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

[oldbadger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[oldbadger]

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.

Turning a man in to 'the son of God' isn't a minor addition, imo.
I think G-Mark is the most honest account, overall. And it just about commences where Jesus started to meet people who would follow his lead. The author didn't bother with accounts about Jesus before that time...... just stuck to what was known about.

There may have been an original that didn't have all the Christian stuff in it.....yes. Now that would be a valuable document to find.

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.

Accepting that witness accounts can be wrong, lies, mistakes etc isn't any reason to bin them or we would bin history. I've heard (UK) that many of the Russian people believe that Putin just sent his armies to the Ukrainian borders on an exercise and that any invasion of Ukrainian provinces is NOT a war. That is history only a few months old...... true? false? .... take your pick.....

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.

Human nature suggests to me that Humans in Galilee bust rules, cut corners, bust laws, and did other human acts, just the same as human priests ignoring their responsibilities and being....human.
I don't think that Josephus took much notice of a his account about a troublemaker, a short piece that got overwritten by Christians later..... or do you think his mentions of Jesus were original and genuine? No? So we don't have a clue what Josephus wrote about Jesus.

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.

Well..... there you are...... you are managing to build a real person with real friends and doing bad things already.

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)

I think that coin was a Temple half-shekel, and that it shows a pagan god's face on the obverse, a brilliant question from Jesus that drew a lie for an answer and shut up a large bunch of priests. If that priest had answered honestly it would have started more than just a riot.... but total carnage.

(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.

We don't know what Josephus wrote about Jesus....

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Turning a man in to 'the son of God' isn't a minor addition, imo.
I think G-Mark is the most honest account, overall. And it just about commences where Jesus started to meet people who would follow his lead. The author didn't bother with accounts about Jesus before that time...... just stuck to what was known about.

There may have been an original that didn't have all the Christian stuff in it.....yes. Now that would be a valuable document to find.

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.

Accepting that witness accounts can be wrong, lies, mistakes etc isn't any reason to bin them or we would bin history. I've heard (UK) that many of the Russian people believe that Putin just sent his armies to the Ukrainian borders on an exercise and that any invasion of Ukrainian provinces is NOT a war. That is history only a few months old...... true? false? .... take your pick.....

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.

Human nature suggests to me that Humans in Galilee bust rules, cut corners, bust laws, and did other human acts, just the same as human priests ignoring their responsibilities and being....human.
I don't think that Josephus took much notice of a his account about a troublemaker, a short piece that got overwritten by Christians later..... or do you think his mentions of Jesus were original and genuine? No? So we don't have a clue what Josephus wrote about Jesus.

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.

Well..... there you are...... you are managing to build a real person with real friends and doing bad things already.

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)

I think that coin was a Temple half-shekel, and that it shows a pagan god's face on the obverse, a brilliant question from Jesus that drew a lie for an answer and shut up a large bunch of priests. If that priest had answered honestly it would have started more than just a riot.... but total carnage.

(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.

We don't know what Josephus wrote about Jesus....

Without checking it, 'Son of God' isn't one of Mark's personal additions as it is basic to all 4 gospels, which makes it original, not an addition. You may have in mind that Luke has the centurion say that the Signs that accompanied Jesus death proves that he was innocent, but if that was how the Original synoptic read, Both mark and Matthew say 'Son of God'. Which shows that was 'original' to Mark and Matthew and is not a particular markan amendment. But after all, it's not hard to see why Luke would alter it, after all what would a Roman Centurion know about the Son of God?

Oh yes, a lost copy of Josephus with the Original story, or Tacitus, Philo, Piliny... Even "Q" or the Synoptic original, just to show what was added - as though we couldn't tell from Mark and John already. For all I can tell we don't know whether Josephus wrote anything at all about Jesus. But we know what he wrote about Galilean zealots, and the fact that in the Jewish revolts, they ended up fighting in the temple. Which shows I think that as zealous Jews, of course they'd visit the temple as often as they could. In fact the Gospels (for what that's worth) shows Jesus taken to the temple by his parents. He must have seen it before and Mark's nonsense about Jesus and the 12 wandering about looking at everything is nonsense and is just Mark's way of having Jesus do something other than overturn tables, which is shifted to the next day, whereas Matthew and Luke (and really John) all make it on the same day. This looks like Mark altering it because he didn't like the association of one with the other.

There is no way a Temple Shekel will fit with a Roman coin with Caesar's head on, which is the whole point of the story.