Duvduv

AA, do the epistles show any awareness of other stories of GMark including Jesus as the Son of Man?

aa5874

We know that the PAULINE writings are AFTER the Short-Ending gMark because the writer claimed he was LAST to be VISITED by the Resurrected Jesus AFTER he had VISITED OVER 500 people.

The author of the earliest gMark was writing sometime AFTER c 70 CE and he claimed NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

Again, Examine the LAST verses of the Earliest Jesus story.

Mark 16.6-8 UP to c 70 CE it was NOT known that Jesus was resurrected by Jews and was NOT known that he VISITED the disciples or anyone else by the author of gMark.

In effect, the Pauline letters were AFTER the earliest gMark story.

It is NOT required that Paul mentioned every single character in gMark to determine that he was AWARE of the Jesus story.

Paul claimed he MET characters FOUND in gMark.

The Apostles Peter, James and John are characters found in the Jesus stories are NOT corroborated as figures of history at all.

There is NO credible corroborative evidence in all antiquity to show that Paul could have MET characters called Apostle Peter, James and John as stated in Galatians.

The Apostles PETER, JAMES and JOHN are "PAPER" characters. They had NO actual existence.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
Not so, the long ending in gMark is synchronized with gLuke and gJohn.
One of the Jesus' reappearance in gJohn is synchronized with one in gLuke.
But I also mentioned changes between Paul and gJohn regarding the human Jesus:
In one, a humble and of no reputation Jew, in the other one, a pompous self-declared Son of God in Palestine. Guess who came first?
1) The Pauline Jesus was first a divine entity residing in heaven, co-creator of the universe, Son of God
2) Then he became incarnated as a man and died by crucifixion
3) Then, finally, after the resurrection, again a divine entity residing in heaven
Paul claimed to have revelation from the Jesus of phase 3).
Phase 3) does not preclude phase 2).
Even if two gospels out of four say he was not from a human father, that did not prevent Jesus to be considered fully human.
After all, the female body of the mother produces 99.99(plus more 9!) of the offspring body mass. And Paul specified "from a woman". So if you really want to hold on to your concept, Jesus of gLuke and gMatthew was 99.99(plus more 9!) human and 0.00(plus more 0!)1 spirit.
Dolly the sheep came also from a female sheep as a mother. But not from any "father" male sheep sperm. That does not prevent Dolly to have been fully sheep and even give birth to lambs (which she did).
Of course, the divine conception is no more than an artifice to make Jesus Son of God by birth, by gospelers who did not want to deal with a pre-existent Son of God. After that, they presented their Jesus as fully human, the same than Paul, "Mark" and "John" did.

Duvduv

Yes, but the GMark characters could have been derived from the epistles (by way of expansion of the whole story) or from common legends and stories together with GMark's own embelishments. Especially if ORIGINALLY the Mark story didn't contain the BAPTIST information at all. Note that he immediately mentions HIS "gospel" but doesn't explain what it even means.
Anyway, see below without the Baptist:

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee [....] And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness. 1:13And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan; And he was with the wild beasts; And the angels ministered unto him [...] Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel [ comment: what gospel?].
And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers[...]

aa5874

You cannot be serious.

1. The Temple incident in gJohn is NOT in sync with gLuke and gMark.

2. The anointing of the dead body of Jesus in gJohn is NOT in sync with gMark.

3. The final prayer of the Johanine Jesus before arrest in gJohn is NOT in gMark and gLuke.

4. The miracle of turning water to wine is NOT in gLuke and gMark.

5. The raising of Lazarus in gJohn is NOT in gMark and gLuke.

6. The Teachings and the Christology of the Johanine gospel is NOT in gMark and gLuke.

John 14:6 KJV Jesus saith unto him, I am the way , the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 10:30 KJVI and my Father are one.

The Johanine Jesus was God the Creator which is NOT found in gMark and gLuke.

gMark's Jesus was a PHANTOM.

gLuke's Jesus was the Son of a Holy Ghost.




You have just DESCRIBED a MYTH.

You have an extremely limited understanding of MYTHOLOGY.

Romulus and Remus were the Mythological founders of Rome and were HUMAN brothers born of the same woman and LIVED and DIED in Rome. See Plutarch's Romulus.

I will not entertain your MYTH BIOLOGY lessons.

aa5874

You are "Tampering" with the WRITTEN statements in gMark. You should try to understand the story EXACTLY as it written.

You may be doing exactly what the authors of the Gospels may have done.

John the Baptist is in the stories of extant Codices and must have been included for a reason.

It would seem people want to RE-WRITE the Jesus story so that they can BELIEVE IT.

Duvduv

AA, I guess you didn't follow the point I was trying to make about the Baptist and his role in the gospel story (including the fact that the isn't mentioned even once in the epistles). You simply noted my way of describing the text without the Baptist and became critical.

Bernard Muller

to aa,
The synchronizations came up when talking about the post-mortems reappearances and I addressed that: that happened partially.
For the rest, gMatthew included 90% of GMark and gLuke included some 50% of gMark.
Even gJohn included some pieces of gMark. Yes there are differences and changes but I ask you: how much the Pauline epistles included of the gospels?

aa5874

None of the Epistles [Pauline and Non-Pauline] mentioned John the Baptist.

Now, it is extremely important that you do not "tamper" with the written statements of antiquity.

The inclusion of John the Baptist in gMark is evidence that shows it was composed BEFORE the Pauline Gospel of the resurrected Jesus was known.

Examine 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV But, quite astonishingly, the author of gMark NOT only claimed John was sent to Baptize but to Baptize for the Remission of Sins.

gMark's John the Baptist provided SALVATION by merely Baptizing in water.
Mark 1The Pauline revealed Gospel from the resurrected Jesus made John the Baptist Obsolete.

1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

Duvduv

AA, just as before,you have no evidence that the epistles considered the Baptist obsolete because you cannot show that the epistles KNEW of the Baptist to begin with.
Thus you cannot say that the story of the Baptist was originally in GMark either. Because if the GMark Jesus was not the davidic messiah then he had no need for a precursor. Only when the davidic messiah was integrated back into the world view did a precursor become necessary, even for a brief appearance in GMark for the Jewish holy man who was reinterpreted as a davidic messiah.