Embellishments in the Gospel of Mark.

[fredd bear]

Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts.

I did give you some examples that Jesus' saying weren't actually Jesus' sayings. Unless, one wishes to imagine historical Jesus (and in some cases even God) sitting with his Hebrew Psalter, Greek Septuagint, and Aramaic Targum open in front of him, deciding what to crib. Only then does it come to seem ridiculous.

He was probably a wondering Rabbi, during the reign of Tiberius. There were many such in Judaea at that time. He founded a small Jewish millennial sect, which should have faded away in a little over a generation. That it did not is due to one man initially; Paul Of Tarsus . No Paul, no Christianity. This is not a view of complete consensus, but it is widely held. It has been my view for over 30 years.

Oh, let me use your own words "Could be interesting if you could back it up with some facts." You tend to see Jesus as a Rabii, but why? Some other people see that historical Jesus was a Cynic philosopher because he borrowed from Greek philosophy so he had to had actually been a wandering Cynic or a Stoic sage, or the Galilean equivalent.

And there is also completely different view by Dead Sea Scroll authority Geza Vermes who sees Jesus as a charismatic Hasid. Who was very much like one of the popular freewheeling Galilean holy men, unorthodox figures like Hanina Ben-Dosa or Honi the Circle-Drawer.

Then there is J.M. Allegro who thinks that Jesus was more like John the Baptist’s sect and the Therapeutae/Essenes of Qumran who gave us the Dead Sea scrolls, wondering if Jesus and John the Baptist were members of that radical community.

I mean you see him as a Rabbi and some see him as an opposite to that, like an iconoclast because he point-by-point, dismantles the Torah in verses like Mark 7:15-20

Then don't forget Reza Aslan who claims Jesus was a violent Zealot revolutionary inciting a revolt against the Romans, like Theudas or "the Egyptian," the unnamed Messianic figure Josephus describes, or the two "robbers" crucified with Jesus (since rebel bandits were commonly referred to as robbers). Why else would it be the Romans crucifying him, rather than the Jewish Sanhedrin just stoning him to death for blasphemy, as the law demanded? There is "evidence" one can point to: Luke’s Gospel lists a disciple called Simon the Zealot.

Then there are other scholars like Bruce Malina who consider Jesus to be quite the opposite of a Zealot and that is a nonviolent pacifist resister.

Then there is a view that Jesus was a "crazy" Apocalyptic Prophet that Albert Schweitzer and many subsequent historians have thought was the real thing: A fearless, fiery Judgment Day preacher announcing that the end was nigh and the Kingdom of God was coming fast.

Then there were communists like Milan Machoveč who considers that Jesus was a First-Century Proto-Marxist and Communist because Jesus has nothing good to say about the capitalist pigs of his day, repeatedly preaching that they cannot serve both God and money AND SO ON....

The historicity of Jesus is accepted by historians generally, for the reasons I gave.  It is not under contention as far as I'm concerned.

Plus, as I've already said, why should I accept what some guy on some internet forum says ? IF I had the interest, I would first need to check your sources.

That you need to cite a communist era writer with a an almost certain ideological bias,  is not encouraging.

As I've also already said, this is topic of only peripheral interest to me, as I consider the historicity of Jesu irrelevant to  Christianity as it became.
.
I will agree to differ.

That is all I have to say to you on this topic.