aa5874

Well, Eusebius claimed that there was a tradition that Paul commended gLuke and that Paul called gLuke "my gospel". See "Church History" 3.4.8 and 6.25

gLuke was most likely written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Paul was most likely ALIVE AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

Eusebius was SELECTIVELY correct.

Chili

Sure and that may all be true but for Matthew and Luke to be an intricate weave to show the difference between right and wrong they have to have one author and be written at the same time, or thereabout, and the fact that Galilee existed at all was a sign that the Jews knew exactly how it was supposed to be done or there would not have been any mention of Galilee in Matthew, nor would the distinction have been made that he was called out of Egypt with just a pitstop in Nazareth . . . and this is just one of the many critical points that show the difference between right and wrong.

As for me personally, Jesus was the reborn Joseph and there was no preacher called Jesus, who in the end is 'the way' to internal awakening during the pupa stage that is conceiled by the cocoon as Galilean where liberation takes place.

And please know that Moses was wrong as well since it is wrong to part the waters to get into the promised land but instead we must walk on top of the water that was set aside only to make dry land known for us to walk on in our youth, and while there have the [celestial] sea on our side in what we call our very own soul.

. . . and Paul is just a name but one thing for sure is that he knew first hand how it was done and said so himself.

Toto

This is from Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion (or via: amazon.co.uk), which you copied from here along with the line breaks.

It is out of copyright, and there are more readable versions available, including online.

Please be a little more careful with your citations. Thanks

ApostateAbe

I figure that most of the disciples abandoned the cult after the death of Jesus, which would be expected for any cult. In their minds, Jesus died like a common criminal, stayed dead, the jig was up, and Jesus was not a great prophet who would herald the messiah. At least Peter, James and John stuck around (per the writing of Paul), and the ones who remained did not often talk about the ones who left, which is also normal cult behavior. They were briefly identified by the remaining disciples only through reluctance (all twelve were promised by Jesus to be lords of the twelve tribes of Israel), and they did not dwell on that topic, if the topic came up at all. Christians therefore got conflicting ideas of who the other twelve disciples were.

Not that the claim has significant historical certainly--it is merely a way to solve the proposed problem, and it fits the detailed model I prefer for the beginnings of Christianity. If one proposes that Jesus and some (all?) of the disciples were merely myth and never existed, then it seems to be a greater problem--why do we have multiply-attested agreement about the identities of some of the disciples but not for others?

ApostateAbe

I don't think a normal itinerant preacher would want to have a fixed number of disciples following him or her everywhere. Jesus seemingly had a reason for twelve and only twelve disciples that was special to his agenda. See Matthew 19:27-28.

Then Peter said in reply, ‘Look, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man is seated on the throne of his glory, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

I think this teaching in Matthew goes back to the historical Jesus. It is dissimilar to later Christian interests for them to think that Jesus taught that all twelve disciples would be destined to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, because, at the least, that can not possibly be the case for Judas.

aa5874

Again, you are SPREADING propaganda.

In gMark, even if it is PRESUMED that Jesus lived and that he had disciples, within a matter of hours, he was ABANDONED and DENIED.

The so-called EMBELLISHMENTS of Jesus when he was alive were ERASED immediatedly on his ARRREST.

And most notably Jesus did NOT start any NEW religion under the name of Christ. In FACT, in the Gospels Jesus did DEMAND that people SHOULD still sacrifice.

ApostateAbe

I should add: this teaching of Jesus is also found in Luke 22:29-30.

and I confer on you, just as my Father has conferred on me, a kingdom, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

aa5874

The short-ending gMark found in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices have DESTROYED the claim by HJers that Jesus was embellished by the disciples AFTER his death.

Short-ending gMark, considered the earliest Canonized Jesus story, UTTERLY contradicts HJers.

1. In gMark Jesus did NOT start a new religion under the name of Christ.

Mr 1:44 - It is CRITICAL that we UNDERSTAND that even in the Gospels, in the very earliest Canonised gMark, that Jesus did NOT start any new religion under the name of Christ.

Now, on the day Jesus was ARRESTED in gMark, the disciples FLED and Peter DENIED ever knowing Jesus.

On the very day Jesus died in gMark hours AFTER his arrest, the DISCIPLES had ABANDONED Jesus.

In gMark Jesus did MANY miracles, even WALKED on water and Transfigured yet the disciples did NOT embellish Jesus when he was ARRESTED they simply RAN AWAY or DENIED him.

If Jesus was just a man then we would ONLY have the Short-ending gMark.

In gMark The Disciples were NOT the ones who claimed Jesus was raised from the dead.

The Gospel story of Jesus and the twelve disciples is Fiction since if Jesus was really a man then there would ONLY be bad news even though it was claimed he did MANY MANY miracles, walked on water and Transfigured.

Jesus and the 12 disciples are Mythological.

Solo

It is interesting to observe that both, Matthew (19:28) and Luke, in this (supposed) Q saying turned apostolic appointment, inexplicably forget that one of the apostles is to betray and fall away. The embarrassing story-telling error is more surprising in Luke as it is placed at the Last Supper table after the announcement of Judas' betrayal.

Best,
Jiri

ApostateAbe

For sure. When the author of Luke combined Mark and Q, it seemingly created a strange conflict. When you believe two traditions at the same time, trouble emerges when treating them as only one.