Duvduv

So you have determined what is permissible discussion that is on the charts and politically correct. That sounds like good "church" doctrine. However a substantive discussion, even if it is heretical against academic doctrine, should be explored. But I guess you consider that problematic.
Maybe you can rethink your doctrine.

TedM

Thanks Jay. You understood where I was coming from. I guess I had not been clear enough. There are those that believe GMark was a work of fiction by a clever writer, who historicized a divine-only Jesus. That Jesus had not been considered historical at all prior to Mark's writing. My question addresses the implications of that theory for the other gospels as to their timelines.

Duvduv

So Adam, why don't you then address the question as to why the authors of the gospels chose to structure their stories to resemble biblical stories if not to make the gospels as a set of books equivalent in importance to the Old Testament as a canon?

outhouse

your the one way out there dude

atleast my work follows most of mainstream scholarships, i think I personally just place jesus as less of a Essene and more a zealot

outhouse

he is just tired of being ignored and put down all the time

outhouse

a couple decades ish anyway, Gjohn more as by that time the seperation from judaism was growing steadily