aa5874

As I go through the gospel of gMark found in the Codex Sinaticus it becomes clear that "Paul's" Jesus story is after gMark. And even that the Pauline story was AFTER Acts of the Apostles was written or that he had knowledge of sources similar to Acts of the Apostles.

In gMark of the Codex Sinaticus, the very last chapter is EXTREMELY significant. In the Codex Sinaiticus, gMark 16 has only 8 verses which are probably the most significant verses of all the Gospels.

See http://www.sinaiticus.com/

Now, in Sinaiticus gMark, although it is claimed Jesus was raised from the dead there is no post-resurrection or ascension scenes and the author did not write that Jesus promised the disciples the Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

In the Sinaiticus gMark Jesus merely told the dicisples to MEET Him in Galilee AFTER he was raised from the dead.

Sinaiticus gMark 14 Now, in Sinaiticus gMark 16, Jesus is dead and buried and some visitors go to the tomb and find it without the body of Jesus and a man in white clothes inside the tomb and tell them Jesus has been raised from the dead and to tell the disciples that he has left for Galilee where they should meet him.

Sinaiticus gMark 16It MUST be noted that the Galilee meeting of Jesus and the disciples could NOT have taken place once Jesus was really dead.

Astonishingly, we have come to the END of the Jesus story.

It is EXTREMELY significant to understand that The body of Jesus had vanished, the disciples had ALREADY abandoned him and finally the visitors to the tomb fled dumbstruck.

How did people start to claim Jesus was Christ, and the Savior of Jews and was raised from the dead when Jesus claimed he spoke in parables lest the Jews be SAVED and told no man he was Christ and his dead body had VANISHED based on Sinaiticus gMark?

Now examine the words of "Paul" in Sinaiticus 1 Corintians 15. In gMark the visitors to the burial site did NOT see the body of Jesus, the disciples had ABANDONED him and Jesus claimed he DELIBERATELY spoke in parables so that the Jews would be WITHOUT Salvation.

How did Christianity start under those devastating condition?

Who told "Paul" about Jesus?

Peter had DENIED that he ever knew Jesus or was associated with him.

Who told "Paul" that Jesus came to save the Jews?

Jesus told the disciples he did NOT want the Jews to be SAVED.

Who told "Paul" Jesus was raised from dead on the THIRD day?

The visitors did NOT see the body of Jesus on the third day and told no-one.

The Pauline Jesus story and Gospel is AFTER gMark.

"Paul" changed the Synoptic type Jesus story.

Kent F

Oh please! Isn't it obvious that it was the other way around, that the Synoptics changed the Pauline story? Paul was NOT aware of gMark or the fairy-tale that is Acts, because Paul's gospel was of no man. He recieved it from the Lord, in a vision. His vision told him that Jesus was raised on the third day and his vision was his gospel. No man told him. And his Jesus was crucified, buried and raised, according to the scriptures, that is the Hebrew bible.

Paul's Jesus was an entirely spiritual figure.He never mentions the supposed holy places of Jesus, like the empty tomb. He doesn't mention Pilate or the virgin Mary. He doesn't care to visit Jerusalem after his vision and walk in the footsteps of his suffering savior, simply because he was not aware that Jesus had been to earth. According to the Marcion version of Galatians, it takes Paul 14 years to visit Jerusalem after his vision and not even then does he care to mention that he visited the empty tomb.

And it's interesting that you who argue strongly for the mythicist case puts gMark earlier than the Pauline epistles, thereby contradicting yourself, because if this is true then christianity must have started with a figure who had been on earth because gMark's Jesus is a god in human clothing who lived, died and resurrected among humans. Why would Paul take this story and strip away all the human connections and make Jesus into a spiritual being? Who would he convince with such a story? People would ask him: "Where's John the Baptist, the virgin Mary, Pilate, the trial and the crucifixion in Jerusalem in your story? And Paul would not have been forced to explain why he had left all of this out? Not one word about it anywhere in all of his writings? It simply doesn't make sense.

The mythicist case is much stronger the other way around, starting with Paul's spiritual Jesus who decades later was fleshed out to answer the questions that was being asked mainly by Gentiles about who Jesus was. So, the first gospel should be a spiritual one, of no man, and then this spiritual gospel got its more earthbound counterpart in gMark. Paul's gospel was too hard to understand and gMark later filled the need of a more understandable story. This makes much more sense with the textual evidence that we have.

aa5874

Well, well well. Your post is just filled with so much errors. You seem to have not even read the Pauline writings. I have not seen so much unsubstantiated claims in so few sentences.

All you have done is to ALTER the Pauline story and insert your own imagination. If you want to argue with my position you must produce actual written evidence not a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions.

Let us deal with the written Epistles and NOT opinion.

1. "Paul" claimed he once persecuted the Faith he now preached. See Galatians 1.23

Based on "Paul's" own words he was aware of the Christian Faith BEFORE he was called to preach about Jesus Christ. As a persecutor "Paul" must have some knowledge of the Jesus story.

The Christian Faith PREDATES "Paul". This is so incredible basic.

2. "Paul" claimed there were people in Christ BEFORE him. See Romans 16.7.

Again, based on "Paul's own words he was converted to the Christian Faith AFTER Andronicus and Junia.

3. "Paul" claimed there were apostles BEFORE him and named apostles that are found in gMark, and Acts of the Apostles. See Galatians 1.18, 2.1 and 2.9.

"Paul" claimed he actually stayed fifteen days with the apostle Peter found in gMark and went to Jerusalem with Barnabas a character found ONLY in Acts of the Apostles.

4. "Paul" claimed Jesus was raised from the dead on the THIRD DAY according to the Scripture. See 1 Cor.15

There is NO Hebrew Scripture which claimed a character called Jesus Christ was raised from the dead on the THIRD DAY.

It is in the Gospel that a character called Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and be raised on the THIRD DAY.

"Paul" was aware of a written source, NOT Hebrew Scripture, that that Jesus was raised from the dead on the THIRD DAY. See Mark 9.31

5. Over 500 People at once saw the resurrected Jesus according to Paul. See 1 Cor. 15

This claim IMPLIES that over 500 people knew of the story that Jesus was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD DAY before "Paul".

6. According to Church writings, apologetic sources, "Paul" was aware of gLuke. See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25.6.

The abundance of evidence shows with ease that the Pauline story was AFTER gMark.

Not even ONE visitor saw a VISION of the resurrected Jesus in gMark and the disciples had to go all the way to Galilee to see Jesus which is at least a THREE days journey when all they needed was some "Pauline visions".

avi

And I am not arguing here, against your position, for I agree with you, however, I would have concluded, based upon Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, as you have mentioned, in your last point, (i.e. number 6, above), that the evidence suggests that the epistles attributed to "Paul" were composed after Luke's manuscript(s) had been published.

avi

avi

There's a fair amount of nonsense in both old and new testaments.

Are you confounding the epistles of Paul, with the four gospels?

In my opinion, the takeaway message from Paul is this: He argued that one could receive salvation by expressing faith in the divinity of JC, irrespective of having followed, obeyed, or disregarded Jewish law and tradition.

From the perspective of any Jew, Paul was a heretic and blasphemer. From the perspective of contemporary analysis of Paul's writings, one is obliged to note that he described hallucinations as if real events, ergo: manifest psychosis.

avi

maryhelena

Well done, aa5874 :thumbs:

Mythicists who seek to put all their eggs in that Pauline basket should take heed...

maryhelena

Interesting, although I have not read the book you mentioned - the idea that 'Paul' writes after gLuke makes a lot of sense. After all, everything changes after gLuke: It's time stamp of the 15th year of Tiberius can be viewed as closing the door to the early gospel story. An earlier story than can be pushed way back into the 15th year of Herod the Great. So, with gLuke - the historical door to the past is shut tight - which gives 'Paul' the freedom to scale the heights of intellectual fantasy unrestrained by the mundane realities of history.

Solo

And you should take heed that the mysterious Isaiah reference in Mk 1:2 is 44:13, by which Mark all but tells you he is inventing Jesus out of Paul's spirit of the risen Lord :

The carpenter (tekton) stretches a line, he marks it out with a pencil; he fashions it with planes, and marks it with a compass; he shapes it into the figure of a man, with the beauty of a man, to dwell in a house.

How does Paul tie into this ? 1 Cr 3:10

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder (architekton) I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it.

So, no problem as to what is a chicken and what an egg here, AFAICS.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Well, I, too, am not arguing with you. It can be safely argued that the Pauline story is after gLuke but you may have missed the very second sentence in my OP. I did state that the Pauline story is even after Acts of the Apostles or sources similar to Acts.

In any event, I am concentrating on showing that the Pauline Jesus story contains information that the author of Sinaiticus gMark simply did not know or write about.

Now, let us look at gMark 14 where Jesus is basically talking to the disciples for the last time on the Mount of Olives.

Sinaiticus gMark 14 This is extremely significant. The disciples will have to go to GALILEE just to physically SEE the supposed resurrected Jesus.

Look at the words of Jesus in gMatthew.

Sinaiticus gMatthew 26 We have the very same words. The disciples will have to go to GALILEE to physically SEE the supposed resurrected Jesus.

So, even before Jesus is dead the disciples in gMatthew and gMark knew that they ought to GALILEE to physically SEE the supposed resurrected Jesus.

But, what does Sinaiticus gLuke say?

When Jesus was on Mount Olives, before he was arrested, where did the author of gLuke claim the disciples would physically SEE the supposed resurrected Jesus?

There is NOTHING in gLuke about a post-resurrection meeting in GALILEE when Jesus was on the Mount of Olives.

In gLuke, even Peter was looking in a GRAVEYARD in Jerusalem for Jesus when in gMatthew and gMark Peter and the disciples were ALREADY told to go to Galilee and he did NOT go the burial site.


