Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The Epistles could not have been a source for gMark ...... Funny coincidence but I have just been reading an article arguing that the author of Mark's Gospel even used 2 Thessalonians! Bacon, B. W. (1909). The Apocalyptic Chapter of the Synoptic Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature, 28(1), 1–25....

The Epistles could not have been a source for gMark ...... Funny coincidence but I have just been reading an article arguing that the author of Mark's Gospel even used 2 Thessalonians! Bacon, B. W. (1909). The Apocalyptic Chapter of the Synoptic Gospels. Journal of Biblical Literature, 28(1), 1–25....

What is extant is Paul, a major source for GMark, who famously predicted that Jesus' Kingdom would come near to Paul's time. GMark was written about two generations after Paul wrote, again indicating that "Mark" only intended the literal fulfillment of 9:1 within his narrative. Even thoug...

The supposed 1 Clement was admitted to be written by the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome was initiated in the 4th century. There were Christians in Rome since the first century, according to Paul & Tacitus. Together, they formed a church, just like the one in Corinth then: "The Church o...

It is most fascinating to see the absurd reasoning of those who believe the Christian Bible is really a historical document when it can be easily seen that the supposed "generational prophecy" was an invention. In gMark, gMatthew and gLuke the supposed generational prophecy occurred 6-8 da...

to Hakeem, '1 Clement', usually accepted to have been written in the 1st century, mentions Paul and some of his letters. Early in the 2nd century, the Naassenes also mentioned Paul and quoted Romans 1:27 (a very long verse) and Basilides (120-140) also mentioned Paul and quoted at least one phrase ...

posted in error

Again, you post absurdities. You seem to have no idea that there are no such thing as genuine Paul writings. The existing Epistles were handwritten no earlier than the mid-2nd century. Come now, no need to be rude. What is your evidence for a 2nd century dating for all the NT epistles? Otherwise, t...

The character called Paul and letters were manufactured no earlier than the 2nd century in an attempt to historicise the fable called the resurrection. If, as you suppose, Paul is a fictional character, why are there so many incompatible versions of him in the NT? Wouldn't these hypothetical 2nd ce...

First of all the so-called letters of Paul have no known actual time frame in the 1st century. All we have are 2nd century or later manuscripts of letters under the name of Paul. People have assumed or speculated without a shred of historical evidence that the supposed letters of Paul were written ...