Duvduv

I am no expert in these fields. But are you or they claiming that the paleographic analysis of 49 texts would outweigh any contrasting evidence or inferences based on the content of the document in relation to the events, people, ideas, etc. that would be around? For example, let's say a set of manuscripts were convincing that they were written in the 17th century and describe the life of Barack Obama.

Obviously the paleographic analysis would be dismissed out of hand NO MATTER how convincing the analysis based on the parchment, ink, and writing style and assurances of no error. However, it would still be dismissed because the CONTEXT of what is contained in the texts in relation to other matters makes it impossible that they were written in the 17th century.

Or are you saying that the dating in paleographic analysis MUST correspond with the content AND therefore any questions concerning the content must be dismissed because of the ostensible accuracy of the dating of the paleographic analysis? In other words, how do these paleographers relate to prior assumptions about what they are looking at. After all, it's not like looking at bacteria under a microscope. There are certain assumptions and biases involved. Especially if the gap could be as little as a century or so which is not alot in terms of paleography.

aa5874

Evidently the "indwelling Logos" is NOT those passages. It is not accurate to claim in English that the "indwelling Logos" are in those passages.

May I remind you that the Pauline Jesus is the First Born of the DEAD and made of a woman---God Incarnate.

The Logos is not considered to be from the Grave or of the dead or God incarnate.

The Pauline Jesus is God Incarnate who resurrected---Not the Logos.

What??? The Theos, Logos and Pneuma Hagios are ONE?? You believe the Bible or the Nicene Creed.

How can you show that the Theos cannot dwell without the Logos and the Pneuma Hagios??

The Pauline Jesus, the son of God, made of a woman of the seed of David, the first born of the dead is NOT the Logos.
I KNEW IT ALL ALONG. You believe the very writings that you have identified as products of manipulation--[religious mythology and fabrication]

aa5874

The short gMark is an extremely important book of the Canon. It had the most influence on authors of the long Mark, gMatthew and gLuke.

If all the accounts about Jesus found in the short gMark were removed from the Synoptics we will be left with Total Fiction or implausibilities.

For example, if we remove all the events about Jesus in the Long gMark that is also found in the short gMark we would be left with 12 verses of total mythology where the Resurrected Jesus commissioned his disciples to preach the Gospel.

But, examine the command of the Resurrected Jesus in the Great Commission in the Later Long gMark.

Mark 16 Again, the Long Mark Jesus does NOT show that he he was aware of Paul's Jesus.


Even the Markan Resurrected Jesus did NOT CLAIM he died for the Remission of Sins.

Paul's Jesus was a Fake!!!

Chili

Logos is not from the grave and the firstborn (logos) was set free under Bar-abbas to crucify only the human condition of man. Remember here that Christ was born unto man, that created the dual identity and so 'one of them' needed to die (or just rapture away) to set the other one free. To this end the Jews (clever as they are) had a better plan and that is to crucify the daylight out of him so the true light may be made manifest here on earth (as made made known by the darkness that prevailed for Madgalene alone).

So you have this just backwards[again].

aa5874

The authors of the short and Long gMark show zero influence by the Pauline writings.

In the Pauline writings it is claimed Jesus was seen of the Apostles/disciples and Over 500 people---See 1 Cor. 15.

The author of the short gMark wrote NOTHING of the post-resurrection visits by Jesus and claimed the visitors to the Empty Tomb told NO-ONE that Jesus was resurrected.

The Short gMark 16 The author of the Long gMark changed the story and claimed Mary Magdalene did tell the disciples but that they did NOT believe her.

It must be noted that the author of the Long gMark copied the Entire SHORT gMark virtually WORD for WORD in the same order of events.

The Long gMark has NOTHING whatsoever to show that the author was familiar with any Pauline letter or teachings.

The author of the Long gMark claimed the Resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples and told them "He that Believeth the Gospel and is Baptised shall be Saved."

LONG gMark There is NO such teaching in the Pauline writings. The Pauline writer even claimed he was NOT called by Christ to Baptize.

1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV Paul claimed one MUST believe Jesus was Raised from the dead and NOTHING at all about Baptism.

Romans 10:9 KJV 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJVIn the earliest Jesus stories, the short gMark and the Long gMark, one obtained Eternal Life by following the commandments and later by Belief and Baptism after the resurrection.

The Short and Long gMark PREDATE the Pauline wrtings.

Chili

If anything, Paul denied Mark and was just contrary to Mark.

Add Romans 10:10 "Faith in the heart leads to justification, confession on the lips to salvation." That so made Paul's message just opposite to Mark who "baptized as they confessed their sins" already in Mk 1:5.

aa5874

The Canonised short gMark is extremely significant because it is the very earliest story of the Jesus character of all the books in the Canon including the Pauline writings.

