aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about.

Sinaiticus Mark does mention that a man in white clothes TOLD the visitors that Jesus of Nazareth was RESURRECTED and that they should TELL the disciples.

The author is claiming that the VISITORS did NOT tell anyone what the man in the white clothes said.

1.The white clothes man said JESUS WAS RISEN.

2.The Visitors were AFRAID and TOLD No-one.

The author was the FIRST in the Canon to tell PEOPLE that the white clothes man claimed Jesus was RISEN.

That is the WRITTEN DATA.

Theories are developed from DATA.

I do not speculate or ASSUME what the author woulda-coulda-shoulda write. We have the WRITTEN statement and that is what I am dealing with.

It is a FACT that it is found WRITTEN that the visitors told NO-ONE what the white clothes man said.

The author claimed the whites clothes man said Jesus was RISEN.

Mark 16 That FACT support the THEORY that NO-ONE knew what the white clothes man said UNTIL it was written by the author Sinaiticus Mark.

Sinaiticus Mark is considered the first Jesus story and most likely written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

My theory that gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer is INTACT and is SUPPORTED by ACTUAL written evidence.

aa5874

Sinaiticus Mark is extremely significant.

When S-Mark is examined on its own it is noticed that it has very limited historical details of the character called Jesus.

Virtually all the so-called miracles are implausible and do NOT represent historical accounts.

There are NO details about the birth of Jesus or the date of his death.

I cannot search for an UNIDENTIFIED HJ of Nazareth.

The Jesus of Mark could have been OVER a hundred years old but in any event it is written that he WALKED on the SEA and Transfigured.

HJ of Nazareth cannot be RETRIEVED from Sinaiticus “bad news” Mark.

It was NOT HJ of Nazareth WHO TRANSFIGURED.

HJ of Nazareth could NOT have been a SEA-WATER WALKER.

The sources, the Synoptics, that corroborate gMark ALSO claimed Jesus of Nazareth was the Child of a Ghost.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

aa5874

These words are found in sMark 14.26-28.
So, based on sMark the disciples ALREADY know where to meet the resurrected Jesus.

sMark is NOT about VISIONS of the resurrection.

Jesus told the disciples to physically MEET him in Galilee and that he will Go there BEFORE them..

But, if Jesus was just an ordinary man then the meeting in Galilee could NOT have taken place after Jesus was dead and buried.

The disciples could NOT ever see Jesus alive in Galilee.

Now, when the visitors went to the burial site, the white clothes man requested that the visitors REMIND the disciples to go to Galilee and to tell them Jesus had RISEN.

Mark 16 Again, if Jesus was an ordinary man it makes ZERO sense for the disciples to go to Galilee to see him alive or expect him to even go to Galilee.

How can Jesus go before them into Galilee after he was dead and buried?

How will the disciples see Jesus in Galilee after he was dead and buried?

Jesus could have only been an ordinary man.

And now, the visitors told NO-ONE that the white clothes man claimed Jesus was RISEN because they were Afraid.

Sinaiticus gMark was written most likely AFTER the Fall of the Temple and the author is telling us for the first in the Canon what the white clothes man said.

J-D

You don't know what you are talking about.Things which authors claim are not always true.You have not given any grounds for thinking that the author was the first in the canon, but in any case you have not shown what difference it makes whether the author was the first in the canon or not.Yes, but theories do not simply replicate data.But you have given no justification for dealing with it in the particular way that you are dealing with it.The fact that something is found written does not necessarily support the theory that what was written is true.You have given no grounds for thinking that Sinaiticus Mark was the first Jesus story and you have given no grounds for thinking that it was most likely written after the fall of the Temple.That depends on what you mean, in this context, by 'perfect', 'HJ', 'argument killer', and 'INTACT'.

J-D

That depends on what you mean, in this context, by 'HJ of Nazareth' and 'perfect HJ argument killer'.

aa5874

I have GROUNDS for MY theory.

1. Philo and Josephus WROTE NOT one thing about the RISEN Jesus.

2. Philo and Josephus wrote NOTHING about what the white clothes Man said.

3.Philo and Josephus did NOT write that Peter and the disciples preached the RISEN Jesus.

4. Philo and Josephus did NOT write that Paul preached the Risen Jesus.

What grounds do you have for making your statements? You need to present sources.

In gMark, the author claimed the visitors told no-one. That is the written evidence of the author.

The GROUNDS for my theory is ALSO the written evidence in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark.

Mark 16.5-8
Written statements are UNIVERSALLY accepted as EVIDENCE. Even in COURT TRIALS written statements are accepted as EVIDENCE.

A WRITTEN STATEMENT does NOT need to TRUTHFUL to be accepted as EVIDENCE. The ENTIRE CONTENTS or any part can be used AGAINST the author of the very Written Evidence.

The Veracity or lack of veracity of Sinaiticus Mark does NOT exclude it from being Used as WRITTEN EVIDENCE.


What you IMAGINE is NOT evidence.

The visitors told NO-ONE about the risen Jesus is the WRITTEN EVIDENCE from the Sinaiticus author and it CONTRADICTS the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Pauline writings.

I am using Sinaiticus Mark as a WRITTEN STATEMENT of Evidence for My theory.

MY THEORY is based on actual written EVIDENCE from Extant Codices. See the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer and it DESTROYS the History of the Church, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings and the very Gospels.

J-D

That is what the text says, but not every text is an accurate record of events that actually occurred.It is not possible in fact for the dead to return to life, but people do sometimes write about such things happening, although those writings cannot be accurate records of events that actually occurred.That's what it says in the text, but people do sometimes write texts which are not accurate records of events that actually occurred.People sometimes behave in ways which do not make sense, and people sometimes write accounts of people behaving in ways which do not make sense.It is not possible in fact for the dead to return to life, but people do sometimes write about such things happening, although those writings cannot be accurate records of events that actually occurred.You have given no grounds for thinking that it was most likely written after the fall of the Temple and you have also given no grounds for thinking that its author was the first to make any particular statement found in it.

J-D

Those are not grounds for thinking that Sinaiticus Mark was the first Jesus theory and they are also not grounds for thinking that Sinaiticus Mark was most likely written after the fall of the Temple.I am making statements about what you post: my sources are your posts and my grounds for the statements I make are the contents of your posts.The standards of court trials are not necessarily applicable outside court trials, but if they are, then it is not automatic for all written statements to be accepted as evidence in court trials.The written statements you have referred to are not evidence for the your conclusions, even if they may possibly be evidence for something else.I have never offered anything I imagined as evidence.Even if, for the sake of argument, there is a contradiction, the existence of a contradiction between two statements, in itself, does not tell us which of the two statements, if either, is true.The written evidence you have referred to does not support the conclusions you have drawn.That depends on what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'perfect HJ argument killer' and 'DESTROYS'.

aa5874

What total nonsense. What absurdity!! How ridiculous!!! Written statements are used as EVIDENCE throughout the whole world.

Scholars, Historians, ordinary people, jurors, the Police, Judges, and Lawyers use WRITTEN statements as EVIDENCE to develop theories or come to certain conclusions.

J-D

What total nonsense. What absurdity!! How ridiculous!!!

The written statements you have referred to do not support your conclusions!!!!!!!