What ONE critical piece of information made you decide to believe or disbelieve Jesus rose?

[John1.12]

I am certain that the Greek, Persian, Hindu, Egyptian, Islamic, Mormon and other myths were written from 4000 years ago, up to the late 1800's and were intended to be true.
So according to that logic you should believe all of them. I have read several papers on Zeus. They took him very seriously.
Why would you trust modern scholarship to tell you that they are not literal?

So again, I do not wish to engage with endless circular logic and being preached beliefs at. Please tell me where the theologian went wrong since you are so certain. I have already established that I find your beliefs to lack evidence so I do not need to go in that circle.

//I have read several papers on Zeus.// You needed to read something ON Zeus to determine that it wasn't true ?lol wasn't the actual narrative enough ? Do you read everything about something rather than the something itself?

 

[joelr]

//I have read several papers on Zeus.// You needed to read something ON Zeus to determine that it wasn't true ?lol wasn't the actual narrative enough ? Do you read everything about something rather than the something itself?

Oh that's cute, you thought you were being smart for a second!? I hate to let you down but there are papers on Zeus (for example) describing the language he was worshipped in and how similar ways to speak about deities filtered down to other religions (like Christianity). There are no papers explaining that Greek myths are in fact myths. Did you really think that was a good point? Where are you from?

Like Greek myths Christian myths are equally ridiculous and equally fiction. I needed zero scholars to tell me that.
Thankfully all scholarship seems to agree.


Christian mythology is the body of myths associated with Christianity. The term encompasses a broad variety of legends and stories, especially those considered sacred narratives. Mythological themes and elements occur throughout Christian literature, including recurring myths such as ascending to a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the Underworld, accounts of a dying-and-rising god, flood stories, stories about the founding of a tribe or city, and myths about great heroes (or saints) of the past, paradises, and self-sacrifice.

Dying god
See also: Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Many myths, particularly from the Near East, feature a god who dies and is resurrected; this figure is sometimes called the "dying god".[54][55][56] An important study of this figure is James George Frazer's The Golden Bough, which traces the dying god theme through a large number of myths.[57] The dying god is often associated with fertility.[54][58] A number of scholars, including Frazer,[59] have suggested that the Christ story is an example of the "dying god" theme.[54][60] In the article "Dying god" in The Oxford Companion to World Mythology, David Leeming notes that Christ can be seen as bringing fertility, though of a spiritual as opposed to physical kind.[54]

In his 2006 homily for Corpus Christi, Pope Benedict XVI noted the similarity between the Christian story of the resurrection and pagan myths of dead and resurrected gods: "In these myths, the soul of the human person, in a certain way, reached out toward that God made man, who, humiliated unto death on a cross, in this way opened the door of life to all of us."[61]

 

[John1.12]

Oh that's cute, you thought you were being smart for a second!? I hate to let you down but there are papers on Zeus (for example) describing the language he was worshipped in and how similar ways to speak about deities filtered down to other religions (like Christianity). There are no papers explaining that Greek myths are in fact myths. Did you really think that was a good point? Where are you from?

Like Greek myths Christian myths are equally ridiculous and equally fiction. I needed zero scholars to tell me that.
Thankfully all scholarship seems to agree.


Christian mythology is the body of myths associated with Christianity. The term encompasses a broad variety of legends and stories, especially those considered sacred narratives. Mythological themes and elements occur throughout Christian literature, including recurring myths such as ascending to a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the Underworld, accounts of a dying-and-rising god, flood stories, stories about the founding of a tribe or city, and myths about great heroes (or saints) of the past, paradises, and self-sacrifice.

Dying god
See also: Jesus Christ in comparative mythology
Many myths, particularly from the Near East, feature a god who dies and is resurrected; this figure is sometimes called the "dying god".[54][55][56] An important study of this figure is James George Frazer's The Golden Bough, which traces the dying god theme through a large number of myths.[57] The dying god is often associated with fertility.[54][58] A number of scholars, including Frazer,[59] have suggested that the Christ story is an example of the "dying god" theme.[54][60] In the article "Dying god" in The Oxford Companion to World Mythology, David Leeming notes that Christ can be seen as bringing fertility, though of a spiritual as opposed to physical kind.[54]

In his 2006 homily for Corpus Christi, Pope Benedict XVI noted the similarity between the Christian story of the resurrection and pagan myths of dead and resurrected gods: "In these myths, the soul of the human person, in a certain way, reached out toward that God made man, who, humiliated unto death on a cross, in this way opened the door of life to all of us."[61]

None of this makes any sense given the narrative .

