Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?