Did Jesus exist?

[Vampiel]

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

[Mithrae]

I don't know any published sources of course, but Grumpy Old Man may be interested in our past discussions on the topic.

From ThatGirl's post here FurrowedBrow replied further down the page, pointing out that the supposed 'prophecy' of Mark 13 is really very vague in most aspects; a combination of dire warnings with existing biblical concepts (notably the abomination of desolation). Knowing of rebellions and messianic claimants during his time (eg. Judas the Galilean), Jesus may well have been genuinely concerned about the possibility of the Jews eventually provoking the full wrath of Rome. Looked at from another perspective, if we knew Mark 13 was written/spoken decades before 70CE, would we really consider it a remarkable prophecy? I think not.

Mark is not at all vague. He refers to several details that would have been quite unexpected but actually happened in the Revolt.

Mark 13:2 Do you see all these great buildings? replied Jesus. Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.

Jerusalem was almost completely leveled by the Romans. (The War of the Jews, Book Six, Chapter 8)

Apocalyptic preachers, as you call Jesus, are probably noted less for their precision and restraint than for their hyperbole. Would you also say those were days of distress unequalled in all of history (v19)? As Jesus would have known, Daniel clearly states that "the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" (9:26), a prediction which obviously had not yet been fulfilled by Jesus' day. Contrary to your claim, I think we have rather solid reason to believe that Jesus would have expected, at some point, the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and may well have expanded on that theme.

Mark 13:12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

There was violent factional disagreement in Jerusalem. (The factions battle for Power)

I haven't read that whole page I admit, but a quick search shows no results for 'brother,' 'father,' 'child' or 'parents' - and the only references to 'family' are the deposition of the Herodian-appointed line of priests by the Zealots. Were intra-familial betrayals really an unexpected but definite detail of the Revolt? It's worth noting of course that the actual passage is talking about Jesus' followers amongst "all nations" (v9-13). I'm pretty sure we'd have to struggle quite a bit to make that a match with the siege of Jerusalem, and I suspect we'd struggle almost as much to make the siege's factional rivalries fit the passage's intra-familial betrayals.

Mark 13:18-20
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now"and never to be equaled again.
20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.

There was mass starvation and even cannibalism during the siege of Jerusalem. (Ref) But the siege ended on September 7, before winter set in. (Ref)

Don't forget the pestilence earlier on: So after pestilence, factional rivalries, destruction of their own food supplies and preference for death over capture, mass deaths from starvation and of course cannibalism, things would have been a lot worse if the days had not been 'cut short' before the winter? Is that what you're saying? If not, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

The concern expressed for pregnant and nursing women, or it happening in winter (v17-18) immediately follow the warning to flee as swiftly as possible (v14-16). Traveling is not easy for pregnant or nursing women, or (I assume) during a 1st century Palestinian winter. The only connection with Jerusalem in these or in the preceding verses is the 'abomination of desolation,' a warning useless for those in the city itself. I'm sorry, but if a Christian apologist put this forward as an argument of fulfilled prophecy (and we knew it had been written earlier), would you really think she had a valid point? If not, I don't see it being a valid example of anachronism either.

I replied here; Mark gives the abomination of desolation as a warning for Jesus' followers to flee Jerusalem. I think that's actually quite a strong reason to suppose it was written/spoken beforehand, 'cos it wouldn't make much sense for someone writing afterwards to put into Jesus' mouth the warning to flee Jerusalem when you see it's been captured and the temple razed to the ground!

It would make perfect sense for a prophecy allegedly spoken 40 years earlier to be phrased as a warning. It would make the prophecy ring true after the fact. And let us not forget that Josephus gives us numerous examples of fleeing to the mountains (Mark 13:14) to man fortresses e.g., Yodfat, Gamala, Masada.

Two of the three you mention fell to the Romans before Jerusalem did, and while there were others I rather suspect that they were being manned long before anyone saw this 'abomination of desolation' in the temple. Folk from Jerusalem had little chance to flee to the mountains, and one would think that most folk elsewhere in Judea inclined to do so would not wait for Jerusalem's fall to do it.

This is my point, of course; it does indeed make sense for a prophecy after the event to be phrased as a warning. What doesn't make sense is for it to be phrased as a useless warning. Writing sometime after 76CE, Luke changes the warning to "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies you will know that its desolation is near." That makes sense as a prophecy after the event; the supposed recipients know that Jerusalem will fall and the revolt will fail before the temple's destruction makes it blindingly obvious that God isn't going to rescue the Jews. My trusty Wikipedia tells me that the siege of Jerusalem "had begun early in the war," though you'd know better than me exactly when that was. Point is that Christians living in Judea, if they'd had Luke's gospel handy in 66CE onwards, would probably be able to get out in good order; it's a sensible warning-after-the-event. Whereas with Mark's gospel the only distinct reference to Jerusalem is the abomination of desolation; if that's what they had in 66CE onwards, their 'warning' sign from Christ would manifest itself after Jerusalem had fallen, after hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) had died and after the revolt was crushed besides a few scattered strongholds.

That's not a warning, that's blatant common sense if you're observing it and idiocy if you're prophesying it - whether genuinely or ex eventu. The Jesus we find in Mark's gospel shows no solid hint that he knew what was going to happen in 66-70CE, in other words, but offers a vague and decent enough expansion on prophecy from the Tanakh - particularly Isaiah and Daniel - to seem the kind of thing we might expect from an apocalyptic preacher.

If someone supposedly retrofitted the details of the prophecy, they did a remarkable job of writing it in Marks lousy Greek. And lets face it, it is really stretching to propose this.

I have yet to see any good arguments that Mark was actually written before the Jewish Revolt that do not first assume it was written before the Jewish Revolt.

