Do Mark and Matthew mention "apostles"?

Uh, I don't believe it! hehe there are 3 instances. Mark 3:14 has a mention but it is missing from many of the manuscripts and Matthew 10:2 and Mark 6:30 look suspiciously like insertions as well.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• truthsurge
• jesus
• myth

[Uhlbelk]

assumptions and presumptions but no fact that you admit at 6 minutes. and for your information no, no one would have any obligation to give you the information that some manuscripts lack a phrase or a word much less purposefully hide additional information. that is simply a scholar doing an honest job and if you had any legitimate historical criticism of this then you would have the information about what manuscripts had the passage and which did not instead of making these lame assumptions.

[TruthSurge]

@Uhlbelk butthurt apologist?

[Uhlbelk]

@TruthSurge So you are an earl doherty believer. A man with a BA in ancient history (a joke degree at virtually any university), who comes to his historical perspective from a man with NO historical education. I don't particularly have any desire to track down these books and pick apart all their interpreting, research and conclusions. I prefer to do that with scientific bullshit and not theological bullshit. Your comments indicate that you are butthurt, I suggest a proctologist.

[TruthSurge]

@Uhlbelk If you haven't watched my Jesus Myth vids, then do. Any day, any time, you and me, blogTV. we can talk about Earl Doherty, G.A. Wells, Bart Ehrman, anyone you want. But instead, why don't we talk about the details of the theory? Wouldn't that be better? To actually address the pts instead of saying it CAN'T possibly be correct because 99.999% of scholars don't buy it. 99.8 % of scholars are religious. go figure.

B4 you strut your stuff, you should probably think a bit.

[Uhlbelk]

@TruthSurge If your other vids are no better then this one then I have no desire to listen to more assumptions whether they are your own or simply a regurgitation of doherty. I already said I wasn't going to go dig his crap up just to point out its flaws. You want any real respect, go learn early greek and aramaic, go get a degree in history, and write a thesis on the subject where your ideas and conclusions are so well put together that other historians can't dispute you.

[trumpet152]

These writers weren't chronicling a history of Jesus, and I'm not sure that it's fair to assume that they would mention every highlight of Jesus' ministry. (This is especially true of Paul, who would not have been around during Jesus' ministry.)

But it may be that's Jesus' sayings were alluded to at times in the epistles. For instance 1 Corinthians 13:2 may be a reference to the saying found in Mathew 21:21.

[trumpet152]

"Do you find the fact that out of 22 NT writings (epistles) there isn't one mention of ONE of Jesus' miracles and excluding 1 Cor 11:23, there isn't ONE mention of anything Jesus supposedly said?"

Well, the resurrection from the dead can be counted as a miracle. (After all, if that isn't miraculous I don't know what is!) But of course this doesn't contradict the JM theory in any way. But other than the resurrection, I really see no need for the miracle stories to be brought up in the epistles.

[TruthSurge]

You are right. The face-value reading DOES lend itself more to the gospel accounts in Matthew and Luke. But what we're trying to do is see if, perhaps, THEY gleaned their tidbits (or maybe at least Luke and Matthew was edited later to add the virgin birth acct) FROM Paul. If Paul said "born of woman, born under law", that could very well lead to the historical Jesus of the gospels. But this passage is one of the harder ones to explain and I'm not sold on a particular answer yet.

[trumpet152]

Well, I'm assuming that the woman that Jesus was born to was his mother. You're right in that γενόμενον can be translated as "made," but I hardly see how this helps the JM theory. Either way the natural reading seems to be that Jesus had a mother. The virgin birth may not have been added to the story yet, but this doesn't discredit a historical Jesus.

[TruthSurge]

"I just don't find the silences mentioned by Doherty to be that astounding."

Do you find the fact that out of 22 NT writings (epistles) there isn't one mention of ONE of Jesus' miracles and excluding 1 Cor 11:23, there isn't ONE mention of anything Jesus supposedly said?

Even when it would have made Paul's point in cases, he quotes the OT INSTEAD of Jesus!

I find this so unlikely that the only viable explanation is that they did not KNOW of a gospel Jesus. ?