aa5874

Where are you IMAGINARY sources?? You are extremely dogmatic about unknown and unseen sources.

Please, which book , which source SHAPE your views?? You seem to know about sources that are unheard of, and have never been EYE-BALLED.

Duvduv

When GLuke and GMatt had the genealogies inserted why did no version ever include a genealogy for Mary once her virgin status was established? It would seem only logical.

Grog

I'm not sure if you can get less human than this:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it...

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Sheshbazzar

The short ending GMark set the world on fire, and because it was a cliff-hanger ending, every Tom, Dick, Harry, Matt, Luke and John thought they could do a better job in finishing up such a swell story.

"Did Lardass have to pay to get into the contest?.....

Chris: Now that was the best, just the best.

Vern: Yeah.

Teddy: Then what happened?

Gordie: (Mark) What do you mean?

Teddy: (Matthew) I mean, what happened?

Gordie: (Mark) What do you mean what happened, that's the end.

Teddy: (Matthew) How can that be the end, what kind of an ending is that? What happened to Lardass (Jebus)?

Gordie: I don't know. Maybe he went home and celebrated with a couple of cheeseburgers. (bagels?)

Teddy: (Matthew) Geez. That ending sucks.

Why don't you make it so that – so that Lardass goes home, an' he shoots his father. An' he runs away. An'- an' he joins the Texas- Rangers. How about that?"

[Or Lardass/Zombie Jebus magically returns from the dead with his carcass still all poked full of holes they can stick their hands in, and then after a good pep-talk, flies right up into heaven while this time people get to watch! ?]

Gordie: (Mark) I... I don't know.

Teddy: (Matthew) Something good like that."

~Long ending for GMark,......

Matthew's Gospel,
Luke's Gospel,
John's Gospel.
Thomas's Gospel,
Nicodemus's Gospel,
Barnabas's Gospel,
Gamaliel's Gospel,
Judas's Gospel,
Peter's Gospel,
Mary's Gospel,
Philip's Gospel,
Bartholomew's Gospel,
Andrews's Gospel,....

And on
and on
and on
and on
and on

And now on this very board we have been first introduced by Adam to his 'Gospel according to the Atheists'.
Which just proves anyone can continue to add or delete details, or make up a 'better' ending to Gordie's swell Lardass story.

With all of this eyewitness testimony, there must have been a real Lardass.



.

Solo

I believe they both read it as allegory. They both made two large changes to Mark : 1) converted Mark's mystical collective known as the Twelve, to the body of the twelve disciples and 2) asserted that Jesus rose bodily and appeared to the disciples in that fashion. These 'improvements' were theological, signified a formula of the merger of the two forms of the faith, and established ground for the 'apostolic tradition'. The text of Mark was then emended to conform to the new rules of the gospel game. Like with (genuine) Paul, however, the bulk of the original text remained and argues vigorously with the later amending formulas.

FWIW, I take the two synoptizing measures taken by Matthew and Luke together as a very strong internal evidence that Luke knew, and elaborated on, Matthew.

Marcion, very likely did not use Luke as his Euangelion. It would have been the original Mark, in which the disciples were not 'apostles' and Jesus was not appearing in flesh (i.e. in the traditional Jewish view of the resurrection).

The belief that Marcion used Luke rests principally with two early patristic views on the matter :

Irenaeus (A.H. 1.27.2): Besides this, [Marcion] mutilates the Gospel which is according to Luke, removing all that is written respecting the generation of the Lord, and setting aside a great deal of the teaching of the Lord, in which the Lord is recorded as most dearly confessing that the Maker of this universe is His Father.

Tertullian (A.M. 4.2) : see here.

Even though Irenaeus does not tells us the source of his opinion, the legend that Tertullian plainly doubts, that Paul knew Luke's gospel took hold in the early church. It is based on another legend, i.e. that Luke was Paul's personal physician.

