Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[thormas]

Interesting....!
I like that....... the simplicity of Mark. I think that's true.
I think that Mark got embellished here and there, well, the NIV Bible adjusts the very first sentence so there's a first example for you.

So how much of G-Mark do you believe really happened?

Responding to both Elder and Tassman:

Matthew and Luke definitely borrowed from Mark but it was more than just an evolution since it is recognized that both has their own traditions (know respectively as M and L) that pre-dated either gospel and there might have been another source, Q.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Mark that would be evidence (for example) of an evolution or embellishment to a virginal conception. Matthew, apparently had Mark in front of him, but he created something new in his gospels showing rather brilliantly that Jesus was the new Moses but only greater.

There is a gist material that scholars agree is historical and another Dale Allison, has spoken of repeating patterns in the gospels that indicated, not that Jesus definitively did this or said that but the patterns indicate he did probably say things like X and he did things like Y. A subtle but important difference.

[eider]

Responding to both Elder and Tassman:

Matthew and Luke definitely borrowed from Mark but it was more than just an evolution since it is recognized that both has their own traditions (know respectively as M and L) that pre-dated either gospel and there might have been another source, Q.

So Matthew and Luke copied Mark, copied the lost gospel) and Q (of sayings) and had one other document each which they used in order to write their gospels.
I look at gospels like statements, depositions written by witnesses, only in Luke and Matthew's cases they were not witnesses. But the documents which they produced their gospels from had some very useful info in them.

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in Mark that would be evidence (for example) of an evolution or embellishment to a virginal conception.

Well, since Jesus was a grown man at the beginning of Mark I guess that there would not be much evidence of that.

Matthew, apparently had Mark in front of him, but he created something new in his gospels showing rather brilliantly that Jesus was the new Moses but only greater.

Ah.... Now...... if Matthew started creating anything in his gospel then that would be just like any other witness creating something in a deposition.
I think that Matthew just took a collection of documents and wrote his own idea of an account from them, is all.

There is a gist material that scholars agree is historical and another Dale Allison, has spoken of repeating patterns in the gospels that indicated, not that Jesus definitively did this or said that but the patterns indicate he did probably say things like X and he did things like Y. A subtle but important difference.

Dale Allison and those scholars don't actually agree about too much, so it's best if each of us study the gospels and come to our own conclusions, I think. It's better if we scrutinize the available evidence for ourselves.
If Dale has figured out 'repeating patterns' then he would need to show his sources for that.

Mark was almost surely a partial witness to what he wrote about, but the main body of his gospel is what he was told, most probably by Cephas. I don't think that Cephas was much pleased with how things were developing afterwards and wanted his own story put down.

Apart from some hyperbole and editing I think that G-Mark is a true account about what happened.

[thormas]

So Matthew and Luke copied Mark, copied the lost gospel) and Q (of sayings) and had one other document each which they used in order to write their gospels.
I look at gospels like statements, depositions written by witnesses, only in Luke and Matthew's cases they were not witnesses. But the documents which they produced their gospels from had some very useful info in them.


Well, since Jesus was a grown man at the beginning of Mark I guess that there would not be much evidence of that.


Ah.... Now...... if Matthew started creating anything in his gospel then that would be just like any other witness creating something in a deposition.
I think that Matthew just took a collection of documents and wrote his own idea of an account from them, is all.



Dale Allison and those scholars don't actually agree about too much, so it's best if each of us study the gospels and come to our own conclusions, I think. It's better if we scrutinize the available evidence for ourselves.
If Dale has figured out 'repeating patterns' then he would need to show his sources for that.

Mark was almost surely a partial witness to what he wrote about, but the main body of his gospel is what he was told, most probably by Cephas. I don't think that Cephas was much pleased with how things were developing afterwards and wanted his own story put down.

Apart from some hyperbole and editing I think that G-Mark is a true account about what happened.

What lost gospel do you mean?

You lost me: Jesus was a man, who lived, was crucified and 'Risen' by the time all of the gospels were written, when Paul was written, and in the very beginning of the Christian movement. However, given this, Mark points to the baptism while M & L go beyond that to conception and John to pre-existence.

Matthew 'created' the presentation of his gospel: babies are killed when Moses is an infant, so too Jesus; Moses has to escape to Egypt, so too Jesus; Moses returns from Egypt leading his people to the promise land and Jesus returns, grows to manhood and leads these same people (of Israel) to the fullness of the promised land, the Kingdom of God; Moses goes up the mountain and receives the Law, but Jesus goes the Mount and gives the Law. The point, look at Moses, Jesus is greater than Moses. It seems that Matthew did more than collect and collate different documents; Matthew (whoever he was) was an author.

Many people distinguish between 'critical biblical scholars' and others - the others being, for example, Evangelicals or Fundamentalist with an agenda. Having said that, most of the critical scholars are in remarkable agreement on many major issues (but sure there are some disagreements). There is a great deal of agreement, for example, on the gist material. And Allison changed his entire approach but I still have not seen significant (actually any) disagreement on patterns. It is an intriguing approach.

I think it is crucial to get the assistance of experts when doing a study of the Bible. If one reads it for inspiration, guidance, support they don't need anybody but to actually study it, there is so much that the average person would not even consider or be aware of. And scholars are all types: atheists, believers, Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant. Too often, on their own, people come to the wrong conclusions. My thinking is I make use of medical experts, car experts, HVAC experts for my house, and on and on - so too I have no problem making use of historians when I study history or biblical scholars for the Bible.

I believe I remember correctly that we have no idea who wrote Mark (or any of the gospels) and it was 40 years after the death of Jesus. An eyewitness might possibly still be alive but again we have no evidence or indications that Mark was one. To the best of my knowledge the only thing that might have been an issue for Peter was Paul's idea of not have to become a Jew to be a follower of Jesus but this was resolved in the late 40s CE at the Council of Jerusalem in favor of Paul, some 20+ years before Mark (and Peter died in the early 60s).

Mu understanding is that none of the gospels are histories or biographies but theologies, faith document whose sole purpose is to announce the good news of Jesus the Christ.

Thanks.

[Cow Poke]

What lost gospel do you mean?

You lost me: Jesus was a man, who lived, was crucified and 'Risen' by the time all of the gospels were written, when Paul was written...

You found the lost Gospel!!!!

[eider]

What lost gospel do you mean?

Many of the sayings of Jesus were copied from somewhere by both Matthew and Luke.
This 'somewhere' was given a name by German scholars... I think it was called 'Quelle' but that could need correction..... and after a time folks came to call it 'Q'. Thus it is a lost gospel but for its inclusion in Matthew and Luke.

You lost me: Jesus was a man, who lived, was crucified and 'Risen' by the time all of the gospels were written, when Paul was written, and in the very beginning of the Christian movement. However, given this, Mark points to the baptism while M & L go beyond that to conception and John to pre-existence.

I acknowledge your faith, OK?
And 'Yes', G-Mark commenced his gospel with the Baptist's work on the Jordan.

Matthew 'created' the presentation of his gospel: babies are killed when Moses is an infant, so too Jesus; Moses has to escape to Egypt, so too Jesus; Moses returns from Egypt leading his people to the promise land and Jesus returns, grows to manhood and leads these same people (of Israel) to the fullness of the promised land, the Kingdom of God; Moses goes up the mountain and receives the Law, but Jesus goes the Mount and gives the Law. The point, look at Moses, Jesus is greater than Moses. It seems that Matthew did more than collect and collate different documents; Matthew (whoever he was) was an author.

Indeed, Matthew did create the presentation of his gospel.
But I find masses of very useful information in it.

