Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[1213]

....Egypt, then there was no slavery and the whole reality of Exodus is questioned. So, we need to combine the text in itself with the historical critical method.

I would be critical to the claim that there was no slavery in Egypt. Is there some good reason to think there was no slavery?

 

[1213]

There is a progression of understanding of the afterlife in the Bible. In Genesis, there is no concept of any afterlife.

I disagree with that. There is for example this:

Yahweh God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."
Gen. 3:22

A person simply went to be with their forefathers, meaning the grave. Later, the concept of Sheol evolved, sometimes translated as the netherworld. This was the domain of the dead, believed to be located deep beneath us. The closest idea to Sheol would be the Greek concept of Hades. Later, during the time when the prophets wrote, the idea of the resurrection and World to Come evolved, where we would bodily rise from the dead and physically live on a new world. During the babylonian captivity, Jews were exposed to other ideas, and developed a concept of Gehinnom, a temporary hell where we are purified. The closest thing to this teaching is Catholic purgatory. The Christian concept of hell, where people suffer for all eternity, does not exist in Judaism.

I think the common Christians idea of hell is not Biblical.

Bible tells person is utterly destroyed in hell, in the second death, which is fitting to the old idea that death is the wage of sin.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [also translated hell].
Matt. 10:28
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 6:23
…Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev. 20:12-15

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I would be critical to the claim that there was no slavery in Egypt. Is there some good reason to think there was no slavery?

I have no good reason except that I do not find any evidence for slavery in Egypt. Maybe there was, but in any event the slavery is a social phenomenon which can be interpreted. I prefer to work on the Exodus with the geographical and anthropological data.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I disagree with that. There is for example this:

Yahweh God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."
Gen. 3:22

I think the common Christians idea of hell is not Biblical.

Bible tells person is utterly destroyed in hell, in the second death, which is fitting to the old idea that death is the wage of sin.

Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [also translated hell].
Matt. 10:28
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord
Romans 6:23
…Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one according to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev. 20:12-15

The term live forever in Genesis 3:22 can be interpreted in various ways. It can mean reincarnation. It can mean living in heaven or hell forever. So, it is kind of non-speaking. I do not think the soul can be ever destroyed. The soul can trance migrate but it cannot be destroyed.

 

[GoodAttention]

I disagree with that. There is for example this:

Yahweh God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. Now, lest he put forth his hand, and also take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."
Gen. 3:22

How does that verse describe an afterlife when it describes immortality?

 

[Augustus]

Uh, which mystery religion has a savior demigod based on a real person?

The cult of Antinous.

Associated with Osiris, the afterlife, healing the sick, etc.

Ascended to heaven, the usual tropes.

Again, the idea that only “saviour” gods matter is fallacious, but all of the gods who were deified close to their purported lives were real people.

 

[joelr]

Sorry, I don't think we have any good evidence for that something changed.

Great then please explain these borrowings with something that actually has evidence, sources and scholarship to cite. Something you have not done even one time yet.
Meanwhile we have evidence that each period of the Bible was influenced by other nations.

Here are the basic ides taken by Judaism, it gets worse with Hellenism (I even showed a Christian theological encyclopedia that admits Greek borrowing, which you ignored), but just Persian influence.

None of this is clearly in the OT. The idea they "might have known" is speculation, made up by you, has no sources, evidence or even likely that they would hold off on all exact Persian ideas, WHICH CONTRADICTED OLDER JUDAISM, then change theology to match the Persians.

The probability of this being borrowed ideas is extremely high.


Doctrines taken from Persia into Judiasm

fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.

Mary Boyce
We have specific examples of the Persian theology first showing up in the OT here:

Old Testament Interpretation


Professor John J. Collins

12:10 a possible inspiration for Ezekiel treatment of dead (valley of bones) was Persian myth





14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.


In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.


The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.





17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT.


Debunk them if you are so sure, use evidence, sources, scholarship. Your speculation/confirmation bias isn't saying anything except you refuse to accept reality.

At least it can't be said that you would not believe easily anything said to you.

Coming from someone who thinks an ancient book of borrowed mythology is actually true and cannot provide any evidence for it?

But, as usual you are once again incorrect. There is no example of me "easily" believing anything. I found evidence, backed up by all other scholars who study the material, backed up also by archaeologists like Dever or Finklestein.
Mary Boyce found the Persian religion was fully formed when it occupied Israel and Israel underwent a complete theological change from where it was. Evidence, and more evidence. There is no other option, they used the Persian theology.

Also many other scholars have written on the Persian influence, but Boyce is the leading expert. John Collins is a world renoun Bible scholar. You have to pretend like all this doesn't exist just to make an attack at me. Exposing yourself as completely uninterested in truth, an honest conversation and instead of evidence you resort to cheap tactics that ignore reality.

 

[joelr]

Why do you think they are good?

Because the Mormon Bible is from Jesus and the Holy spirit. It says so.

Doesn't mean Jews could not have had that idea long before written. I think it is not necessary to speak about hell, in Biblical point of view. There are more important matters that are sufficient on their own, without a word about hell.

HA, here we go again, speculation, no source, no evidence.
Sorry, hell is pretty important. It's not just hell, also heaven was just Yahweh's home, not for people. Satan was an agent of Yahweh, not his enemy. If hell isn't inportant, why is such a big deal made about getting to the afterlife in the NT (because that is part of the Hellenistic borrowings), clearly it was very important once they adopted the beliefs.

