Hey man.
Hey.
What are you working on there?
The guys at the church asked me to copy up a new copy of the gospel, so…
Oh, right. whoa, that’s a lot of work man
it’s gonna take ages.
yeah Well good luck, man.
Thanks.
So... You're going to just copy it up word for word, then?
Uh, yeah.
Like, keeping everything the same,..?
As best I can, yeah. Everyone makes a few copying errors, but hopefully mine won’t be the kind that change the meaning of anything!
Right so you're not thinking of leaving anything out, or fixing up any parts...
Dude, it's the historically accurate account of Jesus’ life and ministry, written by an eyewitness, Why would anything need to be changed or left out,..
Well yeah, it’s great.…… but….You writing up another copy just seems like an opportunity to improve things a bit, that’s all. At least just dropping a few things out,…
Why leave things out?…
Well I think there are parts that are off-putting to a very large potential audience and if we want the thing to grow,…
What, the hard-core orthodox crew?<<< you’re never gonna
No man, screw those guys, you’re not thinking big enough.
How big should I be thinking?
Haven’t you ever imagined where this could go if it was more appealing to a ROMAN audience!
<Scoff!> I admire your ambition, man, but have you even read it? Rome is pretty much the enemy here.
Think what could happen if you did.
<<<, here are these Roman soldiers bashing Jesus and spitting on him,!
Well see, that’s exactly what I mean! you leave that out then. Don’t include that bit in the copy you make. It’ll be like it never happened.
Even if I did, What about that sadist Pilate?, he has Jesus flogged even though he can’t find a reason to!
Well leave that out, too,!
But it happened!
That doesn’t mean you have to mention it! Just coz something isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that you’re saying it DIDN’T happen.
Yeah, but hold on
And it works both ways, too, if you think about it- Did the gospel author mention anything about how Pilate tried really hard to get Jesus off the hook, and kept insisting again and again that he thought Jesus was innocent and oughtn’t be killed?
What? There’s nothing in the gospel about that….
That’s what I’m saying, he appears to have left that out, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen,. But you could include it.
What? You want to insert something new and simply claim that the original author decided to leave it out? That’s not how it works….
Sure it is, man you’re writing up a new copy, you can put in whatever you want! Focus the blame away from Rome and more on the Jewish chief priests and leaders, emphasise harder that they were pushing for Jesus to be killed. It wouldn’t be hard to make it look like Pilate was actually on Jesus's side.
Wouldn’t that be kinda changing the story? If Pilate was friendly why doesn’t the gospel author mention it?
It’s not really CHANGING the story, it’d just give a slightly different perspective, that Romans might like, that’s all.
And then later when you mention Paul, his being a Roman citizen will say a lot, too<<<< coz he’s a good character<<
Paul? He’s not involved in the gospel story.
Yeah it’d be good if you could include him though,
Wow hang on, you’re really talking about re-writing the gospel. We've already got a gospel, what’s in it is TRUE, why would we need another one decades later with different information to what we already know? If I’m going to keep things true, then I should trust the gospel and write it up word for word.
Yeah but we all know there are all sorts of conflicting versions floating around, you can claim to have gotten this new information from a good reliable source…
But the GOSPEL is THE reliable source. This is the truth of what happened. I’m not rewriting the truth.
Not rewriting, just give a slightly different interpretation of things, and you’ll end up with a more appealing story.
It’s already an appealing story.
Yeah I guess, but, I mean obviously, Jesus’ life story needs a stronger finish,…
A what?
A much stronger finish, - I’ve never understood why Jesus goes from being this tough guy, you know, doing battle with Satan in the wilderness, fighting demons, challenging the authorities, getting angry at people, ordering people around,…, and then when things start going wrong for him at the end, what does this charismatic and intimidating leader do?: he just shuts his mouth, folds, and becomes this passive, defeated, I mean almost kind of pathetic character,…
Yeah, <<<<
>>>I mean look at him here in the garden, the heroic leader is..…: deeply distressed. troubled. Overwhelmed with sorrow.. He falls to the ground and begs God to spare him! Wouldn’t it be better to have him showing a bit more… fortitude?… Make him a bit more confident, self-assured.
