Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Why didn't Mark talk about Resurrected Jesus?

Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 1:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

My best guess is that he died before he could write it down. Or he forgot.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 1:50:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

What is "the verified Gospel of Mark". I was reading the Diatessaron from about AD 160 the other night, and it seems to have an account of the resurrected Jesus. If one reads the writings of Iranaeus (circa 175-180 AD), he will find the same references. Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John. The manuscript evidence, excepting Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are almost wholly in favor of the normative ending.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

" Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

It's there. It is only be ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that it is eliminated.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 2:00:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 1:50:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

What is "the verified Gospel of Mark".

The content agreed upon by biblical scholars.

I was reading the Diatessaron from about AD 160 the other night, and it seems to have an account of the resurrected Jesus.

I don't know much about the Diatessaron but the first thing I saw on the wiki page:

"The Diatessaron (c 160"175) is the most prominent early Gospel harmony; and was created by Tatian, an early Christian Assyrian apologist and ascetic.[1] Tatian sought to combine all the textual material he found in the four gospels"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"into a single coherent narrative of Jesus's life and death."

If one reads the writings of Iranaeus (circa 175-180 AD), he will find the same references. Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John.

Again I don't know much about that, but why should that matter? The Gospel of Mark most likely has nothing to do with the apostle John.

The manuscript evidence, excepting Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are almost wholly in favor of the normative ending.

Yet I am talking about the Gospel of Mark...

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

" Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

That verse, along with he next 11 are widely regarded among NT scholars to be non-original. They were added by scribes later in the replications of the Gospel. Ergo they are not canonical.

It's there. It is only be ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that it is eliminated.

It's not... and please stop obvuscating the issue. The question is very straightforward, why did Mark not talk abut the resurrected Jesus and what he did when that would be prima facie be the most readily available information about him and the most important/outstanding information.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 2:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

I assume that you are talking of the time when Jesus was resurrected, rather than when he actually ascended , or rose.

Mark's Gospel was compiled from what he was taught, and is concentrated more around the things which demonstrated that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Interestingly if you compare the post resurrection accounts of the other three Gospel writers the differences are outstanding.

Only Matthew and Luke take the account as far as Jesus ascension, and Matthew glosses over the 40 days between resurrection and ascension.

John's account stops at the discussion on the lakeside after Jesus had met the disciples by the Lake, does not mention Jesus journey to Emmaus, Jesus meeting with the two disciples on the way, or his sharing a meal with them before they recognised who he actually was. It does however discuss two occasions where Jesus simply appeared in the middle of a crowded room with locked doors, frightening the disciples into thinking they were seeing a ghost., a major evidence of the nature of Jesus resurrection.

Luke's account only mentions one such meeting, and carries it on to Jesus actual ascension seemingly without a break, and with no mention of the Lakeside meeting..

The differences in these two accounts actually cause major problems for bible scholars over how the two can be dovetailed n together without causing contradictions, since neither gives any break point where the two can be so consolidated.

In fact there are many that say the two accounts contradict each other, and whilst I am not amongst those, I can sympathise with their reasoning to an extent.

There was no cost to generating the Gospels, one of the writers were interested in making money from their faith, and so would have borne the burden of the materials needed for writing.

What has to be remembered about all 4 of the Gospels is that they were never intended to each present every piece of the "jigsaw puzzle" that was Jesus life and ministry, however taken together they do indeed present the whole picture.

The main function of the Gospels, and in fact the whole of what is wrongly called the "New Testament" is actually to pull together all the promises, and prophecies in the "Old Testament, which God's son was to fulfill as Jesus and also later in his role as his father's appointed King especially in this time of the end and in future days to come.

The fact that many do not wish to acknowledge the true role of the Gospels will be to their detriment when Christ asks them, in the judgement, why they chose not to listen to what scripture teaches. It will also be a choice that many of them, will, in time to come, regret.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 3:03:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 2:00:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:50:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

What is "the verified Gospel of Mark".

The content agreed upon by biblical scholars.

Well, such "content" would then be a grand total of zero, since such "scholars" as Dr. Ehrman and company question every word of the text.

I was reading the Diatessaron from about AD 160 the other night, and it seems to have an account of the resurrected Jesus.

I don't know much about the Diatessaron but the first thing I saw on the wiki page:

"The Diatessaron (c 160"175) is the most prominent early Gospel harmony; and was created by Tatian, an early Christian Assyrian apologist and ascetic.[1] Tatian sought to combine all the textual material he found in the four gospels"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"into a single coherent narrative of Jesus's life and death."

