tanya

No argument here.

The question posed, though, (perhaps I misunderstand) is whether or not the gospel of Mark, whether factually accurate, or possessing some (perhaps minor) errors, including errors of omission, can serve as evidence that the story of Jesus, portrayed within it, represents myth rather than history.

In my opinion, it is more useful, in attempting analysis of Mark's gospel, to establish which passages, if authentic, and not later alterations of an original text, suggest to modern day readers, the notion that the text when first composed, was intended to be a fictional story, rather than an accurate historical recounting of the facts.

It is in that context that I understand, maybe imperfectly, the intention of the forum member who started this thread, aa5874. Aside from some overgeneralizations, and conclusions drawn inexpertly, from a strictly logical perspective, is there not, some substance here, which ought to warrant a repudiation, using biblical source material, rather than rules of logic?

J-D

I don't know what aa5874's intentions are or whether there is any substance to them.

aa5874

You are just PARROTING what I SAY.

aa5874

If you are NOT an EXPERT and if you do NOT understand Logics then how can you even make suggestions about what I have done?

EARL DOHERTY and BART EHRMAN, EXPERTS, use the very NT to DRAW COMPLETELY OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS.

Please explain which EXPERT is WRONG from a logical perspective?

Now, It is CERTAIN that one does NOT have to be an EXPERT to PRESENT WRITTEN EVIDENCE.

It is CERTAIN that there are Codices with versions of gMark that END at 16.8.

It is CERTAIN the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices have versions of gMark that END at Mark 16.8.

It is CERTAIN that is written that the VISITORS told NO-ONE about the Risen Jesus in SINAITICUS and VATICANUS CODICES.

The SINAITICUS AND VATICANUS CODICES are WRITTEN EVIDENCE that CAN BE USED TO DEVELOP a theory that NO-ONE heard of the RISEN Jesus story BEFORE the author wrote his story.

It is CERTAIN that it is NOT found written in Philo and Josephus that there were DISCIPLES of Jesus especially Peter and the apostle Paul who PREACHED about a RISEN JEWISH MESSIAH.

JOSEPHUS, a Jew and a Pharisee, DID LIVE in GALILEE when Peter, the disciples, and Paul should have been PREACHING about the RISEN Jewish Messiah.

Jopsephus WROTE until the end of the 1ST century.

Philo, a Jew, of Alexandria, was a contemporary of the supposed disciples, and it is CLAIMED the author of MARK was in Alexandria, the hometown of Philo.

NOTHING can be found written about MARK or the Risen Jewish Messiah in the writings of Philo.

Philo wrote up to or around the middle of the 1ST century.

And, even further, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius ALL wrote that the Jewish Messiah or Messianic rulers were EXPECTED at around 70 CE.

See Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus Histories 5 and Suetonius "Life of Vespasian".

NOTHING can be found in Tacitus and Suetonius of a RISEN Jewish Messiah.

NON-Apologetic Sources, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius CORROBORATE Sinaiticus and Vaticanus MARK.

gMark is the perfect HJ argument killer.

When RULES of LOGIC are EMPLOYED Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Mark has DESTROYED the history of the Church, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline writings, and the very Gospels.

Rules of Logics when applied to the following writings have DESTROYED the history of the Church.

1. Sinaiticus Mark.

2. Vaticanus Mark.

3. Philo.

4. Josephus.

5. Tacitus.

6. Suetonius.

NOTHING is found written about a RISEN Jewish Messiah.

Toto

comments on Jesus alone in a crowd split

stephan huller

tanya and aa in a debate. Now that's entertainment.

On a completely separate note, I just had an idea for a new sport. Take two boxers. Put thick plastic bags on their heads. Place them in a ring and encourage them to flail aimlessly at one another until one of them actually lands some punches. I wonder if there's an audience for this sport ...

Toto

It's worse than that.

tanya tried to say something nice about aa5874, and it only spurred him to attack her in caps and red letters . . . was that because he didn't get what she said, or because she didn't agree with him absolutely?

J-D

IN tHis PartiCular insTance, i repeateD your words because they Were applicable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

J-D

The written evidence you have presented does not provide sufficient grounds for accepting your theory.All put together that is still not sufficient evidence to support your conclusions.You have never employed rules of logic.You have never applied rules of logics.

stephan huller

aa, is a real character. If I ever have the opportunity, I'd like to do a documentary on the mystery of aa. His psychological profile is quite fascinating. He's obsessed with people claiming he said something or misrepresenting his position. When Nietzsche went crazy from syphilis he started doing the same thing:

The joke was that no one was reading Nietzsche's books. No one knew who he was. Who knows one day aa will be recognized for the genius he thinks he is and we will all be telling stories about how we brushed up against him in this forum.