Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-13-2012, 07:43 PM

The Pauline writers claimed Jesus died for Our Sins and that Jesus was raised ON the Third day.

Those two phrases are AFTER the short-ending gMark.

1 Cor.15

Quote:

3 For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures;

4 and that he was buried; and that he rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures..

The claim that Jesus died for OUR Sins is NOT found in the short-ending gMark.

In the short-ending gMark Jesus was crucified because he was REJECTED as the Son of God and Messiah by the Jews.

Sinaiticus Mark 8

Quote:

31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be put to death, and rise after three days.

It is the Gospels considered AFTER the short-ending gMark that claimed Jesus died for our sins.

In gLuke it is the Resurrected Jesus, the Non-historical Jesus, Fiction Jesus that EXPLAINED the reason for the crufixion.

Luke 24

Quote:

45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures;

46 and he said to them: Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

In the short-ending gMark the disciples were NOT told Jesus was resurrected and were NOT told that Jesus died for the Sins of Mankind.

Now, ALL the Gospels AFTER gMark it is claimed Jesus shall rise ON THE THIRD DAY not After Three Days.

Matthew 16

Quote:

21 From that time Jesus began to show to his disciples, that he...... be killed, and rise on the third day.

Luke 24

Quote:

the Son of man that he must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and rise on the third day.

1 Corinthians 15

Quote:

3 For I delivered to you, among the first things, that which I also received; that .......... he rose from the dead on the third day..

Sinaiticus Mark 8

Quote:

31 And he began to teach them that the Son of Man...... be put to death, and rise after three days.

It can be logically deduced that the Pauline writings were AFTER the short-ending gMark.

Duvduv · 05-14-2012, 04:13 AM

Besides the fact that each of the three Great Commissions has a different purpose the one belonging to GLuke ostensibly is associated with the Book of Acts in which Saul has his exclusive revelation to preach to the gentiles. So this association of the two books makes no sense if GLuke already has a commission for all disciples to the gentiles. This is aside from the other problems in associating the two books intended by the beginning of Acts.
And of course, there is no logic behind the idea of a single person being instructed this way without explaining why once it is permissible to preach to gentiles only one man can do it.
In any case the author of GLuke must have forgotten about the Commission when he wrote Acts according to those who argue the traditional claim for their association.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Interestingly enough, the two 4th century Creeds (2nd Antioch of 347 and Second Sermium of 357 mention the Great Commission as found only in Matthew 28, NOT for the purpose of worldwide evangelism, but only to emphasize the trinity.

In terms of the instructions to preach to the nations once preaching to the gentiles became the focal point of this new religion. Each gospel says it differently but in a very churchy way. But in ALL cases, it is unclear as to what the gospel to be preached is. Is it salvation through faith in the Christ? Is it the indwelling of the Christ? Is it the fact of the Christ as the promised Davidic messiah?

Mark 16:15-16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Luke 2:46-47
Sounds compatible with the Nicene Creed but does not answer any of the questions I asked because it doesn't explain what it means to preach repentance in his name.

45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;
46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Matthew 28:18-20
Also very churchy with emphasis on the baptism in the name of the trinity though more developed than the original Nicene Creed which doesn't explicitly refer to the the trinity.

18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

But of course we know that the author of Galatians received his own Great Commission as an exclusive revelation having nothing to do with anyone else, as he stated, i.e. that he was appointed to preach to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. But of course this would all be unnecessary if Paul and the others of the epistles already knew of the Great Commission in the gospels.

And yet if the interpolaters of the gospels were arguing that EVERYONE had to preach to the gentiles, each of them knew they were contradicting Galatians IF they knew about Galatians. Evidently these authors would have realized that a one-man operation of preaching to the gentiles would be insufficient to do what had to be done. And of course if the author of Galatians knew about the Great Commissions he would be contradicting them by advocating for his exclusive divinely-ordained role. Wouldn't the author of Galatians have wanted to remind his Christ that he had already instructed his people to preach to the gentiles?

