What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[watchamadoodle]

More likely is that the author of mark was some Greco-Roman who mistook the word nazirite for nazareth and applied his own formulation.

When you say Nazirite, I'm assuming you mean as described in this Wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite ). That doesn't fit IMO, because Jesus apparently drank wine and touched corpses.

I suspect there was a religious sect with a commune called Nazareth (branch). These people were hoping for a messiah from the branch of David. This is analogous to the Dunedain quietly preserving the heirs of Elendil until the right moment.

[robvalue]

He may well have been a nazarene at one point then the wine stuff was added later to the story, and no one noticed the problem.

Maybe. Just made that up of course.

[Minimalist]

That doesn't fit IMO, because Jesus apparently drank wine and touched corpses.

"Jesus" might have danced ballet and gone roller skating on Saturday nights, too. All we have are these silly gospel stories which, I hope, I have dismissed forcefully enough as records of anything. They are stories.
Written to make a literary point which was probably better understood by the author than modern readers.

Luke Skywalker did not blow up any Death Star. That's a story, too.

[robvalue]

Since even his birth is impossible, we have to trace him back from his death. That's a bit of a problem, HJ wise.

[Minimalist]

They can't even agree on when he died.

[KevinM1]

That Jesus... always hanging around where he's not wanted.

...I'll see myself out....

[Minimalist]

BTW, there is evidence of the roller-skating stuff.

[robvalue]

Nice! Finally some reliable evidence.

Skate over here and get me a drink, jesus.

---

There is some even more contemporary evidence for jesus:

http://youtu.be/_drmq3NRNiw

[TimOneill]

Seems to me that he is trying to make excuses for why the gospels tell different stories.

"Make excuses"? Why on earth would I do that? I'm doing what all critical scholars of the texts do and what historians of the ancient world do with any such texts - work out what the differences potentially tell us about the interrelationships between the texts and the possible origins of the elements in them.

There is one original story: What is now known as gMark.

Wrong. We know that gMark was using at least one original source, now lost. Then there is the Q material used by both gLuke and gMatt, at least some of which is demonstrably from a common text, also now lost. Then there is the material exclusively in gMatt and gLuke, some of which may be what you call "fanfic" (actual textual critics call it midrash) and some of it could be from further lost sources. Then there is a whole slew of stuff in gJohn that is not in any of the synoptics, which must have come from somewhere.

The idea that the other gospels are just elaborations on or embroiderings on gMark and it can all be traced back to gMark is simply wrong.

He could not be bothered with a nativity story so later traditions grew up about it which were incorporated into the fanfics which are matty and luke.

This is most likely. The fact remains that both gMatt and gLuke are using this "fanfic" stuff to "explain" how a Galilean from Nazareth could be the Messiah and born in Bethlehem in Judea. So the question is - why? Why are they going to all this trouble to "explain" how he could be the Messiah and still be from a nowhere town in Galilee.

The most logical answer? Because he was from Nazareth and this needed to be explained.

[Minimalist]

Wrong. We know that gMark was using at least one original source, now lost.

Please don't start with the Q nonsense. It's the tachyon of biblical apologetics. It's never been seen. Never been measured. But some people claim it exists.

Funny. "God" could be a tachyon.


Let me know when you find Q. Then I'll take a look at it.