Many people distinguish between 'critical biblical scholars' and others - the others being, for example, Evangelicals or Fundamentalist with an agenda. Having said that, most of the critical scholars are in remarkable agreement on many major issues (but sure there are some disagreements). There is a great deal of agreement, for example, on the gist material. And Allison changed his entire approach but I still have not seen significant (actually any) disagreement on patterns. It is an intriguing approach.

Can you think to tell me about anything that the scholars all agree on?
I think that most agree that Jesus was a real person, but what else have you got to show me in connection with 'general agreement'?

I think it is crucial to get the assistance of experts when doing a study of the Bible. If one reads it for inspiration, guidance, support they don't need anybody but to actually study it, there is so much that the average person would not even consider or be aware of. And scholars are all types: atheists, believers, Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant. Too often, on their own, people come to the wrong conclusions. My thinking is I make use of medical experts, car experts, HVAC experts for my house, and on and on - so too I have no problem making use of historians when I study history or biblical scholars for the Bible.

If you need to be told what to think about the gospels then, fair enough, you need to be told. I can accept your opinion on that.
But I for one believe in Individual Investigation before any kind of Institutional Indoctrination.

I believe I remember correctly that we have no idea who wrote Mark (or any of the gospels) and it was 40 years after the death of Jesus.

Who are 'we'?
I feel fairly confident that Cephas's young friend wrote it when an adult. He was definitely there at the arrest, imo.

An eyewitness might possibly still be alive but again we have no evidence or indications that Mark was one.

Ah! That's interesting. If you are worried about the 20-40 year gap between the last week and the gospel of Mark, how much more worried you will be over the 70-80 year gap between the last week and the Gospel of John, eh? The Apostle John was not the disciple John, feel sure.

To the best of my knowledge the only thing that might have been an issue for Peter was Paul's idea of not have to become a Jew to be a follower of Jesus but this was resolved in the late 40s CE at the Council of Jerusalem in favor of Paul, some 20+ years before Mark (and Peter died in the early 60s).

....which is why G-Mark was written imo. And that 'only thing' was a very big thing.

Mu understanding is that none of the gospels are histories or biographies but theologies, faith document whose sole purpose is to announce the good news of Jesus the Christ.
Thanks.

If that is what you believe.
I believe that the Gospel of Mark is an accurate account of what happened, although some additions are known about.

Thanks for writing to me.

[thormas]

Ok, so Q, I thought you meant something else.

I was not referring to mine or anyone's faith, I was just talking about the Bible in a non-partisan way. If you mean my use of Risen, that is mentioned because it was the belief of the earliest Christian community: life, ministry, death, risen. My only point being that the fact that he was an adult well before Mark had no bearing on how Mark, as opposed to M & L, begins his gospel.

Agree on Matthew.

Scholarly disagreement? the Temple incident: did it actually happen, was it the acting out of an apocalyptic parable, was it that big an incident given the incredible crowd and the size of the Temple area, did it lead to his death and how many times did he travel to Jerusalem, only once, 3 times, more?

Scholarly agreement: the gist, the timing of the gospels, that they are not biographies or histories, that Luke doesn't preach atonement, the authentic letters of Paul..... just to mention a few but not a thorough list. I'll get you a source on the historical gist.

I never need to be told what to think:+}. The point is, if for example I'm reading Paul and I am disturbed by something in his letter, it is nice to know if the letter is actually written by Paul or by someone using his name. I also like knowing that we can't combine the gospels - like is commonly done with the Christmas story - for then we create a 5th gospels that doesn't exist. I also like being shown that there is 'evidence' that the earliest Christian community already held firm beliefs about Jesus with probably a year after his death and these pre-existed Paul. Pal did not create a great deal that is found in his letters, rather he inherited if form the earlier Christians and pass it on. Many are simply not aware of this. Or that Jesus was worshipped alongside of the Father at the birth of 'Christianity' circa 31-2 CE. Or that we have no idea what happened at the trial of Jesus before Pilate and there was no crowd, no Barabbas and the Jews weren't shouting 'crucify him.' The mani source of anti-semitism. Again, like medical advise, I like to know what my x-ray actually indicated rather than rely on my own reading. And again, there is no indoctrination. As I said, I read scholars of all stripes so there is no institution they are indoctrinating me into - unlike, as mentioned the literalist scholar. Plus I typically compare and contrast scholars. I find it is better to seek such expertise than without their help read into the Bible what makes me feel good but is not 'there.' Plus, I am the individual who is doing the investigation.

