ChandraRama

grains and John G and Jesus

a) Jesus and followers ate corn against the wishes of the Pharisees. (It is not unlawful to eat corn by chaffing by hand. But unlawful to do using sickle. So when Pharisees asked Jesus on chaffing corn on sabbath, it should be really about the harvesting of corn)


b) John G harvested corn using his followers against the wishes of the Pharisee (Josephus)
Biography of Josephus 13
From thence I and my fellow legates went to Gichala, to John, as desirous to know his intentions, and soon saw that he was for innovations, and had a mind to the principality; for he desired me to give him authority to carry off that corn which belonged to Caesar, and lay in the villages of Upper Galilee; and he pretended that he would expend what it came to in building the walls of his own city. But when I perceived what he endeavored at, and what he had in his mind, I said I would not permit him so to do; for that I thought either to keep it for the Romans or for myself, now I was intrusted with the public affairs there by the people of Jerusalem. But, when he was not able to prevail with me, he betook himself to my fellow legates; for they had no sagacity in providing for futurity, and were very ready to take bribes. So he corrupted them with money to decree, That all that corn which was within his province should be delivered to him;

Jesus and John ignored Sabbath regulations
Jesus - Multiple attestations
John G - Josephus, War of Jews, book 4 chapter 2
But John returned Titus this answer: That for himself he was content to hearken to his proposals, and that he would either persuade or force those that refused them. Yet he said that Titus ought to have such regard to the Jewish law, as to grant them leave to celebrate that day, which was the seventh day of the week, on which it was unlawful not only to remove their arms, but even to treat of peace also; .... when John saw that there was no Roman guard about the city, he seized the opportunity directly, and, taking with him not only the armed men that where about him, but a considerable number of those that had little to do, together with their families, he fled to Jerusalem.
(perfect place for John G to say "Sabbath made for man and not man for Sabbath)

ChandraRama

I am just copying the text I wrote in another thread here because the text is relevant to this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
We can classify the Emperor Julian (362 CE) as subscribing to #4.
He uses the word "myth" when discussing the antiquity of Hellenic myths but when he describes christianity it is with explicit reference to the word fiction, in fact to him it is "a fiction composed by wicked men".
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes


See the thread I have started.

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=166190

Mark's story is too complex and too problematic to be invented as a linear narrative for a son of God by Eusebius (or for that matter any one)

It needs the background of Judaism, the background of its legends and their prophet's expectation of the Kingdom of God on earth.

It begs the question why Eusebius has to go all the way to appropriate a story that justifies the existence of the opponents of the Roman empire.

The explanation I am proposing to present at the end of my thread is more of a dialectical progression of the events and the ideas of the first century/second century Roman empire.

The jewish war that culminated in the total destruction of the Jerusalem temple is cathartic for the jewish people.

It was documented in two different directions.

First is the One that depicted the main character, John of Gischala as the Villain of the piece. That is Josephus' war of the Jews.

Second one is that depicted the John of Gischala as the Hero of the story. That is Mark's gospel. (or Proto-Mark Gospel)

Why the Second one, the Mark's gospel had to be written like this with the character names changed? It is obvious. In the Roman times, no one could write a history which would undermine the official history. Josephus records a historian killed writing a history that did not please the emperor.

So the story adopted an approach similar to the magical realism methodology that appeared in Latin America where the people had to tell their stories but not easily understood by the officials.

So Mark had written the story of John of Gischala with the three main characters' names changed.

Jesus, pilate, Judas.

John Gischala named as Jesus
Titus named as Pilate
Simon Bar Gioras named as Judas.

Once the story was popularized by the former zealots and the followers of John who understood the mystery of the Jesus, it acquired the cult status. Some who knew the truth became the people who knew the secrecy. The rest were lay people. But it is the lay people who took the religion to its logical conclusion of a widespread popular religion spreading from the jewish people in various Roman cities towards attracting the gentiles and becoming a roman religion shorn of its militant nature in the way.

ChandraRama

Eleazor Ben Simon and Jesus and John G

Eleazar ben Simon (Lazarus) was resurrected by Jesus

Eleazar ben Simon was defeated by John G and (allowed to live after defeat)

Note: If someone after military defeat and allowed to live after is resurrection, then John G after defeat by Titus and surviving the "messianic death" would be resurrection.

