Sheshbazzar

Moving on then.

Then why doesn't Justin Martyr know of any of this when he writes of the Christian faith in his 'First Apology' circa 155 CE?

mountainman

Wheless (1868 - 1950) wrote Forgery In Christianity well before the internet and had to rely on limited resources and therefore his opinion of Origen's date of birth was possibly taken from whatever reference books he had available to him.



Many most brilliant minds were cultivated and nurtured in a Christian environment which included a conceptual frame of reference where Jesus was historical. It follows therefore -for them - that there had to be a history. Therefore when that VERY history is investigated all these brilliant minds read Eusebius to make up their mind on various issues (not often was the historicity of Big J and the 12 McDonalds questioned).

They naturally therefore read Eusebius with the hypothesis held to be true - that Jesus existed and the Story is Somehow True. None of these people were ignorant suckers as such. They received an education which included at some foundational level the acceptance as true of certain hypotheses.

I am not sure whether Wheless rejected an historical jesus. From my reading of him (some time back now) he was more focussed on developing a narrative in which the discussion of forgery and forged documents was most important. This was a valuable study IMO.

I think he wanted to present many of the Church's claims as fabulous fables and fictitious forgeries which is just the first step. I don't think he took the second step, which by my way of thinking is to ask, well, if we are all looking at a mass of holey moley literature generated by a forgery mill sometime in the distant past, HOW was the forgery conducted, WHO dunnit, WHEN did they do it, WHY did they do, WHERE did they do it and precisely WHAT was the result.

In fact I do not see too many people who, being prepared to laugh out loud at Paul and the Gospel authors and <<insert cast of thousands here>> as just another fiction story, do not feel the need to take the second step and to investigate how this utterly corrupt state of affairs originated.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

No, No, No!! I do not accept YOUR delusion as evidence. I do not accept imagination. Sheshbazzar wants me to REJECT what is actually written and to accept his unsubstantiated claims about intent of which he has ZERO corroboration--ZERO.

The story by the author of gMark does contain VOICES from clouds and the heavens.

I deal with the written statements OF ANTIQUITY. I cannot deviate from actual contents of the story itself. I do not tamper with the evidence.

1. Mark 12. Mark 9 The author of gMark implied that his Jesus is the Son of God which is compatible with the non-human actions of the character.

Every single miracle in gMark was not humanly possible including walking on water, the transfiguration and the resurrection.

mountainman

2nd'd



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Sheshbazzar

Groan.....did you even read the -CONTEXT- of Mark 9:2-10 aa?

How could what was written in Mark 9 in any way affect the thoughts, views, or the attitude of the centurian in Mark 15:39 ?

What the author writes in Mark 9 explicitly bars this centurian character from having any knowledge of Mark 9.

aa5874

Again, there was NO centurion. What attitude are you talking about?? It is the AUTHOR of gMark who wrote the story--a Fiction story.

It is the AUTHOR who wrote that there were VOICES from the clouds and the heavens which said This is My Beloved Son when HIS JESUS was baptized and Transfigured.

The AUTHOR'S JESUS was Truly the Son of God in HIS own fiction story.

Come on!!! It is a story!!! In the gMark story, the Jews wil tell Pilate to Crucify Jesus not knowing he was the Son of God but he will Resurrect.

The story ENDS after the Son of God Resurrects as he predicted.

jakejonesiv

You are a smart guy? So you must be joking to twist the context a different way in every post just to try to score a cheap point. Why do you believe impossible voices saying impossible things, but do not believe the soldier saying rational things? See, you invoke history and myth in an inconsistent manner to prove whatever your point is a the moment. You even said there was a Historical Holy Ghost!!!!

Jake

jakejonesiv

The most parsimonius answer is that Justin had never heard of 1 Clement or Paul's epistle to the Romans.

aa5874

What nonsense!! Does one have to believe the Bible to show exactly what it contains??

In Genesis it is claimed God created people and in gMark Jesus was the Son of God.

In the Myth Fables called Gospels, God, the Devil, the Son of God, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost are figures of history.

Romulus was the founder of Rome in the Myth Fables of the Romans.

Sheshbazzar

We should not have to go over this point repeatedly;

There is a FICTIONAL STORY. There IS a FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION in this FICTIONAL STORY.

Got that?

In this FICTIONAL STORY the FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION makes statement about a FICTIONAL CRUCIFIED JEW.

The FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION'S words (appear to) express a positive emotional ejaculation in response to what he is viewing in Mark 15:39

Follow this so far aa?

This FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION, by what the author of Mark wrote in Mark 9 cannot have known anything about the 'voice from heaven' in Mark 9.

This 'voice from heaven' in Mark 9 was not heard by the author's FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION in Mark 9,

The FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION was not present. Nor -according to the author- of Mark 9 was this 'voice from heaven' ever reported to this FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION .

So this voice from heaven in Mark 9, was never heard by this FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION, nor according to the author of Mark 9, was it ever reported to this FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION.
This 'voice from heaven' in Mark 9 could not have in any way affected the views of the FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION in Mark 15.

(If you think otherwise, Please, please explain to us where and how the FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION character came to this knowledge of a voice from heaven in Mark 9)

And the bapisim of Jezus in Mark 1:4-11 is a very unlikely scenario for the presence a Roman centurion.
(AND The only way you could place him there, in either this FICTIONAL STORY, or as an actual historic event, is by speculation or your imagination. As the the text's nowhere places this FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION there.)

Thus if you follow only what is contained within the text as you claim, this FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION character has NO knowledge of, and NO evidence of any 'voice' speaking from heaven.

Thus this 'voice from heaven' could not have colored the perceptions of Mark's FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION character when he spoke those words in Mark 15:39.
(the author of the story evidently deliberately so composed it, that the alert would be aware of these facts of his FICTIONAL STORY.)


By the author of Mark's text, his FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION would have had no knowledge of, and could not have had any knowledge at the time he made this statement, that; 'the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.'
Thus this FICTIONAL EVENT could not have colored the perceptions of Mark's FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION when he spoke those words in Mark 15:39

We are left with a FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION here, with little rational reason to be positively declaring! that this dead Jew he was looking at was; 'Truly this man was The Son Of God!'.


What then, is it that you find within these texts aa, that makes you think that this kind of positive emotional ejaculation is what the author of Mark intended his FICTIONAL ROMAN CENTURION character's statement in Mark 15:39 to convey?


I do hope for once I employed and emphasized the word FICTIONAL enough to satisfy your requirements.
No one else here needs any such baby-sitting binky constant affirmation of their views.



.