Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near

[clara17]

no i think were just going in circles. You still can't explain where the information came from. You can say this or that source, but the source info is BASED ON SPECULATION, none of it cites any proof. They made it up to cast doubt on scripture. You act like its common knowledge and cant show any source. Odd

 

[clara17]

The Catholic Encyclopedia .. for the 4th time .. are we playing games of disingenuous oblivion ? "What encyclopedia -- what encyclopedia" ..

and You are mostly correct that every other source is going to tell you the same thing .. That the author of Matt and the author of Luke use Mark as a source document - is not some secret .. cept apparently from you .

What part of "mark is found complete in Matt" sans a few passages nasty to Jesus and disciples .. is not going ring a ding ding ? ..and what is this source of yours claiming otherwise ..

for example, wikipedia "The majority of scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew and Luke both drew upon it"

So its speculation. Some beleive it and some dont. Is it a 51-49 majority? we dont know or care, because its ALL SPECULATION

 

[Sargonski]

for example, wikipedia "The majority of scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel to be composed and that Matthew and Luke both drew upon it"

So its speculation. Some beleive it and some dont. Is it a 51-49 majority? we dont know or care, because its ALL SPECULATION

in this case it is the overwhelming majority .. but regardless .. not a 50+1 majority .. as you will demonstrate by finding a scholar against and citing rational for position .. over this non speculatory issue. cause the majority is that big .. no serious theolgian nor academic nor biblical scholar doubts the obvious .. hence why some encyclopedia's' state it defacto .. such that in this case .. the existentialist fallacy .. throwing up ones hands and crying out "its all speculation" .. is surely in force .. and now go find us a source that backs up your position against the majority .. We are all greatly interested in your rational

 

[clara17]

Got it, appeal to authority, but "authority" that was based on a hunch.
At least we finally agree, you have no evidence of what you were saying. I actually cant even remember the original topic. I may or may not go reread it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near

To Balthazzar! : you say Jesus is your friend .. but you do not know Jesus . have not searched for the truth .. do not follow the teachings .. or know what they are for that matter

To Balthazzar! : what is the "Will of the Father" .. and what is the name of this fine God Most High.

To Sargonski: The Catholic Encyclopedia lol. Everything in Catholicism is taken from Mithraism. Of course they will attempt to discredit the Bible, why do you think they banned it for so long? It exposes them.

To Clara: the theology of the catholic Church .. the "Anti-Christ"

To Clara: will find the same story in every Christian denomination .. secular theology .. history . .. not just the Catholics spinning this same yarn sailor !

To Clara: The story of Mark .. Used as a source document by the Author of Matt .. who gives us an updated --and edited version of the story .. mostly free of pious fraud ..

To Clara: anti Christ Catholics

As usual my cherry pickings from the posts in this thread, please.

Regards

 

[Sargonski]

Got it, appeal to authority, but "authority" that was based on a hunch.
At least we finally agree, you have no evidence of what you were saying. I actually cant even remember the original topic. I may or may not go reread it.

Your fallacy not mine .. that you can't remember the topic and yet cry out appeal to authority fallacy .. claiming that you got it. LOL what a joke .. You were on your way find a source for your claim . ... "the other 49%" who claim that the authors of Matt and Luke did not use Mark as a source document.

and .. providing a source that supports your claim is not "appeal to authority fallacy" so worry not about making more fallacy

 

[clara17]

Your fallacy not mine .. that you can't remember the topic and yet cry out appeal to authority fallacy .. claiming that you got it. LOL what a joke .. You were on your way find a source for your claim . ... "the other 49%" who claim that the authors of Matt and Luke did not use Mark as a source document.

and .. providing a source that supports your claim is not "appeal to authority fallacy" so worry not about making more fallacy

I don't have any claim. I quoted scripture directly, you claimed the scripture wasnt valid, and then admitted you made it up, or at best believed people who made it up

 

[Sargonski]

I don't have any claim. I quoted scripture directly, you claimed the scripture wasnt valid, and then admitted you made it up, or at best believed people who made it up

You didn't quote any scripture that supported your claim .. such there was nothing to say was invalid ..this is made up ridiculous nonsense on your part. You were asked to provide a Source for your claim that Mark is not contained in Matt .. contrary to the claims of the Catholic encyclopedia and Modern Theological Scholarship. ?

and I agree that you are making things up .. but let us stick to reality .. and provide us with a source supporting your made up silly claim.

