aa5874

The Short-Ending and the Long-Ending gMark are most significant because we have the PHYSICAL evidence that the Jesus story was MANIPULATED.

We can SEE with our EYES the ACTUAL INTERPOLATIONS.

We can SEE what was CHANGED or ADDED.

There is NO need to Guess.

The INTERPOLATOR fundamentally CHANGED sgMark [short-ending Mark] with 12 additional verses.

In the sgMark, there is NO Commission by Jesus to preach the Gospel to the whole world.

In the sgMark, the disciples were supposed to meet Jesus in GALILEE AFTER he was raised from the dead but it did NOT happen because the visitors told NO-ONE Jesus was resurrected.

Mark 14But, in sgMark, the disciples were NOT told Jesus was resurrected so they did NOT know when they should have gone to Galilee.

The LAST four verses of sgMARK is extremely significant--the visitors to the Empty Tomb did NOT tell PETER and the disciples that Jesus was resurrected and that they should GO to Galilee to MEET him.

Mark 16
The author of sgMark did NOT know of the Commission of the resurrected Jesus.

Now, the mere fact that sgMark ENDS before the Commission shows that he Was NOT aware of People who preached Christ to the whole world.

The author of sgMark was NOT aware that a character called Paul preached Christ and that there were Christians.

When sgMark was WRITTEN there was NO Jesus cult of Christians and NO stories of a character called Jesus the Christ, the Universal Savior because of his crucifixion and resurrection.

Even if sgMark is assumed to be written at 68 CE, before the Fall of the Temple, it is shows that the author was NOT AWARE of Pauline letters and that people preached Christ Crucified and resurrected.

sgMark was the very FIRST Jesus story and it had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Start of a new religion.

sgMark's Jesus did NOT start any new religion.

sgMark's Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted.

sgMark's Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples he was Christ--it was PETER.

sgMark's Jesus IMMEDIATELY barred his own disciples from telling anyone he was Christ.

sgMark is BEFORE the Pauline letters and Contradicts them.

sgMark's Jesus was NOT a UNIVERSAL Savior.

sgMark's Jesus came to make sure Prophecy was fulfilled.

sgMark's Jesus was the Destroyer of the Jews and the Fall of the Temple.

Mark 13 The fall of the Temple and the calamities of the Jews is the ONLY so-called prophecy that came true in the Entire Canon.

sgMark's Jesus came to DESTROY the Jews NOT to save them.

"There shall not be left a stone upon a stone that shall not be thrown down"

Mark 13 sgMark's Jesus DESTROYED Jerusalem and the Jews.

It is so recorded that the Jewish Temple did fall and thousands upon thousands of Jews were massacred.


It was the author of the INTERPOLATED gMark, the Forger, who changed the story and made Jesus a Universal Savior.

The Pauline letters of Universal Salvation by the crucifixion and resurrection and Commission to preach the Gospel to the whole world are based on the INTERPOLATED gMark.

sgMark is the the FIRST source for the Jesus story in the Entire Canon.

aa5874

Although I have gone through the Short-Ending gMark it appears I have missed a very IMPORTANT clue.

sgMark ENDS in this manner.

Mark 16.6-8 sgMark may have been written by a WOMAN who visited the Empty Tomb or the author is giving the impression that the Jesus story in sgMark was obtained from the WOMEN Visitors.

sgMark's story is the FIRST time the Secret was told sometime after c 70 CE. sgMark's Jesus story about the SECRET RESURRECTED Messiah only makes sense if the Pauline letters and the other Gospels were unknown.

Duvduv

Why would that be the case? The women may have kept quiet, but the others who "saw" the "risen Christ" didn't.

aa5874

There is more information in the Short-Ending gMark to show that it was written BEFORE the Pauline letters were composed.

Sinaiticus gMark 14 Now examine 1 Cor.11, it will be noticed that the Pauline writer claimed that the disciples were asked by Jesus to CARRY out the Ritual in "Remembrance of me".

1 Cor.11 The Request to perform the Ritual of the Eucharist in Remembrance of Jesus is NOT found in the earliest gMark.

In fact, there is NO request at all in Sinaiticus gMark for the Eucharist to be performed afterwards. It was the LAST SUPPER.

Even in the Interpolated gMark, there is no mention that the Ritual should be carried out and in remembrance of Jesus.

It is in gLuke that Jesus

Luke 22 The practice of the Ritual of the Eucharist was AFTER gMark was written or after 70 CE.

