aa5874

Your claim is unsubstantiated.

You JUST made another UN-EVIDENCED assertion in support of your HJ.

You KNOW gMark is NOT a credible source so YOU NEED external corroboration for any assertions about Jesus and the disciples.

Please show us where it is claimed in gMark that it is history?

In gMark, Jesus did NOT start a new religion uder the name of Christ and wanted the Jews TO REMAIN in Sin.

gMark is NOT about Salvation through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

The Pauline writings are about SALVATION through the crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus.

1 Cor.15 gMark's Jesus is a DECEIVER in Mark 12. Paul claimed Jesus was the END of the Law.

In gMark Jesus told people to OBEY the Laws of Moses by making Offerings .

Romans 10:4 - Mr 1:44 - It is UTTERLY erroneous and mere propaganda that the Markan and Pauline Christologies are similar.

gMark is the story of the gospel of Jesus BEFORE the Myth resurrection and the Pauline writings are about the story of the Resurrected Jesus.

Paul Claimed OVER 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus. 1 Cor. 15

In the Short-ending gMark, NOBODY saw the resurrected Jesus. There were NO Visions, No hallucinations just an EMPTY tomb. See Mark 16.8

gMark and the Pauline writings are the EVIDENCE for Myth Jesus.

Imagination is the source for HJ.

jakejonesiv

Hey AA,

According to the Pauline episltes, why did Jesus have to die?
According to the gospel of Mark, why did Jesus have to die?

How do you explain the difference!!


Jake

Chili

Just a wild guess but to make a clean break from Judasim proper wherein the sins of our forefathers were paid for in full and so grafted a new religion on the old trunk . . . which kind of makes the OT obsolete for NT people which then is also what the silver pieces was all about.

Kapyong

Hmmm...

Where's archibald?
Where's G.Don?

Could it be there are NO 'un-evidenced assumptions' in JM theory ?


K.

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps they ducked out to that place where their god goes whenever an amputee shows up at a faith healing revival? :Cheeky:

aa5874

Why don't you ANSWER your own questions?

I am PRESENTING the WRITTEN evidence to show that the Christology of gMark is NOT at all the same as the Pauline writings.

Mark 1-16
1. gMark is about Jesus UPTO the Empty TOMB..
Romans to Colossians
2. The Pauline writings are about Jesus AFTER he was RAISED from the dead.


Mark 4
3. In gMark, Jesus Wanted the Jews to REMAIN in Sin.
Romans 1.16
4. In the Pauline writings Jesus came to SAVE the Jews FIRST.


Mark 1
5. In gMark, Jesus told people to present Offerings according to the Law of Moses.
Romans 10.4
6. In the Pauline writings Jesus was the END of the LAW.


Mark 1-16
7. In gMark, Jesus did Many miracles.
Romans to Colossians
8. In the Pauline writings there is virtually Nothing on miracles of Jesus.

Mark 8.30
9. In gMark, Jesus did NOT want the Jews or anyone to know he was Christ.
Philippians 2.
10. In the Pauline writings it is claimed Jesus was Lord and given a name ABOVE every other on earth, in heaven and under the earth and that every knee should bow before Jesus.

Mark 9.31
11. In gMark Jesus did NOT tell his disciples that without his resurrection there would be NO Salvation.
1 Cor. 15
12. In the Pauline writings it is claimed that WITHOUT the resurrection of Jesus there would be NO Salvation for ALL Mankind.


Mark 16.6-8
13 In gMark, the disciples including Peter had DENIED and ABANDONED Jesus and the visitors to the Empty Tomb said NOTHING to any one about the resurrection.
1 Cor.15.
14. In the Pauline writings it is claimed OVER 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.


15. Mark 14:71 - 16. Galatians 1:23 - PETER DENIED EVER KNOWING Jesus in gMark. The DENIAL of Jesus by Peter are the LAST words of Peter in gMark yet in the Pauline writings it is claimed that Peter PREACHED the Gospel to the Jews.


A MIRACLE working Jesus in gMark who ORDERED his disciples NOT to tell any one he was Christ, did NOT start any new religion and was ABANDONED and DENIED when he was Arrested and died as a REJECTED blasphemer cannot be the same Jesus of the Pauline writings.


The PAULINE Christology is a DECEPTIVE LIE and that of gMark is a PHANTOM.

