Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1). (priests, religious leader)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Catholic church has made others aware by putting Mark 16:9-20 in [brackets] and adding several footnotes and commentaries in ALL of their published Bibles regarding this passage. So, I would not be so confident to say that "Very few Christians are aware..."
It does seem apparent that perhaps YOU aren't aware of how many older manuscripts actually include these verses.
Once again, look at the link above. It's only about a 5 minute read.
Most apologists worth their salt won't conclude that Mark 16:9-20 was lost. They will say that it's a possibility that it was lost when some copies were made. In fact, in the footnotes in my Catholic Bible on Mark 16: 1-8 it says (in part), "This abrupt termination causes some to believe that the original ending of the gospel may have been lost." (emphasis added by me)
Maybe Mark ran out of papyrus before he could finish...maybe he handed it off to someone else who told him, "I'll finish it for ya!"...
In my Bible's introduction to Mark it states, "...Jesus goes before the disciples into Galilee;"there you will see him." These words may imply resurrection appearances there, OR Jesus' parousia there, OR the start of Christian mission, OR a return to the roots depicted in 1:9, 14-15 in Galilee. Other hands have attached additional endings after 16:8..." (emphasis added)
Ever hear of the Freer Logion, thrill?
I'll get into other possibilities in a moment...
OR, it could be NONE of what you (laughably) describe.
Again, from the footnotes on Mark 16:9-20: "Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark." (emphasis added by me)
Weren't the apostles believers? Didn't they have a few run-ins with some of the things you mentioned?
According to some people...
For the sake of fairness I did read through your link, Mink. I got lost, frankly. All of it read like this:
Quote:
“Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it.” As I have explained elsewhere, this refers to 14 manuscripts (out of over 1,700) which have special annotations about Mark 16:9-20. The annotations tend to express support for the passage. In one form (shared by ten manuscripts), the annotation states that although some copies lack the verses, most copies include them, and in another form (shared by three manuscripts), the annotation states that although some copies lack the passage, the ancient copies include it all. That is the opposite of the impression given by the ESV Study Bible’s note.
Really? You want me to read about 10-12 pages of that???????????
Quote:
Although one might imagine, based on Dr. Bayer’s vague description of Jerome’s testimony, that Jerome reported the results of his own investigation into how his manuscripts of Mark ended, what we really have in Jerome’s Ad Hedibiam (Epistle 120) is a condensed translation of Eusebius' Ad Marinum. The third, fourth, and fifth questions in Jerome’s letter to Hedibia are the same as the first, second, and third questions in Eusebius’ letter to Marinus, and Jerome’s answers are based mainly on the answered that Eusebius had supplied. This is not an independent statement by Jerome; he would not have made this statement if he had not been translating Eusebius’ earlier composition. Jerome included verses 9-20 in the Vulgate (in 383), and referred to 16:14 in Against the Pelagians when explaining where he had seen the interpolation now known as the Freer Logion.
YAAAAAAAA!!! Get me out of this house of horrors! At least provide me with a flowchart the size of Connecticut to point me to what he's trying to say.
Maybe it's my tired old brain. Mink but I cannot digest that level of 1st class apologetic. I did notice this:
Quote:
The two Greek manuscripts that lack Mark 16:9-20 (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) were both almost certainly produced at Caesarea in the 300s. As I explained in the survey of Dr. Metzger’s comments, Codex Vaticanus has a distinct blank space after Mark 16:8, as if the copyist did not have access to an exemplar with the passage but nevertheless recollected it and attempted to reserve space for it. And in Codex Sinaiticus, the text from Mark 14:54-Luke 1:56 is written on replacement-pages; the copyist who made those four pages drastically shifted his rate of letters per columns in order to avoid having a blank column between the end of Mark and the beginning of Luke. This indicates that the copyists of the only two Greek manuscripts in which Mark ends at 16:8 knew of at least one manuscript, older than the ones they were making, in which the passage was included.
Seriously, Metzger relies on all sorts of "possibilities" as do you, Mink. You know--ANYTHING is possible. Mark could have run out of paper, only to find out when he ran down to the local "Pappy's House of Papyrus" that Pappy had just sold his last sheet of parchment. And that's why Mark couldn't finish his gospel. It IS possible. Maybe a meteor fell on Mark and killed him just as he was starting verse 9. It IS possible. Maybe he was abducted by aliens before finishing the gospel. Don't laugh. It IS possible. Maybe Jesus was really real. It IS possible.
Every planet in our solar system appears to be unique. And all for scientific reasons.
I used to be a science teacher. Your grade = F.
Of course, every plant has been uniquely created by God. Ours, of course, is quite unique, as we have yet to find evidence of life outside of Earth.
