You are doing the Carrier's argument, thanks. If Paul based himself on Psalm 22, then he was obliged to replace the expression found in it, "rulers of the earth", with "rulers of this age", to make precisely still the point that the killers were not earthly, but demonic rulers.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ah... and I agree with your answer anyway. Yes, the underlying trigger / event can't have been far off the mark, can it?davidmartin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 4:43 pmMy base assumption is there was one or more real individuals behind the Jesus of the gospels and he really did have a movement during his life which we could call original Christian. I think this movement was some kind of spiritual revival that probably looked back to some mythic golden age. It was a retro movement and wasn't interested in fighting the Romans. It probably saw the world as corrupt and God as the solution, it objected to religious authorities and by it's nature undermined them. So i'm describing a somewhat otherworldly movement where prophecy, parables and sayings like Thomas would have flourished. Obviously it would have attracted the outcast and renegade but... who is the true outcast and renegade in this world they might ask. This is that part of Judaism where a prophet condemns all the rulers or whatever. Some folk didn't like thismlinssen wrote: ↑Fri Nov 27, 2020 7:32 amIt seems clear to me that the only goal of Mark was to kill Jesus. If Paul preceded him, he wouldn't even have had a choice
Christianity doesn't have any point without Jesus being sacrificed.
Jesus doesn't have any point without being sacrificed, his lines are a dime a dozen and hundreds before and after him have said it better, much better
You seem to be implying that a Jesus really did exist, and that he even behaved like a Messiah. What was his message then, because frankly I always failed to read anything sensible into the clutter of the Synoptics.
John, now that's a different story
So when you state Christianity doesn't have a point without Jesus being sacrificed, whatever is bound up in that sacrifice was somehow expressed in other ways before. After all Paul is the one who seemed to emphasise the cross so much he didn't even need to relate anything Jesus said! It's hardly likely those who originally followed him would disregard his words like that or believe everything the way Paul did
I have looked at the gap between Mark and Paul dozens of times, and it still bugs me - are those Jesuses even the same?
Jesus's sayings often appear to require a seeker to do some searching to discover what saves them
Paul is stepping in to answer that question for people
The idea of the divine messiah seems to have predated Paul, he didn't invent it i recon anyway