 

[joelr]

None of this makes any sense given the narrative .

Zeus is a Greek God. There are papers written on how he was worshiped. Like this paper on ancient Israelites.

You seemed to think I need to read a paper on Zeus to determine if he's a real God or a myth. I am aware already he is a myth before I read said paper.
When I read the Bible I was not fully aware it was a myth. After reading it I was aware it was a work of fiction. Evidence backs that up.
Papers on Zeus are not analysis of if it's a true story it's analysis on how the ancient Greek writers wrote about their Gods.
As you see in this paper, there are ways of writing religious myth that were passed down to future writers.
The gospel writers were trained in Greek literature, wrote in Greek and were aware of how to craft myths.
Modern analysis reveals that there is a list of common mythotype features that even ancient writers used when writing fiction. Jesus meets almost all of them:

1. Mother is a royal virgin
2. Father is a king
3. Father often a near relative to mother
4. Unusual conception
5. Hero reputed to be son of god
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7. Hero spirited away as a child
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country
9. No details of childhood
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. Becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully
15. He prescribes laws
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. Driven from throne and city
18. Meets with mysterious death
19. Often at the top of a hill
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him
21. His body is not buried
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

as does : Oedipus (21 or 22 points), Theseus (20 points), Romulus (18 points), Heracles (17 points), Perseus (18 points), Jason (15 points), Bellerophon (16 points), Pelops (13 points), Dionysos (19 points), Apollo (11 points), Zeus (15 points), Joseph (12 points), Moses (20 points), Elijah (9 points), Watu Gunung (18 points), Nyikang (14 points), Sigurd (11 points), Llew Llawgyffes (17 points), King Arthur (19 points), Robin Hood (13 points), and Alexander the Great (7 points).
Jesus gets 18.




The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence

Beyond that I do not understand your point about a narrative and not making sense?

 

[John1.12]

Zeus is a Greek God. There are papers written on how he was worshiped. Like this paper on ancient Israelites.

You seemed to think I need to read a paper on Zeus to determine if he's a real God or a myth. I am aware already he is a myth before I read said paper.
When I read the Bible I was not fully aware it was a myth. After reading it I was aware it was a work of fiction. Evidence backs that up.
Papers on Zeus are not analysis of if it's a true story it's analysis on how the ancient Greek writers wrote about their Gods.
As you see in this paper, there are ways of writing religious myth that were passed down to future writers.
The gospel writers were trained in Greek literature, wrote in Greek and were aware of how to craft myths.
Modern analysis reveals that there is a list of common mythotype features that even ancient writers used when writing fiction. Jesus meets almost all of them:

1. Mother is a royal virgin
2. Father is a king
3. Father often a near relative to mother
4. Unusual conception
5. Hero reputed to be son of god
6. Attempt to kill hero as an infant, often by father or maternal grandfather
7. Hero spirited away as a child
8. Reared by foster parents in a far country
9. No details of childhood
10. Returns or goes to future kingdom
11. Is victor over king, giant, dragon or wild beast
12. Marries a princess (often daughter of predecessor)
13. Becomes king
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully
15. He prescribes laws
16. Later loses favor with gods or his subjects
17. Driven from throne and city
18. Meets with mysterious death
19. Often at the top of a hill
20. His children, if any, do not succeed him
21. His body is not buried
22. Has one or more holy sepulchers or tombs

as does : Oedipus (21 or 22 points), Theseus (20 points), Romulus (18 points), Heracles (17 points), Perseus (18 points), Jason (15 points), Bellerophon (16 points), Pelops (13 points), Dionysos (19 points), Apollo (11 points), Zeus (15 points), Joseph (12 points), Moses (20 points), Elijah (9 points), Watu Gunung (18 points), Nyikang (14 points), Sigurd (11 points), Llew Llawgyffes (17 points), King Arthur (19 points), Robin Hood (13 points), and Alexander the Great (7 points).
Jesus gets 18.




The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence

Beyond that I do not understand your point about a narrative and not making sense?

Because if you understood the narrative you would see how comical it is to compare with those myths .

 

[nPeace]

The irony here is you are actually making a claim that the Bible is true because it says so.

That's quite an accusation to make.
You have no evidence for that. You simply made the false claim because you could.
Is that how you do your work in analyzing the Bible?
Is that the way it is done, with those you consider good scholars?
Then it makes my point even more precise.
That is forming opinions based on one's own limited knowledge, and opinionated bias.

So that you know, I make the claim the Bible is true, based on a thorough examination of it, and the facts related to it - one of those facts being historical, but by no means is it the only fact.