'We' is pretty much anybody who has critically looked into it. I question whether it was actually Mark or anybody named Mark and we have no comprehensive idea who was at the arrest.

20-40 years? The last week, the death, was probably circa 30 CE and Mark was 40 years later, circa 70CE with John, 90-95 CE but I agree with what you said about John.

Actually that is a great question, was it a big issue for Peter but again it was resolved in Paul's favor around 48-9CE. It was a moot point 20+ years later when both Peter and Paul were dead.

Again, I don't see then as histories, even Mark is theological but I do agree there is historical info (gist) and patterns (Allison) in Mark.

Thank you, I enjoyed it.

[Tassman]

Interesting....!
I like that....... the simplicity of Mark. I think that's true.
I think that Mark got embellished here and there, well, the NIV Bible adjusts the very first sentence so there's a first example for you.

So how much of G-Mark do you believe really happened?

Not much. The earliest sources only refer to a clearly fictional figure of Faith and were compiled decades after the alleged events via Christian authors attempting to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. To quote Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?': "Mark started it all, 40 years after the fact, two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written two decades after Jesus would have lived and died".

[Tassman]

There is belief and you assert it. And I have spoken on and presented the argument that God is 'more' (i.e. panentheism) and against pantheism. See above. And if once again you're looking for proof, you're back to a category mistake.

What I’m looking for is a REASON, beyond that of wishful-thinking, as to why you believe there is something more than the natural universe.

The present discussion is whether or not I thought traditional Christianity was nonsense (NO!); I have already corrected your assumption about slavery (which covers the other topic you mentioned) and Christianity.

You correct nothing about slavery and the demonstrable fact that virtually any perspective on current issues, whether slavery or anything else, will find some support in the bible.

Gospel = god-spell = good news.............and each presents the gospel of Jesus to their community (see the gospels).

Answer the question. WHAT “good news” is announced by the Jesus story?

Regarding the belief in pantheist, 'all I can say' is that I disagree and present the panentheistic position, that God is not part of or the sum of all things - but 'more,' 'other,' 'beyond' and that which is the possibility of all, But there is more that the Christian or the religious person can and does say about God, ex.Genesis.

And STILL, you avoid answering HOW the “'more,' 'other,' 'beyond' and that which is the possibility of all” impacts upon us here in the natural universe.

How many accept a 6000 year old universe? I have no idea and don't actually care, As I have been saying I am speaking about the serious religious thinker and modern, progressive Christians.

Ask around, even here in TWeb, how many accept the Creationist version of a 6,000-year-old universe.

Again, no idea about a literal mind. As an example I don't think God is a person as I know person, so too with mind. You presume God has a mind (an amazing concession) but as theologians have said God in himself cannot be known by man. So I don't know, I don't presume. One big difference is that you continue to imagine and argue against an old time theistic god - I really can't speak to that because I don't accept it.

If you are going to claim that God is MORE than just the natural universe then the one thing that sets him apart can only be an active mind which impinges upon the material universe. In short, the very definition of an “old-time theistic god”.

Like I said, you did not respond :+} You are off track about earliest Christianity. We were talking about the understanding of early Christians and formulations of dogma in a later century.

