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]

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.

Well, yes, you got me there. The gospels do show him in the Synagogue at times and so I took it that he was a regular like any other Jew. It was the Temple for festivals and special occasions, the Synagogues for regular worship, and the whole business of worship and teaching the law was in the hands of the Rabbis, who were Pharisees. I suppose the whole of Judaism is really Pharisee, since the Sadducees vanished in the Jewish war (1) But the Gospel situation is an artificial construct by the writers. Jesus shows up in the Capernaum synagogue (his regular venue) but mostly to tell them the Sabbath didn't matter. But he shows up in the (supposed) Nazareth synagogue where he is apparently invited by the 'Ruler' (Synagogue president) to do the reading. Which is where he reads the Isiah prophecy and says 'That's me'. Other times he's cutting church and the ministers are following him around the fields to see whether he infringes the Rules, which he does just so he can debunk the Sabbath. The only time I recall him in the Capernaum Synagogue in John was to drive away most of the Jews because of the Eucharist, and only the disciples stick with him because (to quote Linus van Pelt) "I've already sent out 100 Pumpkin cards. It would be economically disastrous of me Not to believe it". In OW they have burned their boats and they have to stick with the cult, no matter what daft stuff the Leader comes up with. Clearly John back engineering the way he sees the Jews rejecting Jesus, apart from the disciples, despite their doubts.
-
So it's all invented scenarios to put over the Christian view (derived from Paul). So I'm rightly put on the spot by you for using it to propose Jesus as a Pharisee. The thing is that, in anything other than being part of the Orthodox Elite (Sadducees) or separated from society or (the Essenes) the social activist up to and including zealots, was Pharisee, which dominated common Jewish thought. So that's the best I can do in saying why I think that Jesus and his followers were in the Pharisee ambit.

Now, as to the trip to Peraea, It's pretty much all Luke who uses the "Q" material (Matthew uses it in the Sermon) to have teachings given on the way, e.g he starts off with the Lord's prayer when he sets out and does the thing about the jot and tittle of the Law before arriving. There is...hang on...yep, start of Matthew 10, he leaves Galilee and arrives in Peraea (beyond the Jordan) in one para. And Mark 10 does it in one line. Luke's long journey is his own invention, using Q and his own personal parables to bulk the journey out. John of course has it different with Jesus leaving Galilee at Tabernacles, going to Jerusalem and then going to Peraea to link up with the Synoptics again. There is (originally) no real travel described with or without a successful recruiting drive. It is Invented storytelling detectable because it is contradictory.

Now, proposing my 'Pet Theory', IF the overpainted story of the failed Messiah is true, then Jesus went to Bethsaida (2) where he goes through an announcement of his Messiahship which makes sense of Jesus feeding the crowd of 5,000 men (specifically, sat down in platoons of fifty) and they buy it, which links with John's cover- up that they 'wanted to make him a king by force'. Though John tries to show Jesus fleeing such a terrible idea.

I argue that John does not know of the transfiguration, but the 'Special Theory' proposes that they all know of the announcing of the messianic mission and it being accepted by the Bethsaidan men - if there is any underlying true story. And the attempt to disguise what actually happened is just like the way they try to disguise other 'agreed events' e.g the anointing, the donkey ride, and the temple dust - up. In that scenario he has gone to the safe -place of Peraea where John raised his support and with his thousands of followers, was camped on the Mount of Olives ready to do his Prophecy fulfilling ride (disguised as a Tabernacles Hosannah procession), to get his little army into the Temple under the nose of Pilate and his 1000 strong garrison. And let me merely direct you to Luke 13.1 for some 'Lost history' as to what Pilate did about it.

Conspiracy theory, and no error, but by God, it fits very well. And better that the idea that Jesus failed to recruit any followers.

Victorian hypocrisy... I know. it's why I love the 'Flashman' books, as he points up the hypocrisy that is still a human blight today, Why did the women retire at dinner? So the gentlemen (devout Churchgoers all) could swap notes about the best brothels in the locality. But I'm a half - full person. The universe owes us nothing and evolution dealt us only a hand of cards of brutal competition to survive. Reason has given us or gotten us a better hand and we have learned to play it better as we went on. Always aspiring to a better way to live, and so I roll with the often terrible mistakes and missteps we make. Never mind the Curvid balls that evolution throws us every now and again. But back to our muttons, or as Watership Down put it 'Sheep, led by a dog'.

But be of good cheer, good Badgeman, since John Lennon let his big mouth run off before he had engaged his brain, we have had the nasty infection of Fundamentalism brought over by ...damn, what's the name? But spawning the vile Festival of Light moral crusade that tried to ban Life of Brian. That is gone and could never happen now (we are being crushed under a different hate - cult right now) so as Aragorn says "There is always Hope" and as Theoden says "We cannot defeat them, but we will meet them in battle nonetheless" and as I say, "Hit the thanks Icon, it's the only reason I'm here at all".

(1) though they could in theory be re-established if that idea of the 3rd Temple ever comes off. The Levis are still there. Napoleon actually tried to set up a Sanhedrin so he could 'Manage' all the Jews. Which was actually treating them far better than Christians had usually treated them. Even Muslims didn't hate them as much before the Balfour declaration.

(2) I believe I read that Vespasian began the Jewish war by cleaning up a nest of rebels in Bethsaida. It sticks in my mind that Bethsaida might be the very place for Jesus to go to recruit armed support.

[oldbadger]

Well, yes, you got me there. The gospels do show him in the Synagogue at times and so I took it that he was a regular like any other Jew. It was the Temple for festivals and special occasions, the Synagogues for regular worship, and the whole business of worship and teaching the law was in the hands of the Rabbis, who were Pharisees. I suppose the whole of Judaism is really Pharisee, since the Sadducees vanished in the Jewish war (1) But the Gospel situation is an artificial construct by the writers. Jesus shows up in the Capernaum synagogue (his regular venue) but mostly to tell them the Sabbath didn't matter. But he shows up in the (supposed) Nazareth synagogue where he is apparently invited by the 'Ruler' (Synagogue president) to do the reading. Which is where he reads the Isiah prophecy and says 'That's me'. Other times he's cutting church and the ministers are following him around the fields to see whether he infringes the Rules, which he does just so he can debunk the Sabbath. The only time I recall him in the Capernaum Synagogue in John was to drive away most of the Jews because of the Eucharist, and only the disciples stick with him because (to quote Linus van Pelt) "I've already sent out 100 Pumpkin cards. It would be economically disastrous of me Not to believe it". In OW they have burned their boats and they have to stick with the cult, no matter what daft stuff the Leader comes up with. Clearly John back engineering the way he sees the Jews rejecting Jesus, apart from the disciples, despite their doubts.

You mentioned that the Sadducees vanished in the Jewish War, but of course this has no relevance for the student of HJ, because the Levite High class, the whole lot of it, was what Jesus was hoping to make a stand against. If it was Levite then it was fat, corrupted and hypocritical, or that is how I think that Jesus perceived it all to be.
Grazing as one walked through a (local) field was not a breach of the Sabbath because it was just eating and local travel...... enemies would have snatched at anything for a cheap criticism of their enemy. They made more ground by pointing out his eating and drinking habits, and his company....that bothered the imprisoned Baptist when he heard about it all, but it didn't bother Jesus. Incidentally, I mentioned how Jesus loved his drink and meat on a Christian forum (with quotes) and mostly everybody went bonkers......... Christianity not only cherry-picks its verses but it sure as hellfire ignores others.
-

So it's all invented scenarios to put over the Christian view (derived from Paul). So I'm rightly put on the spot by you for using it to propose Jesus as a Pharisee. The thing is that, in anything other than being part of the Orthodox Elite (Sadducees) or separated from society or (the Essenes) the social activist up to and including zealots, was Pharisee, which dominated common Jewish thought. So that's the best I can do in saying why I think that Jesus and his followers were in the Pharisee ambit.

I just think that Northern Jews despised the rich, fat, comfortable southerners, were set against them, would rise against them at 'the drop of a hat' and were more focused upon their next meal than what any Pharisee of Priest thought, said or did.

Now, as to the trip to Peraea, It's pretty much all Luke who uses the "Q" material (Matthew uses it in the Sermon) to have teachings given on the way, e.g he starts off with the Lord's prayer when he sets out and does the thing about the jot and tittle of the Law before arriving. There is...hang on...yep, start of Matthew 10, he leaves Galilee and arrives in Peraea (beyond the Jordan) in one para. And Mark 10 does it in one line. Luke's long journey is his own invention, using Q and his own personal parables to bulk the journey out. John of course has it different with Jesus leaving Galilee at Tabernacles, going to Jerusalem and then going to Peraea to link up with the Synoptics again. There is (originally) no real travel described with or without a successful recruiting drive. It is Invented storytelling detectable because it is contradictory.

Oh....Luke dreamed up all kinds of stuff for his letter to Theophilus...... I do snatch out 'by the way' anecdotes but don't bother with the rest of it.

Now, proposing my 'Pet Theory', IF the overpainted story of the failed Messiah is true, then Jesus went to Bethsaida (2) where he goes through an announcement of his Messiahship which makes sense of Jesus feeding the crowd of 5,000 men (specifically, sat down in platoons of fifty) and they buy it, which links with John's cover- up that they 'wanted to make him a king by force'. Though John tries to show Jesus fleeing such a terrible idea.

I don't think that the 'failed Meshiah' story is true, I just see a rebel trying to built a movement which ended up as a 1/2 day riot in city and temple. Done.
That 5000 story..... could be (kind of....a bit....) true. A much followed. adored. respected person gets attention from a crowd of listeners, a crowd small enough to be able to hear him, and he raises up what food he has to show and then passes it to people in the crowd, a wonderful gesture that others want the same credit for, and folks who have food hold it high (look! me too!) and hand it out.
A smart move because afterwards the boatmen/disciples gathered all those scraps to bait the water later for a brilliant catch....

I argue that John does not know of the transfiguration, but the 'Special Theory' proposes that they all know of the announcing of the messianic mission and it being accepted by the Bethsaidan men - if there is any underlying true story. And the attempt to disguise what actually happened is just like the way they try to disguise other 'agreed events' e.g the anointing, the donkey ride, and the temple dust - up. In that scenario he has gone to the safe -place of Peraea where John raised his support and with his thousands of followers, was camped on the Mount of Olives ready to do his Prophecy fulfilling ride (disguised as a Tabernacles Hosannah procession), to get his little army into the Temple under the nose of Pilate and his 1000 strong garrison. And let me merely direct you to Luke 13.1 for some 'Lost history' as to what Pilate did about it.

