aa5874

It MUST be understood that the short gMark has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Pauline writings.

1. There is NOTHING whatsoever about John the Baptist in the Pauline letters.

Where were the Pauline writers when John the Bapitist was preaching REMISSION of SINS by the Baptism as stated in the Gospels???

Again, Paul is a NO SHOW.

The Pauline writer does NOT show up for Jesus and does NOT show up for John the Baptist.

Sinaiticus gMark 1 The author of the short gMark KNEW NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of Paul and the Pauline letters.

The author of the short gMark wrote of John the Baptist and Jesus with the disciples --NOT a thing of Paul.

Now, once the author of short Mark wrote AFTER the Fall of the Temple then he should have heard of Paul as he supposedly heard of John the Baptist and Jesus.

In the Pauline letters, Paul OUTPERFORMED John the Baptist and Jesus.

Paul PREACHED Christ crucified and resurrected around the Roman Empire for over 17 years and was BEATEN and Jailed.

However, when the author of short gMark was ready to write his story there was NO Paul at all.

John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter with the 12 disciples.

The author of short gMark FORGOT about Paul???

NO!!! There was NO Paul.

And what about the authors of gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn???

They wrote of John the Baptist and Peter with the disciples!!!

No author of the Jesus story wrote of Paul--they wrote of John the Baptist and Peter with the disciples.

The Pauline letters and Paul were UNKNOWN to the author of the short gMark.

aa5874

In Apologetic sources it is claimed that Marcion argued that the Son of God that was supposedly in Capernaum in the 15th year of Tiberius was really a Phantom--an entity which ONLY appeared to have Flesh but did NOT.

Marcion was ABSOLUTELY right--Jesus of the Gospels could have ONLY been a PHANTOM.

Based on the Jesus stories themselves, as described, then the character Jesus ONLY appeared to have FLESH.

1. In short gMark Jesus WALKED on water, and Transfigured--None with real Flesh can do that only a Phantom.

2. In long gMark Jesus Commissioned the disciples AFTER the resurrection--None with real Flesh can do that only a Phantom.

3. In gMatthew Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost--None with Real Flesh is born so only a Phantom.

4. In gLukeJesus was the Product of an Overshadowing Ghost--None with Real Fleash can be produced so only a Phantom.

5. In gJohn Jesus was God the Creator and Logos--None with Real Flesh can be so only a Phantom.

Marcion was ABSOLUTELY right.

Jesus as described was the Son of God in Capernaum in the 15th year of Tiberius could have ONLY appeared to have Flesh. Jesus was a PHANTOM in the Jesus stories of the Canon.

"Against Marcion" 4.7Luke 3

Sheshbazzar

I think you are simply entirely missing the point of the story, and of what it was that these early Jews and Christian's most earnestly desired, and therefore developed their comforting religious beliefs in response to.

One of the primary fears of the individual and of humanity as a whole, is the fear of death, and a consequent cessation of existence, and of any remembrance or 'portion among the living'.
Very early on (as early as 130,000 years ago) men had developed burial rituals for their dead that clearly indicated an expectation of their still having a continuing life with life's 'needs' on the other side, and so buried them with those 'grave goods' that they might need, or were intended to stand as memorials or 'tokens' that would for ever indicate that their memory and remains would be perpetually honored by their descendants.

Judaism and Christianity are both elaborate 'death cults' whose focus is upon the necessity of spending one's present life in preparing for one's death, with the teaching of an expectation of a resurrection from the grave, into an again living flesh and blood body that will again be able to 'sit every man every man under his vine and under his fig tree;' and and again enjoy the pleasures of the living into perpetuity.
The story of the Israelites bearing Joseph's bones along on their journeys is a reflection on that belief, and that they so honored him that they wanted his resurrection from the dead when it happened, to take place among them.

