Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's perfectly correct - according to my theory.
The internal text strongy suggests that Jesus came and probably with his disciples to join the Baptists' repentance mission. This was in peraea which while the possession of Herod Antipas, it was separated by Judea, from Galilee, where Antipas would probably be staying, in his new capital of Tiberias. He had got himself into some trouble with Aretas of Nabatea, having divorced his wife (a relative of Aretas, daughter perhaps) to marry the former wife of Philip, Tetrarch of Ituriae & Charontis. Aretas was on the brink of war with Antipas, and was only prevented from overunning Peraea by the garrison at Macheras - the tower on the border.
And Peraea was where the Baptist loudly denouncing Antipas for his divorce and taking Philip's wife was calling Jews in their hundreds to 'repentance'.
What would you have done if you'd been Antipas? Exactly what he did.
It was only then that Jesus took on his messianic mission. I have no doubts that it was broadly on the same lines as that of John, but he knew that it has to be more secret.
The point is that the original story was read with horror by the early Christians. Jesus going with his followers to offer his support to John? But Jesus was supposed to be the divine one - the true messiah! They got to work immediately and John was instead of the Messiah in waiting with Jesus as a loyal supporter, someone calling people to repentance - that's ok, but announcing to all that he not the messiah, he is but a very naughty boy awaiting the real messiah and he dutifully grovels when Jesus arrives and while they are Stuck with Jesus also being baptized by John, they try to minimize it as much as possible with John rolling in the muddy shallows of the Jordan wailing "'I'm not worthy!" and Jesus sighing 'Yeah, I know, but we're stuck with this."
Thus we had two baptims stories related by different writers and in almost contradictory - versions, the Synoptic story and John. For one thing, in John, Jesus calls his disciples at the Jordan. In the Synoptics, he 'calls them' when he arrives back in Galilee. For my money, the disciples were with him right from his arrival to join John.
The synoptic version are clearly derived from the same story, but they do differ in doctrinal emphasis. This no doubt is another example of the theological evolution of the Jesus story.
Ps. apologies for terrible typos in the previous post. I tidied this one up - forgot to do the other one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-05-2018 at 09:17 AM..
There was probably a physical Jesus. If Jesus had been entirely fictional he wouldn't have been from Nazareth, he wouldn't have been a follower of John the Baptist, etc. Jesus was likely an apocalyptic traveling preacher (think those street corner guys) who went too far by causing a ruckus in the temple during the busy season and getting himself killed. The legend grew from there.
Many Jesus type figures were said to come from real places. Do you believe Santa is at the northpole?
Regarding Jesus as a follower of the Baptist. I think it probable that he was. John's main dynamic was being anti-Temple. He believed that by accommodating Roman rule and accepting benefits from the Romans, the Sanhedrin had forfeited its rightful place as spiritual leaders. The one thing the Sanhedrin undeniably had going for them as their symbol of legitimacy, was control of the Temple in Jerusalem. John crafted a message which argued that the real temple existed in people's hearts. If they were true to Yahweh's commandments, then there was no need for a specific center or edifice to make them worthy in the eyes of their lord.
Jesus certainly seems to have latched onto John's anti-Temple stance, the most dramatic of the evidence for this being his attack on the offering merchants in the Temple courtyard. Being anti-Temple is what got Jesus executed.
John had been sly. He operated on the far bank of the Jordan, outside of the Judea district administered for the Romans by the High Priests. As long as he remained on his side of the river, the Sanhedrin could not put the arm on him. And they never did, it was Herod, ruler of Galilee who put John to death.
Jesus also stuck to Galilee while spreading his message. It was the decision to cross the border into Judea, to enter Jerusalem during Passover week, that passed Jesus from being a distant trouble maker, to being an immediate threat to Sanhedrin, and consequently, Roman rule. The Romans were notoriously impatient with such people, a lesson Jesus soon learned.
Later, when writing up the story, it was of course necessary to portray the Baptist as a subordinate rather than a mentor of Jesus. The gospels have John saying that someone is coming who is far greater than me, to set things up so that we recognize his inferior status.
In that John made a big enough splash to qualify for several pages in Josephus, while Jesus didn't rate a footnote, it seems logical to conclude that the Baptist was the far bigger deal in their lifetimes. Jesus took ideas from John, not the other way around.
By and large, that's on the right lines, so far as I'm concerned. There are minor details.
For one, the temple busines was surely during Sukkhot, not Passover (Passover was Imposed by Christians who saw Jesus mission as sacrifice, not liberation) and Jesus was not anti -temple: that was a Christian Paulinist view of throwing out everything that was Jewish law and practice - including Sabbath observance, note.
