The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:38 am

hakeem wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:31 am
It must be noted that all claims that there are authentic Pauline Epistles are products of propaganda. No evidence has ever been presented by anyone at anytime to show that an actual person called Paul, a supposed Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin, ever lived in the time of Aretas.

Contemporary Non apologetic sources do not mention any character called Paul and his Epistles and the earliest manuscripts with so-called Pauline letters [P 46] were written sometime in the 2nd-3rd century.

In addition, the claim that a character called Saul/Paul became a believer after he was blinded by a bright light and spoke to the resurrected non-historical Jesus is an invention.

Paul the convert was manufactured

Now, we have the short gMark--the earliest version of the Jesus story.

The author of the short gMark did not know of post-resurrection visits and the commission by the resurrected Jesus to preach the Gospel.

In the so-called Pauline Epistles it is claimed over 500 persons were seen at once by the resurrected Jesus---not even the author of Acts, a supposed close companion of Paul record such a story.

Justin Martyr a supposed 2nd Christian century writer wrote nothing of Paul and the post-resurrection visit of 500 persons by Jesus.

Justin Martyr appears to know a post-resurrection story similar to gMatthew where it is claimed that the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

Diaologue With Trypho CVII
...... his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.

Celsus a 2nd century skeptic wrote nothing of Paul and the post-resurrection visit of over 500 persons by Jesus.

Celsus claimed that only one woman and his boon companions were secretly seen by Jesus after the resurrection.

Origen Against Celsus 2.70
but when he might have produced a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon companions..


Against Celsus 1.63
And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

Paul and the so-called Pauline Epistles were manufactured after the short gMark, after the writings attributed to Justin and Celsus.
Which Aretas?

Also, did you used to post as aa5874? Your style is very similar.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4022
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Ben C. Smith » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:18 am

Jax wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:38 am
Also, did you used to post as aa5874? Your style is very similar.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Except that I would not have remembered all the numbers (5874).
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:22 am

As a thought experiment, what seems more likely:

The Gospel of Mark was written out of the blue in the second century, adapted by Marcion, and then augmented with letters that he wrote himself and pretended were written by someone named Paulos. Letters that were then adopted and then reworked by his opponents for their own theology.

Or.

That the letters were actually written by said Paulos, far enough in the past (mid to late first century BCE) that they were all but unknown, or forgotten, until Marcion found and collected them, made a best of compilation, added some new material (the "prison" letters) and presented them with the Gospel of mark that either he or someone else had written.

It seems to me that the issue resolves around the fact that there is no sign of a Paul or his letters in the 1st century. Not until after Marcion brought them to Rome in the mid 2nd century are they finally mentioned by the church father Irenaeus almost 40 years later.

Some questions are:

Why did the proto-orthodox adopt the letters unless they thought that they were genuine and scripture?

Why did they give Marcion the boot but keep 'Mark'?

Was the Marcion Gospel an expanded 'Mark'? Or a redacted 'Luke'?

Why was Acts necessary?

Is Marcion a Greek form of the Latin Mark?

:popcorn:

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:25 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:18 am
Jax wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:38 am
Also, did you used to post as aa5874? Your style is very similar.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Except that I would not have remembered all the numbers (5874).
Quite a few examples in this thread. http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=323219

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:08 am

One final question. Why create letters of Paul that seem to talk about a Jesus that is revealed through revelation and clues in the OT and scripture only to also create a story (Acts) that then negates all of this?

lsayre
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by lsayre » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:28 am

There has been mention of two versions of Marcion's gospel. One early version that was apparently stolen and circulated while (purportedly at least) incomplete, and another officially released version that followed sometime (perhaps years) later.

Is it possible that gMark was the incomplete version? I'm not convinced that there ever was an officially released version that resembled a stripped down Luke.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:59 am

lsayre wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:28 am
There has been mention of two versions of Marcion's gospel. One early version that was apparently stolen and circulated while (purportedly at least) incomplete, and another officially released version that followed sometime (perhaps years) later.

Is it possible that gMark was the incomplete version? I'm not convinced that there ever was an officially released version that resembled a stripped down Luke.
I note this.
At the very beginning he excised everything Luke had originally composed—his 'inasmuch as many have taken in hand,' and so forth, and the material about Elizabeth and the angel's announcement to Mary the Virgin; about John and Zacharias and the birth at Bethlehem; the genealogy and the story of the baptism. All this he cut out and turned his back on, and made this the beginning of the Gospel, 'In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar,' and so on. He starts from there then and yet, again, does not go on in order. He falsifies some things, as I said, he adds others helter-skelter, not going straight on but disingenuously wandering all over the material. Thus 'Go show thyself unto the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded—that this may be a testimony unto you,' instead of the Saviour's 'for a testimony unto them.' [Panarion 42.11.6]
Which is Luke 3:1

hakeem
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by hakeem » Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:53 pm

The short gMark is the foundation of the Jesus story in the NT. The authors of gMatthew, gLuke, gJohn and the Pauline Epistles mutilated the so-called Markan story in order to manufacture their embellished non-historical events of Jesus.

gMatthew is a later version of the Jesus story and in Matthew 16 there is an invention not found in the short gMark.

Matthew 16:18

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Here it is claimed Jesus chose Peter to be leader of the Church.

Look at Galatians 2

Galatians 2:7-8

But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter. For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
The author of Galatians invented a story that he was commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles by the resurrected Jesus based on the post Markan fabrication that Peter was commissioned to be the leader of the Church.

hakeem
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by hakeem » Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:23 pm

Once the short gMark is studied along with other writings it is seen that the Markan Jesus story even predated the start of Christian cult.

The Christian cult started with the claim that the disciples of Jesus preached the Gospel with the Virgin Birth.

No such claim event is in the short gMark.

In the short gMark, it is claimed the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested, Peter denied that he knew Jesus and the women followers who visited the burial site told no-one that Jesus was risen.

The death and resurrection of Jesus in the short gMark did not provide salvation but fear --the Jews and even his followers abandoned the Son of God.

Look at Aristides Apology .
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them..
The beginning of the Christian cult is traced to belief in the later stories of the Virgin Birth of Jesus like those in gMatthew and gLuke.

The short gMark was not fabricated to start a religion but as propaganda to explain why the supposed God of the Jews destroyed Jerusalem and Temple c 70 CE.

Look again at Aristides Apology
But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.
Those who believe the version of stories found in the later Gospels and Pauline writings were called Christians.

Romans 15:19
Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.
1 Corinthians 9:16

For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
No-one was preaching the Gospel after the Markan Jesus was buried and risen.

Look at the last words of the short gMark.
they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
The short gMark predates all stories of Jesus in the NT including all the so-called Pauline Epistles.

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The short gMark earlier than the Pauline Epistles.

Post by Jax » Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:46 am

hakeem wrote:
Sat Oct 14, 2017 7:23 pm
The short gMark predates all stories of Jesus in the NT including all the so-called Pauline Epistles.
Quite a few scholars have argued for Mark using Paul as a source for his Gospel. Here is one example https://www.amazon.com/Mark-Canonizer-P ... 1601910207

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bernard Muller, Blood, Google [Bot], JoeWallack, Kapyong, MrMacSon and 48 guests