I don't know a lot about it either, but I know I saw an account of the resurrected Jesus in it - as a part of the book of Mark.

If one reads the writings of Iranaeus (circa 175-180 AD), he will find the same references. Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John.

Again I don't know much about that, but why should that matter? The Gospel of Mark most likely has nothing to do with the apostle John.

It means that, at a very minimum, an account of the resurrected Jesus was attributed to the Book of Mark in AD 160-170. One would assume that Iranaeus got his information from somewhere.

The manuscript evidence, excepting Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are almost wholly in favor of the normative ending.

Yet I am talking about the Gospel of Mark...

So am I. The normative ending of the Gospel of Mark contains an account of the resurrected Jesus.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

" Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

That verse, along with he next 11 are widely regarded among NT scholars to be non-original. They were added by scribes later in the replications of the Gospel. Ergo they are not canonical.

I know that some NT "scholars" question the ending Mark 16. I also know that I've yet to see a person on here (who denied the traditional ending) who could even make a case for their denial. They always say, "So-and-so told me."

It's there. It is only be ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that it is eliminated.

It's not... and please stop obvuscating the issue. The question is very straightforward, why did Mark not talk abut the resurrected Jesus and what he did when that would be prima facie be the most readily available information about him and the most important/outstanding information.

I'm saying that Mark DID talk about the resurrected Jesus. That's not "obvuscating" the issue. The issue is: you are denying, without an ounce of proof, that Mark 16: 9-20 is a part of the Holy Scriptures. I'm afraid you'll have to dig in and prove that before you can start wondering, "Why didn't Mark talk about it?"

I can promise you that I've studied it backwards and forwards. Any attempts at eliminating Mark 16: 9-20 trace almost solely to the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. That's it. Both of those are from the 4th century. However, we have quotes from the passage from the mid-2nd century. The passage is found in ... 99% of all manuscripts!

Your post assumes that which must be proven. In order to ask, "Why didn't Mark talk about a resurrected Jesus", you'd first have to prove that he didn't. And just saying, "So-and-so told me" isn't quite enough.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 3:43:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 3:03:02 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/4/2014 2:00:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:50:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

What is "the verified Gospel of Mark".

The content agreed upon by biblical scholars.

Well, such "content" would then be a grand total of zero, since such "scholars" as Dr. Ehrman and company question every word of the text.

I was reading the Diatessaron from about AD 160 the other night, and it seems to have an account of the resurrected Jesus.

I don't know much about the Diatessaron but the first thing I saw on the wiki page:

"The Diatessaron (c 160"175) is the most prominent early Gospel harmony; and was created by Tatian, an early Christian Assyrian apologist and ascetic.[1] Tatian sought to combine all the textual material he found in the four gospels"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"into a single coherent narrative of Jesus's life and death."

I don't know a lot about it either, but I know I saw an account of the resurrected Jesus in it - as a part of the book of Mark.

If one reads the writings of Iranaeus (circa 175-180 AD), he will find the same references. Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John.

Again I don't know much about that, but why should that matter? The Gospel of Mark most likely has nothing to do with the apostle John.

It means that, at a very minimum, an account of the resurrected Jesus was attributed to the Book of Mark in AD 160-170. One would assume that Iranaeus got his information from somewhere.

The manuscript evidence, excepting Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are almost wholly in favor of the normative ending.

Yet I am talking about the Gospel of Mark...

So am I. The normative ending of the Gospel of Mark contains an account of the resurrected Jesus.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

" Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

That verse, along with he next 11 are widely regarded among NT scholars to be non-original. They were added by scribes later in the replications of the Gospel. Ergo they are not canonical.

I know that some NT "scholars" question the ending Mark 16. I also know that I've yet to see a person on here (who denied the traditional ending) who could even make a case for their denial. They always say, "So-and-so told me."

It's there. It is only be ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that it is eliminated.

It's not... and please stop obvuscating the issue. The question is very straightforward, why did Mark not talk abut the resurrected Jesus and what he did when that would be prima facie be the most readily available information about him and the most important/outstanding information.

I'm saying that Mark DID talk about the resurrected Jesus. That's not "obvuscating" the issue. The issue is: you are denying, without an ounce of proof, that Mark 16: 9-20 is a part of the Holy Scriptures. I'm afraid you'll have to dig in and prove that before you can start wondering, "Why didn't Mark talk about it?"

