Duvduv

It's not a question of defending. Neither of us was around when those texts were around so all we can do is make inferences based on an examination of the material and the context in which the material exists. So each of us draws our own conclusions. Why is this a problem?

aa5874

Of course it is a question of defending your claims. If you have no sources then your claims are of no use. If you are NOT prepared to defend your assertions then I can't help you.

I have no intention of making claims which are indefensible.

I say Canonised gMark, the short-ending gMark, is the the earliest of the Canon because I can defend it with the AVAILABLE written statements of antiquity.

We have the short-ending gMark and the LATER INTERPOLATED gMark.

There is NO Commission to preach the Jesus story to every creature in the short-ending gMark.

The Commission to preach the Jesus story TO EVERY CREATURE is found in the LATER INTERPOLATED gMark by the RESURRECTED Jesus.

The Pauline writers claimed they preached the Jesus crucified and resurrected to Jews and Gentiles.

The Pauline writings claim WITHOUT the resurrection they would be NO Salvation and NO Faith.

The Pauline writings are Compatible with the LATER INTERPOLATED gMark.

The Canonised short-ending gMark is BEFORE all the books of the Canon.

Duvduv

But how can you accept the claims of antiquity when you yourself admit they involve propagandizing and lying?

aa5874

Again, I use Apologetic sources of antiquity to EXPOSE Fraud, fiction and forgeries.

When I claim the Pauline writers are LIARS I am OBLIGATED to show the LIES.

When I claim the NT is a compilation of Myth Fables I MUST show the contents of the NT.

This is basic. This is PRECISELY how proper arguments are conducted.

Do we NOT have a short-ending gMark in Existing Codices WITHOUT the Commission by the Resurrected Jesus to preach the Jesus story to EVERY Creature???

Of course, we do.

The short-ending gMark is EVIDENCE that there was a FICTION story of Jesus WITHOUT the fictitious commission by the Fictitious Resurrected Jesus.

So, the short-ending gMark was the first LIE and the INTERPOLATED gMark was the Second.

This is what I do with Apologetic sources. I use them to determine the Chronology of their LIES.

The Interpolated gMark contains 12 additional verses Packed with LIES about a Resurrected character called Jesus. I could NOT have known of the additional lies unless I read them.

Now, it is RATHER a simple task to show that ALL the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters are COMPATIBLE with the 12 additional verses found in the INTERPOLATED gMark, the Second Canonised LIE and Myth Fable..

Now, this is EXTREMELY important.

Based on the fact that NO Jewish or Roman writer mentioned any Jesus character as a Messiah or any story of a Messiah called Jesus who correctly predicted the Fall of the Temple and the Desolation of Jerusalem I will LOGICALLY deduce that the Earliest Fiction story of Jesus, the short-ending gMark, was written AFTER the writings of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus c 115 CE.

The preaching of the Resurrected Jesus story is based on the INTEPOLATED LIES in the second gMark.

Interpolated gMark 16 The Pauline writer PREACHED the story of a Resurrected Jesus to the Romans and many Cities in the Roman Empire and Spoke in Tongues.

Romans 10:9 KJV 1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV The fiction story writer of the short-ending gMark did NOT state that the resurrected Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach a resurrected Jesus story--the fiction story writer claimed NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

The short-ending gMark is the very first story in the Canon of the character called Jesus the Son of God and Messiah and written AFTER 115 CE.

Duvduv

You still don't answer my question as to why stories of the short Mark are not reflected in the epistles that you say came after the Markan gospel

Then you say that mark didn't originally talk about a resurrection, but the epistles coming after the short GMark DO talk about resurrection!

aa5874

You MUST ANSWER your OWN questions. That is basic. You MUST SUPPLY your evidence for your claims.

I am showing that the short-ending gMark does NOT claim that the resurrected Jesus commisioned anyone to preach the resurrected Jesus story and did NOT claim anyone would speak in tongues.

It was the INTERPOLATED gMark, the Second lie, that made such a claim which is compatible with the Pauline writings.

The Pauline writer preached the resurrected Jesus story and claimed he Spoke in tongues.

The Pauline writer is AFTER the short-ending gMark.


Sinaiticus gMark 16 The short-ending gMark is the FIRST Jesus story and book of the Canon.

Duvduv

Why don't you just say that in Galatians Paul got his very own Great Commission and then interpolators applied the novel idea to the gospels, since otherwise what's the big deal about Paul's revelation for the gentiles if the Great Commission already instructed that in the gospels? Thus the resurrected Jesus gave a Great Commission to Paul BEFORE it appeared in any gospels. In any case if the event of resurrection was not originally in the short GMark that Paul knew, why didn't he incorporate other stories?

aa5874

I do NOT speculate. That's your job.

The Pauline writings, P 46, are dated to the 3rd century.

Duvduv

Interestingly enough, the two 4th century Creeds (2nd Antioch of 347 and Second Sermium of 357 mention the Great Commission as found only in Matthew 28, NOT for the purpose of worldwide evangelism, but only to emphasize the trinity.

In terms of the instructions to preach to the nations once preaching to the gentiles became the focal point of this new religion. Each gospel says it differently but in a very churchy way. But in ALL cases, it is unclear as to what the gospel to be preached is. Is it salvation through faith in the Christ? Is it the indwelling of the Christ? Is it the fact of the Christ as the promised Davidic messiah?

Mark 16:15-16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Luke 2:46-47
Sounds compatible with the Nicene Creed but does not answer any of the questions I asked because it doesn't explain what it means to preach repentance in his name.

45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;
46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Matthew 28:18-20
Also very churchy with emphasis on the baptism in the name of the trinity though more developed than the original Nicene Creed which doesn't explicitly refer to the the trinity.

18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

But of course we know that the author of Galatians received his own Great Commission as an exclusive revelation having nothing to do with anyone else, as he stated, i.e. that he was appointed to preach to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. But of course this would all be unnecessary if Paul and the others of the epistles already knew of the Great Commission in the gospels.

And yet if the interpolaters of the gospels were arguing that EVERYONE had to preach to the gentiles, each of them knew they were contradicting Galatians IF they knew about Galatians. Evidently these authors would have realized that a one-man operation of preaching to the gentiles would be insufficient to do what had to be done. And of course if the author of Galatians knew about the Great Commissions he would be contradicting them by advocating for his exclusive divinely-ordained role. Wouldn't the author of Galatians have wanted to remind his Christ that he had already instructed his people to preach to the gentiles?

And as I mentioned before, ONCE Paul was instructed to preach, then everyone could do it, unless he believed he had exclusive powers of pursuasion which no one else on Earth had.

So it would not be unusual to see the gospel Great Commission as reflecting the Roman Byzantine state religion of the 4th century, giving additional reason to believing that the gospels were composed in the 4th century.

aa5874

You are arguing AGAINST the DATED evidence of antiquity. Writings about the Jesus story and the Pauline letters dated by Paleography show that it is most likely that Jesus stories were known sometime in the mid 2nd-3rd century.

It makes NO sense to argue AGAINST DATED evidence.