aa5874

Your presumptions about "Q" are worthless. "Q" has never been actually found. There is no actual evidence that gMark was composed in the 1st century and no actual evidence that gMark reflects historical accounts of Jesus and the disciples.

It is clear that gMark contains accounts of Jesus that were invented and nothing about Jesus of Nazareth in gMark has been corroborated by non-Apologetic sources.

outhouse

Q has the possibility to have more accurate roots then Gmarks fictional accounts.

Q was exactly what a jewish teacher might put foward. Gmark no way, it is Roman.




Dont be afraid to peak deeper into Gjohn. It evolved longer then Gmark by more hands, and some early info could have come from the local region as to where we know Gmark does not.

Other then that I agree, its theology and mythology written and redacted long after the seperation of real jews from this sect.

aa5874

It is also possible that "Q" did NOT ever exist.
You are an INVENTOR. You don't know what "Q" actually contains if it is found.

"Q" is all hypothetical and has never been found.

Again, You are an INVENTOR. You have NO actual evidence for your claims about gJohn.

Please, the past is not assembled from imagination and your idle speculation.

Sheshbazzar

How could 400,000 people have viewed or witnessed the act of one individual?

outhouse

I have been posting possible witnesses for quite a while.

You got me on that older post.

Possible being the key word here. Judaism had a habit of events at passover that were the talk of the town so to speak. It was this news of the day, where the original legends began about Joshua.

outhouse

Exactly how we know much of the temple events and anti-semetism written in the bible is fiction.

Joshua was invisible in the crowd, being placed on a cross in front of everyone, after trying to start a riot during these tense passover times, would however get you noticed by participants, totaling roughly by the best anaylization avalible, 400,000.

Sheshbazzar

Not picking on ya John. Didn't even notice the date. Only questioned because ApostateAbe brought it back to the top today.

Actually it was educational for me because it motivated me to devote few hours to studying the reported layout of the 2nd Temple.

Apparently the money changing was done in what was known as the 'Royal Portico' or 'Royal Stoa' which was constructed by Herod on a raised platform that rested on arches overlooking the Court of the Gentiles but with no direct access to it. The people would reach this Royal Portico from the city below by means of a monumental staircase (four lanes wide) over an archway (Robinson's Arch,) that arched over the street and shops below. There to exchange their Roman or other coins for 'Temple silver shekels', as coinage bearing Caesar's 'graven image' were not permitted within the gates of the ancient Temple Mount proper.
And all dealings within the Temple precincts had to be transacted in shekel's of the Temple. (Herod's Royal Portico construction was built upon an added on and built-up expansion of the Mount, and was built and treated as a separate and secular precinct, not being a part of the Mount's 'Holy ground' itself, -else it would have been 'profaned' and the Temple with it, by the bringing in of Caesar's image (on coinage) or Roman medallions.)

After the exchange of money in this secular 'Banking institution' the pilgrims would then return to the city below by descending the monumental stairway, and seeking a mikvah bath would ritually prepare themselves for the entering of the sacred precincts of the Temple.
Which they then would do by entering by the Hulda Gates at the base of the Southern wall, over 100 ft below the Royal Portico, there passing through ascending passageways they would finally emerge within the sacred precincts of the plaza of The Temple.

So the confrontation with the money changers, if there ever was one, would not have occurred within the bounds of the Temple's sacred precincts, nor on the plaza of the Temple proper. But within an adjoining and secular banking institution.

Repeating gossip does not 400,000 'witnesses' make.

At most, if it could be corroborated, it would only 'witness' that the people of that time gossiped about something they thought had happened.

But of course this NT story has never been corroborated, and no evidence at all has ever been found outside of the NT tale itself that anyone in 1st century Jerusalem ever even heard of any such gossip.

This falls to the same old problem. Jebus/Joshua is on one hand supposed to be so popular and famous (in this case as a tax rebel inspiring all of Jerusalem) that he is known to hundreds of thousands, while on the other hand he must have been at the same time, so insignificant and unknown that contemporary historians writing for the next hundred years never thought to mention him.

No problem at all if one realizes that the evidence indicates that these Gospel stories were not crafted till a hundred years latter, and that there never were any witnesses to these things that never happened.

The story line as presented in the gospels regarding this alleged Temple 'incident' are utterly hokey in their lack of detail. No one would have been able to simply waltz into The Temple and start throwing over tables and using a whip on this and that person, driving out the livestock, and then be allowed to depart merrily on their way
You would get about as far with that as you would with trying to walk off with the gold in Fort Knox. Its fiction.

outhouse

Exactly!

It was the governements treasury, Roman ran with Roman military protection.



Its all good, im tougher on myself trying to learn.




So much is left out of the original legend. I have my doubts about the historicity here. If one looks deeper there is a OT refference to a table tipping, and this "tipping" has the possibility of being fictional. Well high probablility is a better statement.

had a Joshua charactor tipped a table, this would amount to going up to a bank teller and saying "stick em up"! They would have had a guard, and the teller himself would have wrestled him to the ground.

Escaping into the crowd after a hit and run type of tipping would not have accomplished anything towards a zealot style statement, so im not sure one could use the escape in the crowd excuse. I have proposed this in the past, but im not finding it probable. Allthough the crowds may have been placed into a fever "so to speak" by this rebel teacher surrounding a table and things got out of hand. A single person being violent is fiction. Not a group though.


A full blown riot with one man at the helm would have been quashed rather quickly, by the tellers guards, so we know as written it is fiction.


There are a lot of questions on what really happened, but it was over money and the corruption within the jewish governement over the roman infection.


Josephas mentions different events at these passovers that were remembred in semi detail.

Remember the one where the roman guard urinates on someone or thing and sent the jews spinning in anger, I forgot what happened but I believe it caused a event kiling thousands.

Joshuas tale started like this, from the passover event, but grew and evolved due to how popular the legends became.

excellent statement

But it is far from a problem.

The whole NT really only deals with [in majority] his last week of life surrounding his journey to, and death at the temple.

A man hanging on a cross in front of the gates where people enter and leave is more then a profound statement. Especially when a peasant teacher is fighting for all the hard working oppressed jews in attendance. Which amounts to almost the whole Jewish and god-feraring nations.

This would start the oral tradition that would become a roman religion.




While I agree with most, we see Paul writing based on what he learned 15-20 ish years afterwards, and the gospels 35 ish years later with the roman version of Gmark laying the groundwork.

yes no eyewitnesses at all. Cross cultural oral tradition building a roman deity for those that would not convert to judaism but had worshipped for generations in synagogues. "Son of god" is a later roman term, not a jewish invention.