Toto

New Book claims Jesus the son of a middle class architect.

Dr. Bradford is a London GP, not a professional Bible scholar, so his ideas are being subjected to ridicule on the blogosphere.

The book is published by TempleHouse Publishing

steve_bnk

Take away the divinity and a consider possible HJ, one has to account for his knowledge and competence.

He is a Jew referenced as rabai, speaks knowedgeably about biblical/Jewish law, the prophets, the moral/political/social state of the Jews at the time, and all other things Jewish.

He could only have been a trained rabai.

mountainman

Arguably well trained by Roman employed literary architects.
For example ... "In the first instance render everything to Caesar, etc"

steve_bnk

That one statement says clearly he would not have been on the side of the militant Jewish radicals.

How would someone comsiderd to be in the blood line of David be treated in Jewish culture of the day?

aa5874

But, this Dr. Bradford speculates instead of using the evidence. There is no historical source of antiquity that cannot substantiate the invented speculations of Dr. Bradford.

Jesus Christ in the Synpotics story was no radical. He was the offspring of the Holy Ghost who came specifically to fulfill prophecy. Jesus came to warn the Jews directly that if they rejected him that they would be severly punished far worse than Sodom and Gommorah.

Based on the Synoptic story, prophecy was fulfilled, Jerusalem and the Temple was destroyed.

But, Jesus in the Synoptics story also came to fulfill another prophecy which has failed. He told the Sanhedrin that they would see him.

Jesus was a false prophet if he was not raised from the dead.

steve_bnk

The problem is always the integrity of the NT as histry, and as selected in the determination of what the bible contains.

The Jews and tehe Roans existed, it is known there were numerous Jewish radicals, beyond that the accuracy of anything in gthge NT has no foundation. JC did not even get honorable mention in the Roman records.

As presented he was very much a radical in that he was in the face of the Jewish political,religious, and economic power of the day.

spamandham

I say the real Jesus was a blacksmith...the bastard son of a Japanese boatmaker.....prove me wrong.


...if I had the right credentials....people would take this shit seriously.

aa5874

Jesus spoke incoherent riddles to the Jews, sometimes not even his supposed disciples understood him. And further Jesus told his disciples he used incoherent riddles so that the Jews would remain in sin.

Jesus of the Synoptics was no radical, he seemed more like an idiot to the Jews.

This is found in the Synoptics, Matthew 13:10-34 The Synoptic Jesus was not radical but the supposed revelations to the Pauline writer from Jesus were radical after he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven.


The resurrected and ascended Pauline Jesus was radical
1Co 15:17 - Ga 5:2 - The Synoptic Jesus was NOT radical.

Mark 1.4 And besides, cursing fig trees and talking to sea-storms is NOT radicalism, perhaps signs of madness or idiocy.

Newton's Cat

The word tektwn in Mark 6,3 is the origin of the belief that Jesus was a carpenter/builder.

... change it to teknon, "young boy"

Is not this man the young boy, the son of Mary, etc.

Jesus hadn't been home for a LONG time!

maryhelena

Perhaps Adam Blackburn has a point re this statement: “If Jesus was the son of a poor itinerant carpenter with some radical ideas nobody would have been that concerned about what he said.”

Just imagine a ‘poor itinerant carpenter’ trying his luck today? Even with the internet and self-publishing the ‘poor carpenter’ is going to have a hard time getting people to become his followers. Especially with biblical scholars and their whole procedure of peer review. No wonder the gospel carpenter needed to have a backup of magic tricks up his sleeve…

Nevertheless, magic tricks aside, the gospels do relate that crowds of people came to hear the carpenter from Nazareth speaking; crowds that were amazed after hearing his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount. At 12 years of age he was wise beyond his years; at age 30 (with no previous history of public preaching) he commanded the attention of the Pharisees, teachers of the law, priests and elders.

Plausible as history back then but a non-starter in the 21lst century? (crazy people and cults aside - the Jesus figure got the attention of the intellectuals - whereas the nut-cases would not get this sort of attention - back then nor today....)

GMark’s use of ‘carpenter’ for his storyline is interesting in that this word could well have alternative meaning ie besides a literal carpenter. Sure, Blackburn is using an alternative reading to apply to a historical Jesus figure. But for mythicists, and others interested in a plausible re-construction of early Christian history, this ‘carpenter’ word play could be just as interesting.

Geze Vermes, in his book ‘Jesus the Jew’, pages 21 and 22, makes reference to the Aramaic use of ‘naggar’ - as being a ‘scholar’ or ‘learned man’. Jesus the Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Vermes goes on to say that these type of sayings are probably age-old – but no certainty that they would have been known in Galilee in the first century. He does say that if this Talmud view is possible then ‘the charming picture of Jesus the carpenter’ may have to be buried and forgotten’.

He supports this reading by reference to these Talmud sayings:

In a later book Vermes seems to backtrack a little bit - saying “The Aramaic equivalent of ‘carpenter’ can also mean ‘learned man’, but it is unlikely that this signification is applicable to Jesus.” p. 399 of ‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’ by Geza Vermes.

The Authentic Gospel of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

The Talmud references are found in this pdf article:

Perhaps Mark is just using word play in his storyline. A word play that could denote an intellectual, metaphorical, context to his Jesus storyline. Matthew, later, decided to downplay this aspect by sidestepping the Markan Jesus as carpenter – giving this role to his father Joseph – thus making the storyline more literal sounding – son learns trade from his father sort of thing…and Luke showing no interest in the carpenter storyline…yet he is the one who comes up with the 12 year old child wise beyond his years…

The gospel of John has others questioning the carpenter’s learning “How did this man get such learning without having studied?”
(John 7:14-16). And Jesus replies: “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me”.

So, from an atheist perspective – the question must be – who sent him? Surely, that intellectual elite who produced the gospel storyline….Jesus just the puppet figure whose strings are being pulled…