 

[paarsurrey]

Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near

To Balthazzar! : you say Jesus is your friend .. but you do not know Jesus . have not searched for the truth .. do not follow the teachings .. or know what they are for that matter

To Balthazzar! : what is the "Will of the Father" .. and what is the name of this fine God Most High.

To Sargonski: The Catholic Encyclopedia lol. Everything in Catholicism is taken from Mithraism. Of course they will attempt to discredit the Bible, why do you think they banned it for so long? It exposes them.

To Clara: the theology of the catholic Church .. the "Anti-Christ"

To Clara: will find the same story in every Christian denomination .. secular theology .. history . .. not just the Catholics spinning this same yarn sailor !

To Clara: The story of Mark .. Used as a source document by the Author of Matt .. who gives us an updated --and edited version of the story .. mostly free of pious fraud ..

To Clara: anti Christ Catholics

As usual my cherry pickings from the posts in this thread, please.
Friend @Sargonski !
The story of Mark as a source has been taken by the other scribes; are not only Catholics AntiChrist but all the denomination of Pauline aka Christianity are AntiChrist, please, right?

Regards
Regards

 

[Sargonski]

Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near


As usual my cherry pickings from the posts in this thread, please.
Friend @Sargonski !
The story of Mark as a source has been taken by the other scribes; are not only Catholics AntiChrist but all the denomination of Pauline aka Christianity are AntiChrist, please, right?

Regards
Regards

Some would suggest that the changes made to the story of Jesus (pious fraud) was an act by human hands -- hands under the influence of the the Chief God on earth .. and Tester of Souls .. the one who tested Jesus during his ritual Trial .. prior to actualization of the divine spark recieved at baptism and the titles that go with.

The Catholic Church -- "anti-Christ" .. simply on the basis of being "Anti-Christ" the purpose and history of that organization .. not something Jesus would call his own ..

and then we have Idol Martin .. author of the famous treatese "on the Jews and their Lies" .. google and have a quick read if you have any doubt of that bad seed .. The "Bad Fruit" as Jesus called it.

 

[clara17]

You didn't quote any scripture that supported your claim .. such there was nothing to say was invalid ..this is made up ridiculous nonsense on your part. You were asked to provide a Source for your claim that Mark is not contained in Matt .. contrary to the claims of the Catholic encyclopedia and Modern Theological Scholarship. ?

and I agree that you are making things up .. but let us stick to reality .. and provide us with a source supporting your made up silly claim.

aug 6, i posted (Matt 27:62 - 28:15)
I don't need to prove something untrue, that no one has ever claimed to be true.

 

[Sargonski]

aug 6, i posted (Matt 27:62 - 28:15)
I don't need to prove something untrue, that no one has ever claimed to be true.

What does your passage from Matt 27 have to do with the Author of Matt using Mark as a source document .. as per modern scholarship says . and even that "Anti Christ" Church you mentioned . all claiming this to be true.. showing your claim of "No One has ever claimed to be true" to be completely and rather ridiculously false

 

[clara17]

What does your passage from Matt 27 have to do with the Author of Matt using Mark as a source document .. as per modern scholarship says . and even that "Anti Christ" Church you mentioned . all claiming this to be true.. showing your claim of "No One has ever claimed to be true" to be completely and rather ridiculously false

you need to read further back
weve gone in so many circles you forgot what we were talking about. The topic was never about mark as a source document, you switched it to that

 

[Sargonski]

you need to read further back
weve gone in so many circles you forgot what we were talking about. The topic was never about mark as a source document, you switched it to that

The topic - the convo you jumped into - and started denying was that Matt used Mark as a source document .. Sorry if you got off track .. wandered down some rabbit hole .. but what did you think the topic was ?

 

[clara17]

You were dismissing the resurrection as not being part of the scripture. I think we have gone as far as we will go.

 

[Sargonski]

You were dismissing the resurrection as not being part of the scripture. I think we have gone as far as we will go.