Whoa, what?! you’re not looking at it right, it’s saying that even the Son of God had to endure terrible hardship and suffering, he submitted to it fully, allowed it to happen, and it conveys what a terrible burden he was carrying on our behalf. Come on, doesn’t it just fill you with grovelling guilt?
he’s just so passive. From Gethsemane to his death he just says basically nothing, people are mocking him and bashing him, he doesn't even attempt a comeback, >>>
>>>He’s not meant to!<<<
>>>>and look at him cry out as he dies,… “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” They totally defeat him! Even God abandons him,, and he just folds, gets killed, is buried, and that’s about the last you see of him. You’re not just going to write up the same thing again in your copy are you?
But that’s what happened! He has to suffer and die for the theology to make sense,
Of course he has to die but you should frame it so that he’s facing it on his terms, calm and in control, not just passively letting them do whatever they want.
Well I’m sure that would make him a more appealing character in some ways, but I’m not going to rewrite history,...
But it’s just a couple of minor details, you can tweak, even starting right back in the garden,… when he prays he shouldn’t fall down overwhelmed with sorrow! He should kneel deliberately, to pray.. Go on, you could change that! That’s just word choice.
But would it be true?
Of course it would~! Come on man, nobody would even notice that on its own.
Well yeah, I guess that’s not too much of a change,
And have him pray just once, not up and down three times like a yo-yo. The whole time from then on, he ought to be talking more.
With who? His followers were gone
OK well bring them back.
Bring them back?!!
Yeah If you have some supporters near him, you could have him talking to them and downplaying how bad his situation is, like it’s easy for him instead of it breaking him. Who else is around, we want more dialogues that we can use to present him as still having a grip on things…
Well you can’t, there’s only his Jewish enemies, random passers-by, the other criminals and, the guards,
OK, the criminals. They mock him and he says nothing back to them, right?
yeah… he doesn’t say anything to anyone. That’s the point.
Well have one of the criminals show a bit of respect, so Jesus can come back with some encouraging words for him. …
But there’s <<<< no mention of that<<<
<<< And the guards, too-
You want him friendly with the guards?
Well no that wouldn’t work, i guess... Instead of just copping it from them passively you could have him pray out loud for their forgiveness, see?.. like he knows more than they do about what’s really going on, he’s in control, taking deliberate action…. This is great, he’s already a much better character!!:
Hang on hang on hang on, he’s talking too much, you’re really changing his character, man, like<<a different person or somethin<<<. You’d be contradicting the gospel.
And when he dies,… don’t have him despairing and defeated! He should call out, confidently, something like …. “Father, into your hands *I* commit my spirit!” like it’s HIS choice what he’s doing, totally in control. That’s a victory! <<<
But he didn’t say that! Look, He said Why have you forsaken me you can’t just go and contradict that!
It wouldn’t be a contradiction!
Of course it would!
Look he probably said both but the author here only included the defeated despairing one
<aghast> You’re adding facts, altering the story, changing his character, <<<.
No no no, <<<
Yes you are! You're basically suggesting that I write a separate gospel, and have it include contradictory information to what we've got!
It wouldn't contradict,, man. It’s practically the same, come on it’s just tiny details.
Did he call out victorious and in control after chit-chatting all the way or did he wail something despairing after keeping quiet the whole time? You can’t have both!
Those two things just complement each other, They’re in complete harmony.<<<<
The gospel author makes it clear that Jesus didn’t ever talk except to incriminate himself. Right? That’s the truth. The rest of the time he’s suffering in silence and then dying distraught and broken, <<<
Come on man It's just a different interpretation from a different viewpoint or something. Just say that you asked around and got a few alternative facts from other people who were there, and thought they ought to be included. You’d be expanding the history, not contradicting it…
Leaving things out is one thing, but adding all this stuff throughout the crucifixion man that's going too far.
Oh, if you’re happier leaving things out there's lots more to drop that would really enhance things…
Ok pray tell, since you know better than the gospel author, what else did he mistakenly include <<<
Well, Jesus should be in better control of his temper, generally, don’t you think?
What?
He keeps getting pissed off all the time, man.. haven’t you noticed?, look here, he’s gonna heal this guy with a shrivelled hand, great! but first he’s gotta look around at everyone in anger.
Well of course he does. They’re trying to get him killed for doing work on the Sabbath.
The anger is an unnecessary detail. And look over here, later, here he is angry at his disciples,
He’s angry coz they’re turning away all these people who wanna bring their kids up to him!
But again, Why mention anger? It's not a good look. And, over here Jesus lashes out angrily at Peter and calls him “Satan”!
So? He gets angry sometimes. So what!
Well he shouldn’t! It's very unedifying! He even gets angry at vegetation.
Who doesn’t every now and then?!
He needs to chill out! What have you got there when he’s healing the guy with leprosy? More anger?
Ummmm let’s see…. a guy comes up begging to be healed, Jesus feels compassion and heals him. There: compassion.
Yeah,… interesting. Someone’s already changed that.
Changed what?!
In some earlier manuscript copies of that story Jesus gets angry at him and then heals him.
Why would he get angry ?
That’s exactly my point. He’s got issues man. That's probably why the version you've got there has been changed already.
Well no hang on which ones came first, the ones where he’s angry or the ones where he’s compassionate? What’s the original?
Who knows, man. Scholars will no doubt still be thinking about that little chestnut thousands of years from now.
Well shit. What am I gonna write, anger or compassion?
Well just don’t mention either. That’ll solve that problem. And in all of those other cases too, just leave out any mention of him being angry.
Each time?
Yeah. Leave it out.
So, systematically leave out references to him being angry?
Yeah, it’ll improve his character if you do.
JESUS’ character doesn’t need to be improved!
And leave out that he called Peter “Satan”, that’s very unfriendly. And please leave out the story of him getting pissed off at a tree.
<pause> I was gonna just write up these stories word for word there,
You still can, most of em, just skip out any mention of him getting angry.
Ah, wait, what about when he goes through the temple in Jerusalem turning tables over and causing chaos… He’s pretty angry there, and I can’t leave that out or the story won’t make sense.
True,,, You could downplay it, though. Leave out the violent imagery with tables being overturned and just say that he “drove the merchants out”, as short as you possibly can, leave it at that.
People are going to notice this, man. It’ll be a bit obvious if there’s a consistent series of changes along a similar theme.…
I think you’re overestimating how critically people are going to read these documents…
Yeah maybe, but stop, stop… even if I was to change all this stuff, make Rome look better, blame the jews more, make Jesus approach his death in a completely different way, and systematically leave out mentions of him being angry,… do you really think that’s going to draw more people to the movement?
Just that, no way!! We’re just getting started, man. If this Jesus movement is going to take off in Rome, it’s got to be less Jewish.
Less jewish.
Yeah.
So you’re racist and antisemitic.
Dude, it’s a jewish guy, teaching jewish people from the Jewish tradition in Judea and Samaria and Galilee…
Yeah I get that man, but your version has got to pitch it beyond that out into the gentile world!
How!?
Well we’ve already seen how! think about how much better Paul did than the disciples. He separated it from Judaism as far as he could, he even boasted about the disagreements he had with the disciples over how Jewish they kept things, and the gentiles lapped his version up! Paint it as though his version of Christianity was the logical next step after Jesus.
But it wasn’t, the next step was Jesus’ brother James becoming leader of the movement… <<<< and taking it into.….
God, don’t even mention James, focus everything away from those guys and onto Paul
But that's changing history…
No, it's just deliberately writing certain people out of history…,,no, I mean<<<
yeah but Paul himself wrote about James leading the church. I’d have to mention it somewhere.
Look, the point is just don’t mention Jesus’ brother any more than you absolutely have to, if you can disconnect the narrative from James and the church he led, and present everything as flowing towards Paul's gentile-cantered version of Christianity that’ll do a lot to make the whole thing less jewish.
But again, even if I did manage to pull that off, you can’t escape the fact that it’s Jewish from beginning to end. Rome will never go for it, your whole plan is bullshit.