The temple bust - up (which I think is true, because it a "Damned fact" that they had to find ways of glossing over) was not anti -temple but I think the intended start of a liberation.
If I may dust off my Pet Theory here, I suspect that it was a heavily supported and armed takeover aimed more at the Roman garrison than at the market traders. The Sadduceess (the more Hellenized, wealthy and aristocratic part of Jewish society(1) had been the natural allies of Rome from the start and were regarded by the Roman governors as the nearest thing to a client rulership (as the Herodians had been) that Judea had. So the Sadduccee Sanhedrin were the allies of Rome and the natural opponents of Jesus' Pharisee-zealot movement.
I have an even more speculative idea that taking over the temple was not just like rebels occupying the radio -station but it was to enable Jesus as Messiah and High Priest de facto (2) to liberate God's house, enter the sanctuary and obtain God's help which was necessary for the liberation to succeed. If John's gospel is (as often seems uncannily the case) based on an eyewitness account, the first thing that Jesus would have done would be to don the High Priests seamless Robe. And that was what was stripped off him before he was executed.
But of course, I could be wrong.
(1) You know the type: "I'm, Brian, and so is my wife".
(2) by the order of Melchizedek, which meant effectively, without being elected, but because God said so.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-06-2018 at 01:27 AM..
Transponder answered everything better than I could, but I'll hit the JtB thing real quick. It's a bit of an embarrassment to have JtB baptize Jesus, if he is god (or the son of god).
In what way? I never found it embarrassing. Even in the text, Jesus says "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness". In other words -- nudge, wink -- just go through the motions for the sake of appearances. That's the way I always understood it and the way it was always taught to me. Besides, John was supposedly the fulfillment of prophecy ("a voice crying in the wilderness, make way for the Lord") and so this baptism incident cements that Jesus was the one being made way for. That validated his ministry, it didn't embarrass it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bruce
T
And speaking of, guess when Jesus was (the son of) god according to Luke: birth, baptism or resurrection?
I am not sure I understand the question. If you mean when did Luke claim he BECAME the son of god ... I am not sure he really made such a claim. The "holy spirit" came upon Jesus at Baptism, and that event kind of kicked off his public ministry, but I don't think that's the same thing as claiming he wasn't the son of god before then, or wasn't born what he was. However ... its of no consequence to me as an unbeliever, believe what you want there.
I get the point. it was an embarrassment to the early Christians that it looked like Jesus was coming to the baptist to be Baptized as a repentance, just like all the others. Well, plainly that wouldn't do, so all manner of amendments were made to show John declaring to all and sundry that he isn't worthy and is only there to announce the coming of Jesus. Matthew is a notable example of this Embarrassment.
Mark 1. 9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Luke 3. 21 When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too. And as he was praying, heaven was opened 22 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
Luke amends this a bit with Jesus praying and the Holy Spirit descended rather than Jesus saw (or said he saw) it descending. John's gospel incidentally has John seeing it, too.
But look at the addition in Matthew:
Matthew 3. 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
There is no mention of this exchange in either of the two Gospels. Quite apart from my contention that the three worked from a common text (but separately) and thus anything significant added to the text is invented, the usual explanation that it wasn't considered important doesn't really wash.
Neither Mark nor Luke hint at this? And there's the "campfire -stories" apologetic to explain how they all knew something that they couldn't have seen, like what Jesus said or saw at gethsemane when they were all asleep,
Jesus or perhaps some sinly insomniac observer related all this afterwards and they all got to hear of it.
But you get somethinglike this that only one of them mentions, and the reminiscing round the camp -fire goe out the window and each has his own imperfect recolection without anyone else corecting it.
This apologetic doesn't work and the more probable explanation (or so I argue) is that Matthew invented it. In fact we know from the quote about babes and sucklings (a septuagint mistranslation) and the two donkeys, which is a misreading of the passage by Matthew and couldn't
possibly have been eyewitness definitively knocks on the head the apologetic of Matthew recalling something that everyone else missed or had forgotten.
He made this up "But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented."
Why did he make it up? Because it was an embarrassment to him that Jesus aparently needed to be baptized by John. In fact all the baptism accounts fall over themselves to have John swearing blind that he is not the messiah and Jesus is by far the greater.
I would suggest that the amendment did its' job: Any possible puzzlement about that is explained and the believers shrug the whole thing off.
P.s I may add, Mordant, that I am convinced that originally the Jesus story reflected the Pauline idea that Jesus was a man (1)who received the 'spirit' (originally messianic, but in Christian hands, the spirit of god) at the baptism. That was the first hint of any mission to be kick -started and that was the original start of the story. Effectively in John and quite clearly in Mark.
