aa5874

In arguments to resolve the so-called Synoptic Problem many have deduced that the Short-Ending gMark was the First Canonised Gospel to have been written.

However, in the deduction that gMark was the first written Gospel one must take into account the Jesus story found in the supposed earliest "Gospel".

The very first thing that is noticed in gMARK is that there is very little biographical details about ALL the characters.

In gMark, the author simply introduced his Jesus from Nazareth and baptized by John and then proceeded to WRITE chapter after chapter of UTTER fiction.

The first 11 chapters of gMark, Jesus PERFORMS all sorts of outrageous IMPLAUSIBLE miracles in Galillee and then like the FIG tree his miracles DRIED up in Jerusalem.

The author of gMark does NOT appear to be Jewish---the author does NOT Know that Jews do NOT anoint the dead AFTER they have been buried for three days.

It would appear the author of gMark was relying on Hebrew Scripture and some rumors to fabricate his story of Jesus.

In gMark, the author does NOT even claim Pilate was governor or name the high Priest when Jesus was crucified.

But, even most fascinating, the author of gMark claimed Jesus deliberately spoke in Parables so that the Jews would NOT understand him.

So, the author is claiming that when his Jesus was on earth NOBODY really understood who Jesus was except the disciples.

The Markan Jesus was a SECRET CHRIST, an UNKNOWN MESSIAH.

Now, how could the Markan Jesus be regarded as a SECRET MESSIAH if the Pauline writings were ALREADY KNOWN in the Churches throughout the Roman Empire???

The Pauline writings should have RENDERED gMark OBSOLETE before a word was written.

Examine 2 Philippians 5-11 The Pauline writer supposedly claimed for OVER 17 years throughout the Roman Empire and in Major Cities that Every Tongue should Confess that Jesus was Lord and that every KNEE should Bow to his name.

But when gMark was supposedly ready to write his Jesus story AFTER the Pauline writer the very Jesus told his OWN disciples NOT to tell ANYONE he was Christ.

Mark 8:30 KJV The author of gMark has CONTRADICTED the Pauline writer whose Gospel supposedly was ALREADY documented in the Churches themselves and was Personally PREACHED by the WELL-KNOWN Paul.

But, NOT only does the author of gMark Contradicts the Pauline writer but also the authors of gMatthew and gLuke made the very SAME claim.

Matthew 16:20 KJV Luke 9:21 KJV It has been deduced that ANONYMOUS gMark was BEFORE gMatthew and gLuke but it was also BEFORE ALL the Pauline writings were written.

The reason why the UNKNOWN authors of the Long-Ending gMark, gMatthew and gLuke used the ANONYMOUS gMark was simply because there was NO Paul.

None of the authors of the Synoptics attended a Pauline Church even though they should have had at least SEVEN REGIONS of the Roman Empire from which to Select Churches and at least 17 years to VISIT them .

But all the authors of the Synoptics appear to have ATTENDED the Church of the UNKNOWN author of gMark SOMETIME AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

They EMULATED the UNKNOWN author of gMark and PROPAGATED his Gospel to the world--the Coming of the Kingdom of God

Even John of Revelation seems to have ATTENDED the Church of the UNKNOWN Markan author.

gMark has PRIORITY of the ENTIRE CANON.

judge

Do your writings contain some kind of hidden code? Is the secret to that code connected to your use of CAPITALS at apparently random places?

outhouse

and why would there be??


mark didnt write it, no one who knew jesus wrote it.


a person not even from the same culture wrote it


A roman wrote it from oral tradition who was not exposed to Pauls epistles

Adam

Back to your dogmatic assertions that you cannot back up at all.

Doug Shaver

No, the secret to the code is just a sincere desire to know the truth. All who have such a desire will understand and believe everything aa5875 says.

aa5874

Either you examine sources of antiquity yourself or depend upon so-called Scholars to argue that Jesus was crucified in the Sub-Lunar or Paul knew the brother of Jesus.

Duvduv

AA, regarding the point from Philippians, it is possible that the author of the epistle AFTER GMark was merely referring to a risen Christ and not to the disguised Christ of the gospel whose identity is not explicitly revealed in GMark.

aa5874

I am dealing with the CHRONOLOGY of gMark and the Pauline letters.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul was all over the Roman Empire and in Major Cities preaching the Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul DOCUMENTED the Revealed Gospel in Letters to Churches in SEVEN Regions of the Roman Empire and started since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE.

Apologetic sources claimed Paul was WELL KNOWN in the Churches.

On the other hand we have almost NOTHING substantial on gMark except for the first time by an Apologetic source at around the end of 2nd century in "Against Heresies".

However, quite remarkably, all the Canonised Gospel authors used an UNKNOWN source for their Jesus story and virtually NOTHING from the supposed WELL-KNOWN Paul.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel was NOT emulated, NOT even by the Apologetic source called REVELATION.

The Pauline writer should have had at least a THIRTY year head start on the author of gMark but it was gMark's Jesus that was PROPAGATED.

The evidence suggest the ALL the Canonized authors were AWARE of gMark or his sources and did NOT know of the Pauline Revealed Gospel ofd the Resurrected Jesus.


The author of gMark claimed NO-ONE was told Jesus was raised from the dead.

The author of gMark did NOT know of the LETTER to the Romans.

Romans 10:9 KJV Examine the very LAST verse in gMark 16.6-8Mark 16.6-8 was COMPOSED before Romans 10.9

Duvduv

Would the author of Romans have known about the rest of the stories of GMark, including anything referring to Jesus as Son of Man? The epistles never call Christ "Son of Man" as mentioned in GMark.

aa5874

None of the Epistles considered to be written AFTER the Gospels and AFTER the Pauline letters to Churches called Jesus Christ the Son of Man.

1 Timothy---nothing about the Son of Man.

2 Timothy---nothing about the Son of Man.

Titus--nothing about the Son of Man

1 Peter ---nothing about the Son of Man.

2 Peter---nothing about the Son of Man.

James---nothing about the Son of Man.

Jude--Nothing about the Son of Man.

1 John ---nothing about the Son of Man.

2 John ---nothing about the Son of Man.

3 John--nothing about the Son of Man


We have a Pattern that has developed.

ALL EPISTLES that are CONSIDERED LATE, that is AFTER the Gospels and AFTER the Pauline letters to Churches do NOT refer to Jesus as the Son of Man.

The supposed Pauline letters to the Churches do NOT refer to Jesus as the Son of Man.

The evidence suggests that Pauline letters to Churches are AFTER the Gospels.