spamandham

Scenario 1:Paul, or at least Paulish ideas --->temple destruction-> The gospels (if you think the gospels predate 70 CE, we are so far apart that discussion is futile)

Ok, so you say Paul is apocalyptic. Assuming that the gospels came later than Paul, we still see apocalytic beliefs. The gospels depict JtB as being apocalyptic, and even though I think it's obvious none of the quotes attributed to JtB in the gospels were actually spoken by him, we'll go with you're claim that he was apocalyptic. You are now a gospel author who has witnessed either the ruin or razing of the temple. Surely the apocalypse inherent in your belief system is at hand, and surely Jesus must have predicted it.

How would *you* depict Jesus...as apocalyptic, or as oblivious to the destruction that would be forthcoming from his perspective? Your perspective requires that both Jesus and John are apocalyptic *before* the Jewish wars even began. How can you not see that as an anachronism? Sure, it's *possible*, but it's not very plausible.

Scenario 2:
temple destruction -> apocalyptic fervor gives birth to a new Jew who since he can not engage in ritual law anymore, figures out theologically why he doesn't have to - and hell, who wanted to do all that crap anyway. We'll call him Christian.

Of course everyone is an apocalyptic preacher now, real or mythical, since the the birth pangs of the apocalypse are clearly present. Think about this carefully:

If Paul is apocalyptic, what are the odds he got it right and was by happenstance also essentially the father of the Christian church right before the most apocalyptic event any Jew of the day could have imagined?

...them's mighty small odds. I think any unbiased jury would toss such
a case out in a heartbeat.

Scenario 3:
temple destruction -> apocalyptic fervor depicted in the gospels -> an internalization of the apocalypse into spiritual idea

This is the scenario I prefer. The destruction of the temple in 70 CE results in a new kind of Jew who must figure out how to be Jewish without a temple. A lot of Jews who lived far from the temple had done this anyway to justify why they didn't fulfill their obligations. They find theological justifications for abandong the law (the Jerusalem church we see in Paul) and invent stories about their own plight, told metaphorically through a character they call Jesus.

After the Bar Kochba revolt, these anti-law Jews are rejected by more hardcore Jews who have figured out how to substitute synagogue for the temple, and officially break off into their own sect, which they call Christianity. It's at this point that anti-Jewish sentiments build among Christians - cause in large part by Jewish persecution of Christians in that time frame. The Christians don't really remembers how it all started because even before 70 CE there were dozens of different takes on Judaism, so origin stories are tacked onto the metaphorical Jesus. In these stories we see all the emotions bubbling at the time:

- apocalypticism
- anger at Jews for mistreating them
- a recognition that this anger is counterproductive and so an emphasis on forgiveness
- a metaphorical story drawn from scripture about how the Jewish rebellions resulted in the humbling and abject annihilation of their only hope for re-establishign an independent state (aka, the passion)
- another metaphorical story explaining why the 2nd born (the Christians) have now received the birthright (the resurrection)

Later on, as apocalypticism began to fade some, we see teh apocalypse itself being phrased in spiritual terms. Thsi is Paul's writings as we know them.

No. I think that 1 Cor 15 is the work of a different author - a competing sect to that who originally penned 1 Cor. You'll note how often this particular chapter of this particular text comes up in these discussions. There's a reason for that.

Yes I know your story, and it does not explain how it is possible that Jesus exactly predicted the events of the Bar Kochba revolt 100 years before it happened.

Here are historical details of that time:

- the temple mount was razed by Hadrian. Nor one stone left upon another.
- Bar Kochba claimed to be the messiah
- Hadrian errected a temple to Jupiter on the old temple mount - which was linked to Daniel's prophecy
- The Bar Kochba revolt was a war like none seen before to the Jews
- Jerusalem was completely destroyed. God help anyone who didn't flee

The rest of the crap about the sun darkening, eathquakes, etc. was a common literary device.

This is disheartening. I would have expected you to at least recall some of the objections, even if you felt them unconvincing, after the many months you and I have been discussing this.

aa5874

The sun and moon darkening, and stars falling from the sky is not really crap, these were supposed to be prophetic events lifted from Hebrew Scripture that should have happened IMMEDIATELY after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

It was the author himself who was APOCALYPTIC and he used the Jesus God/man character to propagate his apocalyptic message.

This is what the author of gMark wrote.

Mr 13:31 - If an actual human Jesus did claim he would be raised on the third then his words would have passed away with 72 hours of his death and Jesus would have been known as a false prophet and a fraud and Mark 13.31 would have been totally ignored.

It was the author of gMark or the authors of the Jesus stories who thought passages found in Hebrew Scripture were prophecies of an Apocalypse.

Joel 2:31 - Now the author of gMark would REPEAT those prophetic words of the Apocalypse found in Joel 2.31 through his God/man character.

Mark 13.24-26 The supposed Apocalyptic prophecies of the coming of the Lord in Joel or Hebrew Scripture may have been a major factor in the fabrication of the God/man character after the Jewish Temple fell.