I mostly argue that there's really no solid reason to suppose that it was written after the Revolt. The passage is vague and based largely on older prophecies. Even the explicitly-predicted destruction of the temple at the beginning of the chapter is found in Daniel 9:26 and would be dismissed by any sceptic worthy of the label as vague expectation and hyperbole if it was actually spoken by Jesus, and coincidence that it happened to occur four decades later.

However as above, the sheer absurdity of the 'warning' if it was written after the revolt does indeed seem, to my mind, a good reason to suppose it was written earlier.

Also, as I've previously noted, because of Matthew's emphatic certainty that Christ's return was very, very near (10:23, 16:28) and the obvious interpretation of an end to sacrifice in the midst of Daniel's final seven (Dan. 9:27, cf Matt. 24:15), I believe that Matthew was almost certainly written between 70 and 73CE. That doesn't actually force a pre-70 date for Mark - Mark could be late-70 or early-71 and Matthew late-71 or 72 - but it's a point worth noting.

And you mentioned the Peter -> Mark tradition from Papias above, which I don't think can be dismissed out of hand. Again, it doesn't necessarily require a pre-70CE date, but it does imply it somewhat.

Of the three points frankly I think the first is the best argument that Mark's Jesus was not well-informed about the events of the Jewish Revolt, else like Luke he'd have given a better warning on when to flee

[ThatGirlAgain]

I don't know any published sources of course, but Grumpy Old Man may be interested in our past discussions on the topic.

From ThatGirl's post here FurrowedBrow replied further down the page, pointing out that the supposed 'prophecy' of Mark 13 is really very vague in most aspects; a combination of dire warnings with existing biblical concepts (notably the abomination of desolation). Knowing of rebellions and messianic claimants during his time (eg. Judas the Galilean), Jesus may well have been genuinely concerned about the possibility of the Jews eventually provoking the full wrath of Rome. Looked at from another perspective, if we knew Mark 13 was written/spoken decades before 70CE, would we really consider it a remarkable prophecy? I think not.

Mark is not at all vague. He refers to several details that would have been quite unexpected but actually happened in the Revolt.

Mark 13:2 Do you see all these great buildings? replied Jesus. Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.

Jerusalem was almost completely leveled by the Romans. (The War of the Jews, Book Six, Chapter 8)

Apocalyptic preachers, as you call Jesus, are probably noted less for their precision and restraint than for their hyperbole. Would you also say those were days of distress unequalled in all of history (v19)? As Jesus would have known, Daniel clearly states that "the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" (9:26), a prediction which obviously had not yet been fulfilled by Jesus' day. Contrary to your claim, I think we have rather solid reason to believe that Jesus would have expected, at some point, the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and may well have expanded on that theme.

On the contrary, unless these things had already happened and were familiar to the reader, three would have been no real purpose in referencing Daniel. We may note that Mark does not name Daniel as Matthew does. As usual Matthew wanted to be sure that Jesus got connected with the Jewish scriptures in every way possible and did so there by naming the reference. Why then would Jesus and/or Mark have any reason to call the listeners/readers attention to Daniel without identifying that book? But having it be a fulfilled prophecy that tied into actual already accomplished events helps Mark make his point, that the Jesus movement was not responsible for the Revolt.

Mark 13:12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.

There was violent factional disagreement in Jerusalem. (The factions battle for Power)

I haven't read that whole page I admit, but a quick search shows no results for 'brother,' 'father,' 'child' or 'parents' - and the only references to 'family' are the deposition of the Herodian-appointed line of priests by the Zealots. Were intra-familial betrayals really an unexpected but definite detail of the Revolt? It's worth noting of course that the actual passage is talking about Jesus' followers amongst "all nations" (v9-13). I'm pretty sure we'd have to struggle quite a bit to make that a match with the siege of Jerusalem, and I suspect we'd struggle almost as much to make the siege's factional rivalries fit the passage's intra-familial betrayals.

Neither is there any reference to family in Daniel. Why should Jesus and/or Mark make up such a detail if it would have no referent? What we do see in my link is betrayal and counter-betrayal of those who should have been united against the Romans. It could be figurative. On the other hand there may have been intra-familial issues as well that Josephus does not detail. We already know that Mark gives more detail about the Pharisee/Sadducee political situation than Josephus does. Having this written after the Revolt makes more sense than having it written before the Revolt.

Let us look at the passage you reference.

Mark 13:9-13
9 You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

We know from Pauls letters that the gospel was being preached widely, if not yet literally to all nations. But this may be another explanation of the family issue. This could be a reference to the persecutions in Rome under Nero immediately before the revolt and after Neros death. To the Romans, Christians (still an anachronistic term) would have been a messianic and therefore presumed revolutionary branch of Judaism. And is that not exactly what Mark is trying to argue against, the idea that the Jesus movement was revolutionary and responsible for the Revolt?

We may also note what Mark says next.
Mark 13:14 When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong"let the reader understand

Why should the reader be told to understand something here? Years before the Revolt, in 39 CE, Caligula ordered that a statue of himself as a deity be put in the Temple. This led to major protests that would probably have been put down violently except that Caligula died. But this was a contributing factor in radicalizing the Jewish population and paving the way for the Revolt. (Ref) If this is a future event to Mark, how is the reader to understand what it means? If it is a past event, why should Mark have to make the reader think about it to remember such a thing? Unless of course it was not a recent event and took a reminder to call it up. If Mark was referring to something else, what was it? What other abomination where it does not belong happened before the Revolt that Marks readers would get if prompted?

Mark 13:18-20
18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now"and never to be equaled again.
20 If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.

