aa5874

I really don't understand why you are assuming that a TEXT must be or is likely to be history.

Has it never cross your mind that gMark may be a Fiction story?

Has it never cross you mind that the plausibility of gMark 11.11 may be of ZERO consequence if the author was NOT writing an historical account?

You seem to have NO idea how to analyze gMark or any ancient Text.

In order to make any determination of any passage in gMark I FIRST MUST READ ALL the ENTIRE TEXT.

1. The author of gMark did NOT state anywhere that he was writing history.

2. I CANNOT PRESUME that gMark is history.

3. I have IDENTIFIED blatant Fiction and Implausibilities in gMark.

4. The character called Jesus was described as a PHANTOM in gMark.

5. Jesus and the disciples PARTICIPATED in events that could NOT have happened in gMark.

6. Jesus and the disciples are NOT corroborated outside of gMark by non-apologetic sources of antiquity.

7. The supporting details of Jesus and the disciples in other Gospels are even more Fictitious and Implausible.

8. I can ONLY accept gMark's Jesus and disciples as Myth characters until there is found CREDIBLE evidence of antiquity to CONTRADICT gMark.

tanya

Well, I will defer to your superior knowledge of Jewish customs, Sheshbazzar, but, it is my understanding, perhaps incorrect, that Jesus of Nazareth, as defined by at least some versions of Mark 1:1, as the son of Yahweh, could never have entered the Temple.

So, I would argue that this is a description that never could have happened, except in someone's imagination.

J-D may be correct about other episodes, but Mark 11:11 cannot be correct.

aa5874

J-D MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be correct. J-D has NOT shown that any statement about Jesus is historically accurate.

Once J-D does NOT know if gMark is actual history then what he thinks MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have happened is really irrelevant.

J-D has said however that some statements about Jesus CANNOT POSSIBLY historically accurate.

That the disciples WITNESSED Jesus as he walked on the sea and Witnessed the transfiguration with the resurrected Elijah and Moses CANNOT be historically accurate as stated in gMark.

All we know is that gMark as PRESENTED is a Myth Fable where Jesus and his disciples PARTICIPATED in non-historical events.

J-D

Mark 11:11 does not describe Jesus as the son of Yahweh, so your objection is irrelevant to Mark 11:11 and does not support your conclusion that it cannot be literally accurate.

Given that there is no God, then there can be no son of God (in a literal sense), and therefore Mark 1:1, referring to a son of God, cannot be literally accurate, and therefore no conjunction of Mark 1:1 with any other statement (including Mark 11:11) cannot be literally accurate, but the fact that the conjunction of Mark 1:1 and Mark 11:11 cannot be literally accurate is not enough to demonstrate that Mark 11:11 by itself is not literally accurate. That's the way the logic works.

Sheshbazzar

I assume no such thing. I am asking you a simple question.

Why is it that it CANNOT be possible that in the first century a Jewish man (fully human and not a god) named J***S walked in Jerusalem, and visted The Jewish Temple while he was there, as is presented in Mark 11:11?

I am not asking you here about any other verse, claim, situation, or event, only this one.

If you have been reading my previous posts in this thread, that is an inane query.
inane

I could say the same about you.

Now, is it impossible, and CANNOT possibly be an accurate report of an actual event, that a first century Jewish man (fully human and not a god) named J***S walked in Jerusalem, and visted The Jewish Temple while he was there, as is presented in Mark 11:11?

I am not asking you here about any other verse, claim, situation, or event, only this one.

J-D

You are making a mistake. Sheshbazzar is not assuming that the text must be or is likely to be history.You seem to have no idea how to analyse any text. Has it never crossed your mind that a text may contain some parts which are historical and some parts which parts are ahistorical?

Has it never crossed your mind that there may be a difference between some parts of a text whose historicity can be determined and other parts of the same text whose historicity cannot be determined?That’s an error, too. There is no necessity to work that way.

aa5874

You don't seem to remember what I HAVE already written.

I have ALREADY stated that I have NOT found any corroborative source for Jesus and the disciples so I can ONLY accept them as Myths.

I have ALREADY stated that I have found CREDIBLE corroborative sources for the characters in gMark called Pilate, Herod and John the Baptist.

I cannot corroborate Jesus and the disciples so I can ONLY accept them as MYTHS based on gMark.

In gMark Jesus was a PHANTOM and his disciples WITNESSED Jesus as he PERFORMED like one even with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

Examine one of my recent posts.

Once I get CREDIBLE non-apologetic sources for Jesus and the disciples like I did for John the Baptist, Pilate, Herod, Philip the brother of Herod, and Herodias then I will review my position.

I can't use the very same source which describes Jesus as a Phantom to declare Jesus was a man.

I simply cannot find a single statement about Jesus and the disciples that is most likely historically accurate in gMark---only statements that CANNOT Possibly be history.

You seem unable or unwilling to provide any statement about Jesus that you know is historically accurate and REPEAT that some statements about Jesus MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be historically accurate but some CANNOT possibly be historically accurate.

gMark is COMPATIBLE with Myth Fables.

In Myth Fables, there are likely to be statements that cannot possibly be historically and ZERO external corroboration.

gMark actually contains statements about Jesus and the disciples that CANNOT possibly be historically accurate and have ZERO external non-apologetic corroboration.

gMark is the Perfect HJ argument killer.

J-D

You say that as if I have tried and failed to do so, but that is not correct, as that is not what I am trying to do, something which you haven't grasped because you have not understood what I am trying to do.That is one of many things I have said; among other things, I have said that there is a relevant distinction between statements whose historicity can be determined on the evidence presented and statements whose historicity cannot yet be determined on the evidence presented.

J-D

Yes, I do repeat that, because the distinction is relevant, and I do remember that you have never acknowledged the relevance of the distinction.

aa5874

How is it possible that you forget so quickly? In my last posts, I stated that I have found CREDIBLE non-apologetic sources of antiquity for characters in gMark like Pilate, John the Baptist and Herod.

I simply cannot find any credible non-apologetic sources for Jesus and the disciples.

So far, gMark is COMPATIBLE with Myth Fables.

1. Statements in gMark about Jesus and the disciples CANNOT POSSIBLY be true.

2. It is not known if any statement about Jesus and the disciple is historically accurate.

3. There are no known Credible non-apologetic corroborative sources for Jesus and the disciples.

4. Virtually all The supposed miracles of Jesus are implausible.

I can ONLY accept gMark as MYTH Fables of Jesus and the disciples until there are found credible non-apologetic sources to contradict gMark.