aa5874

The fact that there are Existing Codices with the short-ending gMark means that theories can be developed using gMark WITHOUT the additional 12 verses.

Theories are developed on actual dated data NOT on imagination and speculation.

This is basic.

Even in court trials, it is quite reasonable to deduce or theorize that a person was NOT at a crime scene if there is NO EVIDENCE of their presence.

J-D

If you have two copies of a book, and one of them goes on for one page longer than the other, it is quite reasonable to theorise that the shorter version was the earlier one and the last page of the longer version was added later, but it is also equally quite reasonable to theorise that the longer version was the earlier one and the last page was deleted from the shorter version later, or maybe just got lost from the surviving copy.

There are two theories there which are equally reasonable without some additional basis for choosing between them.

aa5874

Which book are you referring to??? Which page is missing from which book??? Show me the book with the missing page so that we can decide if your claims are reasonable.

Have the books been DATED by Paleography or C 14???
You MUST present the book or make reference to the passages found in the missing page.

It is the Contents of the book, the missing/found page and the ACTUAL Dating by Paleography or CI4 that will determine if your assertions are really reasonable.

Based on the fact the Existing Codices with the short-ending gMark have been DATED by Paleography to be the EARLIEST Codices then it is most reasonable to argue that the long-ending gMark was LATER when it is found in Codices that are DATED AFTER the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

mountainman

So when did the long version of Mark appear?
Sometime after Vaticanus?
When is the first witness to it?

aa5874

Please, examine the list of DATED New Testament Papyri.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stament_papyri

Papyri 45 which contains fragments of gMark is dated to around c 250 CE.

aa5874

The HJ argument was SUFFOCATED to "death" because :

1. It lacked any DATED evidence in the 1st century and before c 70 CE about a human Jesus.

2. No Supposed contemporary of Jesus claimed they Met Jesus as a man.

3. Sources that mention Jesus in the 1st century are Forgeries or questionable.

4. Sources that place Paul, a supposed contemporary, before c 70 CE are forgeries.

5. Apologetic sources, including Paul a supposed contemporary, show, claim or IMPLIED Jesus was NOT human but was the Son of God or the Son of a Ghost.

6. The Christian Faith and the PREACHING of the FAITH is based on a Non-historical act--the Resurrection.

7. Virtually every event of Jesus is fictional or implausible.


The HJ argument is completely out of "oxygen". [Ehrman finally Sucked it all out]

The abundance of evidence from antiquity show that there was NO real human Jesus. It was just a story, a Fable, that was BELIEVED to be true sometime in the 2nd century.

John 3:16 KJV Jesus is a Fable.

Stringbean

Sweet aa! Put it in a book and I will buy it. Will have to cite some of it in my debates with fundies on other boards.

mountainman

Is your claim that the Jesus story was a 2nd century fable believed to be true based on the scientific evidence of the so-called palaeographical scientists?



Crispus was not.

Sheshbazzar

"Jesus is a Fable"


Amen and hallelu-IAH.

aa5874

Precisely, I am stating without fear of any reasonable contradiction that based on the abundance of Dated Text by Paleography and C 14 it is my position that the Jesus cult was INITIATED sometime in the 2nd century by stories about a character called the Son of God who was caused to be crucified because of the Jews.

May I remind you that Paleography is an accepted method of Dating ancient Text and I must admit that 100% of New Testament manuscripts that have been DATED SUPPORT my theory of a 2nd century origin of the Jesus story.

In order for me to make a SOLID and SECURE argument for a non-human Jesus I needed an ACCEPTED method of Dating ANCIENT manuscript--Paleography is an accepted method.

Paleography has EXPOSED that the ENTIRE CANON is NOT likely to be from anytime before c 70 CE.

This is PRECISELY, and EXACTLY what I expected since Jesus, the disciples and Paul did NOT exist before c 70 CE.