aa5874

gMark's John the Baptist story DESTROYS ALL claims that the author of gMark used the Pauline writings.

John the Baptist made the Pauline Jesus OBSOLETE.

The author of gMark made Paul's Doctrine of Salvation through Faith OBSOLETE.

The Remission of Sins for ALL JEWS in gMark did NOT require any FAITH but an ACT of Baptism by John.

The Remission of Sins for ALL JEWS in gMark did NOT require the death and resurrection of the Pauline Jesus but an ACT of Baptism by John.

Duvduv

I really wish you would address the substance of my posting about the issues involved.

Vorkosigan

Tanya, continue reading. I'm citing Paul's letter to the Romans.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

As I stated before the claim that the author of gMark used the Pauline letters to Churches is a most illogical claim.

It has been shown that gMark presented a character called John who Baptized for the Remission of Sins which is completely CONTRADICTORY to the character called Paul.

Paul was NOT called to Baptize and did NOT preach baptism by John or by water for the Remission of Sins.

But, it get far worse, the Jesus Christ of gMark was NOT a Savior, was NOT known as Christ by the people of Judea and Jerusalem and they did NOT know Jesus was raised from the dead at the time gMatk was written.

Mark 16.

But on the other hand, the Pauline Jesus was supposedly a UNIVERSAL Savior, and was KNOWN by at least 500 people that Jesus was raised from the dead.

1 Cor. 15 It is NOT at all logical that the author of gMark used the the Pauline letters when in gMark it is claimed that NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

tanya

One of us (probably me) is very confused.

Here's what you wrote, at your web site, this is YOUR writing, correct, not Paul's letter to the Romans, if I understand correctly:

Is it not Vorkosigan who has written something about finding "the source of the baptism story...."?

Is it not Vorkosigan who has claimed that Psalm 151 uses "baptism" as a metaphor for death? Are you now writing that this claim was instead made not by you, but by Paul in his letter to the Romans?

As noted above, in my earlier post, I find nothing at all, in Psalm 151 about "baptism" in Psalm 151--it addresses anointment, not baptism.

I am perplexed. I cannot follow the argument here....Maybe I am simply dyslexic. Can you please explain whether you are writing something about "the source of the baptism story", or, alternatively, if this represents your synopsis of what Paul is writing? Are you disputing the source I have provided for Psalm 151? Do you not share my opinion, that this psalm has nothing whatsoever to do with either baptism or death?

:huh:

aa5874

Before we get carried away by diversions let us FOCUS on the written statements in gMark and the Pauline letters.

The author of gMark FIRST introduced a character called John who Baptized from the Remission of Sins using WATER in the River Jordan.

Salvation in gMark did NOT require Faith.

The gMark story is NOT about Salvation through Faith by the death of Jesus.

1. In gMark 4, Jesus claimed he did NOT want the Sins of the Jews to be forgiven.

2. In gMark 8, Jesus did NOT wany any one to know he was Christ.

3. In gMark 16, Jesus was NOT known to have been raised from the dead by the Jews.

It is clear that the author of gMark CONTRADICTED the Pauline Revealed Teachings of the Resurrected Jesus and that ALL authors of the NT COPIED or Emulated the Markan Jesus.

1. The author of the Long-Ending gMark used virtually 100% of the Short-Ending gMark--Nothing from the Pauline letters.

2. The author of gMatthew used virtually 100% of the Short-Ending gMark--Nothing from the Pauline letters.

So, up to the composition of gMatthew, sometime AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE, the FIRST three Canonised authors do NOT have any knowledge at all of the Pauline letters to the Churches.

But, now let us go to Acts of the Apostles, surely the author of Acts MUST be aware of the Letters to the Churches from Paul.

Remarkably, the author of Acts did NOT acknowledge at all that Paul wrote letters to the Churches.

Let us go to REVELATION by John.

Again, the Revelations of John are NOT found anywhere in the Pauline letters.

No author of the Canon used the Pauline writings.

The Pauline letters were the LAST books that were composed in the NT Canon.

The Pauline letters could NOT have been known at the time the Short-Ending gMark was composed.

Duvduv

However, you still don't address the fact of all rhe elements missing from the epistles that are in the gospels.
How could the author of the epistles have known about the gospels and incorporated nothing of the aphorisms and story events found in the gospels?!

Vorkosigan

Tanya, please read the entire argument. I point out that if Romans was an OT text no one would have any problem finding that GMark depended on it. That's why I start with this mythical Ps 151 which is actually Romans.

Vorkosigan

aa5874

It is completely illogical that if Romans was an OT text that no-one would have problem finding that gMark depended on it.

The author of gMark did NOT get from Romans:


1. The story of John the Baptist

2. The temptation by Satan.

3. ALL the miracles of Jesus.

4. that Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted and remain in sin.

5. That Jesus did NOT want his own disciples to tell any one he was Christ.

6. that the very disciples of Jesus either betrayed, abandoned or denied him.

7. that No-one was told that Jesus was raised from the dead.

8. that Jesus came from Nazareth.

9. that Jesus was in Galilee and Judea.

10. that Jesus walked on the sea and Transfigured.

outhouse

There is no connection other then imagination, what so ever for gmark using paul.

Instead we see just the opposite


different traditions

different context

different oral legends



where Mark was based off oral traditions written for a roman audience



Paul is based more off his own imagination and theology, were talking about one of the Sadducees henchmen pulling mythical content out of thin air based on what little he knew, but more so wrote what he wanted people to follow on his version of this sect of judaism he wanted to open up to gentiles.