The resurrection
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2017, 01:52 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:21 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Oh my goodness! I've never made that connection before. Yes, Judaism aims to "raise up" people or things to a higher spiritual status. I'd never made the connection that the Christians might have just misunderstood this very basic and fundamental Jewish concept and taken it as a literal "raising up" from the dead.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 01:56 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 12:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 12:04 PM)Emma Wrote:  If one where to ask a general question about people who believe in pink sparkly unicorns, I wonder if someone else would answer it?

My first question is: Where do I get one?
My second question is: Do they poop everywhere? Because that might be a deal-breaker.
Last question: Are they cuddly?

Thank you.

They can be trained to poo in their box.
Ours are fairly cuddly when their sparkles are sparkling.

[Image: glitter%20gay%20boy_zpsmmbuvdsj.png]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
21-02-2017, 01:56 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 10:27 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  The gospel of Mark, which is the first gospel written, doesn't have a resurrection in the earliest copies and some of the early church fathers commented on this problem. Here is a link to the Codex Vaticanus from 300 AD. It's in Greek. So far as I know this is the oldest extant copy of the entire new testament. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03

You can scroll through to the photo of the Mark manuscript , click on it and scroll through to the last chapter and verse and it stops at verse 8 (or is it 6, I can't remember). After around the 4th century the last 8 verses were written and added so it would have a resurrection scene. Most Christians are totally unaware of this.

I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.

That conclusion is quite a stretch. All it has is a missing body.
To jump from that to bodily resurrection is a gross violation of Occam's Razor. Ten post penalty and loss of rep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rik's post
21-02-2017, 02:09 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 10:40 AM)Alla Wrote:  BTW, I believe in resurrection of the dead. But don't ask me about it.

So tell me, Alla, what do think of the resurrection of the dead? What type of resurrection we talking here? Are we talking about reconstitution of decaying flesh and bones? We talking about coming out of a brain dead coma? We talking new body? If it's a new body we talking flesh and bones or something more ethereal like angels? We talking cryogenics? We talking suspended animation? What about regeneration of DNA and cloning? Does that count? There are all sort of fascinating aspects to the concept to discuss. Don't be such a party pooper.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
21-02-2017, 02:20 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 01:56 PM)Rik Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 11:53 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I think there's some confusion on this point. Even if you stop at verse 6, the two Marys have already discovered the empty tomb and been told "He is risen". That certainly implies a resurrection. What's missing (and was added later) was the appearance of the resurrected Jesus to Mary Magdalene and the apostles. But I don't think it's fair to say that the original doesn't have a resurrection, because it clearly does.

That conclusion is quite a stretch. All it has is a missing body.
To jump from that to bodily resurrection is a gross violation of Occam's Razor. Ten post penalty and loss of rep.

Not quite. After the missing body, it has a clear and unambiguous claim that "He is risen" (verse 6), and that "ye shall see him" in Galilee (verse 7). The part that has him actually appearing in Galilee is an add-on, but the claim is there in the original. I stand by my statement. Of the four Gospels, Mark's resurrection account is the thinnest and most rudimentary, but I don't see how anyone can claim that it isn't there at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 02:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Not quite. After the missing body, it has a clear and unambiguous claim that "He is risen" (verse 6), and that "ye shall see him" in Galilee (verse 7). The part that has him actually appearing in Galilee is an add-on, but the claim is there in the original. I stand by my statement. Of the four Gospels, Mark's resurrection account is the thinnest and most rudimentary, but I don't see how anyone can claim that it isn't there at all.

Those bits in the book of Mark about the resurrected Christ aren't in the earliest documents; the whole resurrection thing was added later. Source: The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

and

[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20.]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heath_Tierney's post
21-02-2017, 02:29 PM
RE: The resurrection
(20-02-2017 08:22 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  I would say that you're dealing with a kind of event not even known to be possible in the first place. So it first needs to be established that such a thing is possible.
It's special pleading.

It's an extraordinary special claim and there is no evidence in support of it happening for Jesus or Yeshua or for anyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 02:27 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 02:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Not quite. After the missing body, it has a clear and unambiguous claim that "He is risen" (verse 6), and that "ye shall see him" in Galilee (verse 7). The part that has him actually appearing in Galilee is an add-on, but the claim is there in the original. I stand by my statement. Of the four Gospels, Mark's resurrection account is the thinnest and most rudimentary, but I don't see how anyone can claim that it isn't there at all.

Those bits in the book of Mark about the resurrected Christ aren't in the earliest documents; the whole resurrection thing was added later. Source: The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

Everything after verse 8 was added later, but verses 6 and 7 (which I quoted above, and which clearly talk of a resurrection) were there in the original. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but people are claiming that the resurrection isn't present at all in the original version of Mark, and that just isn't true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
21-02-2017, 03:13 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 02:30 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 02:27 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Those bits in the book of Mark about the resurrected Christ aren't in the earliest documents; the whole resurrection thing was added later. Source: The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference

Everything after verse 8 was added later, but verses 6 and 7 (which I quoted above, and which clearly talk of a resurrection) were there in the original. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but people are claiming that the resurrection isn't present at all in the original version of Mark, and that just isn't true.

It may not be, depending how the Greek is translated.
It could be translated "He has been exalted", and "You will come to understand that, as he foretold", and there is good reason to think it should be that way.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-02-2017, 03:18 PM
RE: The resurrection
(21-02-2017 03:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-02-2017 02:30 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Everything after verse 8 was added later, but verses 6 and 7 (which I quoted above, and which clearly talk of a resurrection) were there in the original. It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but people are claiming that the resurrection isn't present at all in the original version of Mark, and that just isn't true.

It may not be, depending how the Greek is translated.
It could be translated "He has been exalted", and "You will come to understand that, as he foretold", and there is good reason to think it should be that way.

I've got no argument there. The original is, shall we say, "Greek to me".

Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: