Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I don't use Acts to recover the historical Paul meant as a man. I am using Acts to recover traces of a Jesus Cult that is rival to the Jesus Cult in Jerusalem (even if both in a mythicist form).

4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. 5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper. 6 They traveled through the whole island until they came to P...

The crucifixion is spoken of in the past tense. clearly. But the point made by the author is more complex. Usually even the other mythicists think that the belief in the resurrection provoked the apocalypticism At contrary, their apocalypticism persuaded the early Christians that Jesus is crucified...

About 1 Cor 2:6-8 and the ignorance of the 'rulers', he writes: Who could have thought that Christ, who has been preached for two millennia, would be revealed for the very first time at the end of the world? ( The Little Book of Revelation: The First Coming of Jesus at the End of Days , Eli of Kitti...

According to the four mythicist authors: 1) G. A. Wells: Paul placed the crucifixion of Jesus in the distant past on the earth 2) Robert Price: the early Christians placed the crucifixion of Jesus before the creation of the world 3) Earl Doherty: Paul placed the crucifixion of Jesus in the recent pa...

Hence Mark had to separate the divine Christ (the real saviour) from the man Jesus (the vain expiatory sacrifice for the only Pillars).

Why did Mark do this change? Because he realized that the blood of Jesus, for the Pillars, served to distinguish who was purified (only the followers of the Pillars) from who was not purified (all the other peoples): just as the blood on the door, in Exodus, served to distinguish who had to be kille...

Hence the goal of Mark is to point that the Pillars are not purified by the sacrifice of Jesus. HIs sacrifice is vain. The Pillars are doomed.


Matthew, against Mark, has the Pillars too much purified by the blood of Jesus (cfr Matthew 27:25).

There is a contradiction, in the earliest evidence. From a side we are said (righlty, I think) that the Pillars considered the death of Jesus an expiatory sacrifice. From another side, it is absolutely evident that in proto-Mark we see a Separationist Christology where the resurrection of Jesus (the...

It is never explicitly stated in the NT that Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee. It changes little on my argument. I meant 'sinedrite'. Here the point is made even more clear that Joseph was surely there among the sinedrites who hear Jesus say the words of Mark 14:62: Joseph of Arimathea, a promine...