I've thought about 13:1 for years.... there are several possibilities including Galileans holding their own (free) services, with cleansing etc, wherever they pleased. After all, Pilate allowed the Samaritans to hold their feasts beyond the Temple, but I expect that Samaritans did pay fees, we just don't know about that.

Victorian hypocrisy... I know. it's why I love the 'Flashman' books, as he points up the hypocrisy that is still a human blight today, Why did the women retire at dinner? So the gentlemen (devout Churchgoers all) could swap notes about the best brothels in the locality. But I'm a half - full person. The universe owes us nothing and evolution dealt us only a hand of cards of brutal competition to survive. Reason has given us or gotten us a better hand and we have learned to play it better as we went on. Always aspiring to a better way to live, and so I roll with the often terrible mistakes and missteps we make. Never mind the Curvid balls that evolution throws us every now and again. But back to our muttons, or as Watership Down put it 'Sheep, led by a dog'.

Half-full....me too. Ah yes, humanity and its horrible errors; it's like looking back at the world as if a huge playground full of kids and their silly ideas.
The World is full of 5 year olds and 8 year olds. The 5yr olds are just 5 and live as such. The 8yr olds are in fact only 5yrs old but they just think they are smarter.

But be of good cheer, good Badgeman, since John Lennon let his big mouth run off before he had engaged his brain, we have had the nasty infection of Fundamentalism brought over by ...damn, what's the name? But spawning the vile Festival of Light moral crusade that tried to ban Life of Brian. That is gone and could never happen now (we are being crushed under a different hate - cult right now) so as Aragorn says "There is always Hope" and as Theoden says "We cannot defeat them, but we will meet them in battle nonetheless" and as I say, "Hit the thanks Icon, it's the only reason I'm here at all".

Ha ha! I gave you that, for that!

(1) though they could in theory be re-established if that idea of the 3rd Temple ever comes off. The Levis are still there. Napoleon actually tried to set up a Sanhedrin so he could 'Manage' all the Jews. Which was actually treating them far better than Christians had usually treated them. Even Muslims didn't hate them as much before the Balfour declaration.

I have heard Jews tell that living in Tehran, Iran is safer than living in Paris, France. Of course, Christians and Bahais (!!) fair less well there.
I didn't kbow about Napoleon's ......... Levis, you wrote 'Levis'..... who makes Levi Jeans, is there any connection?

(2) I believe I read that Vespasian began the Jewish war by cleaning up a nest of rebels in Bethsaida. It sticks in my mind that Bethsaida might be the very place for Jesus to go to recruit armed support.

Bethsaida was just a village where Cephas and Andrew grew up, they probably had an elder brother so got displaced and ended up working for Zebedee...... I don't get many vibes about Bethsaida that impact with me. Of course, there were two Bethsaidas and you might be referring to the other one.

[oldbadger]

Well, yes, you got me there. The gospels do show him in the Synagogue at times and so I took it that he was a regular like any other Jew. It was the Temple for festivals and special occasions, the Synagogues for regular worship, and the whole business of worship and teaching the law was in the hands of the Rabbis, who were Pharisees. I suppose the whole of Judaism is really Pharisee, since the Sadducees vanished in the Jewish war (1) But the Gospel situation is an artificial construct by the writers. Jesus shows up in the Capernaum synagogue (his regular venue) but mostly to tell them the Sabbath didn't matter. But he shows up in the (supposed) Nazareth synagogue where he is apparently invited by the 'Ruler' (Synagogue president) to do the reading. Which is where he reads the Isiah prophecy and says 'That's me'. Other times he's cutting church and the ministers are following him around the fields to see whether he infringes the Rules, which he does just so he can debunk the Sabbath. The only time I recall him in the Capernaum Synagogue in John was to drive away most of the Jews because of the Eucharist, and only the disciples stick with him because (to quote Linus van Pelt) "I've already sent out 100 Pumpkin cards. It would be economically disastrous of me Not to believe it". In OW they have burned their boats and they have to stick with the cult, no matter what daft stuff the Leader comes up with. Clearly John back engineering the way he sees the Jews rejecting Jesus, apart from the disciples, despite their doubts.

You mentioned that the Sadducees vanished in the Jewish War, but of course this has no relevance for the student of HJ, because the Levite High class, the whole lot of it, was what Jesus was hoping to make a stand against. If it was Levite then it was fat, corrupted and hypocritical, or that is how I think that Jesus perceived it all to be.
Grazing as one walked through a (local) field was not a breach of the Sabbath because it was just eating and local travel...... enemies would have snatched at anything for a cheap criticism of their enemy. They made more ground by pointing out his eating and drinking habits, and his company....that bothered the imprisoned Baptist when he heard about it all, but it didn't bother Jesus. Incidentally, I mentioned how Jesus loved his drink and meat on a Christian forum (with quotes) and mostly everybody went bonkers......... Christianity not only cherry-picks its verses but it sure as hellfire ignores others.
-

So it's all invented scenarios to put over the Christian view (derived from Paul). So I'm rightly put on the spot by you for using it to propose Jesus as a Pharisee. The thing is that, in anything other than being part of the Orthodox Elite (Sadducees) or separated from society or (the Essenes) the social activist up to and including zealots, was Pharisee, which dominated common Jewish thought. So that's the best I can do in saying why I think that Jesus and his followers were in the Pharisee ambit.

I just think that Northern Jews despised the rich, fat, comfortable southerners, were set against them, would rise against them at 'the drop of a hat' and were more focused upon their next meal than what any Pharisee of Priest thought, said or did.

Now, as to the trip to Peraea, It's pretty much all Luke who uses the "Q" material (Matthew uses it in the Sermon) to have teachings given on the way, e.g he starts off with the Lord's prayer when he sets out and does the thing about the jot and tittle of the Law before arriving. There is...hang on...yep, start of Matthew 10, he leaves Galilee and arrives in Peraea (beyond the Jordan) in one para. And Mark 10 does it in one line. Luke's long journey is his own invention, using Q and his own personal parables to bulk the journey out. John of course has it different with Jesus leaving Galilee at Tabernacles, going to Jerusalem and then going to Peraea to link up with the Synoptics again. There is (originally) no real travel described with or without a successful recruiting drive. It is Invented storytelling detectable because it is contradictory.

Oh....Luke dreamed up all kinds of stuff for his letter to Theophilus...... I do snatch out 'by the way' anecdotes but don't bother with the rest of it.

Now, proposing my 'Pet Theory', IF the overpainted story of the failed Messiah is true, then Jesus went to Bethsaida (2) where he goes through an announcement of his Messiahship which makes sense of Jesus feeding the crowd of 5,000 men (specifically, sat down in platoons of fifty) and they buy it, which links with John's cover- up that they 'wanted to make him a king by force'. Though John tries to show Jesus fleeing such a terrible idea.

I don't think that the 'failed Meshiah' story is true, I just see a rebel trying to built a movement which ended up as a 1/2 day riot in city and temple. Done.
That 5000 story..... could be (kind of....a bit....) true. A much followed. adored. respected person gets attention from a crowd of listeners, a crowd small enough to be able to hear him, and he raises up what food he has to show and then passes it to people in the crowd, a wonderful gesture that others want the same credit for, and folks who have food hold it high (look! me too!) and hand it out.
A smart move because afterwards the boatmen/disciples gathered all those scraps to bait the water later for a brilliant catch....

I argue that John does not know of the transfiguration, but the 'Special Theory' proposes that they all know of the announcing of the messianic mission and it being accepted by the Bethsaidan men - if there is any underlying true story. And the attempt to disguise what actually happened is just like the way they try to disguise other 'agreed events' e.g the anointing, the donkey ride, and the temple dust - up. In that scenario he has gone to the safe -place of Peraea where John raised his support and with his thousands of followers, was camped on the Mount of Olives ready to do his Prophecy fulfilling ride (disguised as a Tabernacles Hosannah procession), to get his little army into the Temple under the nose of Pilate and his 1000 strong garrison. And let me merely direct you to Luke 13.1 for some 'Lost history' as to what Pilate did about it.

I've thought about 13:1 for years.... there are several possibilities including Galileans holding their own (free) services, with cleansing etc, wherever they pleased. After all, Pilate allowed the Samaritans to hold their feasts beyond the Temple, but I expect that Samaritans did pay fees, we just don't know about that.

Victorian hypocrisy... I know. it's why I love the 'Flashman' books, as he points up the hypocrisy that is still a human blight today, Why did the women retire at dinner? So the gentlemen (devout Churchgoers all) could swap notes about the best brothels in the locality. But I'm a half - full person. The universe owes us nothing and evolution dealt us only a hand of cards of brutal competition to survive. Reason has given us or gotten us a better hand and we have learned to play it better as we went on. Always aspiring to a better way to live, and so I roll with the often terrible mistakes and missteps we make. Never mind the Curvid balls that evolution throws us every now and again. But back to our muttons, or as Watership Down put it 'Sheep, led by a dog'.

Half-full....me too. Ah yes, humanity and its horrible errors; it's like looking back at the world as if a huge playground full of kids and their silly ideas.
The World is full of 5 year olds and 8 year olds. The 5yr olds are just 5 and live as such. The 8yr olds are in fact only 5yrs old but they just think they are smarter.

But be of good cheer, good Badgeman, since John Lennon let his big mouth run off before he had engaged his brain, we have had the nasty infection of Fundamentalism brought over by ...damn, what's the name? But spawning the vile Festival of Light moral crusade that tried to ban Life of Brian. That is gone and could never happen now (we are being crushed under a different hate - cult right now) so as Aragorn says "There is always Hope" and as Theoden says "We cannot defeat them, but we will meet them in battle nonetheless" and as I say, "Hit the thanks Icon, it's the only reason I'm here at all".

Ha ha! I gave you that, for that!

(1) though they could in theory be re-established if that idea of the 3rd Temple ever comes off. The Levis are still there. Napoleon actually tried to set up a Sanhedrin so he could 'Manage' all the Jews. Which was actually treating them far better than Christians had usually treated them. Even Muslims didn't hate them as much before the Balfour declaration.

