(June 30, 2015 at 7:23 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Why did Mark have a character in his narrative say, "He is risen!" if Mark thought Jesus' body was still in the tomb?

Knock it off Randy. This is not now nor has it ever been a point of contention. I conceded this fact before you spoke a word on the subject by referencing the original Mark as the scholarly accepted first gospel.

Oh, excuse me. I thought I was responding to Esquilax.

Quote:You keep zinging on the boy's claims, but refuse to acknowledge the points I have clearly made:

1. Mark makes no reference to Jesus' post death activities. Absolutely nothing. Including his supposed ascension with attending witnesses.

And this silence proves what exactly? Nothing.

Quote:2. The credulity required to accept that Mark didn't think these activities important enough to include in his narrative is astounding.

Do all four of the gospel writers record all of Jesus' teaching and activities identically?

So, Mark proclaims that Jesus is risen, but that proves NOTHING. Oh, no...you have to have lots of post-resurrection activities because merely saying, "He is risen!" doesn't mean that, well, you know, that He actually IS risen.

Quote:3. We know that later gospels rip off Mark verbatim. Changing out the boy in favor for one or two angels, the women seeing Jesus at the grave, and everything that comes after the 'He is risen!' part you are so passionate about are complete fabrications.

You really ought to do a bit more research. Matthew and Luke did use some of Mark's material, but scholars also identify much that was original with each of them respectively. The sheer difference in the lengths of the gospels should have clued you in on that.

Quote:4. The early church understood this problem and had Mark amended.

Possibly. It seems clear that the Church may have established Mark as the second gospel in the canon because Matthew gave a more complete account. But so what?

Mark says, "He is risen!" And that does not support your cause at all, does it?

Quote: And this silence proves what exactly? Nothing.

It proves that some fuckhead was sufficiently embarrassed by it to write more for him.  I wonder which was the "inspired" part?

(June 30, 2015 at 7:41 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Right. From guys who would die rather than deny what Mark wrote.

Using this logic you must conclude that David Koresh was the final prophet.

(June 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh, excuse me. I thought I was responding to Esquilax.

How juvenile. This is a discussion forum. Did you roll out this bit of nonsense when Esquilax replied to a response you gave me? The PM function is meant for communication not meant for public consumption.

(June 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And this silence proves what exactly? Nothing.

Shall I digest your dinner for you too? Mark's silence doesn't prove anything in and of itself, but his silence regarding events central to the Christian faith allows for the reasonable conclusion that Mark knew nothing of what supposedly transpired. It would be the same as writing a biography of Babe Ruth and only mentioning that he played baseball for the St. Mary's School for Boys while omitting his professional hall of fame career.

(June 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Mark says, "He is risen!" And that does not support your cause at all, does it?

If you came home expecting to find your wife only to be greeted by a boy saying "She is risen!" and will meet you in Galilee, do you immediately arrange travel or might there be more reasonable explanations?

(June 30, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 7:41 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Right. From guys who would die rather than deny what Mark wrote.

Using this logic you must conclude that David Koresh was the final prophet.

"He is Risen!"

--Mark

(June 30, 2015 at 8:32 pm)Cato Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: And this silence proves what exactly? Nothing.

Mark's silence doesn't prove anything in and of itself

Thank you.

(June 30, 2015 at 8:32 pm)Cato Wrote: It would be the same as writing a biography of Babe Ruth and only mentioning that he played baseball for the St. Mary's School for Boys while omitting his professional hall of fame career.

Ah, that works for me.

Babe Ruth's professional success WAS the high water mark of his baseball career.

The RESURRECTION was when Jesus defeated death for ALL OF US; it was the "high water mark" of Jesus' incarnation.

(June 30, 2015 at 8:51 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Cato Wrote: Using this logic you must conclude that David Koresh was the final prophet.

"He is Risen!"

--Mark

How do you know he wasn't talking about his pecker?


Some guys get really excited about that.

(June 30, 2015 at 8:52 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 8:32 pm)Cato Wrote: Mark's silence doesn't prove anything in and of itself

Thank you.

Nice quote mining operation you've got going on there.

(June 30, 2015 at 8:55 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(June 30, 2015 at 8:32 pm)Cato Wrote: It would be the same as writing a biography of Babe Ruth and only mentioning that he played baseball for the St. Mary's School for Boys while omitting his professional hall of fame career.

Ah, that works for me.

Babe Ruth's professional success WAS the high water mark of his baseball career.

The RESURRECTION was when Jesus defeated death for ALL OF US; it was the "high water mark" of Jesus' incarnation.

You did not actually read what Cato wrote did you?  Apparently you skimmed and assumed.