Also, quite a bit more stuff was not in Judaism, very important concepts that are completely different than old Judaism:


Hell


The concept of hell, a place of torment presided over by Angra Mainyu, seems to be Zoroaster's own, shaped by his deep sense of the need for justice. • Those few souls 'whose false (things) and what are just balance' (Y 33. I) go to the 'Place of the Mixed Ones', Misvan Gatu, where, as in . the old underworld kingdom of the dead, they lead a grey existence, lacking both joy and sorrow.

Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence, since Zoroaster insisted both on the goodness of the material creation, and hence of the physical body, and on the unwavering impartiality of divine justice. According to him, - salvation for the individual depended on the sum of his thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine Being to alter this. With such a doctrine, belief in the Day of Judgment had its full awful significance, with each man having to bear the responsibility for the fate of his own soul, as well as sharing in responsibility for the fate of the world. Zoroaster's gospel was thus a noble and strenuous one, which called for both courage and resolution on the part of those willing to receive n.


God

t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.



Salvation or hell





Zoroaster's teachings contained much to anger and trouble his people. In offering the hope of heaven to everyone who would follow him and seek righteousness, he was breaking, it seems, with an aristocratic and priestly tradition which consigned all lesser mortals .. to a subterranean life after death. Moreover, he not only extended the hope of salvation on high to the humble, but threatened the mighty with hell and ultimate extinction if they acted unjustly. His doctrines concerning the hereafter were thus doubly calculated to outrage the privileged; and to rich and poor alike his rejection of the Daevas must have seemed rash and dangerous, being calculated to draw down the wrath of those divine beings on the whole community. Further, the grand concepts of the one Creator, dualism and the great cosmic struggle, with the demand for continual moral endeavours, may well have been difficult to grasp, and, once grasped, too challenging for the ordinary easy-going polytheist.





Good vs evil and freewill





Harsh experience had evidently convinced the prophet that wisdom, justice and goodness were utterly separate by nature from wickedness and cruelty; and in vision he beheld, co-existing with Ahura Mazda, an Adversary, the 'Hostile Spirit', Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated, but ignorant and wholly malign. These two great Beings Zoroaster beheld with prophetic eye at their original, far-off encountering: 'Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins, renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word and act they are two, the good and the bad .... And when these two Spirits first encountered, they created life and not-life, and that at the end the worst existence shall be for the followers of falsehood (drug), but the best dwelling for those who possess righteousness (asha). Of the two Spirits, the one who follows falsehood chose doing the worst things, the Holiest Spirit, who is clad in the hardest stone [i.e. the sky] chose righteousness, and (so shall they all) who will satisfy Ahura Mazda continually '----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5). essential element in this revelation is that the two primal Beings each made a deliberate choice (although each, it seems, according to his own proper nature) between good and evil, an act which prefigures the identical choice which every man must make for himself in this life . The exercise of choice changed the inherent antagonism between the two Spirits into an active one, which expressed itself, at a decision taken by Ahura Mazda, in creation and counter-creation, or, as the prophet put it, in the making of 'life' and 'not-life' (that is, death); for Ahura Mazda knew in his wisdom that if he became Creator and fashioned this world, then the Hostile Spirit would attack it, because it was good, and it would become a battleground for their two forces, and in the end he, God, would win the great struggle there and be able to destroy evil, and so achieve a universe which would be wholly good forever.


Freewill, choice


the basic Zoroastrian doctrine of the existence of free-will, and the power of each individual to shape his own destiny through the exercise of choice.
Revealed word


the Medes and the Persians held whauhey believed to be the revealed word of God.

 

[joelr]

I disagree with that.

Yet you cannot fix them.

I think that is funny. If they did not tell anything to anyone, how do you think we go the story? It would be extremely illogical to say they never did not tell anyone what they saw.

Yet they do say that. A mistake.

No, they don't disagree, they all small part of bigger picture.

Here is how you can connect them without any problems:

Mark. 16:1 And the sabbath passing, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, bought spices, so that coming they might anoint Him.
Note! There was two Shabbat days. The Shabbat day of feast of unleavened bread and weekly Shabbat. Apparently after first Shabbat, Friday, spices were prepared and after second Shabbat they were brought to the tomb.
Mark. 16:2 And very early on the first of the week, the sun having risen, they came upon the tomb.
Matt.28:1 But after the sabbaths, at the dawning of the first of the sabbaths, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the grave.
(Mark. 16:3 And they said to themselves, Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?)
(Luke 24:1 But on the first of the sabbaths, while still very early, they came on the tomb, carrying spices which they prepared; and some were with them.)
Matt.28:2 And, behold! A great earthquake occurred! For descending from Heaven and coming near, an angel of the Lord rolled away the stone from the door and was sitting on it.
Matt.28:3 And his face was as lightning and his clothing white as snow.
Matt.28:4 And those keeping guard were shaken from the fear of him, and they became as dead.
Note! Apparently, the earthquake and rolling of the stone was seen only by the guards, not the women that vent to the tomb.
Mark. 16:4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; for it was very large.
Luke 24:2 And they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb.
John:20:1 But on the first of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, darkness yet being on it . And she saw the stone had been removed from the tomb.
Luke 24:3 And going in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
John:20:2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him.
Note! Apparently, Mary left the tomb, while other women stayed at the tomb.
Mark. 16:5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, having been clothed in a white robe. And they were much amazed.
Luke 24:4 And it happened, as they were perplexed about this, even behold, two men in shining clothing stood by them.
Luke 24:5 And they becoming terrified, and bowing their faces to the earth, they said to them, Why do you seek the living with the dead?
Matt.28:5 But answering, the angel said to the women, You must not fear, for I know that you seek Jesus who has been crucified.
Matt.28:6 He is not here, for He was raised, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord was lying.
(Mark. 16:6 But He said to them, Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who has been crucified. He was raised. He is not here. See the place where they put Him?)
(Luke 24:6 He is not here, but was raised. Remember how He spoke to you, yet being in Galilee,)
Luke 24:7 saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and to be crucified, and the third day to rise again.
Luke 24:8 And they remembered His words.
7 And going quickly say to His disciples that He was raised from the dead. And behold! He goes before you into Galilee. You will see Him there. Behold! I told you.
Mark. 16:7 But go, say to the disciples and to Peter, He goes before you into Galilee. You will see Him there, even as He told you.
Matt.28:8 And going away from the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, they ran to report to His disciples.
Mark. 16:8 And going out quickly, they fled from the tomb. And trembling and ecstasy took hold of them. And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid.
Note!, some think that this means they never told about the matter to anyone ever. If that would be the case, we would not have this story. That is why it is reasonable to think they only didn’t tell on their way about it.
John:20:3 Then Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.
John:20:4 And the two ran together, and the other disciple ran in front more quickly than Peter and came first to the tomb.
John:20:5 And stooping down, he saw the linens lying; however, he did not go in.
John:20:6 Then Simon Peter came following him, and went into the tomb and saw the linens lying.
John:20:7 And the grave cloth which was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
John:20:8 Therefore, then the other disciple also entered, he having come first to the tomb, even he saw and believed.
John:20:9 For they did not yet know the Scripture, that it was necessary for Him to rise from the dead.
John:20:10 Then the disciples went away again to themselves.
John:20:11 But Mary stood outside at the tomb, weeping. Then as she wept, she stooped down into the tomb.
John:20:12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
John:20:13 And they said to her, Woman, why do you weep? She said to them, Because they took away my Lord, and I do not know where they put Him.
John:20:14 And saying these things, she turned backward and saw Jesus standing, and did not know that it was Jesus.
Note! Apparently, the other women had left some other route from the tomb, because didn’t see Peter and May on their way. Also, the disciples that came with Mary, left and Mary stayed alone there for a while.
(Mark. 16:9 And rising early on the first of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.)
John:20:15 Jesus said to her, Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek? Thinking that it was the gardener, she said to Him, Sir, if you carried Him away, tell me where you put Him, and I will take Him away.
John:20:16 Jesus said to her, Mary! Turning around, she said to Him, Rabboni! (that is to say, Teacher).
John:20:17 Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God, and your God.
John:20:18 Mary Magdalene came bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He told her these things.
(Mark. 16:10 That one had gone and reported to those who had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping.)
Mark. 16:11 And those hearing that He lives, and was seen by her, they did not believe.
Mark. 16:12 And after these things, He was revealed in a different form to two of them walking and going into the country.
Matt.28:9 But as they were going to report to His disciples, behold, Jesus also met them, saying, Hail! And coming near, they seized His feet and worshiped Him.
Note! Worship = to kiss the hand, or to kneel and show homage to superior rank, for example high priest.
Matt.28:10 Then Jesus said to them, Do not fear. Go tell your brothers that they may go into Galilee, and there they will see Me.
Luke 24:9 And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven, and to all the rest.
Mark. 16:13 And going, those reported to the rest. Neither did they believe those.
Luke 24:10 And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles.
Luke 24:11 And their words seemed like foolishness to them, and they did not believe them.
Luke 24:12 But rising up, Peter ran to the tomb, and stooping down he saw the linen lying alone. And he went away wondering to himself at what had happened.
Matt.28:11 And they, having gone, behold, some of the guard coming into the city reported to the chief priests all things that occurred.
Matt.28:12 And being assembled with the elders, and taking counsel, they gave enough silver to the soldiers,
Matt.28:13 saying, Say that his disciples came and stole him by night, we being asleep.
Matt.28:14 And if this is heard by the governor, we will persuade him and will make you free from anxiety.
Matt.28:15 And taking the silver, they did as they were taught. And this report was spread by the Jews until today.
Note! Matt. 28:11-15 is a separate story line that seems to have happened as the same time with other events. Apparently guards told what they had witnessed in the city, while many disciples did other things.
Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them were going on the same day to a village being sixty stadia distant from Jerusalem, which was named Emmaus.
Luke 24:14 And they talked to each other about all these things taking place.
Luke 24:15 And it happened, as they talked and reasoned, coming near, Jesus Himself traveled with them.
Luke 24:16 But their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him.
Luke 24:17 And He said to them, What words are these which you exchange with each other while walking, and are sad of face?
Luke 24:18 And answering, one of them whose name was Cleopas, said to Him, Are you only one who resides in Jerusalem and do not know the things happening in it in these days?
Luke 24:19 And He said to them, What things? And they said to Him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a man, a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;
Luke 24:20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the judgment of death, and crucified Him .
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that He is the One going to redeem Israel. But then with all these things, this third day comes today since these things happened.
Luke 24:22 And also some of our women astounded us, having been early at the tomb,
Luke 24:23 and not finding His body, they came saying to have seen a vision of angels also, who say Him to be alive.
Luke 24:24 And some of those with us went to the tomb, and found it so , even as the women also said; but they did not see Him.
Luke 24:25 And He said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe on all things which the prophets spoke!
Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory?
Luke 24:27 And beginning from Moses, and from all the prophets, He explained to them the things about Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luke 24:28 And they drew near to the village where they were going, and He seemed to be going further.
.... continues in next post

That is a frankenstein Gospel that doesn't exist. You have changed the meaning of Mark and Luke, you have ruined 2 Gospels message.

