aa5874

What is really disturbing to me is that it seems that we are dealing with some kind of Propaganda machinery that is putting out blatant bogus information that the author of gMark used the Pauline writings.

When we examine the earliest gMark we find NOTHING at all about Post Resurrection visits by Jesus--ZERO.

On the other hand, the very Post-Resurrection visits of Jesus that are COMPLETELY missing in gMark is found in the Pauline writings.

And in 1 Cor. 15 we have the Most Post-Resurrection visits and the highest numbers visited, over 500 people at once.

It is most Logical that the Pauline Post-Resurrection visits was UNKNOWN to the author of gMark and it is virtually certain that gMark did NOT get any of Jesus miracles and baptism by John from the Pauline writer.

We now know or can logically deduce that all the writings of the Canon are AFTER the Short-Ending gMark and AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

outhouse

I see pauls hellenistic roots showing, and a severe lack of contact with the disciples.

Paul is so complicated to follow and the fabrication of him turning coats has me baffled, but his lack of knowledge of historical jesus is obvious. I still look at him as what would be jesus direct enemy had jesus still been alive. HJesus would have hated romans and viewed judaism as corrupt, infected with roman's.


With GMark we dont see that at all. While its still a roman version of jesus it paints the opposite picture of paul.



Most scholars and historians dont follow this false propaganda and these threads get shut down pretty quick by people in the know.

Ive yet to see a decent case put forth

aa5874

Please say who had contact with the disciples??? I don't know how in the world anyone could have been in contact with non-historical characters called disciples.

You wil NOT ever find any non-aplogetic source that contacted a disciple of a Myth character called Jesus.

The Pauline writings no longer baffle me.

Paul was a fictitious 1st century character. Paul was operating under an alias and lived in another century.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are inventions and are historically and chronologically bogus.

outhouse

there is no valid reason to assume a historical jesus and paul did not exist.


Even fringe scholarships follow what im stating.

aa5874

It doesn't make any sense telling me about fringe scholarship. I only deal with sources, sources, sources.........evidence, evidence, evidence from antiquity.

"Fringe Scholarship"????? What is that????

You have ZERO evidence for an historical Jesus and Paul of the 1st century and tell me about fringe scholarship.

Just, please go and find some evidence for Paul and Jesus and forget about fringe scholarship.

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and Paul was a fraud based on the Abundance of evidence and sources of antiquity.

If you find some evidence of antiquity that contradicts me I may change my position.

There is NO valid evidence and sources for Paul and Jesus.

outhouse

theres even less information on historical figures that are not in question

but somehow here these two figures require special pleading by some accounts

aa5874

You have ZERO evidence of antiquity from non-apologetic sources for Jesus and Paul and is now telling me that some historical figures have less evidence than Jesus and Paul.

Please, Identify a figure of history that has LESS than ZERO evidence of existence??

outhouse

why do you doubt the dating of pauls work roughly 15 years after jesus death?

are all the scholars who agree on this wrong???

aa5874

Are all the Bishops of Rome wrong when they claim Jesus was raised from the dead?

Again, don't tell me about scholars unless you have evidence, or sources, from antiquity. This is NOT Sunday School.

Just provide the evidence that the Pauline Jesus was dead when he wrote his letters.

I don't deal with OPINION without evidence.

What non-apologetic sources of antiquity can you provide that the Pauline Jesus was dead and that Paul wrote letters before the mid 2nd century??

That is all.

outhouse

why do you doubt the dating of pauls work roughly 15 years after jesus death?

are all the scholars who agree on this wrong???


and what makes you more knowledgeable on this then all the scholars who agree?


what scholarship do you base this information from??