Duvduv

I have always wondered about the theory that GMark started as a pageant or storyboard for the ideas of the religion of the epistles because of elements of the epistles that are not introduced into GMark, not the least of which is the person of Paul himself.

GMark also does not include the concept of the indwelling of the Christ in the believers, and refers to Jesus as the Son of Man which is never mentioned in the epistles.

Chili

Mark is antichrist and would not be in the epistles and is the rationalist Gospel to provoke faith by Intelligence.

aa5874

The Short-Ending gMark of the Canon MUST be earlier that the Canonised Pauline writings.

The author of gMark did NOT write of a Jesus that was a Sacrifice for the Universal atonement of Sins and did state that his Jesus commanded his own disciples NOT to tell any human being he was Christ.

All the Synoptic Gospel author COPIED gMark at times almost 100% and 0% of the Pauline revealed Teachings of the resurrected Jesus.

The Canonised Pauline writings are NOT only AFTER gMark they are LAST of the ENTIRE Canonised NT and were COMPOSED no earlier than the mid 2nd century.

Duvduv

You keep insisting that GMark minus a few verses had to have emerged before the paulines without explaining why you think this happened and without explaining why the paulines were therefore uninterested in the storylines of Mark in reference to a historical person. But if you want to say that the first Mark emerged independently of the paulines then you need also to explain why that Mark included some elements found in the paulines. Did they draw independently on common ideas?
And if so, why do you think they branched off differently?

aa5874

I have already shown MULTIPLE times that the Short-Ending gMark is BEFORE the Pauline writings but I will REPEAT some of the facts again.

1. gMark's Jesus is NOT a Universal Savior.

2. gMark's Jesus did NOT want the Jews to be saved.

3. gMark's Jesus did NOT want human beings to know he was Christ except his own disciples.

4. The author of gMark did NOT know of anyone who Preached to the Jews or Gentiles that Jesus was resurrected.

5. The author of gMark did NOT know of anyone who preached to the Jews or Gentiles that Jesus was Christ.

6. The author of gMark did NOT know that Jesus was a Universal Savior.

7. ALL the authors of the NT Canon used gMark and NONE used a single verse from the Pauline Revealed Teachings of the resurrected Jesus.

8. No author of the NT Canon claimed Jesus appeared at once to Over 500 people.

9. Apologetic sources claimed Paul was aware of gLuke.

10. The Pauline writings do Indeed contain IDENTICAL phrases that are found ONLY in gLuke.

11. Justin Martyr c mid 2nd century, an apologetic source, did NOT know that Paul preached Christ all over the Roman Empire.

12 Aristides, c mid 2nd century, an apologetic source, did NOT know Paul preached Christ all over the Roman Empire.

13. In the Muratorian Canon, an apologetic source, it is claimed Paul EMULATED the Revelation of John.

14. Paul claimed he was LAST to be visited by the Post-Resurrected Jesus.

The abundance of evidence from Apologetic sources do SHOW that the Pauline writings were DEAD LAST.

Doug Shaver

I'm not sure I've ever heard that theory outside of this forum, and even here only from one or two of the nuttier members.

What I have heard from responsible ahistoricists is that Mark and his successors used some general ideas that were floating around the Middle East at the time having to do with a dying and rising savior-god. Since the Pauline community that preceded them also had some of those ideas, there was bound to be some conceptual overlap, and it's not improbable that there was also some direct influence from the earlier religion even if the gospel authors never saw any of the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

That's what I thought about it as well, however some who do adhere to the Jesus mystery idea view the development of the gospels as the development from a mystery Christ movement into a historical Jesus one, and that GMark was simply a pageant, play or storyboard to present the mystery Christ idea to the masses in an exoteric manner. Eventually the original ideas disappeared and the exoteric storyboard was believed to be a literal story rather than an allegory.
That is where my questions come from.

aa5874

It is WELL-KNOWN that some Scholars have already shown that the Pauline writings are NOT from the 1st century or NOT before the Fall of the Temple.

Anyone familiar with Scholarship should know that there is ABSOLUTELY NO supporting evidence anywhere in Existing antiquity that can confirm or corroborate that Paul wrote a single letter to a Church before the Fall of the Temple.

Not even the author of Acts of the Apostle, the supposed close companion of Paul, ever claimed, acknowledged, or attributed any letter to a Church to Paul.

Duvduv

However, you STILL do not explain why if the epistles knew about a Mark gospel the epistle writers did not include stories or other elements from Mark in the letters....Isn't it to be assumed that if the author(s) of the epistles knew of a gospel story they would have included elements from it? Otherwise how can you be so sure that the source of information for the epistle writers was this gospel or any other one?!

aa5874

Again, the Pauline writings are about the Revealed Teachings of the RESURRECTED Jesus.

Again, the Pauline writer claimed he was a Witness of the Resurrected One.

gMark is about the supposed Words and DEEDS of Jesus UP TO the Resurrection.

Examine the NT CANON, the Pauline Epistles are FUNDAMENTALLY doctrinal and the Pauline writer supposedly wrote of the Revealed Doctrine from the resurrected Jesus.

gMark has NOT one thing on the Pauline Revealed Doctrine of the Resurrected Jesus.

Why is that so you ask???

That the author of gMark wrote NOTHING about the Revealed Doctrine of the Resurrected Jesus is SIMPLY because he NEVER did know of the Pauline writings and NO other author of the NT CANON did.