The author of Sinaticus gMark appears NOT to know about the day of Pentecost and that the disciples were supposed to meet in JERUSALEM

Now, this is EXTREMELY CRITICAL.

The author of gLuke is going to ELIMINATE the story about the post-resurrection meeting in GALILEE.

Jesus in gLuke will make a post-resurrection appearance in JERUSALEM and tell the disciples to WAIT in JERUSALEM for the "PROMISE".

Sinaiticus gLuke 24 Remarkably the author of gMark did NOT appear to know that the disciples were to WAIT in JERUSALEM for the PROMISE and were to START preaching in JERUSALEM.

By the time gMark was written the author should have KNOWN about the day of PENTECOST since that was the Most Significant Post-Ascension event for Christians.

It was on the day of Pentecost that the disciples supposedly were EMPOWERED by the Holy Ghost in JERUSALEM and began to Preach Repentance and the Remission of Sins.

The authors of gMark and gMatthew, although supposedly writing DECADES after the Day of Pentecost, do NOT appear to KNOW that the apostles did NOT go to GALILEE and that Jesus MET them in JERUSALEM and that they did stay in JERUSALEM and was EMPOWERED by the Holy Ghost and did Preach in JERUSALEM.

The authors of gMatthew and gMark, although supposedly writing DECADES after the Day of Pentecost, do NOT appear to know that Jesus PROMISED to send the Holy Ghost in to the apostles in JERUSALEM.


But, "Paul" KNOWS the apostles were in JERUSALEM. And "Paul" not only KNOWS the apostles were in JERUSALEM he WENT to JERUSALEM and stayed FIFTEEN days with the apostle PETER.

And "Paul" also wrote about the GIFTS of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12.

Sinaiticus Galatians 1 It is clear that the Pauline Jesus story is AFTER gMark.

The author of gMark supposedly wrote DECADES after the Day of Pentecost when it should have been known that the apostles REMAINED in JERUSALEM, was EMPOWERED by the Holy Ghost and started to preach in JERUSALEM yet the author wrote that Jesus told the disciples to go to GALILEE to physically SEE him AFTER he was raised from the dead.

"Paul" knew the apostles BEFORE him were in JERUSALEM and had the Promise of the Holy Ghost but the author of Sinaiticus gMark did NOT.

The Pauline Jesus story is AFTER gMark.

Kent F

First, I have read the Pauline writings and I have also read the Marcion version of Galatians. That's written evidence. Marcion's version was earlier than the one in our NT and in this version, the above mentioned phrase is not there. It's an interpolation.

I can't get around the fact that Paul wrote that his gospel was of no man, it was based on his vision, and he laid the foundation upon which others built. Why would he claim such a thing if there were others before him?

By the way, professor Markus Vinzent of King's College, London, will later this year publish a book where he places Marcion's writings as one of the earliest sources for christianity. He will claim that Marcion is "Q" and thus before gMark and since I have been convinced that Stephan Huller is right when he says Paul=Marcion, this will be an interesting read indeed.

The name is Cephas, not Peter. But again, this is taken from our version of Galatians. The Marcion version doesn't have any of this. How do we explain that? Either Marcion cut out these mentions or some scribe associated with the early Roman catholic church added them later to give Acts credibility. I believe the latter to be true.

Paul's Jesus was foretold in the scriptures, in prophets like Isaiah, Hosea and Daniel. He was foretold but hidden. Hosea 6.2 has the resurrection on the third day. Not with the name Jesus, but the prophecy is there. Just fill in the name and Paul did just that. Then gMark used the resurrection on the third day in his later embellished story.

Paul talks about a hidden wisdom which has now been revealed because he was brought up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words. 1 Cor 2:6-8 and 2 Cor 12:2-4. He can't have meant hidden wisdom or unspeakable words in gMark or Acts. The hidden wisdom was to be found in the old scriptures, the Hebrew bible and he was the man delivering the wisdom.

They all saw Jesus in a vision. Who these 500 people were, I have no idea. They certainly weren't apostles all of them. Maybe there's some sort of an allegorical meaning to this which I don't understand.

I knew this would come up again. Eusebius wrote in the 4th century and his agenda was to establish Rome as the one and only true heir of the christian faith. He had every reason to promote gLuke. There's nothing in Paul that suggests he was aware of gLuke. So why is it that you think Eusebius is a more reliable source from antiquity than Paul himself?

Let me ask you this: if Paul was aware of gMark and Acts, how did he address the hundreds upon hundreds of questions he must have been asked by people who was also aware of gMark and Acts? How did he explain why he supposedly cut out all the human connections to his Jesus, i.e. Nazareth, Joseph and the virgin Mary, John the Baptist, the disciples, the miracles, Pilate, the trial and crucifixion in Jerusalem, the empty tomb? By keeping his mouth shut and not writing one word about it? No, it's illogical. He didn't address any of these questions because he wasn't aware of a "human" Jesus and neither was the people he preached for.