Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-05-2013, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Sheshbazzar,

You are absolutely right, there is no Virgin Birth or "overshadowing" by the Holey Ghost in gMark.

gMark has an adoptionist Christology where Jesus is possessed by some kind of spirit. If you read closely, it is not said to be the "Holy" Spirit. (Matthew and Luke "fixed" that).

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the spirit like a dove descending upon him:

See that? No holy spirit in gMark's baptism, just an ambiguous spirit like a dove.

1. Jesus in gMark cannot walk on the sea if he was an actual Man.

2. Jesus in gMark cannot transfigure if he was an actual Man.

3. Jesus in gMark cannot resurrect if he was actual Man.

Jesus is identified as NON human,the Son of God, in gMark. Mark 2, Mark 4 and mark 15.

Christians who claim that they have received the Holy Ghost cannot do the things that Jesus did.

The Jesus in gMark was NOT human.

Marcion's Phantom had NO VIRGIN BIRTH.

gMark's Jesus had NO Virgin Birth.

Duvduv · 03-05-2013, 04:07 PM

Which authority has established that Celsus and Origen were in the 2nd century? And who says they needed an officially written Toldoth story as opposed to oral traditions heard from Jews directly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century)..............The date of composition cannot be ascertained with certainty, but the earliest source is unlikely to be prior the 4th century, far too late to include authentic remembrances of Jesus.

"the earliest source is unlikely to be prior the 4th century,"

I'm going to be very interested in how you reconcile this with Celsus and Origen both writing about the Pantera STORY in the 2nd to early 3rd century CE.

.

jakejonesiv · 03-05-2013, 04:16 PM

Dear AA,
Look here.
Please get your terminology right. You keep citing the "short gMarK" as if it were an entirely separate manuscript. What you really should refer to is the "short ending of Mark." You should not refer to short gMark unless you are discussing the ending. GET IT RIGHT.

There are 5 different endings to gMark:
http://debatingchristianity.com/foru...?t=2738&lofi=1

Best Regards,
Jake

jakejonesiv · 03-05-2013, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

gMark's Jesus had NO Virgin Birth.

Then YOU need to quit refering to Jesus as the son of a Ghost and a Virgin since, according to your logic, everything composed after short gMark (sic) is FAKE.

Sheshbazzar · 03-05-2013, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Which authority has established that Celsus and Origen were in the 2nd century?

It will be interesting to see if anyone has sources or knowledge to prove otherwise.

Thus far all scholarly supported reference material I have came across has supported the late 2nd /early 3rd c. CE time frame for these writers and their writings.
If someone holds otherwise the onus is upon -them- to demonstrate that all of this collective accepted scholarship and reference material is in error.
Then perhaps they can get the Encyclopedias, history books, and reference materials rewritten to reflect their great knowledge.

Until then... I'll go with what the established scholarship of much more erudite men than myself have provided us with on this matter.
So I'm waiting for our resident genius to overturn what is reported on the lives and writings of Celsus and Origen in all respected reference materials.

Duvduv · 03-05-2013, 04:35 PM

We are not talking about proving otherwise. We are simply talking about the evidence that they DID EXIST in the 2nd century. And what evidence is there beyond the claims of the church-sanctioned writers?

The scholarship cannot empirically PROVE that they lived in the 2nd century. This is not chemistry or geology. They can only ASSERT that they did. And without the church-sanctioned claims there would be no basis for such assertions.

If you have faith in people more "erudite" in terms of their claims than you, that's fine. You admit so. What is so erudite about accepting established church claims, doctrine or dogma? These "erudite" scholars are not chemists or geologists. They simply accept what has ALREADY been claimed by the Church.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Which authority has established that Celsus and Origen were in the 2nd century?

It will be interesting to see if anyone has sources or knowledge to prove otherwise.

Thus far all scholarly supported reference material I have came across has supported the late 2nd /early 3rd c. CE time frame for these writers and their writings.
If someone holds otherwise the onus is upon -them- to demonstrate that all of this collective accepted scholarship and reference maerial is in error.
Then perhaps they can get the Encyclopedias and history books rewritten to reflect their great knowledge.

Until then... I'll go with what the established scholarship much more erudite men than myself have provided us with on this matter.
So I'm waiting for our resident genius to overturn what is reported on the lives and writings of Celsus and Origen in all respected reference materials.

jakejonesiv · 03-05-2013, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Esatto! It is amazing how we become 'locked into' the idea that 'Paul' was 'Paul' when even in the Catholic fairy tale he had another name. Like the guy whose been married to the prostitute so long he forgets her former occupation.

Sonia Braga in this movie encouraged me to visit Rio. But anyway back to the point of the discussion. Peter and Paul both have different names. What are the odds of that? It's like two best friends who are both identical twins with different brothers. Very, very odd.

And then if you throw in the 'bad Simon' of the Pseudo-Clementines who sounds very much like Paul the situation gets even weirder. Simon and Simon, one of whom is Peter the other is really Saul who is Paul. How do we reconcile this mess? My instincts tell me that there was only one Simon and all the rest is a smokescreen. 1 Peter is Pauline too.

Yes, there is another Trinity.
The heretic Simon der Magier
The heterodox Paul with his temperate Simonianism.
The orthodox Simon Peter

Theologen, die mit der Trinitätslehre vertraut sind, sollten sich auch auf diese Trintität verstehen.
Aus drei mach eins,
das ist das
Hexen-Einmaleins! (Frei nach Goethe's Faust)

Wer es fassen kann, der fasse es.

Best Regards,
Jake

I guess I ran Stephan off. Didn't mean to.

aa5874 · 03-05-2013, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Which authority has established that Celsus and Origen were in the 2nd century? And who says they needed an officially written Toldoth story as opposed to oral traditions heard from Jews directly?

Origen is not considered a 2nd century character by apologetic sources.

aa5874 · 03-05-2013, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Dear AA,
Look here.
Please get your terminology right. You keep citing the "short gMarK" as if it were an entirely separate manuscript. What you really should refer to is the "short ending of Mark." You should not refer to short gMark unless you are discussing the ending. GET IT RIGHT.

There are 5 different endings to gMark:
http://debatingchristianity.com/foru...?t=2738&lofi=1

Best Regards,
Jake

It is irrelevant if there are 5 endings to gMark because I am dealing with one of the the EARLIEST CANONISED ENDING in the Sinaticus Codex.

THERE COULD BE A THOUSAND endings but I am dealing with the Extant Canonised Sinaiticus the short gMark which ends at 16.8.

It is claimed Jesus walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected in the short gMark regardless of the Endings.

In fact, in the long gMark, there is an additional non-human event, the resurrected GHOST called Jesus commissions the disciples to preach the Gospel.

aa5874 · 03-05-2013, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

gMark's Jesus had NO Virgin Birth.

Then YOU need to quit refering to Jesus as the son of a Ghost and a Virgin since, according to your logic, everything composed after short gMark (sic) is FAKE.

Again, I did present the passages in gMark where Jesus ACTED as a Ghost.

The Anatomy and Specific Gravity of a human being does NOT allow for sea water walking, transfigurations and resurrection.

The gMark Jesus was a GHOST in all the endings of gMark.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2013, 04:16 PM	#153
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Dear AA, Look here. Please get your terminology right. You keep citing the "short gMarK" as if it were an entirely separate manuscript. What you really should refer to is the "short ending of Mark." You should not refer to short gMark unless you are discussing the ending. GET IT RIGHT. There are 5 different endings to gMark: http://debatingchristianity.com/foru...?t=2738&lofi=1 Best Regards, Jake

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.