I never implied that saying something means it's true. I'm saying it's about evaluating evidence regardless of what we want to be true.

You are saying tthat man X says A, therefore ignore any historian that says otherwise, because they are wrong.
Is that not what you are saying?

If not, then I welcome correction, so please explain what you meant by...
The only historian that you mention is speaking of the execution in Tacitus. Historian Richard Carrier wrote a paper published in Vigiliae Christianae demonstrating that it's likely the single line about "Christ" was added in the 4th century.

He is one scholar. He presents evidence that can be examined by anyone. He happens to have applied his degree to Jesus historicity. Most of the information put forward by him is just work by other scholars in the related fields.
He is a historian however, not a theologian. He does not have to approach the material as a believer but is free to make up his own mind.
Everything he says can be sourced, some of his work inspired theological types to write papers arguing against some of his work. But so far he has answered rebuttals with evidence and sound arguments. The debates with historians he has are good.
The apologists just come at him with the same psudeo-science that is circular or faith based reasoning and could be used to promote any religion.

Good. He is not God. Thank you.
He has no more knowledge about what really happened nearly 2000 years prior, than the dog chewing his bone in the back of my house.
Not saying that as an insult to the man, but simply making the point that we are all trying to figure out the past, and no one man is better than another, just because he has what... what you mentioned.

If you admire him, fine. You certainly have that privilege, but the writers of the Gospel, and Paul were greater by far, and we don't have to guess what Paul thinks of him..
2 Corinthians 3:1-3 ; 2 Corinthians 11:4-6 ; 2 Corinthians 11:21-27 ...nor God.

 

[joelr]

Because if you understood the narrative you would see how comical it is to compare with those myths .

Where do I compare Zeus to Jesus? The Hellenistic concepts used by Israelites were ideas about an immortal soul that goes to heaven and savior gods that resurrect. Christianity is a Judaized version.
You are attempting every apologetics tactic in the book. This one is "you don't understand Christianity". Cool story but I was Christian and I am familiar with the narrative.
The Wiki page on Christian mythology is literally talking about the stories in the Bible and that they are common mythological themes? So that doesn't make sense either?
Except denial, that would make sense of this strange post.

 

[joelr]

That's quite an accusation to make.
You have no evidence for that. You simply made the false claim because you could.

Sigh. I have to walk you through this, really?
He said "The assurance that Jesus existed, that he died and rose again is evident all through the scriptures." in post 287

This is using the Bible to show the Bible is true. It isn't the only time this line of reasoning was used. Posting scripture in a historicity debate is literally using the Bible to show the Bible is true. Circular logic.

Is that how you do your work in analyzing the Bible?
Is that the way it is done, with those you consider good scholars?
Then it makes my point even more precise.

No I read the Bible and could see it was mythology.
The methods scholars use to verify sources and do comparative and literary analysis are vast and cannot be explained in one post. I have already demonstrated you were incorrect above but to then take your false assumption and attempt to put that on all scholarship is pure denial. This apologetics tactic was already being used extensively in this conversation so how you think it's going to be effective now is bizarre?

That is forming opinions based on one's own limited knowledge, and opinionated bias.

This is hilarious. So first an apologist tells me to read scripture for myself and come to my own conclusions. Now another apologist says I cannot form an opinion because of limited knowledge.

Luckily I have been following the historicity and archeology field to widen my knowledge. Except at some point in this discussion you are going to switch to attacking any scholar who doesn't hold your beliefs, as all apologists do?
These are indoctrination mind games.
Please present some evidence so I can learn something new. All I've been doing so far is correcting circular logic over and over.
I'm waiting, make an argument not rooted in psuedo-scientific crank. Anyone?

So that you know, I make the claim the Bible is true, based on a thorough examination of it, and the facts related to it - one of those facts being historical, but by no means is it the only fact.

Well this is absurd. How much scholarship have I presented to you in this thread? A lot. Demonstrating archeologists showing the OT is far from historical and many other lines of evidence. Debunking every claim you have made. To which you have ignored, claimed you have evidence (which has been shown to be false) and are just talking in circles.
Not only have I shown much of the OT is enlarged stories or complete myths I have shown the worlds leading biblical archeologist saying straight out the writers of the Bible were not writing history.

You are saying tthat man X says A, therefore ignore any historian that says otherwise, because they are wrong.
Is that not what you are saying?

