aa5874

I won't allow to get away with this propaganda nonsense. Why don't you understand that I know why you are making such a ridiculous claim??? You read my post and now all of a sudden is giving the impression that I happen to make an "extremely important" point.

Whatever I write is EXTREMELY important. If you want to pretend that you use the "ostrich" approach then that is your own business.

Now, the short-ending gMark is an extremely important gospel because it is NOT about a man. It is about a character that was considered the Son of God.

Authors that used the gMark story claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of the Holy Ghost and was Resurrected.

The author of gMatthew used virtually 100% of gMark and declared Jesus was FATHERED by the Holy Ghost.

It was gMark's Jesus that was born of the Holy Ghost in gMatthew.

Everything in gMatthew from John the Baptist to the Empty Tomb is from and virtually identical to gMark.

gMatthew MERELY provided ADDITIONAL DETAILS of the Markan Jesus. The author of gMatthew added the conception, birth and post-resurrection visit of the Markan Jesus in Galilee.

There is NO Gospel author who used the short-ending gMark that stated gMark's Jesus was human--None.

outhouse

FACEPALM

hellenistic people often called mortal men in power "son of god"

and the hellenistic authors were competing with there man against living mortal emporers with the title "son of god"

Please learn history.

aa5874

You only hear HALF of History and don't seem to want to see the other part that Contradicts you.
[U]
Hellenistic people BELIEVED that Myth GODS also had Sons.

You don't seem to know the History of Roman and Greek Mythology.

Please get familiar with Zeus/Jupiter and their Sons before you post.

Over 1600 years ago it was admitted by a Christian writer that the Jesus story was NO different to Greek Mythology.

Dialogue with Trypho The Myth Perseus was the Son of a Myth God called Zeus born of the Virgin Danae. Jesus is NO different to Mythology.

Please get familiar with the Half of History that destroys HJ.

James The Least

Exactly!

Get a load of the Nation of Islam's founder, Wallace Fard Muhammad aka Wallace Dodd Ford:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Fard_Muhammad

He fits the Apostle Paul/Joseph Smith character type, a con-man opportunist who sees a need he can exploit for power and money. "Muhammad" disappeared when it looked like he might go back to jail. In an earlier time, they would have said he was "martyred by the Jews and/or Romans."

"One of Fard's first followers had been Elijah Poole, who later changed his name to Elijah Muhammad. Elijah began preaching that Wallace Fard Muhammad was the Mahdi and that it was God directly intervening in the world through Fard. He taught his followers that, Allah appeared in the person of Master Fard Muhammad. He taught as his followers believe today, that The True and Living God operated in Fard's person. Shortly before he departed Detroit for the last time, Fard had conferred leadership of the Nation of Islam on Elijah Muhammad."

The lesson? Religions often begin under dubious circumstances by men of less than sterling character, to put it kindly. Tell people what they want to hear (they are the chosen elect of God), scare them (the end of the world is coming soon), and inspire cultic dedication (all other religions are false and created by evil forces). If you can do that, you can live comfortably the rest of your life without having to work, and probably have lots of women on the side as Elijah Muhammad serves to prove.

Oh, but this was impossible in the first century with Christianity. :rolling:

Kapyong

Nor do the Gospels, for that matter.

K.

rlogan

Oh yes, absolutely. I thought I remembered accusations Poole had murdered Fard, but one of the incredible things is that the founder of this black religion was not black himself. Because the whole thing was based on whites being devils. So when Malcolm X goes to Mecca he learns that white people are not devils in real Islam, and he drops his racism. But his confrontations with Elijah Mohammed led to his assassination by Nation of Islam members, probably at the behest of Elijah Mohammed.

There are a lot of other examples too, as you say with con men of no scruples forming religions on preposterous foundations. Look at the Mormons - a convicted fraud (Joseph Smith) who used "seeing stones" placed in his hat to tell landowners where buried treasure was on their property - he does exactly the same thing again! He uses seeing stones in his hat to conjure up the books of his new Bible.

I think it is over 80 women that came forward eventually as "celestial wives" of Smith. If you read Under the Banner of Heaven there's a letter in there from Smith directing one of his Church members to bring his daughter down to the field that night for a little nooky.

aa5874

It was NOT the author of gMark that Hijacked Hebrew Scriptures it was the AUTHORS of the INTERPOLATED gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline letters WHO all claimed the Resurrected Jesus Commissioned or Authorised the Gospel to be preached and that Jesus DIED for the Sins of ALL Mankind and was the End of the Law.

The author of the short-ending gMark did NOT make any claims that Jesus was Sacrificed and Resurrected for Universal Salvation and did NOT state that the Resurrected Jesus authorised the preaching of the JESUS STORY.

We know the Hijackers of Hebrew Scriptures in the NT. The Hijackers have a CODE--the Resurrected Jesus was SEEN.

Adam

nor has he responded to my new post. Of course, he's not obligated to, but my point was that there was a lot I had presented that he had not dealt with at all, yet ever-so-many here on FRDB are relying on his authority to disregard me. If he's not, then it falls to someone else to respond to my sharpening of my thesis in my Alpha and Omega Principle in Post #214 and earlier. No one has dealt with it since I presented it in Post #450 in Gospel Eyewitnesses.

Similarly no one has really dealt with the methodology I eventually presented from my peer-reviewed earlier paper, Significance of John. Right from the OP and especially in #2 I presented original evidence for an eyewitness for the discourses and then in
Post #30
I started marshalling stylistic evidence from several scholars that delineated the Signs Source.

Will FRDB's only defense against me continue to be the Argument from Authority (or the even more common insults)?

Toto

No, we can all read for ourselves. Finding common literary styles does not come close to proving eyewitness testimony. It's not even where you would start to look for eyewitness testimony.

Adam

Common literary style tends to denote an author or scribe. A person. Any one person mentioned or indicated at both the start and end of that document is the prime candidate (and eyewitness) unless the writing can be proven to be after his death. That's basically my Alpha and Omega Principle, similar to Richard Bauckham's inclusio.