Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:46 pm
Not quite what I need. I'll look for something tonight or in the morning. Then I can continue, also with your other post from Tom Harpur.
Your source on the web for daily archaeology news!
https://archaeologica.org/forum/
Jesus is cooking away and pinching Magdalen's butt when nobody is watching. Nice guy to have around, though ... he's quick as crap and we never run out of inventory!he'd be working in the kitchen providing the fish course and the wine
is indicative of some sort of event. Were Pilate in Jerusalem (unlikely for a lot of reasons) at Passover, he would certainly have known about Jesus without having to ask, basically "who is this guy?" when they brought him for trial. I think it is fair to say that the gospels do not suggest that Jesus snuck in the back door.The narrative continues, "And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields." This joyful procession is commemorated by Christians on Palm Sunday, yet neither Mark nor Matthew mentions palm branches, and Luke says nothing of branches at all. Only in the Gospel of John is it said (12:13), "So they took branches of palm trees," and there the people who bring them are pilgrims who come out from the city to meet Jesus (11:55-56; 12:12-13). Palms are uncommon at the altitude of Jerusalem, though a few may be seen there. Mark says the branches were cut from the fields, and Matthew says the people cut them from the trees. Possibly they were olive branches.
The words of acclamation shouted by the crowd are quoted from the 118th Psalm (v 25). The evangelists report them with considerable variation. The word "Hosanna" is the Hebrew verb translated in the Psalm, "Save us, we beseech thee"; but it is used here as a noun like "glory" or "praise." That use of it must have arisen among Greek-speaking Christians.
The second sentence in the acclamation comes from the same Psalm (v 26). Originally it may have been meant for the king of Judah when he entered the temple to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles, or perhaps for citizens or pilgrims who came for the same purpose. That the Jews of Jesus’ day believed this verse to be addressed to the Messiah is not likely. In Matthew it becomes a Messianic blessing through the insertion of the phrase "to the Son of David." Mark is only a little less definite: he adds, "Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming." Luke reads, "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" (cf. Jn 12:13).
This event is of crucial importance for the much debated question whether Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah. The triumphal entry, as it is commonly called, is usually regarded as a deliberate demonstration of his Messianic authority. The evangelists clearly so understood it, looking back at it from their later Christian point of view. Probably many of those present at the time so regarded it. Possibly Jesus so intended it. It is equally possible, however, that he rode a donkey for the last part of the journey because it was given to him and he was tired, and that the popular acclaim was not welcome to him. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was not unusual. Which interpretation is more probable can be judged only on the basis of all that Jesus said and did, not only at this time but before and after he entered Jerusalem.
In Matthew (21:10-11) "all the city" is stirred and asks, "Who is this?" The crowds answer. "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee." The crowds who said this could hardly be the same as those who hailed him as the Son of David. No doubt there were other bystanders who knew of his work in Galilee.
The gospels give differing accounts of events as written by different authors and each emphases different things. The event of the entry into Jerusalem, was not the branches, cloaks, or crowd. It was the entry on the colt of a donkey which fulfilled a prophecy and illustrated that this was to be different kind of kingship marked by humbleness and humility rather than pomp and ceremony.The narrative continues, "And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields." This joyful procession is commemorated by Christians on Palm Sunday, yet neither Mark nor Matthew mentions palm branches, and Luke says nothing of branches at all. Only in the Gospel of John is it said (12:13), "So they took branches of palm trees," and there the people who bring them are pilgrims who come out from the city to meet Jesus (11:55-56; 12:12-13). Palms are uncommon at the altitude of Jerusalem, though a few may be seen there. Mark says the branches were cut from the fields, and Matthew says the people cut them from the trees. Possibly they were olive branches.
Everything he did was intentional although poorly understood by his disciples at the time. The Jews were looking for a King who would overthrow Roman authority. Jesus' claim was the kingdom was to be a spiritual one. He went out of his way to upset the existing paradigm of what a King was.This event is of crucial importance for the much debated question whether Jesus believed himself to be the Messiah. The triumphal entry, as it is commonly called, is usually regarded as a deliberate demonstration of his Messianic authority. The evangelists clearly so understood it, looking back at it from their later Christian point of view. Probably many of those present at the time so regarded it. Possibly Jesus so intended it. It is equally possible, however, that he rode a donkey for the last part of the journey because it was given to him and he was tired, and that the popular acclaim was not welcome to him. Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey was not unusual. Which interpretation is more probable can be judged only on the basis of all that Jesus said and did, not only at this time but before and after he entered Jerusalem.
The miracle of Lazarus was still in the minds of many and no doubt, word of this spread and many were wondering if Jesus was the coming King of authority. I think some got caught up in the stir caused by a bunch of disciple shouting praises. Even they were thinking he may be the King which would overthrow Rome.In Matthew (21:10-11) "all the city" is stirred and asks, "Who is this?" The crowds answer. "This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee." The crowds who said this could hardly be the same as those who hailed him as the Son of David. No doubt there were other bystanders who knew of his work in Galilee.
I'm not sure if Pilate was around or not. if I recall he was newly appointed and so was no doubt overwhelmed with getting things under control and no doubt under orders to control this 'pesky' province full of religious zealots.is indicative of some sort of event. Were Pilate in Jerusalem (unlikely for a lot of reasons) at Passover, he would certainly have known about Jesus without having to ask, basically "who is this guy?" when they brought him for trial. I think it is fair to say that the gospels do not suggest that Jesus snuck in the back door.
Having thought about this more fully, I disagree.marduk wrote: so the story of Jesus making food multiply is just a way of saying
"LOOK HES A KING OK, HE CAN MULTIPLY FOOD"
Minimalist wrote:This relates to the earlier post. Must drive the Fundis nuts because they can't suppress this stuff anymore or burn the authors at the stake!
THE PAGAN CHRIST: Rediscovering the Lost Light, by Tom Harpur.
Thomas Allen Publishers: Toronto, ON. 220+ pages, including index. Hardcover. $34.95 Cdn. ISBN # 0-88762-145-7.
Reviewed by: Wayne A. Holst for The Toronto Star
Tom Harpur would reject, outright, the philosophy behind the new Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of Christ.
....
That would be very easy for me to do, but its would take this discussion into another area, that would be off-topic for a historical thread.marduk wrote:well in that case it was the same deeper spiritual meaning that other deities had done before him
if you can FM try and mention one thing that Jesus did that was original
one thing that above all others proves he was a real person and not a pastiche of already existing mythology
The event of the entry into Jerusalem, was not the branches, cloaks, or crowd.
Pilate served from 26 to 36 AD. Since the gospels cannot even agree when he was born they certainly give no historical clues to when he died except that it had to be within those two dates. It doesn't matter. The Romans would have had a network of spies to keep them informed.if I recall he was newly appointed
Festivities no, but was it not traditional for him to preside over the freeing of one prisoner, at the behest of the people?As a gentile he would have had no reason to be in Jerusalem for Passover where he would have had no official role in the festivities