aa5874

Your response is hopeless.

You seem incapable of understanding that the AUTHOR wrote a story about a character that he called the Son of God.

How in the world can a fictitious centurion see, hear, do or say anything in any chapter of gMark??

Sheshbazzar

The fictional Roman centurion is certainly presented by the author of Mark 15:39, to be seeing, responding, and speaking words.

I have presented my case. I'm going to leave it to our readers whether your resposes are any longer even rational.

aa5874

It is really quite disturbing that people here seem NOT to understand that EVERY WORD in gMark is from the AUTHOR.

The AUTHOR used his fictitious characters to TELL HIS OWN STORY.

The AUTHOR puts WORDS in their Mouths.

The characters will say EXACTLY what the Author writes.


Now, the short gMark story is extremely significant.

The AUTHOR wrote these verses:

1. Mark 1 2. Mark 33. Mark 54. Mark 95. Mark 15 The AUTHOR'S Jesus in gMark is NOT recognized by JEWS as the Son of God but by a Roman Officer. Not even the disciples of Jesus claimed he was the Son of God--they either Betrayed, Abandoned, or Denied him when he was arrrested.

The AUTHOR wrote that unclean spirits and the voices from heaven acknowledged Jesus as the Son of God but NOT the Jews.

The AUTHOR wrote that Jesus Admitted he was the Son of God but was found to be guilty of DEATH for Blasphemy by the Sanhedrin.

Mark 14 In gMark, the AUTHOR wrote that the Jews found Jesus to be gulity of death for Blasphemy.

Mark 14 The story from the AUTHOR is extremely easy to understand.

The Jews REJECTED Jesus as the Son of God and had him Crucified for Blasphemy.

The AUTHOR of gMark wrote that it was the Centurion, a Roman Officer, the ONLY person, to recognise Jesus as the Son of God.

The AUTHOR Ends his fiction story when his Jesus the Son of God resurrected.

maryhelena

"outrageous" that Hoffmann uses the word "undoubtedly" that the "illegitimacy of Jesus" story, or tradition, can be "traced back to a period before the formation of the written Gospels." ?

From a JC historicist position, Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Putting notions of divine, holy ghost, conception where such ideas belong (the dustbin) questions regarding the father of such an assumed historical Jesus would be raised. So - ideas, questions, about an illegitimate birth, ie a birth outside of a marriage to Joseph, would be par for the course.

If, as is usually maintained, gMark proceeded gMatthew, then the question of the identity of the father of Jesus was an open question. It would be an open question until gMatthew created the virgin birth, holy ghost, nativity story. A story that Celsus was able to cast doubt upon by referencing another birth narrative which names the father as Pandera.

There is nothing "outrageous" about Hoffmann's logic here. The Jesus story was a developing story. A developing story allows for changes in direction re it's time-frame and changes in development of the characters the story created.

As for Hoffmann's interest in Celsus:


Celsus: On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians, R. Joseph Hoffmann (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Interesting, Celsus not only questions the virgin birth of gMatthew - he also questioned gMatthew's reference to the Magi. His counter-argument uses the term Chaldeans:

The Chaldeans?

Celsus has two arguments against gMatthew.

1) based upon the Pandera stories.
2) based upon a story about the Chaldeans, a story that is now within Slavonic Josephus.

The usual argument is that these two stories are later reactions, parodies of sort, against the gospel story. Celsus is using these two stories against gMatthew. Why? One reason is that gMatthew has developed the Jesus story, upgraded that story via a virgin birth, a divine conception story. An upgrade that allowed for arguments against it - arguments that were able to draw upon earlier Jesus stories.

Celsus, via Origen, demonstrates that these stories were raised as objections to the gMatthew virgin birth, holy ghost conception, narrative. Cesus' work, according to Wikipedia was written around 177 c.e. These two stories, Pandera and the Chaldean story within Slavonic Josephus, are not late stories after the NT canon was created. These two stories are part of the developing Jesus story - not a late negative reaction to the NT story.


Celsus

Sheshbazzar

You fail to explain or give any reasons how or why this Centurion, a Roman Officer was able to recognize Jesus as being the Son of God,
or why the author of Mark would elevate this otherwise totally unmentioned, unknown, and never again mentioned character to such a exclusive position.

There is nothing to be found anywhere within these texts that makes this Roman centurion privy to more information or insight on Jezus than anyone else.

In fact the apostles, being Jezus closest daily companions, for the entire duration of his ministry, with all of the 'insider' information and parables carefully expounded and explained exclusively to them, and present to see most of his miracles, and even given power by him to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils themeselves, and had been present on the mountain to hear that voice speaking from heaven, and even saw him transfigured, could not recognize Jezus as being the Son of God.

What do you find anywhere within these texts, anything that would explain WHY this Roman centurion, -by the text apparently an complete stranger to Jezus- would be the only person on earth able to recognize Jezus as being 'The Son of God!' ?

Simply because of the way you read an (unsupplied) 'emotion' into his one single sentence? -written in a language that you are totally unfamiliar with?

Your argument is sorely lacking in explanitive power, and thus unpersuasive.


.

