Was Jesus of Nazareth a religious loon?

[GUBU]

Secondly, Mark 3:21 is almost certainly authentic- it is highly unlikely the Early Church would have invented it as you say.

What's so special about an account of a holy man "driving out spirits" that makes it likely? I mean, pretty much every recorded religion has such a story.

[Vicki Q]

Mark, of course, does not have an Virgin Birth narrative, and Matthew & Luke offer varying versions; Paul seems either ignorant and/or disinterested entirely.  As for John, it's irrelevant, as for him and his community, Jesus was preexistent to his birth.

I doubt, in the extreme, that either Matthew or Luke's account contain any real history, other than the fact (probably historical) that Jesus was born in Nazareth.  We have the extreme tale of King Herod's "massacre of the innocents" not recorded by any contemporary pagan or Jewish historians, and as such, most modern scholars regard it as being myth and/or fable, which makes the whole of Matthew's account, written nearly a century after the supposed events completely suspect.

Matthew and Luke do deal with the birth of Jesus differently, but both agree in their statement of a virgin birth. Because the two accounts are so different, it seems reasonable to say that the Early Church believed in the virgin birth. Some Christians think that's how it was; others find it helpful to place that belief in a tray marked 'maybe' and still others in a tray marked 'wrong'. Variable mileage.

I really don't think Paul would be expected to mention it as he's dealing with other things, and John as you say also has other theological fish to fry. Mark's failure to include Jesus's birth may just be for the same reason he doesn't include a description of the resurrection- whatever that is (but Mark does pre-suppose it!).

Where we disagree is on the massacre of the innocents. We know a lot about Herod from Josephus. Herod was a crazy psychopath for whom killing the infant population of a small village (about a dozen) would have been entirely in character in the last years of his reign, and would barely have been noticed amongst other craziness (the murders of many family members, trying to get a stadium load of Jewish leaders to be killed after his death so that people would be crying...).

If the evidence isn't there that it did happen, the arguments against aren't exactly conclusive either.

[Succubus#2]

Where we disagree is on the massacre of the innocents. We know a lot about Herod from Josephus. Herod was a crazy psychopath for whom killing the infant population of a small village (about a dozen)

Jerusalem was a small village?

If the evidence isn't there that it did happen,

Translate: 'If there is no evidence it happened.'

the arguments against aren't exactly conclusive either.

I can't follow this, but this is always the problem when trying to parse treble negatives.

[Jehanne]

Mark, of course, does not have an Virgin Birth narrative, and Matthew & Luke offer varying versions; Paul seems either ignorant and/or disinterested entirely.  As for John, it's irrelevant, as for him and his community, Jesus was preexistent to his birth.

I doubt, in the extreme, that either Matthew or Luke's account contain any real history, other than the fact (probably historical) that Jesus was born in Nazareth.  We have the extreme tale of King Herod's "massacre of the innocents" not recorded by any contemporary pagan or Jewish historians, and as such, most modern scholars regard it as being myth and/or fable, which makes the whole of Matthew's account, written nearly a century after the supposed events completely suspect.

Matthew and Luke do deal with the birth of Jesus differently, but both agree in their statement of a virgin birth. Because the two accounts are so different, it seems reasonable to say that the Early Church believed in the virgin birth. Some Christians think that's how it was; others find it helpful to place that belief in a tray marked 'maybe' and still others in a tray marked 'wrong'. Variable mileage.

Problem that I have with your arguments is that you are being far too selective in your sources.  Consider this from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas:

Chapter 3

(1) The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered. (2) When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit."
(3) And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. (4) The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."

Are the above events historical?  If not, why not?  Or, why so?

Infancy Gospel of Thomas

[Vicki Q]

Jerusalem was a small village?

The Massacre of the Innocents was set in and around Bethlehem, which was a small village.

If the evidence isn't there that it did happen,

Translate: 'If there is no evidence it happened.'

Matthew is an evangelistic document that needs to be treated carefully when discussing historicity neutrally, but we have tools for doing that and it is a perfectly normal and valid historical source when used in that way. We therefore do have evidence.

the arguments against aren't exactly conclusive either.

I can't follow this, but this is always the problem when trying to parse treble negatives.

I mean that the arguments used to justify the claim that the Massacre is a fiction are also weak.

