angelo

Some scholars think the genuine Pauline writings are the first ever christian writings, but I agree with the OP that the short gMark is most likely the first ever christian writing. All others had this Mark gospel in front of them when writing theirs.

Sheshbazzar

I tend to believe the trail is a bit more complex, with original pre-christian Jewish writings that were recovered by christian scribes in the mid 2nd century CE and heavily edited, reworked, and added to to create the 'Pauline' writings.
The genuine pre-christian writer may have been a real 'Saul' of Tarsus' and a Pharisee or maybe that is a fiction also.

The reason I say this is that the 'Pauline' writings were unknown to Justin Martyr writing in 150 CE, and the short time period after Justin before they show up all over the place would hardly have been sufficient to have developed such complex texts from scratch.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some day a text of 'Saul of Tarsus' turns up that has all the arguments against circumcision, but no mention at all of any 'Jesus', 'christians', or 'churches'.
Be funnier yet if were to be positively dated to before 1 CE.

tanya

Must be a bad hair day, Shesh, sorry, I disagree with you here.

Think of Schubert. Franz began writing, age 17, and died fifteen years later. During that interval, he composed 7 symphonies, two operas, a mass, 30 chamber works, including two dozen sonatas, and 600 songs.

Many of these compositions were copied and widely distributed, within a year or two of his death in 1828, age 31. Within thirty years, his music had spread throughout Europe, and influenced German, Czech, Italian, French, and Russian composers. That's a land mass far greater in dimension, than the thin crescent circling the ocean, from Rome to Alexandria.

aa5874

The short gMark, the Long gMark and gMatthew are the most solid evidence that the Jesus story was ALTERED and the Jesus story in the short gMark had IMPACTED the Jesus cult in antiquity.

The author of the Long gMark ADDED 12 verses to the short gMark.

The author of gMatthew ADDED 12 chapters.

The short gMark ENDS exactly at the resurrection. The short gMark Jesus did what he predicted--he was Killed and he did Resurrect.

Someone CHANGED the short gMark story and claimed the resurrected Jesus VISITED the disciples and COMMISSIONED them to preach the Gospel to the WHOLE WORLD.

No such thing is in the short gMark.

It is the complete REVERSE.

Jesus in the short gMark ORDERED his disciples NOT to tell any one of him.

Mark 8 Nobody in the World should know that Jesus was the Christ except his supposed disciples--Not even Jesus of short Mark Publicly told people he was Christ and the Son of God.

Now examine the Interpolation by the Fake author of the Forgery called the long Mark.

This Interpolation is Extremely significant because we will be able to deduce that the Pauline letters were composed AFTER the short gMark.

Mark 16 Now examine the words of the Pauline writer.

Romans 1:15 KJV1 Corinthians 14:18 KJV In Romans 1.15 and 1 Corinthians 14, the Pauline writer demonstrated that he was IMPACTED by the Interpolated Mark composed by the Fake author and admitted he was Ready to preach the Gospel and that he Spoke in Tongues more than anybody else.

In fact, in 1 Corinthians, the Church was also speaking in Tongues which means they were ALL IMPACTED by the Interpolation by the Fake author of the long gMark.

The Pauline writer must have had or most likely was in possession of a copy of or was aware of FAKE long gMark.

FAKE long gMark 161 Corinthians 14 The Pauline Churches were IMPACTED by the Fake long gMark.

The short gMark is the earliest writing in the Entire Canon.

Early Paul is a FAKE. We know he is a FAKE because he admitted he spoke in Tongues.

Paul has a double-tongue--I LIE NOT.

Chili

Nono, Paul was not a fake as the only one to know that to 'interpret' is greater than to prophesy wherein now Rome is edified.

Interpretation means understanding the allegory that is no secret in itself, but pertains to seeing wherein now the seer is seeing the seer see by understanding the short form of prophesy that is contained in the allegory that points at him.

Another way to put is that the right brain is looking at the left and know that he is looking at himself. Notice that I said the right brain is looking and seeing the left brain see, for which a translocation is required and so is a post-resurrection event and is why interpretation is the greatest gift of them all = the final end.

Now the edification part pertains to glory (Plato's glow and the saints halo) wherein actualizing our condition is equal to logos in motion and that is the secret to make greater greats. IOW inspiration is no longer needed for the king of kings, who on the flip-side is the envy of them all, who on the surface of the earth demands a bullet-proof pope mobile or he'll get shot for sure.

It's a funny funny world we know!

And don't let me spoil your party. You are doing great even if you haven't got a clue. We all know that you mean well and LIE NOT, but you have this bad habit of running aways with a loser every time.