I have heard Jews tell that living in Tehran, Iran is safer than living in Paris, France. Of course, Christians and Bahais (!!) fair less well there.
I didn't kbow about Napoleon's ......... Levis, you wrote 'Levis'..... who makes Levi Jeans, is there any connection?

(2) I believe I read that Vespasian began the Jewish war by cleaning up a nest of rebels in Bethsaida. It sticks in my mind that Bethsaida might be the very place for Jesus to go to recruit armed support.

Bethsaida was just a village where Cephas and Andrew grew up, they probably had an elder brother so got displaced and ended up working for Zebedee...... I don't get many vibes about Bethsaida that impact with me. Of course, there were two Bethsaidas and you might be referring to the other one.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, yes, you got me there. The gospels do show him in the Synagogue at times and so I took it that he was a regular like any other Jew. It was the Temple for festivals and special occasions, the Synagogues for regular worship, and the whole business of worship and teaching the law was in the hands of the Rabbis, who were Pharisees. I suppose the whole of Judaism is really Pharisee, since the Sadducees vanished in the Jewish war (1) But the Gospel situation is an artificial construct by the writers. Jesus shows up in the Capernaum synagogue (his regular venue) but mostly to tell them the Sabbath didn't matter. But he shows up in the (supposed) Nazareth synagogue where he is apparently invited by the 'Ruler' (Synagogue president) to do the reading. Which is where he reads the Isiah prophecy and says 'That's me'. Other times he's cutting church and the ministers are following him around the fields to see whether he infringes the Rules, which he does just so he can debunk the Sabbath. The only time I recall him in the Capernaum Synagogue in John was to drive away most of the Jews because of the Eucharist, and only the disciples stick with him because (to quote Linus van Pelt) "I've already sent out 100 Pumpkin cards. It would be economically disastrous of me Not to believe it". In OW they have burned their boats and they have to stick with the cult, no matter what daft stuff the Leader comes up with. Clearly John back engineering the way he sees the Jews rejecting Jesus, apart from the disciples, despite their doubts.

You mentioned that the Sadducees vanished in the Jewish War, but of course this has no relevance for the student of HJ, because the Levite High class, the whole lot of it, was what Jesus was hoping to make a stand against. If it was Levite then it was fat, corrupted and hypocritical, or that is how I think that Jesus perceived it all to be.
Grazing as one walked through a (local) field was not a breach of the Sabbath because it was just eating and local travel...... enemies would have snatched at anything for a cheap criticism of their enemy. They made more ground by pointing out his eating and drinking habits, and his company....that bothered the imprisoned Baptist when he heard about it all, but it didn't bother Jesus. Incidentally, I mentioned how Jesus loved his drink and meat on a Christian forum (with quotes) and mostly everybody went bonkers......... Christianity not only cherry-picks its verses but it sure as hellfire ignores others.
-

So it's all invented scenarios to put over the Christian view (derived from Paul). So I'm rightly put on the spot by you for using it to propose Jesus as a Pharisee. The thing is that, in anything other than being part of the Orthodox Elite (Sadducees) or separated from society or (the Essenes) the social activist up to and including zealots, was Pharisee, which dominated common Jewish thought. So that's the best I can do in saying why I think that Jesus and his followers were in the Pharisee ambit.

I just think that Northern Jews despised the rich, fat, comfortable southerners, were set against them, would rise against them at 'the drop of a hat' and were more focused upon their next meal than what any Pharisee of Priest thought, said or did.

Now, as to the trip to Peraea, It's pretty much all Luke who uses the "Q" material (Matthew uses it in the Sermon) to have teachings given on the way, e.g he starts off with the Lord's prayer when he sets out and does the thing about the jot and tittle of the Law before arriving. There is...hang on...yep, start of Matthew 10, he leaves Galilee and arrives in Peraea (beyond the Jordan) in one para. And Mark 10 does it in one line. Luke's long journey is his own invention, using Q and his own personal parables to bulk the journey out. John of course has it different with Jesus leaving Galilee at Tabernacles, going to Jerusalem and then going to Peraea to link up with the Synoptics again. There is (originally) no real travel described with or without a successful recruiting drive. It is Invented storytelling detectable because it is contradictory.

Oh....Luke dreamed up all kinds of stuff for his letter to Theophilus...... I do snatch out 'by the way' anecdotes but don't bother with the rest of it.

Now, proposing my 'Pet Theory', IF the overpainted story of the failed Messiah is true, then Jesus went to Bethsaida (2) where he goes through an announcement of his Messiahship which makes sense of Jesus feeding the crowd of 5,000 men (specifically, sat down in platoons of fifty) and they buy it, which links with John's cover- up that they 'wanted to make him a king by force'. Though John tries to show Jesus fleeing such a terrible idea.

I don't think that the 'failed Meshiah' story is true, I just see a rebel trying to built a movement which ended up as a 1/2 day riot in city and temple. Done.
That 5000 story..... could be (kind of....a bit....) true. A much followed. adored. respected person gets attention from a crowd of listeners, a crowd small enough to be able to hear him, and he raises up what food he has to show and then passes it to people in the crowd, a wonderful gesture that others want the same credit for, and folks who have food hold it high (look! me too!) and hand it out.
A smart move because afterwards the boatmen/disciples gathered all those scraps to bait the water later for a brilliant catch....

I argue that John does not know of the transfiguration, but the 'Special Theory' proposes that they all know of the announcing of the messianic mission and it being accepted by the Bethsaidan men - if there is any underlying true story. And the attempt to disguise what actually happened is just like the way they try to disguise other 'agreed events' e.g the anointing, the donkey ride, and the temple dust - up. In that scenario he has gone to the safe -place of Peraea where John raised his support and with his thousands of followers, was camped on the Mount of Olives ready to do his Prophecy fulfilling ride (disguised as a Tabernacles Hosannah procession), to get his little army into the Temple under the nose of Pilate and his 1000 strong garrison. And let me merely direct you to Luke 13.1 for some 'Lost history' as to what Pilate did about it.

I've thought about 13:1 for years.... there are several possibilities including Galileans holding their own (free) services, with cleansing etc, wherever they pleased. After all, Pilate allowed the Samaritans to hold their feasts beyond the Temple, but I expect that Samaritans did pay fees, we just don't know about that.

Victorian hypocrisy... I know. it's why I love the 'Flashman' books, as he points up the hypocrisy that is still a human blight today, Why did the women retire at dinner? So the gentlemen (devout Churchgoers all) could swap notes about the best brothels in the locality. But I'm a half - full person. The universe owes us nothing and evolution dealt us only a hand of cards of brutal competition to survive. Reason has given us or gotten us a better hand and we have learned to play it better as we went on. Always aspiring to a better way to live, and so I roll with the often terrible mistakes and missteps we make. Never mind the Curvid balls that evolution throws us every now and again. But back to our muttons, or as Watership Down put it 'Sheep, led by a dog'.

Half-full....me too. Ah yes, humanity and its horrible errors; it's like looking back at the world as if a huge playground full of kids and their silly ideas.
The World is full of 5 year olds and 8 year olds. The 5yr olds are just 5 and live as such. The 8yr olds are in fact only 5yrs old but they just think they are smarter.

But be of good cheer, good Badgeman, since John Lennon let his big mouth run off before he had engaged his brain, we have had the nasty infection of Fundamentalism brought over by ...damn, what's the name? But spawning the vile Festival of Light moral crusade that tried to ban Life of Brian. That is gone and could never happen now (we are being crushed under a different hate - cult right now) so as Aragorn says "There is always Hope" and as Theoden says "We cannot defeat them, but we will meet them in battle nonetheless" and as I say, "Hit the thanks Icon, it's the only reason I'm here at all".

Ha ha! I gave you that, for that!

(1) though they could in theory be re-established if that idea of the 3rd Temple ever comes off. The Levis are still there. Napoleon actually tried to set up a Sanhedrin so he could 'Manage' all the Jews. Which was actually treating them far better than Christians had usually treated them. Even Muslims didn't hate them as much before the Balfour declaration.

I have heard Jews tell that living in Tehran, Iran is safer than living in Paris, France. Of course, Christians and Bahais (!!) fair less well there.
I didn't kbow about Napoleon's ......... Levis, you wrote 'Levis'..... who makes Levi Jeans, is there any connection?

(2) I believe I read that Vespasian began the Jewish war by cleaning up a nest of rebels in Bethsaida. It sticks in my mind that Bethsaida might be the very place for Jesus to go to recruit armed support.

Bethsaida was just a village where Cephas and Andrew grew up, they probably had an elder brother so got displaced and ended up working for Zebedee...... I don't get many vibes about Bethsaida that impact with me. Of course, there were two Bethsaidas and you might be referring to the other one.

As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus didn't rail against the Sadducees for corruption (he did against the Pharisees) but for wrong doctrine and misunderstanding the OT. But I may be missing some parts of the Denunciation (though that's all Matthew's own work).

It wasn't so much about nibbling grain, nor even the husking of grain which is a nice swipe against pettifogging ritual rules, but about Jesus going of at a tangent about it being ok to buck Mosaic law and the sabbath because David ate the shewbread. Whatever actions are part of that scene, the argument is about it's ok to break the Sabbath.

From what i read about the Galilean revolts, they were aimed against the Roman occupation rather than the corrupt temple priesthood. Judas' revolt against the Roman tax was not aimed at the Temple, nor was John's 'repentance' mission aimed at the temple but against Antipas as ruler of a Roman client -state. If they had a beef with the Sanhedrin it was because they were cozy with the Romans, not because they creamed off the profits.

Ok you don't buy the Failed Messiah story. I'm in two minds myself. I am just noting that it explains a lot of stuff that is otherwise a puzzle. Assuming they are noticed at all. Notably that John doesn't have a transfiguration. But if you make it a messianic declaration (accepted) then an adaptation of the baptism event as a messianic miracle and the People wanting to make Jesus a king using their 'force' brings the two (disguised) elements together. And Disguise of events connected with Bethany and the Temple, as well as hints that it happened at Sukkhot, is all resolves as covered up parts of the efforts of a failed Messiah. It's just that, without that, nothing makes sense, if, as I say, anyone bothers whether it makes sense or not.

13.1? Matthew? I'll have a look. I didn't know about Napoleon either until I saw a docu. on Napoleon's Sanhedrin. I'm happy to hear that Jews are well treated in Iran. And I may confuse the Levites with Levis. Cancel the Like.

There are (or were) several Bethsaidas. I believe Bethsaida Julia (a proper town) was on the West side of the river that flows into the North of Lake Galilee, but another Bethsaida is on the West and in Philip's Tetrarchy and safe for a zealot camp. Until the Jewish war started. Of course if it was only a village it didn't matter as the camp wouldn't be in Bethsaida itself.

[oldbadger]

As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus didn't rail against the Sadducees for corruption (he did against the Pharisees) but for wrong doctrine and misunderstanding the OT. But I may be missing some parts of the Denunciation (though that's all Matthew's own work).

Actions speak louder than words and rails........... He wrecked Anna's bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts, and I think he went back in on Tuesday to do it all again because Priests came to ask him 'Why?'.

It wasn't so much about nibbling grain, nor even the husking of grain which is a nice swipe against pettifogging ritual rules, but about Jesus going of at a tangent about it being ok to buck Mosaic law and the sabbath because David ate the shewbread. Whatever actions are part of that scene, the argument is about it's ok to break the Sabbath.

Christians do this all the time, well, Paul started it. Because a bunch of hypocritical niggling nasties followed Jesus at times, nit-picking his every word and action, and because he shut them up, this was developed in to 'We won't take any more notice of the Sabbath Laws'... and then Christianity picked the first day of the week instead of the last to subject folks to many similar rules. Many Christians today still think that the Sabbath is a Sunday! And because he is reported to have used an analogy about 'what comes out of man rather than what goes in being the true gauge of wickedness' Christianity calls out 'That's it!.. He dumped all the food laws so we can dump hundreds of other laws..... and then Christianity nips back in to cherry-pick a few of the abominations which it can get shocked about.
We couldn't make it up.....but Paul did.

From what i read about the Galilean revolts, they were aimed against the Roman occupation rather than the corrupt temple priesthood. Judas' revolt against the Roman tax was not aimed at the Temple, nor was John's 'repentance' mission aimed at the temple but against Antipas as ruler of a Roman client -state. If they had a beef with the Sanhedrin it was because they were cozy with the Romans, not because they creamed off the profits.

The Judas-Revolt is misty..... such as, a Galilean getting cross about a new taxation plan and demonstrating down in Judea. But 'Yes', Galileans seemed to kick back at any kind of taxes, controls, outsiders, and that included the Temple and its very comfortable leaders. When I was a kid Northern Counties in the UK considered the rich Southern counties to be a bunch of wealthy, right-wing, stick-up, careless ------s, and to a lesser extent they still do. I reckon that fits with the Northern/Southern divide in Palestine in early 1st century.

The only Romans in Galilee were either observers, retired or on holiday.

Ok you don't buy the Failed Messiah story. I'm in two minds myself. I am just noting that it explains a lot of stuff that is otherwise a puzzle. Assuming they are noticed at all. Notably that John doesn't have a transfiguration. But if you make it a messianic declaration (accepted) then an adaptation of the baptism event as a messianic miracle and the People wanting to make Jesus a king using their 'force' brings the two (disguised) elements together. And Disguise of events connected with Bethany and the Temple, as well as hints that it happened at Sukkhot, is all resolves as covered up parts of the efforts of a failed Messiah. It's just that, without that, nothing makes sense, if, as I say, anyone bothers whether it makes sense or not.

Yeah, No..... I don't take any notice of complex stuffing about all that..... but.....
That G-John doesn't have a transfiguration this simply shows that the author had never known Jesus, no disciple, etc. so this helps to bin a lot of its junk stories and explains its muddled and stretched timeline. Christianity does love the G-John spin, a Catholic woman once divulged to me that some verses from John made her shiver with some kind of sexual excitement, all that 'spiritual' waffle, which leads me straight back to this thread's title about them not having a clue about what Jesus did on key days in the story because they are more involved with weird stuff elsewhere. Amazing.

13.1? Matthew? I'll have a look. I didn't know about Napoleon either until I saw a docu. on Napoleon's Sanhedrin. I'm happy to hear that Jews are well treated in Iran. And I may confuse the Levites with Levis. Cancel the Like.

no probs....... And 'yes', Jews aren't particularly loved in Iran, they just feel a bit safer than in places like France..... Europe is still riddled with Anti-Semitism and that's quite different to Anti-Zionism; our politicians love to mix these two up especially if they want to discredit and politically assassinate an opposing minister.

There are (or were) several Bethsaidas. I believe Bethsaida Julia (a proper town) was on the West side of the river that flows into the North of Lake Galilee, but another Bethsaida is on the West and in Philip's Tetrarchy and safe for a zealot camp. Until the Jewish war started. Of course if it was only a village it didn't matter as the camp wouldn't be in Bethsaida itself.

The Bathsaida featured in the gospels was the one in the mouth of the Jordan just North of Gennesaret. Imo.

[TRANSPONDER]

As I recall from the Gospels, Jesus didn't rail against the Sadducees for corruption (he did against the Pharisees) but for wrong doctrine and misunderstanding the OT. But I may be missing some parts of the Denunciation (though that's all Matthew's own work).

oldbadger post Actions speak louder than words and rails........... He wrecked Anna's bazaar and picketed the Temple Courts, and I think he went back in on Tuesday to do it all again because Priests came to ask him 'Why?'.

Yes. That is how it is presented in the gospels. But as will be no surprise by now, there are detectable signs of a cover - up and general misrepresentation. The Anointing at Bethany, for instance. And the Temple dust - up which John removed, just as Luke removed the anointing. There are also practical problems. Jesus must have visited the Temple many times before. Why just after a kingly procession would he decide that it was time for an action like that? As to doing it twice, I reject that. This is the result of the writers trying to cover up the connection between the two acts and I stand by the principle of rejecting attempts to explain the contradictory versions of one event by saying there were two similar acts.

There's also the problem of nobody taking any action. From what I have been able to glean, quite apart from Temple police, Pilate had brought his 500 auxiliaries from Caesarea specifically to keep the peace at Festivals. Even if Jesus had done this (in the stoa along the south side of the Temple) he'd have to run, or be arrested. Certainly not hang about in the Treasury arguing with the Sadducees.

That works no better than the resurrection or the Nativities and is just as fiddled and false, and I'll bet my wife's honor on it. It might all be fantasy, but if it is real, what fits like a Startrek Uniform on a starlet, is Jesus recruiting 5,000 Bethsaidan Men for his messianic mission (covered up as a transfiguration or Jesus running away form any idea of making him a king) arrival at Bethany, anointing on the head (as messianic as you could wish - covered up my making it a weeping sinner moping over the feet or simply removing it to Galilee), the donkey fiddled to look like it wasn't all done next morning, the fiddles to separate the ride and fracas to different days, all shows a cover up. At least the inevitability of the Roman guard descending on them, and there is where that odd passage in Luke comes to mind about the blood of the Galleans, otherwise vanished from historical record. But Luke knew about it.

The fiddled trial when Pilate had enough with the Temple rumble to nail Jesus to the wall without the Jews being involved at all; the unknown Passover release as well as the total silence on the 'Cleansing' by The Sanhedrin, Pilate or anyone as a possible charge, and the actual charge, a messianic effort, with 'robbers' (zealot rebels) being nailed up as well. And I haven't even mention the 'Barabbas exchange'.

Fantasy maybe, but if it is real in any way, just like the nativities and the resurrection, the Gospel version is not in the least bit credible and the overpainted messianic effort is. In every way.

'sponder post It wasn't so much about nibbling grain, nor even the husking of grain which is a nice swipe against pettifogging ritual rules, but about Jesus going of at a tangent about it being ok to buck Mosaic law and the sabbath because David ate the shewbread. Whatever actions are part of that scene, the argument is about it's ok to break the Sabbath.

oldbadger post Christians do this all the time, well, Paul started it. Because a bunch of hypocritical niggling nasties followed Jesus at times, nit-picking his every word and action, and because he shut them up, this was developed in to 'We won't take any more notice of the Sabbath Laws'... and then Christianity picked the first day of the week instead of the last to subject folks to many similar rules. Many Christians today still think that the Sabbath is a Sunday! And because he is reported to have used an analogy about 'what comes out of man rather than what goes in being the true gauge of wickedness' Christianity calls out 'That's it!.. He dumped all the food laws so we can dump hundreds of other laws..... and then Christianity nips back in to cherry-pick a few of the abominations which it can get shocked about.
We couldn't make it up.....but Paul did.

Yes. It all started with Paul. Even if we credit Acts (I don't) Luke saw that the Nazorenes were all observant Jews, much bothered that Paul has been teaching 'converts' that circumcision didn't matter and James had to do a show of Jewish orthodoxy to cover it up for Paul (Acts 21,20), with him and Peter speaking up for Paul's mission against the 'party of the circumcision' whoever those were supposed to be. That's all Luke's nonsense and Paul simply junked the Mosaic law because Gentiles would never wear it and it had to go to win converts. As well (Acts 15.7) as (I suspect) Paul wasn't so observant himself and it suited him to make the Law obsolte (eventually) for himself and other Jews, as well as for Gentiles.

Just take Acts 10.11 and hammock of wrigglies. It's clear that Luke sees Peter as observing clean food laws, when Jesus (according to the gospels) had tossed them in the bin. The Gospels follow Paul, not Paul the gospels.

From what i read about the Galilean revolts, they were aimed against the Roman occupation rather than the corrupt temple priesthood. Judas' revolt against the Roman tax was not aimed at the Temple, nor was John's 'repentance' mission aimed at the temple but against Antipas as ruler of a Roman client -state. If they had a beef with the Sanhedrin it was because they were cozy with the Romans, not because they creamed off the profits.

oldbadger post The Judas-Revolt is misty..... such as, a Galilean getting cross about a new taxation plan and demonstrating down in Judea. But 'Yes', Galileans seemed to kick back at any kind of taxes, controls, outsiders, and that included the Temple and its very comfortable leaders. When I was a kid Northern Counties in the UK considered the rich Southern counties to be a bunch of wealthy, right-wing, stick-up, careless ------s, and to a lesser extent they still do. I reckon that fits with the Northern/Southern divide in Palestine in early 1st century.

