Oh Christ!!

[Forum Monk]

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.

[Cognito]

he'd be working in the kitchen providing the fish course and the wine

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!

[marduk]

Goliath is doing the door and Lazarus is the cloakroom attendant

[Forum Monk]

Min,
Here is one such tool:
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebibl ... index2.htm

Going back and checking, Matthew, Mark and Luke, the term multitude seem to apply to the multitude of disciples, not random people. So it sems to indicate a noisy but smallish procession into the city. Its not exaggerated.

More tomorrow.

[Minimalist]

I don't speak Greek so it does me no good at all....(in fact, it's all Greek to me.)

Nonethless, this comparison:

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.

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.

[Forum Monk]

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

I think Jesus came in the east gate near the temple complex. But probably out of earshot of the palaces.

[Forum Monk]

so the story of Jesus making food multiply is just a way of saying
"LOOK HES A KING OK, HE CAN MULTIPLY FOOD"

Having thought about this more fully, I disagree.
With Jesus you always have to look at the deeper meaning behind what he does. More than likely this had nothing to do with the physical act of eating food. This miracle was illustraating a point of spiritual sustenance. Few in the crowd saw the point. They were glad to have food in the belly.

[marduk]

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

[Forum Monk]

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.
....

I am probably starting to sound like a preacher and I am not. And I am not an apologist but I think its Ok to debate things and have differing opinions.


Many of the claims in Harpurs book as quoted in the review, can be disputed. I think many other religions DID believe their gods (e.g. Horus) were at one time living people.

The life of Jesus was in and of itself a metaphor, as I have already twice pointed out. And because of that it appears allegorical and unreal. But I think it does not necessarily mitigate against his existence.

[Forum Monk]

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

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.

If he was a pastiche, as you claim, he was like none who preceeded him as these new mythologies would have you believe, that God was personal to each individual, humble, compassionate, long-suffering, forgiving, etc. Not exactly the image of what are typically called gods. In many ways, he was the antithesis of the Jewish YHWH.

[Minimalist]

The event of the entry into Jerusalem, was not the branches, cloaks, or crowd.

That means one of the gospels, at least, is wrong. I can live with that. It's the fundis who will be jumping off buildings.

if I recall he was newly appointed

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.

I regard Pilate's presence in Jerusalem as a "plot device." 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 and, indeed, could not even have entered the temple. His presence would have been little more than a provocation reminding people that the last time the temple WAS violated it was by Pompey the Great a century earlier. Not the ideal form of crowd control for a guy who had no real military force at his direct command.

[Digit]

Refresh my memory on that one Min, was Pilate in Jerusalem at the time?

[Beagle]

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

Festivities no, but was it not traditional for him to preside over the freeing of one prisoner, at the behest of the people?

[Minimalist]

There is no historical record of any such practice. Another plot device.

Pilate's headquarters was in the delightful seaside town of Caesarea Maritima, which Herod the Great built to give his country a port. It was also a thoroughly Romanized town. There is no logical reason for him to have gone to Jerusalem for "Passover." He wasn't a Jew. The Sanheddrin had a considerable degree of local autonomy and would not have needed or wanted his help to handle any religious matters.

But the gospel writers needed a "trial" for their story so they indulged in a little bit of "Here Come Da Judge."

[Beagle]

Well, if the scriptures don't count, it must be the Jesus Plot. You must have read that book.