• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Resurrection is it provable?


Well-Known Member
Well then the case is closed,

1 Paul had experiences of visions of Jesus

2 atleast some of the information that he received from the visions is true

3 therefore the experience was reall, Paul really and trully saw Jesus

I wasn't expecting you to concid point 1 , but given point 1 the case for the resurrection is easy to build.

Paul claimed he had visions and revelations. We have incredibly good evidence that Mark used the Epistles when creating his narrative so he included Earthly versions of them.
This in no way means they are true.

a few examples

Paradigmatic Example: The Last Supper
Another example is “the last supper.” This began as a vision Paul had of Jesus relating to him what he spoke mystically to all future generations of Christians, as we see in 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. As Paul there says, he received this “from the Lord.” Directly. Just as he says he received all his teachings (Galatians 1:11-12; Romans 10:14-15; Romans 16:25-26). In Paul’s version, no one else is present. It is not a “last” supper (as if Jesus had had any others before), but merely “the bread and cup of the Lord.” And Jesus is not speaking to “disciples” but to the whole Christian Church unto the end of time—including Paul and his congregations.

The text in Paul reads as follows (translating the Greek as literally as I can):

For I received from the Lord what I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, during the night he was handed over, took bread, and having given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in the remembrance of me.” Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you might drink it in remembrance of me.” For as often as you might eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-26
Notably, “until he comes,” and not “until he returns.” This becomes in Mark (emphasis added):

While they were eating, having taken bread, and having blessed it, he broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “Take; this is my body.” Then, having taken a cup, and having given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, that never again shall I drink from the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.” And having sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

MARK 14:22-26
Notice what’s changed. Paul is describing Jesus miming some actions and explaining their importance. His audience is future Christians. Mark has transformed this into a narrative story by adding people being present and having Jesus interact with them: now “they were eating” (Paul does not mention anyone actually eating) and Jesus gave the bread “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and instructs them to “take” it (no such instruction in Paul); and Jesus gave the cup “to them” (does not occur in Paul) and “they all drink it” (no such event in Paul); and Jesus describes the meaning of the cup “to them” (no such audience in Paul).

Then Jesus says he will not drink “again” until the kingdom comes, a statement that fits a narrative event, implying Jesus drank, and here drank, and often drank, and will pause drinking until the end times. Likewise Jesus “blesses” the bread (which also doesn’t happen in Paul), implying the actual literal bread he has in his hand is thereby rendered special to the ones about to eat it; whereas in Paul that makes no sense, because no one is there to eat it, Jesus is just depicting and explaining a ritual others will perform in his honor, not that he is performing for them. So it is notable that all of these things are absent from Paul. There is no narrative context of this being the last of many cups Jesus has drunk and of Jesus pausing drinking or of his blessing the bread and giving it to people present. In Paul, the whole scene is an instruction to future followers, not a description of a meal Jesus once had.

This is how Mark reifies a revelation in Paul, relating Jesus’s celestial instructions for performing a sacrament and its meaning, into a narrative historical event. Mark has even taken Paul’s language, about Jesus being “handed over,” which in Paul means by God (Romans 8:32, exact same word) and even by himself (Galatians 2:20, exact same word), not by Judas, and converted it into a whole new narrative of a betrayal by “the Jews” (the meaning of Judas, i.e. Judah, i.e. Judea). Paul has no knowledge of a betrayal. Indeed in Paul, all of “the twelve” get to see Jesus right after his death and are recognized as apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5; see Proving History, pp. 151-55).

Mark in fact constructed his own Judah-as-betrayer narrative and integrated it into his equally fabricated “last supper” narrative from a pastiche of scriptures, including lost scriptures, wherefrom Mark gets whole chunks of his narrative (see Proving History, ibid.). We are only lucky enough to be sure of this because it’s exposed by 1 Clement, who clearly wrote before Mark’s narrative existed (or was known to the author of 1 Clement). Clement also has no knowledge of any betrayal by anyone, much less a Judah—and also is unaware of the destruction of Jerusalem, so this letter must predate 66 A.D., contrary to a much later tradition placing it in 95 (see OHJ, Ch. 8.5). More importantly, Clement frequently quotes scriptures, both ones we know and ones now lost, as being “the words of our Lord Jesus,” evidently under the belief that Jesus spoke through the ancient prophets, and thus their words are his words.

So when Clement says:

Remember the words of our Lord Jesus, for he said, ‘Woe to that man! It would have been good for him not to be born, rather than cause one of my chosen to stumble. Better for him to have a millstone cast about his neck and be drowned in the sea than to have corrupted one of my chosen’

1 CLEMENT 46.7-8
He doesn’t even know about Judas. For several pages Clement’s whole discourse is on examples of betrayal; not one of which is the paradigmatic Christian betrayal narrative, that of Judas—which means that that legend had not yet formed; Mark probably invented it, as an allegory for his overall message and as a useful tale for missionaries to tell, precisely to meet the need Clement struggled to find examples for.