---

Are the above events historical?  If not, why not?  Or, why so?

The Infancy Gospel is generally dated to the mid to late 2nd century AD, so it's value as a historical document is extremely limited. That's not to say that it has none at all, but it's particularly weak evidentially.

Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency with various central aspects of Jesus' ministry, such as the lack of a Kingdom declaration in the miracles which make the bulk of the narrative.

So no.

[Abaddon_ire]

Jerusalem was a small village?

The Massacre of the Innocents was set in and around Bethlehem, which was a small village.

All works of fiction have a setting. What's your point? Spiderman is set in New York. New York is real. Therefore jesus is real because the storybook is set in the levant and that is a real place.

Translate: 'If there is no evidence it happened.'

Matthew is an evangelistic document that needs to be treated carefully when discussing historicity neutrally, but we have tools for doing that and it is a perfectly normal and valid historical source when used in that way. We therefore do have evidence.

The gospel of matt the prat is written by...not an eyewitness. Not matthew either. Nobody knows who composed it. The only thing we know for certain is that it was not the Disciple Matthew who wrote it. Therefore it is mere hearsay.

I can't follow this, but this is always the problem when trying to parse treble negatives.

I mean that the arguments used to justify the claim that the Massacre is a fiction are also weak.

---

Are the above events historical?  If not, why not?  Or, why so?

The Infancy Gospel is generally dated to the mid to late 2nd century AD, so it's value as a historical document is extremely limited. That's not to say that it has none at all, but it's particularly weak evidentially.

So what? Do you know when Matthew is dated to?

Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency with various central aspects of Jesus' ministry, such as the lack of a Kingdom declaration in the miracles which make the bulk of the narrative.

So no.

BS. First, the canon was decided by committee. Second, you are apparently entirely unaware of which of the apocrypha almost got included.

Lucky for you, some of us are and can share that information. Unluckily for you, you are so committed to the superstition that facts will not matter to you.

[Fireball]

It amused me when I sat in mass many years ago when the priest mentioned that "prophets" were ridiculed in their home towns but gained credence if they went to other towns. "Yeah, that Iopheous (or whatever the spelling was) is one crazy dude". Next town...guppies swallow it whole. Dafuq is up with that!?

To answer the OP's question, if he even existed, yes he was a religious loon.

[Jehanne]

Are the above events historical?  If not, why not?  Or, why so?

The Infancy Gospel is generally dated to the mid to late 2nd century AD, so it's value as a historical document is extremely limited. That's not to say that it has none at all, but it's particularly weak evidentially.

Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency with various central aspects of Jesus' ministry, such as the lack of a Kingdom declaration in the miracles which make the bulk of the narrative.

So no.

How do you know this, namely, when the Infancy Gospels were written?  And, what dates do you ascribe to the canonical Gospels?

[Fake Messiah]

Jerusalem was a small village?

The Massacre of the Innocents was set in and around Bethlehem, which was a small village.

Ah yes, nothing proves Jesus more than the reasons of why there is no evidence of him and claims from NT.

[Vicki Q]

Massacre of the Innocents
Perhaps it might help if people reviewed the entire thread before posting further. Succubus#2 had stated that the massacre of the innocents was based around Jerusalem (so couldn't have involved few children). It was actually set in Bethlehem, so his argument was invalid. That's the thing.

How do you know this, namely, when the Infancy Gospels were written?

It's the academic consensus. I'm sure there's many learned articles out there which would discuss in further detail.

And, what dates do you ascribe to the canonical Gospels?

I tend to start with where the academic arguments lead to. So they're looking at things like relationship to AD 70, what are the hot topics being given centre stage, solutions to the synoptic problem etc. There's also the complication of Q. The latter half of C1 tends to be the ballpark, depending on which one we're talking about.

More importantly, the Infancy Gospel is more like the script for a horror movie than a kerygmatic or theological writing. It basically illustrates a fascination with the bizarre and a desire for religious entertainment that intentionally contains little history.

The canonical Gospels are written as bios (think biography). They have a series of ideas running through them- how the OT story continues, the arrival of the Kingdom of God, what Jesus did etc.

These do not appear on a blank canvas, but in a thoroughly Jewish context. There are connections, details and structures running through them, some not obvious to the modern eye, which tell us that the author is not trying to entertain, but to tell us about reality.