We have created and found explanations to answer why certain things occur. That does not mean we have found every answer, however, because there may be questions that we do not know exist... As we have no definitive answer to some of life's most basic questions, it is foolish to dismiss the possibility of a Creator.
Of course, every plant has been uniquely created by God. Ours, of course, is quite unique, as we have yet to find evidence of life outside of Earth.
We have created and found explanations to answer why certain things occur. That does not mean we have found every answer, however, because there may be questions that we do not know exist... As we have no definitive answer to some of life's most basic questions, it is foolish to dismiss the possibility of a Creator.
And when we don't know what the answer is, it is childish to say, "Oh, god did it".
For the sake of fairness I did read through your link, Mink. I got lost, frankly. All of it read like this:
Really? You want me to read about 10-12 pages of that???????????
YAAAAAAAA!!! Get me out of this house of horrors! At least provide me with a flowchart the size of Connecticut to point me to what he's trying to say.
Maybe it's my tired old brain. Mink but I cannot digest that level of 1st class apologetic. I did notice this:
Seriously, Metzger relies on all sorts of "possibilities" as do you, Mink. You know--ANYTHING is possible. Mark could have run out of paper, only to find out when he ran down to the local "Pappy's House of Papyrus" that Pappy had just sold his last sheet of parchment. And that's why Mark couldn't finish his gospel. It IS possible. Maybe a meteor fell on Mark and killed him just as he was starting verse 9. It IS possible. Maybe he was abducted by aliens before finishing the gospel. Don't laugh. It IS possible. Maybe Jesus was really real. It IS possible.
But not likely.
LOLOLOL!!! I swear thrill, I read the "Pappy's House of Papyrus" and let out a belly laugh that could be heard in the next county.
Then I read the "Don't laugh" comment...that caused me to laugh even harder at the irony of me laughing!
I'm not going to respond to your post tonight. Got too much to do to get ready for my daughter's visit tomorrow.
There ARE records of Him but you do not like what they say about Him and believe them to be entirely fictional which is an unsupportable position. Whatever else you want to believe about Him, this "nonexistent" figure has had the most amazing and discernible impacts on humanity and society for far longer than any other "historical" figure in the records of humanity. Your displeasure with the inaccurate perhaps deliberately deceitful and imaginative, embellishments about Him are sanguine but pointless.
It is what it is, Thrill. We humans tend to screw up virtually everything we touch anyway. That is what made the stupid inerrant and infallible nonsense that you fell for so dangerous and destructive. Your campaign against its evils is understandable but I am afraid you have simply gone over the opposite cliff.
No, there are ZERO records of a historical Jesus, and if 99% of Mark is fictional, then it is very credible that all of it is. We can ignore the other gospels, as they are all rewrites.
The impact of this mostly, if not completely fictional figure is irrelevant to the argument of his existence.
::Sigh: ALL historians of any era had agendas that influenced and biased their reporting, Thrill. You Dismiss it ALL because of some obvious (and primitive and crude) biased embellishments and pretend it is ALL fiction. Your all-or-nothing attitude is why you were so easily fooled into accepting the fundamentalist nonsense you did. That same problem afflicts your acceptance of atheism. Your assertion that Jesus did NOT exist is unsupportable and your absolute dismissal of the existence of ANY evidence on the basis of some bias and embellishment is illegitimate. Find the middle road and find peace, Thrill.
No one is pretending it is all fiction, we know most of the 40+ gospels are pure fiction, which is the overwhelming evidence people invented gospels, that is, fiction. And the earliest records of Jesus say he was not historical, that he was a divine being whose one and only sacrifice was in heaven. So which texts do you want to accept, Paul's letters and Hebrews, or the gospels, because they are mutually exclusive?
I wonder if Buddha and Mohammed must be agreed to as being myths as well. Or just Jesus gets the venom. Probably so.
I believe Buddha is sometimes considered mythical, and there are dubious arguments for Mohammed, but Jesus is not alone, there is Moses, Abraham, Romulus, Remus, usw. There is a long list of 'historical' fictional people. It is not just Jesus, an angel made of god stuff that took on human form while losing his god powers (historical as people do ) that is considered mythical.
No, there are ZERO records of a historical Jesus, and if 99% of Mark is fictional, then it is very credible that all of it is. We can ignore the other gospels, as they are all rewrites.
The impact of this mostly, if not completely fictional figure is irrelevant to the argument of his existence.
Your views are not credible and represent an illegitimate characterization of ancient writing you have no way to KNOW the purpose of other than your biased beliefs about them. What you may THINK is a reasonable and logical conclusion does NOT automatically make it a fact. You seem to be as benighted as the religious fundamentalists making you essentially an atheist fundamentalist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I swear thrill, I read the "Pappy's House of Papyrus" and let out a belly laugh that could be heard in the next county.
) that is considered mythical.