 

[joelr]

...Luke 24:29 And they constrained Him, saying, Stay with us, for it is toward evening, and the day has declined. And He went in to stay with them.

You destroyed 2 Gospels clear message.


Jesus' Death in Mark


In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 15:16—39), Jesus is condemned to death by Pontius Pilate, mocked and beaten by the Roman sol¬ diers, and taken off to be crucified. Simon of Cyrene carries his cross. Jesus says nothing the entire time. The soldiers crucify Jesus, and he still says nothing. Both of the robbers being crucified with him mock him. Those passing by mock him. The Jewish leaders mock him. Jesus is silent until the very end, when he utters the wretched cry, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani,” which Mark translates from the Aramaic for his readers as, “My God, my God, why have you for¬ saken me?” Someone gives Jesus a sponge with sour wine to drink. He breathes his last and dies. Immediately two things happen: the curtain in the Temple is ripped in half, and the centurion looking on acknowledges, “Truly this man was the Son of God.”



This is a powerful and moving scene, filled with emotion and pathos. Jesus is silent the entire time, as if in shock, until his cry at the end, echoing Psalm 22.1 take his question to God to be a genuine one. He genuinely wants to know why God has left him like this. A very popular interpretation of the passage is that since Jesus quotes Psalm 22:1, he is actually thinking of the ending of the Psalm, where God intervenes and vindicates the suffering psalmist. I think this is reading way too much into the passage and robs the “cry of dereliction,” as it is called, of all its power. The point is that Jesus has been rejected by everyone: betrayed by one of his own, denied three times by his closest follower, abandoned by all his disciples, rejected by the Jewish leaders, condemned by the Roman authorities, mocked by the priests, the passersby, and even by the two others being cruci¬ fied with him. At the end he even feels forsaken by God Himself. Jesus is absolutely in the depths of despair and heart-wrenching anguish, and that’s how he dies. Mark is trying to say something by this portrayal. He doesn’t want his readers to take solace in the fact that God was really there providing Jesus with physical comfort. He dies in agony, unsure of the reason he must die.


But the reader knows the reason. Right after Jesus dies the cur¬ tain rips in half and the centurion makes his confession. The cur¬ tain ripping in half shows that with the death of Jesus, God is made available to his people directly and not through the Jewish priests’ sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus’ death has brought an atonement (see Mark 10:45). And someone realizes it right off the bat: not Jesus’ closest followers or the Jewish onlookers but the pagan soldier who has just crucified him. Jesus’ death brings salvation, and it is gentiles who are going to recognize it. This is not a disinterested account of what “really” happened when Jesus died. It is theology put in the form of a narrative.


Historical scholars have long thought that Mark is not only ex¬ plaining the significance of Jesus’ death in this account but also quite possibly writing with a particular audience in mind, an audi¬ ence of later followers of Jesus who also have experienced persecu¬ tion and suffering at the hands of authorities who are opposed to God. Like Jesus, his followers may not know why they are experienc¬ ing such pain and misery. But Mark tells these Christians they can rest assured: even though they may not see why they are suffering, God knows, and God is working behind the scenes to make suffering redemptive. God’s purposes are worked precisely through suffering, not by avoiding it, even when those purposes are not obvious at the moment. Mark’s version of the death of Jesus thus provides a model for understanding the persecution of the Christians.



Jesus' Death in Luke


Luke’s account is also very interesting, thoughtful, and moving, but it is very different indeed (Luke 23:26—49). It is not just that there are discrepancies in some of their details; the differences are bigger than that. They affect the very way the story is told and, as a result, the way the story is to be interpreted.


In Luke as in Mark, Jesus is betrayed by Judas, denied by Peter, rejected by the Jewish leaders, and condemned by Pontius Pilate, but he is not mocked and beaten by Pilate’s soldiers. Only Luke tells the story of Pilate trying to get King Herod of Galilee—the son of the King Herod from the birth stories—to deal with Jesus, and it is Herod’s soldiers who mock Jesus before Pilate finds him guilty. This is a discrepancy, but it doesn’t affect the overall reading of the differ¬ ence between the two accounts that I’m highlighting here.



In Luke, Jesus is taken off to be executed, and Simon of Cyrene is compelled to carry his cross. But Jesus is not silent on the way to his crucifixion. En route he sees a number of women wailing over what is happening to him, and he turns to them and says, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children” (Luke 23:28). He goes on to prophesy the coming destruc¬ tion that they will face. Jesus does not appear to be in shock over what is happening to him. He is more concerned with others around him than with his own fate.


Moreover, Jesus is not silent while being nailed to the cross, as in Mark. Instead he prays, “Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). 2 Jesus appears to have close communion with God and is concerned more for those who are doing this to him than for himself. Jesus is mocked by the Jewish leaders and the Roman soldiers, but explicitly not by both men being crucified with him, unlike in Mark. Instead, one of them mocks Jesus but the other rebukes the first for doing so, in¬ sisting that whereas they deserve what they are getting, Jesus has done nothing wrong (remember that Luke stresses Jesus’ complete innocence). He then asks of Jesus, “Remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And Jesus gives the compelling reply, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (23:42—43). In this account Jesus is not at all confused about what is happening to him or why. He is completely calm and in control of the situation; he knows what is about to occur, and he knows what will happen afterward: he will wake up in God’s paradise, and this criminal will be there with him. This is a far cry from the Jesus of Mark, who felt forsaken to the end.


