Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-06-2013, 12:24 AM

The Jesus story in gMark cannot be found in the Pauline Corpus.

The author of gMark essentially shows that there was no Jesus cult of Christians at the time of authorship, shows that the Jesus character did not want to start a new religion in Galilee.

Mark 4:34 KJV

Quote:

But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone , he expounded all things to his disciples.

Mark 4:34 NAS

Quote:

and He did not speak to them without a parable ; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.

The short gMark's Jesus deliberately had no intention that the Populace understood him.

The short gMark Jesus did NOT even tell his own disciples he was the Christ. He ASKED them who he was.

gMark's Jesus was with some of his disciples in the 1st chapter and selected his 12 ORDAINED disciples since the 3rd chapter but in the 8th chapter of gMark Jesus had not yet told his ordained disciples he was Christ.

Mark 3 KJV

Quote:

14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach , 15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils

Up to Mark 8.27 , Jesus had supposedly carried out about 16 miracles around Galilee and was unknown as the Christ and did NOT tell his disciples he was Christ.

Mark 8 KJV

Quote:

27 And Jesus went out , and his disciples, into the towns of Caesarea Philippi: and by the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Whom do men say that I am ? 28 And they answered , John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets.

29 And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.

30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

gMark's Jesus was known as a prophet or John the Baptist by the people in the region--Not as Christ or the Son of God.

gMark's Jesus did NOT tell the Populace that he would die for the Sins of all mankind.

It was the author of gJohn and the Pauline Corpus who claimed told people that Jesus was equal to God and died for the Sins of mankind.

John 3:16 KJV

Quote:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

Galatians 2:20 KJV

Quote:

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.

Now, examine gMark.

gMark's Jesus wanted people to REMAIN in Sin and Not Forgiven.

Mark 4

Quote:

..... unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

gMark's Jesus was not derived from the Pauline Corpus.

gMark's Jesus did NOT come to Sacrifice himself for the Sins of all mankind.

The author of gMark did NOT know of the Pauline resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline resurrected Jesus was NOT seen of gMark's author.

aa5874 · 07-06-2013, 11:37 AM

The Gospel/Gospels according to Mark are extremely important to understand what started the Jesus cult of Christians.

It is most remarkable that actual cases of forgeries and false attribution have been found Canonised.

In the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus we have a short version of gMark which ends at Mark 16.8.

The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are dated sometime in the 4th century.

However, in LATER Codices, like the Alexandrinus, long version with an additional 12 verses and ends at Mark 16.20 is also attributed to the same author.

The additional 12 verses are NOT only blatant fiction but they openly contradict the previous verses [Mark 16.1-8] and were most likely written by another author.

However, it will be shown that it was the Blatant Fiction and the forgery in the long version of gMark that are the basis of the Jesus cult religion.

Examine the end of the Sinaiticus gMark.

See http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ma...t.aspx?=Submit Query&book=34&chapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=8&zoo mSlider=0

Sinaiticus Mark 16.

Quote:

16:1 And when the sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early on the first of the week they came to the sepulcher, the sun having risen.

3 And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of the sepulcher?

4 And looking up they see that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very great.

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

In the earliest story of Jesus, no-one was told that Jesus was resurrected by the visitors to the empty tomb, and there was no story that Jesus resurrected and then visited and commissioned the disciples to preach the Gospel.

The earliest gMark story of Jesus ends in Fear, Betrayal, Abandonment, Denial, Rejection and Killing of the Jesus character.

Quite astonishingly, another author, using the very same 8 verses added more fiction and contradiction.

In Sinaiticus Mark 16 the visitors to the Empty Tomb did NOT see the body of Jesus but were TOLD he was resurrected but immediately in the next verses of the long version[Mark 16.9-10] the fake Mark claimed Jesus did appear to Mary Magdalene and that she did tell those who were with him.

And even, more astonishing is that the Fake Late author of the long version claimed the resurrected Jesus visited the disciples while eating in a house.

Effectively, Mark 16.1-8 and Mark 16.9-20 are NOT compatible. They are NOT in agreement and cannot be reconciled.

Mark 16.1-8 may be minutely plausible. If Jesus did exist and he was buried perhaps some-one could have removed the dead body.

Mark 16.9-20 is utter fiction and is fundamentally implausible. If Jesus did exist and was dead for about Three days then he did NOT resurrect and did NOT appear to Mary Magdalene nor his disciples.

Mark 16 KJV

Quote:

9 Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept . 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive , and had been seen of her, believed not .

12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked , and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat....

Now, examine all the other LATER Gospels and the Pauline Corpus.

The LATER Gospels and the Pauline Corpus are compatible with the Late long version of gMark.

They all have the Blatant Fiction that Jesus was resurrected and that he was SEEN by the Disciples.

1. Matthew 28--the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples.

2. Luke 24--the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples.

3. John 20-21--the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples.

4. 1 Corinthians 15--the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples.

But, that is NOT all.

Not only does the Later Gospels and the Pauline Corpus mention that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples but they all claim or imply the disciples, including Peter, was COMMISSIONED to preach the Gospel by the resurrected Jesus.

