The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Craig B says the opposite to the facts.

The resurrection of Jesus is a fundamental part of the SHORT gMark Jesus story.

In fact, in the SHORT gMark the transfiguring water walker called Jesus TAUGHT his disciples multiple times that he would RESURRECT after THREE days.

The transfiguring water walker called Jesus PREDICTED he would resurrect and it did happen in the SHORT gMark story.

1. The Sinaiticus gMark 8---- 31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be put to death, and rise after three days.

2. Sinaiticus gMark 9------31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

3. Sinaiticus gMark 10-----32-34..... he began to tell them the things that were about to befall him: And they shall mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and put him to death, and after three days he shall rise.


4. Sinaiticus gMark 14. ----28But after that I am risen , I will go before you into Galilee.


5. Sinaiticus Mark 16 6--- But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified, he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

The resurrection of Jesus is a FUNDAMENTAL part of the story of the short gMark.

No statement about the existence of anyone can be based on another person saying they saw the first person after he died.

Craig B contradicts himself.

 

[Mcreal]

Since you were deriding people for not having the attention span of a Goldfish, perhaps you should look more carefully at the the quote which you gave for Irenaeus and his claims about Polycarp, where you posted quoted it as the following -

Originally Posted by GDon

Similarly, Irenaeus reports that Polycarp, a contemporary of Papias, also met people who knew Jesus' apostles.
From here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

Irenaeus mentions Polycarp in Adv. Haer., III.3.4.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had "seen Christ", but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles...​

Irenaeus, in his letter to Florinus -

For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp ... I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse - his going out ... Whatsoever things he had heard from them [apostles] respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the "eye-witnesses of the Word of life", would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.​

Irenaeus was born early in the Second Century, and as a boy he actually meet (or claimed to meet) Polycarp, who was born in the 60s CE. So from a timing perspective, Polycarp may well have met apostles who had met Jesus.

Irenaeus claims to have met Polycarp, whom claims to have met some of the apostles who met Jesus. Papias claims to have met elders whom knew the apostles who met Jesus. These are interesting claims.

According to your own quote, what Irenaeus says is NOT that he had actually ever met Polycarp.

He (Irenaeus) only says that that he had once (whilst a boy) seen someone called "thee" who was at the time with Polycarp. And that he (Irenaeus) could "describe" (presumably now as a memory in his older age) a place where Polycarp used to sit. Whether that is a description from actual physical memory and actual visual sighting, or only a "describing" in his mind of how he envisioned Polycarp sitting with “thee“, is not made clear.

But what he (Irenaeus) does not claim in your quote, is that he had actually ever met Polycarp. He only says that he had seen someone else with Polycarp.

Good points.

And note Irenaeus says

Polycarp had "conversed with many who had 'seen Christ' "​

GDon's assertion that

"Irenaeus claims to have met Polycarp, whom claims to have met some of the apostles who met Jesus"​

is overstatement: 'seeing Christ' is not the same as 'meeting Jesus' - in those days dreams were revered as revelations, and "seeing" could very well be such a dream or illusion.

In Adv. Haer., III.3.4 Irenaeus is recounting vague early doctrinal conflicts without documenting any doctrine.

" ... To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast 'witness of "truth",' than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of 'the truth', is within."​

Jerome provides the following rhetoric in Illustrious Men 17.

" [In Rome, Polycarp] led back to the faith many of the believers who had been deceived through the persuasion of Marcion and Valentinus, and when. Marcion met him by chance and said "Do you know us" he replied, "I know the firstborn of the devil." Afterwards, during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, in the fourth persecution after Nero, in the presence of the proconsul holding court at Smyrna and all the people crying out against him in the Amphitheater, he was burned."​

 

[Mcreal]

This is an interesting paper -

JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”
Lena Einhorn, PhD
(Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Chicago, Nov.17-20, 2012)​

Einhorn describes a parallels between the New Testament and the works of Josephus where a number of events described in the works of Josephus in the period 44-60 AD appear in the NT but ~26-36 AD ie. condensed and ~ 20-25 yrs earlier.

She notes that "In some cases (the death of Theudas, but also the presence of 'robbers') the individuals undoubtedly are historical, and the activity evidently placed in the wrong period in the New Testament", and wonders if (i) the time shift is deliberate, or (ii) due to an error on the part of the gospel writers.

