aa5874

I do NOT accept your unsubstantiated parroting at all. Your parroting of "does not provide sufficient grounds" is meaningless and has ZERO value as an argument or as evidence.

You must FIRST produce credible non-apologetic sources of antiquity to contradict Sinaiticus Mark.

Philo, Josephus , Suetonius Tacitus and Pliny the younger did NOT write about any RISEN Jewish Messiah called Jesus or that characters called Peter, John, the other supposed disciples and Paul ever preached about such an event.

Now, in gMark, it is WRITTEN that there was a person who called himself Christ or Messiah while Jesus BARRED his own disciples from telling any one he himself was Christ.

This is EXTREMELY significant.

1. In gMark There was a person known or called Messiah during the time Jesus was UNKNOWN as a Messiah. See Mark 9.38

2. When Jesus died in gMark he was REJECTED as a Jewish Messiah by Jews when he publicly claimed for the first time he was the Messiah. See Mark 14.61

3. In gMark, it is written that there shall be MANY FALSE Messiahs that will do miracles and DECEIVE even the elect. See Mark 13.21

Who was the CHRIST in gMark 9.38 and what were his followers called?

Jesus was NOT called Christ by the Jews in gMark and did NOT start a new religion under the name of Christ.

It is now evident the name CHRIST is NOT unique to Jesus.

It is now evident that HJ of Nazareth cannot be recovered.

There are NO sources that can Identify HJ of Nazareth.

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument killer.

J-D

I do not accept your unsubstantiated claims.If you are unable to substantiate your claims, it is meaningful for me to point that out.You do not get to decide what I must do.That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'HJ of Nazareth' and 'PERFECT HJ argument killer'.

aa5874

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument killer.

How in the world could a real person tell people to MEET him in Galilee after he had RISEN?

Mark 14. What a MONSTROUS MYTH FABLE or what a MONSTROUS IDIOT.

Jesus seems too IDIOTIC to be historical.

Great men are sometimes embellished but who would EMBELLISH a NOTORIOUS IDIOT who told his disciples that he would Resurrect on the Third day and that he would go before them into Galilee.

Galilee to Jerusalem was about a 3-day trip based on Josephus.

Can someone Explain what would have happened AFTER the third day if Jesus was an ordinary man?

The post-resurrection meeting of Jesus in Galilee in gMark makes ZERO sense if Jesus was an ordinary man.

The Jesus story in gMark MATCHES MYTH fables.

Mark 9 in gMark, Within 72 hours of burial it would have been KNOWN Jesus was a COMPLETE IDIOT if he was a real man.

tanya

And I cannot prove that Mark Twain, (Samuel Clemens, for those logical perfectionists) wrote Huckleberry Finn. For all I know, he heard a similar story before writing his novel. It is customary, maybe not perfectly accurate, but traditional, to view one of the extant Greek versions of Mark, (typically, on this forum that would be the Alexandrian version of κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον,) as having been authored by a guy called Mark. Was that his real name? I don't know. For me, whether it is Huckleberry Finn, or κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, I communicate fairly effortlessly with others by writing Mark Twain or Mark, respectively, and folks, other than Logicians, seem to differentiate one bit of text from the other, without difficulty.

You are correct, of course, I don't know for certain that either author invented his story. I have faith. I believe, without certain knowledge, that Mark Twain and Mark wrote their respective stories. Logically, I may be completely wrong to make such an assumption about authorship. The point, in my opinion, is not to acquire mastery of the logic of the argument, but to address the myth versus history issue, using, as an assumption, the notion that κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον was written by Mark.

Well, J-D, here is why I am not among those contracting my facial musculature upon encountering your rejoinders.

I submitted a message in response to your statement:
And this was your reply:
This is not a forum devoted to analysis of the psychological profiles of forum members.

How is his evidence from κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον insufficient to offer an opinion about whether or not the text reads as a work of fiction, or a work of history?

The question is whether the contents of κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον portray a mythical character, or an historical character, in either case, a man named Jesus, from the town of Nazareth.

If in your opinion, the contents of κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, are insufficient to address this question of myth versus history, then it will remain, for you, an open question. The issue is not aa5874, it is myth versus history in κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον.

Huckleberry Finn has real places, the Mississippi river. Real boats, (or ships for logicians), real names of real places. Is there any doubt in your mind, J-D, that the narrative in this story is nevertheless describing a fictional character? Huck Finn is a story, a myth, a fable, a work of fiction, not a travel log. I assert the same fictional attribute to κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, because of the mythical character of the protagonist in this fable, despite the occurrence sprinkled about, of real people, real cities and towns, real geographic features, in the body of the text.

You are correct, you are not obliged to respond to my query. I will repeat it again, though, just in case you may not have understood my sophomoric question: helium is very light, and floats right over the top, maybe, the lack of a lofty substrate to my question has compelled its flight beyond your sight.

Here's my interpretation of those terms, so that you may address the question posed, should you desire to do so:
'HJ of Nazareth' refers to a character in κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, described as having lived in Nazareth. The HJ component of the phrase refers to the commonly understood acronym Historical Jesus, as distinct from MJ, mythical Jesus.