Darkness comes over the land and the Temple curtain is ripped while Jesus is still alive, in contrast to Mark. Here the torn curtain must not indicate that Jesus’ death brings atonement—since he has not died yet. Instead it shows that his death is “the hour of darkness,” as he says earlier in the Gospel (23:53), and it marks the judgment of God against the Jewish people. The ripped curtain here appears to indicate that God is rejecting the Jewish system of worship, symbol¬ ized by the Temple.


Most significant of all, rather than uttering a cry expressing his sense of total abandonment at the end (“Why have you forsaken me?”), in Luke, Jesus prays to God in a loud voice, saying, “Father into your hands I commend my spirit.” He then breathes his last and dies (23:46). This is not a Jesus who feels forsaken by God and won¬ ders why he is going through this pain of desertion and death. It is a Jesus who feels God’s presence with him and is comforted by the fact that God is on his side. He is fully cognizant of what is happening to him and why, and he commits himself to the loving care of his heavenly Father, confident of what is to happen next. The centurion then confirms what Jesus himself knew full well, “Surely this man was innocent.”


It is hard to stress strongly enough the differences between these two portrayals of Jesus’ death. Earlier I pointed out that scholars have sometimes suggested that Mark’s account was written in part to provide hope for those suffering persecution, to let them know that, appearances notwithstanding, God was at work behind suffer¬ ing to achieve his redemptive purposes. What might Luke’s purpose have been in modifying Mark’s account, so that Jesus no longer dies in agony and despair?

Some critical interpreters have suggested that Luke may also be writing for Christians experiencing persecution, but his message to those suffering for the faith is different from Mark’s. Rather than stressing that God is at work behind the scenes, even though it doesn’t seem like it, Luke may be showing Christians a model of how they, too, can suffer—like Jesus, the perfect martyr, who goes to his death confident of his own innocence, assured of God’s pal¬ pable presence in his life, calm and in control of the situation, know¬ ing that suffering is necessary for the rewards of Paradise and that it will soon be over, leading to a blessed existence in the life to come. The two authors may be addressing similar situations, but they are conveying very different messages, both about how Jesus died and about how his followers can face persecution.

 

[joelr]

...Luke 24:29 And they constrained Him, saying, Stay with us, for it is toward evening, and the day has declined. And He went in to stay with them.

The Payoff


The problem comes when readers take these two accounts and com¬ bine them into one overarching account, in which Jesus says, does, and experiences everything narrated in both Gospels. When that is done, the messages of both Mark and Luke get completely lost and glossed over. Jesus is no longer in deep agony, as in Mark (since he is confident as in Luke), and he is no longer calm and in control as in Luke (since he is in despair as in Mark). He is somehow all things at once. Also, his words mean something different now, since he utters the sayings of both. When readers then throw both Matthew and John into the mix, they get an even more confused and conflated portrayal of Jesus, imagining wrongly that they have constructed the events as they really happened. To approach the stories in this way is to rob each author of his own integrity as an author and to deprive him of the meaning that he conveys in his story.

This is how readers over the years have come up with the famous “seven last words of the dying Jesus”—by taking what he says at his death in all four Gospels, mixing them together, and imagining that in their combination they now have the full story. This interpretive move does not give the full story. It gives a fifth story, a story that is completely unlike any of the canonical four, a fifth story that in effect rewrites the Gospels, producing a fifth Gospel. This is per¬ fectly fine to do if that’s what you want—it’s a free country, and no one can stop you. But for historical critics, this is not the best way to approach the Gospels.


My overarching point is that the Gospels, and all the books of the Bible, are distinct and should not be read as if they are all saying the same thing. They are decidedly not saying the same thing—even when talking about the same subject (say, Jesus’ death). Mark is dif¬ ferent from Luke, and Matthew is different from John, as you can see by doing your own horizontal reading of their respective stories of the crucifixion. The historical approach to the Gospels allows each author’s voice to be heard and refuses to conflate them into some kind of mega-Gospel that flattens the emphases of each one.


What happens when the two views are combined? The distinctive emphases of both are lost. The message of each author is swallowed up into the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation through the virgin Mary. Readers of the New Testament who conflate the two texts have created their own story, one that bypasses the teaching of both Luke and John and proffers a teaching that is found in neither on

Differences in the Teachings of Jesus


The Gospel of John also presents a different view of what Jesus talked about in his public ministry. Here I will use as a point of con¬ trast our earliest Synoptic Gospel, Mark.


Jesus' Teaching in Mark



In many ways the teaching of Jesus in Mark is summarized in the first words he speaks: “The time has been fulfilled; the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15). Anyone familiar with ancient Judaism can recognize the apocalyptic nature of this message. Jewish apocalypticism was a worldview that came into existence about a century and a half before Jesus’ birth and was widely held among Jews in his day. The Greek word apocalypsis means a “revealing” or an “unveiling.” Scholars have called this view apocalyptic because its proponents believed that God had revealed or unveiled to them the heavenly secrets that could make sense of the realities they were experiencing—many of them nasty and ugly—here on earth. One of the questions apocalypticists were intent on answering was why there was so much pain and suffering in the world, especially among the people of God. It might make sense that wicked people suffer: they are simply getting their due. But why do the righteous suffer? In fact, why do the righteous suffer more than the wicked, at the hands of the wicked? Why does God allow that?


