Littlejohn

I agree with Mark->Matthew->Luke sequence. However, I think it must be remembered that the Luke's gospel was not constructed 'ex novo' like the others, but rather through a deep restructuring of an earlier Gospel: almost certainly the first text in the history of 'messianist' doctrines to be appealed 'euaggelion' (Gospel). The original text was not relative to Jesus of Nazareth, but to John of Gamala: probably the eldest son of Judas the Galilean.

The Gospel of Mark was built on material (*) collected without regard to the order at the time of Nero and by some memory also orally transmitted. When the editors of Mark came into possession of a copy of the collection of 'sayings' of Matthew (see Papias of Hierapolis), the former Mark's Gospel was integrated with the material of the collection of sayings of the REAL Matthew and while he was composing a new gospel using the material overall (Mark + Matthew's collection of sayings), who came in pseudo-epigraphic way called 'gospel of Matthew' (**).

The first 'revisitation' of the original gospel of 'Luke' (the one which contemplate the figure of John of Gamala) was probably made by Marcion; then it was integrated with the material of Mark-Matthew during a nth revisitation of the Marcion's text.

There is still to say that the first person to collect written material (sayings) about Jesus, was almost certainly Matthew (55-60). Then he followed Mark (60-65). This is why some part of the confessional exegetics is affirming that was the Matthew's gospel to be composed as first.

Not be ruled out, however, that even before Matthew could have been John 'Mark' (later 'evangelist'), although at the time he was little more than a teenager, to write something about Jesus: more than anything else, perhaps, writing exercises under the guidance of Jesus, who (contrary to what the holy forger fathers did believe ) wrote in turn, and much also!

There is a high probability that what yet today is called 'source Q', was none other than the Papias' work titled "Explanation of the Oracles of Jesus", which he wrote basing on the contents of the Matthew's collection of sayings. However, almost certainly, Papias integrates into his work the material by the collection of Matthew with material coming from oral transmission.

Of course, nobody is called to believe what I exposed. My purpose is primarily to stimulate research in a different direction, with respect to that 'classic' ...


Greetings

_____________________________________

Notes:

(*) - this material was lying by over 70 years in the imperial archives and was therefore in full and immediate availability of those who 'planned' new catholic-christian worship. Such a material was collected and placed in the imperial archives by a Roman citizen of pagan faith (perhaps with sympathy for Jewish worship), which had nothing to do with the 'catholic-christian' cult. His name was Mark. It is obvious, then, that between this Mark and John called 'Mark' (ie the Mark of Alexandria of Egypt) there was never any relationship, and match the two figures is nothing but a further mystifying and mind-numbing attempt on the part forger clergy to falsify the historical truth!

(**) - Certainly in those days was widespread the knowledge about the fact that Matthew, the real one, actually wrote 'something' and this gave much credibility to the pseudo-epigraphic work that still today bears the name 'gospel of Matthew'.


Littlejohn

__________________________________________________ _____

I would like to remember that all of the material posted by Littlejohn, it must be strictly viewed as copyright ©. Its use is allowed for personal only use, excluding all other uses (such as the commercial one, for example)

.

Iskander

This is very interesting. Could you explain what does “confessional exegetics” mean, please?

I f Mark’s collection was kept in the Imperial archives this material would have been available to Constantine. I think we should no longer consider Constantine the original author of Christianity, he was probably a plagiarist.

I have always used source P instead of Q and it is nice to see you explaining why the Q is misleading.

sharrock

Sei il Signor Cascioli e rivendico il mio premio

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182962,00.html

Littlejohn

The 'confessional exegetics' is that carried out by catholic apologists. It is therefore a partial exegetics, with very low reliability, except for those authors who, though believers, have always shown a clear independence from the Catholic Church.

In contrast to the confessional esegetics, there is the secular one, which, unlike the first, certainly tends to bring out the historical truth, while that of the confessional apologists tends always more to bury it ! ...

"...this material would have been available to Constantine.."

Since the framework of political power, from the second century until to Constantine, whitin imperial universe has remained unchanged, there is a high probability that the material of Mark was lying still in the imperial archives at the time of Constantine I.

However it should be clear that, contrary to the idea that you has formed here in the forum, due to some 'bizarre' theories, Constantine had nothing to do with the birth and development of catholic-christianity. He, at least initially, and driven by the mother, brainwashed by the catholic 'missionaries', he merely recovered the Catholic clergy from the 'limbo' in which it was driven by previous emperors, especially by Diocletian.

Starting from Nicea's Council, which, certainly, does not concerned only the reality of catholic-christianity, but the whole complex of the major religious denominations followed in the Empire, beginning with that of Constantine, namely the Mithraic cult, the Emperor, always under the stimulus of the mother and of Eusebius, granted more and more leeway to the Catholic Church, up to enable them to occupy the strategic nerve centers of power: real and just springboard that will enable the catholic clergy to stand out fly toward the power, beginning with the emperor Constantius II until the final triumph with the Emperor Theodosius.

See in all this an active role on the part Constantine for the organization of catholic worship is, in my view, fundamentally wrong! ... It is ABSOLUTELY true that the catholics of all times must the birth of their worship to the willingness of an emperor, but that this emperor was absolutely not Constantine, because it happened much earlier than he was born!

"...I have always used source P instead of Q .."

Sorry........'source P' = Papias?....


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

Ciao sharrock!

How are you?.

Do you know that Luigi Cascioli is dead?.... A great loss ...


Best regards and greetings


Littlejohn
.

Iskander

Thanks.
I use P for perhaps, but it will be Papias from now on.

I used to believe that Constantine was the victim of a fraud (with this sign Imperial Rome will defeat her enemies) but this forum is very persuasive and now I credit Constantine with the creation of Christianity ex –nihilo.

Catholic apologists are very well trained and it is very difficult to engage them. The Vatican is a prolific producer of dogmas, and a lot more than that, without encountering any problems from its clients. I think you may be underestimating them.

In your previous post you wrote:

Could you expand on this? Did someone write something under the guidance of Jesus?

You want to stimulate research into which problems?

Littlejohn

Please?... Is that no relevant?...

Papias does not mention Luke and John for the simple reason that, when he wrote, these gospels did not again existed! ... Actually, there were no even the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, as the reference by Papias was certainly towards the material collected by the TRUE Matthew (a mere collection of sayings of Jesus) and 'Mark' (John called 'Mark', the character to which counterfeiters accredited the 4th gospel, that 'according to John').(*)

If the gospels had existed at the time of Papias, unlikely he would write his book 'Explanation of the Oracles of Jesus'. The very fact that he calls the sayings of Jesus 'oracles', it does we understand that this was essentially an esoteric, gnostic work: something that definitely puts this character in the channel of gnostic-jesuan flow and not in the Catholic one, which certainly does not exist yet in the days when Papias wrote. Did not take long time for counterfeiter fathers to take possession of this character , making it appear as 'Catholic', after having done the same, identic thing with Jesus of Nazareth! ...


Greetings

_________________________________

Note:

(*) - In his quotation of Papias, Eusebius adds the name of Peter, to pretend that it was the material accumulated by Mark: the roman official that picked up the 'Kerygmata Petrou', so a totally different character from John 'Mark'.


Littlejohn

.

aa5874

I think it was far easier for Imperial Rome to have stolen the Jesus story and then proclaimed it was ALWAYS theirs.

They probably stole everything they owned even their new God Jesus.

It is almost certain that the four Canonised Gospels were each written by different person at different times. They do not at all appear to be the product of a single person and they all do not appear to be from the same time zone.

Whoever wrote gMatthew most likely did not write gMark, gLuke or gJohn.

It does not make sense for a single person to write four contradictory gospel stories, have them Canonised and then that same person write other books to try and harmonise or explain away the contradictions.

Littlejohn

"..and now I credit Constantine with the creation of Christianity ex –nihilo..."

I think it profoundly wrong and deviant from historical truth ....

".. I think you may be underestimating them..."

No.. I know the potential and, especially, their cynicism! ..

Probably you have not read the posts that already some time ago I have entered here in the forum ... John called 'Mark' was none other that the second son of Jesus of Nazareth (see the first letter of Peter, where the writer is in reality Jesus and NOT Simon Peter!)(*) There is not any wonder, therefore, that Jesus has taught his son to read and write ....

".. You want to stimulate research into which problems? ..."

Yes, certainly. However, since all my work (over 14 years of intensive researches) it is also finalized the composition of a book, for the moment I can not provide many details.... I hope to be comprehend ..


Greetings


Littlejohn

______________________________

Note:

(*) - obviously only a small part of the material contained in such an epistle, belonged to a letter that a day was really written by Jesus of Nazareth, while the rest is purely editorial matter.

.

Iskander

Constantine is not the creator of Christianity. I am happy to be guided by your superior knowledge,


I had no idea that you had already posted on the subject of Jesus of Nazareth being the father of 2 children. I suppose you mean Jesus Christ the one who died on the cross.

Anyway I will look up your posts.

You had mentioned your research and I thought you would welcome an invitation to speak about it.
I do understand your reticence.