You were the one doing the dismissing - I was merely giving you factual information about a certain part of Scripture .. the original story of Jesus .. as told by the Gospel of Mark. .. You were not told .. as you claim . that there was no resurrection that was part of scripture . You misunderstood and twisted what was said ... somehow ... for the Jesus of Mark indeed tells us of the resurrection - and gives us the plan to get into heaven.

Thats what happens sometimes when you jump into a conversation and make a bunch of assumptions .. based on one snippet. Regardless .. I do not "dismiss" the promise of life after death at all .. ever .. in any forum.. and thus you have something confused.

What is not in Mark .. is the so called - "Physical Resurrection" - as opposed to a Spiritual Resurrection .. like .. where your soul goes to heaven but is without your Body... What the original story lacks .. are stories of a the dead body of Jesus - "Zombie Jesus" - rising up and wandering about the earth talking to people .. having them put finger in hole .. and so forth.

Now whether or not you believe in the Zombie stories matters not .. my only point is that these stories are not in the Original version of the story .. which may cast doubt on the "Physical Resurrection" .. the story . does not outright dismiss it .. and certainly does not dismiss the spiritual resurrection but rather affirms it.

The only big question to you that remains .. is "Where did the Body Go" ? and what does the next in the timeline have to say about it .. your favorite Brother from another Mother Paul .. who likens the stories of Jesus after death to his Vision .. calls them "appearances" like the virgin mary appearing in the Clouds to the Croud of 500 .. except this was Jesus they were seeing.

If that is all of the story you have to go on.. Where did the Body of Jesus dissappear to .. specially given Jesus was supposed to spend 3 days in the Underworld .. prior to being reborn .. Where did they hide the Body .. or perhaps the Body never made it there to begin with .. or .. "Grave Robbers" could have done it .. the Pharisee's maybe put them up to it .. so as not to turn this fellow into a Martyr .. but it backfired .

Your turn

 

[paarsurrey]

Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near

The only big question to you that remains .. is "Where did the Body Go" ? and what does the next in the timeline have to say about it .. your favorite Brother from another Mother Paul .. who likens the stories of Jesus after death to his Vision .. calls them "appearances" like the virgin mary appearing in the Clouds to the Croud of 500 .. except this was Jesus they were seeing.

If that is all of the story you have to go on.. Where did the Body of Jesus dissappear to .. specially given Jesus was supposed to spend 3 days in the Underworld .. prior to being reborn .. Where did they hide the Body .. or perhaps the Body never made it there to begin with .. or .. "Grave Robbers" could have done it .. the Pharisee's maybe put them up to it .. so as not to turn this fellow into a Martyr .. but it backfired .

It is very clear that the later additions were certainly, one could say, a "holy-forgery" done in line with the "holy-fake-vision" of Saul aka Paul, his associates , the Church and the Nicene Creeds people, please, right.
It is not the first time in the world that a body placed in a tomb has disappeared, all sorts of possibilities are there but, I understand, that (Jesus) Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah travelled from Galilee to the Lands in the East where his diaspora people resided, right, please?

Regards

 

[Sargonski]

Bibi a sign that the Anti Christ is near

It is very clear that the later additions were certainly, one could say, a "holy-forgery" done in line with the "holy-fake-vision" of Saul aka Paul, his associates , the Church and the Nicene Creeds people, please, right.
It is not the first time in the world that a body placed in a tomb has disappeared, all sorts of possibilities are there but, I understand, that (Jesus) Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah travelled from Galilee to the Lands in the East where his diaspora people resided, right, please?

Regards

In addition to Mark knowing nothing any physical resurrection stories .. Paul likening these stories to his Vision (of which we have 3 different versions) .. Virgin Mary in the Clouds to the 500 .. very much a "Spiritual Resurrection" - The first Pope Clement ~95-100AD knows nothing about the physical resurrection .. which is a painful nail . as he is aware of Matt .. which leads us to believe that the "Smoking Gun" passages may have been added later to Matt .. as they were to John.

We finally get confirmation of the "Jesus wandering around in the flesh after death" stories from Ignatius ~110 AD .. but at this point .. we are well past the point of taking the dead corpse coming back to life stories seriously ... or more seriously than fanciful myth.