Einhorn comments, in the conclusion, that

"The fact that Josephus describes two messianic claimants in the 40s and 50s, Theudas and the Egyptian, with significant similarities to John the Baptist and Jesus, and that he does so using distinctly negative terms, could be an argument for the time shift being deliberate."​

and then

"Those who put together the Gospels may have wanted to avoid an unfavorable comparison with established historical sources, and may have preferred to eliminate, or at least greatly diminish, Jesus as a historical person."​

Here is one image from the paper - http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf -

​

(I couldn't make it any bigger).

Josephus BJ = War of the Jews aka Jewish Wars​

 

[Craig B]

What ridiculous nonsense!! You keep saying the opposite.

The resurrection of Jesus is part of the story in the short gMark BEFORE the 12 additional verses.

Sinaiticus Mark 16:6--- But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified, he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

You can't stop saying the opposite to the facts.

What you say is opposite to the short gMark 16.6.

The resurrection of Jesus is part of the short gMark story.

No. You are intentionally turning it round. Not "the resurrection story is part of short gMark." Say that if you like. It is not what I said, which is that "there is no resurrection story". No story is told about what the resurrected Jesus did or said. We have a "women visiting the tomb" story, and a "what the young man dressed in a white robe said" story. The other later gospels then tell us a story involving activities of the risen Jesus. Mark doesn't. It hadn't been invented yet, obviously. And indeed no stable agreed story was ever developed, because the other gospels are at odds on the account of what Jesus said and did. But short Mark has nothing relating to the activities of Jesus, or, and this is important, anyone who saw him.

The 12 added verses are of course utterly ridiculous.

... 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all ...

Demons, snakes, poison. Childish nonsense.

 

[Mcreal]

In Jesus & the “Egyptian Prophet” (2012), Einhorn comments on mentions of 'Robbers' and Crucifixion -

The word ”robbers” (λῃσταί, sing. λῃστής) is prevalent in the Gospels. Jesus was crucified with two λῃσταί;

• Barabbas is in John 18:40 described as a λῃστής; and
• when he is arrested, Jesus says: ὡς ἐπὶ λῃστὴν ἐξήλθατε μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων συλλαβεῖν με; ¹³.

λῃσταί are mentioned frequently also by Josephus. And in his writings, the term usually refers to Jewish rebels (“Zealots”, in the wider meaning of the term).¹⁴ That this is the intended meaning also in the Gospels is suggested by Mark 15:7: “Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.”

When Josephus writes about λῃσταί, however, he does so during two distinct periods: from 63 B.C.E., when Roman occupation begins, until the census revolt under Judas the Galilean was crushed, ca. 6 C.E. And then again with great frequency after 48 C.E., when “all Judea was overrun with robberies”.¹⁵ This second eruption would eventually lead to the Jewish War.

Importantly, however, Josephus never once records the presence of ”robbers” during the time Jesus was active. In fact, there are no mentions of their activity between 6 C.E. and 44 C.E. (see Figure 1). In contrast, after 44 CE we find some form of the word λῃστής on sixty-two occasions in De bello Judaico, twenty-one times in Antiquitates Judaicae and ten times in Vita.16 The only hint about activity during Jesus’ time, is that B.J. 2.253 states that “Eleazar the arch-robber”, active in the 50s, had “ravaged the country for twenty years together”. A.J. 20.121, however, only states that Eleazar “had many years made his abode in the mountains”.

To underline that the failure of Josephus to mention the activity of “robbers” between 6 and 44 C.E. is no coincidence, Tacitus in Hist. 5.9-10 writes: “Under Tiberius all was quiet.”

Josephus does describe two occasions of Jewish mass protests under Pilate. But judging from his narratives (and supported by Philo), these protests were entirely non-violent. On the second occasion, the protests against the use of funds from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct, it ended in Jews being trampled and beaten to death. But, as Josephus states, “the people were unarmed” (A.J. 18.55-59,60-62; Philo, Legat. 299-305). There are no signs of
armed rebellion.