No no, what you do is re-arrange the whole thing as a grand narrative of Jesus and his movement coming OUT of Judaism, like physically, geographically out from the jewish wilderness up there in Galilee that the Romans are instinctively suspicious about, move it quickly into the city that they’re familiar with coz they actually rule it, and then directly out into the Gentile world from there via Paul the Roman. Shift the order of things around if you have to, change the location of events, whatever. Just get Jesus on a one-way journey out of Galilee<<<
But after the resurrection the disciples all go straight back to Galilee to meet Jesus, so the resurrected Jesus story really DOES begin out there.
Shit. Do they? Where does it say that.
umm….the young man in the tomb says.. “[Jesus] is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him,…”
Oh, no no no, ok, the sightings of Jesus have got to be in Jerusalem,
Ummmm…. they weren’t, though so.!…
<angry noises> Come on man the gospel cuts out before any post-resurrection meeting ever happens anyway. You can change that to whatever you want!! Keep them in Jerusalem
But everyone knows the Jesus movement came up out of Galilee! Haven’t you heard the stories floating around of Jesus appearing to them on a misty mountain up there? or the one about him appearing on the Sea of Galilee itself,
Screw all those stories man, they might never get written down anywhere, especially if you can get in first, just… leave things in Jerusalem. Don’t even mention Galilee any more. No, make it so the message from Jesus himself is that everything is to start in Jerusalem, immediately, that very day, not a few days or weeks later, don't even give those disciples a chance to leave the city. Directly from Jerusalem out into the world and on a fast-track straight to Rome via Paul.. No looking back.
It's a winner.
I dunno man, you’re talking about major changes.
If you take this opportunity, we're in with a fighting chance for this to one day take off. Imagine, this could one day be accepted in Rome. You HAVE to do this.
But don’t your ideas contradict what’s here already?
Nup. They’ll both be completely accurate and correct at the same time.
It could really take off man.
Alright I’ll do it.
YES! One more thing then, Give him a virgin birth, with like angel visitations and magical stars and shit like that
Oh what the
Hey.
What are you working on there?
The guys at the church asked me to copy up a new copy of the gospel, so…
Oh, right. whoa, that’s a lot of work man
it’s gonna take ages.
yeah Well good luck, man.
Thanks.
So... You're going to just copy it up word for word, then?
Uh, yeah.
Like, keeping everything the same,..?
As best I can, yeah. Everyone makes a few copying errors, but hopefully mine won’t be the kind that change the meaning of anything!
Right so you're not thinking of leaving anything out, or fixing up any parts...
Dude, it's the historically accurate account of Jesus’ life and ministry, written by an eyewitness, Why would anything need to be changed or left out,..
Well yeah, it’s great.…… but….You writing up another copy just seems like an opportunity to improve things a bit, that’s all. At least just dropping a few things out,…
Why leave things out?…
Well I think there are parts that are off-putting to a very large potential audience and if we want the thing to grow,…
What, the hard-core orthodox crew?<<< you’re never gonna
No man, screw those guys, you’re not thinking big enough.
How big should I be thinking?
Haven’t you ever imagined where this could go if it was more appealing to a ROMAN audience!
<Scoff!> I admire your ambition, man, but have you even read it? Rome is pretty much the enemy here.
Think what could happen if you did.
<<<, here are these Roman soldiers bashing Jesus and spitting on him,!
Well see, that’s exactly what I mean! you leave that out then. Don’t include that bit in the copy you make. It’ll be like it never happened.
Even if I did, What about that sadist Pilate?, he has Jesus flogged even though he can’t find a reason to!
Well leave that out, too,!
But it happened!
That doesn’t mean you have to mention it! Just coz something isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean that you’re saying it DIDN’T happen.
Yeah, but hold on
And it works both ways, too, if you think about it- Did the gospel author mention anything about how Pilate tried really hard to get Jesus off the hook, and kept insisting again and again that he thought Jesus was innocent and oughtn’t be killed?
What? There’s nothing in the gospel about that….
That’s what I’m saying, he appears to have left that out, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen,. But you could include it.