There was mass starvation and even cannibalism during the siege of Jerusalem. (Ref) But the siege ended on September 7, before winter set in. (Ref)

Don't forget the pestilence earlier on: So after pestilence, factional rivalries, destruction of their own food supplies and preference for death over capture, mass deaths from starvation and of course cannibalism, things would have been a lot worse if the days had not been 'cut short' before the winter? Is that what you're saying? If not, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

That a shortage of fuel in wintertime resulting from a siege that isolated Jerusalem on top of the prolongation of the other miseries would have made the situation far worse than they even were already.

The concern expressed for pregnant and nursing women, or it happening in winter (v17-18) immediately follow the warning to flee as swiftly as possible (v14-16). Traveling is not easy for pregnant or nursing women, or (I assume) during a 1st century Palestinian winter. The only connection with Jerusalem in these or in the preceding verses is the 'abomination of desolation,' a warning useless for those in the city itself. I'm sorry, but if a Christian apologist put this forward as an argument of fulfilled prophecy (and we knew it had been written earlier), would you really think she had a valid point? If not, I don't see it being a valid example of anachronism either.

Not a fulfilled prophecy but a description of conditions that actually existed. Mark references Daniel to lend prophetic impact. By putting the words of warning in the mouth of Jesus he is helping to clear Jesus of blame. You are right in that as a warning before the fact it does not work very well. But Mark is talking about actual events in recent memory, not all of which appear in Daniel. This is an argument for Mark writing after the Revolt, not before it.

I replied here; Mark gives the abomination of desolation as a warning for Jesus' followers to flee Jerusalem. I think that's actually quite a strong reason to suppose it was written/spoken beforehand, 'cos it wouldn't make much sense for someone writing afterwards to put into Jesus' mouth the warning to flee Jerusalem when you see it's been captured and the temple razed to the ground!

It would make perfect sense for a prophecy allegedly spoken 40 years earlier to be phrased as a warning. It would make the prophecy ring true after the fact. And let us not forget that Josephus gives us numerous examples of fleeing to the mountains (Mark 13:14) to man fortresses e.g., Yodfat, Gamala, Masada.

Two of the three you mention fell to the Romans before Jerusalem did, and while there were others I rather suspect that they were being manned long before anyone saw this 'abomination of desolation' in the temple. Folk from Jerusalem had little chance to flee to the mountains, and one would think that most folk elsewhere in Judea inclined to do so would not wait for Jerusalem's fall to do it.

This is my point, of course; it does indeed make sense for a prophecy after the event to be phrased as a warning. What doesn't make sense is for it to be phrased as a useless warning. Writing sometime after 76CE, Luke changes the warning to "when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies you will know that its desolation is near." That makes sense as a prophecy after the event; the supposed recipients know that Jerusalem will fall and the revolt will fail before the temple's destruction makes it blindingly obvious that God isn't going to rescue the Jews. My trusty Wikipedia tells me that the siege of Jerusalem "had begun early in the war," though you'd know better than me exactly when that was. Point is that Christians living in Judea, if they'd had Luke's gospel handy in 66CE onwards, would probably be able to get out in good order; it's a sensible warning-after-the-event. Whereas with Mark's gospel the only distinct reference to Jerusalem is the abomination of desolation; if that's what they had in 66CE onwards, their 'warning' sign from Christ would manifest itself after Jerusalem had fallen, after hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) had died and after the revolt was crushed besides a few scattered strongholds.

That's not a warning, that's blatant common sense if you're observing it and idiocy if you're prophesying it - whether genuinely or ex eventu. The Jesus we find in Mark's gospel shows no solid hint that he knew what was going to happen in 66-70CE, in other words, but offers a vague and decent enough expansion on prophecy from the Tanakh - particularly Isaiah and Daniel - to seem the kind of thing we might expect from an apocalyptic preacher.

As I mentioned earlier, it is phrased as a warning because it is being put into the mouth of Jesus speaking forty years earlier. It is presented as a prophecy and tied into Daniel to make it sound like all of these disastrous events were inevitable and not the fault of the Jesus movement. That the details do not line up perfectly with Daniel but do align with reality is an argument for Mark writing post-Revolt.

If someone supposedly retrofitted the details of the prophecy, they did a remarkable job of writing it in Marks lousy Greek. And lets face it, it is really stretching to propose this.

I have yet to see any good arguments that Mark was actually written before the Jewish Revolt that do not first assume it was written before the Jewish Revolt.

I mostly argue that there's really no solid reason to suppose that it was written after the Revolt. The passage is vague and based largely on older prophecies. Even the explicitly-predicted destruction of the temple at the beginning of the chapter is found in Daniel 9:26 and would be dismissed by any sceptic worthy of the label as vague expectation and hyperbole if it was actually spoken by Jesus, and coincidence that it happened to occur four decades later.

It is not hyperbole to refer explicitly and in detail to unexpected events as I have described above. If we imagine Mark as being written immediately after the Revolt it all makes sense and serves a definite purpose. If we imagine it being written before the Revolt, the discrepancies with prophecy and reasonable expectations that just happen to jibe with subsequent reality make no sense and serve no purpose.

However as above, the sheer absurdity of the 'warning' if it was written after the revolt does indeed seem, to my mind, a good reason to suppose it was written earlier.

However as above, the warning is not a warning but a tie in to scriptures to make the outcome of the Revolt inevitable and not the fault of the Jesus movement. This argues for post-Revolt origin.

Also, as I've previously noted, because of Matthew's emphatic certainty that Christ's return was very, very near (10:23, 16:28) and the obvious interpretation of an end to sacrifice in the midst of Daniel's final seven (Dan. 9:27, cf Matt. 24:15), I believe that Matthew was almost certainly written between 70 and 73CE. That doesn't actually force a pre-70 date for Mark - Mark could be late-70 or early-71 and Matthew late-71 or 72 - but it's a point worth noting.

