ApostateAbe

WTF?

aa5874

The short-ending gMark is the MOST significant Jesus story because it was used by ALL the authors of the Canon whether directly or indirectly.

The short-ending gMark has NOTHING about a New Jesus cult--Nothing about a New Religion---Nothing about Salvation by Sacrifice of Jesus--Nothing about the Pauline Gospel of Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus.

gMark is a story where the Son of God was Betrayed, Abandoned, Denied by his OWN hand-picked Jewish disciples and was REJECTED and handed over to the Romans and Crucified AFTER he HEALED the Sick Jews, FED the Hungry Jews and Delivered the Jews from Evil demons.

gMark EXPLAINS why the Jewish Temple was ALLOWED to be destroyed by God because the EVIL Jews REJECTED God's Son.

It was LATER that the short-ending gMark was INTERPOLATED and 12 additional verses of Fiction were added when the Jesus Cult began.

In the Interpolated gMark, it is claimed Jesus came BACK from the Grave and AUTHORIZED the disciples to PREACH the gMark story to the WHOLE WORLD.

The authorisation to PREACH the gMark Jesus story was given by the INTERPOLATOR of the short-ending gMark.

Solo

Perhaps it would be less "unlikely" if you stopped thinking about Mark in terms of stories and dogmas that have clearly developped after Mark. JtB in Mark does not recognize Jesus as the one who "comes after". In the original version of the story he is simply the man who announces Jesus, and through whose baptism from heaven Jesus acquires the spirit.

Matthew is troubled by the lack of of John's recognition.

Luke is troubled by Jesus' being baptized by John, period.

The latter two have a problem with the Jesus baptism since their versions of the gospel start with Nativity and the adoration of Jesus in his cradle. Makes it kind of hard to claim that John knew nothing about that, doesn't it ? Especially for Luke who asserted Mary and Elizabeth were kin, likely to diffuse the claims of John's disciples on the moniker "Nazarene".

Best,
Jiri

Solo

Abe, it's a mystery !

Jiri

aa5874

The short-ending gMark is virtually DEVOID of any theology. gMark's Jesus is just a phenomenal Miracle worker who did things that NO human could ever do.

There were Magicians and Healers before Jesus but they could NOT WALK on WATER and TRANSFIGURE.

gMark's Jesus supposedly OUTPERFORMED all Human beings by his ability to WALK on WATER and Transfgure.

But, he will do ONE more thing and he TAUGHT his disciples.

He would Resurrect.

Jesus in the short-ending gMark was NOT human---truly this "man" was Myth.

Mark 15.39Mark 16. Truly the short-ending gMark is a Myth Fable.

It is unheard of that Myth Fables are used for history.

aa5874

You are WRONG. The author of gMatthew claimed God was PLEASED with the Baptism of his Son.

After the Baptism,

Matthew 3:17 KJV Those are REALLY the words of the author.

Again you WRONG. GOD was PLEASED with the events at Baptism of his Son in gLuke.

Luke 3:22 KJVAnd again, you have NOT ever established that the Gospels are credible sources, have NOT established when they were written and have NOT established that they represent history.

The Credibility, date of composition and historical accuracy are EXTREMELY important for the reconstruction of the past.

Solo

Matthew, like Mark, makes the descent of the Spirit and the voice a subjective event, available only to Jesus (and the reader).


I understand that this is a source of unremitting preoccupation and agony for you. However, I was analyzing the text differences of the baptism in the synoptics, not commenting on their historical reliability.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Are you NOT pre-occupied with making arguments without establishing the veracity, historical accuracy and date of composition of the text???

You ought to know that if the baptism is NOT an historical account and was written in the 2nd century that your analysis would be worthless.

Let us do history. Let us use the DATED evidence of ACTUAL NT manuscript to make our analysis or else we are preoccupied in wasting time.

The Baptism stories in the Synoptics are NOT history and they were written NO earlier than the 2nd century.

I am Pre-occupied with the DATED NT manuscript.

ApostateAbe

Other thoughts?

fleetmouse

Abe, I wanted to both bump this thread for further discussion and thank you profusely for making a brief and forceful case for an idea that has fascinated me lately - I've been reading Loftus and Ehrman on the subject of Jesus's apocalypticism but I find they're unnecessarily windbaggy.

What's especially fascinating to me is how this first "great disappointment" of Jesus's failed prophecy has been the cognitive dissonance spurring on the creation of much of historic and modern theology - cf. this Wikipedia article on the Olivet discourse and its interpretations.

Anyhow what you've written here is concentrated weapons-grade anti-apologetics. Kudos and thanks!