The Short-ending gMark is the Earliest book of the Canon and BEFORE the Pauline letters.

Duvduv

AA, you already made this point once before. I remember I replied that it is just as likely that it was the other way around, i.e. that a gospel story or interpolation FOLLOWED AFTER the expression in the epistle. And I then asked you WHY the epistle(s) refers to nothing of the Mark story (short or long) of Mark's Jesus figure.
I think you forgot to respond to either point.

aa5874

Your memory appears to be faulty. Actually in my last post it is the FIRST time that I have shown that there is NO request, No Commission, NO Command by the supposed Jesus for the LAST SUPPER to be practised as a ritual as a Memorial.

The Pauline claim that it was revealed that Jesus said This do in REMEMBRANCE of Me is not found in gMark.

This also DEMONSTRATES that the author of gMark did NOT Practise the Ritual of the Eucharist.


ALSO, the author of gMatthew did NOT claim that the LAST SUPPER was to be practised as a Memorial.

Matthew 26 The gospels of gMark and gMatthew do NOT show that the RITUAL of the Last Supper was practised even after the Fall of the Temple, after 70 CE.

gLuke is the FIRST gospel that made the claim that the Last Supper was to be a Memorial.

gMark was composed BEFORE the Pauline letters--gMark is FIRST in the Canon.

By the way, your belief that the Pauline writings are before gMark has ZERO influence on my FINDINGS. My theories are based on the written statements of antiquity.

You very well know that even in court trials there are TWO OPPOSING arguments using the very same EVIDENCE provided.

And further, You have NOT presented any comprehensive evidence or sources to demonstrate that the Pauline writings are likely before gMark.

Typically your assertions are followed by a BLANK SPACE--NO supporting source or evidence from antiquity.

Anyhow, let me make it clear in advance--you will not be able to find any credible supporting evidence that the Pauline letters were before gMark.

Duvduv

Yes, sure......I forgot......ancient sources that you yourself know are biased and unreliable........

aa5874

Again, your assertions are followed by a BLANK Space.

Myth Fables are NOT reliable sources.

The NT is a Compilation of Myth Fables and that is PRECISELY what I have IDENTIFIED.

The NT cannot, cannot, cannot be used for historical purpose without corroboration.

Even if all the apologetic sources that mention Paul are NOT credible then the Pauline writer is STILL WITHOUT a shred of corroboration.

What a disaster!!!! All sources that mention Paul are NOT credible and the Pauline letters are forgeries or manipulated.

I cannot accept the Pauline letters as composed before the Fall of the Temple when there is NOTHING credible for Paul and his writings have been DATED by Paleography to the mid 2nd-3rd century.

By logical deduction, based on the present evidence available, the author of the short-ending gMark was UNAWARE of the Pauline letters.

Grog

aa, couldn't the author of gMark's goal here, in regard to Jesus being the secret messiah, be to provide an explanation for why no one has heard the story to this point? Couldn't this explanation live side by side with widespread knowledge of Paul's Christ?

In other words, couldn't it be that when "Mark" sat down to create a story of Jesus Christ actually being on Earth, he had to find a plausible explanation for why everyone missed it?

This explanation sits well, I believe, for why gMark doesn't seem to care too much about Paul's letters. gMark is trying to explore what happened before Paul (explore or fill the gap with fiction). gMark is providing a fictionalized story to explain the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, when and how this all happened. I would argue that there already was speculation as to what exactly the Christ revealed to Cephas and James, the 12, all the apostles during their revelatory experiences and probably that is where some of the sayings traditions come from--not from stories about Jesus's pre-resurrection ministry, but speculations about what Jesus said in his revelations as the Risen Christ to chosen apostles. gMark historicized those, cast them back into pre-resurrection in his attempt to historicize Jesus.

aa5874

Your suggestion is hopelessly Contradictory, and cannot be shown to be logical.

It makes very little sense even from a chronological point of view that Paul supposedly preached Jesus Christ Crucified and Resurrected in at least SEVEN Regions of the Roman Empire for OVER 17 years since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE and claimed that there were others who PREACHED the Faith before him in Jerusalem and Judea and that an author of gMark would write AFTER c 70 CE that UP TO the time he was writing his story NO-ONE was told Jesus was resurrected.

Please, please, please, do NOT forget at all that the author of gMark, writing AFTER c 70 CE, is IMPLYING that NO-ONE has heard of the Resurrection of Jesus BEFORE he wrote his story.