Whether the North regarding the South as fat lazy saps and the South regarding the north as half wild uncouth barbarians (happens here in the UK, too ) Josephus is clear about the tax revolt - Judas and Galileans rose in armed revolt (clearing out the Roman arms stockpile at Sepphoris, too) because of the tax census. Luke in Acts (Gamaliel's speech) makes it clear that's what Luke's talking about with 'the days of the census' even though he gets the two events reversed in order. I think (after a Looong discussion on the former board) that the whole sequence of events from the death of Herod to the census of Quirinus is quite clear..

oldbadger post The only Romans in Galilee were either observers, retired or on holiday.

Broadly. I imagine there might have been advisors, but that Antipas had his own war with Aretas showed that Rome didn't run his Tetrarchy. Though they could (and did) remove him when they saw the need.

Ok you don't buy the Failed Messiah story. I'm in two minds myself. I am just noting that it explains a lot of stuff that is otherwise a puzzle. Assuming they are noticed at all. Notably that John doesn't have a transfiguration. But if you make it a messianic declaration (accepted) then an adaptation of the baptism event as a messianic miracle and the People wanting to make Jesus a king using their 'force' brings the two (disguised) elements together. And Disguise of events connected with Bethany and the Temple, as well as hints that it happened at Sukkhot, is all resolves as covered up parts of the efforts of a failed Messiah. It's just that, without that, nothing makes sense, if, as I say, anyone bothers whether it makes sense or not.

oldbadger post Yeah, No..... I don't take any notice of complex stuffing about all that..... but.....
That G-John doesn't have a transfiguration this simply shows that the author had never known Jesus, no disciple, etc. so this helps to bin a lot of its junk stories and explains its muddled and stretched timeline. Christianity does love the G-John spin, a Catholic woman once divulged to me that some verses from John made her shiver with some kind of sexual excitement, all that 'spiritual' waffle, which leads me straight back to this thread's title about them not having a clue about what Jesus did on key days in the story because they are more involved with weird stuff elsewhere. Amazing.

True, the contradictions (serious ones) debunk the gospels as reliable report or eyewitness. But nobody goes into why. It is simply said 'that has to be wrong - i don't believe it' But I ask 'if that was the basic story - and they are all talking about what Jesus did in Bethsaida after the feeding of the crowd - how could they not tell the same story, even if it had been made up?' The answer to me is clear - it was fiddled to look different, just as other parts of the gospels (the embarrassments) are fiddled to disguise what they originally were. I hate to keep banging my own drum, but nobody else seems to have seen any of this. Never read or viewed it, anyway. And I won't deny that I get excited over these hidden mysteries becoming clear, even though I I know I could be wrong (even though I'm not )

13.1? Matthew? I'll have a look. I didn't know about Napoleon either until I saw a docu. on Napoleon's Sanhedrin. I'm happy to hear that Jews are well treated in Iran. And I may confuse the Levites with Levis. Cancel the Like.

oldbadger post no probs....... And 'yes', Jews aren't particularly loved in Iran, they just feel a bit safer than in places like France..... Europe is still riddled with Anti-Semitism and that's quite different to Anti-Zionism; our politicians love to mix these two up especially if they want to discredit and politically assassinate an opposing minister.

Ok don't recall how we got onto Jews in the current world, but more relevant is their state in the Roman world.

There are (or were) several Bethsaidas. I believe Bethsaida Julia (a proper town) was on the West side of the river that flows into the North of Lake Galilee, but another Bethsaida is on the West and in Philip's Tetrarchy and safe for a zealot camp. Until the Jewish war started. Of course if it was only a village it didn't matter as the camp wouldn't be in Bethsaida itself.

oldbadger post The Bathsaida featured in the gospels was the one in the mouth of the Jordan just North of Gennesaret. Imo.

Yes, but on the West side (Bethsaida Julia) or on the east side, in Philip's territory? We don't know, but that would be handy to be out of the view of the Romans and Antipas, if Jesus was Getting Up to anything, like collecting for a Messianic revolt.

[oldbadger]

Yes. That is how it is presented in the gospels. But as will be no surprise by now, there are detectable signs of a cover - up and general misrepresentation. The Anointing at Bethany, for instance. And the Temple dust - up which John removed, just as Luke removed the anointing. There are also practical problems. Jesus must have visited the Temple many times before. Why just after a kingly procession would he decide that it was time for an action like that? As to doing it twice, I reject that. This is the result of the writers trying to cover up the connection between the two acts and I stand by the principle of rejecting attempts to explain the contradictory versions of one event by saying there were two similar acts.

Because Luke and John riddled their gospels with junk I only look for interesting or useful pieces of information/anecdotes which do not help their Christian agendas. I don't trust these gospels so I don't worry about them.
I don't think that Galileans did visit the Temple so often, it's a 120 mile walk each way on a route that was polluted with bandits, so they had to travel in groups. Mark's description of Jesus and co either carrying out a recce in Temple on that Sunday (or just looking about) shows that they did not have intimate knowledge.

There's also the problem of nobody taking any action. From what I have been able to glean, quite apart from Temple police, Pilate had brought his 500 auxiliaries from Caesarea specifically to keep the peace at Festivals. Even if Jesus had done this (in the stoa along the south side of the Temple) he'd have to run, or be arrested. Certainly not hang about in the Treasury arguing with the Sadducees.

Roman soldiers did not enter the Temple, they patrolled its wall tops, only.
To control a major feast of up to 1/2 million visitors (we know this) all priests (about 2000) were required to attend and all temple guards (about 6000) so any demonstration and picketing had to be a massive movement........ a total riot. ....... Barabbas?
G-Mark says Jesus (and co) went back the next day and did do 'these things'....and there was argument right there and then.

That works no better than the resurrection or the Nativities and is just as fiddled and false, and I'll bet my wife's honor on it. It might all be fantasy, but if it is real, what fits like a Startrek Uniform on a starlet, is Jesus recruiting 5,000 Bethsaidan Men for his messianic mission (covered up as a transfiguration or Jesus running away form any idea of making him a king) arrival at Bethany, anointing on the head (as messianic as you could wish - covered up my making it a weeping sinner moping over the feet or simply removing it to Galilee), the donkey fiddled to look like it wasn't all done next morning, the fiddles to separate the ride and fracas to different days, all shows a cover up. At least the inevitability of the Roman guard descending on them, and there is where that odd passage in Luke comes to mind about the blood of the Galleans, otherwise vanished from historical record. But Luke knew about it.

The resurrection, the nativities etc are junk, so I don't consider them. Jesus holding large meetings up around Gennesaret, these could have been quite large, but G-Mark tells that he didn't build a very big following up there.
The Roman guard........ can you tell me where a report about 500 extra Roman soldiers attending Jerusalem/Antonian for festivals is....is that from Josephus?

The fiddled trial when Pilate had enough with the Temple rumble to nail Jesus to the wall without the Jews being involved at all; the unknown Passover release as well as the total silence on the 'Cleansing' by The Sanhedrin, Pilate or anyone as a possible charge, and the actual charge, a messianic effort, with 'robbers' (zealot rebels) being nailed up as well. And I haven't even mention the 'Barabbas exchange'.

Christianity needed the 'cleansing' to go away..... by the time G-John was written it had been wiped... the riot in the Temple has to be the reason for arrest and trial and subsequent delivery before Pilate.

Fantasy maybe, but if it is real in any way, just like the nativities and the resurrection, the Gospel version is not in the least bit credible and the overpainted messianic effort is. In every way.

I only focus upon the G-Mark account but with the addition of (imo) safe accounts from others..... so I don't let nativities, resurrections, holy stories etc swirl around in my head.... at all.

Yes. It all started with Paul. Even if we credit Acts (I don't) Luke saw that the Nazorenes were all observant Jews, much bothered that Paul has been teaching 'converts' that circumcision didn't matter and James had to do a show of Jewish orthodoxy to cover it up for Paul (Acts 21,20), with him and Peter speaking up for Paul's mission against the 'party of the circumcision' whoever those were supposed to be. That's all Luke's nonsense and Paul simply junked the Mosaic law because Gentiles would never wear it and it had to go to win converts. As well (Acts 15.7) as (I suspect) Paul wasn't so observant himself and it suited him to make the Law obsolte (eventually) for himself and other Jews, as well as for Gentiles.

Ah..... nearly all of Acts is beyond the Historic Jesus, it becomes Historic Christianity which I don't bother myself with.

Just take Acts 10.11 and hammock of wrigglies. It's clear that Luke sees Peter as observing clean food laws, when Jesus (according to the gospels) had tossed them in the bin. The Gospels follow Paul, not Paul the gospels.

Yes, I'll bet that Cephas observed the food laws, and I'll bet that Jesus did as well....... Christianity took Jesus's 'What comes out' lecture in to 'East what you want'. It needed to do this or the (gentile) movement would have died. Historic Christianity, that.

Whether the North regarding the South as fat lazy saps and the South regarding the north as half wild uncouth barbarians (happens here in the UK, too ) Josephus is clear about the tax revolt - Judas and Galileans rose in armed revolt (clearing out the Roman arms stockpile at Sepphoris, too) because of the tax census. Luke in Acts (Gamaliel's speech) makes it clear that's what Luke's talking about with 'the days of the census' even though he gets the two events reversed in order. I think (after a Looong discussion on the former board) that the whole sequence of events from the death of Herod to the census of Quirinus is quite clear..

That all happened about 30 years beforehand. That's like mixing up events from both the 1st and 2nd World Wars..,... like battleship Bismark appearing at Jutland.

Broadly. I imagine there might have been advisors, but that Antipas had his own war with Aretas showed that Rome didn't run his Tetrarchy. Though they could (and did) remove him when they saw the need.

Yeah........ Galilee, Perea and the North run by and enforced by Jewish officials etc......with Roman observers, I guess.

True, the contradictions (serious ones) debunk the gospels as reliable report or eyewitness. But nobody goes into why. It is simply said 'that has to be wrong - i don't believe it' But I ask 'if that was the basic story - and they are all talking about what Jesus did in Bethsaida after the feeding of the crowd - how could they not tell the same story, even if it had been made up?' The answer to me is clear - it was fiddled to look different, just as other parts of the gospels (the embarrassments) are fiddled to disguise what they originally were. I hate to keep banging my own drum, but nobody else seems to have seen any of this. Never read or viewed it, anyway. And I won't deny that I get excited over these hidden mysteries becoming clear, even though I I know I could be wrong (even though I'm not )

I don't treat the gospels as one statement, but four, and where individual gospels shame themselves with their rubbish then I isolate that with them, I don't let it run over......... possible example?: If a household's son rob a store I wouldn't defame the whole family.