What? You want to insert something new and simply claim that the original author decided to leave it out? That’s not how it works….
Sure it is, man you’re writing up a new copy, you can put in whatever you want! Focus the blame away from Rome and more on the Jewish chief priests and leaders, emphasise harder that they were pushing for Jesus to be killed. It wouldn’t be hard to make it look like Pilate was actually on Jesus's side.
Wouldn’t that be kinda changing the story? If Pilate was friendly why doesn’t the gospel author mention it?
It’s not really CHANGING the story, it’d just give a slightly different perspective, that Romans might like, that’s all.
And then later when you mention Paul, his being a Roman citizen will say a lot, too<<<< coz he’s a good character<<
Paul? He’s not involved in the gospel story.
Yeah it’d be good if you could include him though,
Wow hang on, you’re really talking about re-writing the gospel. We've already got a gospel, what’s in it is TRUE, why would we need another one decades later with different information to what we already know? If I’m going to keep things true, then I should trust the gospel and write it up word for word.
Yeah but we all know there are all sorts of conflicting versions floating around, you can claim to have gotten this new information from a good reliable source…
But the GOSPEL is THE reliable source. This is the truth of what happened. I’m not rewriting the truth.
Not rewriting, just give a slightly different interpretation of things, and you’ll end up with a more appealing story.
It’s already an appealing story.
Yeah I guess, but, I mean obviously, Jesus’ life story needs a stronger finish,…
A what?
A much stronger finish, - I’ve never understood why Jesus goes from being this tough guy, you know, doing battle with Satan in the wilderness, fighting demons, challenging the authorities, getting angry at people, ordering people around,…, and then when things start going wrong for him at the end, what does this charismatic and intimidating leader do?: he just shuts his mouth, folds, and becomes this passive, defeated, I mean almost kind of pathetic character,…
Yeah, <<<<
>>>I mean look at him here in the garden, the heroic leader is..…: deeply distressed. troubled. Overwhelmed with sorrow.. He falls to the ground and begs God to spare him! Wouldn’t it be better to have him showing a bit more… fortitude?… Make him a bit more confident, self-assured.
Whoa, what?! you’re not looking at it right, it’s saying that even the Son of God had to endure terrible hardship and suffering, he submitted to it fully, allowed it to happen, and it conveys what a terrible burden he was carrying on our behalf. Come on, doesn’t it just fill you with grovelling guilt?
he’s just so passive. From Gethsemane to his death he just says basically nothing, people are mocking him and bashing him, he doesn't even attempt a comeback, >>>
>>>He’s not meant to!<<<
>>>>and look at him cry out as he dies,… “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?” They totally defeat him! Even God abandons him,, and he just folds, gets killed, is buried, and that’s about the last you see of him. You’re not just going to write up the same thing again in your copy are you?
But that’s what happened! He has to suffer and die for the theology to make sense,
Of course he has to die but you should frame it so that he’s facing it on his terms, calm and in control, not just passively letting them do whatever they want.
Well I’m sure that would make him a more appealing character in some ways, but I’m not going to rewrite history,...
But it’s just a couple of minor details, you can tweak, even starting right back in the garden,… when he prays he shouldn’t fall down overwhelmed with sorrow! He should kneel deliberately, to pray.. Go on, you could change that! That’s just word choice.
But would it be true?
Of course it would~! Come on man, nobody would even notice that on its own.
Well yeah, I guess that’s not too much of a change,
And have him pray just once, not up and down three times like a yo-yo. The whole time from then on, he ought to be talking more.
With who? His followers were gone
OK well bring them back.
Bring them back?!!
Yeah If you have some supporters near him, you could have him talking to them and downplaying how bad his situation is, like it’s easy for him instead of it breaking him. Who else is around, we want more dialogues that we can use to present him as still having a grip on things…
Well you can’t, there’s only his Jewish enemies, random passers-by, the other criminals and, the guards,
OK, the criminals. They mock him and he says nothing back to them, right?
yeah… he doesn’t say anything to anyone. That’s the point.
