aa5874

My position that the Jesus story and cult originated CANNOT be overturned.

The short gMark found in the Sinaiticus Codex is an extremely significant book and it suggests that when it was composed there was NO known Jesus cult.

The short gMark effectively destroys the Pauline letters.

First of all, in the short gMark, the Good News, the Gospel, had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the crucifixion of Jesus.

The Good News, the Gospel in the short gMark was that the Kingdom of God was soon coming.

Essentially, whether or Not Jesus lived , whether or NOT Jesus was crucified the GOOD NEWS would still be the same--the Kingdom of God is at hand.

It is Extremely important that we understand the GOOD NEWS in the short gMark.

Sinaiticus gMark 1 There is absolutely NOTHING about Remission of Sins by the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus in the Entire short gMark.

The Jesus character did NOT claim he was sent to be a Sacrifice by God as claimed in the Later gJohn.

The short gMark was composed when it was BELIEVED the Kingdom of God was at hand based on so-called Prophecies in Daniel and Hebrew Scripture.

Daniel 7 The short gMark's Son of Man is the Son of Man in the book of Daniel.

Mark 13Mark 14.61-62 It is the author of the short gMark who Believed or wanted people to Believe that the prophecies in Daniel about the Son of man were soon to be fulfilled.

Only the Gospels and Daniel claim that the Son of Man will come in the clouds of heaven and mention the Abomination of Desolation.

Sinaiticus gMark 13Daniel 11:31 KJVDaniel 12:11 KJV The Jesus stories were ANONYMOUS and Believed to have been composed Before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE and therefore appeared to have fulfilled the prophecies in Daniel and other books of Hebrew Scripture.

According to a Church writer, "Church History 2.16, gMark was Believed to have been composed at least 20 years Before the Fall of Temple or was composed at the time of Philo of Alexandria.

The short gMark story, the earliest Jesus story destroys the Pauline letters. There was NO Jesus cult until AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

aa5874

My position cannot be overturned--the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

As I have said before the Jesus story in the short gMark is NOT about Jesus and a Jesus cult.

The short gMark is about the practises of the ESSENES and Theraputae.

In the writings of Philo and Josephus, the Essenes was one of the Sects of the Jews and were highly regarded by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

However, the Essenes were NOT mentioned by the authors of the Gospels even though the practices of the Jesus cult similar to those of the Essenes.

In the short gMark, the Pharisees and Sadducees were not in agreement with the supposed teachings of Jesus and he Jesus even claimed the Pharisees wanted to DESTROY him and it is stated the Sadducees did NOT believe in the resurrection.

Sinaiticus gMark 3Sinaiticus gMarkIt would appear that there is NOTHING about the Essenes in gMark.

Well, the short gMark Jesus story is really based on the Practises of the Essenes and the Theraputae.

Examine Church History 2.16 Philo described the Lives of the Essenes and the Theraputae--See "Hypothetica" and the "Contemplative Life."

There was NO Jesus cult of Christians in the the time of Philo.

It was the writings of Hebrew Scripture, Philo and Josephus that were used to develop the teachings of the Jesus cult.

The Pauline letters are historically bogus.

There was NO Jesus story and cult in the 1st century and before c 70 CE and this is corroborated by the Recovered Dated manuscripts.

Iskander

true in such an obvious way that you do not need to prove it

aa5874

Anyone who has examined the Pauline writings will easily observe that the Pauline teachings of his revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus are highly sophisticated and far more complex than those of the short gMark Jesus.

The complexity and sophistication of the Pauline Revealed Gospel MATCHES gJohn the Last Gospels.

The teachings of the short Markan Jesus has NOT whatsoever about Remission of Sins by the Resurrection.

In fact, the short Mark story ENDS exactly at the Resurrection and the author wrote No one was told Jesus was raised from the dead by the visitors.

But, that is EXACTLY the opposite in the Pauline letters.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel is DIRECTLY from the Post-Resurrected Jesus.
The Mark Jesus story is PRE-Resurrection.

Over 500 people Saw the Post-Resurrected Jesus in 1 Corinthians..
No-one even heard that Jesus was resurrected in Mark 16.8.

Paul told the "whole" Roman Empire that Jesus was raised from the dead.
The visitors to the tomb were TERRIFIED to tell the disciples of the resurrection.