Ok don't recall how we got onto Jews in the current world, but more relevant is their state in the Roman world.

That was my fault......... but since G-John and Paul caused so much anti-Semitism this has run through to today, I'm afraid.

Yes, but on the West side (Bethsaida Julia) or on the east side, in Philip's territory? We don't know, but that would be handy to be out of the view of the Romans and Antipas, if Jesus was Getting Up to anything, like collecting for a Messianic revolt.

OK......... and/but I perceive the revolt as just a revolt against corruption..... I don't see it as an attempt to gain any kind of political control...... A riot which trashes a huge temple bazaar and pickets the temple courts is just a rebellion.....

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. That is how it is presented in the gospels. But as will be no surprise by now, there are detectable signs of a cover - up and general misrepresentation. The Anointing at Bethany, for instance. And the Temple dust - up which John removed, just as Luke removed the anointing. There are also practical problems. Jesus must have visited the Temple many times before. Why just after a kingly procession would he decide that it was time for an action like that? As to doing it twice, I reject that. This is the result of the writers trying to cover up the connection between the two acts and I stand by the principle of rejecting attempts to explain the contradictory versions of one event by saying there were two similar acts.

Because Luke and John riddled their gospels with junk I only look for interesting or useful pieces of information/anecdotes which do not help their Christian agendas. I don't trust these gospels so I don't worry about them.
I don't think that Galileans did visit the Temple so often, it's a 120 mile walk each way on a route that was polluted with bandits, so they had to travel in groups. Mark's description of Jesus and co either carrying out a recce in Temple on that Sunday (or just looking about) shows that they did not have intimate knowledge.

There's also the problem of nobody taking any action. From what I have been able to glean, quite apart from Temple police, Pilate had brought his 500 auxiliaries from Caesarea specifically to keep the peace at Festivals. Even if Jesus had done this (in the stoa along the south side of the Temple) he'd have to run, or be arrested. Certainly not hang about in the Treasury arguing with the Sadducees.

Roman soldiers did not enter the Temple, they patrolled its wall tops, only.
To control a major feast of up to 1/2 million visitors (we know this) all priests (about 2000) were required to attend and all temple guards (about 6000) so any demonstration and picketing had to be a massive movement........ a total riot. ....... Barabbas?
G-Mark says Jesus (and co) went back the next day and did do 'these things'....and there was argument right there and then.

That works no better than the resurrection or the Nativities and is just as fiddled and false, and I'll bet my wife's honor on it. It might all be fantasy, but if it is real, what fits like a Startrek Uniform on a starlet, is Jesus recruiting 5,000 Bethsaidan Men for his messianic mission (covered up as a transfiguration or Jesus running away form any idea of making him a king) arrival at Bethany, anointing on the head (as messianic as you could wish - covered up my making it a weeping sinner moping over the feet or simply removing it to Galilee), the donkey fiddled to look like it wasn't all done next morning, the fiddles to separate the ride and fracas to different days, all shows a cover up. At least the inevitability of the Roman guard descending on them, and there is where that odd passage in Luke comes to mind about the blood of the Galleans, otherwise vanished from historical record. But Luke knew about it.

The resurrection, the nativities etc are junk, so I don't consider them. Jesus holding large meetings up around Gennesaret, these could have been quite large, but G-Mark tells that he didn't build a very big following up there.
The Roman guard........ can you tell me where a report about 500 extra Roman soldiers attending Jerusalem/Antonian for festivals is....is that from Josephus?

The fiddled trial when Pilate had enough with the Temple rumble to nail Jesus to the wall without the Jews being involved at all; the unknown Passover release as well as the total silence on the 'Cleansing' by The Sanhedrin, Pilate or anyone as a possible charge, and the actual charge, a messianic effort, with 'robbers' (zealot rebels) being nailed up as well. And I haven't even mention the 'Barabbas exchange'.

Christianity needed the 'cleansing' to go away..... by the time G-John was written it had been wiped... the riot in the Temple has to be the reason for arrest and trial and subsequent delivery before Pilate.

Fantasy maybe, but if it is real in any way, just like the nativities and the resurrection, the Gospel version is not in the least bit credible and the overpainted messianic effort is. In every way.

I only focus upon the G-Mark account but with the addition of (imo) safe accounts from others..... so I don't let nativities, resurrections, holy stories etc swirl around in my head.... at all.

Yes. It all started with Paul. Even if we credit Acts (I don't) Luke saw that the Nazorenes were all observant Jews, much bothered that Paul has been teaching 'converts' that circumcision didn't matter and James had to do a show of Jewish orthodoxy to cover it up for Paul (Acts 21,20), with him and Peter speaking up for Paul's mission against the 'party of the circumcision' whoever those were supposed to be. That's all Luke's nonsense and Paul simply junked the Mosaic law because Gentiles would never wear it and it had to go to win converts. As well (Acts 15.7) as (I suspect) Paul wasn't so observant himself and it suited him to make the Law obsolte (eventually) for himself and other Jews, as well as for Gentiles.

Ah..... nearly all of Acts is beyond the Historic Jesus, it becomes Historic Christianity which I don't bother myself with.

Just take Acts 10.11 and hammock of wrigglies. It's clear that Luke sees Peter as observing clean food laws, when Jesus (according to the gospels) had tossed them in the bin. The Gospels follow Paul, not Paul the gospels.

Yes, I'll bet that Cephas observed the food laws, and I'll bet that Jesus did as well....... Christianity took Jesus's 'What comes out' lecture in to 'East what you want'. It needed to do this or the (gentile) movement would have died. Historic Christianity, that.

Whether the North regarding the South as fat lazy saps and the South regarding the north as half wild uncouth barbarians (happens here in the UK, too ) Josephus is clear about the tax revolt - Judas and Galileans rose in armed revolt (clearing out the Roman arms stockpile at Sepphoris, too) because of the tax census. Luke in Acts (Gamaliel's speech) makes it clear that's what Luke's talking about with 'the days of the census' even though he gets the two events reversed in order. I think (after a Looong discussion on the former board) that the whole sequence of events from the death of Herod to the census of Quirinus is quite clear..

That all happened about 30 years beforehand. That's like mixing up events from both the 1st and 2nd World Wars..,... like battleship Bismark appearing at Jutland.

Broadly. I imagine there might have been advisors, but that Antipas had his own war with Aretas showed that Rome didn't run his Tetrarchy. Though they could (and did) remove him when they saw the need.

Yeah........ Galilee, Perea and the North run by and enforced by Jewish officials etc......with Roman observers, I guess.

True, the contradictions (serious ones) debunk the gospels as reliable report or eyewitness. But nobody goes into why. It is simply said 'that has to be wrong - i don't believe it' But I ask 'if that was the basic story - and they are all talking about what Jesus did in Bethsaida after the feeding of the crowd - how could they not tell the same story, even if it had been made up?' The answer to me is clear - it was fiddled to look different, just as other parts of the gospels (the embarrassments) are fiddled to disguise what they originally were. I hate to keep banging my own drum, but nobody else seems to have seen any of this. Never read or viewed it, anyway. And I won't deny that I get excited over these hidden mysteries becoming clear, even though I I know I could be wrong (even though I'm not )

I don't treat the gospels as one statement, but four, and where individual gospels shame themselves with their rubbish then I isolate that with them, I don't let it run over......... possible example?: If a household's son rob a store I wouldn't defame the whole family.

Ok don't recall how we got onto Jews in the current world, but more relevant is their state in the Roman world.

That was my fault......... but since G-John and Paul caused so much anti-Semitism this has run through to today, I'm afraid.

Yes, but on the West side (Bethsaida Julia) or on the east side, in Philip's territory? We don't know, but that would be handy to be out of the view of the Romans and Antipas, if Jesus was Getting Up to anything, like collecting for a Messianic revolt.

OK......... and/but I perceive the revolt as just a revolt against corruption..... I don't see it as an attempt to gain any kind of political control...... A riot which trashes a huge temple bazaar and pickets the temple courts is just a rebellion.....

Ok. We both have different approaches. The topic is on what Jesus did Holy Week, sub topic, why what he is supposed to have done makes no sense and is contradictory as far as being unreliable. It is a particular interest of mine as well as possibly detecting the reality underneath (in any) but you can have a different approach which is fine.

Mark does have the Temple business over twp days, as does Matthew, but not Luke and John. IF we put John' Temple cleansing back where it belongs (12.20), they agree the two things happened on the same day. Now, the Mark/Matthew version seems to have split the action over two days. But Matthew agrees the Hosanna - ride and temple cleansing were on the same day, one right after the other, though the cursing of the fig tree happens next day as well as the question about Authority. Luke had it apparently unspecified days later. John's temple cleansing (John 23) also has a question about authority, directly after.

Mark sorta spreads the action over 3 days, first the ride to the temple, next day the cursing of the Fig tree and the temple cleansing after that and the day after finding the fig-tree dead and the question about Authoity.

You may not agree with me that it all ought to be on one day - donkey ride, cursing of Fig tree and Temple cleansing with question about authority right afterwards, but I'd say it's clear that Mark had fudged his gospel and is outvoted three to one that it was not all over 3 days, though the synoptic version differs from John in having the question about Authority right after the temple cleansing. Though instead of the evasion of asking the Pharisees an awkward question (1). Again, I'd suggest the action all on one day was the simple original and the synoptic version appears to have has the question about Authority as something later. In Matthew and Mark, the Sanhedrin are right there, though in mark they do nothing and only question Jesus next day. In Matthew they are right there protesting and Jesus replies with the OT quote (2) and (again) the next day the question on Authority. So I'd propose that there is an original question on Authority left open (like 'what is truth' - because the answer is "God - which is what you are looking at when you look at me". But rather than say it straight out, the Gospel story prefers to drop hints). That question seems to have got separated to a day or days later, but clearly we can't trust gMark as he has frankly muddled it all up.

