JoeWallack

JW:
The evidence indicates that "Mark" was Separationist. See:

WhoSonfirst? Anti-Separationist Corruption In The First Gospel

This Thread will assume that "Mark" was Separationist. I instruct the Moderators that if anyone challenges that assumption in this Thread to immediately place the offending post in that special room in the snob fraternity in Animal House so that they can discuss it with Mohammed, Jugdish, Sidney, Clayton, Chilli and Tanya, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuFCaIAnETk Enjoy the punch and cookies.

The purpose of this Thread will be to inventory evidence that Paul was Separationist in general and specifically that Paul's timing was the supposed resurrection.

A Separationist Paul at the resurrection has much explanatory spirit:

1) It explains Paul's lack of interest (during Jesus' life and after) in human Jesus. He didn't have the Spirit yet.

2) It decreases the advantage of historical witness competition. Jesus did not become interesting until after he died and whatever he did while alive was relatively unimportant.

3) It explains (in Paul's mind) why Jesus was not a success during his life.

4) It explains why "Mark" adopted Separtionism but moved it back in time, just like orthodox Christianity kept moving back the Christoilogical moment.


Joe safe

BAPTISM, n. A sacred rite of such efficacy that he who finds himself in heaven without having undergone it will be unhappy forever. It is performed with water in two ways — by immersion, or plunging, and by aspersion, or sprinkling.

ErrancyWiki

outhouse

Very scientific there. Make assumption nonrefutable. Stop all opposition before it starts.


Thats not a debate, it is preaching.


Unless OP objects and claims it's evidence against Seperationism of Paul or Gmark



explain


Are trying to suggest Paul is both literary created man and created spirit, or followed Joshua as Seperationist faith??

Chili

No, Joe is saying that the NT should not 'be' as Jesus was not real and then refers to Mark to deny Paul and obviously also Luke, while defending Mark who obviously was not the Messiah because he crashed.

The problem with this is that while Joe defends doxo-graphy (the written history if opinion), and so orthodoxy that may or may not have correct opinion as believer, it proves para-dox to use Mark who had wrong opinion because he had failed.

In essense Joe uses loser to win his battle and obviously has no reason to smile and therefore his censorship rule be in force.

outhouse

How does all that apply to this statement made by OP


Because honestly, your post confused me in the opinion Gmark to deny Paul and Luke

aa5874

Your assumption does not reflect or explain the fact that there are FIVE Canonized Gospels which attempt to show Jesus as a figure of history and the things he did.

The stories of supposed miracles of Jesus were of extreme importance in antiquity so much so that gMark was copied virtually word-for-word and almost 100% by the authors of the Long gMark and gMatthew.

What Jesus supposedly did had a Massive impact on people of antiquity. The alleged miraculous actions of Jesus were documented in the short gMark, the Long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn

The author of the short gMark only wrote about 1 year of the supposed life of Jesus from baptism to resurrection and it was what the supposed Jesus did in that single year that impacted the early Jesus cult when Paul was a persecutor

Chili

The separationist theology of Paul validates the NT and so we have a testament in force wherein the human testator died in the particular to identify the genus of Lod God as the manifestation of God here on earth . . . from which follows the freedom from transgression committed under the first covenenant that became known as OT now with NT in place.

In the OT they sacrificed everything from rams to partriges and chickens and hens because they had no genus in place to edify man as the image of God. And surely not with the Herodian massacre in place to annihilate the son of God as imposter, again, long before he could lead the children of Israel wrong, which is their greatest fear and rightfully so.

The difference becomes clear when Matthew and Mark's Jesus returns to the promised land again instead of heaven, while Luke and John did get to heaven because their Jesus was different then the Jesus of Matthew and Mark.

In essence Matthew and Mark are tragedies while Luke and John are divine comedies because ascension followed for them. In this sense 'to be raised from the dead' means nothing except that it makes both heaven and hell known as opposites to each other here now still on earth.

Based on this, Orthodoxy can never afford to accept the real Gospels, nor Paul who brought the good news outside the Jewish domain.

Vorkosigan

"Paul's timing" -- what do you mean by this? The time at which the two separated? Came together? Or what?

Chili

Formally stated knowledge includes a complete relationship with beings in their own essence, that in orthodoxy is based on opinion and is partial only to the clan in 'relation' so they can participate and actually complete what nature is not able to provide for them.

This does not make it wrong, but incomplete and not stable for which circumcision and a beard are reminders of the fleeting Y that makes eros opinion based and also partial in relation to agape, (they say).

So clearly, pagan is outside the Jewish domain as philosophical, wherein the opinion as a mere condition of the soul has been brought to a stand so that knowledge may re-emerge from deep within the soul, which really is what John is all about as bosom buddy with Jesus to validate his cause.

The upshot here is that now with the genus identified chasing wild partriges is no longer needed because we have the celestial sea that Jesus walked on in our midst and so baptism is the word of God solidified (in case you wonder).

Sheshbazzar

The choice not offered; None of the above.

As 'Paul' and the 'Pauline epistles' are composite works of perhaps a genuine Paul, heavily edited and supplemented by multiple by 'pseudo-Paul's' with varying views for over a century, The 'Paul' that we are presented with in the NT writings is an authorial invention.
No such person as this authorial invented composite 'Paul' ever lived.
Thus, outside of recovering an authentic autobiography or unquestionably authentic and unmolested writings direct from the real Paul, The question posed remains unanswerable.

JoeWallack

JW:
Was not expecting a serious question:

Romans 1:3-4

All there I think:

Step 1 = Jesus born human

Step 2 = Nothing to report between verses.

Step = Jesus receives Spirit at resurrection.

As to timing, Jesus receives spirit at his resurrection. This is when he became interesting to Paul. This theory has explanatory spirit. If there was a HJ, the only thing we can be absolutely certain of is that he did not do the impossible. Therefore, if there was historical witness, they probably were not primarily promoting impossible Jesus. Paul is the first potential reaction to historical witness. It would be difficult for him to claim a historical impossible Jesus if historical witness did not. What Paul could claim is an impossible dead spiritual Jesus since the rules of historical witness would no longer apply.

This Thread will go through the writings of Paul to test this theory. But as a quick preview, what did Jesus do before his supposed resurrection that was reMarkable to Paul?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki