Only some points have derived my attention:
Paul does talk much about Jewish scriptures despite of the fact that the his audiences knew already them. It was not the failed apocalypticism the cause of the "idea of trying to create a written record of Jesus’s life and teachings", since Mark himself is still an eager apocalypticist, even if he wrote Mark 13 in Bar-Kokhba era:
i.e. the Roman Kingdom against the Parthian Kingdom. Trajan is seen here.
Hence the apocalypticism doesn't imply zero need of references to a historical Jesus. At contrary, Mark 13 is evidence that the eager apocalypticism provoked a fanatic interest to see Jesus where he had not be seen:
I.e. in the Real History.
http://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2018/0 ... al-figure/
I doubt this at least about Pliny the Younger. He persecuted the Christians in virtue only of the name: followers of Christ. Because probably an anti-Roman messianism was connected with the idea (see the suetonian impulsore Chresto). Hence the his surprise and cognitive dissonance: these Christians were pacifists and filled of mysticism. Their Christ was adored quasi deo. He was not a man insofar the pacifism and mysticism of the his cult surprised Pliny, who expected seditious sectarians.
this is wrong. If Isaiah was in heaven when he saw a vision of Jesus's crucifixion, then said crucifixion was in heaven too. The Archon of this world is a planetary Archon, not even Herod.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
1 post • Page 1 of 1