Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Susan2 · 07-30-2009, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Look at what they did to gMark. Look at the the time when the women went to visit the tomb. Look at the mutilation by the authors of gMatthew and Gluke.

When the women went to the tomb, were they hopeful? And if so of what? Where they hoping Jesus was a changed man?

And when they left were they still hopeful? No, they were afraid? What were they afraid of begs the question, were they afraid of the message or the messenger, or both?

In fact, we know that these women were so afraid that they told no one. That is an historical fact in regards to women, and continues to this day; when they are afraid they tell no one.

That is what happens to women when they are assaulted for the purpose of being shamed, they tell no one.

Historically, then this story becomes a story about the persecution of the Jews for the next 2,000 years, not what was done to women by the Jews.

This is historically called bait and switch.

The story becomes about poor Peter, sitting over there mourning his little old heart away. Poor dumb Peter. And worse, he has been betrayed by these women.

Bait and switch.

This story becomes about Peter, not what Christians did to women over the past 2,000 years.

Bait and switch.

Peter, the Christians, and the Jews, were far from dumb.

If you are willing to egregiously harm your own mothers, wives, daughter, sisters, aunts would you be willing to do the same to another's mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts?

Jesus was a vigilante who took the law into his own hands. The proof is in the texts.

ETA: This is not a story about the Jews, as IamJoseph would like to reinforce the meme but is about what has been historically done to women.

spamandham · 07-30-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I've read the Gospels many times and don't recall ever seeing that Jews are born of the devil. Can you point me to a passage?

Thanks in advance.

Probably referring to John 8:44

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Perhaps that is what he's referring to, but the context is clearly a specific group of men, not Jews as a whole.

Toto · 07-30-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

Probably referring to John 8:44

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Perhaps that is what he's referring to, but the context is clearly a specific group of men, not Jews as a whole.

This passage was interpreted to refer to all Jews during large parts of Christian history. This interpretation is now an embarrassment, so modern interpreters prefer to see it as only a select group.

Vinnie · 07-30-2009, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

It is obvious Matthew and Luke were harmonized in the writings of Justin. They did not independently and carefully alternate out pieces of these now lost Memoirs that Justin knew. That is an absurd suggestion. Please deal with the evidence and the one example cited (there are more!).

Vinnie

I produced Justin's reference to Isaiah 66 to show that Justin NEVER did use alternate phrases from different writers. Once Justin claimed he was making reference to any passage of any writings then he would repeat the passage word for word virtually all the time.

You have failed to show that Justin did employ the practise of alternate phrasing with other writers, you have failed to show that there were gospels named gMatthew and gLuke during Justin's time and that he singled out only these two writers for alternate phrasing.

There is no benefit to Justin to re-write gMatthew and gLuke and called his new work Memoirs of the Apostles[/b] just as it would have been ridiculous to re-write Isaiah and Jeremiah and called the new work Memoirs of the prophets.

Once Justin quoted passages from the Memoirs of the Apostles, the passages would be virtually a WORD FOR WORD repetition of the actual passage.

Now, I will EXPOSE the practise of ther authors of gMatthew and gLuke.

It has been deduced by some that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke copied gMark.

Based on the deduction, it was the authors of gMatthew and gLuke that isolated and clinically MUTILATED gMark.

We have a match, we know their modus operandi.

[ The authors of gMatthew and gLuke are known to alternate the words, phrases and chronology of gMark even adding and removing events.

It would appear to me that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke did the very same to the Memoirs of the Apostles. They mulilated the Memoirs.

Look at what they did to gMark. Look at the the time when the women went to visit the tomb. Look at the mutilation by the authors of gMatthew and Gluke.

Please read Mark 16.1-8, then Matthew 28 and Luke 24 and see the MUTILATORS, (Matthew and Luke) at work.

It is almost certainly confirmed that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke MUTILATED the Memoirs of the Apostles, since the authors were mentioned for the first time AFTER the Memoirs of the Apostles and that these authors have been deduced to be mutilators of MEMOIRS OF PETER called the Gospel of Mark.

Now, you know. The authors of gMatthew and gLuke MUTILATED the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The Church claimed gMark was the MEMOIRS OF THE APOSTLE Peter.

Do NOT FEAR THOSE [who] kill you and AFTER THESE THINGS are not able TO DO ANYTHING, but FEAR THE ONE who AFTER KILLING [you] is able TO CAST both soul and body INTO GEHENNA (Justin, Apology 1.19.7; Matt. 10.28; Luke 12.4-5)

The text formatting is that way to show, in English, where the original language agrees or disagrees with Matthew and Luke.

Underlined text is Matthean.
CAPITALIZED text is Lucan.
Bold is neither.

Look at the pattern of which text Justin agrees with:

not fear those = Matthew and Luke
kill you = neither
after these things = Luke
are not able = Matthew
to do anything = Luke
but = Matthew
fear= Matthew and Luke
the one after killing = Luke
is able = Matthew
to cast = Luke
both soul and body = Matthew
into = Luke
Gehenna = Matthew and Luke

I'll just keep posting it until you respond to it.