Under Caligula (37-41 C.E.) the tension, and protests, increased, when the emperor wanted to erect a statue of himself in the Temple. The danger was averted, however, by the death of Caligula (A.J. 18.257-309; B.J. 2.184-203) ...


... there a reintroduction of λῃσταί in Josephus’ narratives after 44 C.E., and then a dramatic increase from 48 C.E. This pattern fits with the actual state of relations between the Jews and the Romans in the decades leading up to the Jewish War.

It is therefore difficult to explain how Jesus could be crucified with λῃσταί, “rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection”, if this took place in the 30s. The name of the disciple Simon the Zealot also would seem more appropriate in a different era. As would the pronouncement in Matthew 11:12: “From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force.”¹⁷

CRUCIFIXIONS​

In addition to this, Josephus makes no note of crucifixions of Jews between 4 B.C.E. and 46 CE, except in Testimonium Flavianum. He mentions them, however, under Varus (4 B.C.E.), Tiberius Alexander (46 to 48 CE), Cumanus (48 to 52 CE), Felix (52 to ca. 59 CE), and Florus (64 to 66 C.E.), as well as during the Jewish War (66 to 73 C.E.).¹⁸​

.

 

[GDon]

And note Irenaeus says

Polycarp had "conversed with many who had 'seen Christ' "​

GDon's assertion that

"Irenaeus claims to have met Polycarp, whom claims to have met some of the apostles who met Jesus"​

is overstatement: 'seeing Christ' is not the same as 'meeting Jesus' - in those days dreams were revered as revelations, and seeing could very well be such a dream or illusion.

Meh. Strictly speaking you are correct. Irenaeus writes: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

I can even describe the place where the blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.​

Irenaeus appears to tell us that he used to listen to Polycarp's 'discourses which he delivered to the people', which seems to have included Jesus' 'miracles and teachings', and which he 'would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures'. Maybe Polycarp was only referring to apostles having visions of Jesus, but it doesn't sound likely. There appears no reason to read that into the text other than to remove an earthly Jesus AFAICS. And we have Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, where he writes that Jesus came in the flesh.

Anyway, since I believe that the NT itself is enough to establish a prima facie case for the existence of a historical Jesus, I'm not using Polycarp for that purpose. It seems overly convenient for Irenaeus to 'find' someone like Polycarp whom provides a direct link from the apostles to what Irenaeus himself believes, as a counter to heresy in Irenaeus' own day. So Irenaeus must be taken with a grain of salt on this. Still, fragments referring to Papias and Polycarp are interesting.

 

[Mcreal]

Maybe Polycarp was only referring to apostles having visions of Jesus, but it doesn't sound likely. There appears no reason to read that into the text other than to remove an earthly Jesus AFAICS.

More to accurately reflect the implications of the texts.

And we have Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, where he writes that Jesus came in the flesh.

"coming in the flesh" also has various [theological] connotations.

 

[dejudge]

No. You are intentionally turning it round. Not "the resurrection story is part of short gMark." Say that if you like. It is not what I said, which is that "there is no resurrection story". No story is told about what the resurrected Jesus did or said. We have a "women visiting the tomb" story, and a "what the young man dressed in a white robe said" story. The other later gospels then tell us a story involving activities of the risen Jesus. Mark doesn't. It hadn't been invented yet, obviously. And indeed no stable agreed story was ever developed, because the other gospels are at odds on the account of what Jesus said and did. But short Mark has nothing relating to the activities of Jesus, or, and this is important, anyone who saw him.

The 12 added verses are of course utterly ridiculous.

... 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all ...

Demons, snakes, poison. Childish nonsense.

You use the same Childish nonsense called gMark with the Demons, snakes, poison and the resurrecting, transfiguring, water walking, the Son of God Jesus for Biology and history.

The story that the transfiguring water-walking Jesus resurrected in the Short gMark can't possibly be true yet that does not stop you from believing Jesus existed.

Your HJ argument is just a farce.



1. The Sinaiticus gMark 8---- 31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be put to death, and rise after three days.

2. Sinaiticus gMark 9------31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

3. Sinaiticus gMark 10-----32-34..... he began to tell them the things that were about to befall him: And they shall mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and put him to death, and after three days he shall rise.