With 'Jesus' it was, and it remains an essential point of the Christian belief, that he was a flesh and blood person just as we are, one whose fully human flesh and bone body was (is) resurrected and became incorruptible and eternal. And that he was (is) the 'first-fruits' of all whom are now yet asleep in the grave, who will likewise in the Last Day arise from their graves.
The Abrahamic religions are based upon a belief that all of the graves will be opened and all of the worlds dead, of all ages and nations, will be reconstituted into a new body, even if need be from the very dust and ashes into again living bone, flesh, and blood, to come forth from their graves, and to be brought before the Great Judge to answer for how they lived their former lives.

The point strongly made throughout the Scriptures, as well as in 'The New Testament' is that a persons life is NOT THE END.
Perhaps for most a return to the elements, as in 'ashes to ashes, and dust to dust.'
-But only then comes to fore the promise of the RESURRECTION of a bone, flesh and blood, again living-breathing and incorruptible body.
One bestowed and restored again by the Elohim of Ages, for everlasting honor and glory and its rewards, or for everlasting shame.

The NT story is one of miracles being performed by a flesh and blood man, one who suffered, wept, and bled from a fully human flesh and blood body, not any phantom.

The whole of the hope of the saints, rests upon an earnest expectation of the resurrection of the flesh.
Thus in the NT it was human flesh that had to die, and human flesh that had to rise from the grave and live, in fulfillment of all that is written in the Law and the Prophets. To give a living hope to them that perish.

So aa, your going on about a 'phantom' Jesus only indicates that you do not grasp the reasons that either the OT or the NT story was constructed.
People do not want to die and be forgotten. They do not want their dead sons and daughters, their beloved mates and friends to be -permanently- gone.
Religion has over the ages fashioned elaborate theological constructs to ally (and sometimes profit from) those fears.

You may pride yourself in your promotion of a 'Myth Jesus', but when your six year old niece or other much cherished family member or friend is laid in the grave, will you likewise rant and rave, and loudly profess to all standing around that grave, that it is FINIS? That there is no worthy hope in life? That our lives and all of our best efforts are worthless? and that the sweet personality of that one now dead is only doomed to everlasting annihilation?

Certainly you may do so (if you want everyone hearing to know exactly what a worthless piece of shit Jackass you are.)

Your Friends, acquaintances, and family members DO NOT WANT TO DIE. They do not want you to destroy whatever little shred of hope it is that they may maintain, however tenuously, that this innocent child, and perhaps even their unworthy selves, will have another shot at a much better life in a renewed body and world.

The Resurrection is all about holding on to hope against all odds, it is about the triumph of the human spirit even in the face of death.
And the fully human and natural hope that death itself, that insurmountable obstacle to existence that we all must face, will also be overcome.

One does humanity no favors by slaughtering every sacred cow, or by dispelling every myth and legend that cause men to look up with hope and desire and aspire to a much better world, one where poverty, misery, and death are no more.




ששבצר העברי

aa5874

Again, you are dealing with imagination and speculation. I deal with the actual written statements found in sources of antiquity.

How times must I show you that you are WRONG??

In short gMark is it NOT written that Jesus walked on Water??? See Mark 6.48-49

In short gMark is it NOT written that Jesus Transfigured??? Mark 9.2

Those are the Actions of A Non-human character.

The author wrote those passages to show he was writing about a Non-human character.

Is it NOT written that Jesus resurrected??? See gMark 16.6

Those events were written to show that gMark's Jesus was Not a human character.

There is known no known human being that walked on water, transfigured and was resurrected.

The Jesus of gMark was NOT human.

The Jesus of gMark was claimed to be the Son of God and gMark's Jesus asserted he was the Son of the Blessed in the presence of the Sanhedrin. See Mark 14.62.

You are WRONG. YOU missed the point of the short gMark. It was the Son of God that was REJECTED, who suffered, wept, bled and was Delivered to be killed as he Predicted and Taught his disciples.

The Jesus story in short gMark is that Jesus came to fulfill prophecy. The Jews will REJECT him and hand him over to be KILLED.

Mark 8 Please, again, it is WRITTEN in gMark that Jesus WALKED on water, Transfigured and Resurrected.

Please, in gMatthew and gLuke, Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Gospel Jesus was a PHANTOM. It only Appeared to have Flesh but it did NOT.

