aa5874

Well, you now that you have ADMITTED the story is a fabrication then gMark is NOT credible.

It is ALL over. You knew in advance that there are stories in gMark that are fabricated yet you use gMark as an historical source.

I will now show some more stories that are absolute fabrications.

1. The Holy Ghost bird and the voice from heaven at the baptism of Jesus were fabricated.

2. The Temptation of Jesus by Satan in the wilderness was fabricated.

3. The feeding by Jesus of 5000 men was fabricated.

4. The feeding by Jesus of 4000 men was fabrricated.

5. The cursing by Jesus of the fig tree so that it died was fabricated.

6. The raising by Jesus of the dead girl was fabricated.

7. The INSTANT HEALING by Jesus of the man with palsy was fabricated.

8. The Instant Healing by Jesus of the man with the withered hand was fabricated.

9. The INSTANT Healing by Jesus of the deaf-mute with SPIT was fabricated.

10. The INSTANT healing by Jesus of the dumb epileptic was fabricated.

11. The INSTANT healing by Jesus of Blind Bartimaeus was fabricated.

12. The claim that Jesus was resurrected is a fabrication.

gMark is a Myth Fable of fabrications after fabrications with respect to Jesus.

gMark is NOT history.

gMark is a FICTION story like Marcion's Phantom Fiction story.

Maklelan

What on earth are you talking about? When did I use Mark as an historical source?

Have you not been reading a word of what I have been writing? Have you really just wasted all this time I've committed to trying to help you understand this?

aa5874

I must tell you again. Your posts are recorded.


Something is radically wrong with your argument or memory. You are blatant arguing against my position that gMark is a Myth Fable yet have the guts to imply that you have not used gMark as an historical source.

Once you claim gMark's Jesus was likely to be born then you are using the information in gMark as an historical source.

Maklelan

I explicitly told you multiple times that I was talking about Mark's presentation and perception of the events. I never stated that I personally accepted the historicity of his account.

aa5874

Well, why are you arguing with me?

gMark is a Myth fable with fabricated stories.

stephan huller

This is a perfect demonstration of how stupid many at this forum are. We actually have a very learned guest visit us here over the last few days and the morons who hang out here owing to the fact that they are too ugly to go anywhere else continue to berate him with their usual idiotic banter.

I for one would like Maklelan to stay around as long as possible because I think he has a wealth of knowledge and experience. Why do some of the nitwits around here ignore that? I am not saying that we should worship him or take his word as divinely inspired. Yet can't we show a man of learning some respect and deference?

I would rather have one Maklelan around here than a million aas or mountainmans. Indeed I am firmly of the opinion that these people should have been kicked out of the forum a long time ago. But given that there isn't a cure for cancer yet I really find it disappointing the way these discussions have been taking place. I can understand not listening to what I have to say but come on - do you really believe that a man who studied in the places that Maklelan has studied has the same authority as someone who writes in block capitals and red emboldened print?

This is so utterly depressing.

aa you have no point. You have all the subtlety of a monster gorilla. You keep repeating the same arguments to no end and to no purpose. The canonical Gospel of Mark does not present Jesus as a phantom. The question as to whether there were gospels which reinforced this view is a wholly separate question.

Just keep quite until you have something worthwhile to say and before you scare away the one reason I joined this group in the first place - i.e. to engage smart, informed people.

Let me ask Maklelan about a statement he made in another thread here that time dealing with another f--- namely:

Aren't you hanging a lot based on 14:61 - 62? I see nothing in the main body of the Gospel of Mark that would indicate any clear proof as to Jesus identifying himself as the Jewish messiah. And even this statement in Mark is peculiar because (a) it implies that Luke modified the 'certainly yes' answer to something less than 'certainly yes' and (b) the paltry number of early witnesses who explicitly cite the 'certainly yes' answer.

It is claimed there are a handful of references or allusions to Mark 14:61 - 62 before 400 CE in the biblindex.mom.fr. But only one make explicit reference to the 'I am' declaration of Jesus (at least that I can find) Clemens Alexandrinus Hypotyposeis STAEHLIN O., FRUECHTEL L., TREU U., 2e éd., GCS 17 (1970), 195-215. (p.209, l.9) BP1. Not only is this a sixth century citation of a work which was of questionable authenticity it stands alone again in the first four hundred years of the Church:

Outside of this there are no other references I can find before the sixth century. The other references don't mention this 'I am' statement including:

Now admitted I haven't looked at the late Latin translation of Origen's Commentary on Matthew but I don't really care. The only reference to the 'I am' reference in Mark is Cassiodorus's late Latin translation of a work which many people who saw it deemed to be a corrupt text. There are other reasons to doubt the authenticity of the text which I can get into.

But the bottom line is that Mark 14:62 is the only certain statement that Jesus was the Christ in Mark (outside of the Mark 1:1 which is another discussion entirely - what is Mark 1:1?) and this raises doubts in my mind that Mark was developing a narrative which confirmed Jesus as the Christ.

stephan huller

Even the Diatessaron doesn't chose to pick up this alleged 'I am' answer apparently in Mark:

How on earth can that be? If all Christians always accepted Jesus as the messiah and Mark was the earliest gospel why would no one remember or retain the clearest statement to the world as to the Jesus original status as the redeemer of Israel? It doesn't make sense.

stephan huller

I wonder if we can date Mark 14:62 to the second half of the second century because of its citation of Theodotion's translation of Daniel 7:13:

There was a pattern of use of Theodotion's translation of Daniel. In the 2nd century Theodotion's text was quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas and in Justin Martyr's Dialogue. Theodotion's translation was so widely copied in the Early Christian church that it virtually superseded the Septuagint. Jerome mentions this too.

aa5874

Maklelan came to this forum to argue with the NO.1 myther. It is obvious that Maklelan thinks that he can defeat my arguments.

This is not facebook. This is BC&H.

gMark is a Myth fable with multiple fabricated stories. Even Maklelan admits that the walking on the sea by Jesus was fabricated.

gMark is NOT credible.

"Dialogue with Trypho" also mentioned the fabricated conception and birth of Jesus.

By the way, I prefer the written statements from antiquity than the bizzarre and unsubstantiated claims about Jesus in gMark from Maklelan.

Maklelan

Because you're asserting absolutely asinine things about the composition of the New Testament, early Christian texts, and the origins of the Christian tradition.