First, the beliefs and their formulations were and are still vague:+}. The point of the doctrines was, in large part, to draw a wide circle around what is believed about Jesus and the Trinity, not to define it precisely - which they considered impossible. It was to rule what was in and what was out (for example adoptionism, or that Jesus was a divine being who 'only' appeared to be human, etc.). Christianity had these basic beliefs - and then arrived at a (final or lasting) formulation of those beliefs. As indicated, the beliefs went back to the beginnings of Christianity in the recognition that Jesus was worshipped alongside of God and even that Jesus was a pre-existent being. And, circa 90s CE, we have the gospel of John with the famous 'I am " statements of Jesus, the name that God identifies with himself to Moses and John's famous prologue. All of the 1st C gospels point to the 'sonship' of Jesus to God. You oversimplify the full history.

Yes, the earliest Christians appeared to have vague ideas of their hero Jesus being divine – this was commonplace thinking in that pre-scientific era as I outlined. The dogma came later to deal with the tricky issue of belief in a Hypostatic God/Man and Triune God whilst simultaneously, given their Jewish origins, claiming to be monotheist.

You state that love is a product of genetics and evolution.

You state that our lives, are "completely unnoticed and inconsequential" in this material universe.

And then you say that there is some notice in a universe that notices nothing, some consequence in lives that are completely inconsequential: 'our lives are noticed and consequential among those we love.' But their lives are also unnoticed and inconsequential. In a material universe, there cannot be some notice if all is completely unnoticed. Human life and love is inconsequential and meaningless in such a universe.

To say we are noticed by our loved ones might make you feel better but the overriding truth is that all human endeavor, including love, is inconsequential, unnoticed and nothing. And to acknowledge this, yet say, "No I have meaning" is illusion (not genuine); it is Absurd.

This is insufficient for the religious man who does not accept it for a second.

I am agreeing with you about our non-consequence in relation to the vast universe when we occupy a mere speck. Astronomers estimate there are about 100 thousand million stars in our own Milky Way galaxy alone (and there are billions of galaxies apart from our home galaxy). And given that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-like planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars in our Milky Way galaxy, it is highly likely that some of these planets have resulted in intelligent life equal to or superior to us.

And it is equally probable that ALL life forms will, like us, derive their meaning and life satisfaction from their evolved hereditary traits and characteristics. In short, by living as we have evolved to live. To wish we were "more" than what we demonstrably are is a sure way to dissatisfaction and unhappiness.

[eider]

Ok, so Q, I thought you meant something else.

I was not referring to mine or anyone's faith, I was just talking about the Bible in a non-partisan way. If you mean my use of Risen, that is mentioned because it was the belief of the earliest Christian community: life, ministry, death, risen. My only point being that the fact that he was an adult well before Mark had no bearing on how Mark, as opposed to M & L, begins his gospel.

Firstly, this is all just my opinion. I acknowledge that you have a Faith about all of this. OK?


Yes, you did mention faith and did mention 'the belief of the Christian community'.
HJ is all about who Jesus was and what he did. What anybody believed after that last week is not HJ.

Agree on Matthew.

Cool....

Scholarly disagreement? the Temple incident: did it actually happen, was it the acting out of an apocalyptic parable, was it that big an incident given the incredible crowd and the size of the Temple area, did it lead to his death and how many times did he travel to Jerusalem, only once, 3 times, more?

Yes it happened, no it wasn't an acting out. The Baptist and Jesus both were absolutely furious with the Temple and Priesthood corruption, greed, hypocrisy, partial apostasy...... ripping off the Northern peasant classes .
The Temple coinage had been an outrage for all of their lives as well. I don't find many who know much about the outrages of the Temple coinage...... it is overlooked.
Mark tells in detail what Jesus and all did on Days 1,2,3 of that last week but it gets overlooked.
It's nothing mystical.... it happened. It's historical

Scholarly agreement: the gist, the timing of the gospels, that they are not biographies or histories, that Luke doesn't preach atonement, the authentic letters of Paul..... just to mention a few but not a thorough list. I'll get you a source on the historical gist.

What Luke preached decades after Jesus is not HJ, and Paul never bothered to discover or tell anybody about any single incident that Jesus got involved with apart from a last meal and execution. Paul didn't seem to know much about Jesus.

