You may delete this, since it doesn't adhere to your requirement to quote the Bible.
Taking the Testimonium Flavianum as an example, I may be overly ascribing today's preaching methods to those that existed back then, but, IMHO, preachers preach to the congregation, telling them mostly what they want to hear and maybe proposing they move in a slightly different (but acceptable) direction. If that were to be the case, back then, the success of Christianity as a sect and eventually a religion would requite that the preacher not require strict adherence to the "gospel" in the descriptive sense, but adherence to a version of it that resonated with his or her congregation. Thus the message would develop over time, existing in the form needed by the congregation at that moment.
So naturally Josephus would be modified, as would all of the original tenants, as time goes on. If society in 140 AD required women to be subservient to men, even though that was never a part of the original doctrine, then it would be incorporated into the doctrine, at that time, and a new letter by Paul would be "found".
I am more interested in how this, or any other religion I would study, reflects the contemporary societies. I would think this is possible, but certainly not really easy.
This means more to me about understanding Christianity than most any other aspect.
Your dilemma assumes the job belonged to one man: either he convinced people or he died on schedule. The texts you cite hint at a third reading. Acts itself lists Theudas and Judas the Galilean (5:36-37) among men who drew followers and failed, and in Luke 24:21 Jesus's own followers speak of their hope in the past tense. The expectation seems to have been larger than any one candidate.
Paul is the strongest case. He insists his gospel came by revelation, not from anyone who knew Jesus (Gal 1:11-12), and the movement that conquered the empire was built on THAT VISION rather than on the disciples' memory.
One way to read all this is that the messiah was an IMAGE the culture was already holding, a pattern waiting for a life to fit it, with many men trying on the robe before the story settled on one historic figure. Jung argued something close to this in Aion, treating Christ as the Western psyche's great symbol of the Self, an archetype that exists as a psychic reality whatever one decides about the actual history. On that view "did he convince them?" and "did he finish the mission?" are questions about the man, while the IMAGE did its work regardless. I'm not claiming the text says this outright, only that it fits the evidence you've gathered uncomfortably well.
Been following your writings for a long time - One thing you did not mention that I thought you would......... There was an long line of would-be prophets that failed and Jesus was in that line-up himself - And he failed much like the others - If you were desperate to save the movement, what would be a better way than to have him rise from the dead with just a few witnesses, that didn't recognize him
Re "Either Jesus failed at that job, or he didn’t care whether anyone was convinced."
Why does no one ask why Jesus even wanted to be a messiah, an "anointed one of god" especially after Christians decided he was god. It makes no sense to claim now that Jesus was anointed by god, but he was/is god. It isn't much of a feat to anoint oneself.
And Christians, who developed a great track record for being anti-Jewish, saying it is important that Jesus had this Jewish office is equally mind bending.
You may delete this, since it doesn't adhere to your requirement to quote the Bible.
Taking the Testimonium Flavianum as an example, I may be overly ascribing today's preaching methods to those that existed back then, but, IMHO, preachers preach to the congregation, telling them mostly what they want to hear and maybe proposing they move in a slightly different (but acceptable) direction. If that were to be the case, back then, the success of Christianity as a sect and eventually a religion would requite that the preacher not require strict adherence to the "gospel" in the descriptive sense, but adherence to a version of it that resonated with his or her congregation. Thus the message would develop over time, existing in the form needed by the congregation at that moment.
So naturally Josephus would be modified, as would all of the original tenants, as time goes on. If society in 140 AD required women to be subservient to men, even though that was never a part of the original doctrine, then it would be incorporated into the doctrine, at that time, and a new letter by Paul would be "found".
I am more interested in how this, or any other religion I would study, reflects the contemporary societies. I would think this is possible, but certainly not really easy.
This means more to me about understanding Christianity than most any other aspect.
Your dilemma assumes the job belonged to one man: either he convinced people or he died on schedule. The texts you cite hint at a third reading. Acts itself lists Theudas and Judas the Galilean (5:36-37) among men who drew followers and failed, and in Luke 24:21 Jesus's own followers speak of their hope in the past tense. The expectation seems to have been larger than any one candidate.
Paul is the strongest case. He insists his gospel came by revelation, not from anyone who knew Jesus (Gal 1:11-12), and the movement that conquered the empire was built on THAT VISION rather than on the disciples' memory.
One way to read all this is that the messiah was an IMAGE the culture was already holding, a pattern waiting for a life to fit it, with many men trying on the robe before the story settled on one historic figure. Jung argued something close to this in Aion, treating Christ as the Western psyche's great symbol of the Self, an archetype that exists as a psychic reality whatever one decides about the actual history. On that view "did he convince them?" and "did he finish the mission?" are questions about the man, while the IMAGE did its work regardless. I'm not claiming the text says this outright, only that it fits the evidence you've gathered uncomfortably well.
Been following your writings for a long time - One thing you did not mention that I thought you would......... There was an long line of would-be prophets that failed and Jesus was in that line-up himself - And he failed much like the others - If you were desperate to save the movement, what would be a better way than to have him rise from the dead with just a few witnesses, that didn't recognize him
Re "Either Jesus failed at that job, or he didn’t care whether anyone was convinced."
Why does no one ask why Jesus even wanted to be a messiah, an "anointed one of god" especially after Christians decided he was god. It makes no sense to claim now that Jesus was anointed by god, but he was/is god. It isn't much of a feat to anoint oneself.
And Christians, who developed a great track record for being anti-Jewish, saying it is important that Jesus had this Jewish office is equally mind bending.