aa5874

NO, NO, NO!!!! We would EXPECT CHANGES in the stories NOT synchronization.

We have the FOUR Gospels so we can SEE that the LATER authors do NOT really synchronize but they CHANGE the stories by either ADDING or DELETING events, even changing the chronology of events, and do the same with doctrinal issues.

The author of gJohn did NOT synchronize with the Synoptics he virtually presented a NEW JOHANINE EGOTISTIC Jesus quite unlike the Humble Synoptic Jesus character.

The Pauline writer COMPLETELY Ignored the Life of Jesus on earth and attempted to claim that it was really the RESURRECTION of Jesus that was the Most Significant event for the FAITH and REMISSION of Sins.

You only posted part of Philippians 2. You have LAPSED.

Philippians 2 But, when ANONYMOUS gMark was written, his Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted but to REMAIN in Sin, did NOT want anyone to know he was Christ and NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

Anonymous gMark was COMPOSED before the Pauline letters of the Revealed Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus were known and circulated and the author of gMark did NOT attend a Pauline Church or EMULATE Paul.

The Gospel authors EMULATED the author of gMark and PROPAGATED the Gospel of the Kingdom of God---the Gospel of gMark.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
First "John" was likely a Gentile. Second, just because he placed the anointment at burial does not mean he knew about not "after three days" or "on the third day".
How do you know AH got a wide circulation between the time it was published and "Demonstration" was written? How do you know Heretics got their hand on AH? How do you know Christians readers had to tell Irenaeus about it (if they ever knew about Pilate's 10 years and analysed historically Acts)?

You never related on that thread about QUESTIONS from "Mark". You never SHOWED me that the Markan author ASKED QUESTIONS.
And why do you bring Origen about that carpenter thing. You never discussed that on this thread. And what does that have to do with Jesus not being hinted to have a father? Without carpenter, we still would have, "Is not this the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?", which was copied by "Matthew".
Yes, why not. The general rule for interpolators was NO deletions, only additions.
An interpolator.
Of course, once gLuke and gMatthew came out, apologists would follow gLuke and gMatthew in that regard. Don't you think the Divine conception is FAR ADVANCED relative to Paul's simple human origin?
The gospel authors had their own beliefs and also their audience. They did not feel obligated to follow Paul in his theology and christology. Each "church" had their own Christian beliefs. It was not a linear and clean evolution.
And if you place the Pauline epistles after the gospels, you have the same problem, even worse.
My source is the Pauline epistles, with its humble and of no reputation HJ, not showing he was the Son of God, very unlikely to do these things.

aa5874

Well, the Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a man but of the resurrected Jesus and that Jesus was God's OWN Son which is COMPATIBLE with the teachings of the Church.

Galatians 1:1 KJVRomans 8:3 KJV You put forward the absurd notion that the Canon of the Church was KNOWN to be Heretical and propagated the very same Heresy that Jesus was a man which the Church condemned and argued against.

You argue that the Pauline writings were Manipulated by the Church to appear orthodox but still argue that it is contains the Heresy that Jesus was a man.

Your argument don't make much sense.

Duvduv

AA, how do you know they IGNORED the story rather than that they DIDNT KNOW about it?

Bernard Muller

to aa,
I addressed that in an earlier posting on that thread.
The second part does not describe the real HJ (as in the first part) but how he should be worshipped later.

Synchronization, that is having the Pauline epistles with the same post-mortem Jesus' reappearances than gJohn, is something which should be expected, more so in the Pauline writers knew about gJohn.

Paul did not get his gospel from Jesus the man, but that does not prevent him to know a few things about HJ.

Where did you get that the Church considered heresy that Jesus had been a man?

aa5874

Again, we have the FOUR Gospels and we can SEE with our eyes that LATER Gospels are NOT synchronized with EARLIER ONES.

We SEE CHANGES. We SEE ADDED DETAILS, added Events, some events removed, some details removed.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are NOT synchronized in all respect so it is NOT expected that the Pauline writings would be synchronized with Gospels.

We can generally tell or deduce a writing is LATE if there are details in one source which is NOT found in another or by word for word copying of sources and other pertinent clues.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a MAN and Pauline SAW his Jesus for the first time in a NON-HISTORICAL state--as a Resurrected being.

Do you limit yourself to reading ONLY the Bible??? I read NUMEROUS Apologetic sources and it is stated that Jesus Christ was of the Seed of God WITHOUT a Human Father.

Examine "On the Flesh of Christ" How many times must we go through Apologetic sources that show Jesus was considered God in the Flesh WITHOUT a human father???

There is NO evidence in any Apologetic source that the Pauline character PREACHED the HERESY that Jesus was human and WITH a human father.

It was HERESY to claim Jesus Christ was a man WITH a human father.

See Refutation of ALL Heresies 10.17 by Hippolytus.

outhouse

LOL no way are you kidding!!

they wrote about people mythically 2000 year ago, no way !!!!!!!!


LOL BWAAA HHaa Haa Ha

Doug Shaver

He would not have known about any of the gospel stories, unless he was psychic.

Duvduv

Hi Doug. Actually it was a further question for AA who argues that the epistle writers knew the GMark story but yet didn't know about the Son of Man and other details.

aa5874

What nonsense!!!

Was PAUL Psychic when he claimed he Persecuted the Faith??

Was PAUL Pyschic when he claimed he MET the Apostles Peter and James in Jerusalem???

Are you NOT familiar with the Pauline letters???

It is completely illogical that the Pauline writer could have Persecuted those who BELIEVED the Jesus story and did NOT know the Jesus story himself.

Remarkably, the Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the VERY SAME FAITH that he PRESENTLY PREACHED--See Galatians 1.


1 Corinthians 15:9 KJV
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.


Galatians 1:13 KJV
For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

Galatians 1:23 KJV:
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed .

Why do you PERSIST in making statements that EXPOSE your limited understanding of the Pauline writings???

No Apologetic source place the Pauline writer BEFORE the Jesus story was known and the very writer claimed that there were PEOPLE in Christ BEFORE him and that he was LAST of OVER 500 people to be VISITED by the resurrected Jesus.

And NOT ONLY does the Pauline writer claims he was AWARE of the FAITH--the PAULINE writer claimed he MET Apostles found in the Jesus stories.

The Pauline writer STATED that he MET the Apostle Peter, the Apostle James and John characters FOUND in the Gospels

Galatians 2:9 KJV The Pauline writer KNEW the Jesus story, the CHARACTERS in it and PREACHED the Jesus story to the HEATHEN.