The destruction of the Temple (end to sacrifice) in 70 CE happens in the middle of a seven (start of revolt in 67 CE, fall of Masada in 73 CE). That argues for Matthew writing after 73 CE, else how would he know it was the middle of a seven? That is entirely compatible with Mark writing right after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

And you mentioned the Peter -> Mark tradition from Papias above, which I don't think can be dismissed out of hand. Again, it doesn't necessarily require a pre-70CE date, but it does imply it somewhat.

I see no reason to credit Papias. He wrote many years after the fact and claimed that Matthew wrote in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic. Sorry, dont buy it.

Of the three points frankly I think the first is the best argument that Mark's Jesus was not well-informed about the events of the Jewish Revolt, else like Luke he'd have given a better warning on when to flee

Reread my discussion above of after the fact prophecy and the purpose it served. Luke was writing for gentiles who would have been less interested in or knowledgeable about events in Jerusalem decades before and turned the abomination business into the siege itself. In addition he might also have been embarrassed by Marks rather clumsy inclusion of this prophecy. Let the reader understand indeed!


Going into 'hibernation' for awhile now - work, school, personal stuff. Be back sometime or other.

[Malachi-Zede-El]

If Yashu'a really Exist shouldn't the Scholar / Theologian , Be able to find his body it only been 2,000 years right . Meaning the Bone's / D.N.A. All needed right ?

[Goat]

If Yashu'a really Exist shouldn't the Scholar / Theologian , Be able to find his body it only been 2,000 years right . Meaning the Bone's / D.N.A. All needed right ?

Not necessarily. Can you find Jimmy Hoffa's bones ???

[Composer]

If Yashu'a really Exist shouldn't the Scholar / Theologian , Be able to find his body it only been 2,000 years right . Meaning the Bone's / D.N.A. All needed right ?

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (1 Cor. 15:50) KJV Story book

It doesn't say that the Story book jesus couldn't drag his bones along with him going to Story book heaven, so that could be (apart from the fact it never literally existed outside of bible Fairy land) why they can't find any jesus' bones here?

[d.thomas]

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

Actual evidence for Jesus is lacking but nothing is settled by any means. Unfortunately the evidence outside The Bible is too late, too little, of little consequence, and too suspect. Reading The Bible as if Jesus is historical is just that, reading as if.

[Mithrae]

Apocalyptic preachers, as you call Jesus, are probably noted less for their precision and restraint than for their hyperbole. Would you also say those were days of distress unequalled in all of history (v19)? As Jesus would have known, Daniel clearly states that "the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" (9:26), a prediction which obviously had not yet been fulfilled by Jesus' day. Contrary to your claim, I think we have rather solid reason to believe that Jesus would have expected, at some point, the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and may well have expanded on that theme.

On the contrary, unless these things had already happened and were familiar to the reader, three would have been no real purpose in referencing Daniel. We may note that Mark does not name Daniel as Matthew does. As usual Matthew wanted to be sure that Jesus got connected with the Jewish scriptures in every way possible and did so there by naming the reference. Why then would Jesus and/or Mark have any reason to call the listeners/readers attention to Daniel without identifying that book? But having it be a fulfilled prophecy that tied into actual already accomplished events helps Mark make his point, that the Jesus movement was not responsible for the Revolt.

If it were true that the general content of the prophecy (being largely based on older predictions) does not necessarily imply a post-70 date, would Mark calling the reader to understand this 'abomination of desolation' suggest that it must have been? I can see why that view might hold merit for folk who believe this 'abomination' was a Roman legion standard in the temple after its capture or the like - but your view is that the abomination refers to 39CE. So if Mark wrote in 68 or 69CE, when the Revolt was well underway, surely he'd still have that motivation to distance the Jesus movement from the Revolt and that historical 'abomination' to which he could call the readers' attention? As far as I can see on this point your view requires the Revolt for Mark's writing, but not necessarily the capture/destruction of Jerusalem.

Of course there's always the possibility that Mark, recording a story about Jesus more or less as he'd heard it from Peter, was simply offering a point of clarification for his readers as he does on other occasions (eg. his explanation of corban in 7:11). "Let the reader understand" is a pretty vague injunction. Are we sure he meant "let the reader understand that this abomination didn't actually occur (but almost did) back in Caligula's reign" and so the Revolt shouldn't be associated with the Jesus movement? Or did he mean "let the reader understand that the 'abomination' maybe kind of happened with a legion standard or something in the few days between Jerusalem's fall and the temple's complete destruction"? Or did he mean "let the reader understand that this is from Scripture, not just Jesus' own imagination" and so believers should be assured that it will indeed happen?

I haven't read that whole page I admit, but a quick search shows no results for 'brother,' 'father,' 'child' or 'parents' - and the only references to 'family' are the deposition of the Herodian-appointed line of priests by the Zealots. Were intra-familial betrayals really an unexpected but definite detail of the Revolt? It's worth noting of course that the actual passage is talking about Jesus' followers amongst "all nations" (v9-13). I'm pretty sure we'd have to struggle quite a bit to make that a match with the siege of Jerusalem, and I suspect we'd struggle almost as much to make the siege's factional rivalries fit the passage's intra-familial betrayals.

Neither is there any reference to family in Daniel. Why should Jesus and/or Mark make up such a detail if it would have no referent? What we do see in my link is betrayal and counter-betrayal of those who should have been united against the Romans. It could be figurative. On the other hand there may have been intra-familial issues as well that Josephus does not detail. We already know that Mark gives more detail about the Pharisee/Sadducee political situation than Josephus does. Having this written after the Revolt makes more sense than having it written before the Revolt.

Let us look at the passage you reference.

Mark 13:9-13
9 You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

We know from Pauls letters that the gospel was being preached widely, if not yet literally to all nations. But this may be another explanation of the family issue. This could be a reference to the persecutions in Rome under Nero immediately before the revolt and after Neros death.

The family references could be figurative, I agree, but the fact remains that it's clearly referring to Jesus' followers in general, not to the people in Jerusalem during the siege. You offered three points on which you suggest Mark makes specific reference to the Revolt, and while I don't think the other two are compelling, in this case it's very obvious that it's not referring to the Revolt. As for Nero's persecution, that or shortly afterwards is a plausible time of composition for the gospel (Irenaeus says after Peter's death) and makes sense of the 'Messianic secret' theme at least as much as a post-70 date does. The gospel makes no secret of the fact that Jesus is Messiah - and even has him acknowledge and crucified under the charge of 'king of the Jews' - but Jesus' followers are told that they themselves needn't shout that message from the rooftops. A very fitting message to those concerned about the prospect of persecution.

To the Romans, Christians (still an anachronistic term) would have been a messianic and therefore presumed revolutionary branch of Judaism. And is that not exactly what Mark is trying to argue against, the idea that the Jesus movement was revolutionary and responsible for the Revolt?

We may also note what Mark says next.
Mark 13:14 When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong"let the reader understand

Why should the reader be told to understand something here? Years before the Revolt, in 39 CE, Caligula ordered that a statue of himself as a deity be put in the Temple. This led to major protests that would probably have been put down violently except that Caligula died. But this was a contributing factor in radicalizing the Jewish population and paving the way for the Revolt. (Ref) If this is a future event to Mark, how is the reader to understand what it means? If it is a past event, why should Mark have to make the reader think about it to remember such a thing? Unless of course it was not a recent event and took a reminder to call it up. If Mark was referring to something else, what was it? What other abomination where it does not belong happened before the Revolt that Marks readers would get if prompted?

I think on this point your theory is not so strong. That 'abomination' didn't actually happen, and indeed I wonder how easily-recalled it would be for Mark's gentile audience some three decades later even with a reminder like "let the reader understand." In any case even if we adopt that interpretation, as noted above this needn't imply a post-70CE date, merely once the Revolt was underway.

Don't forget the pestilence earlier on: So after pestilence, factional rivalries, destruction of their own food supplies and preference for death over capture, mass deaths from starvation and of course cannibalism, things would have been a lot worse if the days had not been 'cut short' before the winter? Is that what you're saying? If not, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

That a shortage of fuel in wintertime resulting from a siege that isolated Jerusalem on top of the prolongation of the other miseries would have made the situation far worse than they even were already.

The concern expressed for pregnant and nursing women, or it happening in winter (v17-18) immediately follow the warning to flee as swiftly as possible (v14-16). Traveling is not easy for pregnant or nursing women, or (I assume) during a 1st century Palestinian winter. The only connection with Jerusalem in these or in the preceding verses is the 'abomination of desolation,' a warning useless for those in the city itself. I'm sorry, but if a Christian apologist put this forward as an argument of fulfilled prophecy (and we knew it had been written earlier), would you really think she had a valid point? If not, I don't see it being a valid example of anachronism either.

Not a fulfilled prophecy but a description of conditions that actually existed. Mark references Daniel to lend prophetic impact. By putting the words of warning in the mouth of Jesus he is helping to clear Jesus of blame. You are right in that as a warning before the fact it does not work very well. But Mark is talking about actual events in recent memory, not all of which appear in Daniel. This is an argument for Mark writing after the Revolt, not before it.

If we recognise that it doesn't actually work as a warning - and especially if we don't consider the 'abomination' to be an event of 70CE - then I'm really not seeing how you connect this specifically with events of recent memory in the Revolt:

• Mark 13:14 So when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house. 16 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 17 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 18 And pray that your flight may not be in winter. 19 For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. 20 And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elects sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days.

It's talking about folk in Judea running to the hills after seeing this warning sign; it's expressing the hope that the flight won't be made worse by happening in winter; and it's saying this will be a truly terrible time, which God will mercifully cut short.

Applied to the Revolt, the warning sign does not work since either it was 39CE and way too early to flee, or it was after Jerusalem's fall and way too late to be a useful warning. The fact that Jerusalem fell before the winter does not correlate with a hope that this flight from Judea won't occur during winter. And the fact that after infighting, mass starvation and cannibalism Jerusalem finally fell, most of the remaining folk were slaughtered, nigh on a hundred thousand went into slavery and the city was burned with walls and temple utterly destroyed doesn't particularly correlate with God mercifully shortening the period for the sake of the elect.

It's true that these details aren't all specifically found in the predictions of Daniel - though v19-20 come directly from Dan. 12:1, and during "a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of the nations until then" (as Daniel puts it) fleeing to the mountains and the like would simply seem common sense. Jesus/Mark draws on Isaiah 13 and 34 in this monologue also. I'm not saying that Mark or Peter or Jesus were simply parroting those older prophets word-for-word, without any interpretation or originality of their own, nor that a pre-70CE date would make it supernatural prophecy - quite the opposite. I'm saying that there's enough background material of this sort in the Tanakh to make Mark 13 perfectly plausible as the interpretations/warnings of Jesus or Peter or any other 1st century Jew worried that messianic claimants might one day provoke Rome's full wrath.

I mostly argue that there's really no solid reason to suppose that it was written after the Revolt. The passage is vague and based largely on older prophecies. Even the explicitly-predicted destruction of the temple at the beginning of the chapter is found in Daniel 9:26 and would be dismissed by any sceptic worthy of the label as vague expectation and hyperbole if it was actually spoken by Jesus, and coincidence that it happened to occur four decades later.

It is not hyperbole to refer explicitly and in detail to unexpected events as I have described above. If we imagine Mark as being written immediately after the Revolt it all makes sense and serves a definite purpose. If we imagine it being written before the Revolt, the discrepancies with prophecy and reasonable expectations that just happen to jibe with subsequent reality make no sense and serve no purpose.

You listed three 'unexpected details' connecting Mark 13 with the Revolt:
- The complete destruction of the temple
- Intra-familial betrayals
- Horrors of the siege and its end before winter

But the temple's destruction was predicted in Daniel 9:26. The intra-familial betrayals in Mark clearly refer to Jesus' followers in general; it's a big stretch applying it to Jews under siege in Jerusalem. The horrors the passage mentions come directly from Daniel 12:1. And "Pray that this will not take place in winter" refers to the flight from Judea, not to a siege of Jerusalem.

Certainly if we assume it was written afterwards, I can see how your interpretation of the latter two points might be imposed on the passage as references to Jerusalem's siege. But that's not a convincing argument that it was written after 70CE.

However as above, the sheer absurdity of the 'warning' if it was written after the revolt does indeed seem, to my mind, a good reason to suppose it was written earlier.

However as above, the warning is not a warning but a tie in to scriptures to make the outcome of the Revolt inevitable and not the fault of the Jesus movement. This argues for post-Revolt origin.

It doesn't argue for a post-Revolt origin without circularity - the date of the gospel must be assumed for that particular meaning to be evident. Your view that the abomination of desolation Mark calls his reader's attention to is the events of 39CE is not without merit, and does provide an alternative to an absurd after-the-fact 'warning' referring to the fall of Jerusalem; so it weakens that argument of mine. But just how much merit there is in interpreting the abomination of desolation as something which didn't actually occur is wide open to question.

Also, as I've previously noted, because of Matthew's emphatic certainty that Christ's return was very, very near (10:23, 16:28) and the obvious interpretation of an end to sacrifice in the midst of Daniel's final seven (Dan. 9:27, cf Matt. 24:15), I believe that Matthew was almost certainly written between 70 and 73CE. That doesn't actually force a pre-70 date for Mark - Mark could be late-70 or early-71 and Matthew late-71 or 72 - but it's a point worth noting.

The destruction of the Temple (end to sacrifice) in 70 CE happens in the middle of a seven (start of revolt in 67 CE, fall of Masada in 73 CE). That argues for Matthew writing after 73 CE, else how would he know it was the middle of a seven? That is entirely compatible with Mark writing right after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Well even my view of Matthew isn't strictly incompatible with Mark writing in 70 or 71CE, of course. To answer your question though Matthew would have known that the end to sacrifice and offering (the temple's destruction) was in the middle of a seven because Daniel said it was in the middle of a seven. But after 74CE or so he probably would have noticed that there hadn't been an end to transgression and sins, the beginning of everlasting righteousness, a sealing up of vision and prophecy and the anointing of the Most Holy (Daniel 9:24). Unlike Mark, Matthew specifically refers the reader to Daniel regarding the abomination; but after the second half of Daniel's final seven he would have noticed that the return of Christ predicted by Mark and the stuff predicted by Daniel still had not occurred. Thus we have every reason to suppose that after 74CE or so Matthew would be looking for alternative interpretations of scripture, Jesus' sayings and recent events (as we see Luke doing), instead of boldly declaring that "you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (10:23). His emphatic certainty that Jesus' return was very, very near makes sense only if he was writing 70-73CE.

And you mentioned the Peter -> Mark tradition from Papias above, which I don't think can be dismissed out of hand. Again, it doesn't necessarily require a pre-70CE date, but it does imply it somewhat.

I see no reason to credit Papias. He wrote many years after the fact and claimed that Matthew wrote in Hebrew or possibly Aramaic. Sorry, dont buy it.

Since he said Matthew wrote the sayings of Jesus, we have good reason to suppose that he wasn't talking about canonical Matthew - I speculate that these sayings of Jesus could have been Q. And attributing a gospel merely to Peter's interpreter rather than to Peter himself is not what we'd expect from unfounded tradition - indeed to offset this some later Christian writers claimed that Peter had explicitly endorsed Mark's work (whereas Irenaeus says it was written after Peter's death, which would make more sense to my mind). Point is that if there was a tradition attributing a gospel to comparatively minor figure like Mark, it probably wasn't just made up on the spot.

Of the three points frankly I think the first is the best argument that Mark's Jesus was not well-informed about the events of the Jewish Revolt, else like Luke he'd have given a better warning on when to flee

Reread my discussion above of after the fact prophecy and the purpose it served. Luke was writing for gentiles who would have been less interested in or knowledgeable about events in Jerusalem decades before and turned the abomination business into the siege itself. In addition he might also have been embarrassed by Marks rather clumsy inclusion of this prophecy. Let the reader understand indeed!

Luke was trying to avoid as much as possible any of the 'end is near' notions which might have been spawned by the Revolt and Mark's gospel (which we see emphasised so strongly in Matthew's work). So he removed the prophetic reference of the abomination, turned Jesus' words into a more practical warning for Jewish Christians during the Revolt (even having Jesus deliver his speech in the temple, rather than privately on the Mt. of Olives), and inserts an indefinite 'time of the gentiles' before Christ's final return (21:24).

Anyways, as I see it there are three possible ways of viewing Mark's warning to "flee to the mountains" when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not:
- Either it's interpretation and expansion on the predictions of Daniel (any date)
- Or it refers to 39CE with the aim of showing that the Jesus movement isn't associated with the Revolt (any time after 68CE or so)
- Or it refers to a legion standard or the like in the temple in 70CE, or indeed the temple's destruction itself (after mid-70CE)

You seem to agree that the latter, as a warning after the fact, is absurd simply because by that stage the Romans had largely crushed the revolt already; a warning after the fact would look more like Luke's gospel, even if it included the abomination as well. But the 39CE 'abomination' has the slight drawback that it didn't actually happen - and again it would be absurd to put in Jesus' mouth a warning to flee to the mountains all those decades before. In contrast with these two views, the passage makes perfect sense as interpretation and expansion on the prophecies of Daniel, Isaiah and so on given by someone concerned that Jewish messianic movements might one day provoke Rome's full wrath.

