angelo

All that proves aa is that each author of the various gospels had gMark in front of them and added their version of events or their understanding/interpretations of the events.

Chili

One must be careful here and realize that nobody will write a tragedy like Matthew and Mark and boast about it. Nobody will ever brag about how he ended up in hell and tell others how to get there too . . . if sanity prevails.

Then let me add that all those 'students' here do not understand that either, and so they keep railing on about the forgery they see, and one cannot help wonder why that is their ambition in life as it is today.

aa5874

Not only the Gospels but the Pauline writers.

The Pauline writer was aware of the Interpolated gMark.

This verse is found in the Interpolated long gMark.

Mark 16:17 KJV Paul is ONLY author of the ENTIRE Canon who admitted he spoke in Tongues--- the Sign of a Believer as stated in the Interpolated gMark.

1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV The Pauline writer is AFTER the Interpolated gMark.

mountainman

Are you saying the Pauline writer is after Vaticanus gMark?

Or that the Pauline letters were interpolated after Vaticanus gMark

aa5874

I am arguing that the short gMark story is the earliest story in the Canon. The short gMark is found also in the Sinaiticus codex and other manuscripts.

Based on the evidence available the Pauline writers are 2nd century or later. Essentially, the Pauline letters are really anonymous since the very writers of the Church did not know when Paul lived and what he actually wrote.

angelo

Out of the 14 Pauline epistles, only less than half are considered to be from the same author. Like most of the N/T according to Bart Ehrman, it's mostly forged. If that is so, why couldn't most of the dates also be forgeries. In the N/T, nothing is what it seems.
It's just an ancient Harry Potter like tale that perhaps wasn't even meant to be taken literally.

aa5874

You have identified the very heart of the bogus history presented in the Canon and propagated by the very Church.

All the Pauline letters are WITHOUT corroboration by the NT authors and WITHOUT corroboration by ALL Non-Apologetic writers and even WITHOUT corroboration by Apologetic sources.

These are the facts.

1. In the Muratorian Canon it is written that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER Revelation by John.

2. According to Origen, The Pauline writer was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed and that the writer knew of gLuke. See

3. According to Eusebius, the Pauline writer was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed and that the Pauline writer commended the Gospel--See Church History 6

4. According to Jerome, the Pauline writer was believed to have composed letters to Churches AFTER gLuke was composed. See "De Viris Illustribus".

5. No Pauline letters have ever been found and dated to the 1st century.

6. The author of Acts did Not acknowledge any Pauline letters.

7. Statements in the Pauline letters MATCH the Later Gospels. Paul claimed he preached the Gospel and spoke in Tongues which is found in the interpolated and forgery calledlong gMark

8. The Pauline writings are far more advanced theologically that the short gMark.

9. The Pauline writer knew FAR more about the post-resurrection story then the author of the short gMark.

10. The Pauline claims about the resurrected Jesus BEGINS IMMEDIATELY AFTER the End of the short gMark--the are No post-resurrection visits in gMark but by OVER 500 persons in a Pauline letter.

There is an abundance of evidence from antiquity, from the very writers of the Church, to show that the Pauline writings are AFTER the short gMark story

aa5874

In the Canon there are writings that could NOT have been or most likely were not composed in the 1st century.

These are the Pauline writings and Acts of the Apostles.

These writers Paul and the author of Acts place themselves in the 1st century.

In Acts, it is claimed there were thousands of Jews who converted to the Jesus cult even on a daily basis before c 70 CE and that the Jews were worshiping a resurrected Jesus as the Son of God at that time.

In the Pauline letters it is claimed or implied there were well developed Churches of the Jesus cult throughout the Roman Empire where Non-Jews worshiped Jesus as God AFTER he was resurrected long before c 70 CE since King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

There is NO evidence whatsoever in the history of mankind that there were thousands of Jews before c 70 CE who worshiped a man as a God.

In fact, Philo and Josephus claimed or implied the Jews would rather DIE than worship men as Gods and wrote Nothing of Paul the Hebrew of Hebrews or Jesus who was Equal to God.

Up to the mid 2nd century, Justin Martyr claimed that Christians were Granted Eternal life By Their Works and by Baptism in Water.

In Pauline writings, it is claimed No man is justified by the Works of the Flesh and that he was NOT called to Baptise.

Up to the mid 2nd century one Must be Baptized to be saved.

The Pauline theology is far advanced of the writings of Justin Martyr.

Justin's First Apology The Pauline theology is far advanced of the writings of Justin Martyr. The Pauline theology post-date the writings of Justin or after c 150 CE.

Cheerful Charlie

Last year i got very interested in te issue of freewill, predestination and the problem of Evil. I downoaded the CCEL ante-Nicene fathers and searched these books extensively. Predestination et al are almost entirely absent from early theologians, It is not until Augustine that these issues become a problem. This suggests to me that Paul was not that well known or important to most well known early theologians.
follwinng Augustine, much ink was spilled over these issues, notably by Calvin, Luther and other reformation theologians. Predestination also is to be found in te Gospels to some extent, and acts. But with the theology of Paul is where it is most bluntly asserted Romans 8 - 11 and 1 Corinthians. I found this most disconcerting. In the first two cenruries of Christianity, Paul makes almost no impact on Christianity as far as I can tell. Only with Monnanus does it start becoming something argued over. The issues of the problems of grace are almost absent for cennturies until Pelagius innadvertantly made it an issue. I cannot be the first one to notice this puzzling oddity.

Do you know of any scholar who discusses this near absence of Pauline doctriness for the 1st 250 years of Christianity?

Cheerful Charlie

angelo

The first two centuries also fail to excite about the historical Jesus. It's not until Eusebius gets his grubby hands on the xtian writings that he comes to the fore. If one cares to look closely, one comes away with the obvious evolution of the story from some hearsay perhaps late in the first century. In fact I have a book at the moment from an Domenican Biblical Center director who makes a strong argument that gMark was interpolated from the O/T and specifically from Deuteronomy.