4. Sinaiticus gMark 14. ----28But after that I am risen , I will go before you into Galilee.


5. Sinaiticus Mark 16 6--- But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified, he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

 

[dejudge]

Irenaeus appears to tell us that he used to listen to Polycarp's 'discourses which he delivered to the people', which seems to have included Jesus' 'miracles and teachings', and which he 'would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures'.

Are you serious??Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp seems to have included the miracles of Jesus!!!

The Christian Bible is nothing more than "a collection of myths and fables" so there was no need for Irenaeus to have any witness of Jesus' miracles.

The miracles could not have happened as described.

Irenaeus tell us that Jesus was crucified at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius c 49 CE and that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote Gospels and a single person called Paul wrote all the letters in the Pauline Corpus.

Virtually everything that is found in writings attributed to Irenaeus about the authorship, date and chronology of the books of the NT have been REJECTED by Scholars.

Writings attributed to Irenaeus about Jesus are historical garbage and even REJECTED by the Church.

Against Heresies 2 places the crucifixion of Jesus AFTER Paul preached Christ crucified and resurrected in Damascus.

 

[GDon]

And we have Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, where he writes that Jesus came in the flesh.

"coming in the flesh" also has various [theological] connotations.

Not that I'm aware of. It only appears to be mean "earthly physical human".

What are the various theological connotations? And what are the sources for those connotations?

 

[David Mo]

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be surprised, if we had actual historical records of the Trojan war, to find out that one of the top Mycenaean generals was called Achilles or some variation thereof.

Joachim Latacz, (Troy and Homer, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 76), claims the real existence of Paris (Alexander = Alaksandu, Hittite prince). It is very speculative, but we are in the way.

 

[dejudge]

Not that I'm aware of. It only appears to be mean "earthly physical human".

How many times are we going to go over the same material?

Satan and the Angel Gabriel appear to be human in the NT.

There is no holy Ghost birth or resurrection for Satan and Gabriel.

Christians of antiquity have already explained the nature and origin of their Jesus, God Creator born of a Ghost since at least the 2nd century.

Their Jesus was GOD the Logos who assumed Flesh without the seed of man.

What are the various theological connotations? And what are the sources for those connotations?

How many times must we go over the teachings of the Church which Canonised the NT books.


Tertullian "On the Flesh of Christ"

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father.

 

[David Mo]

Jesus of Nazareth has the same possibility of existence as Satan.

Not exactly. I see some differences: Nobody claimed that Satan was a man on the Earth. And I don't see how I can apply the argument of contradiction to Satan existence.

Satan and Jesus were in conversation and physically in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple in the Christian Bible.


Matthew 4:5 ----Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple..

Well, we needn't believe everything the evangelists said, is it not? They said that Jesus floated in the air and we don't believe that. I hope so.

 

[maximara]

This is an interesting paper -

JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”
Lena Einhorn, PhD
(Presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Chicago, Nov.17-20, 2012)​

Einhorn describes a parallels between the New Testament and the works of Josephus where a number of events described in the works of Josephus in the period 44-60 AD appear in the NT but ~26-36 AD ie. condensed and ~ 20-25 yrs earlier.

Thanks for the paper. One idea I have thrown out there about a hypothetical Historical Jesus (based on a mish mash of Roberson, Wells, Robin Hood, and John Frum) is that if he did exist he may have been preaching outside the 28-36 CE timeframe and was moved into that period for social-political reasons.

As I said before we may have a situation like one of those old 'where the light's better' jokes as far as the Gospels are concerned or for you retro gamers out there 'your Jesus is in another time period'

 

[maximara]

Not that I'm aware of. It only appears to be mean "earthly physical human".

What are the various theological connotations? And what are the sources for those connotations?

See A Study of the "Flesh" for some of the theological connotations. Also remember you had that whole Jesus was a mass hallucination thing (ie docetism) bouncing around.

 

[dejudge]

Not exactly. I see some differences: Nobody claimed that Satan was a man on the Earth. And I don't see how I can apply the argument of contradiction to Satan existence.

Many persons claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator the Logos from heaven.

I don't see how the argument of historicity can be applied to Jesus of Nazareth.

Well, we needn't believe everything the evangelists said, is it not? They said that Jesus floated in the air and we don't believe that. I hope so.