I never need to be told what to think:+}. The point is, if for example I'm reading Paul and I am disturbed by something in his letter, it is nice to know if the letter is actually written by Paul or by someone using his name. I also like knowing that we can't combine the gospels - like is commonly done with the Christmas story - for then we create a 5th gospels that doesn't exist. I also like being shown that there is 'evidence' that the earliest Christian community already held firm beliefs about Jesus with probably a year after his death and these pre-existed Paul. Pal did not create a great deal that is found in his letters, rather he inherited if form the earlier Christians and pass it on. Many are simply not aware of this. Or that Jesus was worshipped alongside of the Father at the birth of 'Christianity' circa 31-2 CE.

Historical Jesus is all about the history of Jesus. Paul never wrote a sentence that can throw light on HJ, or maybe somebody can show us one? He never described a single tghing that Jesus actually did, Paul was building a Church.
And the scholars all mostly disagree on the dates of the gospels.

Or that we have no idea what happened at the trial of Jesus before Pilate and there was no crowd, no Barabbas and the Jews weren't shouting 'crucify him.' The mani source of anti-semitism.

You cannot blame G-Mark on antiSemtism, because he explains all through that it was the Priesthood that was the trouble. Apostles John and Luke (who never knew Jesus) turned that round in to 'The Jews' and their gospels seem to influenmce Christians more than the others, I think.

How did you decide that there was no trial, no Barabbas, no crowd? Do you know what the full name of Barabbas was/is? Do you know what Barabba means, or what his first name was as mentioned in earliest gospels?

Again, like medical advise, I like to know what my x-ray actually indicated rather than rely on my own reading. And again, there is no indoctrination. As I said, I read scholars of all stripes so there is no institution they are indoctrinating me into - unlike, as mentioned the literalist scholar. Plus I typically compare and contrast scholars. I find it is better to seek such expertise than without their help read into the Bible what makes me feel good but is not 'there.' Plus, I am the individual who is doing the investigation.

I have read scholars and picked up some good ideas but they mostly have different opinions.

'We' is pretty much anybody who has critically looked into it. I question whether it was actually Mark or anybody named Mark and we have no comprehensive idea who was at the arrest.

You don't, obviously, but I have a good idea of who was at the arrest. And whoever wrote G-Mark was there, that seems clear from the account of the arrest. All kinds of clues there.

20-40 years? The last week, the death, was probably circa 30 CE and Mark was 40 years later, circa 70CE with John, 90-95 CE but I agree with what you said about John.

That's where scholars differ. John's gospel could have been written as late as 110CE. Iranneus, Papius's student was very proud to write that Papias knew John who lived on a Penal Island called Patmos off Ephesia.
Apostle John had a brilliant bundle of documrents, some very vakluable pieces of info but he had no clue about when anything happened so he built up the whole story by scattering the incidents along a timeline. He didn't remember veryu exciting incidents that the synoptics described him being involved it. Simple detective work.....

Actually that is a great question, was it a big issue for Peter but again it was resolved in Paul's favor around 48-9CE. It was a moot point 20+ years later when both Peter and Paul were dead.

Yes it was a very bnig issue fior Peter, so it matters. What hapopened later is not to do with Jesus or Peter, it is to do with Church.

Again, I don't see then as histories, even Mark is theological but I do agree there is historical info (gist) and patterns (Allison) in Mark.

You don't see the gospels as histories but you see historical info...... yes?
I try to sift out the history. I am an Historical Jesus researcher.

Thank you, I enjoyed it.

And thank you..... please remember that all the above is only my opinion. I respect your beliefs.

[eider]

Not much. The earliest sources only refer to a clearly fictional figure of Faith and were compiled decades after the alleged events via Christian authors attempting to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. To quote Ehrman in 'Did Jesus Exist?': "Mark started it all, 40 years after the fact, two decades after Paul wrote his Epistles, which in turn were written two decades after Jesus would have lived and died".