Well have one of the criminals show a bit of respect, so Jesus can come back with some encouraging words for him. …
But there’s <<<< no mention of that<<<
<<< And the guards, too-
You want him friendly with the guards?
Well no that wouldn’t work, i guess... Instead of just copping it from them passively you could have him pray out loud for their forgiveness, see?.. like he knows more than they do about what’s really going on, he’s in control, taking deliberate action…. This is great, he’s already a much better character!!:
Hang on hang on hang on, he’s talking too much, you’re really changing his character, man, like<<a different person or somethin<<<. You’d be contradicting the gospel.
And when he dies,… don’t have him despairing and defeated! He should call out, confidently, something like …. “Father, into your hands *I* commit my spirit!” like it’s HIS choice what he’s doing, totally in control. That’s a victory! <<<
But he didn’t say that! Look, He said Why have you forsaken me you can’t just go and contradict that!
It wouldn’t be a contradiction!
Of course it would!
Look he probably said both but the author here only included the defeated despairing one
<aghast> You’re adding facts, altering the story, changing his character, <<<.
No no no, <<<
Yes you are! You're basically suggesting that I write a separate gospel, and have it include contradictory information to what we've got!
It wouldn't contradict,, man. It’s practically the same, come on it’s just tiny details.
Did he call out victorious and in control after chit-chatting all the way or did he wail something despairing after keeping quiet the whole time? You can’t have both!
Those two things just complement each other, They’re in complete harmony.<<<<
The gospel author makes it clear that Jesus didn’t ever talk except to incriminate himself. Right? That’s the truth. The rest of the time he’s suffering in silence and then dying distraught and broken, <<<
Come on man It's just a different interpretation from a different viewpoint or something. Just say that you asked around and got a few alternative facts from other people who were there, and thought they ought to be included. You’d be expanding the history, not contradicting it…
Leaving things out is one thing, but adding all this stuff throughout the crucifixion man that's going too far.
Oh, if you’re happier leaving things out there's lots more to drop that would really enhance things…
Ok pray tell, since you know better than the gospel author, what else did he mistakenly include <<<
Well, Jesus should be in better control of his temper, generally, don’t you think?
What?
He keeps getting pissed off all the time, man.. haven’t you noticed?, look here, he’s gonna heal this guy with a shrivelled hand, great! but first he’s gotta look around at everyone in anger.
Well of course he does. They’re trying to get him killed for doing work on the Sabbath.
The anger is an unnecessary detail. And look over here, later, here he is angry at his disciples,
He’s angry coz they’re turning away all these people who wanna bring their kids up to him!
But again, Why mention anger? It's not a good look. And, over here Jesus lashes out angrily at Peter and calls him “Satan”!
So? He gets angry sometimes. So what!
Well he shouldn’t! It's very unedifying! He even gets angry at vegetation.
Who doesn’t every now and then?!
He needs to chill out! What have you got there when he’s healing the guy with leprosy? More anger?
Ummmm let’s see…. a guy comes up begging to be healed, Jesus feels compassion and heals him. There: compassion.
Yeah,… interesting. Someone’s already changed that.
Changed what?!
In some earlier manuscript copies of that story Jesus gets angry at him and then heals him.
Why would he get angry ?
That’s exactly my point. He’s got issues man. That's probably why the version you've got there has been changed already.
Well no hang on which ones came first, the ones where he’s angry or the ones where he’s compassionate? What’s the original?
Who knows, man. Scholars will no doubt still be thinking about that little chestnut thousands of years from now.
Well shit. What am I gonna write, anger or compassion?
Well just don’t mention either. That’ll solve that problem. And in all of those other cases too, just leave out any mention of him being angry.
Each time?
Yeah. Leave it out.
So, systematically leave out references to him being angry?
Yeah, it’ll improve his character if you do.
JESUS’ character doesn’t need to be improved!
And leave out that he called Peter “Satan”, that’s very unfriendly. And please leave out the story of him getting pissed off at a tree.
<pause> I was gonna just write up these stories word for word there,
You still can, most of em, just skip out any mention of him getting angry.
Ah, wait, what about when he goes through the temple in Jerusalem turning tables over and causing chaos… He’s pretty angry there, and I can’t leave that out or the story won’t make sense.
True,,, You could downplay it, though. Leave out the violent imagery with tables being overturned and just say that he “drove the merchants out”, as short as you possibly can, leave it at that.
People are going to notice this, man. It’ll be a bit obvious if there’s a consistent series of changes along a similar theme.…
I think you’re overestimating how critically people are going to read these documents…
Yeah maybe, but stop, stop… even if I was to change all this stuff, make Rome look better, blame the jews more, make Jesus approach his death in a completely different way, and systematically leave out mentions of him being angry,… do you really think that’s going to draw more people to the movement?
Just that, no way!! We’re just getting started, man. If this Jesus movement is going to take off in Rome, it’s got to be less Jewish.
Less jewish.
Yeah.
So you’re racist and antisemitic.
Dude, it’s a jewish guy, teaching jewish people from the Jewish tradition in Judea and Samaria and Galilee…
Yeah I get that man, but your version has got to pitch it beyond that out into the gentile world!
How!?
Well we’ve already seen how! think about how much better Paul did than the disciples. He separated it from Judaism as far as he could, he even boasted about the disagreements he had with the disciples over how Jewish they kept things, and the gentiles lapped his version up! Paint it as though his version of Christianity was the logical next step after Jesus.
But it wasn’t, the next step was Jesus’ brother James becoming leader of the movement… <<<< and taking it into.….
God, don’t even mention James, focus everything away from those guys and onto Paul
But that's changing history…
No, it's just deliberately writing certain people out of history…,,no, I mean<<<
yeah but Paul himself wrote about James leading the church. I’d have to mention it somewhere.
Look, the point is just don’t mention Jesus’ brother any more than you absolutely have to, if you can disconnect the narrative from James and the church he led, and present everything as flowing towards Paul's gentile-cantered version of Christianity that’ll do a lot to make the whole thing less jewish.
But again, even if I did manage to pull that off, you can’t escape the fact that it’s Jewish from beginning to end. Rome will never go for it, your whole plan is bullshit.
No no, what you do is re-arrange the whole thing as a grand narrative of Jesus and his movement coming OUT of Judaism, like physically, geographically out from the jewish wilderness up there in Galilee that the Romans are instinctively suspicious about, move it quickly into the city that they’re familiar with coz they actually rule it, and then directly out into the Gentile world from there via Paul the Roman. Shift the order of things around if you have to, change the location of events, whatever. Just get Jesus on a one-way journey out of Galilee<<<
But after the resurrection the disciples all go straight back to Galilee to meet Jesus, so the resurrected Jesus story really DOES begin out there.
Shit. Do they? Where does it say that.
umm….the young man in the tomb says.. “[Jesus] is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him,…”
Oh, no no no, ok, the sightings of Jesus have got to be in Jerusalem,
Ummmm…. they weren’t, though so.!…
<angry noises> Come on man the gospel cuts out before any post-resurrection meeting ever happens anyway. You can change that to whatever you want!! Keep them in Jerusalem
But everyone knows the Jesus movement came up out of Galilee! Haven’t you heard the stories floating around of Jesus appearing to them on a misty mountain up there? or the one about him appearing on the Sea of Galilee itself,
Screw all those stories man, they might never get written down anywhere, especially if you can get in first, just… leave things in Jerusalem. Don’t even mention Galilee any more. No, make it so the message from Jesus himself is that everything is to start in Jerusalem, immediately, that very day, not a few days or weeks later, don't even give those disciples a chance to leave the city. Directly from Jerusalem out into the world and on a fast-track straight to Rome via Paul.. No looking back.
It's a winner.
I dunno man, you’re talking about major changes.
If you take this opportunity, we're in with a fighting chance for this to one day take off. Imagine, this could one day be accepted in Rome. You HAVE to do this.
But don’t your ideas contradict what’s here already?
Nup. They’ll both be completely accurate and correct at the same time.
It could really take off man.
Alright I’ll do it.
YES! One more thing then, Give him a virgin birth, with like angel visitations and magical stars and shit like that
Oh what the