Quote:Why the text stops at 16:8 is open to speculation.

It stops at 16:8 to answer the question "Why haven't we heard about this before?"  As always, the men who wrote this crap blame the women.  "They said nothing."

Of course, that does nothing to explain how whoever wrote "gMark" heard the story!  But xtians weren't supposed to think too deeply.

(July 3, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Why the text stops at 16:8 is open to speculation.

It stops at 16:8 to answer the question "Why haven't we heard about this before?"  As always, the men who wrote this crap blame the women.  "They said nothing."

Of course, that does nothing to explain how whoever wrote "gMark" heard the story!  But xtians weren't supposed to think too deeply.

Oh, Min, you know the drill: "Blah, blah, blah . . . 'Peter's' secretary . . . blah, blah, blah." 

We've had this discussion elsewhere.  There are xristards who fall all over their dicks trying to explain why their precious "inerrant" gospel bullshit has up to five different endings.

Reality is a bitch for assholes like that.

(July 3, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Having a vision of someone who died is a pretty good bit of evidence they're still dead.

Seriously?

(July 3, 2016 at 12:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: As always, the men who wrote this crap blame the women.  "They said nothing."

Which ought to be the best clue that it can't possibly be true.

#pleasedon'thitwhereitshows

Should be...but won't.

(July 3, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Firstly, that the appearances were unambiguously physical in nature. Secondly, that their type and strength required a complete rethink about how vital structures of Judaism needed to change.

Having a vision of someone who died is a pretty good bit of evidence they're still dead. The Early Church claimed Jesus was alive again.

The above two statements are false, historically.  Paul, and Jews like him, would have no problem whatsoever seeing a phantasm of Jesus while believing at the same time that Jesus' corpse was buried in some grave.

These days someone hallucinating like that would be locked up in a psych ward for 72 hours for their own good.

With the ending of Mark 16:8; an intriguing possibility (Philip G Davis/Larry Hurtado et al) is that Mark never intended to do a resurrection ending, because he was writing in a contemporary genre which can be summarised as “How to live the life of a good disciple”. Hence the beginning with baptism, ending with death thing etc. There is of course the classic “Last page went missing”, or “Mark didn't think to put it in” or many others.

That Mark knew the resurrection is clear (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34), that later manuscripts have other endings is a problem for fundies, not for me.

(July 3, 2016 at 2:39 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 3, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: Firstly, that the appearances were unambiguously physical in nature. Secondly, that their type and strength required a complete rethink about how vital structures of Judaism needed to change.

Having a vision of someone who died is a pretty good bit of evidence they're still dead. The Early Church claimed Jesus was alive again.

The above two statements are false, historically.  Paul, and Jews like him, would have no problem whatsoever seeing a phantasm of Jesus while believing at the same time that Jesus' corpse was buried in some grave.

I wouldn't disagree with that for a minute. There's any number of OT/NT/other stories say exactly that.

The point being that the witnesses were crystal clear that they didn't see a ghost/vision/similar. The words used (anastasis, egeiro) are unambiguously physical in nature. You would expect the witnesses to talk in terms of visions, but they are very clear that's not what they saw.

Our cleaner at work died recently. If she wandered in during tomorrow's meeting, tidied the bins, did the washing up and generally cleared up the mess, while we poked her occasionally to make sure she wasn't a ghost, you would have anastasis. That event would completely shake everything everyone believed about death, religion, How Things Worked...

That's exactly the sort of thing the disciples said happened. Several times.

(July 4, 2016 at 2:34 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: With the ending of Mark 16:8; an intriguing possibility (Philip G Davis/Larry Hurtado et al) is that Mark never intended to do a resurrection ending, because he was writing in a contemporary genre which can be summarised as “How to live the life of a good disciple”. Hence the beginning with baptism, ending with death thing etc. There is of course the classic “Last page went missing”, or “Mark didn't think to put it in” or many others.

That Mark knew the resurrection is clear (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34), that later manuscripts have other endings is a problem for fundies, not for me.

(July 3, 2016 at 2:39 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The above two statements are false, historically.  Paul, and Jews like him, would have no problem whatsoever seeing a phantasm of Jesus while believing at the same time that Jesus' corpse was buried in some grave.

I wouldn't disagree with that for a minute. There's any number of OT/NT/other stories say exactly that.

The point being that the witnesses were crystal clear that they didn't see a ghost/vision/similar. The words used (anastasis, egeiro) are unambiguously physical in nature. You would expect the witnesses to talk in terms of visions, but they are very clear that's not what they saw.

Our cleaner at work died recently. If she wandered in during tomorrow's meeting, tidied the bins, did the washing up and generally cleared up the mess, while we poked her occasionally to make sure she wasn't a ghost, you would have anastasis. That event would completely shake everything everyone believed about death, religion, How Things Worked...

That's exactly the sort of thing the disciples said happened. Several times.

The earliest "visions" of Jesus were those of Paul and were non-physical:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion...e_accounts

As I stated in another thread of mine, thousands of individuals claim to have been abducted by aliens, and in those accounts, their descriptions of the aliens are much more vivid and physical than anything found in the New Testament.  Now, do you accept those testimonial accounts, those of alien abductees?