aa5874

Right now I am dealing with the BLATANT INTERPOLATION of the short-ending gMark with 12 verses of total fiction.

The INTERPOLATED gMark 16.9-20 is a most fictitious addition since it contains an event that is absolute fiction-it could NOT have happened if Jesus really lived and died.

The fictitious additional account DESTROYED the short-ending gMark story.

The short-ending gMark story is about a Secret Messiah and Son of God who was rejected by the Jews and even by his own disciples and would pay DEARLY for their Rejection.

The author of the short-ending gMark only made his Jesus admit publicly he was the Christ and Son of the Blessed at his trial and Prophecy was Fulfilled---the Jews REJECTED the claims of Jesus and found him to be guilty of Blasphemy.

The short-ending gMark story is based on the supposed prophecy in Isaiah 6 but there is NO prophecy for the INTERPOLATED Mark 16.9-20.

The short-ending gMark is NOT about Universal Salvation through Sacrifice as found in gJohn and the Pauline Epistles.

The short-ending gMark was composed BEFORE all the books of the Canon.

Duvduv

AA, as is often the case, you stray into something other than the point I make in the reply I provide to your posting. I wasn't talking about what you are talking about here. I was noting contextually the grand difference between Corinthians and the gospel account of speaking in tongues, as well as the total misunderstanding of the excerpt from the prophet Isaiah.

aa5874

I have IDENTIFIED the words of the Prophet that was used by the author of the short-ending gMark for the fundamental basis of his Jesus story.

gMark's Jesus story MUST be written AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple and BEFORE any other story was known.

the author of gMark used ISAIAH 6 for his Jesus story.

Isaiah 6 Part of Isaiah 6 is found in short-ending gMark.

Mark 4:12 KJV The short-ending gMark CONTRADICTS all the books of the NT Canon.

the short-ending gMark Jesus was NOT known as a Savior to the Jews until AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The claim that the disciples incuding Peter preached the Gospel to the Jews and many thousands were converted BEFORE the Fall of the Temple is NOT compatible with the short-ending gMark and Isaiah 6.

The claim that a Pauline character persecuted Jews who preached the FAITH Before the Fall of the Temple is NOT compatible with the short-ending gMark and Isaiah 6.

The short-ending gMark Jesus story MUST be known ONLY after the fall of the Temple.

The short-ending gMark would be Obsolete if it was ALREADY known and circulated that Jesus was the Messiah, Son of God and Savior of the Jews and that Jews had accepted Jesus as their Savior by the Thousands.

In Acts of the Apostles there were THOUSANDS of Jews that had CONVETERD even on a daily basis and the Pauline writer even claimed he Persecuted the Faith but this is exactly what is NOT supposed to happen in order for so-called prophecy is to be fulfilled.

The Jewish Temple was to fall because the Jews rejected Jesus but in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline letters they show the complete opposite with THOUSANDS of Jews converted and Paul PERSECUTING them even in Damascus.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings are historically and chronologically bogus and the authors show that they did NOT understand the short-ending gMark story.

It was the short-ending gMark story that was copied word-for-word AFTER c 70 CE by the earliest Canonized authors-- the authors of the long-ending gMark, gMatthew and even gLuke.

The short-ending gMark is the first of the Entire NT Canon and no stories about the resurrection of Jesus or that Jesus was a Savior of the Jews and all Mankind was circulated before the short-ending gMark was composed.

aa5874

For years Galatians 1.19 have been used by some HJers to argue that Jesus was human when the same Galatians writer claimed he was NOT an apostle of a human being, that he did NOT get his gospel from a human being, and Jesus was God's Own Son.

The argument is horribly weak when in addition the NT does NOT support the Heresy that Jesus was human with a human father.

But, now, it has been brought to my attention that Galatians 1.19 is far more significant in respect to the chronology of the Pauline letters and the so-called Gospels.

In Galatians 1.19, it is claimed that the Galatians writer MET the Apostle James the Lord's brother.

Galatians 1:19 NIV If Galatians 1.19 was known to the Gospel writers then we would EXPECT that they would have INCLUDED James the Lord's brother as an Apostle in their Lists.

There is NO List of Apostles with a character called James the Lord's brother in any Gospel. And NOT only that, even Acts of the Apostles considered LATER than even the Gospels do NOT name an Apostle as James the Lord's brother.


The short-ending gMark--No Apostle called James the Lord's brother.
The Long-ending gMark---No Apostle called James the Lord's brother.
gMatthew------------------No Apostle called James the Lord's brother.
gLuke----------------------No Apostle called James the Lord's brother.
gJohn----------------------No Apostle called James the Lord's brother.
Acts of the Apostles-----No Apostle called James the Lord's brother.

Galatians with 1.19 was written AFTER the Canonised Gospels and Acts of Apostles.

Duvduv

UNLESS, as is likely, the reference to James is a LATER MARGINAL INTERPOLATION!!

Otherwise, who could imagine a passing reference by Paul the "great Apostle" to James the BROTHER of the WORLD SAVIOR with no discussion of anything this man knew about his brother the Savior, etc. etc. and WITHOUT a single reference to their mother THE virgin MARY??!!!

aa5874

Well, tell us what you imagine was interpolated.

James the Lord's mother??

James the Lord's Son???

James the Lord's daughter???

James the Lord's father???

James the Lord???

Again, the Pauline writer was a LIAR. The Pauline author lived in another century under some other name and did NOT meet any Apostle called James the Lord's brother. The Galatians author ATTEMPTED to historicise the Apostle called James by giving the FALSE impression that he met him in Jerusalem.

The Apostle James the Lord's brother did NOT exist and NOT even in the Myth Fables called Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The Apostle called James the Lord's brother is a LATE invention and Galatians is AFTER the Gospels and Acts.

Duvduv

It seems like you are always go around in circles. You never seem to want to address the question of why Galatians never even hints at the stories brought in the GMark text, short or long but remain persuaded as a matter of faith that Galatians came after GMark.
Alright, it's your choice. But one day you might want to address the issue.

aa5874

You don't seem to understand that when a person maintains and HOLDS FIRM to a theory based on the available evidence from antiquity that gMark is the first in the Canon that signifies that I am not going in a circle. I have held my position without any credible contradiction since the thread was opened.

People that go in in circles, say one thing now and something else a little later and never seems to hold any position.

If you tell me your position now on the Pauline writings we will be able to see if you change by tommorow or in a few minutes from now. You admit you speculate so you most likely employ a few circles.

By the way, you must have noticed that Paul did NOT ever claim he went to Passover at the Temple like Jesus.

Paul was a Pharisee but he never mentioned ONE single Passover in any of his letters.

The Temple was still up???

Duvduv

All I know is that the epistles do not mention anything of the stories of GMark, including the Temple. Therefore I cannot assume as you do that the authors of the epistles knew of GMark. It's that simple. And it makes sense that the author of Galatians was not the source of the reference to James as I explained before.
Therefore it is worth arguing that the author of Galatians did not know GMark, either short or long. That is the context.

aa5874

You MUST defend your OWN arguments. My position is that gMark is the FIRST Gospel of the Canon based on the evidence. I DEFEND my own theories.

You want me to argue your position AGAINST myself???? Your notion is rather illogical.

You are yet to make any real argument you only speculate.