Check a few NWTs from different decades and notice the years jump about quite considerably. Strange how gods spokesmen who write up a new watchtower ever other week and speak to god frequently, keep changing the facts. How is it these disciples of jesus all managed to live70+ years quite an ahcievement in those times. Why did they take 40+ years to write the greatest story in their lives ? Were they too busy to write it the day after jesus died ? Why didnt jesus just write down his own gospel ? COuldnt he just zap it down on stone in 1 second ?
Markan priority and the synoptic gospels
by 88JM 43 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
soontobe
Mark contains resurrection parts before 16:9. It ends very abruptly at 8 if that is supposed to be end of the book. It could be that the original ending was lost.
-
mP
soontobe:
please quote the line. THere isno text that says anybody say jesus alive before 16;8. Logic dictates if there was then there would be no need for an addition.
-
Sulla
MP, Mark has an empty tomb and an angel telling Magdelene and the mother of James that he is risen and to tell the others. That's all before 16:9. So, you're mistaken. There are those additional paragraphs that seem to be added on, though even these are pretty cursory compared to the other gospels.
Are we to believe if the same events happened today, biographers(lets call them that) would forget to write about some dude coming back from the dead.
Applying the term "biographers" to the gospel writers is a mistake. But there is a large modern literature that discusses what the gospels are attempting to accomplish, which is not biography the way we understand it today. In any case, as is widely-known, the constant assertion of the earliest Christians was that Jesus was raised. Consult Corinthians for a version of a primitive creed in which Paul outlines how his constant teaching -- which he learned from others -- is that Jesus died for everybody, was raised from the dead, appeared to a bunch of people, etc.
The earliest Christian liturgy, celebrated on the day of Resurrection, is little more than a re-capitulation of this claim.
So Christians were never anything except a resurrection people. In this environment, yeah, it is reasonable that you write a little history explaining exactly who is is whom we claim is risen. The post-resurrection events, to Mark, not being particularly important to either his story or to his theological point.
-
mP
Sulla:
First of empty tomb does not imply resurrection, it jsut means the body is gone. The text does not say the place was guarded and the only reason the tomb is tempy is that the body went to heaven literally.
The text also does not say the man inside is an angel it only says man. Maybe this same man got up early and got in. We dont really know. Inventing supernatural bodies is dishonest because there is no mention of that in the text. If the man was an angel it should say sangel and not man.
Also many cultures back then said people went to heaven when they die. We ourselves have inhreited this and often use the same terminology when discussing somebody who just died. We of course dont assume that they actually went up to heaven.
Basically it boils down to the fact that such a magnificant event is not documented in any length in Mark. How exactly does one explain the need for the author to be so economical and fail to go into more detail. V8 ends with they were afriad. Why would his followers be afraid of a ressurection shouldnt they be happy ? If we accept he was raised and truely dead because of the Romans, then it makes sense why they were afraid. They were lost and afriad because their leader was dead and gone forever. Its that simple.
-
mP
Sulla:
The earliest Christian liturgy, celebrated on the day of Resurrection, is little more than a re-capitulation of this claim.
What proof have you got of this outside of the Bible ? Surely with thosuands of xians somebody must have written about this ? Do we have such writings today ?
-
Sulla
Dammit, mP, read the text. "You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified: he has risen, he is not here."
C'mon, man!
-
mP
I addressed that, in my commentary about who even today we say people wen t to heaven when they are dead. Nobody honestly believes they really went to heaven its just some dumb comment based on some dumb ancient belief in a heaven and earth , each realm with different beings.
Basically your assertion is Jesus was resurrected boils down to 1 word, "risen". The word could be replaced by "he is dead" which is equally possible. Now we have no ressurrection and im not being decietful or tricky. Such a grand claim and yet the author cant be bothered to boast or repeat himself.
-
soontobe
Like I said, 8 is an abrupt end, so maybe the original ending from the emd of the scroll is lost. In that case, it makes little sense to talk about omissions, since we don't know what the original included
Anyway, there is also Mark 14:28, which is a foreshadowing of the resurrected Jesus in Galilee.
It's an interesting speculation you have mp regarding "risen," but it's still speculation.
-
breakfast of champions
Very interesting thread! I'd like to see their sources for those dates.