I'm rather tickled that we agree that the Temple 'cleansing' is the reason for the arrest, not the Sadducees bringing Jesus along in front of Pilate and, after Pilate says he doesn't care about the blasphemy charge, they pin a sedition charge on Jesus which of course Pilate already knows about. Because I argue that the Temple 'cleansing' was an affray and Jesus needed backup to do that, especially because Pilate has 1,00 soldiers there to keep the peace. Also tickled (the other foot) that we agree that tossing out the Jewish Laws and customs (especially circumcision) was necessary or Paul would have had a lot more trouble that he did in converting Greeks,

Now, true, the Roman guard just patrolled the galleries, but it stands to reason that if trouble broke out, they wouldn't stay there, they'd get stuck in, and in fact that's what Luke tells us Pilate did with those 'Galileans' (though gLuke claims it went down before Jesus even arrived - and one of course suspects Barabbas' 'insurrection'). Pilate spilled the blood of the Galileans amongst their sacrifices. That must mean that his soldiers cut them up on the sacrificial platform right in front of the sanctuary.

The way I treat the gospels is (probably)... an original basis, with Jesus an observing Jew (Pharisee, probably) who got executed by Pilate, for whatever reason. Then the Christian story where Paul eliminated the Jewishness and the Christian writer or writers Christianised Paul's messiah. The story got reformed into the Synoptic version (with all that Galilee material) and John used (I guess) the same story but added his own thoughts, expressed either in sermons or through Jesus lecturing crowds of Jews. I am obliged to add a postulated amended Synoptic version used by Mark and Matthew, containing the material that Luke doesn't have, and Luke and Matthew using a separate document ("Q") which material they used in different ways and which doesn't appear in Mark. Plus of course various amendments like the Nativities, the death of Judas, the freer Logion and the woman taken in adultery, as the editors couldn't decide whether it should go into Luke or John. plus of course added resurrection - material and some other stuff they were Inspired to add, leading to all those contradictions,

And that's my position on the four gospels and let 'em serve me the papers.

1) 'we can't say his authority was from God or we'll be asked why we didn't intercede with Antipas to save him, and we can't say it wasn't from God or the people will be outraged.' So Jesus will not say that his Authority is from God or he'll be providing the Sadducees with ammunition to attack him. I think both questions show a Christian mindset, and John has the remark about building the temple in 3 days. So we can argue about that discrepancy.

(2) the one that seems to quote (Babes and sucklings) the incorrect Septuagint which disagrees with the OT, which implies that Jesus couldn't have said it, and Matthew made it up, and did not know or understand the Jewish script, though he uses (misuses) it so often.

[oldbadger]

Ok. We both have different approaches. The topic is on what Jesus did Holy Week, sub topic, why what he is supposed to have done makes no sense and is contradictory as far as being unreliable. It is a particular interest of mine as well as possibly detecting the reality underneath (in any) but you can have a different approach which is fine.

OK..... I'm reading on....

Mark does have the Temple business over twp days, as does Matthew, but not Luke and John. IF we put John' Temple cleansing back where it belongs (12.20), they agree the two things happened on the same day. Now, the Mark/Matthew version seems to have split the action over two days. But Matthew agrees the Hosanna - ride and temple cleansing were on the same day, one right after the other, though the cursing of the fig tree happens next day as well as the question about Authority. Luke had it apparently unspecified days later. John's temple cleansing (John 23) also has a question about authority, directly after.

Because Matthew and Luke copied G-Mark I just refer to Mark, apart from the useful 'asides' and anecdotes.
I do take interest in G-John's sideline informations, but I don't bother trying to insert any of its timeline or claims anywhere.

So the picture might be easier for me to perceive, possibly.

Mark sorta spreads the action over 3 days, first the ride to the temple, next day the cursing of the Fig tree and the temple cleansing after that and the day after finding the fig-tree dead and the question about Authoity.

You mention the fig tree, again and again..... Since I see that fig tree story as a devised spin with Christian insinuations I junk it. For me the fig tree story is a bit like 'Jesus tripped on a step, hurt his toe and so swore at it, the next day it had disappeared....wow!'
So we're left with......
day 1, Jesus and his went to Temple, reccied the place and planned their future actions.
day 2, Jesus and his went and smashed up the money bazaar (huge) and picketed the Temple courts (massive!).
day 3 they returned and started over but when approached by a delegation of priests who tried to turn the mob ...... failed.

You may not agree with me that it all ought to be on one day - donkey ride, cursing of Fig tree and Temple cleansing with question about authority right afterwards, but I'd say it's clear that Mark had fudged his gospel and is outvoted three to one that it was not all over 3 days, though the synoptic version differs from John in having the question about Authority right after the temple cleansing. Though instead of the evasion of asking the Pharisees an awkward question (1). Again, I'd suggest the action all on one day was the simple original and the synoptic version appears to have has the question about Authority as something later. In Matthew and Mark, the Sanhedrin are right there, though in mark they do nothing and only question Jesus next day. In Matthew they are right there protesting and Jesus replies with the OT quote (2) and (again) the next day the question on Authority. So I'd propose that there is an original question on Authority left open (like 'what is truth' - because the answer is "God - which is what you are looking at when you look at me". But rather than say it straight out, the Gospel story prefers to drop hints). That question seems to have got separated to a day or days later, but clearly we can't trust gMark as he has frankly muddled it all up.

Well, I trust G-Mark ....only.
The donkey ride thing tried to prove another prophesy...... a sell.
The fig tree thing was yet another clever side-story.....
The other three gospels are imo so distorted that their accounts are trashed but some of their anecdotes are probably true.

You want to read all statements given after a street-fight outside a nightclub..... a passing nightworker gave a clear statement about what he saw and did, and four inebriated detainees gave theirs. All is fairly clear to a judge but if they all get mashed together then s/he will just be reading waffle.

I'm rather tickled that we agree that the Temple 'cleansing' is the reason for the arrest, not the Sadducees bringing Jesus along in front of Pilate and, after Pilate says he doesn't care about the blasphemy charge, they pin a sedition charge on Jesus which of course Pilate already knows about. Because I argue that the Temple 'cleansing' was an affray and Jesus needed backup to do that, especially because Pilate has 1,00 soldiers there to keep the peace. Also tickled (the other foot) that we agree that tossing out the Jewish Laws and customs (especially circumcision) was necessary or Paul would have had a lot more trouble that he did in converting Greeks,

Yep...... a total blooming riot in the Temple, one found dead afterwards......that would do it.
You know where I'm going with that......

Now, true, the Roman guard just patrolled the galleries, but it stands to reason that if trouble broke out, they wouldn't stay there, they'd get stuck in, and in fact that's what Luke tells us Pilate did with those 'Galileans' (though gLuke claims it went down before Jesus even arrived - and one of course suspects Barabbas' 'insurrection'). Pilate spilled the blood of the Galileans amongst their sacrifices. That must mean that his soldiers cut them up on the sacrificial platform right in front of the sanctuary.

PIlate's action against those Galileans was nowhere near the Temple, imo. As with the free baptising/cleansing they were probably copying the Samaritans and Pilate couldn't allow that.

The way I treat the gospels is (probably)... an original basis, with Jesus an observing Jew (Pharisee, probably) who got executed by Pilate, for whatever reason. Then the Christian story where Paul eliminated the Jewishness and the Christian writer or writers Christianised Paul's messiah. The story got reformed into the Synoptic version (with all that Galilee material) and John used (I guess) the same story but added his own thoughts, expressed either in sermons or through Jesus lecturing crowds of Jews. I am obliged to add a postulated amended Synoptic version used by Mark and Matthew, containing the material that Luke doesn't have, and Luke and Matthew using a separate document ("Q") which material they used in different ways and which doesn't appear in Mark. Plus of course various amendments like the Nativities, the death of Judas, the freer Logion and the woman taken in adultery, as the editors couldn't decide whether it should go into Luke or John. plus of course added resurrection - material and some other stuff they were Inspired to add, leading to all those contradictions,

OK..... The way I treat the story is that Jesus was a common handworker who raised an uprising against Priest and Temple corruption in a land of unacceptable poverty, hunger and injustice. He failed.
But the way I treat the gospels is to pry out the lies, fiddlings, bull and junk and see what's left.

And that's my position on the four gospels and let 'em serve me the papers.

1) 'we can't say his authority was from God or we'll be asked why we didn't intercede with Antipas to save him, and we can't say it wasn't from God or the people will be outraged.' So Jesus will not say that his Authority is from God or he'll be providing the Sadducees with ammunition to attack him. I think both questions show a Christian mindset, and John has the remark about building the temple in 3 days. So we can argue about that discrepancy.

The Baptist? That was a delightful question to expose total hypocrisy..... our politicians sometimes can equal that kind of question, but not often. It didn't matter why the Baptist was acting as he did..... the question was clever rhetoric to confound snakes.

(2) the one that seems to quote (Babes and sucklings) the incorrect Septuagint which disagrees with the OT, which implies that Jesus couldn't have said it, and Matthew made it up, and did not know or understand the Jewish script, though he uses (misuses) it so often.

I don't take much notice of his long speeches...... only his short sayings, such as 'Mother and brothers? You here with me now are my Mother and brothers'....etc..... And how does Christianity ignore those short sayings!

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. We both have different approaches. The topic is on what Jesus did Holy Week, sub topic, why what he is supposed to have done makes no sense and is contradictory as far as being unreliable. It is a particular interest of mine as well as possibly detecting the reality underneath (in any) but you can have a different approach which is fine.

OK..... I'm reading on....

Mark does have the Temple business over twp days, as does Matthew, but not Luke and John. IF we put John' Temple cleansing back where it belongs (12.20), they agree the two things happened on the same day. Now, the Mark/Matthew version seems to have split the action over two days. But Matthew agrees the Hosanna - ride and temple cleansing were on the same day, one right after the other, though the cursing of the fig tree happens next day as well as the question about Authority. Luke had it apparently unspecified days later. John's temple cleansing (John 23) also has a question about authority, directly after.

Because Matthew and Luke copied G-Mark I just refer to Mark, apart from the useful 'asides' and anecdotes.
I do take interest in G-John's sideline informations, but I don't bother trying to insert any of its timeline or claims anywhere.

So the picture might be easier for me to perceive, possibly.

Mark sorta spreads the action over 3 days, first the ride to the temple, next day the cursing of the Fig tree and the temple cleansing after that and the day after finding the fig-tree dead and the question about Authoity.