Jewish apocalypticists believed that God had revealed to them the secrets that made sense of it all. There are cosmic forces in the world aligned against God and his people, powers like the Devil and his demons. These forces are in control of the world and the politi¬ cal powers that run it. For some mysterious reason God has allowed these forces to thrive in the present evil age. But a new age is coming in which God would overthrow the forces of evil and bring in a good kingdom, a kingdom of God, in which there will be no more pain, misery, or suffering. God will rule supreme, and the Devil and his demons, along with all the other nasty powers causing such suffer¬ ing (hurricanes, earthquakes, famine, disease, war), will be done away with.


Jesus’ teaching in Mark is apocalyptic: “The time has been ful¬ filled” implies that this current evil age, seen on a time line, is almost over. The end is almost within sight. “The Kingdom of God is near” means that God will soon intervene in this age and overthrow its wicked powers and the kingdoms they support, such as Rome, and establish his own kingdom, a kingdom of truth, peace, and justice. “Repent and believe the good news” means that people need to pre¬ pare for this coming kingdom by changing their lives, beginning to align themselves with the forces of good instead of the forces of evil, and by accepting Jesus’ teaching that it was soon to happen.


For Mark’s Jesus, this kingdom is soon to come. As he tells his disciples at one point, “Truly I tell you, some of those standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God having come in power” (Mark 9:1); later he tells them, after describing the cosmic upheavals that would transpire at the end of the age, “Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place” (Mark 13:30).


fiow will that kingdom arrive? For Mark it will be brought about by “the Son of Man,” a cosmic judge of the earth who will judge people according to whether they accept the teachings of Jesus: “For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). And who is this Son of Man? For Mark it is Jesus him¬ self, who must be rejected by his people and their leaders, executed, and then raised from the dead (Mark 8:31). Jesus will die, he will be raised, and then he will return in judgment, bringing with him the kingdom of God.


Rut since Jesus is the one who will bring the kingdom, for Mark the kingdom is already being manifest in the earthly life and min¬ istry of Jesus in an anticipatory way. In the kingdom there will be no demons, and so Jesus casts out demons; in the kingdom there will be no disease, and so Jesus heals the sick; in the kingdom there will be no more death, and so Jesus raises the dead. The kingdom of God could already be seen in Jesus’ own ministry and that of his follow¬ ers (6:7—13). That is the point of many of Jesus’ parables in Mark: the kingdom has a small, even hidden, appearance in the activities of Jesus, but it will appear in a big way at the end. It is like a small mustard seed that when put in the ground becomes an enormous shrub (4:30—32). Most of Jesus’ listeners rejected his message, but a judgment day was coming, and God’s kingdom would arrive in power, and then this world will be remade (Mark 13).

Jesus does not actually teach much about himself in the Gospel of Mark. He talks mainly about God and the coming kingdom, and how people need to prepare for it. When he does refer to himself as the Son of Man, it is always obliquely: he never says, “I am the Son of Man.” And he does not state that he is the Messiah, the anointed ruler of the future kingdom, until the very end, when he is placed under oath by the high priest (Mark 14:61—62).

Although Jesus is acknowledged as the Son of God in this Gospel (see 1:11; 9:7; 15:39), that is not his preferred title for himself, and he only acknowledges it reluctantly (14:62). It is important to know that for ancient Jews the term “son of God” could mean a wide range of things. In the Hebrew Bible the “son of God” could refer to the nation of Israel (Hosea 11:1), or to the king of Israel (1 Samuel 7:14). In these cases the son of God was someone specially chosen by God to perform his work and mediate his will on earth. And for Mark, Jesus was certainly all that—he was the one who performed the ultimate will of God, going to his death on the cross. It is striking, though, in the Gospel of Mark, that Jesus never refers to himself as a divine being, as someone who preexisted, as someone who was in any sense equal with God. In Mark, he is not God and he does not claim to be.

 

[joelr]

...Luke 24:29 And they constrained Him, saying, Stay with us, for it is toward evening, and the day has declined. And He went in to stay with them.

Jesus' Teaching in John


Things are quite different in the Gospel of John. In Mark, Jesus teaches principally about God and the coming kingdom, hardly ever talking directly about himself, except to say that he must go to Je¬ rusalem to be executed, whereas in John, that is practically all that Jesus talks about: who he is, where he has come from, where he is going, and how he is the one who can provide eternal life.


Jesus does not preach about the future kingdom of God in John. The emphasis is on his own identity, as seen in the “I am” sayings. He is the one who can bring life-giving sustenance (“I am the bread of life” 6:35); he is the one who brings enlightenment (“I am the light of the world” 9:5); he is the only way to God (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me” 14:6). Belief in Jesus is the way to have eternal salvation: “whoever be¬ lieves in him may have eternal life” (3:36). He in fact is equal with God: “I and the Father are one” (10:30). His Jewish listeners appear to have known full well what he was saying: they immediately pick up stones to execute him for blasphemy.