ChandraRama

I am looking for a friend who knows koine greek to test some hypothesis

Please send me a personal message.

rgds

MortalWombat

Driving the money changers from the temple complex would have been pretty militant, considering the size of the temple complex and the number or people and guards who would have been there.

Amaleq13

True but the assumed presence of guards (from Josephus we learn that it is possible that a substantial number of additional guards were placed specifically to prevent such disturbances during Passover), along with other factors, argues against the historicity of this Gospel scene.

aa5874

Jesus, as described in the NT, is already known to be fictitious. There was no God on earth named Jesus, who is sitting on the right hand of God today.

We may never know if John of Gishala was a real person and the if the acts accorded to him were similar to the fictitious acts of Jesus, but what has been interesting to me is that the theists with their direct link to this Jesus, who is claimed to be alive right now,with supernatural powers of knowlege, cannot resolve any matter concerning their Gods.

The theists continue to speculate about these matters, when their source, Jesus, has unlimited information at His disposal.

JoeWallack

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_11:15

"And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves;" (ASV)

καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ εἰσελθὼν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ τοὺς ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστερὰς κατέστρεψεν

"ἐκβάλλειν" = to cast out

"περιστερὰς" = Doves


JW:
Considering the Size of the Temple verses the size of the Jesus Mark 11:15 is Impossible as History. That hasn't prevented Christian X-Uh-Jesus for the last 2,000 years casting out explanations of the Impossible being Possible. Since 11:15 is Impossible as History I invite Christianity to consider the Possibility that it was not Intended by "Mark" as History but as a Figurative Point.

"Mark's" Jesus is Save-Moi-Fare, he's Everywhere. In your Home, at your Work, in your Synagogue and at your Temple. This Jesus is PriMarily an Exorcist, Casting out Bad Spirits from your Home, Synagogue and Temple. As Saint John said in the classic Arthur!, this Author "has a wonderful economy of speech". Fisherman are Casting out nets and collecting Fish. Levi Tax Collectors ("Levi" tax collectors. Understand Dear Reader?) are collecting Taxes. When they answer Jesus' call they are Casting out Bad Spirits and fishing for and collecting souls. Jesus' Temple Tantrum is an Exorcism of the Bad Spirits in the Temple. Jesus "cast them out", "ἐκβάλλειν", just as he cast out Bad Spirits in the Synagogues of Galilee:

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=1&verse=39

"ἐκβάλλων" = "cast out"

The other indication of Exorcism here is the use of "περιστερὰς" = Doves. "them that sold the doves". Why single out "doves" here from all the animals sacrificed at the Temple?:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_1:10

"And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him:" (ASV)

"περιστερὰν" = Dove

"Mark's" Jesus is Casting out those who sold the people Bad Spirits. The Dove was not only a minor sacrificial animal but also representative in Jewish literature of Spirit.

"Mark" does not use Parallel and connecting words and actions because of limited Language ability, he does so because of Command of language. If there is anything Divine about the Christian Bible, it's not the Impossible claims but "Mark's" Literary skill.

And now a Prayer for The Vorkmeister:

Our Heavenly Father, please forgive me for not Believing in you
and please take this Cup of suffering away from Vork so we can
show the Masses (pun intended) not their will but "Mark's" will.

Little Bird Little Bird



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

Didymus

Chandrarama's hypothesis is an interesting one, but I think there may be a link to the Markan gospels even without having to dig out a point-by-point correspondence with this fellow.

A while back, Ben Smith mentioned that Mark's dating of (Paul's) Jesus to the time of Pilate may have stemmed from Mark's connecting Paul's references to baptism with the work of John the Baptist during the 4th decade of the century.

Tentatively speaking, (I haven't had a chance to carefully study Josephus on this), it would seem that Chandrarama has provided yet another correspondence that would have helped Mark to establish Jesus' dates. I'm not convinced that Mark confuted Jesus with John G, but he may have been thinking that similar times and situations produce similar events. Or, taking into account that he wouldn't have had Josephus' written history at hand, he may have known of enough similarities between John of G and Paul's Jesus to have believed that they were he same person.

It certainly is an intriguing possibility even if that's all there is to it.

Didymus

ChandraRama

I perfectly agree. I read Mark only this year. Yet I am amazed at the simple and powerful language of Mark.