tanya

Thank you Roger, well written, much appreciated. I always learn something useful, in reading your rejoinders to my posts. Well done.

Toto

Many have tried to engage with aa5874 and have failed to make contact.

He makes a good point, and then goes off on a tangent of logical sounding but nonsense claims. Many of the regulars put him on ignore.

PJLazy

AA: Are you claiming that Justin Martyr is the earliest "credible" source of Jesus?

aa5874

What!!!! I make GOOD POINTS!!!

Toto, you are the one who goes off on a tangent and attempt to derail my thread.

Please, deal with the OP.

I already know that I make GOOD POINTS.

Now, hear some more GOOD POINTS.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0410.htm

In Minucius Felix "Octavius" Caecillus is converted by Octavius but he mentioned NOT one word about Paul and the Pauline letters.

So we have multiple Conversion stories in the 2nd century and the Pauline writings were NOT mentioned at all.

Justin Martyr and Minucius Felix wrote of Conversions and ONLY mentioned the Jesus story and NOTHING at all about the Pauline Revealed Gospel--Salvation by the Resurrection.

The Conversion stories in Justin Martyr and Minucius Felix is COMPATIBLE with the Recovered Dated Texts and suggest the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN in the mid 2nd century.

The Pauline writings [P 46] have been dated between mid 2nd-3rd century.

This is EXACTLY what was expected when the Pauline writings were NOT composed in the 1st century.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul had NO real existence in the 1st century and before c 68 CE.

J-D

I am a human being, and I dare to argue for an HJ in your thread.

There's an 'HJ' right there in your own post. And now there are already two more here in my post (and one more to come).

There's another one in front of me on my computer keyboard. Look! There it is again! 'HJ'! They're right next to each other.

See, I dared.

aa5874

The recovery of the Sinaiticus Codex is extremely significant. The Sinaiticus Codex is dated to be one of the earliest Codices.

Now, the gospel according to gMark found in the Codex Sinaaiticus was ALTERED in the later Codices. 12 additional verses were added in the Long gMark and that completely Changed and destroyed the Sinaiticus gMark story.

It is reasonably clear that the author of the Sinaiticus gMark was NOT the author of the Long gMark found in Later Codices.

In the Sinaiticus Short gMark,

1. Jesus was publicly UNKNOWN as a Messiah to the Jews.

2. Jesus was publicly UNKNOWN as a Savior of the Jews.

3. Jesus did NOT publicly preach about the Fall of the Temple or the desolation of Jerusalem.

4. The disciples of Jesus did NOT preach and were NOT Authorised to preach about Jesus as the the CHRIST.

5. Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be converted.

6. Jesus preached the GOOD NEWS that the kingdom of God is at hand.

7. At the Last Supper Jesus did NOT claim his blood was shed for the Remission of Sins.

8. The Short gMark story ENDS at the EMPTY TOMB.

9. The visitors to the EMPTY TOMB did NOT see the body of Jesus.

10. The Vistors to the EMPTY TOMB did NOT tell anyone that they heard Jesus was resurrected.

The Short gMark only makes sense if it was composed BEFORE ALL the other books of the NT Canon.

The Short gMark is the Fundamental Core of the NT Jesus story.

Now, it is very important to observe that ALL "Details" ADDED to Short gMark Jesus is completely Fictional.

1. The Great Commission by the resurrected Jesus in the Long Mark is absolute fiction.

2. The conception, birth and post-resurrection appearances in gMatthew and gLuke are total fiction.

3. The claim in gJohn that Jesus was God the Creator was total fiction.

4. The ascension of Jesus in Acts is total fiction.

5. The claim by a Pauline writer that he and over 500 people SAW the resurrected Jesus is total fiction.

The Jesus story in the Short gMark is NOT about Remission of Sins by Sacrifice or by the Resurrection--those claims were ADDED in Later stories which include the Pauline writings.

The claim that the disciples PREACHED the Jesus story after the post-resurrection visits and the Great Commission was ADDED in Later stories which include the Pauline writings.

Based on Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger, the Jesus story was UNKNOWN and had NO impact on the Roman Empire in the 1st century.

In effect, the Short gMark is Compatible with non-apologetic sources--Jesus as the Christ was UNKNOWN up to or after c115 CE.

The Jesus story had IMPACTED the Roman Empire sometime around the mid 2nd century based on "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen where a Roman writer Celsus wrote "True Discourse" against Christians.

Based on the recovered dated texts and abundance of evidence from apologetic and non-apologetic sources, the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century.

aa5874

The discovery of the Short ending gMark provides conclusive evidence that the Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline writer.

After all the Pauline character claimed he Persecuted those who Preached and Believed the Jesus story.