Here, Clement appears to conflate into one saying two different things Mark has Jesus say. But we know Mark must have written after, and Clement is the one quoting a complete coherent saying. In fact this appears to be a quotation from a lost scripture, whom Clement is again assuming is the voice of Jesus speaking through an ancient prophet. So Mark just clipped a line from this scripture and used it to form part of his Judas tale.

As I wrote of Clement’s quotation in OHJ:

This is clearly represented here as a quotation of one unified saying, yet in the Gospels it is two completely unrelated ones: one part spoken during Jesus’ ministry, in the presence of a group of children, about people tempting his followers to sin (‘Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea’ [Mark 9:42]…), another part spoken about Judas at the Last Supper (‘Woe to that man, by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man not to be born’ [Mark 14:18-21]…). Clement clearly does not know of the Judas story, and the phrase ‘Woe to that man! It would have been good for him not to be born’ was evidently never originally anything Jesus said about Judas, but a generic statement about those who lead the Lord’s ‘children’ to sin, meaning Christians (Jesus’ ‘chosen ones’…). Which means Jesus almost certainly never said this—because it reflects the concept of a church community, of ‘believers’ in Jesus that did not exist until after he had died.

OHJ, PP. 311-12.
So we can see clues here to how Mark is fabricating his story of the last supper, turning a ritual vision in Paul into a story of a historical meal, and integrating an allegory of betrayal throughout that was unknown to Paul, using other sources, e.g. lost and extant scriptures, to build that in.


Well-Known Member
Paul knew Jesus had died and knew He had risen because he met Him.
What sort of evidence do you think would be better?
The writers of the gospels are know by the earth Church.

Paul met ghost Jesus. Like revelations from Muhammad and Gabrielle, we don't believe these things without evidence. No one should.

The claim of the first preachers is that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
There are records that were written within 30 years but that was no good even though the evidence points to their authorship being within that time.
Why is that no good? Because they dare to mention Jesus prophecy about the temple and so they are automatically relegated to a late writing date and by people other than the names given by the early church, the ones who knew.

There is no such thing. The only mention of the demigod Jesus is the Gospels. Fiction. Preachers?????????????????


Well-Known Member
What is wrong with the story being repeated and added to because of other information?
Why do you say they were merely repeating oral tradition and none appear to be eye witnesses. How do you figure this out.
Which part of John is from Mark? Why is it improbably that John and Mark's source (probably Peter) would not have seen the same things?

Mark is the first and the synoptics copied from him and added changes. This is the position of scholarship.
The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

John had read Mark -

"He seems to have known some version of Mark and Luke, as he shares with them some items of vocabulary and clusters of incidents arranged in the same order,["
Gospel of John - Wikipedia

SO he may have based his on Mark as well. But there was a "Johannine community" which held some different beliefs so that accounts for the differences.


Well-Known Member
OK... so we see you are attacking this under the purview of "it is false". With that understanding, let's look at your statements:

  1. This betrays your understanding of why it is not pseudepigrapha. I would suggest you look at the opposing views before adopting this position. To my point, which stares starkly against yours is: 1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed - He is a witness, states that he wrote it.
  2. Wikipedia is NOT a source. It is a viewpoint of who wrote it.
  3. Please look for a counter point in as much as Wikipedia is NOT a source. It is the viewpoint of him who wrote it.
  4. It is clear that your statement did not address my point. He was killing Christians and then preached Jesus. He stated in his writings that the whole of the message is based on the resurrection of Jesus. You will have to be more convincing that referencing an irrelevant point
  5. Again... back to the point. "Let's just eliminate all witnesses, their statements and a thorough review" and then say "What do you have to convince me?" . A very weak position. Who do you think he spoke to when he said "eye-witnesses"? And how many letters were expressed that were anti-Luke/Acts saying they were false? None -- except for people living in the 20/21st century. A flat-earth position
  6. Apples and oranges. We might as well say that the documents of Declaration of Independence is a fabric of our imagination.
  7. Because it eradicates all that was written between 0AD and 300AD which have a more "been there or was close to there" application. If I were to review you 2000 years ago, I might hold to the position you were a bot. :)
  8. Again... Just erase history so that we can establish our viewpoint.
  9. Ignoring facts and history
  10. As noted, your notation is incorrect.
  11. So... we have established that you really weren't asking but rather simply enumerating your position (which is fine) but you certainly haven't presented a case that would cut the mustard.

Apologists have erased history. The 2 cultures that all of Christianity came from also occupied the Hebrew nations for 5 centuries before Christianity. Greek Hellenism and Persian myths.
Salvation, savior deities, souls that go to heaven, hell, Satan vs God, Revelation, resurrection and so on....
Also the OT stories come from Mesopotamia and similar.

You should not be looking for a source but for scholars in the historicity field. Anything else is amateur history and revisionist history.


Well-Known Member

All I am saying is that the fact that none of the gospels mentioned the 500 strongly suggest that the authors of the gospels didn't copied from Paul. (Nor had Paul as a source)

Oh wow, we had this discussion? You learned nothing?

Scholars have long suspected Mark knew the Epistles because Mark is full of memorably Pauline themes.