You mention the fig tree, again and again..... Since I see that fig tree story as a devised spin with Christian insinuations I junk it. For me the fig tree story is a bit like 'Jesus tripped on a step, hurt his toe and so swore at it, the next day it had disappeared....wow!'
So we're left with......
day 1, Jesus and his went to Temple, reccied the place and planned their future actions.
day 2, Jesus and his went and smashed up the money bazaar (huge) and picketed the Temple courts (massive!).
day 3 they returned and started over but when approached by a delegation of priests who tried to turn the mob ...... failed.

You may not agree with me that it all ought to be on one day - donkey ride, cursing of Fig tree and Temple cleansing with question about authority right afterwards, but I'd say it's clear that Mark had fudged his gospel and is outvoted three to one that it was not all over 3 days, though the synoptic version differs from John in having the question about Authority right after the temple cleansing. Though instead of the evasion of asking the Pharisees an awkward question (1). Again, I'd suggest the action all on one day was the simple original and the synoptic version appears to have has the question about Authority as something later. In Matthew and Mark, the Sanhedrin are right there, though in mark they do nothing and only question Jesus next day. In Matthew they are right there protesting and Jesus replies with the OT quote (2) and (again) the next day the question on Authority. So I'd propose that there is an original question on Authority left open (like 'what is truth' - because the answer is "God - which is what you are looking at when you look at me". But rather than say it straight out, the Gospel story prefers to drop hints). That question seems to have got separated to a day or days later, but clearly we can't trust gMark as he has frankly muddled it all up.

Well, I trust G-Mark ....only.
The donkey ride thing tried to prove another prophesy...... a sell.
The fig tree thing was yet another clever side-story.....
The other three gospels are imo so distorted that their accounts are trashed but some of their anecdotes are probably true.

You want to read all statements given after a street-fight outside a nightclub..... a passing nightworker gave a clear statement about what he saw and did, and four inebriated detainees gave theirs. All is fairly clear to a judge but if they all get mashed together then s/he will just be reading waffle.

I'm rather tickled that we agree that the Temple 'cleansing' is the reason for the arrest, not the Sadducees bringing Jesus along in front of Pilate and, after Pilate says he doesn't care about the blasphemy charge, they pin a sedition charge on Jesus which of course Pilate already knows about. Because I argue that the Temple 'cleansing' was an affray and Jesus needed backup to do that, especially because Pilate has 1,00 soldiers there to keep the peace. Also tickled (the other foot) that we agree that tossing out the Jewish Laws and customs (especially circumcision) was necessary or Paul would have had a lot more trouble that he did in converting Greeks,

Yep...... a total blooming riot in the Temple, one found dead afterwards......that would do it.
You know where I'm going with that......

Now, true, the Roman guard just patrolled the galleries, but it stands to reason that if trouble broke out, they wouldn't stay there, they'd get stuck in, and in fact that's what Luke tells us Pilate did with those 'Galileans' (though gLuke claims it went down before Jesus even arrived - and one of course suspects Barabbas' 'insurrection'). Pilate spilled the blood of the Galileans amongst their sacrifices. That must mean that his soldiers cut them up on the sacrificial platform right in front of the sanctuary.

PIlate's action against those Galileans was nowhere near the Temple, imo. As with the free baptising/cleansing they were probably copying the Samaritans and Pilate couldn't allow that.

The way I treat the gospels is (probably)... an original basis, with Jesus an observing Jew (Pharisee, probably) who got executed by Pilate, for whatever reason. Then the Christian story where Paul eliminated the Jewishness and the Christian writer or writers Christianised Paul's messiah. The story got reformed into the Synoptic version (with all that Galilee material) and John used (I guess) the same story but added his own thoughts, expressed either in sermons or through Jesus lecturing crowds of Jews. I am obliged to add a postulated amended Synoptic version used by Mark and Matthew, containing the material that Luke doesn't have, and Luke and Matthew using a separate document ("Q") which material they used in different ways and which doesn't appear in Mark. Plus of course various amendments like the Nativities, the death of Judas, the freer Logion and the woman taken in adultery, as the editors couldn't decide whether it should go into Luke or John. plus of course added resurrection - material and some other stuff they were Inspired to add, leading to all those contradictions,

OK..... The way I treat the story is that Jesus was a common handworker who raised an uprising against Priest and Temple corruption in a land of unacceptable poverty, hunger and injustice. He failed.
But the way I treat the gospels is to pry out the lies, fiddlings, bull and junk and see what's left.

And that's my position on the four gospels and let 'em serve me the papers.

1) 'we can't say his authority was from God or we'll be asked why we didn't intercede with Antipas to save him, and we can't say it wasn't from God or the people will be outraged.' So Jesus will not say that his Authority is from God or he'll be providing the Sadducees with ammunition to attack him. I think both questions show a Christian mindset, and John has the remark about building the temple in 3 days. So we can argue about that discrepancy.

The Baptist? That was a delightful question to expose total hypocrisy..... our politicians sometimes can equal that kind of question, but not often. It didn't matter why the Baptist was acting as he did..... the question was clever rhetoric to confound snakes.

(2) the one that seems to quote (Babes and sucklings) the incorrect Septuagint which disagrees with the OT, which implies that Jesus couldn't have said it, and Matthew made it up, and did not know or understand the Jewish script, though he uses (misuses) it so often.

I don't take much notice of his long speeches...... only his short sayings, such as 'Mother and brothers? You here with me now are my Mother and brothers'....etc..... And how does Christianity ignore those short sayings!

It is a bit of a nitpick but Mark is not the original. It is, demonstrably, based on an original synoptic (I suggest it might be the "Matthew" that Jerome or Origen was supposed to have seen in Caesarea), but the Markan additions are minor (e.g Zebedee's helpers, the extended account of the death of the Baptist (1) and Pilate's surprise) but significant and show that he edited it too. In many ways, Luke is more closely based on the Synoptic original. But when you say 'copied gMark' I translate that as 'worked from the synoptic original'. Yes, of course the figtree is a concocted prophetic fantasy, and the examination is really to show the discrepancies in the editing, showing that it can't be either eyewitness or Luke copying Matthew (or he'd have the figtree too) or Matthew copied Mark or he'd have the same version of the split of the action over 2 days. The method is, treat it as though it was three consistent and reliable eyewitness accounts and it becomes readily obvious that it isn't.

Now I am familiar with the argument that eyewitnesses can get things wildly wrong, but, if so, we can't rely on any of this and so none of the bible is reliable. But I still think that big, singular and impressive events will stick in everyone's mind - they will all remember the fight outside the nightclub, if they do confuse the details. And that is part of the Bible apologertic too - the Big Things are reliable even if 'minor' discrepancies can be waved away. Which is why Biggies - something like the attempt to murder Jesus, the transfiguration and the raising of Lazarus are too big to be excused as 'they forgot'. And of course leaving significant things out shows that Luke can't have copied Matthew nor that Matthew copied Mark - as we now have it. But textual similarities show a common original as similarities in all four show a common original story.

I'm obliged to say that I can't imagine Galileans sacrificing anywhere but in the Temple. I have considered whether this could be Pilate charging the Samaritans or beating up the rioters over the temple treasure (Josephus), but it doesn't sound like either - not with Galileans being bloodlet amongst their sacrifices. I'm open to any explanation better than a fracas in the Temple, known to Luke, (3) but now missing from Josephus or from any other historian, and fitting nicely as Barrabbas' insurrection with it explaining the Passover release nonsense and separating Jesus and Barabbas. Explain where Galileans would sacrifice anywhere but in the Temple and you may debunk that whole scenario.

I'm regarding the Gospels as so unreliable, that any clues as to who Jesus was or what his mission was is futile, except what the writers tried to cover up. I'm quite convinced that he was a Galilean. And he was crucified. Probably had followers Peter and James at least, and I suspect they may have been more Family' than the gospels let on. I don't buy the reforming Rabbi, because I can trace this back to Paul's Junking the Mosaic law conflated with Gentile hatred of Jews. David's shewbread shows clearly that it's attacking Jewish law, not trying to reform abuses. So does cleaning cup and bowl. This is not to get priorities straight but to junk clean food laws.

Yes, the Temple authority evasion is pretty clever. Like Caesar's penny, but I can see what's behind the story or what's wrong with it. Caesar's image could not be brought into the Temple despite hopefully trying to Claim Tiberius' silver sestertius as 'Caesar's penny'. As I say, I detect Jesus being evasive about claiming authority from God, as I see him evasive about telling Pilate that 'Truth' is Faith in Jesus. Or that David's Son is a messianic spirit that pre -existed before david (which I don't think the writers understood (2), but may just be evasive and letting the reader make the conclusion)

(1) 0n my former board the (atheist) opponent tried to argue 'Fatigue'. This is a bit of an excuse and the theory that Mark added to an original multiplies less logical entities.

(2) This always puzzled me as 'How can the Messiah be David's son?' would seem to suggest that Jesus, if David's son, cannot be the messiah. But correctly understood (and i wonder whether the writers did understand it) it only works if David's son is the messianic spirit that pre - existed king David - and was wrongly conflated by the Christian evangelists with a spiritual divinity Just as Matthew has Herod, hearing of a Royal pretender immediately understanding this to be the messiah of scripture, which gives away his Christian mindset.

(3) if you want a real crazy conspiracy theory, try this one that I toyed with but have to consider VERY far fetched. Josephus originally had the Flavian testimony - Jesus smuggled himself into the Temple, started an armed zealot occupation, was attacked by Pilate and his garrison, his 5,000 Galileans cut down in front of the Sanctuary, and Jesus arrested either there or later (at Gethsemane, where they did indeed go out armed to arrest an insurrectionist) and Jesus was executed for a messianic insurrection, as the 'Charge' suggests. With two of his 'robber' followers crucified on each side. Well that wouldn't do so Eusebius, while having the Bible edited, had Josephus edited, too, a potted Biography (rather similar to Cleophas' summary) was put in where Josephus does mention Pilate. Antiquities was glossed so the son of Damnaeus became the Christ, and Luke was written to bring the Synoptic up to date with Paul's letters and Josephus, because Luke was written by Eusebius.

It's a good story and I like it, but it is far fetched. But fits the Bible better than Jesus was God incarnate and rose from the dead.