Paul preached, taught and wrote letters "all over" the Roman Empire claiming that WITHOUT the resurrection there would no Remission of Sin.
In gMARK, whether or NOT Jesus resurrected, Eternal Life was obtained by obeying the commandments.

The Pauline writers wanted the Outsiders to understand him and obtain Salvation.
The short mark Jesus did NOT want the outsiders to understand him so that they would remain in sin.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus is chronologically AFTER Jesus supposedly Ascended.

It is illogical that the Pauline Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus predate the short gMark story who knew Nothing of the Post Resurrection visits by Jesus.

Chili

Luke designed John and John foreshadowed Paul or actually Paul is where John hit the road as the working Gospel that JC had promised.

Mark was only there to silence the antichirst who was born from carnal desire and so had no affinity with JohnB, who therefore had a camelhair coat on with nothing but grashoppers to eat three times a day (no intuit or Jewish desing in his speach) .

Take a good look at Luke where Elizabeth depicts the involutional melancholy of Joseph as ordered by the Lord, that so was in [God's] 'own time' as per Songs 2:7 that was addressed to the "daughters of Jerusalem," such a beautiful line, that equals Mary 'imprisoned', you can say (Songs is allegory too).

Duvduv

Do I hear a broken record??? The repetition of the claim does not make it true simply by virtue of its faithful repetition. The fact is there is no evidence at all that the texts were produced earlier as opposed to later, and the epistles do not display any more evidence that the authors knew of GMark than that they knew of legends circulating around about one Jesus which also found there way into the gospels.

Steve Weiss

There are numerous ways to defeat myths: logical means, historical means, common sensical means, etc. Choosing the historical approach is a very long-winded and not very satisfying means because the information in geneal about ancient history is very fragmentary and subject to forgery and debate. A logical approach, however, is swift and crystal clear. There are no man/gods, fairies, devils,demons, deities, angels, unicorns, Loch Ness Monsters, etc. There are also no miracles, so any theory which relies upon the existence of these entities and events is to be rejected immediately as unworthy of debate and totally lacking in credibility.

Apologists will rely upon tradition, bogus sources, faulty premises, beliefs, authority, etc. to spin a web of stories and impossibilities to give invalid support for their mythology, and one will never get to the end of the debate. There is nothing of substance to debate.

Identifying mythology as fiction and irrational assertions quickly puts paid to discussion and leaves no comebacks from apologists. I'm all for the quick and effective means which does not rely upon investigating sources that are far from complete. No discussion is necessary. Fiction is fiction. Even if there were whole libraries full of books justifying miracles and the existence of mythological characters that would not establish them as being true. Involving one's self in debating nonsense is playing the wrong game.

aa5874

You seem not to understand the HJ/MJ argument. The people who claim Jesus of Nazareth existed, HJers, are NOT arguing that Jesus was Supernatural and did miracles.

They are arguing that Jesus of of Nazareth was a preacherman who was a complete human being with a human father, was baptized by John and crucified under Pilate but they do so without a shred of evidence.

My argument is that the Jesus story and cult are 2nd century Myth Fables like those of the Greeks and Romans and that Jesus the disciples and Paul had NO real existence based on the Preponderance of evidence.

The Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century as the ACTUAL RECOVERED DATED manuscripts show.

My argument is extremely solid and cannot be overturned based on the present evidence.

Chili

You are wrong all over except in the very last line that I bolded to show.

My reason for this is because it is nonsense to the historicist who just does not understand.

The problem is that with 'eyes only half open' one tends to 'follow the bait' and those are called lukewarm in Rev. 3:15 who 'talk lots' in v17, but have nothing to say.

Sheshbazzar

And of course we KNOW without a shadow of a doubt, that the Blessed Pauline writings are absolutely pristine, and are perfectly preserved, word for word, by miraculous Divine protection, exactly as they came from the pen held in the Blessed Apostle Paul's hand.

Certainly no latter editor or writer could have ever added a even so much as a single word to these Pauline Holy writings, because Almighty God himself has always protected and preserved the Blessed Apostle Paul's Holy Epistles from any tampering and from any further additions by The Holy and Catholic Church.

Shame on anyone who would even dare think that it were it possible the Pauline Epistles might have ever been edited and added to, so as to make them more highly sophisticated and more complex.


:Cheeky: