Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2011, 08:55 PM
 
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
MasterRottweiler,

In this day and age then you can record him just as if Jesus was here today.

You fail.
Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 08:57 PM
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
Parture, you claim the gospel of Mark was written in the 30's. I disagree, as I would place the first versions of Mark in the early 2nd century. Leaving that argument aside, we both agree it was the first gospel to be written, right?

Could you then explain how the original version of Mark contained no resurrection story? I challenge you to slow your mind down, read this short article I've written about this, do your own research if necessary and come up with a rational explanation. That won't be easy for you to actually read the whole article, because you already know what I'm going to say, don't you? Yet I challenge you to try.

Jesus’ Resurrection

The Romans crucified Jesus. It must have been a devastating and humiliating end to the hopes of his supporters. Most of the authors and editors of the Gospels could not have their hero simply disappear from the scene after such an unfortunate demise. They had to spruce the story up to make Jesus really special. Some of them had heard a rumour Jesus had risen from the dead, which would have come as no surprise to them because a god in those times was more or less expected to rise from the dead. The Egyptian god Osiris, the Greek god Dionysis and the Persian god Mithras, all of whom were popular in Jesus’ day, had risen from the dead too.

The resurrection of Christ proved the divinity of Jesus. It is the central tenet of the faith; the one most important belief upon which Christianity is based. The original authors of Matthew, Luke and John probably had no hesitation including this fabulous event in their gospels. What about the original author of Mark? Mark’s gospel was the first to be written, and the one that other gospel authors used to base their biographies of Jesus on. Obviously then, Mark’s description of the resurrection would have been the most original, and one that relied on sources close to Jesus. Yet Mark’s gospel only devotes the second half of the last chapter to it, as if it was just tacked on like an afterthought. There are only 20 or so lines describing what many people consider to have been the greatest event in the history of the world. Why might that be?

Many scholars claim the style, content and character of the last twelve verses in Mark (the resurrection story) are different from the rest of the gospel. They say at 16:9 there is an abrupt end to the narrative flow and the style loses its descriptive quality. Mary Magdalene is spoken of (16:9) as if she had not been mentioned before, although she has just been twice alluded to (15:47, 16:1). What is more, the resurrection story in Mark is absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, from the oldest Latin manuscript, the oldest Syriac manuscript, and from about one hundred early Armenian manuscripts, as well as the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written 897 CE and 913 CE). In many later manuscripts that include verses 9-20, asterisks or obeli mark the verses as doubtful or spurious. What is more, Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150-ca. 215 CE), Origen (ca. 185-254 CE) and Tertullian (ca. 160-ca. 225 CE), three very well known and important early Christian scholars, are completely unaware of the existence of a resurrection story in Mark. Eusebius and Jerome, also prominent Christian scholars from the early and late 4th century are aware of the existence of a longer ending, but note that it is absent from their earlier Greek transcripts.

There is an explanation. The resurrection ending (16:9-20) was added to the end of Mark by an unknown author sometime after the latter part of the 2nd century, a fact admitted by most New Testament scholars in the past century! The importance of this fact is staggering! The original authors of Mark created the first biography of Jesus but failed to mention he rose from the dead!

The Jerusalem Bible admits a genuine resurrection ending in Mark is questionable. It states
“The ‘long ending’ of Mark, vv.9-20 is included in the canonically accepted body of inspired scripture. This does not necessarily imply Markan authorship which, indeed, is open to question.” (Jerusalem Bible). Even the Catholic Encyclopedia cannot ignore the evidence and states;
“Catholics are not bound to hold these verses (16;9-20) were written by Saint Mark.” They also make the following rather ridiculous claim as one of several possible explanations for the lack of a resurrection ending;
“If, then, Mark concluded with verse 8, it must have been because he died or was interrupted before he could write more…” Imagine Mark sitting at his desk, pen poised, just about to create history by writing the final 20 lines of his epic when...oops...he dies! A little trail of ink is all that is left where he was going to write about the resurrection. If you are able to believe Mary died a virgin you can probably believe this “must have” happened too.

The real reason was there was no resurrection.

Church leaders who know about this think that since the last 12 verses are "canonically authentic" there is no need to compromise the faith of their flock. That is dishonest.

The Catholic encyclopedia goes on to state
“…whoever wrote the verses, they are inspired, and must be received as such by every Catholic.” They admit they don’t know who first documented Jesus’ resurrection. I wonder how they justify this unknown person was “inspired”, as they don’t even know who he was? I assume they are guessing he was “inspired” by God. Yet wouldn’t the story be more believable if he had been inspired by the facts? Consider the tone of the Catholic commentary. Impartial historians do not order their readers what to believe as if they were children; they present facts and opinions and allow their readers to draw their own conclusions. The authors are obviously not impartial historians, and are commanding their readers how to think using an authority they assume they have rather than one they have earned with their scholarship.

The resurrection of Jesus only became a popular belief in some circles in the early second century. The original followers of Jesus did hope he was going to return, but never believed he had already done so, because he never actually did.
The same interpolator(s) who added the resurrection ending to Mark also added lines into the earlier parts of the gospel in which Jesus predicts he will rise from the dead. The authors of the other Gospels included a resurrection story because by the time they were writing the resurrection myth had been widely circulated, although it is quite possible their resurrection stories were added at a later date too.

All four Gospels give markedly different accounts of the sequence of events after the death of Jesus. The reason is they didn't have this part of Mark's story to copy, so each made up their own, and they are all different. Matthew adds an earthquake at the moment Jesus dies and the corpses of holy men walking around Jerusalem and appearing to many people. He thought Jesus wasn’t the only one to rise from the dead! I wonder what these walking corpses got up to? Did they help clean up the rubble from the earthquake? Did they join their relatives around the dinner table? We are not told.

The first reason the Catholic Encyclopaedia gives for claiming the Gospels are truthful is
“First of all, they commended themselves by their tone of simplicity and truthfulness, which stood in striking contrast with the trivial, absurd, or manifestly legendary character of many of those uncanonical productions.” I will leave the reader to judge the veracity of that claim for him or herself. The other three authors don’t mention the absurd story of walking corpses, an impossible omission if it really happened.
Luke and John have the risen Jesus appearing in Jerusalem, far more prestigious than Galilee, which was considered a backwater, where Mark has him appearing. There are numerous other inconsistencies.

Christian apologists have tried to reconcile the four very different stories with each other, with no success.

Jesus did have brothers, two of who, James and Jude, have probably written their own letters in the Bible. If one’s brother had recently risen from the dead, there’s not much else worth talking about. One’s head would be spinning with the awe of discovering the afterlife was real, but neither mentions the resurrection. Nor do we find any testimony to the resurrection in the epistles of Peter or John. They too were written before the tradition of the resurrection was widely known.
Paul, whose name presides over one third of the New Testament, believed in a resurrection, but this is how he describes how he got to know God’s son;
“Then God, who had specially chosen me while I was still in my mother’s womb, called me through his grace and chose to reveal his Son in me…” (Galatians 1:15-16 NJB). He was writing roughly 20 years after Jesus died. He gave no description of Jesus. His experience of God’s risen son was not a genuine physical reappearance of a once dead, but now risen, Jesus, but emerged from his own imagination that he thought was inspired by God.

There is no first century writer other than Paul outside the Gospels (which in any case were probably first written in the second century) who mentioned a risen Christ. If a resurrected Jesus had appeared many historians would have documented the fact, yet they don’t. The resurrection of Jesus is a myth!

What about all the millions of people who are convinced Jesus rose from the dead? The authors of Christian literature about the resurrection just assume it happened, or they dissect the four gospel stories in minute detail and then attempt to reconcile them with each other (unsuccessfully), as if that proved they were true.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
18-06-2011, 08:58 PM
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
(18-06-2011 08:55 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(18-06-2011 08:50 PM)hughsie Wrote:  I, Hughsie, hereby testify to having seen the FSM.

Now there has been eye-witness testimony. Give your life to the FSM! Praise be his name!!!


