To pick up that rock.
I thought Jesus was The Rock. Or am I thinking of Dwayne?
No, it’s the rock that George Carlin asked the priest about when he was a boy; the one that he wondered if God could create it too heavy for himself to lift (I hate explaining my jokes).
Using the forklift eliminates the paradox that’s the whole point of the question.
Leaving you the one dock that God puts the rock on.
is this the rock Peter was supposed to build the church on? How can you fit a whole church on a rock that’s small enough to use a forklift on? Or is the forklift bigger than a church?
If the rock is big enough to put a whole church on it, wouldn’t that make it a mountain? And would it attract Mohamed?
Good catch! I get the impression the OP didn’t know this, but it’s possible they were thinking of the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. From the Wikipedia article that @Exapno_Mapcase linked to:
Supposedly it was common for people in those days to have both a Jewish name and a Greek or Latin name, as Saul/Paul did.
(Source: Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia)
Does that mean that Jesus might have been referred to by both names (something like “Yeshua” and something like “Jesus”) during his lifetime?
Was he waiting on the loading dock, or did you have to find Jesus?
Or the rock the wise man built his house on?
Someone from that time likely would have dealt with people of various cultures and languages. Since the Romans already used IESUS for the name, they may have used that for people called to trial or in other settings. The Romans had a shaky relationship with the Jewish population, sometimes trying to reduce frictions and sometimes exerting their authority. Names would have reflected the current of the times and the immediate situation.
That’s sure the way to bet. Muhammad is considerably younger.
Longer reach too.
He was loading pallets into a 53’ dry box trailer.
I understand from reading “Misquoting Jesus” the first written Gospels were dated around 80 CE.
The four Gospels were put down in written form likely from AD60-90. The first three Gospels mention the Temple still standing, which was destroyed in AD70. And of course the synoptic gospels were very likely based upon the Q document, which perhaps was started while Jesus was still alive.
John was written later, and The Disciple had a hand in it’s writing, altho it was obviously edited after John died.
No. We’ve been through this before, but I will not let this stand in FQ.
The first written gospel (Mark) was written after the destruction of the temple:
Granted that Wiki weasels out and says :
This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction, which is the position of most scholars, or during the years immediately prior.
I did go the the source of the Wiki article and found that it’s
Perkins, Pheme (2007). Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels (p. 137)
And it says:
Most exegetes lean toward a date just after Titus had destroyed the Temple in 70 c.e.
Mark, if he existed, was probably in Alexandria when he wrote his text.
The Q-source, since there are not even extant fragments, is a hypothetical text, inferred by bible scholars. Neither I, nor you, should use it to make claims about the gospels.
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3 ed.) has this to say:
[Q is] used by biblical critics in a strict sense for the hypothetical source of those passages in the Synoptic Gospels where Matthew and Luke show a close similarity to each other but not to any parallel passage in Mark
So not the ‘very likely’ base for the synoptic gospels, only for Matthew and Luke, if at all.
As for John. Just no. I realize that many believers really, really want it to be true. I don’t know why, since it’s all about faith anyway, and having an ‘eye witness’ writing a gospel should’t really matter. This is apart from the fact that the text is the one most removed from any connection to the real world in the Levant circa 30 c.e. I’m not going to try to argue you into changing your opinion, since you’ve repeated this often enough and won’t be swayed. But for the casual reader, this should work as an introduction on why you are wrong in your belief:
So you start out by telling us wiki is not reliable and incorrect, then end with a wiki quote?
So let us take the strongest argument made there:
“… there are multiple reasons for this conclusion, including, for example, the fact that the gospel is written in good Greek and displays sophisticated theology, and is therefore unlikely to have been the work of a simple fisherman…”
Sure, except two things- first of all, back then, very few authors actually put pen to parchment themselves. They hired a scribe or secretary, and since the Apostle John was living in a community with his own disciples, there is no reason why one of them didnt write the Gospel for him. Note that I didnt say that John personally put pen to parchment I said "John was written later, and The Disciple had a hand in it’s writing, altho it was obviously edited after John died."