Ultimately it makes little difference whether it was written in 65 or 68 or 71 CE of course. But a 70-73 date for Matthew and the absurdity of the 'abomination' warning suggest, to my mind, that before 70CE is a little more likely. And while a date after the beginnings of the Revolt might make the so-called 'prophecy' element a little less spooky for those who think it's specific enough to matter, there's really no reason 65CE or so couldn't also be a possibility more in line with the implications of Papias' information.

[d.thomas]

I don't know if Jesus existed or not but the arguments for Jesus' existence are really bad, that isn't to say that some of the arguments for his non-existence aren't really bad as well, but let's face it, the story is about a man with special powers not unlike Superman, and simply removing the supernatural doesn't necessarily boil down to an historical figure.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Apocalyptic preachers, as you call Jesus, are probably noted less for their precision and restraint than for their hyperbole. Would you also say those were days of distress unequalled in all of history (v19)? As Jesus would have known, Daniel clearly states that "the people of the prince to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary" (9:26), a prediction which obviously had not yet been fulfilled by Jesus' day. Contrary to your claim, I think we have rather solid reason to believe that Jesus would have expected, at some point, the destruction of the city and the sanctuary and may well have expanded on that theme.

On the contrary, unless these things had already happened and were familiar to the reader, three would have been no real purpose in referencing Daniel. We may note that Mark does not name Daniel as Matthew does. As usual Matthew wanted to be sure that Jesus got connected with the Jewish scriptures in every way possible and did so there by naming the reference. Why then would Jesus and/or Mark have any reason to call the listeners/readers attention to Daniel without identifying that book? But having it be a fulfilled prophecy that tied into actual already accomplished events helps Mark make his point, that the Jesus movement was not responsible for the Revolt.

If it were true that the general content of the prophecy (being largely based on older predictions) does not necessarily imply a post-70 date, would Mark calling the reader to understand this 'abomination of desolation' suggest that it must have been? I can see why that view might hold merit for folk who believe this 'abomination' was a Roman legion standard in the temple after its capture or the like - but your view is that the abomination refers to 39CE. So if Mark wrote in 68 or 69CE, when the Revolt was well underway, surely he'd still have that motivation to distance the Jesus movement from the Revolt and that historical 'abomination' to which he could call the readers' attention? As far as I can see on this point your view requires the Revolt for Mark's writing, but not necessarily the capture/destruction of Jerusalem.

Of course there's always the possibility that Mark, recording a story about Jesus more or less as he'd heard it from Peter, was simply offering a point of clarification for his readers as he does on other occasions (eg. his explanation of corban in 7:11). "Let the reader understand" is a pretty vague injunction. Are we sure he meant "let the reader understand that this abomination didn't actually occur (but almost did) back in Caligula's reign" and so the Revolt shouldn't be associated with the Jesus movement? Or did he mean "let the reader understand that the 'abomination' maybe kind of happened with a legion standard or something in the few days between Jerusalem's fall and the temple's complete destruction"? Or did he mean "let the reader understand that this is from Scripture, not just Jesus' own imagination" and so believers should be assured that it will indeed happen?

It was not intended to specifically demonstrate a post 70 CE writing. What the let the reader understand does demonstrate is that the writing takes place sometime significantly after 39 CE. If it were before that date the reader could not possibly understand. If it were soon after that date, there would be no need to jog the readers memory. But most importantly it is an example of prophecy fulfilled. With that in mind, the impact of the description of the conditions in the Revolt and especially in Jerusalem would have far more impact if they were also prophecy fulfilled. If they were simply vague references to some future events, what purpose do they serve here? Why should they be the harbinger of the end times when the people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26). But if those events have already happened and that much of the prophecy is fulfilled, then the coming of the Son of Man cannot be far behind. This serves two purposes. It turns the disastrous Revolt that should have been the death knell of messianic movements into instead a revival of messianic beliefs. And by resetting the clock from Pauls concept of the messianic age opening with the Resurrection to its opening with the end of the War and the defeat of false messianic beliefs, it justifies the not taste death prophecy. If it does not serve those purposes, then what purpose does it serve?

BTW the legion standard idea does not work. The abomination needs to come first to serve as a sign of the bad times to come. Setting up the legion standard cam at the end of the siege of Jerusalem.

I haven't read that whole page I admit, but a quick search shows no results for 'brother,' 'father,' 'child' or 'parents' - and the only references to 'family' are the deposition of the Herodian-appointed line of priests by the Zealots. Were intra-familial betrayals really an unexpected but definite detail of the Revolt? It's worth noting of course that the actual passage is talking about Jesus' followers amongst "all nations" (v9-13). I'm pretty sure we'd have to struggle quite a bit to make that a match with the siege of Jerusalem, and I suspect we'd struggle almost as much to make the siege's factional rivalries fit the passage's intra-familial betrayals.

Neither is there any reference to family in Daniel. Why should Jesus and/or Mark make up such a detail if it would have no referent? What we do see in my link is betrayal and counter-betrayal of those who should have been united against the Romans. It could be figurative. On the other hand there may have been intra-familial issues as well that Josephus does not detail. We already know that Mark gives more detail about the Pharisee/Sadducee political situation than Josephus does. Having this written after the Revolt makes more sense than having it written before the Revolt.

Let us look at the passage you reference.