What I understand aa5974's terse phrase 'perfect hj argument killer' to represent, is that the contents of κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον are consistent with fable, myth, or fiction, rather than history. I sincerely hope that this elaboration will suffice to permit you to turn your energy and skills to addressing the question posed by this thread:
κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον myth or history?

J-D

That depends on what you mean, in this context, byt 'the perfect HJ argument killer'.Statements that a dead person came back to life cannot be historically true. Some of the other statements about Jesus in the Gospels might or might not be historically true.

J-D

Since Huckleberry Finn exists, somebody must have written it; since Mark's Gospel exists, somebody must have written it. I have never heard that there is any dispute about the the authorship of Huckleberry Finn; I have heard that there is dispute about the authorship of Mark's Gospel. Neither you nor aa5874 has given grounds for reaching any particular conclusion about the authorship of Mark's Gospel. If there was a dispute here about the authorship of Huckleberry Finn and somebody stated a conclusion about it without substantiating that conclusion, I might draw attention to that lack of substantiation too.

I have never heard it suggested that the story of Huckleberry Finn might not be original to the author. If there was a dispute here about that and somebody stated a conclusion about it without substantiating it, I might draw attention to that lack of substantiation too. I have heard it suggested that the story of the Gospel of Mark might not be original to the author. aa5874 has not given any grounds for thinking it is, and neither have you.That depends on what you mean, in this context, by 'the myth versus history issue'.I can't tell you how relieved I am that you're not laughing at me.In your earlier post you also said (but you've snipped that part here): 'It is in that context that I understand, maybe imperfectly, the intention of the forum member who started this thread, aa5874.'

You introduced the subject of aa5874's intentions; I did not. I merely responded to what you had already posted.I don't see how the specific evidence aa5874 has presented is sufficient to support the specific conclusions aa5874 has drawn. If you think it is, you are free to explain how, or not, as you choose.That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'a mythical character' and 'a historical character'; also, on what the meaning is of 'the question', as originally formulated by aa5874.That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'the question of myth versus history'.I have never yet seen it suggested by anybody that any of the statements about Huckleberry Finn in the book Huckleberry Finn are accurate records of events that actually took place. I am not aware that there is any dispute about that. If there is a dispute, and somebody presents their conclusions about such a dispute, I will take note of whether they substantiate their conclusions or not.You have not made clear to me what you mean by 'the mythical character of the protagonist'.I did not post that remark as a response to a query from you, but as a response to an instruction/demand from aa5874.The existing text of the gospel of Mark is some kind of evidence, but on this thread I have not yet seen aa5874, or you, or anybody else show how it supports any specific conclusion.Knowing your interpretation of those terms does not settle what aa5874's interpretation of those terms is, and hence does not help in dealing with the assertions aa5874 made using those terms.I don't know whether that question is the same as the one originally posed, but in any case it is not sufficiently clearly specified for me even to attempt to answer it. It might help if you explained what your answer to the question is and how you arrived at it.

aa5874

Again, your statement does NOT affect my theory that gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer. Your statement ENHANCES my theory.

You MUST first produce credible historical sources to ELIMINATE my theory. You have UTTERLY failed to do so.

You MUST first produce credible sources of antiquity that Contradict:

1. Sinaiticus Mark

2. Vaticanus Mark

3. Philo

4. Josephus

5. Tacitus

6. Suetonius

7. Pliny the younger.

aa5874

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument killer and it DESTROYS the History of the Church, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and the very Gospels.

Based on the Specific Gravity of a human body it is NEAR IMPOSSIBLE for a human to WALK on the sea.

Any attempt to WALK on the sea will cause the human body to SINK and to be SUBMERGED up to the NECK at least.

The MARCAN Jesus was "WITNESSED" walking on the sea and was BELIEVED to be a Spirit.

Mark 6:49 - The MARCAN Jesus could NOT have human Flesh based on Mark 6.49 and the Specific Gravity of a Human Body

Mark 9:2 - The MARCAN Jesus could NOT have human Flesh and still WITNESSED in a TRANSFIGURED state.

The MARCAN Jesus appears to be similar to the MARCION Phantom.

The MARCION Phantom was described as one that APPEARED to have human flesh.

The MARCAN Jesus could have ONLY APPEARED to have human Flesh when he was "WITNESSED" walking on the sea and TRANSFIGURED.

The MARCAN Jesus cannot be differentiated from the MARCION Phantom.

The MARCAN Jesus and the MARCION Phantom may be the very same Myth character that appeared to have human flesh but with a different name.

The MARCAN Jesus is the PERFECT HJ argument killer.

The MARCAN Jesus ONLY appeared to have human flesh.

The MARCAN Jesus was a PHANTOM as described.

J-D

That depends on what you mean by 'the perfect HJ argument killer'.You do not get to say what I must do.

You have utterly filed to show that credible historical sources support your theory.You have not shown that those are credible sources of antiquity; you have not shown that any of them say 'gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer'.

J-D

That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'PERFECT HJ argument killer', 'DESTROYS', 'History of the Church', 'the Pauline writings', and 'very Gospels'.The statement that Jesus walked on the sea cannot be a literally accurate report of an event that actually occurred. Some of the other statements referring to Jesus in the Gospel of Mark might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually occurred.