aa5874

The time when the Jesus story was composed is extremely important.

We have FOUR sources of antiquity that rule out any knowledge of the Jesus story, a Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth, and the Jesus cult in the 1st century.

Philo the Jew of Alexandria, Josephus the Jew who lived in Galilee, Tacitus and Suetonius both Roman writers are witnesses of the 1st century.
Philo wrote up to around c 50 CE and mentioned sects called Essenes and the Therapeutae but NEVER mentioned Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus the Messiah, Jesus the Son of God, Jesus the Savior or that anyone or cult in or outside Alexandria worshiped a Jew called Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified for the Remission of Sins for All mankind.
Josephus, Tacitus, and Suetonius writing between c 75-115 CE acknowledged that a Jewish Messianic ruler was expected at around c 70 CE in Judea based on Hebrew Scripture but that the Jewish Messiah NEVER came.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all declared that the Jews were deceived or mis-led—there would be NO Jewish Messiah but a Roman Messianic ruler called Vespasian Emperor of Rome c 69 CE.

Effectively, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius have CLEARED the 1st century of any Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth and any activities of a cult under his name.

The first documented Non-Apologetic sources to mention the story of Jesus or that Christians worshiped a crucified man are sometime in the mid 2nd century or later—Lucian of Samosata in “Death Peregrine and Celsus in ”True Discourse” based on Origen.

These facts indicate that the earliest stories of Jesus the Messianic ruler, Son of God, Savior by Sacrifice were initiated between early 2nd century and mid-2nd century.

Now, the short gMark is classified as a Synoptic type Gospel and there is an Apologetic source, Justin Martyr, that used a Synoptic type Gospel called the Memoirs of the Apostles BEFORE any mention of the Pauline and Non-Pauline letters were made.

There is also an Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, which claimed the Pauline Epistles were composed After Revelation by John.

The Muratorian Canon is corroborated by the writings of Justin Martyr who acknowledged Revelation by John but Never mention the Pauline Epistles.

So, these are the facts:

1. The Synoptics are considered the earliest stories of Jesus.
2. The short gMark is considered the earliest Synoptic type story.
3. Justin, An Apologetic mentioned a Synoptic type story and never mentioned the Pauline letters
4. The Muratorian Canon claimed the Epistles were composed After Revelation by John.
5. Aristides an Apologetic did NOT acknowledge Paul as one who preached the story of Jesus to the Gentiles.
6. The Pauline writer did NOT START the EARLIEST story of Jesus.
7. The Pauline writer did NOT START the earliest Churches that preached the Jesus story.
8. The EARLIEST stories of Jesus PREDATE the Pauline writer.
9. The Pauline writer was a Persecutor of those who preached the EARLIEST Jesus story.
10. The Pauline writer acknowledged that there were OVER 500 person who were AWARE of a resurrection story of Jesus before him.
The evidence is overwhelming.

The earliest story of Jesus PREDATE the Pauline writings.
The short gMark, the Earliest Canonised Jesus story, Predate ALL the writings of the Canon, including the Pauline writings.

The short gMark author did NOT know OVER 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus.
The short gMark author did NOT know the disciples were commissioned after the Resurrection.
The short gMark author did NOT know that without the resurrection there would be NO remission of Sins.

The NT Canon is merely a compilation of Falsely attributed authors to give the impression that it was compiled in the 1st century and before the so-called Heretics when in fact the Jesus story was not known up to the start of the 2nd century.

Chili

Well, if you believe in miracles maybe God wanted it this way, as in showing that he is alive, you know? Or does he only speak to proto Mark, and wanted to make clear that this Jesus never really was the Son of God but only a wannebe like the rest of them there, and back to Galilee they go, all of them too!.

That really was the problem, was it not? And is that not make very clear with all the various Christianities going in all directions like it is again today? . . . with sanitariums replacing churches these days?

angelo

I have been saying for years that the silence of Philo of Alexandria about a Jesus of Nazareth in any of his extensive writing of that timeframe rules out a historical Jesus.

The lame duck excuse of "why should he write about a little know figure" doesn't hold any water seeing this "little known" figure became god himself not long afterwards.

aa5874

The lame duck excuse that Jesus was little known is wholly erroneous. Those who make the excuse conveniently forget about the supposed Pauline Epistles and the Gospel stories where THOUSANDS of people were supposedly seen with Jesus in Galilee.