Paul of course equated Jesus with both the Passover and the Yom Kippur sacrifice, both rolled into one (his death atones for all sins like the Yom Kippur, and saves us from death like the Passover lamb), even though they are months apart in the Jewish ritual calendar. And yet Mark also merges the two themes into one: having Jesus die on Passover (indeed at the very same hour as a temple sacrifice) and enact at the same time a Yom Kippur ritual (with Barabbas as the scapegoat; see OHJ, pp. 402-08).

Likewise Mark reifies Paul’s theme of a Torah-free Gospel (by use of metonymy, one feature standing in for all): Mark 7:15 says “nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them,” and in 7:19 that Jesus “declared all foods clean,” just as Paul says “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean” (Romans 14:14) and “all food is clean” (Romans 14:20). Indeed, Mark 7 has Jesus speak of the clean and unclean, and literal washing, transferring it to a message about internal cleanness replacing literal cleanness, exactly as Paul does in Romans 14. Extending the same reasoning to every other Torah command would then form a major component of Mark’s community’s mission—which was also Paul’s.

Mark 10:1-12 has Jesus also teach the same thing about divorce that Paul did. Though in this case Paul does say he has that teaching from Jesus (likely, as we just saw, from some revelation or spirit conversation). But Mark still inaccurately has Jesus mention women divorcing husbands (Mark 10:12), as Jewish law did not provide for women to initiate a divorce (see Divorce in the Bible and Divorce in Judaism); whereas Paul, working with Gentile congregations, assumes they could as a matter of course in his own teachings on divorce (in 1 Corinthians 7). Mark then has Jesus teach essentially what Paul did. Which shows Mark has gotten Jesus’s teaching through the filter of Paul. Just as Paul says, “A wife must not separate from her husband, but if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband,” Mark’s Jesus says “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her and if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” It’s the same teaching. Yet this specific form of it can only have come from Paul, not Jesus.

Another example is how Mark 14:36 puts in the mouth of Jesus Paul’s repeated duplicative “Abba, Father” (despite both words meaning the same thing, in Romans 8:15 & Galatians 4:6), and does so in a similar context: Mark has Jesus utter it in a prayer for strength to endure and not fall away from his faith in God’s salvation; and Paul references it in discussing precisely the same subject (Galatians 4:7-20 & Romans 8:16-30). In fact the parallels are so apposite, the otherwise inexplicable narrative in Mark (why is Jesus, who well knows who he is and what will really happen, at all concerned about this?) makes more sense when read in light of these passages in Paul, as if Mark knew a reading of Paul would complete one’s understanding of what he was narratively portraying: Jesus as a model for the ideal Christian believer, and as a fellow heir to the promise of resurrection.

Similarly, Mark 8:31-33 crafts Jesus’s rebuke of Peter after Paul’s rebuke of Peter (Galatians 2:11-14). The many congruences are well analyzed in Dykstra (Mark, pp. 97-99). For example, Paul says, “Am I now seeking the favor or men, or of God?”; Jesus says, “You are not thinking of the things of God but of the things of man.” Then Mark 8:34-37 adapts material from Philippians 3:7-8. For example, Paul says, “Whatever gain [kerdê] I had, I counted as a loss [zêmian]” and “I suffered the loss [zêmian] of all…that I may gain [kêrdêsô] Christ”; Jesus says, “What does it profit a man to gain [kêrdêsai] the whole world and lose [zêmiôthênai] his life?” rather than, Jesus explains, “losing” all for Christ and his gospel in exchange for eternal life. The links continue (as summarized by Dykstra), but you get the point.


Well-Known Member

All I am saying is that the fact that none of the gospels mentioned the 500 strongly suggest that the authors of the gospels didn't copied from Paul. (Nor had Paul as a source)

And on and on…



Well-Known Member
All I am saying is that the fact that none of the gospels mentioned the 500 strongly suggest that the authors of the gospels didn't copied from Paul. (Nor had Paul as a source)

These curious parallels continue. For instance, have you ever wondered where Mark got the idea of inventing a whole narrative sequence of Jesus emulating Moses in miraculously feeding the multitudes in the desert and crossing and manipulating the sea? Just read Paul, 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:

Our ancestors were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

The coincidence is improbable even unto itself; even more so in conjunction with all the other examples, above and below. As I show in OHJ, this sequence in Mark is elegantly constructed and definitely fictional (pp. 412-18). We can see now he was allegorizing the teachings of Paul. By contrast, Paul has no knowledge of any such stories about Jesus. The direction of influence is thus apparent.

Likewise, Mark 4:9-20 describes spreading the Gospel as like “sowing” seeds, exactly as Paul does (1 Corinthians 9:11); equates evangelizing as cultivating a field, exactly as Paul does (1 Corinthians 3:9); uses the “root” as a metaphor for one’s inner depth of commitment, exactly as Paul was believed to have (Colossians 2:7 & Ephesians 3:17); and uses the same words in the same metaphor of increasing one’s agricultural yield by spreading the gospel on good ground (auxanomena, “increasing,” and karpophorousin, “bearing fruit,” in Colossians 1:5-10). Which is another case where “Paul” is speaking his own mind, in his own words and his own metaphor, which Mark has converted into something taught by Jesus. The author of Colossians had no idea Jesus ever could be quoted in that passage, because Jesus never said any of that. Mark invented it—using Colossians.

