Toto

Saint Peter Kirby

The game played by Christian theologians masquerading as historians is to try to date the gospels as early as possible. Theissen's explanations are just contrived.

aa5874

Again, parts of fiction stories LOOK LIKE history. Have you ever read fiction stories?? Have anyone lied to you??

This is so basic.

You need External corroboration for the Gospels and they are NONE.

Non-Apologetics wrote NOTHING about Jesus of Nazareth--Nobody--No-one.

Jesus of Nazareth was unknown to mankind in the history of antiquity.

Duvduv

And what, pray tell, is the external corroboration for the alleged second century provenance of your friend Justin? There is none.

Adam

Theissen worked independently of me, of course, so his verfification of an early Passion Narrative stongly supports mine, as in my OP to my

Gospel Eyewitnesses
There is an early Passion Narrative, whether it is the conventional scholars' consensus from the Synoptic gospels or mine derived from Teeple's stylistic analysis of the Gospel of John. Deal with it. You can't just dismiss it as supernaturalistic.

outhouse

Yes it is assumed there was.


But is also way to fictitious for any jewish eyewitness. It is clearly a Roman/Gentile creation.


And that is exactly why a Roman scribed compiled all the roman literature into Gmark.

Adam

I don't see any necessity for Roman intrusion in the Passion Narrative as in the scholar's consensus in my OP here, but even less so in my version from John 18 and 19 in
Early Aramaic Gospels Post #49

outhouse

If you dont see the fiction added for a Roman audience in the whole PN, I would become more suspicious of you ever producing a credible hypothesis.


The whole PN plays the Jews as the enemy of Jesus while Pilate wahses his hands. This is all fiction, as is Barrabas being set free, or even having Pilate give the people a choice is fiction.

Paul in total was written and compiled for Romans, telling a Roman version of the Jesus charactor.


What is Historical in the PN?

Being arrested at night to avoid a riot.
being placed on a cross.


And that is about it.




After arrest, his few apostles, would have been running for their lives, leaving no eyewitnesses.

Adam

That Peter dared to follow Jesus after his arrest is among what you deny.
But in gJohn the "disciple known to the High Priest" gives the Passion Narrative according to my source in gJohn. There's an eyewitness to everything. Apparently he was not known as a disciple of Jesus. No telling how many other people who were or became disciples of Jesus were around to tell about even the Trial. Everything else was seen by up to thousands of people, as you yourself always say.

outhouse

You dont get it.

There probably was no trial. A order by one of Pilates men to go in at night and arrest the trouble maker was all that ever happened.

Pilate nor Caiaphas would have had time for a trouble maker during this huge money making event.

We already kow the author of Gmark is using fiction about the trial events, Jesus speaking in front of large crowds, sermon on the mount, all fiction. ALL playing to a roman audience and playing against all of Judaism.


Barrabas is fiction.
Pilate washing his hands is fiction.
Portrayal of Pilate is fiction.
Portrayal of a crowd of Jews as Jesus enemy is fiction.
Jesus actions in the temple are fiction.

The Jesus charactor was invisible in the sea of people, and as a preacher invisible. Had he really tipped money tables, the money changers guard and money changer would have wrestled him to the ground for arrest on the spot. This was the Jewish treasury, and there was no tolerance regarding a trouble maker.

Chili

. . . 'from a distance' to show doubt regarding what was about to happen.
These passages are loaded and everything that is different between Mark and John is there for a reason with purpose to show Mark's failure and John's success.

So also the cutting off the Malhus ear is the completion of his determination to succeed, consciously and without doubt or fear.