OK, so if you don't believe in much of the gospels then this will be an easy question for you.
What parts do you believe actually happened?

You could start with 'Was the Baptist real'? If so, what was he doing?
Could we start there?

[Tassman]

OK, so if you don't believe in much of the gospels then this will be an easy question for you.
What parts do you believe actually happened?

You could start with 'Was the Baptist real'? If so, what was he doing?
Could we start there?

There are very few facts about Jesus agreed upon by most reputable scholars. Namely, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was a Galilean Jew and preacher and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate.

[eider]

There are very few facts about Jesus agreed upon by most reputable scholars. Namely, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was a Galilean Jew and preacher and was crucified by the order of Pontius Pilate.

Fair enough.
So, more or less, you follow what reputable scholars agree on. That's ok.

So the Baptist, Jesus, the baptism, the meeting with Pilate, the execution are all true.

Right, that can be built upon. Therefore Jesus did commit some crime, what do you think he did?
And if the Baptist was baptising, what was that all about?

[thormas]

For me the jury is still a bit out on the Temple. Right now I agree it happened but it was hardly noticed by the many people gathering at the Temple. I do all it was the purposeful acting out of a parable (but still reading) but did it lead to his death?? In John, it doesn't happen at the end (if I remember correctly).

Respectfully, I think you're wrong on Jesus' fury at the Temple. In John, he is seen going to Jerusalem a number of times as any good Jew would do in a lifetime and participating in the life of the Temple. So too his followers after his death continue to participate in the Temple. If he was so against it, it is likely that his faithful followers would have followed his lead. I can't speak to the Baptist. Even what was considered the Temple incident was supposedly over what was accepted and necessary for Temple sacrifice and it is probable that disciples of Jesus played the role of changing money so they could sacrifice to God.

Paul preached the essentials: we are saved by the death and resurrection of Jesus. He had already established communities and was writing to them about specific issues. A Gospel like narrative would not have been appropriate for his letters. As time when on, as people had more and more questions, so we have the gospels. And the scholars are in agreement about the dates, maybe some minor disagreement, for example 70 or 72 CE.

Actually we can point to the gospels regarding anti-semitism. After the destruction of the Temple, tensions began to run hot between those traditional Jews and those Jews who claimed Jesus was Messiah. And we get to the ridiculous point where the Jews not only clamor for the execution of Jesus but accept blame for his death through all their future generations.

Historians have shown how such trials took place at that time and the idea that Pilate (a ruthless man who cared nothing for the Jews) of all people would feel guilt or give a choice (of who to execute) to the people is a bit absurd. Plus trials took place inside and there would have been no one there to report the dialogue between Pilate and Jesus, all had abandoned Jesus and they wouldn't have been invited to the trial.

Jesus of Nazareth (the Son of Abba) is executed and Jesus Barabbas (son of the father) is set free. Rome would never free a Zealot, a terrorist who killed their own.

Depends on the scholars and the topics........seems there is great agreement on much.

We differ on Mark at the arrest.

John could have been as late as you say but that is not the consensus, so I go with the consensus. John, supposedly the youngest of the disciples was perhaps 20 (?) to Jesus' 33 - so in 110, he would have been around 100 years old. And he wrote the gospels??

The question was resolved over 20 years before Mark - no longer an issue as there were Christian pagan communities all over the known world.

Sure there is historical information, what scholars call the historical gist. But they are not histories, they are faith writings about the good news.

And I respect and appreciate your opinion.

But I do have a question (but if you don't feel like getting into it, I respect that): you identify as a Deist but the NT is written by Theists - do you approach it only as a historian?

[eider]

Wow!
Thank you for the trouble that you took with that post.
Please let me come back to you in anticipation few hours' time.
Eider

[eider]

Wow!
Thank you for the trouble that you took with that post.
Please let me come back to you in a few hours' time.
Eider