Next, The Apostle was like 20 when Jesus died, and the Gospel was written at least 60 years later, by which time John is no longer a “simple fisherman.”. People do learn new skills in six decades you know.
So the strongest objection is totally bogus. Sire, John, aged 20 could not have written that Gospel- but no one claims he did, nor did I. I fact , I am pretty much sure that an aging John dictated that Gospel to his disciples who edited it.
When the ancients say “such and such author wrote xxx…” they really mean that author dictated xxx.
But there is evidence John had a hand in it-
Writing around AD 180, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote, “John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”1 In other words, Irenaeus declares that John wrote the fourth Gospel while living in Ephesus. And this John should be identified with the disciple whom Jesus loved and reclined on Jesus’ breast in John 13:23.
How would Irenaeus be privy to such information? He claims to be a spiritual grandson of John himself! s.
Naeus claims to have been taught by Polycarp who was taught by John. That is to say, Irenaeus was in a position to know if John was the author of the fourth Gospel.
Other church fathers also affirm John’s authorship. Clement of Alexandria—also writing around AD 180—stated, “But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.”3
The Muratorian Fragment—a late second-century document—states plainly, “The fourth of the Gospels is that of John, [one] of the disciples.”
Sure that is after John died but only a few decades.
Here is another cite-
Although the Gospel is ostensibly written by St. John the Apostle, “the beloved disciple” of Jesus, there has been considerable discussion of the actual identity of the author. The language of the Gospel and its well-developed theology suggest that the author may have lived later than John and based his writing on John’s teachings and testimonies.
When it comes to the external evidence that supports Johannine authorship (that is, evidence outside of the Bible), D.A. Carson states that the contemporary scholars that dispute John’s authorship do so by virtually dismissing all the external evidences in John’s favor.He writes, “This is particularly regrettable. Most scholars of antiquity, were they assessing the authorship of some other document, could not so easily set aside evidence as plentiful, consistent and plainly tied to the source as is the external evidence that supports Johannine authorship.”[1]As has already been noted on the date of the Gospel’s composition, the Rylands Egyptian papyrus puts the writing earlier than 125, as it would have been written, copied, and spread before that time. This alone puts composition of this Gospel more than likely within John’s lifetime.The early church fathers also unanimously believed and agreed that John was the author of this gospel.
*However, upon further examination the internal evidence also points in John’s favor.“Leon Morris developed more extensively the earlier classic approach of B.F. Westcott in which he argues progressively that the author of the fourth Gospel was: a Jew, a Palestinian, an eyewitness, an apostle, and John the apostle.”[1] These five points will be discussed in detail as to how they can confidently point us to John as the author of this Gospel… s. Therefore Carson and Moo write, “But once logical possibility has been duly noted, it seems to be a rather desperate expedient that stands against the force of the cumulative internal and the substantial external evidence.”[27] John himself must have written this Gospel.
So, do i think John put pen to parchment? Not likely, since few authors back then did the writing themselves. Also other details show that the Gospel was edited after Johns death. But he had a hand in it.
Getting back to the key point of this thread (kidding)…
…”Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!” appears as a spoken mild swear in my favorite Frank Zappa song, “Inca Roads” (mid-1970s). Hard to tell if it’s intended to sound current, or a bit old-timey even then.
How do you define archaic? I’ve heard it used within my lifetime, quite regularly I might add.
We can’t have archaic and eat it too.
Sorry, I’ll see myself out.
I sometimes hear “Cheese and rice”.
And, when I see it in print, I always hear it, in my head, with a stereotypical Irish accent. 
I have never understood the need for Q. It seems to me like the commonalities between Matthew and Luke (but not Mark) could be explained away just as well as those involving overlap between Mark and Matthew and/or Luke: whoever wrote the third gospel had access to the first two, and picked and chose what they wanted to plagiarize, and what they wanted to redact/replace or add-in to get their own point across.
Ockham’s razor should apply, you know? No need to introduce another variable (Q) that lacks independent evidence and is not necessary itself.