Mark 13:9-13
9 You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

We know from Pauls letters that the gospel was being preached widely, if not yet literally to all nations. But this may be another explanation of the family issue. This could be a reference to the persecutions in Rome under Nero immediately before the revolt and after Neros death.

The family references could be figurative, I agree, but the fact remains that it's clearly referring to Jesus' followers in general, not to the people in Jerusalem during the siege. You offered three points on which you suggest Mark makes specific reference to the Revolt, and while I don't think the other two are compelling, in this case it's very obvious that it's not referring to the Revolt. As for Nero's persecution, that or shortly afterwards is a plausible time of composition for the gospel (Irenaeus says after Peter's death) and makes sense of the 'Messianic secret' theme at least as much as a post-70 date does. The gospel makes no secret of the fact that Jesus is Messiah - and even has him acknowledge and crucified under the charge of 'king of the Jews' - but Jesus' followers are told that they themselves needn't shout that message from the rooftops. A very fitting message to those concerned about the prospect of persecution.

Irenaeus wrote over a hundred years after Mark and was faced with several issues: the appearance of various competing gospels and the various contradictions among the four time-honored ones. He needed to provide authority to those Gospels. Recall his vehement numerological arguments for the number 4. Having Mark " the real authors name is not in the Gospel " being the John Mark of Acts and then having Peter tell him the stories is another. I see no reason to give Irenaeus expert status in this regard.

The Messianic Secret theme makes no sense if it relates to the persecutions of Nero. In writing his Gospel, Mark actually IS shouting from the rooftops that Jesus was the Messiah. This is hardly a good way to avoid persecution when a messianic sect like the Zealots is causing such unrest. Mark has Jesus want to keep it a secret. By not having Jesus historically associated with the Messiah label, Mark is again disassociating the Jesus movement from the violence of the Zealot messianic movement.

The Messiah as envisioned by Mark is not the King of the Jews but the Son of Man, a supernatural figure who will return coming in the clouds and will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds. The King of the Jews charge seems to appear out of nowhere in the Passion stories. I have a theory about that and what Judas really did. But that is another thread entirely.

To the Romans, Christians (still an anachronistic term) would have been a messianic and therefore presumed revolutionary branch of Judaism. And is that not exactly what Mark is trying to argue against, the idea that the Jesus movement was revolutionary and responsible for the Revolt?

We may also note what Mark says next.
Mark 13:14 When you see the abomination that causes desolation standing where it does not belong"let the reader understand

Why should the reader be told to understand something here? Years before the Revolt, in 39 CE, Caligula ordered that a statue of himself as a deity be put in the Temple. This led to major protests that would probably have been put down violently except that Caligula died. But this was a contributing factor in radicalizing the Jewish population and paving the way for the Revolt. (Ref) If this is a future event to Mark, how is the reader to understand what it means? If it is a past event, why should Mark have to make the reader think about it to remember such a thing? Unless of course it was not a recent event and took a reminder to call it up. If Mark was referring to something else, what was it? What other abomination where it does not belong happened before the Revolt that Marks readers would get if prompted?

I think on this point your theory is not so strong. That 'abomination' didn't actually happen, and indeed I wonder how easily-recalled it would be for Mark's gentile audience some three decades later even with a reminder like "let the reader understand." In any case even if we adopt that interpretation, as noted above this needn't imply a post-70CE date, merely once the Revolt was underway.

Dealt with the abomination above. And if the Revolt was merely underway would Mark have made such explicit references to the literal destruction of Jerusalem?Why would he expect his audience to take his message seriously when it was so pessimistic about the outcome of this popular uprising? But make it immediately after the destruction and tie that destruction into the prophecies of Daniel and make that destruction the sign of the imminent coming of the Son of Man and now it is optimistic, something his audience would welcome in such dark times. Mark's message makes no sense unless the messianic fueled Revolt has been defeated.

Sorry that is all that I have time for, but I think the above also addresses much of the remainder of your post as well.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Did Jesus exist?

I've not seen so much as a sandal from the man myself.

Confirmatory data seems to rely strictly on religious promotional material and adherent testimony of just how great the notion is. What ancient, outside sources I'm aware of have to say of the man seems derived from the promoters themselves, or more typically speaks of the promoters more'n the man.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurcules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

Seems readily apparent to me that humans have been, and may continue to inspire great, fanciful tales full of wonder and awe and wisdom and all manner of rightly good things. 'Cept evidence.

When the tales are told in the perspective that there's some greater good to be had, who wouldn't keep reading to find out how it all ends? From Paul Bunyan to John Henry, there's enough examples of human antics writ large for me to conclude them bible folks did the same thing.

Placing a human, as is done with Jesus, into the god story, is a great way to tie the "up there" onto the "down here". It could be predicted that such would occur in religion, from the shaman to the priest. How else is a god that can't be shown to exist ever to be "real"?

On the whole Jesus deal, instead of sacrificing one's self on a cross, I'd be much more thankful to a god that used his powers to actually stop what would ostensibly be an "evil" act - cross hanging the very man that is the god you're sitting there doing all the cross hanging for - seems to me little different than killing a pretty chick just cause there's uglyn's. In the quite halls of the only college devoted to goofy, there will surely echo the irrationality of the story.

With that said, we can look to the Jews to see that religious belief doesn't have to be the rigid, unmoving monument it so often seems to be. The Jew, in most of my observations, accepts his belief and then interacts with a society that doesn't share his beliefs. Some others though'll think their own religious beliefs should be imposed on everyone else. We'd do a disservice to our Jewish friends if we didn't point this out. What is kinda weird about it, the Jews are seemingly devoted to the idea that the god they serve may not be the one others need to be serving. They're the direct opposite of folks who show up to preach while the old lady's skinny-making sammiches

(clarity edit in first exchange)