Tom Verenna

Hello,

It has been some time (years) since I have posted on any sort of message board and it is also very late (well past my bed time), so I apologize if I make any sort of error in my response and if I am slow to reply. I reply much more actively on my blog than I do elsewhere.

Once in a while I get a trackback on my blog to this forum, so I do occasionally check in to see the conversation. This particular conversation disturbed me a great deal, most specifically the comment:

I'm greatly concerned about the use of this sort of language about a series of passages which don't seem to have anything to do with the question of historicity of the figure of Jesus. Paul, speaking in Gal. 1, is speaking of his Gospel, and where he might have received that Gospel; of this, 'aa5874' is absolutely correct. But 'aa5874' has not demonstrated that this has any bearing whatsoever on the question of historicity. Since Paul does not make any such claim towards the question in any part of Gal. 1, I would imagine that 'aa5874' might be hardpressed to support his assertion that the question of historicity was "destroyed" with his eisegesis of these passages.

Now, if 'aa5874' wants to argue that Gal. 1 relates, in some fashion, to the larger question of historicity, then that case should be made. However such an argument hasn't been made here, nor can it be made by simply citing the passages in question. How does the question about where Paul received his Gospel have any bearing on the value of historicity? After all, there could very well have been a historical figure that Paul bases his revelatory experience upon. It is not out of the question that such a figure existed historically, even if Paul cares little about that figure and draws upon a phenomenal experience rather than from stories told by the Jerusalem pillars. So 'aa5874' first needs to address these issues if a case is to be made relating to Gal. 1.

I am even more concerned that 'aa5874' has shot himself in the foot with his own arguments. After all, if Paul's message is a lie (as he states elsewhere) then it is quite possible that Paul is just lying about where he received his information about the Gospel of Jesus. Which means he might have actually received his message from men; not just some of it, but perhaps all of it. This would make his whole point here moot. Either Paul is being honest about his message or he is lying. Or he is lying about some things and being honest about others. But 'aa5874' would need to demonstrate the manner in which he distinguishes the two in Paul's letters and then 'aa5874' would have to show that Paul was being honest in Gal. 1, which is something that not even scholars are in any sort of agreement upon.

If I may be so bold as to give a gentile nod, I would like to take a moment to stress to everyone involved in this discussion: use more cautious language and be less assertive. Far too little is known about the topic of the discussion to make any objective claims; these sorts of claims are better left to sensational media, not to community members of a message board whose name contains 'freethought' and 'rationalism'.

dog-on

Abe, I have previously pointed out that you are incorrect (see 2 Cor 1:17 and 2 Cor 5:16 as examples).

What frustrates me is that you simply choose to ignore these bits when presented to you.

tanya

Thank you Tom.

Your post was interesting, and thorough.

Much appreciated....

Though many have complained about his communication style, I confess to finding the writing of aa5874 particularly instructive, informative, and balanced.

I would therefore, disagree with your conclusion, that his presentation was too strident. It is more useful, in my opinion, to focus on the actual citations furnished in his post, rather than his method of presenting those citations.

Yes, of course you are correct. No one can prove that there was not a historical figure upon whom Paul based his hallucinations.

I cannot prove that Mohammed did not fly to Heaven from the temple mount in Jerusalem, on Al Buraq.

When Victor Hugo wrote his famous novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame, he could have witnessed a genuine hunchback, abandoned as a child, made deaf by ringing the bells, and befriended by a genuine Esmeralda.

We describe this text as fiction, because the evidence points to Hugo's masterpiece as a work, not of history, but of creative endeavor.

When we read Mark 1:1, the first verse of the new testament, what comes to mind:

the first sentence of a genuine, historical narrative, about a Jewish rabbi who had committed the crime of blasphemy, but had been crucified, during Passover, by the Romans, having violated no Roman law, rather than having been stoned to death, in accordance with the seriousness of this offence of Jewish law?

or

a fictional work about a character, Jesus, of mythic proportion?

Mark, the gospel, cannot be both historical and mythical, with respect to assessment of the main character, Jesus.

In simplest form:
Mythical characters, not genuine humans, come from gods. Fictional people, like Heracles, represent progeny of divine parentage, who surpass ordinary humans, possessing, as did Jesus, in the gospel of Mark, extraordinary capabilities. Therefore, Mark is myth, not history.

jakejonesiv

AA
You didn't answer the question because you do not know the answer.

Was Jesus a Jew?