Bottom line: Never think that Paul was a mystic or contemplative as he was gnostic in the pure meaning of that word, for which noetic vision is needed and is wherein logos renews itself like a consuming fire purifying everything in sight.

Contrary to this Mark denied there even was a meaning behind the allegory wherein for example "the birds of the sky can makes their nest in the shade behind the mustard plant."

Did you ever think that the early church by their own actions was begging for Paul to put the additions there to give them comfort in the shade of Mark?

Sheshbazzar

S'all right, tanya I won't deny the possibility all of this being cranked out by one prolific individual, but find that proposition very doubtful, and the end result certainly was not the exclusive product of any 1st century Pharisaic Jew.

But then there is more to it than just the composition of it, it would take some amount of time to laboriously hand copy and then widely disseminate all of these texts. Conditions circa 160 CE were a lot different, and hardly comparable to those of 1828-1858 CE

Then there would be the not inconsiderable task of getting that 'orthodox' already established Church known to St Justin, to become familiar with and to accept all of this amazing newly arrived and previously unknown 'Pauline' Christian literature.

Nope. to me it certainly looks more like an inside job, with these 'Pauline Epistles' being produced and pre-approved by the collective orthodox Church hierarchy to suit their evolved theology. There was no battle to get these texts accepted by the orthodox Church because they had produced them. Custom made for their uses.

But as I said, I do not believe they started with a blank piece of parchment, they seem to have came across a stash of old Jewish texts and simply added in whatever they needed to fit their theology (and likely removed whatever didn't), sprinkled the text with a generous dose of 'Jesu Chritos's' and fed it to the world.

I have to admit that part of this view is based upon a personal experience I had some 30 years ago when I wrote a very 'Jewish' (from a 'Christian' perspective) article and gave it to my Christian 'friends', it was returned to me a week latter. edited, rewritten, and thoroughly 'Christianized'.

angelo

Just like a remake of an old movie using newer technology and more advanced special effects. The christian writings were copies of copies of copies. Each copy copied by non other than xtians themselves. Do we really expect anything else than what we have today?

aa5874

The NT manuscripts that have been recovered and dated are extremely significant and have far more information than just being copies of copies.

The actual recovered dated NT manuscripts and Codices do provide evidence or significant clues as to the chronology of the stories about Jesus and the changes in the Theology of the Jesus cults.

We have the FIVE Canonised Gospels and each one contains fundamental differences which help to deduce the chronology of the time of composition.

For example, the short gMark, contains almost no historical data or biographical details of Jesus except for the miracles which are most likely fiction.

Now, to demonstrate that the Jesus stories in the Canon are not just copies of copies and nothing else we can examine the contents of each Gospel in the Canon.

1. The short gMark contains 18 miracles of Jesus.

2. The long gMark also contains 18 miracles but with the post-resurrection visit and great commission of the resurrected Jesus.

3. gMatthew contains 18 miracles but 12 are in gMark.

4. gLuke contains 20 miracles but 14 are in gMark.

5. gJohn contains 7 miracles and ONLY ONE is gMark.

The contents of the Gospels though they appear to be copies of copies do depict very different accounts of the Jesus character.

In fact, the Jesus in gJohn is vastly different from the short gMark, the long gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

The supposed Christian author of gJohn has fundamentally Rejected the Synoptic Jesus story.

gJohn is an ADVANCED construction of the Jesus character. In gJohn, Jesus is GOD and Publicly teaches the Jews that he and God are ONE which is NOT found in the Synoptics.

In the Synoptics, Jesus told the disciples NOT to tell any one he was Christ but in gJohn we have the complete reverse.

Jesus Publicly admits he is GOD.

Mark 8In gJohn Jesus publicly declared to the Jews that he is not only Christ but God.

John 10The Pauline epistles are compatible with gJohn and also state that Jesus was EQUAL to God.

Philippians 2 The short gMark PREDATE all writings in the Canon.

Tommy

How are you sure that GJohn isn't earlier?

aa5874

I am simply making an argument that "all canonised writings are after the short gMark" based on the present evidence from antiquity.

Up to 150 CE, Apologetic writers did not acknowledge that Jesus was Equal to God which is a clear indication that gJohn was unknown at that time.

In gJohn and the Pauline letters, Jesus was EQUAL to GOD.

In Hippolytus' "Refutation Against All Heresies" it is claimed that it was the heresy that Jesus was EQUAL to God was introduced around the end of the 2nd century by Callistus.

Hippolytus' Refutation Against All Heresies 9 In the mid-2nd century, Justin argued that Jesus was second to God--NOT equal.

Justin's First Apology The claims in gJohn and the Pauline writings that Jesus was equal to God was developed AFTER the Jesus story was known.