It is interesting that everyone in modern exegesis (starting with Harnack) falls for this very loose association. Even Ehrman's sole scholarly treatise (The Orthodox Curruption Of Scripture) does not challenge what appears a naive orthodox calculus, i.e. Luke was Paul's physician, ergo Paul preached his gospel ergo Marcion used Luke. Without explanation Ehrman asserts that Marcion 'evidently' used Luke, even though in the next paragraph he opines that Gnostics who would want to separate Jesus from Christ would find Mark the most congenial. (pp.19-20).

Luke, even though it tries the hard to present itself as history, is "narrative gnosticism". The term comes from Jan Wojcik's book Road to Emmaus (or via: amazon.co.uk) in which he argues the "autoptes" (i.e. the "eyewitness" in the prologue) relate to risen Jesus' manipulating the eyesight of the two disciples (Lk 24:16), were a witness to the spiritual, not the historical, accuracy of the gospel.

Matthew looks much earlier than Marcion if the tradiion of the apostles 'memoirs' was abroad at the time of Justin Martyr. Dial 106.4, specifically mentions the three Magi, as recalled by the memoirs, which means Justin knew of Matthew.


It looks like a fictional allegory arguing against Mark's gospel that Jesus resurrection was first received by his disciples in a bodily form. In this, Matthew was wildly successful; not so much in trying to make the Christian communities to return to Jewish law observances.

Best,
Jiri

James The Least

Good question. They are all evangelists, but ones with a strong literary background. Matthew consciously "improves" upon Mark and seems to be attempting to transition the story out of possible allegorical interpretations into a solely literal one. Or perhaps that had already happened and he was writing to reflect the new perspective on the "historical" Jesus. Luke, who came a long time after Matthew I think, seems to style himself as a historian. On the one hand, he seems to accept the gospel story as historical, but then he turns around and invents a fictional adventure, Acts of the Apostles (which he also presents as historical). There doesn't seem to have been much of a barrier in their minds between allegory, prophecy, and history.

aa5874

From the very first chapter of gMatthew we see the author blatantly made his Jesus a Myth by stating it was FATHERED by the Holy Ghost and in the Last chapter that the Resurrected Jesus VISITED his disciples.

The author of gLuke, another work of blatant fiction, gave "precise details" of a most fictitious event, the conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost and Mary.

The authors of gMatthew and gLuke did NOT historicize Jesus they in fact SEALED his Mythology.

Adam

Can you believe we finally have a thread in which aa sums it up with total clarity and fits right in to the gist of it?
That it turns a question into a hypothesis?
Then that hypothesis into a presupposition?
Then it demonstrates that that presupposition is a conclusion as well?
In short, the kind of thread that Shesh can safely assume I won't wander into, so he can try once again to make fun of me without the risk this time of making a fool of himself?
But here I am, and finding all the more proof that he has not read past the first verse of the Gospel According to the Atheists that he so derides. At any read, he has not read to the end, for it is easy to find that "my" gospel stops before any Resurrection scenes.
C'mon, Shesh, try it, maybe you'll like it. Here's a link to more about it, at
Post #97 in Evidence of a historization of the Jesus story :
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311862&page=4


And tying it in to Ehrman's Huffington Post extreme claims:
See #12 in Review: Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist – Apologetics Lite:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....75#post7130675

Sheshbazzar

Of course I read it old man, in fact I had to read it several times as you decided to doctor it with your 'omit this', 'add that' 'delete the last section.... and substitute' ..... then 'substitute the following' changes here and there all along the way. Until almost everyone else threw up their hands and gave up on you.

Anyone is more than welcome to investigate and see what a disconnected and piss-poor story it was that you came up with after eliminating huge sections of the original narrative. I wasn't impressed then and I'm not now.
As I recall, you reached a point where no one other than I would any longer even give you the time of day.
But, tell you what, if you think you've got a persuasive case for your textual hack-job, go ahead and open up another thread on it.
You know that I'll play with you even if everyone else does have you on ignore.





.

Adam

So when you read all through to the end, you just failed to notice that no Resurrection (or thereafter) was appended? Or you immediately forgot? How old did you say you are?