Likewise Mark 12:1-11 relates the parable of the wicked tenants, in which “the beloved son” they kill (obviously Jesus) after several other messengers had been sent and abused (obviously the prophets of old), specifically because this son is the designated “heir,” and so they will inherit, which is a peculiar detail to add, unnecessary to the story. Indeed it would be weird that mere renters would think they were next in line to inherit the property. But this all tracks exactly the teachings of Paul: the Epistles often describe Jesus as God’s “heir” (e.g. Hebrews 1:2, Romans 8:17, Galatians 3); and with respect to the parable’s message, in Romans 11:1-10 Paul speaks on the same subject, quoting scripture in verse 3, “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me.” This is then immediately explicated using a similar tending-to-agriculture metaphor (Romans 11:11-24), teaching exactly the same lesson as Mark’s parable. Basically Mark’s entire parable comes out of Romans 11. Paul, meanwhile, had never heard of it, and thus never knew he could have quoted Jesus to bolster his teaching the same point. Because Mark invented it—using Romans.

Even overall Mark’s whole Gospel feels like it has been inspired by Paul’s teachings. Its narrative is inordinately concerned with Gentiles and the criticism of Jewish legalism. Jesus is portrayed as constantly trashing Jewish laws and traditions, embarrassing and pissing off their advocates, even while justifying it all as a superior actualization of Judaism—just as Paul does throughout his letters (see Dykstra, Mark, pp. 82-90). And Jesus visits Gentile lands, dines with Gentiles, interacts with Gentiles favorably quite a lot, and Mark has even carefully structured his whole book to emphasize this fact (see OHJ, pp. 414-17, with further support in Dykstra, Mark, pp. 69-82, 131-32). It’s all an important part of Mark’s message—which makes little sense as history, but perfect sense as a narrativization of Paul’s mission and theology.

In fact, Mark’s entire choice of Galilee as the land Jesus comes from and spends most of his time in—and after his resurrection tells his followers to go to to find him (Mark 16:7)—may have been inspired by this very connection: for it was known as “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Isaiah 9:1) precisely because of its peculiar Gentile connections and presence. Mark’s messaging could hardly be clearer. And indeed, the fact that it was so-known in a prophecy that the messiah would indeed come from there (Isaiah 9:1-7) would give Mark a double cause for choosing it as his primary setting.


Well-Known Member
All I am saying is that the fact that none of the gospels mentioned the 500 strongly suggest that the authors of the gospels didn't copied from Paul. (Nor had Paul as a source)

So ether agree or refute this particular point.
There are many more examples. Just consider the following list, adapted from a list collected by Michael Turton that David Oliver Smith also subsequently worked from, and which I’ve expanded with a few examples from other scholars I listed, especially Dykstra and Nelligan:

  • Mark 1:1 uses Paul’s phrase “the beginning of the Gospel” verbatim (Philippians 4:15); and “Gospel of Christ,” otherwise unique to Paul (e.g. Romans 15:19, 1 Corinthians 9:12, 2 Corinthians 2:12, Galatians 1:7, 1 Thessalonians 3:2).
  • Paul then goes on to talk about how he was sent forth to preach it; likewise Mark immediately follows with a quotation of Isaiah declaring God hath sent his messenger, only switching the reference from Paul to John the Baptist introducing Jesus, the Gospel-reified. Dykstra also makes a good case that Mark has modeled his John the Baptist after Paul (Mark, pp. 147-48).
  • Mark 1:14 uses Paul’s phrase “Gospel of God,” verbatim (Romans 15:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:2), and when introducing the rest of his narrative purpose (just as Paul does in Romans 1:1).
  • Mark then immediately juxtaposes the Gospel with manual labor (in Mark 1:16-20) just as Paul does (in 1 Thessalonians 2:9).
  • Mark 1:29-31 indirectly reveals Peter was married, just as Paul indirectly reveals Peter was married (1 Corinthians 9:5).
  • Mark 2:16 describes Jesus being wrongly chastised by Pharisees (Mark’s principal stand-in for any arch-conservative Jews) for eating and drinking with “sinners and tax collectors” (i.e. Gentiles), just as Paul describes Peter being wrongly chastised by conservative Jews for doing the same thing (Galatians 2:11-14). Mark and Paul’s message is the same.
  • Mark 3:1-5 borrows themes and vocabulary from Paul’s discussions of the very same issue: Jesus looks upon his Jewish critics “with anger [orgês] and grieved [sullupoumenos] at their hardness [pôrôsei] of heart”; in Romans 9 Paul said he was for that very same reason grieved [lupê, v. 2] and God was for that very same reason angry [orgên, v. 22] at their hardness [v. 18], which Paul later describes with the same word used by Mark [pôrôsis, 11:25].
  • Mark 4:10-13 relates Mark’s model for the whole Gospel as disguising deeper truths allegorically within seemingly literal stories (“parables”); and in doing so declares that the uninitiated will not be allowed to see or hear the real meaning, just as Paul says (in e.g. Romans 11:7-10, 1 Corinthians 2:9-10, etc.).
  • Mark 6:7 imagines Jesus sending missionaries in pairs; Paul often says he was paired with someone on his missions (1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:6; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Philippians 2:22; Philemon 1:1).
  • Mark 6:8-10 has Jesus assume missionaries will be fed and housed by others, reifying into visceral and poetic terms Paul’s mention of the fact that “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14).
  • Mark 7:20-23 lists as the sins that make one unclean “sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.” Accordingly, Paul says, “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) and likewise those who pursue “envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice” and are “gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful” (Romans 1:29-31); and elsewhere says those will be excluded from the kingdom who pursue “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like” (Galatians 5:19-21). The other lists are nearly identical, Mark only ending with the catch-all “arrogance and folly” to encompass the otherwise-unmentioned idolatry, God-hating, insolence, drunkenness, strife, boasting and gossiping and so forth (while lewdness is a catch-all that would include “men who have sex with men” and “orgies” etc.).
  • Mark 7:26-29 reifies into a whole story the sentiment of Paul that God’s rewards must go to the Jew first, the Gentile second (Romans 1:16).
  • Mark 8:12 has Jesus lament to the Jews, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it,” reifying Paul’s declaration of the very same thing, that only in their folly “Jews demand signs,” which renders the Gospel “a stumbling block” to them (1 Corinthians 1:22-23).
  • Mark 8:15 has Jesus warn against “the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod,” thus reifying into allegorical story-form Paul’s more general warning against “the leaven of malice and wickedness” (1 Corinthians 5:8).
  • Mark 8:17-18 has Jesus declare, “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” echoing Paul’s citation of scripture on the same point, that only insiders will correctly see and hear, and thus “get the point” (1 Corinthians 2:9-10); a concept I just noted Mark had reified earlier in Jesus’s explanation of secret teachings (Mark 4:10-13), which really is a key to Mark’s entire Gospel, including the scene in Mark 8, which isn’t really about Jesus having historically created food, but is an allegory for the Gospel itself.
  • In that same passage, Mark has Jesus seemingly quote Isaiah 6:9, just as Paul does in making the same point in Romans 11:8. But in Isaiah the order is hearing, then seeing; Paul switched the order to seeing, then hearing. Thus the fact that Mark also did that further evinces his reliance on Paul.
  • Mark 9:34-35 has Jesus say, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and the slave of all” (and Mark 10:43-44 likewise); Paul said he was the “last” of those chosen and “the least” of the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:8-9) and had made himself “a slave to all” (1 Corinthians 9:19).
  • Mark 9:43-47 has Jesus advocate cutting off your hand or foot or eye that provokes you to sin, lest you be cast into hell; but this may be an allegory for banishing members of the community who provoke brethren to sin—because Paul likened the brethren to limbs of a body (1 Corinthians 12:12-31), and recommends banishing sinners from the community, literally “handing them over to Satan for destruction of the flesh” (1 Corinthians 5:4-7), just as Mark has Jesus speak of sinners being cast into hell to destruction.
  • Mark 9:50 has Jesus declare “be at peace with each other,” which teaching comes from Paul, not Jesus: Paul says “be at peace with each other” (1 Thessalonians 5:13), again without any knowledge of Jesus having said this.
  • Mark 10 has Jesus give the same reason God burdened the Jews with Torah law that Paul does (e.g. in Romans 7 and Galatians 3).


Well-Known Member
Please... no opinions.

Please... no opinions. I could just as well say "Only those who don't have faith in Christ and the writings believe it was written after the death of Peter"

What I want is PROOF!

Please... this isn't evidence. This is full of suppositions trying to use it as evidence. You didn't address the question. Jesus was literate. Are you saying that 33 years later Peter didn't grow as he went across the known world preaching Jesus?


According to Dr Carrier Peter 1 and 2 are not the same author, far too divergent stylistically. Many analysis have been done, this is consensus however Peter 1 could be authentic, date unknown.
Analysis of Peter 2 , The Apologetic Use of Transfiguration in 2 Peter, Jerome Neyrey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly


Well-Known Member
The mayority (if not all) of the verifiable historical information in the gospels is true .

This shows that the authors where well informed and had access to good sources.

Whether if they where anonymous or not is irrelevant/ as long as they where well informed and had the intention of honesty report what they think happened, the source is reliable

The gospel authors were highly trained writers using triadic structures, complex chiasmus, parables, allegory, metaphor and Jesus scores as high as King Arthur on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale. Meaning the authors were really good at fiction. Also they were educated and understood historical information and the locations.
That's all that is happening there.

