He told his followers the end would arrive before they died. When it didn't here’s what two thousand years of scholarship, and two thousand years of damage control, have done with that.
It seems like the apocalyptic leader and the deliverer of radical morality which we also have good attestation for in sayings Gospels are two different men. Can they be reconciled?
Re "The person he promises will witness the event is Caiaphas himself, the man in the room signing off on the execution." Actually, if Caiaphas had signed off on his execution (via stoning, which was in their power as the sentence for blasphemy), there would be no cross, probably no resurrection, and likely no Christianity. Why they went penitently to the Romans is pathetic, possibly because they didn't want his death on their hands.
It seems like the apocalyptic leader and the deliverer of radical morality which we also have good attestation for in sayings Gospels are two different men. Can they be reconciled?
Re "The person he promises will witness the event is Caiaphas himself, the man in the room signing off on the execution." Actually, if Caiaphas had signed off on his execution (via stoning, which was in their power as the sentence for blasphemy), there would be no cross, probably no resurrection, and likely no Christianity. Why they went penitently to the Romans is pathetic, possibly because they didn't want his death on their hands.