Vinnie

aa5874 · 07-30-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I'll just keep posting it until you respond to it.

Vinnie

You will continue to post speculation, that is all you can do, but the evidence supports the finding that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke mutilated the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter called the Gospel of Mark.

Read gMark and then gMatthew and gLuke and witness the mutilation.

Doug Shaver · 07-30-2009, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I am curious why you think journalism would be a particular advantage.

It isn't necessarily any advantage. I've known a few reporters who got no advantage from it. But if you do it right, you get a feel for how much you can believe when certain people tell you certain things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

You may be surprised that I do not believe the gospels to be a reporters account of the life of Christ.

I'm not a bit surprised. I understand that apologists see a difference between what journalists do and what the gospel authors were doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I see them as very biased (toward God and his Kingdom) and more of a marketing effort (for lack of better term). I do not mean this in a negative light but the gospels are not just to report facts.

OK, but you're claiming we should believe the facts that they do report. My point is that if they had been reporters, they would have no credibility. Here is an excerpt from something on my Web site that addresses that issue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dougshaver.com

I have worked in the newspaper business, and I can assure anyone that if any newspaper editor were to send four reporters to cover the resurrection and they had come back with four stories as discrepant as the four gospels, that editor would not run all four stories as they were. He would assume that at least three of the reporters had gotten some of their facts wrong. He would instruct the four of them to go back to their sources, recheck their facts, and make whatever rewrites were necessary to harmonize their accounts.

No collusion would be required or expected. There would be no expectation that all four would end up sounding just like each other. Each reporter's personality could shine through in all its idiosyncratic glory. But they would be consistent. And more to the point, all readers would perceive them to be consistent.

Suppose that those reporters -- all four of them, together in the editor's office -- were to assure the editor that each story was already accurate. Suppose each one vouches for the others. Each one says that none of the others contradicts him. The editor would not be satisfied with this, even if he believed the reporters. He would not be satisfied because he would know that most of his readers would not believe that all four writers were giving an accurate account. The editor would know that if he ran the stories as they were, his newspaper's credibility would suffer. The editor would insist on rewrites that would eliminate the appearance of contradictions. When it comes to credibility, an apparent contradiction is every bit as damaging as a real contradiction.

J-D · 07-31-2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

I'll just keep posting it until you respond to it.

Vinnie

You will continue to post speculation, that is all you can do, but the evidence supports the finding that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke mutilated the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter called the Gospel of Mark.

What's the evidence that they are memoirs of the apostle Peter?

aa5874 · 07-31-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You will continue to post speculation, that is all you can do, but the evidence supports the finding that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke mutilated the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter called the Gospel of Mark.

What's the evidence that they are memoirs of the apostle Peter?

According to the Church writers gMark was essentially the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter and it was deduced by some Scholars that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke used gMark or the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter to fabricate their Jesus stories by adding or removing words, phrases and events

Now, the first mention of authors called Matthew and Luke was after Justin Martyr mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles. There is no indication that Justin added or removed any words, phrases or events from any known writers.

The Memoirs of the Apostles were mutilated after Justin wrote about them by the authors called Matthew and Luke.

Now, all the information or evidence about Mark, Matthew and Luke came from the Church, if it is not evidence or true then it is just another case where the Church produced fiction

J-D · 07-31-2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

What's the evidence that they are memoirs of the apostle Peter?

According to the Church writers gMark was essentially the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter

Why should we believe what they say about that?

aa5874 · 07-31-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

According to the Church writers gMark was essentially the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter

Why should we believe what they say about that?

Do you understand the difference between repeating what the Church claimed and believing that the Church wrote the truth?

1. It is the claim of the Church that gMark was the Memoirs of the Apostle Peter.

2. It is the claim of some scholars that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke used gMark to fabricate their Jesus stories.

Now whether you or I believe that claims 1&2 are true is another matter, however based on those 2 claims, it can be deduced that the authors of gMatthew and gLuke used the Memoirs of the Apostle to fabricate their stories by adding, removing words, events and characters that were not found in the Memoirs of the Apostle.

Again, if both claims 1&2 are false, then the Church and the scholars are in error and the matter cannot be resolved until further information is found.

Now, there is some other information. Justin Martyr wrote about the Memoirs of the Apostles in the middle of the 2nd century and then some time near the end of the same 2nd century, Irenaeus mentioned authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and no other church writer, even Irenaeus, ever mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles again.

The authors called gMatthew and gLuke mutilated the Memoirs of the Apostles to fabricate their stories.

By the way, when I say Homer's Achilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess, I am only repeating the claim made by the supposed author, I really do not believe such things and it is the same with Jesus and his disciples with Mark, Luke and Paul.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.