MrMacSon

That's what Sheshbazzar was saying

jakejonesiv

Mani was an Iranian prophet of the third century CE and thus predates Eusebius and many of the persons discussed on this site. Not much was known about Mani until 1969 when a Greek parchment codex (ca. 400 CE) was discovered in Upper Egypt, designated Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis. It contains an account of Mani's career along with information about Mani's religious teachings and fragments of his writings. It recounts Mani's introduction to the Jewish-Christian Elkesaite baptising sect. Wiki

Mani appears to be the true representative of the Pauline spirit going forward. Mani's teachings are revealed to him through his spiritual companion and celestial twin (his syzygos).

Just consider this brief excerpt from “On the Origin of His Body” The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon inv. Nr. 4780). It is from the beginning of the Mani letter to Edessa, and the similarities to Galatians chapter 1 are truly remarkable.

“The truth of the secrets that I speak—about the laying on of hands that is mine—not from people have I received it nor from fleshly creatures, not even from studies in the scriptures. But when my most blessed father, who called me into his grace, saw me, since he did not wish me and the rest who are in the world to perish, he felt compassion, so that he might extend well- being to those prepared to be chosen by him from the sects. Then, by his grace, he pulled me from the council of the many who do not recognize the truth and revealed to me his secrets and those of the undefiled father of all the cosmos. He disclosed to me how I was before the foundation of the world, ….”
He wrote again and said in the gospel of his most holy hope,

“I, Mani, a messenger (JJ4: Apostle!) of Jesus Christ through the will of god, the father of truth, from whom I was born, who lives and abides forever …. The truth of ages that he revealed I have seen, and that truth I have disclosed … this immortal gospel that I have written, including in it these eminent mysteries … These things that he revealed I have shown to those who live from the truest vision, which I have seen, and from the most glorious revelation revealed to me.”

This can be found in “The Gnostic Bible” by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer.
It has been suggested that when the Marcionites departed, they were absorbed by Manichaeism. Mani sounds as if he were "channeling" the spirit of Paul.

For the heresiologists view, please see _S. Ephraim's Prose Refutations of Mani, Marcion and Bardaisan_.
(Thanks to Roger Pearse).

Best regards,
Jake Jones IV

aa5874

You are completely wrong.

What Sheshbazzar said is recorded. Sheshbazzar actually claimed that the CENTURION character had no knowledge of what was written in Mark 9.

Sheshbazzar does not understand that the Centurion character has NO knowledge at all just like the Clouds and the heavens had NO knowledge that they were Talking in Mark 1 and Mark 9.

Sheshbazzar does NOT understand that the words and attitude of the Centurion, the Clouds and the Heavens are DIRECTLY from the AUTHOR who knows what he wrote in Mark 1-16 --- the Entire story.

Understanding the short gMark is crucial in the dating of Paul.

The short gMark story in the Canon Predates all other writings in the Canon and was most likely known or composed BEFORE there was a Jesus cult of Christians.

The Pauline writer ADMITTED he Persecuted the Jesus Cult.

The short gMark Predated the Jesus cult.

The earliest non-apologetic source for Christians who worshiped a crucified man is the 2nd century c 160 CE.

aa5874

Slavonic Josephus was composed LONG AFTER Celsus was dead and there is no corroborative evidence that Celsus knew of a story of Jesus BEFORE the Jesus story was invented.

May I remind you that we have the writings of Philo, Josephus, Pliny the younger, Tacitus and Suetonius that clears the 1st century of the Jesus story and cult

There was NOTHING at all known of Jesus of Nazareth BEFORE the story was INVENTED in the 2nd century.

Every activity of Jesus of Nazareth was completely unknown, from the baptism to the resurrection, before the 2nd century.

In fact, all writings that mention Pandera may have used Origen "Against Celsus" or copied Celsus "True Discourse".

aa5874

The dating of the Pauline writings is directly related to understanding the short gMark Jesus story.

The author of the short gMark wrote a story of a character called Jesus that ENDED at the Resurrection.

The Pauline writer's Revelation BEGAN AFTER the Resurrection.

The author of the short gMark wrote NOTHING of being in contact with the Resurrected Jesus or that the disciples were visited or commissioned by the risen character.

The Resurrection is the END of the short gMark.


1. Jesus privately BOASTED that he did NOT ever want the ousiders to understand him. See Mark 4

2. Jesus privately BOASTED that he wanted the outsiders to Remain in Sin. See Mark 4.12

3. Jesus ordered his own disciples NOT to tell any one he was the Christ. See Mark 8

4. The very disciples of Jesus had either Betrayed, Abandoned or Denied. See Mark 14

5. The very Jews had demanded that Jesus be Killed--Crucified by Pilate. See Mark 15

6. The Jesus character even implied that he was FORSAKEN by God. See Mark 15

7. Jesus is Crucified and buried by Joseph. See Mark 15

8. The visitors to the burial site of Jesus find the Tomb Empty. Mark 16

9. The visitors are told Jesus resurrected. See Mark 16.6

10. The visitors FLED from the Empty Tomb Terrified and told No-one Jesus resurrected.

The short gMark story ENDS.

It is extremely important to note that when the AUTHOR of the short gMark wrote his story sometime in the 2nd century:

1. NO-ONE was told of the Jesus story before the 2nd century.

2. NO-ONE was told Jesus was resurrected before the 2nd century.

3. NO-ONE was commissioned to preach the story of Jesus before the 2nd century .

4. NO-ONE was a Christian of the Jesus cult before the short gMark was composed.

The Pauline writer composed his story about the Resurrection of Jesus AFTER the short gMark AUTHOR wrote his story.

The Pauline writings were composed AFTER the short gMark was Manipulated to include the Great Commission.