Mark is not reporting "what happened" he's writing fiction. Here he copies the OT

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Another way Mark develops this theme is through an elegant ring composition, another common literary device popular at the time (used in myth as well as in history). In the central part of Mark’s narrative (revolving around Jesus’ travel by sea), Mark carefully crafted nested cycles of themes specifically to convey an underlying message about faith and one’s ability (or lack thereof) to understand the gospel. Here is what the ring structure looks like:

Cycle 1:

Phase 1 (4.1-34) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (preaching from a boat)

Phase 2 (4.35-41) — Eventful crossing of the sea

Phase 3 (5.1-20) — Landing with healings/exorcisms

Interval 1: Step 1 (5.21-43) — First stop (after an uneventful boating)

Step 2 (6.1-6) — Second stop

Step 3 (6.6-29) — Going around

Cycle 2:

Phase 1 (6.30-44) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)

Phase 2 (6.45-52) — Eventful crossing of the sea

Phase 3 (6.53-55) — Landing with healings/exorcisms

Interval 2: Step 1 (6.56-7.23) — Going around

Step 2 (7.24-30) — First stop

Step 3 (7.31-37) — Second stop

Cycle 3:

Phase 1 (8.1-12) — Jesus with crowds by the sea (with an uneventful boating)

Phase 2 (8.13-21) — Eventful crossing of the sea

Phase 3 (8.22-26) — Landing with healings/exorcisms

It’s really quite brilliantly crafted when you look at it: three triadically composed intervals, each of which contains one triadically composite minimal unit. Furthermore, every “Phase 1” in all cycles, takes place during the day and describes Jesus’ actions with crowds on one side of the sea. Every “Phase 2” occurs on the evening of that same day (though not stated explicitly in Cycle 3’s “Phase 2”, it is implied by what would have been a long sea crossing), and also describes actions between Jesus and the twelve disciples in the boat while in transit across the sea. Each “Phase 3” represents Jesus’ healing (and/or exorcising) of people who either come to him or that are brought to him following his arrival on the other side of the sea. Then there are other healings or exorcisms that are interspersed among the intervals that follow each “Phase 3”. Each cycle of this triad occupies one day, so the whole ring structure represents three days, ending with a resolution on the third day — all of which concludes by transitioning into a debate regarding who Jesus really is and what the gospel really is (Mark 8.27-9.1, which is the first time we hear Jesus speak about any of this himself).

This is fiction.

rational experiences

Veteran Member
The natural human man. First.

No theism. No theories. Human. Life equal mutual with woman human partner. Equal life natural.

No science no machines no technology no civilisation.

Natural life.

Baby man mind gets star heavens earth gas burnt. Changes his thinking and personality.

No longer kind meek loving caring.

His brothers the same. Bully evil man emerged.

Slaves the life of family by threat of murder torture. He and his brothers as sexual partners.

Real. Satanists. Who claim I get satanic powers by anal sex.

The ancient first science designer agreement. In love with himself via his brothers.

Who then became child molesters. As man's mind has been damaged so many times thoughts changed about sex. Living proof is exact.

Machine Alchemy. Lots of melting of kinds of different alchemic bodies. Water cooled he artificially applies himself by control not in nature.

Exactly told.

Nature as God owned all dusts in the holy waters body. Our heavens bio life.

So when he reacts a virtual path of a machines destruction inside his machine constantly. Sin holes open. Machines ground mass origin.

Earth owning natural water to its dust heats.

Images then arise out of the ground dusts of man living and dead with alien demons. As he designed both machine and reaction. So his image denoted his life's destruction.

Whose evil image emerged after huge alchemic water in heavens destruction. AI effect. Exactly told why it happened as machines came out of earth mass.

Witnessed by machine designer machine technology owner builder. Human man.

Human men. Who caused it exactly as it was seen exactly caused as his life body sacrificed.

Natural God scientists geology said earth a planet mass owned dusts as ice melt to water flooded from asteroid heated mass...had sealed earth from layer ing removal.

As cooling produced layering naturally.

Dusts were God O body owned only. Sacrificed gods inheritor was the dust mass. Exact. CH values. Dust of CH was inherited out of grounds mass.

It had arisen.


Taught his holy advice.

Rich men criminal history totally ignored him.

God earth legal owner fused dust holy position only.

No man is God. Is historic correct.

Men changed gods sacrificed Inheritor dusts. That caused and attacked his own life.

He saw the dead human first as natural light removes form from existing. Water oxygen generation keeps it existing


Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No, it isn't at all like that Ken, for the reasons you still haven't addressed.

Don't need to address positions that have no substance. :) (unless I find one that does). Might be different if I felt compelled to convince you.

Again, pseudepigrapha all have the author's statement.

No... there is a fallacy here. That's like saying "Since there are $100 counterfeits, all $100 bill are counterfeit. You will have to give better support than "some scholars believe".

And I'm not obligated to. You really don't seem to grasp this. If I tell you I can breathe underwater, it's not your obligation to prove I can't. It's my job to show that I in fact can do this incredible thing I claim.

No, I don't think so. This isn't even applicable. I you say "there are no eye-witnesses", it would be your obligation to prove there weren't any.

LOL WHICH people, Ken?? Which people did he interview? Tell me! Give me names!

You can't. Because you don't know. No one does.

Yes, he doesn't specify... but I can pretty much figure it out.

How in the world could you possibly know that? You have no clue how the story would've been different if someone else wrote it. In fact you have every reason to believe it definitely would have been different, since every Gospel we have access to is in fact different.

Nice side-step. :) My point was simply the book of Luke

Do you believe pseudepigrapha existed in the early Church?

If the answer is no, then you simply need to educate yourself, Ken. I don't know what else to say on that point.

