How large was Jesus following while alive?

[fallingblood]

why do you have a problem with Q?

Who says I have a problem with Q? I'm simply not going to make up things that supposedly not in Q. Do we have this hypothetical gospel? No. Do we know exactly what is in it? No. We only know what possibly in it. So to say that it doesn't talk about Judas simply is unfounded. Why? Because we can't know what it doesn't talk about. We can only know what it in part talks about.

Again, it is a hypothetical Gospel. We don't have a copy of it. We only possibly know a little which was written in it; however, we can not know whether there was more or not, as we have no actual document.

sources please

Paul. 1 Corinthians 11:23

again I refer you to this statement below.

I also would ask that you do not ignore that there are many debates regarding different areas of jesus historicity by mainstream scholar's not just fringe positions.

So we might as well just dismiss all scholars huh? But hey, I guess that it easier then addressing what I say. Cut and run.


Also, why haven't you listed any scholars that support you here? You have only quoted wiki, and it makes me think you haven't actually read the scholarship on the subject. And you are still avoiding to tell us what has historicity in the Gospels.

wiki gives a decent overview of all the work done, AND if one has he knowledge, one can edit the info if you can make a case thats backed.

Why should one be expected to waste the time when it can just be changed again? Also, an overview is okay, but one needs a better understanding than just an overview. As in why actual scholarship should be searched. You won't find any actual scholar using wiki as a source (at least not in a scholarly paper or book).

 

[outhouse]

Paul. 1 Corinthians 11:23

gives my view credibility

it only mentions jesus was betrayed and does NOT decribe someone like judas.

in fact, gospel writers could have used this betrayal passage as a seed to place in the OT versions of previous stories

 

[outhouse]

Again, it is a hypothetical Gospel. We don't have a copy of it.

yet we know the gospels copied from the same earlier source.

 

[outhouse]

I guess that it easier then addressing what I say. Cut and run

you try and manipulate a conversation so that it only has your outcome as a possibility.

You have only quoted wiki

and your havnt been able to refute a single word LOL

attacking me is so much easier then refuting proffessionals, yet it does not give your view any more credibility, you still run that way

 

[fallingblood]

gives my view credibility

it only mentions jesus was betrayed and does NOT decribe someone like judas.

in fact, gospel writers could have used this betrayal passage as a seed to place in the OT versions of previous stories

So you didn't even read what I said earlier did you? Judas betrayed Jesus. Paul says someone betrayed Jesus. Well there you go. Someone like Judas, as in a betrayer. If you read more of Paul, you may just see something more.

yet we know the gospels copied from the same earlier source.

The Q gospel is not necessary for this though. There are other options, for instance, that Mark was written first, Matthew borrowed from Mark, and then Luke borrowed from both. There are a few other options as well. L. Michael White goes into more depth with this in his book From Jesus to Christianity.

And really, even though the Gospels borrowed from some earlier source, that doesn't mean we know what is included in that source. We only know what those Gospels decided to include. That means, there is a very good chance they probably left other items out (in fact, they did so when borrowing from Mark). So it is completely possible that Q talks about Judas. We simply don't know, and to say that it doesn't, simply is taking a giant leap.

you try and manipulate a conversation so that it only has your outcome as a possibility.

Not at all. However, if there is a different possibility, I want to be informed about it, and not simply directed to a wiki page that dismisses other idea. That is why I constantly ask you to supply some names of scholars, and tell us what you think has historicity in the Bible. Why do you refuse to do this?

and your havnt been able to refute a single word LOL

attacking me is so much easier then refuting proffessionals, yet it does not give your view any more credibility, you still run that way

I showed where Paul talks about Jesus being betrayed, and showed why we can't assume that Q didn't write about Judas.

And of course I'm not making a long refutation here, because I don't want you to just respond, as you have over and over again, that it has no historicity. Which is why I have asked you to outline what has historicity in the Bible. There is no point to make a refutation if you're just going to dismiss it.

So again, why not give us some scholars that agree on your position, (not a wiki link. I don't want a wiki link), and lay down what has historicity in the Bible? If you can't, that's fine, and we can just go back to making guesses, as that is what you said this comes down to anyway.

 

[outhouse]

Which is why I have asked you to outline what has historicity in the Bible.

youve heard it before.


jesus was a traveling teacher/healer of judaism, who was baptized by John, who wanted to reform judaism, who spoke in parables, who spoke of the kingdom of god, who ticked of the roman's who put him to death on a cross.

this I think can be said with certainty.

 

[outhouse]

anyway save the bickering


what im curious about and id love your opinion

if jesus had a large following and his home base was Capernaum, would not Antipas suppress it?

 

[fallingblood]

youve heard it before.


jesus was a traveling teacher/healer of judaism, who was baptized by John, who wanted to reform judaism, who spoke in parables, who spoke of the kingdom of god, who ticked of the roman's who put him to death on a cross.

this I think can be said with certainty.

If that is all that can be said for certain, then your question can't be answered with any certainty. And there is no reason to really try to make an answer, as from what you're saying, it won't have any historicity.

So, we have to guess then. But where do we even get a starting point to guess from? We can't use the Bible, as those portions don't seem to have historicity according to you. And there are no extra-biblical sources. Also, as you've said, you believe it took off after his death. So we are left at really no grounds to make a guess.

So, you have asked a question, that under the guidelines you've set, can't be answered.

 

[fallingblood]

anyway save the bickering


what im curious about and id love your opinion

if jesus had a large following and his home base was Capernaum, would not Antipas suppress it?

My personal opinion?

No, Antipas would not have suppressed it. At least not until it started becoming more of a threat. Sooner or later though, if Jesus continued to preach, Antipas probably would have.

But when we hear about such movements being suppressed, they usually are larger movements. Many times, they purposely make some symbolic gesture against Rome or the authorities (such as having large groups gather and cross the Jordan, in a symbolic recreation of the early Hebrews entering into the promise land).

Jesus didn't have a large central group, but he had followers that were scattered. So in that regard, he was a little more safe.

 

[outhouse]

If that is all that can be said for certain, then your question can't be answered with any certainty. And there is no reason to really try to make an answer, as from what you're saying, it won't have any historicity.

So, we have to guess then. But where do we even get a starting point to guess from? We can't use the Bible, as those portions don't seem to have historicity according to you. And there are no extra-biblical sources. Also, as you've said, you believe it took off after his death. So we are left at really no grounds to make a guess.

So, you have asked a question, that under the guidelines you've set, can't be answered.

welcome to scholarships and historical work

 

[outhouse]

My personal opinion?

No, Antipas would not have suppressed it. At least not until it started becoming more of a threat. Sooner or later though, if Jesus continued to preach, Antipas probably would have.

But when we hear about such movements being suppressed, they usually are larger movements. Many times, they purposely make some symbolic gesture against Rome or the authorities (such as having large groups gather and cross the Jordan, in a symbolic recreation of the early Hebrews entering into the promise land).

Jesus didn't have a large central group, but he had followers that were scattered. So in that regard, he was a little more safe.

great answer.

I can follow that

 

[outhouse]

welcome to scholarships and historical work

and to add to it

we take the fact he was a preacher, we dont een know how long he really taught.

healer, we dont know how much or what his ability was.

kingdom of god, were not sure what he really ment by this, and its about a 60/40 split on apocalyptic.

trial, is unknown. death by cross is known

 

[fallingblood]

welcome to scholarships and historical work

I have been doing scholarship and historical work for quite some time now. That is not historical work.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

historical work

And which philosophy of historiography are you using to write about history?

 

[cablescavenger]

Ill take Sprongs approach to Judas


Judas Iscariot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The book The Sins of the Scripture, by John Shelby Spong, investigates the possibility that early Christians compiled the Judas story from three Old Testament Jewish betrayal stories. He writes, "...the act of betrayal by a member of the twelve disciples is not found in the earliest Christian writings. Judas is first placed into the Christian story by the Gospel of Mark (3:19), who wrote in the early years of the eighth decade of the Common Era." He points out that some of the Gospels, after the Crucifixion, refer to the number of Disciples as "Twelve", as if Judas were still among them. He compares the three conflicting descriptions of Judas's death - hanging, leaping into a pit, and disemboweling, with three Old Testament betrayals followed by similar suicides.
Spong's conclusion is that early Bible authors, after the First Jewish-Roman War, sought to distance themselves from Rome's enemies. They augmented the Gospels with a story of a disciple, personified in Judas as the Jewish state, who either betrayed or handed-over Jesus to his Roman crucifiers. Spong identifies this augmentation with the origin of modern Anti-Semitism.

We have the Gospel of Judas too which does not paint him as a traitor at all.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We have the Gospel of Judas too which does not paint him as a traitor at all.

And Spong's account is just slightly more historical. Have you read the gospel of Judas? Do you know when it was written?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

his parables are the earliest sources

Have you actually come across someone who believes this?

I can't think of a reason why anyone would argue for that.

Really? His parables?

I'm asking because I've never heard that before, and I've had my head so far up Paul's butt for so long I can miss stuff on the Gospels. I'm just really shocked - I honestly would like to know who argues for this.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

but paul and Q dont say a word about him

 

[angellous_evangellous]

good point

i didnt put any weight in paul fabricating it.


more or less trying to find out his alternate view since he finds no historicity in what most historians follow

I was agreeing with you.

 

[outhouse]

Have you actually come across someone who believes this?

I can't think of a reason why anyone would argue for that.

Really? His parables?

I'm asking because I've never heard that before, and I've had my head so far up Paul's butt for so long I can miss stuff on the Gospels. I'm just really shocked - I honestly would like to know who argues for this.

Only in the context for the material she had in her post.


And when I do say that im only talking about the ones found in M and Q's.


anyway it was just the earliest of what she had in the post, and I agree with you

here it is here

Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[107]

• In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one will not be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."

• In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

• In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.

• Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.