aa5874

In gMatthew 28 Jesus went to Galilee up in a mountain to meet the disciples AFTER he was supposed to be dead NOT before.

The crucifixion supposedly occured in gMatthew 27 before the Passover and before the first day of the week.

Now, you IMAGINE your own interpolations to avoid further implosions.

If the author of gMatthew was aware of the Pauline writings then he would have realized that it was NOT at all necessary for Jesus to have WALKED for at least three days wrapped in burial linen to Galilee when Jesus just had to APPEAR UNANNOUNCED to anyone he so desired.

Well, once you agree that it can be logically deduced that the post-resurrection visits in gMark and gMatthew were written BEFORE the SIX visits of the supposed resurrected Jesus in the Pauline writings then you have IMPLODED again.

All you say is that the evidence which shows that the Pauline writings are late have been interpolated but fail to provide the source WITHOUT the interpolations.

What a co-incidence!!!!!!

You IMAGINE your own interpolations to avoid Implosions.

outhouse

because the legends began in oral tradition, it brings us closer to the truth of the matter.


I think, [my opinion] that Q and Thomas are our closest and best bet to understanding the real jesus, even then its very limited.

outhouse

not much history is made with evidence from antiquity, so you can stop the nonsense.

Sheshbazzar

Your tongue is just flapping in the breeze here.
You are not one bit 'closer to the truth of the matter' because you have NO access to the actual content of those oral legends. They may well have been identical to what was written down.
If what was written down was a well known oral tradition, and was strongly believed, the prevailing argument would be that they were written down identically to the received oral traditions.

If you think they were not, then it up to you to -provide evidence- that they were not, Not just pull these empty ass-ertions out of your arse.

Whoopee. I think, [my opinion] that Mickey and Donald are our closest and and best bet to understanding the real jeebus, and that making up shit is the only thing unlimited.

.

outhouse

I have only left the option open that they could have been changed, and we know they probably were, like the ending of Thomas. And Q was edited and compiled into mythical content.

Q was butchered and we dont have a clue what the original might have ever been, IF it existed on papyrus.



yet that is what the "real"scholars and historians are forced to do based on what they have to work with.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Where do you read that? Did it occur to you Jesus appearing to the women, then to the disciples, was AFTER he was dead, that is resurrected?

Then, as you think, if the SIX visits in 1Cor15 were written AFTER the ones in gMark & gMatthew, how do you explain the author of the SIX visits did not know about the ones of gMark and gMatthew?
That goes against you sacro-saint dogma that later Christian writers had to know_about, remember, acknowledge, accept and comply_with any Christian texts written before.
Another example: why the later author(s) of the Pauline epistles did not know about gLuke & gMatthew godly conception with a virgin, supposedly written before?

Can you provide a source for Irenaeus the heretic's writings WITHOUT the interpolations?
And then, one can make a point that "Mark" got his inspiration for 13:26-27 from 1Th4:16-17 (the Lord/Son of man coming with power, with angels, in the clouds, to gather his elects), for 14:22-24 from 1Cor11:23-25 (the last supper) and for 10:11-12 from 1Cor7:10-11 (the divorce law). Therefore, gMark was written AFTER 1Thessalonians and 1Corinthians.
OR the author of gJohn can be said to know about the Pauline epistles in regard of Jesus' pre-existence, AND his change, with no explanation, from heavenly to human, AND he having a human mother and human father, despite being "Son of God".

Toto

The moderation team requests that you tone things down a bit. Surely you can make your point without anatomical references?

aa5874

So, you MUST stop the nonsense if your Confession is true.

Where did you SEE that "nonsense"? What historical source of antiquity made such a claim?

You cannot substitute your imagination for lack of historical data.

Sheshbazzar

If what was written down was a well known oral tradition, and was strongly believed, the prevailing argument would be that they were written down identically to the received oral traditions.

Else the very concept of 'oral traditions' preserving information is a falsehood.
If you wish to argue that 'oral traditions', that is, memorised and ritually recited stories and information, is substantially different than the forms that were recorded into writing, you are destroying your own arguments as to the validity or the contemporary acceptance and adherance to the details of these 'oral traditions'

aa5874

In gMatthew Jesus was DEAD BEFORE he went up in the mountain in Galilee to see the disciples.

I did NOT say that the Pauline writers did NOT know about the post-resurrected visits in gMark and gMatthew.

I did show that the Pauline writer was AWARE of Christian Scriptures that stated Jesus DIED for OUR SINS, was buried and was resurrected on the THIRD day.

Hebrew Scriptures do NOT state that Jesus died for the Sins of Jews and that he was resurrected on the THIRD day.

Now, the Pauline writer did claim that Jesus Visited the twelve disciples and ALL the apostles and in the Gospels Jesus did Visit the disciples and Apostles so it is NOT at all logical that the Pauline writer did NOT know of gMark and gMatthew.

I have ALREADY pointed out the CONTRADICTIONS in "Against Heresies" 2.22.

In the very opening passage of AH 2.22 the author claimed Jesus was NOT Baptized when he was about 30 years old.

And then LOOK, you will see the author says the complete OPPOSITE in the very SAME chapter.

Against Heresies 2.22.1 Now LOOK at AH 2.22.4. The very argument that Jesus was NOT baptized at 30 years is MISSING.

Against Heresies 2.22.4. "Against Heresies" is a MASSIVE forgery. One author claimed Jesus was NOT baptized at 30 years of age and another claimed the complete OPPOSITE in the very same chapter of the book.

You cannot show me where the Pauline writer contradicted himself when he wrote of the SIX post resurrection visits.