In Romans 10.9 it is claimed that Belief in the Resurrection guaranteed Salvation and in 1 Cor. 15 it is also stated that Without the Resurrection there would No Remission of Sins.

However, in the Short gMark No such claims are made by the Markan Jesus.

The Markan Jesus came to earth to be delivered up by the Jews and then be Slaughtered by the hands of man.

And AFTER he was Slaughtered he would Resurrect--that is what happened and the gMark Story ended. Nothing about Remission of Sins by Slaughter or Resurrection.

Now examine the Last Supper in the Short gMark--specifically Short gMark 14.24
Sinaiticus gMark 14
Jesus taught Nothing about Remission of Sins in Short gMark.

Now examine the same verse in the Long gMark.

Mark 14:24 KJV Jesus taught Nothing about Remission of Sins at the Last Supper in Long gMark

Now examine gMatthew 26.28. There is a significant addition that has changed the story. Suddenly, the author of gMatthew claimed Jesus taught about Remission of Sins at the Last Supper.

Matthew 26 KJV
It is now clear that the Short gMark story had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Remission of Sins by Crucifixion or Resurrection.

It was a Later addition.

The Pauline letters again are Compatible with the Later addition in the Jesus stories.

The Pauline writings are AFTER the Short gMark.

Colossians 1:14 KJVRomans 3.25 KJV1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV Ephesians 1:7 KJV

Chili

How can HJ be finished if it is the embodyment of myth that seeks understanding instead of denial.

Please don't forget that myth is real and much more real than you will ever be if you dive in headfirst and encounter nothing but shit. Pardon the expression but it says it so well.

Yes, the bible is without error and if you find one you should look at yourself first and examine your own position so that an angel will help you 'in good faith' to solve the problem in you. After all, it should only take 42 months to get your ass out purgatory and not 42 years and still die nonetheless, least of all call it a hoaks and a lie by those who led our civilization to be the greatest of all.

And did you know that Paul was the [new] cloak of Peter to make them the first Pope in Rome and still is today so that Ex Cathedra can be?

And please notice the big fish they hauled in, from the 'celestial side' this time, that are far beyond human understanding while you insist that mere humans should have a say in this too?

Just go to Jn.21 and read it for yourself.

There is much more to say, but 40 years are not easy to undo and so just be be happy with your achievement sofar.

aa5874

The discovery of the the Short gMark was extremely significant because it shows that the Jesus character had a Mythological Core.

No NT author that used the Short gMark or the Short gMark Jesus considered that the Jesus character was human and with a human father.

1. The author of the Short gMark described Jesus as a PHANTOM--walking on water, transfiguring and resurrecting.

2. The author of the Long gMark used the Short gMark and claimed the Jesus character Authorised the disciples to preach After he was Resurrected.

3. The author of gMatthew used the Short gMark and claimed the Jesus character was born of a Ghost.

4. The author of gLuke used Short gMark and claimed the Jesus character was born of a Ghost.

The Core of the Synoptic Jesus is Mythological.

Now, when we Examine gJohn, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings it is NO different.

1. In gJohn, Jesus was God the Creator who existed Before anything was made.

2. In Acts, it was a Powerful Ghost that started the Jesus cult. The Jesus character was already Ascended Before there ever a Jesus cult on earth.

3. The Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the Apostle of a human being but of a character called Jesus.

It is clear that the Jesus character has a Mythological Core

The more we peel away the outer shell of the Jesus story more Mythology is discovered.

If we discard the entire NT we are left with many, many myth fables of Jesus--there is virtually no story of Jesus that is even plausible outside the Canon.

There are over a hundred writings from Apologetic sources about the Jesus character yet virtually all of them described Jesus as a Mythological character---born of a Ghost and a Virgin or acting as a Non-human character.

See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/index.html

Christians of antiquity had ZERO historical records to prove that Jesus was human.

In the Epistles of Ignatius, the Jesus character was GOD.

In the mid 2nd century, in "First Apology" 21, Justin Martyr claimed Jesus was produced Without Sexual union.

The Jesus character has a Mythological core.

In effect, the "TRUE" history of Jesus is indeed Mythology.

Chili

Then let me be the first one to tell you that Mark's Jesus was still human as mythical character, yes I understand, or he would not have gone back to Galilee but on to Jerusalem instead. The same is true for Matthew but not for Luke and for John.

To be noted is the difference here to show the human element pertaining only to Matthew and Mark that actually converted Galilee to a permanent place for saved sinners (as we calll them today), waiting for better days ahead after they die.

The crucial contributary in this dramatic change is the urgent desire to be counted among the righteous, imposed or instilled by others based on carnal desire before Gods own time as per John 1:13, and so are from their mothers womb untimely ripped and will never be the virgin they ought to have been, duly, in God's own time down the road in the journey of life.