What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[Mudhammam]

That's pretty much my thoughts, DP. So I'm a Jesus-Mooter?

Also, did anyone catch the CNN special last night, I believe it was called "Finding Jesus: Faith, Fact, Forgery"? I meant to watch or record it but I forgot.

[watchamadoodle]

So you see what I mean by "moot"?

While the historical Jesus doesn't validate Christianity, the mythical Jesus does invalidate Christianity. So it's not moot IMO.

If we ever have persuasive evidence for a mythical Jesus, it would be interesting to see how Christianity adapts. Many Christians are convinced that they know Jesus through a born-again experience, answered prayers, etc. Christianity might redefine the gospels as a symbol of deeper spiritual facts?

So we have Therapeutae, Ebionites, Essenes, Nazarenes, Gnostic Jews, Paulians, etc. What do you suppose the earliest Christians were like?

[Godscreated]

What Jesus and the apostles and early Christians were like has nothing to do with history, it's a spiritually based belief and the Bible tells us about it. There was no question about history, was there.

GC

So which takes precedence - what actually happened, or what your book says happened?

The Christian documents we have give us the most history of that area during that time. Again the OP did ask about history and the OP was and is what I'm answering.

GC

---

Read the NT it's recorded there.

GC

In part. But much of it's lost. Other bitses that the orthodox church didn't manage to suppress keep popping up. The Bible, was collected by the theological victors. But there were opponents. As is, all you need do is read Paul's letters to know there were other Christianities, because he's so busy arguing against them.

He was busy warning of the false beliefs, he laid out what was correct and defended it. He argued with Peter because Peter was wishy washy about the truth when the other church leaders around. Many of the church leaders in Jerusalem were wishy washy with there decisions.

GC

---

Your deception might fool the foolish ones here, but not the Christians. Matthew, Mark, Luke all say Jesus went into the desert after His baptism. Johns Gospel never mentions the 40 days in the desert. John's gospel gives no time line for the baptism, it does say John gave a testimony of Jesus and how he knew who Jesus was, but as I said there is no time line on when he baptized Jesus. Since the 40 days were not mentioned in John's gospel and the baptism has no true time line, speculation is all you have and nothing more.

GC

I see, foolish me. I always thought "immediately," meant immediately, and "the next day" meant the next day.

You are foolish because that's how he was treating you, he thought the unbelievers would buy what he had for sale, I only pointed out that there was no mention of the 40 days in John and there was no actual time line given in John. John was written through different eyes and is called the love gospel.

GC

---

It seems likely that 'the historical Jesus' was a former follower of JtB, which had to be played down when he became a 'messiah' in his own right.

Pray tell where does the information for that nonsense come from.

GC

[abaris]

The Christian documents we have give us the most history of that area during that time.

They give us stories using some real historical figures like Pilate. But they don't live up to reality when it comes to Roman trials or the role of the jewish priesthood, which was a body appointed by the Roman authorities and very much dependent on them. Most of all they don't give us a realistic picture of how a Roman governor would have reacted faced when faced with a man claiming to be the king of the jews. That's high treason and Pilate certainly wouldn't have offered that man a possible amnesty if the people so wished.

[Godscreated]

Your deception might fool the foolish ones here, but not the Christians. Matthew, Mark, Luke all say Jesus went into the desert after His baptism. Johns Gospel never mentions the 40 days in the desert. John's gospel gives no time line for the baptism, it does say John gave a testimony of Jesus and how he knew who Jesus was, but as I said there is no time line on when he baptized Jesus. Since the 40 days were not mentioned in John's gospel and the baptism has no true time line, speculation is all you have and nothing more.

Sorry I missed this reply earlier.

So what are you saying? There were two baptisms? One with John's timeline and the other with the Synoptic timeline?

John is pretty abundantly clear on the order of events:

John 1:22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
1:23 He said,I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias
...
1:27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
1:28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.
1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
1:30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.
1:31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.
1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Ok, so what have we learned so far? John the Baptist made it clear he was a forerunner of someone coming after him, who he hadn't yet met (1:31). He tells everyone he's coming and he won't be worthy to put his shoes on (1:27). The next day (1:29) Jesus shows up, John says, "here he is, the man we've all been waiting for whom I hadn't yet met". And then the whole deal with the dove from Heaven.

Where have we heard about the dove from Heaven before?

Wait a minute why are you jumping around, from v. 31 and then go back to verse 27 and then quote v. 29 as if it took place after v. 31.
Verse 27 states John knew he was unworthy to unlatch the sandals of the Messiah and he knew he was the one chosen to be Christ's forerunner.
Verse 28 states John at this time was answering the questions put to him.
Verse 29 states that the next day John saw the Messiah and told them he did.
The next verses are told by John as the events that had happened at an earlier meeting. That's why John was able to recognize Jesus in v. 29.

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Oh, that's right. The dove from Heaven is the point where Heaven announced "this is my son" and all that at the end of the baptism.

Although John glosses over the whole baptism, he does mention the dove. The Synoptics make it clear that the dove thing punctuates the baptism. So yes, we have a contradiction.

Mark is written with a specific time line about what happened at the baptism of Jesus. Matthew and Luke agree with this time line, John's gospel is not about a specific time line and doesn't even mention the 40 days in the desert. Again I'll say to keep you in mind of what happened in John's gospel, John is answering questions put to him and he saw Jesus coming and recognized Him and stated he did. Then he goes on telling what happened at an earlier time, what happened at an earlier time is the reason John could say who Jesus was and why he was able to recognize Him in v. 29. There is no contradiction, because John's gospel gives no specific time line, he is telling the story of how he could know Jesus from what had happened at an earlier date.

Now I'm sure you're going to say there were two dove-spirit-infusions just like there's the "two temple cleansings" apology to explain why Jesus starts his ministry with the temple cleansing in John but he ends his ministry with the temple cleansing according to the Synoptics. Ask, "what do you base that on?" and the apologist shrugs and says "it coulda happened".

There was one baptism and one temple cleansing, John's gospel is not held to a specific time line or an orderly one.

This is called the ad hoc hypothesis fallacy. Keep dismissing all the pieces of contrary evidence with "maybe... maybe... maybe..." until you've dismissed them all. I can "prove" invisible faeries exist in your garden or anything else if you let me use that tool.

I have Occam's Razor. It's exactly what it looks like: different authors writing a different story.

You couldn't prove anything to me, I do not buy crap from anyone, I've dismissed nothing and it's rude that you presumed I would. I explained to you how the gospel's account for what seems like a controversy isn't one, unless someone does like you and twist the verses around in John's gospel to seem like they are say something they do not. You are being dishonest with your view of John's gospel and you know you are. Take Occ's razor and shave the fuzz from your brain.

GC

---

The Christian documents we have give us the most history of that area during that time.

They give us stories using some real historical figures like Pilate. But they don't live up to reality when it comes to Roman trials or the role of the jewish priesthood, which was a body appointed by the Roman authorities and very much dependent on them. Most of all they don't give us a realistic picture of how a Roman governor would have reacted faced when faced with a man claiming to be the king of the jews. That's high treason and Pilate certainly wouldn't have offered that man a possible amnesty if the people so wished.

Drich has already taken care of this little bit of your propaganda.

GC

[abaris]

Drich has already taken care of this little bit of your propaganda.

GC

And what an autority on history Drich is. He only comes second to Mel Gibson.

[DeistPaladin]

Wait a minute why are you jumping around, from v. 31 and then go back to verse 27 and then quote v. 29 as if it took place after v. 31.

It's called "explaining the context". I refer to something that happened later to explain what he meant by what he said earlier.

The next verses are told by John as the events that had happened at an earlier meeting.

Aside from your fevered imagination, what, if anything, do you base that assertion on.

John's gospel is not about a specific time line

Really? Let's go to the tape.

John 1:29 The next day...
1:35 Again the next day after...
1:43 The day following...
2:1 And the third day ...

Sounds pretty specific about both time and order of events to me.

There was one baptism and one temple cleansing, John's gospel is not held to a specific time line or an orderly one.

You couldn't prove anything to me,

So it is with people who don't listen, don't want to be bothered with the facts and don't want to ever consider they might be wrong.

I do not buy crap from anyone,

You bought into the Bible.

I've dismissed nothing and it's rude that you presumed I would.

I didn't presume. That's what you did.

I explained to you how the gospel's account for what seems like a controversy isn't one, unless someone does like you and twist the verses around in John's gospel to seem like they are say something they do not.

I'm not "twisting". I'm reading what's there. You're the one inventing obtuse "interpretations" to try to make the square round. Skepticism isn't an agenda. Skepticism is just reading one holy scripture with the same critical thinking you would with anyone else's. Apologetics is an agenda. It starts with the conclusion and tries to find (or invent) reasons to believe it.

The fact that you would obviously disagree with other Christian apologists who have used the "two temple cleansings" argument only underscores how muddled and confusing your book is. Even those explaining away the contradictions can't get their story straight among them.

[Minimalist]

So, again: Why would a Roman governor be out to upset the locals?

Then you need to ask yourself, "which locals."

[Cyberman]

So which takes precedence - what actually happened, or what your book says happened?

The Christian documents we have give us the most history of that area during that time. Again the OP did ask about history and the OP was and is what I'm answering.

GC

So it is to do with history, not a spiritually based belief at all?

[DeistPaladin]

There was one baptism and one temple cleansing, John's gospel is not held to a specific time line or an orderly one.

Editorial mistake. I must have slipped and failed to delete the above quotation from GC's post. I must have done this too huridly. It looks like the above quote was mine or I was copying it and presenting it as my own. My mistake. That quote was from the one of GC's that I was replying to.