J-D

I am not forgetting; I am pointing out that the distinction you are talking about is not the same as the distinction that I am talking about, and that you have still not acknowledged the relevance of the distinction I am talking about.

Sheshbazzar

Mark 11:11 states; Explain why that statement CANNOT POSSIBLY be true.

Then how are you able to determine that the statement made in Mark 11:11;
CANNOT POSSIBLY be historically accurate?



.

aa5874

I have NOT claimed that gMark 11.11 cannot possibly be true. I just don't know how a character that PREVIOUSLY walked on water and who had transfigured would be really in Jerusalem in the Jewish Temple. I just don't know how gMark could be accepted as history.

Now, Let me LIST some of the statements about Jesus in gMark that CANNOT POSSIBLY be historically accurate.

1. Mark 6.48-49 where Jesus was WITNESSED as he walked on the sea.

2. Mark 9.2-3 where Jesus Transfigured in the presence of his disciples and was talking to the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

3. Mark 16.6 where a man in white clothes claimed Jesus was risen.

4. Mark 1.10-11 The Baptism with the Holy Ghost Bird and the TALKING heaven.

5. Mark 2.5 where a man was INSTANTLY cured of Palsy.

6. Mark 3.5 where a man's withered hand was INSTANTLY healed.

7. Mark 4.39 where Jesus VOCALLY and INSTANTLY calmed a sea-storm.

8. Mark 5.13 with Jesus, the Pigs and Demons.

9. Mark 5.41 with the raising of the dead girl.

10. Mark 6.42 with feeding of the 5 thousand men and 12 baskets of left-overs.

11. Mark 7.34 the INSTANT healing of the deaf and dumb with Spit.

12. Mark 8.9 the feeding of the 4 thousand men and 7 baskets of left overs.

13. Mark 8.25 the healing of the Blind man.

14. Mark 9.7 with the TALKING cloud at the transfiguration.

15. Mark 9.25 with the INSTANT healing of the dumb and deaf epileptic.

16. Mark 10.52 with the INSTANT restoration of sight to the blind.

17. Mark 11.20 with the killing of the FIG tree by a curse.

I hope you understand me now. gMark is COMPATIBLE with Myth Fables.

I don't know of any statements about Jesus and the disciples that ARE historically accurate but I can IDENTIFY at least 17 events in gMark that CANNOT POSSIBLY be historically accurate.

Also, I cannot find any credible corroborative sources for Jesus and the disciples of gMark as I have done for Pilate, Herod, Philip the brother of Herod, Herodias and John the Baptist.

I can ONLY accept gMark as a MYTH Fable of a PHANTOM and his disciples since they are uncorroborated.

Sheshbazzar

Then you are allowing that Mark 11:11 could possibly be true.

And could possibly be a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.
(Note this does not claim or establish that this event DID take place, or IS an accurate report. Only that there is a possibility, but one that cannot be corroborated.)

Are you then willing to admit that J-D has a valid reason to hold;
"that some of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus MIGHT.... be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place." ?


.

aa5874

If you want to argue with me Please say EXACTLY what J-D claimed. I can't accept HALF of the statement.

He did say MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT which implied he did NOT really know if there any historically accurate statements in the Gospels.

Please INCLUDE the words" MIGHT NOT BE".

This is an Excerpt from J-D--Post #165 Clearly J-D does NOT know what statements in the Gospels ARE ACTUALLY historically accurate and that is PRECISELY why he INCLUDED the phrase "MIGHT or MIGHT NOT".

J-D has IDENTIFIED that statements about a dead person coming back to life CANNOT be historically true but other statements perhaps like Mark 11.11 MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT be historically true.

J-D

Yes, almost exactly (except that I do not misuse the verb 'identify' in that way and would have substituted a more appropriate one, probably 'said'); do you acknowledge the relevance of this distinction between those statements which cannot be historically true and those statements which might or might not be historically true?

Sheshbazzar

Revised for your pleasure;
Doesn't affect the question (I only shortened it to fit it in on one line. And the use of -'MIGHT'- automatically also implies 'might NOT' be, As everyone here well knows, excepting you.)
That fact has already been established repeatedly, and is admitted by J-D
The point of his argument never specifies any particular verse and it doesn't need to.
So again;
You are thus allowing that Mark 11:11 could possibly be true.

And could possibly be a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.
(Note this does not claim or establish that this event DID take place, or IS an accurate report. Only that there is a possibility, but one that cannot be corroborated.)

Are you then willing to allow that J-D has a valid reason to hold;
"that some of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus MIGHT or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place." ?

We ALL know what J-D has said.

The question now is will YOU allow that "some statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus MIGHT or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place." ?

aa5874

How could that be. You mean J-D did not know. It is J-D who first used "MIGHT NOT" REPEATEDLY when he could have just written "MIGHT".


So why are you specifying a verse for me? I really don't understand you at all. J-D does NOT know which verse or if any verse is historically accurate in the Gospels so how would you expect me to know?

Do you think I am a magician?

I have ALREADY shown you SEVENTEEN passages in about 10 DIFFERENT chapters of gMark that CANNOT be historically accurate.

Hold it right, there. I caught you.

Did you NOT say that "MIGHT" also IMPLIES "MIGHT NOT"?

You said it was "AUTOMATIC".

Well, since you say "MIGHT" AUTOMATICALLY IMPLIES "MIGHT NOT" then Mark 11.11 AUTOMATICALLY MIGHT NOT BE HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

You did NOT KNOW that?

J-D

I added 'or might not' solely for emphasis--you know, the way you put things in capitals, bold them, enlarge them, and colour them, just for emphasis, which doesn't change the meaning.I have not pointed to any verse which is historically accurate, but I have distinguished between two categories, one category of verses where there is a basis for excluding historical accuracy, and another where there is no basis for excluding historical accuracy--the point being that nobody has yet made a case that every verse falls into the first category.What do you mean, 'caught'? 'Caught' how? In a trap? Or what? Suppose you have 'caught' Sheshbazzar, whatever that means--so what? What does that have to do with anything?

Sheshbazzar

Yes, aa it "MIGHT NOT", but as long as you are employing these "MIGHTS" you are NOT saying;

' ALL statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus ARE NOT literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.'

Unless you have the backbone to stand up and make such a declaration you are waffling with "MIGHT or MIGHT NOT have beens", and in using "MIGHT NOT have been's" you are ALLOWING that it is also equally possible that the event of Mark 11:11 "MIGHT BE" a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place, and thus displaying your lack of backbone, and your lack of confidence in your doubtful position.

Your pathetic attempts at evasion of this straight forward question are making you to look both dishonest and ridiculous.

Then you are ALLOWING that Mark 11:11 CAN possibly be true.
And CAN possibly be a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.

The straight-foreword question I am asking you is;

Will YOU allow that some statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus MIGHT be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place?