The prior stuff about the annunciation and Nativity and the boyhood doings of Jesus in Luke (again showing his familiarity with Josephus (2) is all additional material (as can be seen by how they contradict each other) added on to show that Jesus was not 'kick -started' by the Holy Spirit at the baptism, but was divine from the first, and also to fulfill the prophecy that the messiah should be born in Bethlehem, which was another embarrassment as he wasn't. So that was put right, and all the believers thereafter were quite satisfied and had no need to doubt and question.
(1) this version in fact persisted and was denounced as Arian heresy.
(2) Jsephus has a tale about how he wowed the teachers of Law with his own erudition.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-06-2018 at 06:32 AM..
I get the point. it was an embarrassment to the early Christians that it looked like Jesus was coming to the baptist to be Baptized as a repentance, just like all the others. Well, plainly that wouldn't do, so all manner of amendments were made to show John declaring to all and sundry that he isn't worthy and is only there to announce the coming of Jesus. Matthew is a notable example of this Embarrassment.
...
P.s I may add, Mordant, that I am convinced that originally the Jesus story reflected the Pauline idea that Jesus was a man (1)who received the 'spirit' (originally messianic, but in Christian hands, the spirit of god) at the baptism. That was the first hint of any mission to be kick -started and that was the original start of the story. Effectively in John and quite clearly in Mark.
Ah, I see. It was just not a problem for the particular theology I had. I can see where someone could have a malfunction with it if they thought Jesus was sinless and should not be repenting, born the son of god and yet receiving an anointing. But as you can see ... I thought those things back in the day, too, and I am so used to adjusting for that, that it didn't even seem problematic for me. ;-)
By and large, that's on the right lines, so far as I'm concerned. There are minor details.
For one, the temple busines was surely during Sukkhot, not Passover (Passover was Imposed by Christians who saw Jesus mission as sacrifice, not liberation) and Jesus was not anti -temple: that was a Christian Paulinist view of throwing out everything that was Jewish law and practice - including Sabbath observance, note.
.
Josephus wrote extensively about how Passover was a huge annual headache for the Romans. The main body of the occupying Legion was stationed at Caesarea along the coast where the climate was milder than in the interior. This is also where the Roman prelate had his palace. During Passover, a substantial portion of the garrison would be moved to Jerusalem in anticipation of trouble makers and Messiah Wannabees who collected in the city at that time. Disturbances of some sort were an annual affair, sometimes distinguished by full fledged riots. If Jesus was looking to stick it to the Sanhedrin and the Romans, Passover was the traditional time of opportunity.
Do you have some evidence for it being Sukkot or is that your guess based on your view of Jesus as not anti-Temple...or suspicion of revisionist Christians trying to further reduce the Jewish roots of Jesus. I don't see how changing the venue from Passover to Sukkot really achieves that goal, they were both big Jewish holidays.
Perhaps it would have been better had I written that while John was anti-Temple, Jesus was anti-Sanhedrin. Jesus wasn't on a mission of destruction, rather a mission of reform.
Posting this same subject now to THREE forums? Jeez dude, you're totally obsessed and compulsive I bet you think about this 24/7, and have daily nightmares about it. You might be overdue for therapy.
The classic attack of the messenger and not the message.
The classic attack of the messenger and not the message.
Don't worry about it. The subject is in my opinion pivotal to the argument for the credibility of Christianity.
It isn't First cause/Cosmic origins; it isn't genesis or evolution and it isn't Slavery and other atrocities in the OT. It is about whether we can believe what the gospels say about Jesus.
Thus your repeated posting on this is perfectly justified, and complaining about it is just more of the 'Please shut up and go away' ploy by the believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Josephus wrote extensively about how Passover was a huge annual headache for the Romans. The main body of the occupying Legion was stationed at Caesarea along the coast where the climate was milder than in the interior. This is also where the Roman prelate had his palace. During Passover, a substantial portion of the garrison would be moved to Jerusalem in anticipation of trouble makers and Messiah Wannabees who collected in the city at that time. Disturbances of some sort were an annual affair, sometimes distinguished by full fledged riots. If Jesus was looking to stick it to the Sanhedrin and the Romans, Passover was the traditional time of opportunity.
Do you have some evidence for it being Sukkot or is that your guess based on your view of Jesus as not anti-Temple...or suspicion of revisionist Christians trying to further reduce the Jewish roots of Jesus. I don't see how changing the venue from Passover to Sukkot really achieves that goal, they were both big Jewish holidays.
Perhaps it would have been better had I written that while John was anti-Temple, Jesus was anti-Sanhedrin. Jesus wasn't on a mission of destruction, rather a mission of reform.
