Was Jesus of Nazareth a religious loon?

[Jehanne]

For centuries, it was widely believed among scholars that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel to have been written:

Wikipedia -- Augustinian Hypothesis

Since the mid-1800s, however, most scholars have come to accept Marcan priority, with both the authors of Matthew and Luke copying from Mark's Gospel:

Wikipedia -- Marcan Priority

The following text is, however, not to be found in either Matthew or Luke:

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:21)

Of course, one must wonder if the Angel really did visit Mary, the supposed mother of Jesus, how she could have ever drawn the conclusion that her son had "lost it"??

The tradition that Mark recorded is almost certainly authentic, in that it is early, and per the criterion of "embarrassment", it is likely historical.  It would also explain why Jesus, after going to Jerusalem, "stood out", by being an audacious, eccentric preacher, which is why both the Jewish and Roman authorities noticed him, and ultimately, had him arrested and then executed.

[onlinebiker]

Or - more likely - he was the invention of a scribe with a warped imagination......

[The Grand Nudger]

Not a religious loon, or loon of any kind. Jesus of Nazareth was a plot device created in order to satisfy a non-existent "prophecy" that Matthew™ had heard.

This, even if we assume that historical jesus was a real boy.

[Fake Messiah]

What happened was that Borg wanted to destroy the human race so they went to the year 33(?) to kill Jesus (overstating his role in human history). They were also followed by Enterprise D and its crew who saved Jesus at the last moment but not before Borg badly wounded Jesus. So they beamed Jesus to the Enterprise, and while he was recuperating, Riker dressed up as Jesus and did all of his miracles using futuristic Starfleet technology.

Then weeks (if not months) after the incident, Jesus woke up from a coma in sickbay, he learned about what they have done and said "What?! I can't do all that stuff and miracles! I'm just an apocalyptic preacher!" and then they apologized to him and beamed him down for crucifixion.

I mean can you prove I'm not right?

[Ranjr]

Since Paul wrote before any of the gospels, we must give his account of Jesus priority.  So, Jesus was a vision people had, who gave them a revelation.  He "appeared" to Cephas and the 12.  That account doesn't include any details of a Nazarene.  It's all a story.

[Jehanne]

Since Paul wrote before any of the gospels, we must give his account of Jesus priority.  So, Jesus was a vision people had, who gave them a revelation.  He "appeared" to Cephas and the 12.  That account doesn't include any details of a Nazarene.  It's all a story.

I agree with Pauline priority (and, the existence of a historical Jesus), but, yes, few details about the life of the historical Jesus are mentioned by Paul who was, after, his contemporary.  Paul never met Jesus face-to-face, even though both were living at the same time in the same area!  How strange!!  It would seem that Paul was enamored more with Jesus' death than he was with life.  I think that the answer is that Paul, like Jesus, was an apocalyptist who thought that the World was going to end; as such, Paul may have thought that Jesus' death had elevated him to some sort of divine son.

[Vicki Q]

For centuries, it was widely believed among scholars that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel to have been written:
<snip>
Of course, one must wonder if the Angel really did visit Mary, the supposed mother of Jesus, how she could have ever drawn the conclusion that her son had "lost it"??

The tradition that Mark recorded is almost certainly authentic, in that it is early, and per the criterion of "embarrassment", it is likely historical.  It would also explain why Jesus, after going to Jerusalem, "stood out", by being an audacious, eccentric preacher, which is why both the Jewish and Roman authorities noticed him, and ultimately, had him arrested and then executed.

There's a number of points here.

Firstly the priority of Mark is far from settled, but let's use it as an assumption for now.

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

Thirdly, the apparent conflict with Luke's angelic visit only appears substantial this side of the resurrection. Before then, the whole Jesus-as-God thing was unthinkable. Mary's message was by and large consistent with normal C1 revolutionary Judaism similar to Bar Kokhba and Joseph had something about saving from sins (long story short, the same thing as a successful military revolution). So Mary probably saw Jesus' increasingly unusual and freaky Kingdom pronouncements as the wrong road to take, and wanted to implement some motherly intervention.

Finally, it is clear that that the relationship between Jesus and His family was notable for a lot of tension and disbelief (also see Mark 3:31-35 parr, John 7:5). It is therefore all the more startling to find Jesus brother James highlighted as a prominent 'drop by and ask him about it' witness in 1 Cor 15:7, and being given the leadership of the Jerusalem church- with other family members following in his steps.

The obvious explanation would be that James actually was a witness to the resurrection, I suppose.

[Jehanne]

For centuries, it was widely believed among scholars that the Gospel of Matthew was the first Gospel to have been written:
<snip>
Of course, one must wonder if the Angel really did visit Mary, the supposed mother of Jesus, how she could have ever drawn the conclusion that her son had "lost it"??

The tradition that Mark recorded is almost certainly authentic, in that it is early, and per the criterion of "embarrassment", it is likely historical.  It would also explain why Jesus, after going to Jerusalem, "stood out", by being an audacious, eccentric preacher, which is why both the Jewish and Roman authorities noticed him, and ultimately, had him arrested and then executed.

There's a number of points here.

Firstly the priority of Mark is far from settled, but let's use it as an assumption for now.

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

Thirdly, the apparent conflict with Luke's angelic visit only appears substantial this side of the resurrection. Before then, the whole Jesus-as-God thing was unthinkable. Mary's message was by and large consistent with normal C1 revolutionary Judaism similar to Bar Kokhba and Joseph had something about saving from sins (long story short, the same thing as a successful military revolution). So Mary probably saw Jesus' increasingly unusual and freaky Kingdom pronouncements as the wrong road to take, and wanted to implement some motherly intervention.

Finally, it is clear that that the relationship between Jesus and His family was notable for a lot of tension and disbelief (also see Mark 3:31-35 parr, John 7:5). It is therefore all the more startling to find Jesus brother James highlighted as a prominent 'drop by and ask him about it' witness in 1 Cor 15:7, and being given the leadership of the Jerusalem church- with other family members following in his steps.

The obvious explanation would be that James actually was a witness to the resurrection, I suppose.

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.

[Paleophyte]

What happened was that Borg wanted to destroy the human race so they went to the year 33(?) to kill Jesus (overstating his role in human history). They were also followed by Enterprise D and its crew who saved Jesus at the last moment but not before Borg badly wounded Jesus. So they beamed Jesus to the Enterprise, and while he was recuperating, Riker dressed up as Jesus and did all of his miracles using futuristic Starfleet technology.

Then weeks (if not months) after the incident, Jesus woke up from a coma in sickbay, he learned about what they have done and said "What?! I can't do all that stuff and miracles! I'm just an apocalyptic preacher!" and then they apologized to him and beamed him down for crucifixion.

I mean can you prove I'm not right?

Yes. I've read the NT and even Rick Berman's drek wasn't that awful.

---

The following text is, however, not to be found in either Matthew or Luke:

When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind." (Mark 3:21)

Of course, one must wonder if the Angel really did visit Mary, the supposed mother of Jesus, how she could have ever drawn the conclusion that her son had "lost it"??

The tradition that Mark recorded is almost certainly authentic, in that it is early, and per the criterion of "embarrassment", it is likely historical.  It would also explain why Jesus, after going to Jerusalem, "stood out", by being an audacious, eccentric preacher, which is why both the Jewish and Roman authorities noticed him, and ultimately, had him arrested and then executed.

It's a recurring theme throughout the NT. Mary gets knocked up by God AllMighty and then:
 - Is surprised by the miraculous birth
 - Is surprised that her brat knows scripture
 - Is surprised that he can work miracles

It's almost like somebody took a bunch of unrelated stories and pasted them together without editing them. Syncretion if you like big fancy-sounding words. By the standard of "OMG!  The Son of God isn't acting like a mortal!" this is almost certainly a later addition and a load of bollocks.

[Jehanne]

It's a recurring theme throughout the NT. Mary gets knocked up by God AllMighty and then:
 - Is surprised by the miraculous birth
 - Is surprised that her brat knows scripture
 - Is surprised that he can work miracles

It's almost like somebody took a bunch of unrelated stories and pasted them together without editing them. Syncretion if you like big fancy-sounding words. By the standard of "OMG!  The Son of God isn't acting like a mortal!" this is almost certainly a later addition and a load of bollocks.

And, it's not unique in 1st Century Palestine, or, even Judaism.  It was not at all uncommon during the Hellenistic era for gods to have sex with we mortals.