How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

[TedM]

I can't continue this. Paul's a priest now, but Jesus couldn't have talked about a few highly meaningful verses in the Old Testament, Jesus could not have been able to read, his followers wouldn't have taken his views seriously, religious leaders wouldn't have been interested in challenging him after he challenged them, etc...

You are putting a lot of ideas out here but very little evidence and no acknowledgement that Jesus was any different than anybody else. How then did he gain a following? I need a much more focused kind of approach or else I lose interest because it ultimately is so frustrating to try to figure out whether you actually have a logical, well supported argument among all the opinions and unsupported generalizations.

[TedM]

And Romans 15:16 ἱερουργοῦντα confirms that he was a priest.

That is one interpretation. The other one is obvious. Do I need to explain?

[Secret Alias]

Sure. Give it a shot.

[Secret Alias]

I can't continue this. Paul's a priest now

Why not. I like most people on this forum don't accept Acts as having any more history than the Acts of Paul. So why not?

[Secret Alias]

Jesus couldn't have talked about a few highly meaningful verses in the Old Testament

But where is the evidence that non-priestly Jews had access to the Old Testament. How did they get a hold of it?

[Secret Alias]

How then did he gain a following?

But this is what you traditionalist/historicists do. Any time some points out difficulties with this or that passage then you go back to the big picture. How do you explain this? How do you explain that? I don't need to deal with who Paul was. I don't need to explain how Christianity started. You already know I flirt with quasi-mythicist positions. Nothing definitive yet. I also think the gospel was developed around a historical event. I am not sure how it all comes together. But for the moment I am talking about the legal debates in the gospel and how I think they are framed around an impossibility - an apparent idiotes debating the learned. But this sort of thing is never recorded as happening in the rabbinic tradition unless it is mythical (like the Sadducee from 'castrated town' story).

[outhouse]

But where is the evidence that non-priestly Jews had access to the Old Testament. How did they get a hold of it?

Most of us are aware of the illiteracy rate, and that people could literally recite the OT text that a specific community used.


Next WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE there were orthodox priest ???????????????


Are assuming Zealots did not use the OT??????????


Are you assuming Essenes did not use the OT ?????????

[TedM]

Jesus couldn't have talked about a few highly meaningful verses in the Old Testament

But where is the evidence that non-priestly Jews had access to the Old Testament. How did they get a hold of it?

Where is the evidence that says they has NO POSSIBLE access to it EVER under ANY circumstances? THAT'S what you need here.

Why couldn't the story about Jesus when he was 12 talking to leaders in the temple not have reflected a genuine truth: Jesus was highly interested in religious matters and sought to learn as much as he could?

Re the 1 Cor verse another interpretation is: Paul wasn't saying he was a priest who knew the Torah because he was a Jewish priest. There weren't Christian priests at that time. He was saying he had the duty of a Jewish priest to teach others about God, which for him meant to preach the gospel of Jesus. If he was of the tribe of Benjamin and wasn't a priest then how did he know other scriptures? Maybe pharisees knew the scriptures and willingly discussed them with others, perhaps?

[outhouse]

. But for the moment I am talking about the legal debates in the gospel and how I think they are framed around an impossibility - an apparent idiotes debating the learned


.

And you were told it is non sequitur.

Your statement is not logical, because you rely on a literal interpretation like a YEC. Because later Hellenist make a claim in a gospel does not mean any scholar takes it for granted as a historical event as you assume.

[TedM]

But for the moment I am talking about the legal debates in the gospel and how I think they are framed around an impossibility - an apparent idiotes debating the learned. But this sort of thing is never recorded as happening in the rabbinic tradition unless it is mythical (like the Sadducee from 'castrated town' story).

Doesn't sound impossible. What makes it impossible? Where is it recorded that it never happens, and never could happen? I'm not sure why you are calling it a 'legal debate' either. Why are you using that term?