Where do I say that? Almost all historians agree the gospel narratives are myth and the OT is myth. 2 of the leading biblical archeologists explaining that the OT is not history. Consensus in the fields that Moses, exodus, the flood story and creation stories are considered myth.
I have been clear on this. But here you are pretending like I'm talking about one person?? The length to which you are twisting this up shows you cannot back up any of what you are claiming

If not, then I welcome correction, so please explain what you meant by...
The only historian that you mention is speaking of the execution in Tacitus. Historian Richard Carrier wrote a paper published in Vigiliae Christianae demonstrating that it's likely the single line about "Christ" was added in the 4th century.


Good. He is not God. Thank you.
He has no more knowledge about what really happened nearly 2000 years prior, than the dog chewing his bone in the back of my house.
Not saying that as an insult to the man, but simply making the point that we are all trying to figure out the past, and no one man is better than another, just because he has what... what you mentioned.

This sounds dishonest. Had a scholar made an argument that Tacitus knew directly about Jesus himself you would not say he had about the same knowledge as a dog? Carrier has studied Suetonius and Tacitus and is familiar with their writing styles and so on. Why is a PhD applied to biblical history suddenly equal to a bone chewing mammal?
In fact you were perfectly comfortable several posts ago using Tacitus as proof of historicity? Yet now it's a different tune, now that a scholar is providing lines of evidence that the passage is in doubt?

You were comfortable with scholars when you thought they were backing your beliefs. Now you are attempting to set up a framework where there work is "opinion" as useful as a pet? Yeah that's not sketchy?

Ultimately Tacitus is useless because we do not know who he was sourcing.

If you admire him, fine. You certainly have that privilege, but the writers of the Gospel, and Paul were greater by far, and we don't have to guess what Paul thinks of him..
2 Corinthians 3:1-3 ; 2 Corinthians 11:4-6 ; 2 Corinthians 11:21-27 ...nor God.

Wait, so now you are also using the Bible to show the Bible is true? Amazing.

So many fallacies here?
1) If I admire him? What? I'm sourcing his work, his evidence and conclusions. Making it personal is a cult tactic.

2)Paul is greater? At what? Paul is claiming to have communications with a demigod. Like the thousands of others which include Muhammad and Joe Smith they are likely telling tall tales. So we have to evaluate evidence. There is no evidence that these myths are real. Paul was real. His stories were likely from early scriptures he read and spruced up his story with a vision. "Oh hey look my information is correct because I was visited by the demigod". So obvious?

3)Corinthians 3:1-3 - you haven't even remotely established that any of these magic communications are real. By trying to use scripture you are using the book to show the book is true? Circular logic.

4)2 Corinthians 11:4-6 more irony. Your myth is the one that says "only this one is true, anything else is false". All myths say they are the one true myth. Using this passage proof is YET AGAIN using the Bible to show the Bible is true.
There is no evidence that anything in these stories is true? And obviously if Paul was making up a story about being visited then other people are going to do the same (there are 38 other gospels not in the canon, how many other people claimed communication with Jesus?) so of course he needs Jesus to say there will be no more vision people?

5)comparing Paul to Carrier. Paul has magic messages from a demigod. Carrier is doing analysis and presenting the evidence so anyone can look it over and see if they can show he is wrong. These are completely different things.
One uses Bronze Age magic and the other used the scientific method. Magic can be shown to have produced zero.
The scientific method accounts for most everything in the modern world.

Also the idea that the gospel crucifixion narrative happened before Paul yet Paul knows nothing about any of that? Jesus has to tell him and also says he resurrected then appeared to people? Clearly Paul wrote this then 40 years later Mark created an earthly narrative (using mostly parables that people think are literal) from these letters.

 

[John1.12]

Where do I compare Zeus to Jesus? The Hellenistic concepts used by Israelites were ideas about an immortal soul that goes to heaven and savior gods that resurrect. Christianity is a Judaized version.
You are attempting every apologetics tactic in the book. This one is "you don't understand Christianity". Cool story but I was Christian and I am familiar with the narrative.
The Wiki page on Christian mythology is literally talking about the stories in the Bible and that they are common mythological themes? So that doesn't make sense either?
Except denial, that would make sense of this strange post.

Then share the verses that are similar in teaching . All your doing is using over arching terms and sweeping statements . I could paste hundreds of refutation s of this " other religions also were just like the narrative about Jesus " nonsense . But I don't believe you have sensibly read the NT and seriously compared these alleged similarities. This is Just a internet craze started by someone who first thought they would go looking for 'similarities '.

 

[joelr]

Then share the verses that are similar in teaching . All your doing is using over arching terms and sweeping statements . I could paste hundreds of refutation s of this " other religions also were just like the narrative about Jesus " nonsense . But I don't believe you have sensibly read the NT and seriously compared these alleged similarities. This is Just a internet craze started by someone who first thought they would go looking for 'similarities '.

