Tenorikuma

Which is exactly what Mark says. None of the disciples/apostles figured out the Gospel before Jesus' death, but Jesus would appear to them again in visions.

And no one understood it. That is the whole point. Mark is building a bridge between Christ's messianic mission and the post-resurrection Gospel revelations.

Just like in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10, 15.24, and 15.50, and in Galatians 5.20, and in 1 Thess. 2.12.

aa5874

The author of the short gMark in the Sinaiticus Codex did not write such a thing.

Again, the short gMark ENDS at Mark 16.8.

In the short gMark, there are NO post resurrection visits by Jesus to the disciples and NO commission to preach the Gospel.

Please read the Sinaiticus gMark.

The Pauline writers are claiming to understand it AFTER gMark was composed. The author of gMark does not understand the significance of the resurrection because the Pauline Corpus was NOT composed yet.

Or he did NOT attend any Pauline Churches and never heard Paul explain his revelations.

1. 1 Cor.6.9-10 does not say that the Kingdom of God is at hand.

2. 1 Cor.15.24 does not say that the kingdom of God is at hand.

3. 1 Cor 15.50 does not say the Kingdom of God is at hand.

4. Galatians 5.20 does not say the Kingdom of God is at hand.

5. 1 Thess. 2.12 does not say the Kingdom of God is at hand.

You are 100% wrong.

Davka

gMark, Luke, and Matt. are in agreement on this point: The Gospel according to Jesus is that the Kingdom of God/Heaven is "at hand," "among you," and similar ideas. I once read through all three synoptic Gospels looking specifically for Jesus' use of the word "gospel," and came to the conclusion that the original message was closer to an Eastern "enlightenment" teaching than to any traditional Christian message.

steve_bnk

I agree with the last sentence.

aa5874

gMark, gMatthew and gLuke are perfect examples of what we would expect when the authors copied one from the other.

1. The chronology of events in gMark, gMatthew and gLuke are fundamentally the same.

2. There are identical word for word passages in gMark, gMatthew and gLuke.

3. The authors of gMark, gMatthew, and gLuke used many of the same passages from the Septuagint or a similar source.

Essentially gMark, gMatthew and gLuke are evidence AGAINST the argument that gMark's author used the Pauline Corpus.

Although the Pauline Corpus consists of 13 books and about 87 chapters the authors of gMatthew and gLuke copied gMark sometimes word for word and where they differ they still did NOT use the Pauline Corpus.

1.Years later when the author of gMatthew was ready to write his Gospel he supposedly IGNORED 13 books and 87 chapters of the Pauline Corpus and relied on gMark with only 1 book with 16 chapters.

2. Years later when the author of gLuke was ready to write his Gospel he supposedly IGNORED 13 books and 87 chapters of the Pauline Corpus and relied on gMark with only 1 book and 16 chapters.

It is extremely clear that the authors of gMark, gMatthew and gLuke were completely unaware of the Pauline Corpus because it contains post resurrection visits of the resurrected Jesus and teachings that would have greatly ENHANCED the Synoptics post resurrection stories and teachings of their Jesus.

For example, it would have been completely absurd for the author of gMark to write that NO-ONE was told Jesus resurrected when the Pauline writer was already "ALL OVER" the Roman Empire telling people that OVER 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus supposedly since 37-64 CE.

Another example is the claim by the author of gMatthew that it was believed the disciples STOLE the body of Jesus. Once the Pauline writer had already broadcast in the Roman Empire that OVER 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus then the Stolen body story makes no logical sense.

The Synoptics as we find them today have utterly destroyed any claim that the author of gMark used the Pauline Corpus.

We know what gMark, gMatthew, and gLuke would have looked like if they were copied from the Pauline Corpus.

1. gMatthew looks like gMark--Not the Pauline Corpus

2. gLuke looks like gMark and gMatthew--Not like the Pauline Corpus.

No books in the ENTIRE Canon looks like the Pauline Corpus.

No books in the Entire Canon used the Pauline Corpus to ENHANCE their stories of Jesus.

It was the events and accounts of Jesus in gMark that was COPIED and ATTESTED in the Canon.

The version of Jesus story in gMark was BELIEVED in antiquity.

The BELIEF in the gMark story most likely started the Jesus cult.

outhouse

the kingdom of god is interpreted differently without a consensus, it only reflects the values of the Hellenist authors.


As far as I'm concerned the original may have been Jesus knowing full well fighting Romans was Jewish suicide and war at hand due to the tensions of Jewish people under Roman oppression.

Romans had a history of violent and immediate dispatch of those who raise a hand against them.

Jews had a history of death before submission.



The kingdom of god was at hand every day for these poor slobs

andrewcriddle

The reason I said it was plausible is that if, as the NT claims, there was a substantial group of ethnically Jewish Christians at Jerusalem in the mid 1st century; then it is likely that the group would have continued in some form or other until the expulsion of all Jews from the site of Jerusalem after bar kochba.

Andrew Criddle

Grog

You continue to commit the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance. You made the positive statement that all religious begin with an individual preaching a distinct message. I have offered several counter examples...even asked you to name the individual founders of these religions. You have not done that. You are assuming the veracity of your argument based on my lack of desire to engage a question beyond the nature of a bb discussion. You can research those questions yourself and you can demonstrate my error and thus reaffirm your proposition by naming the individual preachers responsible for founding the religions I have mentioned.

Let me show you the inanity of your line of argument with an analogy. Evolutionary biologists claim that the human species evolved from a common ancestor with pan troglodyte several million years ago. They do not know thd exact path of this divergence or howmit occurred, but that does not give us reason to claim, then, that the first human was Adam and he did not evolve from ape ancestors but was made from clay by a God known as Yahweh. See? Does that help you some?

DCHindley

Sorry I have not been able to contribute lately (health problems) but I believe Robert may be thinking of Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, who in his "Medicine Chest" (Panarion) against heresies goes round and round about Nazoreans, Ebionites, Sampseans, Simonians (since they were supposed to stem from a disciple of JtB), etc, but he was not representative of the better scholars of his time. However, he was immensely popular among the common folks who hung out at monasteries to hear the preaching from the big tent.

Unfortunately I cannot find my copy of Amidon's translation of the key passages about these sects (not including about 90% of Epi's mocking invective against them). They are also not available online (except for a pirate copy of a recent translation the first 50 or so heresies available from Scribd).

Sorry to go, but it hurts my arthritic hips to sit to write.

DCH

aa5874

We would expect that if Eusebius invented Bishops of Jerusalem that he would do so in a plausible way.

Plausibilty is really irrelevant when not one of the bishops of Jerusalem as stated by Eusebius is corroborated in any non-apologetic source and were not even mentioned by any Christian writers before.