MCalavera

Not sure I should believe you, but whatever.

aa5874

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

HJers claim that their HJ of Nazareth was LIED upon and Embellished by his own disciples but when gMark is EXAMINED it was the Complete opposite.

The claims by HJers are unsubstantiated.

On the day Jesus died in gMark his disciples had ALREADY abandoned him and Peter, who INITIALLY claimed Jesus was Christ, DENIED IN PUBLIC and MULTIPLE TIMES that he ever knew Jesus.

In gMark, Jesus, even if assumed to be human, did many MARVELOUS miracles, FED thousands, walked on water, and TRANSFIGURED but on the day he was arrested his disciples FLED and Peter denied him.

There is ZERO evidence in gMark that the disciples of Jesus embellished him AFTER he was ARRESTED and died.

There is written evidence of DENIAL and ABANDONMENT in gMark.

There is ZERO evidence in gMark that the visitors to the tomb embellished Jesus AFTER his body was MISSING from the tomb.

There is written evidence that the visitors FLED DUMBSTRUCK and did NOT say anything to anyone.

The Jesus story in Sinaiticus gMark, even if assumed to be history, ENDED in ABANDONMENT, DENIALS, and REJECTION.

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument killer.

Bingo the Clown-O

… Says the man who can see into the gospel-writing imagination of Matthew well enough to proffer assurances his resurrected Jesus could pass through solid matter. :wave:

Gosh Jiri, evidently deep in your heart you are confident that you have achieved a profound understanding of the Gospel tradition. But in your posts you appear to be no better off then the next clown on the Internet.

How do you explain that?

Bingo the Clown-O

Please support this claim using gMark.

Bingo the Clown-O

Sorry, I’m not sure what your point is. I’m confused because you appear to be using Mark 16:15 to make some sort of point about what the GOSPEL meant to the original author of Mark.

Bingo the Clown-O

Right. I added Mark 1:14 and Mark 1:15 for the sake of completeness. (I forgot to mention them in my earlier post).

I’m not sure how that changes anything. My point was that those verses do not demand that the GOSPEL have a resurrection motif.

Bingo the Clown-O

Mark 8:31 does not demand that the GOSPEL mentioned in Mark 1:14, Mark 1:15, Mark 8:35, Mark 10:29, Mark 13:10, and Mark 14:9 include a resurrection motif. If ‘Jesus’ began teaching that the Son of Man will rise again (and that’s what it says) then we still can’t be sure that that was part of the GOSPEL mentioned in Mark 1:14, Mark 1:15, Mark 8:35, Mark 10:29, Mark 13:10, and Mark 14:9, or if it was something that was taught in addition to the GOSPEL mentioned in Mark 1:14, Mark 1:15, Mark 8:35, Mark 10:29, Mark 13:10, and Mark 14:9.

(And I am not claiming that anyone actually ever taught anything at all; as this appears to be complete fiction.)

Solo

In Mark and Matthew Jesus walks on water, no ? Why would he not be able to walk through solid matter ? John has resurrected Jesus walk through a closed door (20:19).


Evidently, I appear that way to you, Bingo-the Clown-O. Not much I can do about that, is there ? :huh:

Jiri

Bingo the Clown-O

But Jiri,

You must certainly care about what the others reading this forum must think of you. The real issue is what should a neutral observer conclude about you, when they can see that the assurances you proffer are no better than that of a lowly internet clown.

Right?

Bingo the Clown-O

Because it’s fiction. And the issue of if Jesus could walk through a rock did not occur to the author of Mark 16:4 at the time he wrote it.

Now if Matthew was comfortable with Mark’s depiction then why did he change it?

And why should John or Matthew even count at all when we are considering Mark 16:4?