Some Jew called Paul supposedly went "all over" the Roman Empire telling people that Jesus Christ the Son of God made of a woman of the seed of David is Lord and Messiah and that EVERY KNEE including the Emperors of Rome should BOW to the name of the Resurrected Jew.

When one examines the NT it is seen that Jesus probably had more books written about him than even the Defied Emperors of Rome including Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, and Nero.

The lame duck excuse can only work if all we had was the short gMark. It is wholly unacceptable when we have a Canon with 27 BOOKS about Jesus and the supposed evangelist called Saul/Paul.

And that is where the problem lies with the DATING of the Canon.

Philo wrote perhaps up to c 50 CE, Josephus wrote up to or around c 100 CE, Tacitus and Suetonius wrote up to or around c 115 CE yet NONE of these authors mentioned the supposed Messianic ruler called Jesus.

Philippians 2Essentially, Jesus Christ the Son of God should have been a household name by c33-62 CE in the Roman Empire.

There is NOTHING at all about Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God and Messianic ruler by a single non-Apologetic source up to c 115 CE.

However, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius NOT only did NOT mention any Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus they all claimed that the Messianic ruler was predicted in Hebrew Scripture to arrive c 70 CE and that it was Vespaian who was the Messiah.

If Jesus the Messianic ruler did actually exist or that Paul the Jew did actually preach publicly and write letters to Churches in major cities "all over" the Roman Empire then we would expect a lot of noise about this Jesus.

All the Noise about Jesus from Non-Apologetic sources are LATE in the 2nd century or later.

All the Noise and Arguments about the Nature of the 'Flesh' of Jesus among Christians start LATE in the 2nd century.

The earliest stories of Jesus in the short gMark does NOT address the birth of Jesus and it was in the 2nd century that we have Marcion claiming that the Son of God had NO Flesh.

Based on the works of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius the Canonised stories of Jesus are after c 115 CE.

And based on the Contents of the NT Canon and Apologetic sources the Canonised short gMark is the earliest composition.

wordy

I like what you write there in OP aa5874

But to us not well versed it would help to get a link to
that text so we also know what it is all about. wikipedia
says The page "GMark" does not exist.

And googling it find many companies with that name.

I wild guess what you refer to is the part of Marcus
testament text that one have confirmed is the eldest
and that does not have the later added text that
can be what they wanted to be there but had to add

So which verses are the added part?

Grog

16:9 - 19

wordy

aa5874, I am a nobody so that impress me much.
sounds more likely to be true to me than the official doctrine of the Church.

So what now when we ahve established this. Does it mean that Jesus is
like gMark says or that he is a total myth?

Thanks Grog now when you remind me I remember me read about it
some 40 years ago Okay good you told me

So aa5874 is not the best take that Jesus never existed?
or that if he existed the version the Church tell are so different
that we have one that existed and is a kind of cousin to John the Baptist
that never accomplished anything and then the mythic Jesus
that others created using him as a stepping stone.

Toto

wordly - GMark is a common abbreviation for Gospel of Mark.

aa5874 - lame duck does not mean what you think it means.

wordy

thanks but maybe he use GMark for that and gMark for the part that exclude
this 16:9 - 19

if one only read the part that does not include 16:9 - 19
then it is like he says is it not? Another story of Jesus.

But does the OP mean that makes Jesus a definitive myth
or that that is the real historical Jesus and the 16:9 - 19
and all the other text is the mythic part that the Church believe in
or how Constantin and the others made a Spin Doctor for to see to
that the Christian faith worked for as many as possible?

Similar to how Communism try to change itself so it fits the modern world?

Christian Church and faith are highly political and that is most likely
how it started too. It is political to the core. They where oppressed
by Rome and tried to rebel and lost but teh faith of the rebellion
had features taht the winner incorporated due to them effective
for creating a control of people?

aa5874

The phrase is "lame duck excuse" as used by angelo atheist. Please first contact angelo atheist to confirm the meaning of "lame duck excuse" within the context of his post.

Perhaps you don't understand what angelo atheist means.