Your statement is quite amusing [laughable]. You seem not to know the difference between the presentation of evidence and belief.

The Bible states God created Adam and Eve in Genesis.

It is completely absurd to suggest that one must believe the Creation story to present it as evidence of mythology/fiction.

The fact that Christians of antiquity PUBLICLY declared THEIR Jesus floated in the air then I cannot accept their Jesus as a figure of history WITHOUT external historical data.

No historical data for Jesus of Nazareth has ever been found and NONE will ever be.

There was NO historical Jesus just like there was NO historical Adam with Eve in the garden of Eden.

 

[David Mo]

The problem with this idea is 1 Corinthians 2:8 KJV: "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

But as has been sarcastically pointed if Jesus death and resurrection was to cleanse man's sins so mankind could be saved then if these "princes of this world" were Earthly rulers wouldn't their first order of business been to kill this guy so mankind could be saved?

More over 2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV states "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."

No this crucifixion was NOT but Romans but by servants of the god of this world ie demons. So this has nothing to do with an earthly crucifixion.

The funny thing is one of his tracks Jack Chick (A Demon's Nightmare) makes a point of having two demons comment about had they only know they would have never incited the mob to crucify Jesus.

This idea, as many other directed towards removing all responsibility of the Roman authority, as the Pilate hand washing or the direct blaming the Jews, are desperate intents to divert the attention from a basic fact: at this time, crucifixion was an exclusive Roman punishment applied to rebels against Rome (and slaves).
If the pauline Christians had invented an awful death to their Lord they would have chosen a less conflictive "prince of the Earth" than Roman authority and a less significative capital punishment than crucifixion. This is to say, less annoying for their proselytist intentions. For example, the Jewish authority or Herod Antipas.

In this way, their theology about the "princes of the Earth" would be the same and the proselytism in the pagan world more effective. Why the hell they had to invent the crucifixion with the related idea of rebellion and shame? There is not any reason to do it.

 

[David Mo]

Many persons claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator the Logos from heaven.

The same was said of Julius Caesar. From the lineage of a goddess. Many other didn't say nothing about the miraculous conception of Jesus. They thought Jesus was adopted by Yahweh, as other sacred men in the Antiquity. Nobody said Satan was a man. This is a difference, is it not?

I don't see how the argument of historicity can be applied to Jesus of Nazareth.

This is because you don't read my comments.

Your statement is quite amusing [laughable].

Thank you. I laugh a lot with your fancies too. You are very funny.

You seem not to know the difference between the presentation of evidence and belief.

I don't think so. I think you don't understand that there are different degrees of evidence.

 

[Craig B]

1. The Sinaiticus gMark 8---- 31 And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be put to death, and rise after three days.

That is not a description of Jesus' activities after his resurrection. But this is.

Matt 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go.17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

2. Sinaiticus gMark 9------31 For he taught his disciples and said to them that the Son of man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him, and when he has been killed he will rise after three days.

That is not a description of Jesus' activities after his resurrection. But this is.

Luke 24:30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight.

3. Sinaiticus gMark 10-----32-34..... he began to tell them the things that were about to befall him: And they shall mock him, and spit upon him, and scourge him, and put him to death, and after three days he shall rise.

That is not a description of Jesus' activities after his resurrection. But this is.

John 21:Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.”

You may see how the stories become more elaborate in each successive gospel. Mark has nothing. John has Jesus treating the disciples to a fish breakfast on the beach. That is an example of the progressive development of a myth. But you can't be made to see that. At first, in Mark, we only have Jesus' prophecies of resurrection, but no record of their fulfilment. Then this is added, but different stories. That means the stories were invented later and weren't part of the original account.

Exactly the same applies to the Virgin Birth story. Not in Mark; only in Matthew and Luke, but in different and contradictory forms.

However, you seem incapable of grasping any of this, which makes me very sad.

 

[Craig B]

The Sinaiticus gMark 8---- 31 ...

By the way I do indeed notice your new "naughty schoolboy" trick. I question your obsession with manuscripts rather than texts. What do you do? Attempt to argue the validity of your approach? Of course not! You merely start specifying the manuscript as well as the textual reference of every passage you cite.

As I said before in similar circumstances:
"What fun! Tee hee hee."