You must, must, must read the short Jesus story and stop speculating and presuming.

The short gMark story has NOTHING about Salvation by Sacrifice or resurrection and Nothing about a New religion under the name of Christ.

The short gMark is Anti-Jewish propaganda written AFTER the Fall of the Temple to BLAME the Jews for the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the desolation of Jerusalem.

Treatise Against the JewsThe Jesus story is NOT at all about an ordinary human being--just a the Son of God who Appeared to have human Flesh who fulfilled prophecy when he was Delivered to be killed by the Jews.

aa5874

In the NT Canon the Pauline writer appears AFTER the supposed Jesus was raised from the dead.

In Acts of the Apostles, Paul was a Persecutor then was Blinded and heard a Voice of Jesus AFTER the Jesus character had already ASCENDED in a cloud to heaven.

1. Acts 1--Jesus Ascends.

2. Acts 2--Peter and the disciples Preach the Jesus story with the Power of the Holy Ghost.

It is EXTREMELY important that it is understood that Saul/Paul is introduced in Acts as a Persecutor.

In Acts 7-Acts 9:

1. Saul/Paul was AWARE of a Jesus story.

2. Saul/Paul was attempting to STOP and CURTAIL the Jesus story.

3. Saul/Paul was attempting to PREVENT the Spread of the Jesus story.

4. Saul/Paul must IDENTIFY and PERSECUTE those who spread the Jesus story.

5. Saul/Paul Jailed those who preached the Jesus story.

6. Saul/Paul was implicated in the killing of Stephen who PREACHED the Jesus story.

7. Saul/Paul was AFTER the Jesus story was already KNOWN in the Roman Empire.


Now, what about the Pauline letters???

The Pauline writer ALSO claimed he was INDEED a Persecutor in Galatians and Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 15:9 Galatians 1:131. The Jesus story was KNOWN to the Pauline writer in the Epistles.

2. The Pauline writer attempted to STOP and CURTAIL the Spread of the Jesus story.

3. The Pauline writer PERSECUTED those who Preached the Jesus story.

4. The Pauline writer became an Apostle AFTER Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

5. The Pauline writer PREACHED the Jesus story AFTER he was a PERSECUTOR.

It is EXTREMELY important to understand that in the Canon that Saul/Paul and the Pauline writer are AFTER the Jesus story was KNOWN.

Now, Apologetic sources will ALSO claim Paul was AWARE of the Jesus story in gLuke.

See Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" 1

See Eusebius Church History 3.4.8 and 6.25.

1. Paul was a Persecutor.

2. Paul was AWARE of those who PREACHED the Jesus story.

3. Paul was AWARE of a WRITING of the Jesus story called gLuke.

Justin Martyr and Aristides did NOT acknowledge any character called Paul who evangelised non-Jews, did NOT acknowledge any Jesus story called gLuke, did NOT acknowledge Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

Justin Martyr and Aristides acknowledged or claimed that the 12 disciples of Jesus evangelised ALL RACE of men, the whole world.

The Recovered Dated Texts support the argument that Paul was from the 2nd century or Later

Based on the Abundance of evidence, the Jesus story is from the 2nd century and was BEFORE the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

First Apology XXXIX

Sheshbazzar

So aa, do you believe what Justin Martyr tells you here?

Or will you impeach the very testimony of your witness?


.

aa5874

I think I have discovered your problem. You do not seem to understand that Justin Martyr is simply writing about what he heard or what is found in his SOURCES.

Justin Martyr has NOTHING, No Source, about the Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Justin appears to have NOT heard or read of any character called Paul who evangelised the uncircumcised in the Roman Empire and wrote letters to Churches.

Justin made mention of three sources for his Jesus story.

1. The Memoirs of the Apostles.

2. Revelation by John.

3. The Acts of Pilate.

So, Justin Martyr is a 2nd century WITNESS who is compatible with the recovered DATED Texts.

Justin's writings show that the Entire Canon, except Revelation, was unknown to him up to the mid 2nd century.