I can promise you that I've studied it backwards and forwards. Any attempts at eliminating Mark 16: 9-20 trace almost solely to the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. That's it. Both of those are from the 4th century. However, we have quotes from the passage from the mid-2nd century. The passage is found in ... 99% of all manuscripts!

Your post assumes that which must be proven. In order to ask, "Why didn't Mark talk about a resurrected Jesus", you'd first have to prove that he didn't. And just saying, "So-and-so told me" isn't quite enough.

The evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is contained in the words themselves which contradict so much of the rest of scripture. They are self evidently words added by some other writer intent on proving the unprovable. They simply don;t fit ito the general tenor, the context of the rest of scripture which you would know if you had bothered to study scripture fully enough rather than concentrating on what other men have said.

Of course you don;t want to believe it, so you won;t accept it, just like you reject all scripture which goes against your beliefs, as I have shown so many times, lol.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 4:05:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 3:43:48 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/4/2014 3:03:02 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/4/2014 2:00:25 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:50:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

What is "the verified Gospel of Mark".

The content agreed upon by biblical scholars.

Well, such "content" would then be a grand total of zero, since such "scholars" as Dr. Ehrman and company question every word of the text.

I was reading the Diatessaron from about AD 160 the other night, and it seems to have an account of the resurrected Jesus.

I don't know much about the Diatessaron but the first thing I saw on the wiki page:

"The Diatessaron (c 160"175) is the most prominent early Gospel harmony; and was created by Tatian, an early Christian Assyrian apologist and ascetic.[1] Tatian sought to combine all the textual material he found in the four gospels"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John"into a single coherent narrative of Jesus's life and death."

I don't know a lot about it either, but I know I saw an account of the resurrected Jesus in it - as a part of the book of Mark.

If one reads the writings of Iranaeus (circa 175-180 AD), he will find the same references. Iranaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of the Apostle John.

Again I don't know much about that, but why should that matter? The Gospel of Mark most likely has nothing to do with the apostle John.

It means that, at a very minimum, an account of the resurrected Jesus was attributed to the Book of Mark in AD 160-170. One would assume that Iranaeus got his information from somewhere.

The manuscript evidence, excepting Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, are almost wholly in favor of the normative ending.

Yet I am talking about the Gospel of Mark...

So am I. The normative ending of the Gospel of Mark contains an account of the resurrected Jesus.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

" Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons."

That verse, along with he next 11 are widely regarded among NT scholars to be non-original. They were added by scribes later in the replications of the Gospel. Ergo they are not canonical.

I know that some NT "scholars" question the ending Mark 16. I also know that I've yet to see a person on here (who denied the traditional ending) who could even make a case for their denial. They always say, "So-and-so told me."

It's there. It is only be ignoring the preponderance of the evidence that it is eliminated.

It's not... and please stop obvuscating the issue. The question is very straightforward, why did Mark not talk abut the resurrected Jesus and what he did when that would be prima facie be the most readily available information about him and the most important/outstanding information.

I'm saying that Mark DID talk about the resurrected Jesus. That's not "obvuscating" the issue. The issue is: you are denying, without an ounce of proof, that Mark 16: 9-20 is a part of the Holy Scriptures. I'm afraid you'll have to dig in and prove that before you can start wondering, "Why didn't Mark talk about it?"

I can promise you that I've studied it backwards and forwards. Any attempts at eliminating Mark 16: 9-20 trace almost solely to the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. That's it. Both of those are from the 4th century. However, we have quotes from the passage from the mid-2nd century. The passage is found in ... 99% of all manuscripts!

Your post assumes that which must be proven. In order to ask, "Why didn't Mark talk about a resurrected Jesus", you'd first have to prove that he didn't. And just saying, "So-and-so told me" isn't quite enough.

The evidence that Mark 16:9-20 is contained in the words themselves which contradict so much of the rest of scripture. They are self evidently words added by some other writer intent on proving the unprovable. They simply don;t fit ito the general tenor, the context of the rest of scripture which you would know if you had bothered to study scripture fully enough rather than concentrating on what other men have said.

It seems to me that your conclusion is based upon your own scanty knowledge of the rest of the New Testament. As such, we can dismiss your comment very easily on that ground alone. HOWEVER, the fact is that the content of Mark 16: 9-20 is affirmed by the rest of scripture.

Of course you don;t want to believe it, so you won;t accept it, just like you reject all scripture which goes against your beliefs, as I have shown so many times, lol.