If the answer is yes, then the concept shouldn't be difficult for you to grasp that at least some of the writings, even many of the writings, floating around the early church purporting to have been written by this apostle or that were forgeries.

Yes... but your statement is that because there are some it should be translated as all. A fallacy.

Well first off, Papias had no direct knowledge of who wrote Mark and wrote somewhere in the mid-second century. He never claimed to even have known any of the original apostles at all.

How do you know? History doesn't say that.

Secondly, Papias claims Mark was Peter's secretary and that was Mark's source of information for that Gospel. But Peter was a Torah-observant Jew and the whole point of the Gospel of Mark is to oppose Torah observance with a much more Pauline version of the faith (unlike a Gospel like Matthew, for example). Papias also claims Mark was written originally in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, but all available evidence contradicts that claim. Matthew and Luke both repeatedly copy Mark's Greek verbatim (which by the way, independent eyewitnesses don't do).

Too many errors here.

1) Peter was a "believer" to the point that he now fellowshipped with Gentiles -- ceased being an "Torah-observant Jew".

2) "Available evidence" after 2000 years doesn't mean "no evidence". Papias statement is evidence that there was a Greek version.

3) If Mark was an "eye-witness" - why wouldn't I copy what he said? And if Matthew wanted to at 50% more information to someone else's eye-witness report agreeing that what Mark said was 100% correct... why couldn't he?

"[Judas'] body bloated to such an extent that, even where a wagon passes with ease, he was not able to pass. No, not even his bloated head by itself could do so. His eyelids, for example, swelled to such dimensions, they say, that neither could he himself see the light at all, nor could his eyes be detected even by a physician's instrument, so deep had they sunk below the surface. His genitals, too, grew bigger and more disgusting than all that is horrid, and, to his shame, out of them oozed pus and worms from all throughout his body whenever he relieved himself. After suffering an agony of pain and punishment, he finally went, as they say, to his own place. And owing to the stench the ground has neem deserted and uninhabited until now. Inm fact, even to the present day no one can pass that place without holding one's nose, so abundant waws the discharge from his body and so far over the ground did it spread."

The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas: The Epistles and The Martyrdom of St ... - Google Books

In other words, Papias strikes me as a guy who believes any ridiculous fish story that sounds good to him.

So yeah, we have lots of reasons to doubt Papias.

You are quoting from the Epistle of Barnabas? You are getting me confused. First you say you can't quote from a pseudepigrapha epistle and then you want to quote this Epistle?

Using your standard, why should I accept it?

And literally none of them had first-hand knowledge or evidence of Matthew's authorship. They all lived generations, even centuries, after the fact. They simply repeated what the oral tradition among Christians was.

And that is your defense that it wasn't written by Matthew? You need to give me something more substantive.

So, what I am saying, with all the hoopla you have shared, you really haven't convinced me that all those people are wrong but today's scholars (who are millenniums away) somehow have a better knowledge?

I know that you aren't suggesting that. :rolleyes:


Veteran Member
No, I don't think so. This isn't even applicable. I you say "there are no eye-witnesses", it would be your obligation to prove there weren't any.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. the gospels are anonymous for a start, thus their historicity is less reliable, and the claims in them, including the claims for eyewitnesses, have no corroborating independent evidence...

Quod erat demonstrandum...


Well-Known Member
But those verses are not a case of John naming himself. It is at best only John hinting heavily that he did write it.

At one time Church tradition had unanimously regarded John son of Zebedee as both the beloved disciple and the author of the Gospel. According to Eusebius brings up a bishop who died about 220 mentioning he had not known the apostle himself but people who had been close to them. He mentions two names, Aristion and 'Presbyter John.' All this hints at the possibility of a Johannine school tracing its origins to Jesus 'beloved' disciple, but a certain Presbyter John presided as the final authority.


Veteran Member
Interesting but we are talking about Paul vs the gospels

Given that we don't have word by word copies between paul and the gospels the sources are independent (using your rules)

A secondary source is not the same as an independent source, Paul clearly had a vested interest in promoting the early Christian myths he was writing about. Just as when you cite biblical scholars, but fail to acknowledge that they are offering subjective opinions based on personal religious beliefs, and not scholarly historical work that has withstood peer review by credible historians.

The gospels are anonymous, and they're not contemporary having been written decades after the fact, the names are fictional additions from centuries later, it is absurd therefore to imagine anyone can reliably assert what the motives were of these unknown authors. Beyond the obvious fact they anted to promote religious beliefs and myths.



Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. the gospels are anonymous for a start, thus their historicity is less reliable, and the claims in them, including the claims for eyewitnesses, have no corroborating independent evidence...

Quod erat demonstrandum...
you can hold to that position... I trust those who were closer to the writings thereof vs your viewpoint. :)


Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
According to Dr Carrier Peter 1 and 2 are not the same author, far too divergent stylistically. Many analysis have been done, this is consensus however Peter 1 could be authentic, date unknown.
Analysis of Peter 2 , The Apologetic Use of Transfiguration in 2 Peter, Jerome Neyrey, Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Yes... you can subscribe to Dr. Carrier's position - I don't. And bandwagon fallacy is not acceptable in the dating of Peter.

