hjalti

It was obviously embarassing! :Cheeky:

Toto

There is no good reason not to apply the various criteria to the gnostic literature - except that if you did, it would demonstrate that the criteria are all quite useless.

aa5874

Well, it is ONLY applied to Jesus, the Child of a Ghost, to make the Ghost Child appear to be human.

It is NOT applied to Pilate, the High Priest Caiaphas, Tiberius the Caesar, Herod the Great, Satan, the God of the Jews, Gabriel the angel and demons.

There seems to be some kind of double standard for Jesus the Child of the Holy Ghost.

mountainman

From WIKI

The criterion seem particularly blind to the possibility that the Early Church created historical material for chronological purposes in order to legitimitize its heritage.

DCHindley

Although another nail has been pounded into the coffin of the criterion of embarassment, remember that Kiddo was embarassed to have been so easily captured by Bill's debauched brother, as she watched the nails be driven in to the casket she had been placed in, one by one.

Yet, by recall of the rigorous training she underwent at the hands of Pai Mei, she successfully demolished the casket and dug her way to the surface where she again saw the light of day. Alas, revenge was snatched away from her on account of the brother's folly, yet she did snatch out the avenger's eye.

So, the criterion of embarassment will, upon demand of necessity, overcome its confinement in a casket of doubt, by the kind of circumstances that produced it.

Chili, do I have to do everything for you? :Cheeky:

DCH

Solo

Paul does not know anything about any women at a tomb even if you accept 1 Cr 15:3-11 as genuine

Mark ends (or better, loops) at 16:8. He explicitly says the women did not say anything to anyone, so that the 'messianic secret' of Christ came out through the gospel of Paul and Mark's allegory of it. It was Paul - not the disciples or the women - who first proclaimed Christ crucified.

It was well known by whom and when, hjalti ? The appearance of Jesus to the two Marys was first asserted by Matthew to obliterate the importance of the 'neaniskos' of Mark as the 'messenger of the covenant'. Matthew who read Mark as the allegory that it was, was basically saying, 'no we did not get gospel from a Pauline baptist ( the tomb in Mark allegorizes Rom 6:3-4) . When the women arrived the tomb was sealed and guarded. It was unsealed by an angel from heaven who showed the empty tomb to them and made the anunciation.' Jesus is then made to appear to the women as an extra assurance to nullify the importance of a spiritual entity in the annunciation, and the Pauline claim of priority to it.

Incidentally of the two only Luke has the disciples disbelieve initially the women (24:11). Matthew's disciples act on the information they brought.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It is completely erroneous and mind boggling that you would continue to claim that "It was Paul"....who first proclaimed Christ crucified" when the very epistles document the OPPOSITE claim.

1."Paul" claimed he PERSECUTED the FAITH Before he started to preach the Faith. See Galatians 1.

2. "Paul" claimed there were people in Christ BEFORE him. See Romans 16

3. "Paul" claimed he was the LAST to see the resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor.15

4. "Paul" claimed OVER 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus BEFORE him. See 1 Cor.15

5. "Paul" used a written source for his story that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and rose o the THIRD day. See 1 Cor 15

6. "Paul" claimed Salvation was offered to the Jew first. See Romans 1

7. "Paul" claimed he went to Jerusalem to see the apostles BEFORE him at least 3 years after he was called to preach Christ. See Galatians 1.

8. "Paul" did NOT claim he was first to preach Christ crucified in the Epistles.

The abundance of written information show that "Paul" was UNKNOWN outside apologtic sources and was a late writer and AFTER the Jesus story was already written.

Solo

.

1 Cr 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles

Gal 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?

Gal 5:10-11 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. But if I, brethren, still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? In that case the stumbling block of the cross has been removed.

Paul was alone in his time to proclaim Jesus as a Messiah - it is clear from Galatians that the Jerusalem missions had a different view of Jesus and unlike Paul believed in the restoration of Israel as God's kingdom on earth, something Paul was adamantly and irreconcilably opposed to. The gospel of Mark is a historical witness to the original disciples' hostility (and their succession by proxy) to the Pauline idea of crucified Messiah. It was Mark's version of Paul's gospel which turned the tables and "converted" after a fashion large groups of the exiled Nazarenes/Ebionites to Paul's Christology. Matthew's gospel was the result.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Those passages do NOT at all claim that "Paul" was FIRST to preach Christ crucified.

Please Look at passages that show "Paul" was NOT the FIRST to preach the Faith.

Ga 1:23 -
Again, your assertions are erroneous. The very Galatians dismantle your errors.

Galatians 2.7-8 Even in Galatians "Paul" was NOT alone in preaching the Gospel. Peter preached the Gospel to the Jews and "Paul" preached the Gospel to the Gentiles in Galatians.

Your assertion is NOT logical.

The Pauline writings contain virtually NOTHING about the Life of Jesus or even where Jesus supposedly lived, preached and carry out his supposed miracles.

Up to the middle of the 2nd century, Justin Martyr is NOT familiar with anything Pauline.

The author of gMark did NOT even write a Salvation story.

Solo

The only original verse after 1:17 in the first chapters of Galatians is 1:21. Read my blog on Galatians if you want to discuss this issue further.


Gal 2:7-8 were almost certainly interpolated as they refer to Cephas as "Peter" and insist that the division of missions existed prior to the agreement Paul indicates was made at the very time of his visit, as a matter of fact in the very next verse (2:9).


Jiri