/lit/ - Literature

>>19294910
>Again you repeat the thing that I already debunked. There WAS a type of denarius circulating in the Judea region prior to 70 A.D. but you are literally too dumb to realize this. There was a new type issued after 70 A.D., yes, but there is more than one type of denarius, and this is SEPARATE from the tetradrachm interpretation, which you also seem to be incapable of understanding from what I can see in other parts of this post. Literally spend five minutes researching so you won’t embarrass yourself like this.
No. The denarius were not in wide circulation because Judea was not an imperial province until after the war. I don't know why you're screaming at me when you're confusing drachmae and denarii.
The denarius Mark refers to in the render unto Caesar pericope is anachronistic for Jesus' lifetime, but makes perfect sense post-70 AD when suddenly Jews and Christians in Palestine had to deal with newfangled Roman currency with the Emperor on them.
>>19294910
>They’re not verbatim the same, this is a meme peddled by people who have never looked at the synoptics in parallel. You should just reference my previous posts where this has already been explained to you, as much as you hate the answer.
A majority of Matthew is material from Mark. Luke it's more than 40%. Add in the double tradition (whether from Q or Luke copying Matthew) and the unique material from these "firsthand eyewitnesses" is something like 1/4 or 1/3rd of their gospels.
>Yet it was a mainstream Messianic interpretation in the period. You are just angry that people dare to read things on multiple levels. Brute literalism has never been the main method of interpretation until modern times. Jews understood it to be Messianic. Evidently this was true, given the life of Jesus Christ
Well, I can interpret a Coca-Cola advert as a prophecy of XYZ if I want. Doesn't mean the advert was a prophecy, just some people centuries later thought it was. There is still no mention of the Messiah in the servant songs of Isaiah. Sorry.