You MUST try and understand the Short-Ending gMark.

Please look at the Last verses of Sinaiticus gMark

Sinaiticus Mark Up to sometime AFTER c 70 CE, After the Fall of the Temple, NO-ONE heard of the Resurrection of Jesus based on Sinaiticus gMark.

But, in the Pauline writings, since 37-41 CE, since the time of King Aretas, a character called Paul supposedly DID TELL People Jesus was indeed resurrected..

Sinaiticus gMark and the Pauline writings are in direct conflict.

Now, examine non-apologetic sources.

The short-ending gMark is COMPATIBLE with non-apologetic sources where there is NO documented evidence of a character called Jesus, a supposed Jew, whose RESURRECTION was for the Remission of Sins and that Jesus the RESURRECTED Jew was the End of the Law.

The Pauline writer was EXPECTED to have caused UNPRECEDENTED controversy in the Roman Empire by OFFERING a RESURRECTED Jew as a UNIVERSAL SAVIOR of ALL Mankind.

The Pauline writer, claimed to be a JEW, MADE the name of the RESURRECTED Jesus ABOVE the name of the ROMAN EMPERORS and claimed EVERY-ONE on EARTH, HEAVEN and BELOW the EARTH should BOW to the name of his RESURRECTED Jesus but NOT ONE Roman Writer mentioned the Pharisee, the Jew, called Paul and his RESURRECTED Jesus the Messiah.

Paul, the JEW and Pharisee claimed the Resurrected Jesus, the Son of God, BORN of the seed of DAVID was LORD.

Paul, the Jew, supposedly had churches in at least SEVEN regions of the Roman Empire where he had PERSONALLY preached Jesus Resurrected.

No Roman or Jewish writer claimed they ATTENDED a Pauline Church and there is absolutely no arguments for or against the Pauline resurrected Jesus.

WE HAVE A BIG BLACK-HOLE for PAUL and the PAULINE Resurrected Jesus.

But, the BIG-BLACK HOLE for PAUL is NOT only MISSING in non-apologetic sources, the very same PAUL and the Pauline letters are MISSING in Apologetic sources.

Up to the mid-2nd century, Justin Martyr and Aristides did NOT recognise Paul as the one who EVANGELISED the Gentiles of the Roman Empire.

But, Justin Martyr UTTERLY destroys PAUL and the Pauline letters.

Justin Martyr claimed it was the MEMOIRS of the Apostles that was read in the Churches, did NOT say a single word about the Pauline letters and did NOT ever state that Remission of Sins was obtained by the Resurrection of Jesus..

"U]First Apology[/u]" Justin Martyr SHOWS that the Pauline letters were NOT known and read even in Churches which he was aware of.

It is clear that the Evidence from antiquity, even Apologetic sources, shows that the Jesus story was KNOWN and READ in the Churches as Scripture BEFORE the Pauline letters based on Justin's First Apology.

You are SPECULATING and PRESUMING what you should have attempted to show. I do NOT presume the Pauline writings are EARLIER than gMark so you are wasting my time with YOUR SPECULATION and PRESUMPTIONS.

If you are arguing that Paul wrote BEFORE gMark then you MUST present YOUR CASE with SUPPORTING evidence and sources--Evidence and sources are NOT required by those who SPECULATE and PRESUME--you just say what you IMAGINE is history.

I NO LONGER ACCEPT SPECULATION and PRESUMPTIONS by those who argue against my theories.

Please, it seems like you don't understand the term "historical Jesus". You may have been mis-led. The NT Canon is a source for a Non-historical Jesus and that is PRECISELY why SCHOLARS themselves are ON an QUEST, A SEARCH, an INVESTIGATION for an historical Jesus for OVER 250 years.

The author of gMark and the other authors of the Canon did NOT attempt to historicize Jesus they actually WROTE that Jesus was DIVINE, the Son of God.

The Gospels Made Sure Jesus was Mythologised.

Whoever told you that the Gospels historicized Jesus made a MASSIVE error and seem to have completely forgotten that there is an ON GOING QUEST for a human Jesus of history and seems to have forgotten that NO author of the NT claimed Jesus had a human father and could NOT have been Fathered by a Holy Ghost, could NOT have been God the Creator, could NOT have walked on water, could NOT have transfigured, could NOT have Resurrected and Ascended.

The NT authors MADE SURE their Jesus was DIVINE and acted as DIVINE.