What specifically do you want?
Persian scripture (1600BC) predicting a world savior who would be virgin born and save humanity as well as heaven/hell Satan and end of the world concepts are detailed in Mary Boyce's work which I have and can quote.
This was taken from pg 29 of her book:
The unique historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as its monotheism,[5][6][7][8][9] messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[10] Christianity, Islam,[11] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.


Hillel the Elder born 110 BC was a Jewish Rabbi teaching all the things Jesus taught:
Golden rule, love of peace, obligation to others, non-judgment
Hillel the Elder - Wikipedia


Earlier dying/rising savior deities in the region were common and all had basic similar themes.
Some of the similarities:

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

Do you need specific examples of other gods from the original source material?

The early church apologists and church fathers already admitted back then that there were many similarities between the pagan demigods and Jesus. It was common for then to say Satan changed history to fool Christians. SO they admitted it.

2nd century apologist Justin Martyr (Dialogue 69):
When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in common with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius]. Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse.


I already know that one I demonstrate what you are asking for you will switch back to saying the scholars are "wacky" or some type of denial. You have already rejected scholarship and ignored all information showing the Israelites used Persian and Greek myths in the 2nd temple period. I started out with many examples and a link to OT Professor Fransesca Stravopolou speaking on it and again you just ignored it and made some claim that wasn't true like "it's old news..."


I have been providing information along these lines all along and another response you came up with was "why not just take the story as it is" and "form your own opinion.." in an effort to deflect having to take knowledge seriously.


Do you want examples of how Mark uses mythical literary styles? Or how he copies OT stories? Or why it looks like Mark uses Paul's letters to craft a fictional story?

Calling modern scholarship an "internet craze" is also dishonest as I've been giving you names and peer-reviewed work to back everything up. So this is all just more tricks to avoid an honest discussion.

Not only have I read the NT and looked at similarities so has many many PhD historians. Which is how I'm able to make the comparisons because that's part of the work that's being done in the historicity field?


Mark copies the OT example:

Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


Another source Mark used was the Jesus Ben Annius written around 60AD

Clearly Mark either wrote his narrative based off of what Josephus wrote, or based on the same tale known to Josephus. Here are the parallels between Mark’s Jesus and that of Jesus ben Ananias as found in Josephus’ writings:

1 – Both are named Jesus. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

2 – Both come to Jerusalem during a major religious festival. (Mark 11.15-17 = JW 6.301)

3 -Both entered the temple area to rant against the temple. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)

4 – During which both quote the same chapter of Jeremiah. (Jer. 7.11 in Mk, Jer. 7.34 in JW)

5 – Both then preach daily in the temple. (Mark 14.49 = JW 6.306)

6 – Both declared “woe” unto Judea or the Jews. (Mark 13.17 = JW 6.304, 306, 309)

7 – Both predict the temple will be destroyed. (Mark 13.2 = JW 6.300, 309)

8 – Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews. (Mark 14.43 = JW 6.302)

9 – Both are accused of speaking against the temple. (Mark 14.58 = JW 6.302)

10 – Neither makes any defense of himself against the charges. (Mark 14.60 = JW 6.302)

11 – Both are beaten by the Jews. (Mark 14.65 = JW 6.302)

12 – Then both are taken to the Roman governor. (Pilate in Mark 15.1 = Albinus in JW 6.302)

13 – Both are interrogated by the Roman governor. (Mark 15.2-4 = JW 6.305)

14 – During which both are asked to identify themselves. (Mark 15.2 = JW 6.305)

15 – And yet again neither says anything in his defense. (Mark 15.3-5 = JW 6.305)

16 – Both are then beaten by the Romans. (Mark 15.15 = JW 6.304)

17 – In both cases the Roman governor decides he should release him. (Mark 14.2 = JW 6.301)


Report this ad
18 – But doesn’t (Mark)…but does (JW) — (Mark 15.6-15 = JW 6.305)

19 – Both are finally killed by the Romans: in Mark, by execution; in the JW, by artillery. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.308-9)

20 – Both utter a lament for themselves immediately before they die. (Mark 15.34 = JW 6.309)

21 – Both die with a loud cry. (Mark 15.37 = JW 6.309)

The odds of these coincidences arising by chance is quite small to say the least, so it appears Mark used this Jesus as a model for his own to serve some particular literary or theological purpose. In any case, we can see that Mark is writing fiction here, through and through.