You TOO Hughsie?? I ALSO saw the FSM, it was a month ago near Lake Erie! Now there are multiple accounts by multiple people in different settings.

THE PROOF IS THERE! Feel his salvation sauce all over your chin!

Then we are 3 already, Give your life to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!! [Image: icon_noodle.gif]

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 08:59 PM
 
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
MasterRottweiler,

You can give your life to FSM but that is just fantasy since there is no evidence like the multiple eyewitness testimony of the disciples in various group settings.
Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 08:59 PM
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
(18-06-2011 08:55 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  You TOO Hughsie?? I ALSO saw the FSM, it was a month ago near Lake Erie! Now there are multiple accounts by multiple people in different settings.

THE PROOF IS THERE! Feel his salvation sauce all over your chin!

ITS A SIGN!

We must all don our finest pirate regalia and give thanks for the beer volcano and stripper factory that we will find in heaven! (In our finest pirate accents of course.)

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 09:00 PM
 
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
hughsie,

Christians have this comfort in this evidence while it must be very disconcerting for you to shut your mind down to this evidence.
Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 09:03 PM
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
(18-06-2011 08:55 PM)Parture Wrote:  MasterRottweiler,

In this day and age then you can record him just as if Jesus was here today.

You fail.

FSM does not like to be recorded, I know this because I speak to him when I pray to him. So you will have to believe it by faith. [Image: icon_noodle.gif]

"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world.”
-Georgia Harkness.

"La fe es patrimonio de los pendejos. (Faith is patrimony of the dumbfucks)."
-Diego Rivera
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 09:04 PM
 
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
(18-06-2011 08:57 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Parture, you claim the gospel of Mark was written in the 30's. I disagree, as I would place the first versions of Mark in the early 2nd century. Leaving that argument aside, we both agree it was the first gospel to be written, right?

Could you then explain how the original version of Mark contained no resurrection story? I challenge you to slow your mind down, read this short article I've written about this, do your own research if necessary and come up with a rational explanation. That won't be easy for you to actually read the whole article, because you already know what I'm going to say, don't you? Yet I challenge you to try.
Recall Luke wrote Acts a biography of Paul but makes no mention of his death, so that places Acts around 55 AD since Paul died around 65 AD. And since Acts is part two of his former worker that places the gospel of Luke around 45 AD. Since Luke took from Mark that places Mark around 35 AD just two years after the cross. And since Mark worked closely with Peter that places 1 Peter and 2 Peter very early also.

Mark talks about the resurrection. You can quote all the verses of Mark from the 2nd century church fathers, so that destroys your late dating theory.

Your very first paragraph was wrong. Deal with these things first otherwise you just get further out of control.

We can confidently say all the books of the NT were written before 65 AD except for Revelation which was written around 95 AD. It is quite difficult to write an account if you are dead. The disciples died in the Neronian persecutions.
Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2011, 09:09 PM
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
(18-06-2011 09:00 PM)Parture Wrote:  hughsie,

Christians have this comfort in this evidence while it must be very disconcerting for you to shut your mind down to this evidence.

I would rather find truth than comfort, that is why I look at all the evidence instead of picking and choosing anything to support my viewpoint. My viewpoint comes from the evidence.

If you have any actual evidence I would be happy to listen and debate you on it but don't present me with '12 people 2000 years ago believed it and thats absolute proof' because you are wasting your time and insulting my intellect along with the intellect of everyone else you've tried convince with that argument. Infact you're insulting the mental prowess of the entire human race by coming out with something that is so clearly ridiculous.

And for the record, I find freedom from religion empowering. To be in control of my life and not running round trying to impress some misogynistic, homophobic, power hungry, hyper jealous, genocidal maniac feels pretty good.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hughsie's post
18-06-2011, 09:17 PM
 
RE: Without Denying Self No One Can Love the Lord
hughsie,

Yes, the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead nearly 2000 years ago so if it is not true there must be some naturalistic explanation. But since none are forthcoming and all known possibilities are impossible it must the be impossible that is true, God entered His creation and died on the cross for the sins of the world and resurrected the third day. Amen.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: