pilate's soldiers is suddenly not done by them but is done by Antipas' guards. And then it becomes clear - Luke couldn't live with the idea that Pilate, having been bullied into reluctantly crucifying Jesus, lets his men to carry out the crucifixion with particular brutality. Clever idea to have Herod Antipas do it, instead. However as is the common problem, changing the narrative throws up a stark contradiction with the other versions.

Or it would if anyone noticed.

Nobody else thought it worth mentioning...... why would they, particularly?
But Luke had heard about it, had that anecdote and included it. There was no agenda within it, Antipas wasn't being blamed for sentencing Jesus, he had just wanted to speak to and listen to him...had heard much about him. There's no angle to it, that's why I notice it.

Don't know what the Badger thinks about it, but I have no doubts that Paul (already primed with the belief in Pharisee resurrection) was familiar with the disciples' belief that Jesus had resurrected and would come again, probably in their lifetimes.

The later gospels built on this Pauline belief. Or that's my story, anyway.

I think Saul was contracted to confront and enforce non-attenders to the Temple to pay their temple tax on the spot, wherever they were. One day he, now Paul, had a blinding idea about how to control masses of people more easily with offer of heaven-forever or hellfire-eternally if they would do as required.

He didn't know much about the disciples, didn't care about them and just let them do their thing; I don't think he wrote much about anything that they did or said but haven't investigated that closely.

So you both do not believe in a conversion experience?

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

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.

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

[TRANSPONDER]

I like it a lot. I just doubt it simply because nobody else has heard of it. It is a principle (or argument, at least) that a significant part of the narrative that only one person knows, suggests that it is made up. I concede that this still isn't an accepted part of apologetics and fiddling the disparate elements together still seems to get more traction than it merits.

What's more suspicious about Luke is that the beating up and mockery carried out by Pilate's soldiers is suddenly not done by them but is done by Antipas' guards. And then it becomes clear - Luke couldn't live with the idea that Pilate, having been bullied into reluctantly crucifying Jesus, lets his men to carry out the crucifixion with particular brutality. Clever idea to have Herod Antipas do it, instead. However as is the common problem, changing the narrative throws up a stark contradiction with the other versions.

Or it would if anyone noticed.

Nobody else thought it worth mentioning...... why would they, particularly?
But Luke had heard about it, had that anecdote and included it. There was no agenda within it, Antipas wasn't being blamed for sentencing Jesus, he had just wanted to speak to and listen to him...had heard much about him. There's no angle to it, that's why I notice it.

Don't know what the Badger thinks about it, but I have no doubts that Paul (already primed with the belief in Pharisee resurrection) was familiar with the disciples' belief that Jesus had resurrected and would come again, probably in their lifetimes.

The later gospels built on this Pauline belief. Or that's my story, anyway.

I think Saul was contracted to confront and enforce non-attenders to the Temple to pay their temple tax on the spot, wherever they were. One day he, now Paul, had a blinding idea about how to control masses of people more easily with offer of heaven-forever or hellfire-eternally if they would do as required.

He didn't know much about the disciples, didn't care about them and just let them do their thing; I don't think he wrote much about anything that they did or said but haven't investigated that closely.

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..

[TRANSPONDER]

I like it a lot. I just doubt it simply because nobody else has heard of it. It is a principle (or argument, at least) that a significant part of the narrative that only one person knows, suggests that it is made up. I concede that this still isn't an accepted part of apologetics and fiddling the disparate elements together still seems to get more traction than it merits.

What's more suspicious about Luke is that the beating up and mockery carried out by Pilate's soldiers is suddenly not done by them but is done by Antipas' guards. And then it becomes clear - Luke couldn't live with the idea that Pilate, having been bullied into reluctantly crucifying Jesus, lets his men to carry out the crucifixion with particular brutality. Clever idea to have Herod Antipas do it, instead. However as is the common problem, changing the narrative throws up a stark contradiction with the other versions.

Or it would if anyone noticed.

Nobody else thought it worth mentioning...... why would they, particularly?
But Luke had heard about it, had that anecdote and included it. There was no agenda within it, Antipas wasn't being blamed for sentencing Jesus, he had just wanted to speak to and listen to him...had heard much about him. There's no angle to it, that's why I notice it.

Don't know what the Badger thinks about it, but I have no doubts that Paul (already primed with the belief in Pharisee resurrection) was familiar with the disciples' belief that Jesus had resurrected and would come again, probably in their lifetimes.

The later gospels built on this Pauline belief. Or that's my story, anyway.

I think Saul was contracted to confront and enforce non-attenders to the Temple to pay their temple tax on the spot, wherever they were. One day he, now Paul, had a blinding idea about how to control masses of people more easily with offer of heaven-forever or hellfire-eternally if they would do as required.

He didn't know much about the disciples, didn't care about them and just let them do their thing; I don't think he wrote much about anything that they did or said but haven't investigated that closely.

So you both do not believe in a conversion experience?

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

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.

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

I don't believe the convwersion as it appears in Acts. Paul doesn't explain it, but he does say that he got the stuff not from Men (for what's that worth) and there is the hint (the only one) that a man (probably himself) went to the 3rd heaven for a chat with Jesus. There is no mention of a road to Damascus experience, but Luke, drawing up his Bio loosely based on the epistles, sees that it is the perfect place for an Experience between setting out for Damascus to persecute Christians and becoming one by the time he got there. So he just invents a semi mystical experience with some blindness until Saul converts and never mind his Free Will.

As to the Mormon aspect, I am not even going to consider that. By 'Whole World' I see that as a metaphor for the new teaching being pushed all over the Greco -Roman world and even beyond. Just as Luke refers to the Augustan tax applying to the 'whole world'. It was the Roman empire he had got to be talking about as Augustan authority did not extend to Han China or Chimu America. The emperor's tax collectors would have got dusty answers from those fellows even if they could have got there.