Yes. I took that Josephus passage as an indicator of the problem Jesus would have had in a temple ruckus such as is recorded. In my younger days I read a sort of "bring scripture to life" story that described Jesus and his burly fishermen (they went that far in realizing that Jesus doing it on his own raised a few questions) brushing aside the "white -faced temple Police" and sending the piles of money flying, with the kiddies (taking a break from chirping "Hosannah to the Son of David") went chasing after the coins.
So any opposition to this act was neatly sidelined, and not a mention of Roman soldiers (as you say, Pilate would bring his 500 auxiliaries from Caesarea to bolster the 500 on permanent duty in the Antonia fortress) on guard. Ignorance or concealment? The writers could have known of Josephus writing that Pilate's soldiers (1000 strong) were patrolling the galleries on the lookout for just such trouble, but maybe he hadn't done his research.
Now that deals with a Passover event as you say and shifting it to Tabernacles in fact raises the question: were there Roman guards there for that festival? So there is no reason for me to do that other than there is evidence. I recalled that Josephus referred to festivals rather than Passover specifically, but I may be mistaken there, but I think it is a fair guess that Pilate would be on guard at any festival that filled the temple.
The direct evidence is of course the hosana chant, which is the 'Hoshanah' the call for God to save them. Still is, The reference to people having palm leaves to wave sounds very much like a Sukkhot celebration, too.
The excuse I was once given for this -the disciples got so excited that they burst into the 'Hosannah' chant - is as unlikely as people at easter getting so exited that they burst into 'Little town of Bethlehem'. It was appropriate to Sukkhot to signify that their King, the son of david, was coming (exactly as described in Isaiah) to save them.
There's indirect stuff, too. The obsession with Passover (John, absurdly, has everything occurring on Passover, pretty much) was when Jesus' execution was linked by the Christians with a blood sacrifice for sins. Paul saw it as atoning for Adam's disobedience with obedience even to death, thus wiping out Sin that way. So it was doctrinally suitable to switch the time to passover as well as helping to cover up the significance of the event as a liberation -effort.
This cause problems with the timing, as is well known. Jesus had to be 'sacrificed' on the day of preparation, while the Passover lambs were being killed in the Temple. That's ok, but then the 'Last supper' (1) and (2) is interpreted as being the Passover meal, which ought to be eaten the day after Jesus' crucifixion. There's only bread and wine, no seder lamb -shank. So it doesn't really look like a Passover meal.
There are also some curious hints in John where the Temple occupation, already spread out over days in the Synoptics gets stretched to the feast of dedication in John. True, he splits up this temple occupation into several events, which explains the odd business of going to 'Ephraim' (which didn't exist anymore) after raising Lazarus and then returning to Jerusalem. It was John fiddling and adding to (with a lot of sermons and quarrels with the "Jews") one event. There's also the business of Jesus crying out on the Last Day which I only heard mentioned as the Last Day of the eight days of Sukhhot when the Oxen were killed. True an ocupation from Sukkhot to Dedication (September to December, as I recall) is a bit of a problem, scenario but I just love the idea of Jesus cloaking up and slipping out of the temple while Pilate's 1000 auxiliaries are murdering Galileans around the sacrificial altar. (John 7.1, Luke 13.1, and John 8.19). But that could simply be a 'floating story' as I call it of an attempted stoning that Luke and John picked up and used in different ways.
(1) part of my Pet Theory is that this was the supper given on the evening of Jesus' arrival when he was anointed (as King and messiah) by Mary before doing the donkey ride next morning. All that is covered up one way or another, and shifting it to after the Temple event did that very well. I concede that there is a problem as John has both the suppers -the one with the anointing and the one before Gethsemane. so I could be wrong.
(2) Some try to get over the problem by referring to different ways of reckoning Passover. The only support I get for this is that the Pharisees, when they got a majority in the Sanhedrin, forced their reckoning on the Sadducees. But if Jesus used a different calendar, he'd still need to be 'sacrificed' the day before he ate the Passover, wouldn't he?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-06-2018 at 08:56 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
with Jesus also being baptized by John, they try to minimize it as much as possible with John rolling in the muddy shallows of the Jordan wailing "'I'm not worthy!" and Jesus sighing 'Yeah, I know, but we're stuck with this."
but it was to enable Jesus as Messiah and High Priest de facto (2) to liberate God's house, enter the sanctuary and obtain God's help which was necessary for the liberation to succeed. If John's gospel is (as often seems uncannily the case) based on an eyewitness account, the first thing that Jesus would have done would be to don the High Priests seamless Robe. And that was what was stripped off him before he was executed.
I bet you think about this 24/7, and have daily nightmares about it. You might be overdue for therapy.
