aa5874

As can be seen in the short gMark it is NOT required that the Jesus character be crucified and resurrected to obtain Eternal Life.

ALL PERSONS QUALIFIED FOR ETERNAL LIFE IF THE COMMANDMENTS ARE OBEYED.

The Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Markan Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Remission of Sins--Absolutely Nothing. The story was changed in the LATER Gospels and Pauline writings.

Mark 10 Now, if you are Rich in order to Qualify for Eternal Life you must do ONE more thing.

Mark 10 Any Rich person can have Treasure in heaven--Obey the commandments and sell your possessions and give to the poor.

The short gMark is a story that the Jews killed or caused the death of the Son of God and that he resurrected on the third day.

Mark 14 Examine Acts of the Apostles the story about the supposed early Jesus cult.

On the Day of Pentecost, a character called Peter claimed the Jews slew Jesus and that they must Repent.

Acts 2 The crucifixion or Slaying of Jesus, the Son of the Blessed, because of the Jews is the reason for the Fall of the Temple and the calamities of the Jews.

Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews

aa5874

The short gMark is the earliest Canonised Jesus story and it can be seen that it PREDATES the Pauline letters.

In the short gMark Eternal Life is Obtained by WORKS.

The supposed Markan Jesus claimed One must obey the Commandments and if you are Rich then you must ONE MORE thing Sell your possessions and give to the Poor.

In gMark, gMatthew and gLuke, it would be difficult for the Rich to obtain Eternal life because they Must Sell their riches.

Mark 10:25 KJV The Markan Jesus taught Eternal Life by WORKS.

However In the Later Gospel gJohn, Eternal Life is Obtained by Faith.

In gJohn, the story has changed, One Must BELIEVE in Jesus to obtain Everlasting life.

In gJohn, Jesus suddenly becomes a Sacrifice--The God of the Jews SACRIFICED his ONLY Begotten Son.

John 3:16 KJVJohn 3:36 KJV ONLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS QUALIFY TO OBTAIN ETERNAL LIFE IN gJohn.

John 5.40 MOST REMARKABLY the Johanine Jesus claimed Moses did NOT give the Jews the Bread from heaven. The Johanine Jesus replaces the bread of Moses.

John 5. The Johanine Jesus is the WAY to the Father--Not the Laws of Moses

John 14:6 KJV The Later Gospel of John teaches that one obtains Eternal life by Believing in Jesus--Not the Laws of Moses.

The Laws of Moses are NOT the true Bread.

The Johanine Jesus made the teachings of the Markan Jesus Obsolete.

But, does the Pauline Jesus also make the teachings of the Markan Jesus Obsolete like the Later gJohn??

Romans 10:9 KJV1 Corinthians 15:17 KJVRomans 3:28 KJV The Pauline teachings from the Revealed Resurrected Jesus made the teachings of the Markan Jesus Obsolete.

The short gMark Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline writings and teachings.

The short gMark Jesus was NOT a Sacrifice for Remission of Sins and anyone could QUALIFY for Eternal Life if they Obeyed the Laws of Moses [the Commandments] and Give to the Poor after they sold their poseessions.

The Pauline writings are Compatible with the Later gJohn.

The Johanine Logos Creator and the Pauline Revealed Jesus did NOT claim Eternal Life was obtained by the Law.

All the books of the NT Canon are AFTER the short gMARK Jesus story was already known.

The short gMARK was composed AFTER the writings of Josephus or after c 96-99 CE.

Duvduv

It "predates" the epistles, AA, but not a single epistle mentions the important concept of the Son of Man, even in passing. Of course we have been through all this before, and it is still a matter of discussion as to where each of the texts in the NT set came from and in what order.

For example, various apologists/heresiologists took for granted that there was a concept of the Logos as Christ (about which some differed with one another), yet this concept is not identified in any of the epistles OR in the synoptics.

So we'd want to ask "why" this is the case. And Mountainman, IF the texts all originated from the same scriptorium sometime in the 4th century, how did these writings come to reflect different doctrines as if they came from different streams of believers and presumably geographical locations?

aa5874

The Later Pauline Epistles made the Son of man concept Obsolete just like Galileo made the Stationary earth concept Obsolete.

The Later Pauline writer claimed the resurrected Jesus was Revealed to him by God and if any man preach any other Gospel than the Revealed Gospel let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9 KJV Apologetic sources that mentioned Paul's activities claim that the Jesus story was ALREADY known before Paul preached the Faith and that Paul persecuted those who preached, taught and believed the Jesus story.

Even in the NT, the Pauline letters do NOT represent the teachings of the earliest Christians and it is even claimed that Paul chastised Peter and others for Not walking uprightly according to the Truth of the Gospel.

The Pauline writer CHANGED the Markan teachings of Salvation by the Law in Galatians 2.

Galatians 2 Now, look at the short gMark---- Man is JUSTIFIED by the Law


Mark 10 The Markan Jesus did NOT teach the Truth of the Gospel based on Galatians 2.

This is the New Revealed Gospel of Paul from the resurrected Jesus.

1. A man is NOT justified by the works of the Law

2. By the works of the Law shall No Flesh be justified

3. One must live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved us, and gave himself for us.

The Pauline writings are the Last in the Canon. The Pauline revealed Gospel is preached in the Churches, even today.

Any man who preaches any other Gospel than the Pauline revealed Gospel is accursed, even today.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel is the very LAST Gospel of the Canon and was fabricated sometime in the 2nd century or later and After the writings of Justin Martyr and Aristides.

According to Justin Martyr one is NOT a Christian Without WORKS.

FIRST APOLOGY xvi

Duvduv

Where is your "evidence" that the later Paulines made the Son of Man concept "obselete"???!!
Remember, AA, you always wanted actual evidence, not hypotheses and speculation.

aa5874

Do you see any reference to Jesus as the Son of man in the Pauline writings??

The supposed Markan Jesus called himself the Son of man in the public and was considered a prophet or John the Baptist by the Jews.

However, the Pauline writer PUBLICLY declared Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus was given a name above every other name--Jesus was equal to God--Jesus was Lord and did NOT refer to him as the Son of man, a prophet or John the Baptist.

The Pauline writer clearly stated that he was NOT the Apostle of a Man and did NOT get his Gospel from any man. See Galatians 1

The Pauline Jesus was GOD not a Son of man.

Romans 1:4 KJVRomans 1:9 KJV
Philippians 2

Duvduv

Your speculation based on silence is simply a rational inference about the Son of Man, a concept which you have heretofore rejected as inadmissible.

In any case, you cannot PROVE that the GMark came before or after the epistles. All you can do is provide rational arguments and hypotheses based on analysis and inference.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that GMark was composed AFTER the epistles were put together based on oral traditions or teachings (and which just as easily incorporating some Christian ideas into letters written by Judeophile writers as I have suggested several times),

aa5874

You have no idea what 'speculation' means. A 'RATIONAL INFERENCE' is not 'speculation'.

Again, for the 'millionth' time I am making ARGUMENTS based on the WRITTEN statements and the evidence from antiquity.

The OP is entitled "The Myth Jesus Theory of aa5874".

Are you implying that you can prove the Jesus story and cult originated in the 4th or 5th century??

You don't even have any evidence to support such a claim other than your imagination.

Your suggestions are based on Speculation because you have utterly failed to provide the supporting evidence.

Please name your speculative Judeophile writers??

When did they write??

What did they writer??

You have presented the very weakest of weak possibilities because you presented NO evidence at all from antiquity ONLY your imagination.

Duvduv

So at least you are making inferences without any of your precious received evidence for the idea that the Son of Man idea was eliminated in the "subsequent" epistles that you argue succeeded GMark.......in any case we have discussed some of the epistles as composites with additions relating to the Christ inside of letters that express only monotheistic teachings. I don't feel like going through it again, i.e. in Romans, Titus, etc.

aa5874

There is something radically wrong with your unsubstantiated statement.

Is it not true that the Pauline writer did not refer to Jesus as the Son of Man in the Epistles??

Did Not the Pauline writer claim he was NOT the Apostle of a man and did NOT get his Gospel from man in Galatians 1??

The Pauline Jesus was Not the Son of a Man but the Son of God.

It is clear that the Pauline writer eliminated the Son of man.

1. Romans 8:3 KJV---For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

2. 1 Corinthians 1:9 KJ----God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord

3. 2 Corinthians 1:19 KJV---For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

4. Galatians 2:20 KJV---I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

5. Ephesians 4:13 KJV---Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God..

6. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 KJV---And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.