rlogan

It has become somewhat of a game with me that whenever some gospel topic arises I try to find the likely HB quote-mining the gospel perps would have used in writing on the subject. It never fails.

At one time I was leaning in the "composite Jesus" direction where I thought there were real events woven into HB prophesy. But since I've been playing this little game I'm becoming convinced that it is exclusively HB material on all salient points.

If we take Doherty as a basic premise then initially we have "Christ" features mined from the HB, but over time this is transformed into an all-out HJ gospel construction based entirely on afro-engineered HB passages.

The perps are in an HB junk yard with duct tape and bailing wire putting together this swamp-buggy Jesus.

It's a low-tech operation really insamuch as there are outright errors (eg. virgin birth; Nazareth), and stretching prophesy out of context (eg. Daniel passages and Isaiah's suffering servant). It leads to inconsistencies in renditions that bolt the prophesies on in different ways (eg. Judas' death, birth stories).

I admit that I speak to the synoptics, as those knowledgeable would understand. And it is also regarding events more than what "Jesus said". There is a deduction involving a "sayings" gospel that seems on firm ground that explains these items that can be independent of an HJ.

That is, a circa 100 B.C. cliff's-notes version of "Bartlett's Quotations" is stapled to the radiator of our swamp-buggy Jesus.

Such an approach must vest itself in "history" with real places and persons to the extent possible - the most important of these being Pilate. Yet we find no actual evidence of any goings-on as described in the gospel contraptions.

Is there anything of significance in the gospels not mined from the HB? I don't think so.

And that leaves us with pretty strong evidence that Jesus was never real. Not even based on some minor itinerant preacher later mythologized.

Vorkosigan

John the Baptist
Pilate
Herod

rlogan

Thank you Vork.

I got Jbapt covered with prophesy. Isaiah 40:1


I think Pilate and Herod are the necessary historical "anchors" to fabricate the "history".

We have the prophesy on the slaughter of the innocents. with Jeremiah 2:18, but that isn't true about Herod. So it's even worse there in that we slap Bible prophesy onto a historical person that is definately false.

That much goes for Pilate too. The trial is as bogus as they come, and has Pilate declaring him innocent in accord with scripture, yet executing him anyway.

I don't know that I need to say JBapt is an interpolation in Josephus for this theory, but I think its likely.


Hey - you're a MODERATOR!!

groovy.

Llyricist

I was going to respond a few hours ago, but rlogan's post showed up right after I hit the quote function, so I put it off ...then dinner..then 12 pack.... etc...

I just want to back up rlogan on the j-bap thing, it doesn't mater whether he existed or not to rlogan's thesis. An historical person serving the "role" in a remake of an HB passage fits perfectly with his thesis.

The question here is what EVENTS in the synoptics can't be found in the HB.... so far no takers............... hmmmmm I think rlogan is on to something here.

Intelligitimate

How then do you explain JBap followers, rlogan? Surely if Jbap was a purely literary creation of the Gospel authors, it makes little sense how JBap had any followers that clashed with Christians. How would someone read the Gospels and then come away worshipping Jbap over Jesus?

No, I believe JBap is clearly a historical figure. I suggest reading Price's discussion of him in his great book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

rlogan

Hi there intelligitimate.

Llyricist is backing me up here with a half-rack of suds on not needing JBapt historicity one way or the other.

In fact, having Jbapt followers clash with Christians is a stronger play for the thesis I've put forward.

Let me clarify this. The gospel perps constructed Jesus from HB prophesies they cobbled together. I am asserting that there is nothing of significance in the events of Jesus' story from the synoptics that is independent of HB underpinnings.


There is a prophesy about the voice in the wilderness heralding the messiah. If JBapt exists, well they latch on to JBapt in the same way the do with Herod and Pilate.

Herod and Pilate are real. But the slaughter of the innocents and the trial of junior are not. They are just makeshift prophesy parts they cobble together for Jesus. It is especially damning that these events did not actually occur. That means there is nothing but a tale.

I do not know what historical sources Price uses for establishing a clash between Christian and JBapt followers. Probably Josephus for historicity and certain 2nd century accounts of the Mandeans for conflicts.

Nevertheless, it would demonstrate that JBapt followers did not believe that JBapt was heralding in any son of God. Otherwise they would have flocked to Jesus and Christianity.

That is to say, if we take JBapt as historical it would be another damning example of an HB prophesy "part" of Jesus that was falsely applied to a real person. To fake his historicity. And the Mandeans weren't buying it.

Why is there no JBapt material in the early epistles? I'm not worried here about JBapt historicity. I'm more concerned as is Doherty that there is no historical Jesus to begin with. JBapt is not in those epistles because he was never saying jesus was coming.

If we buy into josephus, than all we have is that JBapt was a good man, preached righteousness, and baptism. Not that he was heralding in the Messiah. Josephus does make note of the fellow wailing "woe is Israel" before the destruction of the temple - so if JBapt was indeed making a big point about Jesus coming then Josephus really blew it in his description.

So my "Hard thesis" is that the gospel perps used HB prophesy in establishing a herald for Jesus' arrival. Note this prophesy also does not say the voice in the wilderness will be baptizing.

So its junkyard welding of Jesus whether JBapt is real or not.

i don't know enough to make the full call on JBapt. But yes, I'm leaning in the direction of fiction, and the interpolations in Josephus (James, Jesus) play a role in that thinking. Were I to learn more I could readily change that view without disrupting my thesis on

Junkard Jesus and the gospel prophesy sluts.

Amaleq13

rlogan,


I'll pick "family thinks he is crazy" for $100, Alex.





PS I think Crossan has it right when he concludes, from the Baptist hunk at the start of Q, that John was warning of the coming of God to bring judgment during the approaching Last Days. The Q folks abducted this pronouncement and turned JBap into a messianic herald.

Magus55

Erm, talk about a leap. How do you ever jump to the conclusion that just because the NT speaks about things from the OT, that Jesus didn't exist? Its just as feasible that the NT speaks about events in the OT, because the OT predicts them ( for example that the son of God would be from Nazareth). I realize you all are beyond close-minded, and any remote possibility of the Bible actually having truth is brushed aside, but your argument leaves us with NO evidence that Jesus was never real.

mrmoderate

I am surprized that someone is using so much effort to find the story of Jesus in the Hebrew Testament. The entire point of Jesus being the prophesied messiah of the Hebrew Testament has been dwelled on by Christians and held in high esteem as proof of who Jesus was.

Jesus even did some things just for the purpose of fulfilling Hebrew Testament prophesy. The differences of course come in how Jesus fulfilled Hebrew Testament prophecy.

As far as Herod and Pilate being noted historic figures but discounting the things they did that are documented in the bible that is a no brainer. History is written by the victors of any confrontation and the parts that don't show the victors in a positive light are omited. I don't believe the current abuses by American military personnel are going to get much page time in the history of the American liberation of Iraq in future American history books.

All most of us do is to take what we want to perpetuate from historical writings and dismiss what we don't like as having been made up. This is called selective learning and leads to misinformed knowledge. It is best to weigh all evidence against who wrote what and for what gain rather than to simply dismiss what we don't want to believe.

Llyricist

You mean like the Mi Lai Massacre never shows up in American History books? Or Taminy Hall? or Teapot Dome? or Whitewater? or Watergate?

Besides, the victors in this case were the CHRISTIANS, why would THEY want to show Herod in a positive light? not even Josephus does that.... and they DO show Pilate in a positive light fercrissakes. much MORE positive than is found in Josephus, in which he was in fact treated highly NEGATIVELY.