Sure, MadCornish, sure.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 4:09:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course you don;t want to believe it, so you won;t accept it, just like you reject all scripture which goes against your beliefs, as I have shown so many times, lol.
Dude, you guys literally changed a verse in the Bible because it didn't agree with YOUR beliefs.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 5:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 2:47:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

I assume that you are talking of the time when Jesus was resurrected, rather than when he actually ascended , or rose.

Mark's Gospel was compiled from what he was taught, and is concentrated more around the things which demonstrated that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.

Interestingly if you compare the post resurrection accounts of the other three Gospel writers the differences are outstanding.

Only Matthew and Luke take the account as far as Jesus ascension, and Matthew glosses over the 40 days between resurrection and ascension.

John's account stops at the discussion on the lakeside after Jesus had met the disciples by the Lake, does not mention Jesus journey to Emmaus, Jesus meeting with the two disciples on the way, or his sharing a meal with them before they recognised who he actually was. It does however discuss two occasions where Jesus simply appeared in the middle of a crowded room with locked doors, frightening the disciples into thinking they were seeing a ghost., a major evidence of the nature of Jesus resurrection.

Luke's account only mentions one such meeting, and carries it on to Jesus actual ascension seemingly without a break, and with no mention of the Lakeside meeting..

The differences in these two accounts actually cause major problems for bible scholars over how the two can be dovetailed n together without causing contradictions, since neither gives any break point where the two can be so consolidated.

In fact there are many that say the two accounts contradict each other, and whilst I am not amongst those, I can sympathise with their reasoning to an extent.

There was no cost to generating the Gospels, one of the writers were interested in making money from their faith, and so would have borne the burden of the materials needed for writing.

What has to be remembered about all 4 of the Gospels is that they were never intended to each present every piece of the "jigsaw puzzle" that was Jesus life and ministry, however taken together they do indeed present the whole picture.

The main function of the Gospels, and in fact the whole of what is wrongly called the "New Testament" is actually to pull together all the promises, and prophecies in the "Old Testament, which God's son was to fulfill as Jesus and also later in his role as his father's appointed King especially in this time of the end and in future days to come.

The fact that many do not wish to acknowledge the true role of the Gospels will be to their detriment when Christ asks them, in the judgement, why they chose not to listen to what scripture teaches. It will also be a choice that many of them, will, in time to come, regret.

You're back!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 5:18:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

What in the world are you talking about? My Bible is open to the end of the Book of Mark as I post...and it includes Mark 16:9-20. Now, it does say that some early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20. But isn't it possible that not all of some early manuscripts of the Book of Mark have been fully recovered intact? Or, a false Prophet of the day may have intentionally omitted Mark 16:9-20.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 5:27:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 5:18:22 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

What in the world are you talking about? My Bible is open to the end of the Book of Mark as I post...and it includes Mark 16:9-20. Now, it does say that some early manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20.

A LOT of them don't, it's widely accepted within scholars (including Christian ones) as an addition by later scribes.

But isn't it possible that not all of some early manuscripts of the Book of Mark have been fully recovered intact?

Problem is we have no early manuscripts of Mark, our earliest complete versions of it are some 300 years after it was originally written. So we just don't know what was originally written since so many changes and mistakes were accumulated over time. It is widely accepted that the style of writing, the content and the unoriginal elements of the verses which appear to be mish-mashed together from other gospels clearly indicate that it wasn't written by the author of Mark.

Or, a false Prophet of the day may have intentionally omitted Mark 16:9-20.

Seems implausible, the bigger problem is that there are so many problems with the early replication of these gospels.

The overwhelming consensus is that those last 12 verses aren't from the Author of Mark, which given is true, means he incredibly omits information that he would have most certainly had access to, and would have had significant motivation to write it down, if true.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2014 8:40:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/4/2014 1:04:21 PM, Envisage wrote:
This is another thing that seems beyond bizarre.

The other three canonical gospels do depict what happened with Jesus after he rose, but the verified Gospel of Mark stops after the Women ran away from the tomb.

It strikes me as bizarre that any account of the entirety I Jesus' life, if written as a historical document would omit the most recent and miraculous events of a resurrected Jesus. Even accounting for the cost of generating a Gospel at the time, it seems absurd that The author of Mark would omit it, considering that these oral traditions would be the ones that circulated most strongly (assuming the resurrection actually happened and that there were many witnesses to him).

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are NOT the gospel of God. Gospel means the voice of the Lord, not words in a book.