Duvduv

The scenario of Acts having been written BEFORE the epistles would also bring into question WHY the epistles were not more carefully written not to contradict Acts. And the purpose of writing the story of a guy named Paul BEFORE any epistles appeared was therefore just meant to introduce a new guy to the competition? The competition would have to be convinced to somehow INCLUDE this new guy Paul into the gospel(s), which they never did.

Apparently it never occurred to the author of the epistles to alternatively create a gospel story incorporating the apostle "Paul". The competition must have introduced the GMark since if it had been from the Paulist group, they would surely have wanted to include their Paul somehow into the story. So the best that could be done would be to convince the educated literati that Acts was appended to a gospel, thus hitting two birds with one stone.

aa5874

Again, a reading of gMark shows it is NOT from any Pauline source. gMark's Jesus is NOT a Savior, did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ, was NOT publicly known to the Jews as Christ, did NOT want the the Jews to be converted.

Now, we can see that the early gMark and the late gJohn are Contradictory in many instances although gJohn is deduced to have been written AFTER gMark.

The reason for the contradiction is quite simple--the earliest Jesus story was changed for theological reasons.

gJohn's Jesus is clearly God the Creator, a Savior who supposedly knew he came to die for the sins of all mankind and asked his Father God to "Glorify Him" (kill his own son) because of God's Love but gMark's Jesus died as a REJECT even by God, the Jews and his own disciples.

Examine some of the Last words of Jesus in gMark 15. Now, look at the CHANGE in gJohn 17 In gJohn, remarkably Jesus was ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED that his time had come to be Crucified.

And when he was about to die he siad the most soothing words" It is Finished". gJohn's Jesus has been glorified.

The gMark story was Changed. The earliest gMark's Jesus story was abandoned even by later apologetic writers and mutilated, passages were added, even the Pauline writers used the mutilated Jesus stories.

Duvduv

I wonder what it means for the emergence of Christianity if Acts preceded the epistles and the epistles didn't correct the discrepancies with Acts. Perhaps alterations were made inadvertently in transcription.

aa5874

So what about the discrepancies in gMark, gMatthew, gLuke and gJohn?

Why did NOT the author of gLuke just use the IDENTICAL genealogy in gMatthew?

Why did the author of gJohn say that the Spices were ALREADY applied to the body of Jesus BEFORE he was buried according to Jewish custom and the author of gMark claimed the spices were brought to the tomb days AFTER he was ALREADY buried. Mark 16.1.

In gJohn, the visitors to the Empty tomb had NO spices.

The discrepancies reveal that the stories were changed for theological and plausibility reasons and allow us to get an idea of the chronology or priority of the writings.

Due to the vast amout of changes or discrepancies between gMark and gJohn it can easily be deduced that gMark, with hardly any details, is earlier than gJohn.

Maklelan

What about them?

Because he was a different author writing at a different time and place for a different reason, with different sources at his disposal. This is not a complicated issue.

Yes, I know. What is the point here?

aa5874

What a big joke. Your post is just a laugh. The author of gLuke was a Myth Fable writer who claimed Jesus was produced when somekind of a Ghost overshadowed Mary.

What genealogy does a Ghost have?

Please, please, please. WTF, WTF!!! What different sources are you talking about?

Maklelan

Your ignorance and presumptuousness is becoming grotesque. What possible relevance could "What genealogy does a Ghost have?" have to my argument?

They composed their genealogies from different sources. You don't think they just fabricated them out of thin air, do you? Genealogies were all over Judea during this time period. They wanted to emphasize different things or omit certain things, so they prioritized different genealogies.

aa5874

Please, read gLuke and gMatthew.

Both authors claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

I don't make stuff up.

Have a look at Matthew 1.18-20 and Luke 1.26-35.

Matthew 1:18-25 - I have SOURCES of antiquity that show the Father of Jesus was a Ghost.

I have written statements that were PUBLICLY circulated in antiquity.

You have nothing but what you imagine. Please show me the source that gLuke used for his genealogy of the Son of the Ghost?

Duvduv

In any case, in the scenario that Acts came first, it implies that the sect wanted to introduce two men as co-equal leaders in a biography, namely "Peter" and "Paul" without even telling a story about their Christ figure at all at that point.
What would have been the purpose in doing that?!

aa5874

The book is called "Acts of the Apostles" not the Acts of Jesus. If Jesus was just a story then there would be NO history of any real apostles and no historical records of their families, friends, acquaintances and activities.

This is PRECISELY what have been observed. Acts of the Apostles was most likely written to "historicize" the myth characters of the Jesus story.

It is extremely important to understand that in the earliest gMark that the disciples were NOT ever commissioned to preach the Gospel.

Remember it was the Resurrected Jesus, the already DEAD Jesus, that was supposed to MEET the disciples in Galilee and have them commissioned.

The Great Commission in Galilee did NOT ever happen in the earliest gMark up to the time it was composed.

Mark 14:28 - It is just LAUGHABLE that a man will set up a meeting with his disciples in GALILEE after he was DEAD.

The Great Commission in GALILEE with the ALREADY dead Jesus happened in gMatthew and INTERPOLATED gMark.

But, later the story was changed in gLuke and the Great Commission with the Resurrected DEAD happened in Jerusalem, NOT Galilee.

It would be noticed that the author of Acts, like gLuke, placed the post-resurrection visit in Jerusalem when in the earliest gospel, gMark, the post-resurrection meeting was to be in GALILEE.

Acts of the Apostles is supposed to be the Documented evidence that the ALREADY DEAD Jesus did visit the disciples and had them Commissioned and that they did receive the PROMISE of the Holy GHOST from the ALREADY DEAD Jesus.

Without Acts of the Apostles there would be NOTHING but the Jesus story that ended with the resurrection visit and ascension.

Acts of the Apostles is an INVENTION to historicise the Gospels and then the Pauline writings were later invented to historicize Acts of the Apostles.