• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

From Whence Cometh This Nonsense?

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I keep hearing certain folks going on about how Jesus was a king. Josephus wrote the Gospels. Jesus is buried in England. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. All this.

Where does this, frankly, rubbish come from? Any New Testament scholar will tell you that we know next to nothing about the historical Jesus so who came up with these ramblings and from where?
 
Last edited:

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Some people sit firmly behind "you can not prove it wrong, there fore it is right".
Though they hide it behind "I am right until proven wrong"

And since the vast majority of the life of Jesus is missing from the Bible....
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
I keep hearing certain folks going on about how Jesus was a king. Josephus wrote the Gospels. Jesus is buried in England. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. All this.

Where does this, frankly, rubbish come from? Any New Testament scholar will tell you that we know next to nothing about he historical Jesus so who came up with these ramblings and from where?

Probably due to misinterpretations of the KJV. Which was meant to make the Religion appear and sound more "Kingly".
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Didn't it replaced the word "Lord" with "King" I thought, in a lot of instances? This could lead to things like Jesus is King, etc.
No. And it hardly makes any mention of Jesus surviving the crucifixion and going to England. I have no idea where this comes from.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I keep hearing certain folks going on about how Jesus was a king. Josephus wrote the Gospels. Jesus is buried in England. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. All this.

Where does this, frankly, rubbish come from? Any New Testament scholar will tell you that we know next to nothing about he historical Jesus so who came up with these ramblings and from where?
I've never heard these claims before.

Edit: except for "Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene." I think that's from the Da Vinci Code.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I've never heard these claims before.
My Dad comes out with them all the time and he listens to this radio programme called Truth Frequency.....

Seems to spout lots of conspiratorial nonsense about religion, mostly Judaism and Christianity.

And, well, is pretty all about conspiracies in general.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I keep hearing certain folks going on about how Jesus was a king. Josephus wrote the Gospels. Jesus is buried in England. Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. All this.

Where does this, frankly, rubbish come from? Any New Testament scholar will tell you that we know next to nothing about he historical Jesus so who came up with these ramblings and from where?

One man's rubbish is another man's midrash. I'm not convinced that "Josephus wrote Luke" is any more speculative than is "Keturah is Hagar."
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
One man's rubbish is another man's midrash. I'm not convinced that "Josephus wrote Luke" is any more speculative than is "Keturah is Hagar."
This is true. It's the reason I'm asking. It does sound like rubbish to me, since no-one has ever pointed to any foundation for these beliefs or anything to indicate any provenance whatsoever. I just hear them bandied about by conspiracy theorists a whole lot without any sources backing them up. If they wanted to come out and say it's just a religious belief I'd be fine with that, but most of the folks I know who spout this are not religious at all.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
This is true. It's the reason I'm asking. It does sound like rubbish to me, since no-one has ever pointed to any foundation for these beliefs or anything to indicate any provenance whatsoever. I just hear them bandied about by conspiracy theorists a whole lot without any sources backing them up. If they wanted to come out and say it's just a religious belief I'd be fine with that, but most of the folks I know who spout this are not religious at all.
Let me see what I can find. I recall reading (too many years ago) about someone who had done some statistical analysis of Josephus and (if I recall correctly) and Acts. I didn't find it compelling at the time and I doubt that it's improved with age.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
I keep hearing certain folks going on about how Jesus was a king.
Perhaps from this: from his birth story: Matthew 2. From his death story: Matthew 27
Josephus wrote the Gospels. Jesus is buried in England.
no clue
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. All this.
I dunno, maybe where Mary anointed Jesus' "feet" (compare Ruth 3:3-4) with the expensive spikenard oil in John 12:1-3? :eek:
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
@Rival, continuing for post 12, the person I had in mind was likely Steven Mason.

The following in from Richard Carrier: Luke and Josephus (2000)

There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments [1] and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.​

,
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
@Rival, continuing for post 12, the person I had in mind was likely Steven Mason.

The following in from Richard Carrier: Luke and Josephus (2000)

There has long been the observation that Luke-Acts contains numerous parallels with the works of Josephus, generating three different theories to account for this: that Josephus used Luke, that Luke used Josephus, or that they both used some common but now lost source. Steve Mason has reviewed the arguments [1] and in summarizing the evidence concludes that, besides generic parallels of genre and form and the use of identical historical events, which are inconclusive as proofs, the "coincidence ... of aim, themes, and vocabulary ... seems to suggest that Luke-Acts is building its case on the foundation of Josephus' defense of Judaism," and therefore that Luke is consciously and significantly drawing on Josephus to supplement his use of Mark and Q and to create the appearance of a real history, a notable deviation from all the other Gospels which have none of the features of a historical work.​

,
Thanks Jay; this is the kind of thing I'm looking for.
 
Top