No such thing is in the Sinaiticus gMark.

1. Matthew 28--the resurrected Jesus Commissions the disciples to preach the Gospel.

2. Luke 24--the resurrected Jesus commissions the disciples to preach the Gospel.

3. John 21--the resurrected commissions Peter to "Feed my Lambs".

4. Galatians 2--It is implied that Cephas/Peter was commissioned to preach the Gospel by the resurrected Jesus.

The claims in Later Gospels and the Pauline Corpus about the post resurrection visits and the commission to preach the Gospel are AFTER the short version of gMark's story.

It was most likely BELIEF in the short version of the Jesus story that started the Jesus cult and the story was manipulated by the Later Gospel authors and the Pauline writers.

Clivedurdle · 07-06-2013, 11:55 AM

Quote:

the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples.

There is another option - that Jesus rose from the dead.

aa5874 · 07-06-2013, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples.

There is another option - that Jesus rose from the dead.

The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark authors did NOT use the option of presenting the disciples and Paul as witnesses of the resurrected Jesus.

It was the LATER authors and the Pauline writers who presented witnesses as an option.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

1 Corinthians 15:8 KJV

Quote:

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

The Jesus cult was started when authors exercised the option to manipulate gMark and claim there were witnesses to the resurrection and that the resurrected Jesus commissioned the Witnesses to preach the Gospel.

No such commission and witnesses are in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus gMark 16.

The Pauline Corpus is based on the Late manipulation of the early story of Jesus.

Davka · 07-06-2013, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

the resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples.

There is another option - that Jesus rose from the dead.

This is not really an option.

Would you accept that a viable option for answering the question "whatever happened to Jim Morrison" is "he sprouted wings and flew away"? Why or why not?

Clivedurdle · 07-06-2013, 02:17 PM

It might not be viable but it is a widely held option!

aa5874 · 07-06-2013, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

It might not be viable but it is a widely held option!

Who held what option? Please be specific.

The LATER Gospels and the Pauline Corpus both contain claims that the disciples were SEEN of a resurrected Jesus after a fictitious event and that the fictional resurrected character commissioned his disciples to preach.

No such thing is in the earliest story of gMark.

It is widely held or widely believed by the Jesus cult of Christians that the Jesus story or Jesus himself was known in the Roman Empire before the Pauline writer had revelations of the very resurrected Jesus.

After ALL it is widely held or BELIEVED that the Pauline writer persecuted the Churches in Christ.

Iskander · 07-06-2013, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

It is not about being saved and it is not about the mercy of god. It is about what happens to people here in this life and it is about the justice of god,

This is a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by "salvation" in the OT. It has nothing to do with the Christian concept. It literally means to have your ass yanked out of the coals, as in when you are about to fall off a cliff and a friend grabs you and pulls you back, saving your life. It's all about this life.

Yes, it is. Read Job. Job's friends regularly press him to confess his sin.

Correct.

Quote:

The KJB was a great achievement

Considering the material they had to work with, it's not bad. But it's a notoriously flawed translation, especially when compared with most modern translations. If you read Hebrew, you know this.

I will try to present the argument.

Job says, the “righteous” (those who are perfect in the eyes of the god) can suffer while the bad (those who ignore god) can prosper. He believes this shows that god is not a just god.

His friends say, god punishes the bad and rewards the good because he is a just god (god may also be merciful, but this is not being considered here because it is dealing only with justice). If Job is suffering it must be because he is not really good and he should admit to being a sinner and stop pretending).

The book of Job has no solution for as long as god’s justice is restricted to the life here on Earth. The invention of an afterlife solves the problem--- paradise, purgatory, hell, limbo or whatever.—but, does it?

Davka · 07-06-2013, 05:06 PM

Almost every single modern translation renders the phrase as "not innocent." Even the New King James agrees with "not innocent," as do the NASB, NIV, Young's, New Revised Standard, Darby, and World English Bibles.

KJV got it wrong, end of story.

Iskander · 07-06-2013, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davka

Almost every single modern translation renders the phrase as "not innocent." Even the New King James agrees with "not innocent," as do the NASB, NIV, Young's, New Revised Standard, Darby, and World English Bibles.

KJV got it wrong, end of story.

It makes the book of Job one impossible to understand. If god is so good that he treats the guilty as generously as he treats the innocent, then he is a merciful god. Why to consider the justice of god?

A merciful god requires an explanation and the explanation is “ they will escape because of the cleanness of your hands”

http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Job+22

He will deliver even those who are guilty;
they will escape because of the cleanness of your hands.’*

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

07-06-2013, 02:17 PM	#676
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	It might not be viable but it is a widely held option!

07-06-2013, 05:06 PM	#679
Davka Contributor Join Date: May 2010 Location: Babble Belt Posts: 20,748	Almost every single modern translation renders the phrase as "not innocent." Even the New King James agrees with "not innocent," as do the NASB, NIV, Young's, New Revised Standard, Darby, and World English Bibles. KJV got it wrong, end of story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.