The short gMark is NOT about Remission of Sins by the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus.

The Gospel, the Good News, is clear in the short gMark---Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand.

Short Mark 1The author of the short gMark believed that the Kingdom of God was at hand based on assumed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture like the book of Daniel.


Daniel 7 The short gMark Jesus sent in his twelve disciples on a house to house campaign telling people to repent.

It is clear that it was not necessary for Jesus to have been Crucified and Resurrected for Remission of Sins.

Mark 6 The Jesus cult most likely started when people Believed that the story that the Kingdom of God was at hand and began to repent sometime between c 96-99 CE and 130-133 CE, or After the writings of Josephus and Before Simon Bachochebas was ruler of the Jews.

Chili

Mark is a total disaster from beginning to end and the bare naked example of how to get to hell in a hurry with the promise he made.

Now that Matthew was wrong on account of religious fundamantalism is not his fault as he is just 'reporting' what the problem was in those days: Too many "dreamers" who wanted the be counted among the righteous with hardly no Judaism about them at all. This is made clear in Matthew with "out of Egypt I have called my son," and all he has to do is make a pitstop in Nazareth and than "he shall be called a Nazorean," while in fact he was not.

So then Mark, supposedly, knew nothing about this 'infancy thing,' nor does he know anything about John as the being the Christ for whom Jesus would be crucified to die, and had him just slamdunking people "as they confessed their sins" in the Jordan, of all places to say, while he himself was dressed in a camelhair coat eating grashoppers three times a day . . . because, so he said: "I have baptized you with water; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit" and "the reign of God will be upon you" just by his magical touch. Note here that his coat and his food contradicted the promise he made.

So Mark really was Matthew's problem who saw the reign of God near and recognized Jesus as the son of God while he was not. John was, to be sure, or at least was supposed to be "Son of God" and Jesus would be "Son of man" to be crucified to set this "son of God" free.

And yes, Mark has it just backwards, and is why John kept "slipping away" and at the tomb the women did not recognize him and in fact were stupified by what they saw, as a stranger to them he sure was. Oh, and then on their way out Mark urged them to tell the disciples so they would be in Galilee for him, again, and be sure to tell Peter too, (read faith), as he obviously was not part of the show.

aa5874

In the short gMark, John the Baptist Baptised for the Remission of Sins.

The Baptism of John for Remission of Sinsin the short gMark supposedly was carried out BEFORE Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected.

Sinaiticus gMark The author of the short gMark did NOT know of the Paulinr Revealed Gospel of the Resurrected Jesus.

In the Pauline letters Remission of Sins could NOT be obtained by Baptism in water.

Galatians 2:16 KJV Baptism was not at all necessary in the Pauline writings.

Again, look at the Long gMark.

Long gMark 16 When the supposed Jesus RESURRECTED on the THIRD DAY in gMark he commanded the disciples to BAPTISE.

The Pauline Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus happened AFTER the apostles/disciples were commissioned to BAPTISE.

Both the Long and short gMark PREDATE the Pauline writings.

In the short gMark Jesus did NOT die for Remission of Sins.

aa5874

In 1 Cor.15, a Pauline writer claimed Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected on the Third Day.

1 Corinthians 15 No such thing is found in the Short gMark.

If you Obey the commandments you will obtain Eternal Life and Jesus claimed he would rise AFTER THREE days---Not ON the Third day. See Sinaiticus gMark--the Short gMark 8, 9,and 10.

1. Short Mark 8 2. Short Mark 93. Short Mark 10 4.Short Mark The Jesus in the Short gMark did NOT die for Remission of Sins or that Jews would obtain Eternal Life.

It is NOT written in Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus died for OUR Sins---that is found written in the New Testament Scriptures called Gospel of gJohn.

John 3:16 KJV The Pauline writer attempts to confirm the New Testament Scriptures that Jesus died for our Sins.

Galatians 2:20 KJV The Pauline writings are Compatible with LATER Gospels of the Long gMark, gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and Acts of the Apostles.

1. Matthew 20 KJV...... .and the third day he shall rise again .

2. Long Mark 10 KJV ... and the third day he shall rise again.

3. Luke 18:33 KJV..... .. and the third day he shall rise again .

The Pauline writer attempts to Corroborate the New Testament Scriptures. Paul claimed Jesus did RISE on the Third day.

1 Corinthians 15:4 KJV.... he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

The short gMark PREDATES ALL the writings of the Canon including the Pauline writings. The Pauline writer attempted to historicise the Resurrection of Jesus and the apostles/disciples of the fiction character after having heard or read the Jesus story in New Testament Scriptures.