In one place in John, Jesus claims the name of God for himself, saying to his Jewish interlocutors, “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). Abraham, who lived 1,800 years earlier, was the father of the Jews, and Jesus is claiming to have existed before him. But he is claiming more than that. He is referring to a passage in the Hebrew Scriptures where God appears to Moses at the burning bush and commissions him to go to Pharaoh and seek the release of his people. Moses asks God what God’s name is, so that he can inform his fellow Israelites which divinity has sent him. God replies, “I Am Who I Am . . . say to the Israelites, ‘I Am has sent me to you’ (Exodus 3:14). So when Jesus says “I Am,” in John 8:58, he is claiming the divine name for himself. Here again his Jewish hearers had no trouble understand¬ ing his meaning. Once more, out come the stones.


The difference between Mark and John is not only that Jesus speaks about himself in John and identifies himself as divine but also that Jesus does not teach what he teaches in Mark, about the coming kingdom of God. The idea that there would be a future kingdom on earth in which God would rule supreme and all the forces of evil would be destroyed is no part of Jesus’ proclamation in John. Instead he teaches that people need to have eternal life, in heaven above, by achieving a heavenly birth (3:3—5). That’s what the “kingdom of God” means in John, the very few times it occurs: it means life in heaven, above, with God—not a new heaven and new earth down here below. Faith in Jesus is what gives eternal life. Those who believe in Jesus will live with God forever; those who do not will be condemned (3:36).


For many historical critics it makes sense that John, the Gospel that was written last, no longer speaks about the imminent appear¬ ance on earth of the Son of Man to sit in judgment on the earth, to usher in the utopian kingdom. In Mark, Jesus predicts that the end will come right away, during his own generation, while his disciples are still alive (Mark 9:1; 13:30). By the time John was written, prob¬ ably from 90 to 95 CE, that earlier generation had died out and most if not all the disciples were already dead. That is, they died before the coming of the kingdom. What does one do with the teaching about an eternal kingdom here on earth if it never comes? One rein¬ terprets the teaching. The way John reinterprets it is by altering the basic conceptualization.


An apocalyptic worldview like that found in Mark involves a kind of historical dualism in which there is the present evil age and the future kingdom of God. This age, and the age to come: they can be drawn almost like a time line, horizontally across the page. The Gospel of John rotates the horizontal dualism of apocalyptic thinking so that it becomes a vertical dualism. It is no longer a dualism of this age on earth and the one that has yet to come, also on earth; instead, it is a dualism of life down here and the life above. We are down here, God is above. Jesus as God’s Word comes down from above, precisely so we can ourselves experience a birth “from above” (the literal meaning of John 3:3—not that “you must be born a second time,” but that “you must be born from above”). 3 When we experience this new birth by believing in Christ, the one who comes from above, then we, too, will have eternal life (John 3:16). And when we die, we will then ascend to the heavenly realm to live with God (John 14:1—6).


No longer is the kingdom coming to earth. The kingdom is in heaven. And we can get there by believing in the one who came from there to teach us the way. This is a very different teaching from what you find in Mark.

 

[joelr]

During the Persian era of the Babylonian captivity, Jews were exposed to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is a dualistic religion where the good god and bad god are engaged in a cosmic battle. Judaism did not adopt this idea, although it was influenced in lesser ways.

They borrowed hell, God vs the devil and many other things. Some shows up in the OT and much of it is part of the NT.

Rather, in Babylon, Jews responded in a novel way to being conquered. Typically when a people were conquered, they thought "Wow, their god must be mightier than mine. I will no worship their god." The Jews didn't do this. For reasons no one understands, instead they said to themselves, "YHWH isn't just the God of Israel, he is the God of the whole world, and is in control. We are not captives because the Babylonian god is more powerful, but because God is disciplining us for our sin." We have been monotheists ever since.

They also saw that the Persian god was the supreme god. Another concept that was borrowed. This was a common practice in Hellenism as well, upgrading local national deities to supreme deities.


In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).





In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.





Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute of

Yes. The golden rule, sometimes called the law of reciprocity, in some form is taught in every major religion.

Yes it's very common.

Correct. It is similar to a pseudepigraphal text called the Testament of Solomon, which claims to have the sayings of Solomon, but of course they are simply just made up.

It's all made up.

Quite true. In fact, I would say fiction is a far better way to teach morals than actual history.

I think so, a popular way to learn morals and ethics is through the fictional hero's journeys. People are influenced more than they realize by modern fiction.

 

[joelr]

The cult of Antinous.

Associated with Osiris, the afterlife, healing the sick, etc.

Ascended to heaven, the usual tropes.

He was a Roman emperor. Roman emperors are not the demigods in Mystery religions. They are written about in Greco-Roman biography style (so are the Gospels) in which it is common to make fake eyewitnesses to attest to miracles and resurrections and so on,


The Mystery religions are a specific package of beliefs that blended with local religions, all used the same basic Greek theology to create a new myth and were the nations occupied by Greek colonists.

Carrier:

"

I have done extensive research into the origins of Christianity. The appropriation of Isis and Horus statues as Mary and Jesus statues totally happened, but that was centuries later, this was not part of the origin.


Most of what we mean by Christianity is Jewish, it comes from Judaism. If we go back many centuries we can talk about the surrounding cultures that influenced Judaism and Egypt would be one of them, among several others. Christians probably were not even aware of this as it was centuries old by then.


Most of it is borrowing this package of ideas called the Mystery cults, which was a Hellenized version of local tribal cults. We have a Syrian version, we have a Persian version, an Egyptian version, it’s the same package that spreads from the Greek colonists. It’s very Greek but borrows from local cultures.


For example, Osirus Mysteries was different from the Osirus religion. It was a merger between Greek ideas and local native Egyptian ideas. We see the same in the other mysteries.