And as I mentioned before, ONCE Paul was instructed to preach, then everyone could do it, unless he believed he had exclusive powers of pursuasion which no one else on Earth had.

So it would not be unusual to see the gospel Great Commission as reflecting the Roman Byzantine state religion of the 4th century, giving additional reason to believing that the gospels were composed in the 4th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Why don't you just say that in Galatians Paul got his very own Great Commission and then interpolators applied the novel idea to the gospels, since otherwise what's the big deal about Paul's revelation for the gentiles if the Great Commission already instructed that in the gospels? Thus the resurrected Jesus gave a Great Commission to Paul BEFORE it appeared in any gospels. In any case if the event of resurrection was not originally in the short GMark that Paul knew, why didn't he incorporate other stories?

Duvduv · 05-15-2012, 05:57 PM

WHY would the author of Luke who gave a Great Commission to all disciples to the gentile nations then write a second story in which ONE SINGLE guy is directed to be the preacher to the gentiles if this existed already from the outset??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Besides the fact that each of the three Great Commissions has a different purpose the one belonging to GLuke ostensibly is associated with the Book of Acts in which Saul has his exclusive revelation to preach to the gentiles. So this association of the two books makes no sense if GLuke already has a commission for all disciples to the gentiles. This is aside from the other problems in associating the two books intended by the beginning of Acts.
And of course, there is no logic behind the idea of a single person being instructed this way without explaining why once it is permissible to preach to gentiles only one man can do it.
In any case the author of GLuke must have forgotten about the Commission when he wrote Acts according to those who argue the traditional claim for their association.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Interestingly enough, the two 4th century Creeds (2nd Antioch of 347 and Second Sermium of 357 mention the Great Commission as found only in Matthew 28, NOT for the purpose of worldwide evangelism, but only to emphasize the trinity.

In terms of the instructions to preach to the nations once preaching to the gentiles became the focal point of this new religion. Each gospel says it differently but in a very churchy way. But in ALL cases, it is unclear as to what the gospel to be preached is. Is it salvation through faith in the Christ? Is it the indwelling of the Christ? Is it the fact of the Christ as the promised Davidic messiah?

Mark 16:15-16
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.

Luke 2:46-47
Sounds compatible with the Nicene Creed but does not answer any of the questions I asked because it doesn't explain what it means to preach repentance in his name.

45 Then opened he their mind, that they might understand the scriptures;
46 and he said unto them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day;
47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Matthew 28:18-20
Also very churchy with emphasis on the baptism in the name of the trinity though more developed than the original Nicene Creed which doesn't explicitly refer to the the trinity.

18 And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:
20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

But of course we know that the author of Galatians received his own Great Commission as an exclusive revelation having nothing to do with anyone else, as he stated, i.e. that he was appointed to preach to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews. But of course this would all be unnecessary if Paul and the others of the epistles already knew of the Great Commission in the gospels.

And yet if the interpolaters of the gospels were arguing that EVERYONE had to preach to the gentiles, each of them knew they were contradicting Galatians IF they knew about Galatians. Evidently these authors would have realized that a one-man operation of preaching to the gentiles would be insufficient to do what had to be done. And of course if the author of Galatians knew about the Great Commissions he would be contradicting them by advocating for his exclusive divinely-ordained role. Wouldn't the author of Galatians have wanted to remind his Christ that he had already instructed his people to preach to the gentiles?

And as I mentioned before, ONCE Paul was instructed to preach, then everyone could do it, unless he believed he had exclusive powers of pursuasion which no one else on Earth had.

So it would not be unusual to see the gospel Great Commission as reflecting the Roman Byzantine state religion of the 4th century, giving additional reason to believing that the gospels were composed in the 4th century.

Duvduv · 05-20-2012, 04:07 PM

Toto, you must have something to comment on this. Here we have GLuke with its Great Commission and then along comes Acts, which you believe was written by the same author, and writes about the Great Commission of a gospel to one individual freelancer unrelated to the witnesses and disciples of GLuke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

WHY would the author of Luke who gave a Great Commission to all disciples to the gentile nations then write a second story in which ONE SINGLE guy is directed to be the preacher to the gentiles if this existed already from the outset??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Besides the fact that each of the three Great Commissions has a different purpose the one belonging to GLuke ostensibly is associated with the Book of Acts in which Saul has his exclusive revelation to preach to the gentiles. So this association of the two books makes no sense if GLuke already has a commission for all disciples to the gentiles. This is aside from the other problems in associating the two books intended by the beginning of Acts.
And of course, there is no logic behind the idea of a single person being instructed this way without explaining why once it is permissible to preach to gentiles only one man can do it.
In any case the author of GLuke must have forgotten about the Commission when he wrote Acts according to those who argue the traditional claim for their association.

aa5874 · 05-20-2012, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

.......Here we have GLuke with its Great Commission and then along comes Acts, which you believe was written by the same author, and writes about the Great Commission of a gospel to one individual freelancer unrelated to the witnesses and disciples of GLuke....

This is a very interesting observation. In gLuke, the Jesus story is commissioned by the Resurrected Jesus to the disciples but in Acts of the Apostles the very SAME resurrected Jesus appears to have commissioned Paul WITHOUT the knowledge of his own disciples.

Saul/Paul appears to be a LATE invention. The Authorisation to preach the Jesus story appear to have been Changed from the disciples to Saul/Paul AFTER the Gospels were written.

If the Authorisation was FIRST Given to Paul then it would NOT MAKE SENSE to write gLuke and claim the same resurrected Jesus authorised the disciples before Paul.

Logically it can be deduced that the Saul/Paul character was INVENTED after the Commission story was composed in the Gospels.

Toto · 05-20-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Toto, you must have something to comment on this. Here we have GLuke with its Great Commission and then along comes Acts, which you believe was written by the same author, and writes about the Great Commission of a gospel to one individual freelancer unrelated to the witnesses and disciples of GLuke.

There are many discontinuities between Luke and Acts. That's why scholars describe a "final editor" of Luke-Acts rather than a single author. The editor was more likely to add to the text than subtract anything, so you have various contradictory parts here and there.

But I think you are confusing the epistles with Acts. In the epistles, Paul described himself as the apostle to the gentiles, while Peter is the apostle to the Jews. But in Acts, Peter is told to baptize gentiles, and Paul starts off preaching to the Jews.

The "Great Commission" was undoubtedly added in a late edition, after the elaborate stories of Peter's vision telling him that all meats were clean and his call to baptize Cornelius were established.

aa5874 · 05-20-2012, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...The "Great Commission" was undoubtedly added in a late edition, after the elaborate stories of Peter's vision telling him that all meats were clean and his call to baptize Cornelius were established.

Your claim is WHOLLY unsubstantiated and based on non-existing imaginary evidence. Please supply the source that "undoubtedly" support your claims.

This is the sort of disturbing problem on these threads. At one time you claim nothing is certain in the NT but yet you are now claim certain events undoubtedly happened WITHOUT a shred of evidence or source.

We have stories in the Canon which are EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL and gLuke, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings cannot be accepted WITHOUT corroboration.

Please, tell us in which CENTURY the so-called Peter ACTUALLY UNDOUBTEDLY had visions???

Duvduv · 05-20-2012, 09:57 PM

His Christ commanded him to the gentiles in Acts 22:21. Though the epistles emphasize it more strongly.

aa5874 · 05-20-2012, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

His Christ commanded him to the gentiles in Acts 22:21. Though the epistles emphasize it more strongly.

In the 2nd, 3rd, or 4the century???

Duvduv · 05-20-2012, 11:47 PM

For purposes of the context of our exchange it doesn't matter.
But if you are asking me when I think the book was written, it was probably in the fourth, along with all the other Acts books.

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

05-20-2012, 09:57 PM	#138
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	His Christ commanded him to the gentiles in Acts 22:21. Though the epistles emphasize it more strongly.

05-20-2012, 11:47 PM	#140
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	For purposes of the context of our exchange it doesn't matter. But if you are asking me when I think the book was written, it was probably in the fourth, along with all the other Acts books.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.