Bernard Muller

to aa,
I agree with your first part. But the anointing was attempted after 40 hours only, not after three days.

Hmm, you are making progress ><: So Jesus of Nazareth and baptized by John is not part of the UTTER fiction
And how can you be sure that the next 11 chapters contain only UTTER fiction. Evidence please.

Actually, you are partly right here. But Paul had Jesus also rather unChrist like in the few HJ parts, such as humble, of no reputation and not showing he was Son of God before his alleged resurrection.
But, regardless, "Mark" tried to force stuff like the multiplication of food (twice) as a very public and spectacular event (but even the disciples and the crowd did not realize anything!). And the alleged extraordinary healing of the Paralytic is a demonstration of Jesus as being Divine.

"Mark" had to contend with the heard realities about the real Jesus and then tried to enhance him in order to make him more like the Deity as preached by Paul.
Actually in your quote of Philippians, you make the point:
That's how the human Jesus was, in reality.

That's how he should be considered now (when this was written).

You forget to mention the very Pauline gJohn!

Of course, gMark was more suitable for a story of Jesus' public life than the Pauline epistles.

Duvduv

WHY did no epistle writers after GMark know about the Son of Man? ?

Bernard Muller

Hebrews (written before the destruction of the temple according to most critical scholars) has son of man depicting Jesus.
Why would all the epistle writers (except one) would have dropped Son of Man, after knowing about the many ones in the gospels?

aa5874

Based on gJohn, it was a Jewish Tradition to put spices on a dead body BEFORE Burial and not on the THIRD day after burial.

John 19 Sorry, I missed the Baptism Fiction story. I completely forgot that when Jesus was baptized in gMark that there was a Holy Ghost Bird and the VOICE from heaven. Thanks for reminding me.

Mark 1 The Baptism event with Jesus in gMark is UTTER Fiction.


A real Jesus could NOT walk on water and transfigure. The Markan writer did NOT even hint that HIS JESUS had a human father.
You don't understand the Significance of a Canon. A Canon is NOT a Heretical document. It is NOT expected that the Canon of the Church to support the very Heresy which the Church condemned.

The Pauline Jesus was in the FORM of God, God's OWN Son WITHOUT a human father.

No, the Pauline writer seems to have attended gJohn's Church and then MODIFIED gJohn's Christology.

gJohn did NOT claim that Salvation was through the RESURRECTION. The Pauline Christology is FAR ADVANCED of gJohn's.



Well, there goes your imagination!!! Why do you IMAGINE such a thing???

Duvduv

Hey, AA.You post quotes under my name here, but they're not from me.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
You were referring to gMark, not gJohn. And "after three days" is not "on the third day".

Yes, you had a lapse here. Not remembering about that "Holy Ghost Bird and the VOICE from heaven"
Now maybe you can understand why Irenaeus did not consider Acts when writing AH 2.22: He did not remember!

Other lapses: Next, you call me Duvduv.
Did I say the real Jesus did that?

Actually he did. He declared Jesus had human mother, four brothers and sisters. Do the math.

So what, anything in the canon can be critically studied. Furthermore, these texts were not created to be in a canon. And there was no organized Church when they were written. And many of these texts contained embarrassing bits (such as the genealogies) and even heretical parts (such as Jesus being the first and the last in Revelation and Jesus declaring he is NOT a Son of David in gMark, and denial of pre-existence in gLuke).

And also as a descendant of Abraham, Jesse, David, Israelites, a woman, and in sinful flesh as a man.

I meant it was easier and more appropriate for "Matthew", "Luke" and "John" to use gMark rather than the Pauline epistles in order to write their gospel. What did you IMAGINE I meant?

aa5874

Why would the author of gMatthew state Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and still have Jesus call himself the Son of Man???

Why didn't the author drop the Ghost story??

Why would the author of gLuke who UNDERSTOOD everything from the start, claim Jesus was the product of the OVERSHADOW of Ghost and a woman and that Jesus called himself the Son of mAN???

Why did not the author drop the Ghost story???

Bernard Muller

to aa,
It is the case, we should expect a lot more of gJohn's stuff in the Paulines, like the resurrection reappearances synchronized on the ones of gJohn.
I do not call that FAR ADVANCED. But a Jesus parading on earth as the self-declared Son of God, as it is shown in gJohn is much more advanced than:

aa5874

Can't you understand that I have CORRECTED my statement?? Based on gJohn the Jewish tradition was to APPLY Spices to the DEAD body BEFORE the THIRD day of BURIAL.

Well, what I did is PRECISELY what I would expect if there was a REAL argument. I have CORRECTED and INCLUDED the Baptism story as UTTER Fiction very shortly after I saw the error..

It would appear that you seem to think that Irenaeus LAPSED for his ENTIRE LIFE span after he wrote Against Heresies 2.22. and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching.

And based on your reasoning, even the Church, the Christians, Apologetics and the Heretics LAPSED for the entire life of Irenaeus after it was claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old.

It is inexplicable that EVERBODY LAPSED for the LIFETIME of Irenaeus. It is most likely that NOBODY knew of gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

How Could it be that NOBODY knew that Ireneaus LAPSED???
gMark's Jesus WALKED on water and transfigured but you are yet to provide a source which is credible and states what YOUR JESUS did or if he can do anything??

Now, You have LAPSED. I SHOWED you that the Markan author ASKED QUESTIONS.

The FIRST Question was
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary , the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?.

Origen will ANSWER that question in the NEGATIVE.

"Against Celsus" 6.36 Do we have an INTERPOLATION??. I have found a source that DENIES that the Gospels did state that Jesus was a carpenter.

You have IMPLODED again. Your arguments are PULVERIZED beyond RECOGNITION.


Wait a minute!!! Stop right there. You have ARGUED that the Pauline writings have been INTERPOLATED to be in CONFORMITY with the doctrine and teachings of the Church but now ALL of a sudden you want me to accept that they were CANONIZED WITH ALL THE HERESIES.

Come on, Bernard!!! Who would have INTERPOLATED 1 Cor.15??

But Jesus was Fathered by a Ghost in gMatthew 1.18-20 and INTERNALLY corroborated in the Canon by gLuke in a so-called INDEPENDENT Inquiry.

Apologetic sources that mentioned the birth of Jesus CONSISTENTLY claimed he was born of a Ghost and a Woman.

Again, you are only asserting what you imagine but have FAILED to show the actual evidence of antiquity that support your imagination.

The Jesus of gMark did NOT teach is disciples that he would die for the Sins of all Mankind and did NOT teach that WITHOUT the resurrection there would be NO remission of Sins and that the Christian faith would be vain.

It would be EXPECTED that the authors of the Gospels if they wrote at least 30-50 years AFTER the Pauline letters of the Revealed Gospel of JESUS CHRIST that they ALL would have INCLUDED the REVEAL Gospel of the Resurrected.

NONE of them did. None of them was AWARE of the Pauline letters to the Churches.

gMark has PRIORITY of the NT Canon.

Duvduv

AA, are there additional issues in GMark that are missed by "Origen," or is the carpenter the only one? Whenever Origen wrote, if this is the only significant discrepancy isn't it possible that his own manuscript of GMark did not have this verse about Jesus the carpenter?

How many OTHER writers professed no knowledge of Jesus the carpenter without Celsus? The verse could just as easily have been added later from other manuscripts...... I just read online that there is a Papyrus 45 of GMark that say "Is not this the SON of the carpenter?"