It is Justin's arguments and the sources that he used that will show what he knew up to the mid 2nd century about the Jesus story and history of the Jesus cult.

From Justin's writings it can be deduced that all mention of Jesus as the Christ in Josephus are forgeries and that Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings were NOT yet composed.

Justin Martyr's "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" are EXTREMELY significant because they show that the Jesus cult was in its EARLY stage in the mid 2nd century.

Sheshbazzar

Sources obviously existing before he wrote about them.
You don't know -when- the tales told by those sources -first- began to circulate.
Justin will tell you that as he heard it, it was in 1st century Jerusalem.

Observed, and conceded. I accept that the 'Pauline' writings, -as we now have them-, are latter fabrications.
That however does nothing to evidence that the name 'Jesus' and stories about someone named 'Jesus' were unknown in the 1st century CE

Unknown to him. That however is no evidence that a Jesus story did not exist before it became known to him.
And according to his witness, a Jesus story DID exist before he heard of it, and from others.
There are a lot of things a man might not learn about till latter in life. That is no indication that they do not exist until that particular individual finds out about them.

Yes, he came to know of the Jesus story and Jesus cult that -had existed- for no one knows how long BEFORE Justin wrote about it.
This is NO evidence -when- that Jesus cult first began, only that it was already in place for Justin to find.

Does not necessarily follow.
Although I believe Josephus wrote about a 'Jesus' who was an actual earlier Jewish Priest, and that his words were subsequently tampered with by Christian scribes to make it appear that he was writing about the Jesus of the Christians.

I also doubt that they were.

But none the less, already existent. And no evidence of when it was that it began.



.

aa5874

What 1st century stories are you talking about?? Please, people TODAY can say the very same thing as Justin if they have NO knowledge of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters.

Now, Where are your 1st century dated sources?? You are arguing from Igorance.

Where are your 1 st century dated sources?? You are arguing from Igorance.

Where are your 1st century dated sources?? You are arguing from Igorance and Speculating.

Well, PLEASE read "First Apology", "Second Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho" to find out what Justin wrote. You are ARGUING from Ignorance and lack of understanding.

Justin Martyr wrote:

1. NOTHING of the ACTIVITIES of the disciples in Acts.

2. Nothing of the DAY of Pentecost.

3. Nothing of the conversion of Paul.

4. Nothing of the Pauline letters.

5. Nothing of the Churches.

6. Nothing about Bishops.

7. Nothing about Salvation by the Resurrection, the Pauline Gospel.

8. Nothing about Jesus visiting OVER 500 people.

9. Nothing about Talking in Tongues

10.Nothing about the miracles of Peter and Paul.

11. Nothing about the Matrydom of Peter and Paul.

12. Nothing about Clement of Rome.

13. Nothing about Ignatius.

14. Nothing about Papias.

15. Nothing about Polycarp.

16. Nothing of the Persecution by Paul.

17. Nothing on the Martyrdom of Stephen.

18. Nothing on the Martyrdom of James.

I cannot PRESUME there was a 1st century Jesus story.

I am ARGUING that there was NO 1st century Jesus story BASED on the actual recovered DATED Texts and sources that are compatible with them like Justin Martyr and Aristides.

Where are your 1st century dated sources?? You are arguing from Igorance.


Please, your argument is from Ignorance. It does NOT follow. You have NOTHING but your belief. You don't know if there was an actual earlier Jewish Priest. You come to the table EMPTY handed.

Please, I NO longer accept presumptions.

What earlier Jewish Priest are you talking about?? What Christians scribes?? What Jesus of the Christians are you talking about in the 1st century??

You IMAGINE your OWN 1st century history of your UNKNOWN Jesus.


So you have NO evidence of when the Jesus story began and is just blowing HOT AIR.

Where are your 1st century dated sources?? You are arguing from Igorance.


I am ARGUING for a 2nd century Jesus story WITH 2nd century DATED sources.
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Sheshbazzar

I'll wait until earlier documents are found.....or hell freezes over, before I'll buy what you are selling.

I'll even prophecy that your theory and 'position' will soon enough be permanently flushed right down the shitter.