I don't.


Veteran Member
you can hold to that position... I trust those who were closer to the writings thereof vs your viewpoint. :)

Well no you don't clearly, since no credible historian would try to claim the original gospel texts were not anonymous, or deny that the names Mathew Mark Luke and John, were arbitrarily assigned centuries later. You are falsely misrepresenting this as if it is just my opinion. Now while you are free to deny any fact in favour of subjective religious belief, it's disingenuous to pretend that I am the one favouring a subjective opinion here.


"That the Gospels were not originally composed bearing their traditional titles is now a well-established matter in New Testament scholarship. This mainstream view is conceded even among various conservative scholars such as Craig L. Blomberg, who stated: “It’s important to acknowledge that strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous.”
Last edited:

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If a human asks did a human get resurrected out of a tomb.

No. I don't believe it's real. A human is deceased when they actually are that term.

If you are a theist. Science terms are about the science of God as a human. A theist. As you aren't anything else.

You choose the topic subject. In science it was about the earth's mass.

Witnessed science of man's caused earth changes.

As human science is about the earth's mass. And only humans discuss the earth's mass as theists.

If the topic is a dead human is put into a tomb they were. As humans were buried in that method.

If it's about gods body the earth it's a thesis. Owns different reasoning. Gods.

First a theist said gods earth mass is deceased. It's not alight. The spirit of which is entombed inside stone.

Said owning a teaching. As use of gas alight was heavenly known. It owns science reasons in technology. So a human theist defined the two separated bodies.

Heavens status versus gods earth mass status.

As humans theoried gas spirits from a wisdom of earths heavens mass. Direct advice.

As theism owns determined analogies.

For gods body entombed spirit to come alive it is caused to by effect or made alight. Converting causes.

If a gas spirit is alight it's illuminated burning. Meaning it's wrapping....body of stone mass was removed. To now burn.

Now if human men owned by design as human thinking how to convert earths mass himself. Rationally the cause effect would be an anti term. Of human causes. As the machine owned a cooled metal body already it's image.

Humans are biology.

Not of human terms was the arising spirit. Of gods power body terms. Out of mass.

Meaning not really a human. But an image seen and witnessed. A cause. Once a living human. Biology known. Then seen as a rising image alight.

I know I saw it visually occur myself. Deceased humans spirit emerging. Old human life already deceased.

Therefore if a special human teacher just died. Everyone would know that person. Then they saw the image of a deceased human arise. As earths mass was unnaturally sacrificed also.

Remembering a human mother owned the birth of a baby human. Humans blological die.

No human is earths mass. But machine parts can transmit images of humans and animate inanimate objects begotten of earths mass. The image. As a cause effect.

Designer human life is water microbe oxygen user who thinks constantly. Protected life is by that constant. Heavenly causes as machine cooling uses our life's position. How phenomena emerged. As an anti effect.

Anti meant human men were nuclear converting earths God body that had been saved. Holy dusts. Already water saved historic. Image is a dust.

Men hence changed the nature of the image as phenomena caused.

It was a true science caused circumstance. AI phenomena has been witnessed as a huge human event time and again.

As natural life is involved with science cause and effects. A human cause by nuclear practice. You have to separate the two situations to review the advice as it was written.

Humans recorded Rome murdered the Jewish Christian petitioners who wanted to stop temple science. And they were considered criminals. Yet they sought human justice.

Exactly how it was advised.

It was an advised human psychic spiritual medical teaching. So the public witnessing the non stop event occurring knew it was real. Otherwise it would have owned no support.

As humans dying then suddenly earths saviour ice melt returned life's water supply. We can guess that maybe the holy human father image emerged in the human healing seen as a miracle.

Yet the sicknesses were inherited. Not natural to cell life. So it was removed. As life is healthy first.

I used to see a male spirit doctor visit regularly. His spirit advice 100 per cent accurate.

Reasoned. Human men unnaturally practiced human science technology and it isn't natural law. They caused a human phenomena. As men humans state they thought all science clauses from a man's consciousness.

Is what I learnt. Human experience involved.

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Do you have something more substantial than opinions?

Does he need it? What have you presented that isn't an unsubstantiated opinion?

What I want is PROOF!

He's telling you why he doesn't accept your claims unevidenced claims, but he has no duty to do so, much less prove his position.
Jesus was literate.

You don't see your double standard here? You make claims like these without any better evidence than some scriptural reference to Jesus reading scrolls, yet demand "PROOF!" from others. Those same scriptures say that he was born of a virgin, walked on water, and was resurrected from the grave. Scripture is not evidence of anything except that somebody chose to write those words. If one wants to corroborate any of it, he'll need to do so empirically.

Why should I believe your position if you haven't given me anything substantive?

Exactly, which is why you have made no progress in establishing your claims. You offer nothing substantive - nothing that requires rebuttal - and so your claims can be rejected without refutation. It was you who wrote, "Do you have something more substantial than opinions?" You don't. You're argument is based in your belief by faith in the veracity of scripture, which is all you have offered in support of your claims. Are you surprised that that is not enough for unbelievers?