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]

That's a good way of saying it - sorting out the events from the fibs. And mostly I don't know. Not even that Jesus was a Galilean and crucified. I think that is more probable but could be concocted. But I can't think why they would make Jesus a crucified Galilean, if they didn't have to. On the other hand, I am confident what's a fib - the release custom, Antipas' intervention, the penitent thief. and I have given my reasons.

So just take the anointing at Bethany. I can't be sure it was done at supper that evening after Jesus arrived and (to make it work- John and the synoptics) raised Lazarus before they all went in to supper. So on the head or the feet? Well if it was the feet, (for penitence) why alter that to the head, like Jesus was a messiah of some sort?

No, it would make sense if it was originally the head and was changed to the feet so reverence was changed to penitence, and for good measure, Luke makes Mary an anonymous penitent and shifts the whole thing to Galilee. Anyone would think this harmless act of social hospitality was some hot potato that had to be dropped as soon as possible.

Ok, I'm leaning on the scales a bit here but when you see this problems, doesn't it just explain them?

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #125]

Are you referring to the Jesus that you have the luxury of reading about in gMark, the gospel that none of the early epistle writers read or heard of because it wasn't written until after they died, that one?

How would anyone expect Paul to be interested in Jesus of Nazareth, or does the chronological order of the literature that you claim to be investigating not mean anything to you?

[oldbadger]

That's a good way of saying it - sorting out the events from the fibs. And mostly I don't know. Not even that Jesus was a Galilean and crucified. I think that is more probable but could be concocted. But I can't think why they would make Jesus a crucified Galilean, if they didn't have to. On the other hand, I am confident what's a fib - the release custom, Antipas' intervention, the penitent thief. and I have given my reasons.

Wow..... you raised so many points ........ can I just select one? Antipas's intervention. If you refer to the arrest of the Baptist then the story makes perfect sense. If the Baptist was cleansing/redeeming masses of folks for nothing (so that Temple visits were felt to be unnecessary) then that was a huge problem. So somebody had to stop the Baptist.

If the Baptist was on the Eastern Bank (which makes perfect sense) whose responsibility would it have been to go and fetch him, if not Antipas?

[oldbadger]

Are you referring to the Jesus that you have the luxury of reading about in gMark, the gospel that none of the early epistle writers read or heard of because it wasn't written until after they died, that one?

So now you have a wand which can tell you what 'early epistle writers' knew about?
I'm referring to the Gospel of Mark, now what is your problem with that deposition?

How would anyone expect Paul to be interested in Jesus of Nazareth, or does the chronological order of the literature that you claim to be investigating not mean anything to you?

Ha ha! Well he wasn't, was he? Paul didn't give a hoot for Jesus, just needed the title and the claimed resurrection to sell to the people.

Oh dear! Chronological order of reports, accounts, statements and depositions doesn't count for a lot, because whichever order you find them in doesn't make them true or false...only their content can do that. Ergo, the last account can be the truth.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #134]

No one can verify a single word of what Mark wrote, but you expect the early epistle writers to have known about the contents of a gospel that wasn't written yet and write it off as them just not being interested because chronological order doesn't count for much. So what you're saying is that historians don't pay any attention to the chronological order of the material at hand, or is it just you that doesn't pay attention?

[TRANSPONDER]

That's a good way of saying it - sorting out the events from the fibs. And mostly I don't know. Not even that Jesus was a Galilean and crucified. I think that is more probable but could be concocted. But I can't think why they would make Jesus a crucified Galilean, if they didn't have to. On the other hand, I am confident what's a fib - the release custom, Antipas' intervention, the penitent thief. and I have given my reasons.

Wow..... you raised so many points ........ can I just select one? Antipas's intervention. If you refer to the arrest of the Baptist then the story makes perfect sense. If the Baptist was cleansing/redeeming masses of folks for nothing (so that Temple visits were felt to be unnecessary) then that was a huge problem. So somebody had to stop the Baptist.

If the Baptist was on the Eastern Bank (which makes perfect sense) whose responsibility would it have been to go and fetch him, if not Antipas?

Sorry I should have been more specific. Yes, I have high confidence (Josephus confirms) that Antipas arrested and executed John the baptist. I referred to Antipas getting involved in Jesus' trial. This is of course Luke's invention. The only Excuse i heard is that none of the other disciples knew about it. There are 3 objections to this - It is unlikely that Jesus could be shuttled over (from the Praetorium (surely in the Antonis fortress), to the Herodian palace without anyone but Luke knowing about it, that after the Jesus lectures after the resurrection, the sudden godlike knowledge fo the disciples after the resurrection, never mind Pentecost, and the 'campfire' chats of the disciples swapping reminiscences, only Luke ever heard about this, and thirdly, Luke is already known to add stuff the others don't mention and it is impossible that they didn't know, if it really had happened.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #134]

No one can verify a single word of what Mark wrote, but you expect

I haven't written anything about what I expect from 'early epistle writers'. I take great interest in some letters written before and after then.
Please show a letter (epistle!) that has influenced you, if any.

.................because chronological order doesn't count for much.

Correct! Not much. The idea that who writes first is truest'..... is obtuse.

So what you're saying is that historians don't pay any attention to the chronological order of the material at hand, or is it just you that doesn't pay attention?

Meh....... Some historians are thorough investigators, others are imposts, imo.
So you're telling us that all historians are correct, eh? That's an obtuse idea. So tell us who your favourite HJ historian is and then we'll know what you believe.

[oldbadger]

No one can verify a single word of what Mark wrote,

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

How long have you been studying all this, if at all?

[oldbadger]

Sorry I should have been more specific. Yes, I have high confidence (Josephus confirms) that Antipas arrested and executed John the baptist. I referred to Antipas getting involved in Jesus' trial. This is of course Luke's invention. The only Excuse i heard is that none of the other disciples knew about it. There are 3 objections to this - It is unlikely that Jesus could be shuttled over (from the Praetorium (surely in the Antonis fortress), to the Herodian palace without anyone but Luke knowing about it, that after the Jesus lectures after the resurrection, the sudden godlike knowledge fo the disciples after the resurrection, never mind Pentecost, and the 'campfire' chats of the disciples swapping reminiscences, only Luke ever heard about this, and thirdly, Luke is already known to add stuff the others don't mention and it is impossible that they didn't know, if it really had happened.

Ah! That interview with Antipas...... We both know that Luke was not a witness to anything, so all he had was a bunch of anecdotes and accounts, plus what he had heard, and then his own dreamed up stuff.

Some of the anecdotes and accounts are very interesting, but the dreamy stuff is just embarrassing to read.
So the question is:- 'Was the Antipas account true, or does it contain any truth?'
It claims that:-
Antipas was in Jerusalem..... at a great feast, that's not a big problem.
Pilate sent a convict over to be interviewed or interrogated by Antipas..... that could be true.
Antipas was interested to meet this Jesus... that could be true. He was pleased to chat with the Baptist

The thing is, I've heard that Pilate and Herod A didn't get along, and since they were of different nationality and their territories and authorities were separated there might have been some irritation and stressing between them. I can believe that with ease. So if Pilate wanted a (further) interaction with his annoying neighbouring ruler he might have done something like this......

Luke {23:6} When Pilate heard of Galilee, he asked whether the man were a Galilaean. {23:7} And as soon as he knew that he belonged unto Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who himself also was at Jerusalem at that time. {23:8} And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad: for he was desirous to see him of a long [season,] because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracle done by him.

................that's got no angles, doesn't help Christianity in any way, was a diplomatic move by Pilate and might have been quite wise....and Antipas was interested in people like Jesus (already shown before).

And the result is:-

Luke: {23:12} And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.

........ what a shrewd move by Pilate, using this situation to turn old past differences around.

It's neither assists nor hinders the HJ or Christian positions, nor even the mythers.... it's just a side-note which other authors may not have been bothered with..... innocuous and feasible.

Why don't you like it and how does it affect the HJ or Christian angles?

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #138]

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