When Judaism did the same thing and created Christianity, it borrowed the same package, it’s borrowing a generic package that all the cultures bought. Not just Egypt.





There are other influences as well. The ending of Mark and the ending of Luke both borrow from the Romulus story in different ways, which is a Roman myth. So they are picking from various things, little pieces of different myth.


Primarily it’s Judaism, then Hellenism, then small pieces of different nations. Egypt, Persia, Syria and even European cults.





The Egyptians did the same thing, they took the same package of ideas and blended it with their local Egyptian religion, all the Mystery cults did the same.


This is what all the scholarship and evidence supports.





Mystery cults come from the era of Alexander the Great."


You are talking about general Greco-Roman biographies

The Gospels are considered a Greco-Roman biography.


3:35 In Greco-Roman works eyewitness accounts were often misused to add credibility. This literature is full of tales where eyewitnesses convienantly witness extraordinary events that glorify the hero of the story. Ancient writers were not above fabricating fictional witnesses to serve their narrative.


5:03 Similar miracles are all over the place in ancient texts. Eyewitnesses claim that even mythical figures like Asclepius were doing miraculous healings.


5:35 The Greco-Roman literary world is full of authors who didn’t think twice about inventing eyewitnesses to spice up their stories. This was so common we should not trust claims about anonymous witnesses in the Gospels, Pauls Creed or Papias’ work. The art of fabricating sources was well-practiced making the supposedly eyewitness-backed miracles in these text highly questionable.





6:31 Emperor Vespasian, reportedly did many miracles. Tacitus claims 2 men approached the emperor with serious ailments. One was blind and the other had a useless hand. Vespasian cured both. Tacitus writes: The hand was instantly restored to use, and the day again shone for the blind man. Both facts are told by eye-witnesses even now when falsehood brings no reward. Tacitus, Histories 4.81.

Again, the idea that only “saviour” gods matter is fallacious, but all of the gods who were deified close to their purported lives were real people.

I don't know that any of the mysteries have any real people. There are many other ways to identify a mystery religion, a savior figure is one small part.

mysteries

Elusinian Mysteries = Mycenaean + Hellenistic

Bacchic Mysteries = Phoenician + Hellenistic

Mysteries of Attis and Cybele = Phrygian + Hellenistic

Mysteries of Baal = Anatolian + Hellenistic

Mysteries of Mithras = Persian + Hellenistic

Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic

Christian Mysteries = Jewish + Hellenistic

 

[Augustus]

He was a Roman emperor. Roman emperors are not the demigods in Mystery religions. They are written about in Greco-Roman biography style (so are the Gospels) in which it is common to make fake eyewitnesses to attest to miracles and resurrections and so on,

No he wasn’t. He might well have been a slave.

He was Hadrian’s catemite.

He died by drowning in the Nile (or perhaps was murdered or perhaps sacrificed himself) during the festival of Osiris and was deified by Hadrian.

He came to him in a dream which told of his resurrection.

His cult combined him with Osiris, he was raised to heaven, was associated with resurrection and healing, etc. he performed miracles.

Christians didn’t like the similarities to Jesus, many wrote against his cult and it was eventually banned by Theodosius.

Celsus thought he was a demon, which explained his ability to work miracles/magic.

Mysteries of Isis and Osiris = Egyptian + Hellenistic

All of these gods exist in mythic time or the long past.

Antinous acquired characteristics of Osiris, and like all gods whose cults emerged close to their purported lives, he actually existed.

Jesus wouldn’t be unique in being a dying and rising saviour who lived, he would be unique in being deified close to his purported life while being a whole cloth myth.

 

[1213]

I have no good reason except that I do not find any evidence for slavery in Egypt.

Interesting, to me the story in the Bible is one evidence for it.

 

[1213]

How does that verse describe an afterlife when it describes immortality?

I don't see any difference in that.

 

[1213]

...
The concept of hell, a place of torment presided over by Angra Mainyu, seems to be Zoroaster's own,...

It is interesting that in Bible, hell is a place where soul and body are destroyed. Seems different than the common ideas of it.

Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna [hell].
Matt. 10:28

 

[1213]

... “seven last words of the dying Jesus”....

If we believe what is said in the Bible, Jesus has not said his last words, because he still lives.

 

[1213]

...He in fact is equal with God:...

John tells there is only one true God who is greater than Jesus.

How can you believe, who receive glory from one another, and you don't seek the glory that comes from the only God?
John 5:44
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
Jesus said to her, "Don't touch me, for I haven't yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, 'I am ascend-ing to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
John 20:17
...the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28

Being one with God does not mean person is God. Otherwise also disciples of Jesus would be Gods, because they are also one with God.

I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them through your name which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are.
John 17:11
that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may be-lieve that you sent me.
John 17:21

It is very sad when people think they know how things are, when they have one line from the Bible.

You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Matt. 22:29

...For many historical critics it makes sense that John, the Gospel that was written last...

I don't believe John is really the last, because it has more profound understanding and knowledge of what Jesus said.

...predicts that the end will come right away, during his own generation, while his disciples are still alive (Mark 9:1; 13:30)

If one thinks so, i think he has not understood the scriptures.

...No longer is the kingdom coming to earth....

It is already here.
Being asked by the Pharisees when God’s Kingdom would come, he answered them, “God’s Kingdom doesn’t come with observation; neither will they say, ‘Look, here!’ or, ‘Look, there!’ for behold, God’s Kingdom is within you.”
Luke 17:20-21