Debate cont’d

 

So we start with Mark: Many of you may know that the ending of Mark,
everything after verse 16:8, does not actually exist in the earliest
versions of that Gospel.  That means that his Gospel ended only with
an empty tomb and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus
would be seen in Galilee — but nothing is said of how he would be
seen. When we consider the original story, it supports the notion that
the original belief was of a spiritual rather than a physical event.

The empty tomb for mark was likely meant to be a symbol, not a
historical reality, it was not unusual in the ancient world for the
bodies of heroes who became gods to vanish from this world: being
deified entailled being taken up into heaven, as happened to men as
><!–
D(["mb","diverse as Hercules and Apollonius of Tyana.
Next, the Gospel of Matthew appears. This Gospel says there was a vast
earthquake, and instead of a boy standing around besides an
already-opened tomb, an angel, blazing like lightning descended from
the sky and paralyzed the two guards that happened to be there, rolled
away the stone single handedly before several witnesses and then
announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Obviously we are seeing a
clear case of legendary embellishments of the otherwise simple story
in Mark. Then in Matthew a report is given where, contrary to the
angel’s announcement, Jesus immediately meets the women that attended
to his grave and repeats what the angel said. Matthew is careful to
add a hint that this was a physical Jesus, having the women grovel and
grab his feet as he speaks.
Then, Luke appears and suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic
allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance,
complete with a dramatic reenactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and
seeing the empty death shroud for himself.  As in Matthew, other
details have grown. The one young man of Mark, which became a flying
angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become 2 men, this time
not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment.  And to make the new
story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of
his way to say that he is not a vision, and provies it by asking the
Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though Mark and
Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the
story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and
prestigious Jerusalem.
Finally, along comes John.
“,1]
);

//–>
diverse as Hercules and Apollonius of Tyana.

Next, the Gospel of Matthew appears. This Gospel says there was a vast
earthquake, and instead of a boy standing around besides an
already-opened tomb, an angel, blazing like lightning descended from
the sky and paralyzed the two guards that happened to be there, rolled
away the stone single handedly before several witnesses and then
announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Obviously we are seeing a
clear case of legendary embellishments of the otherwise simple story
in Mark. Then in Matthew a report is given where, contrary to the
angel’s announcement, Jesus immediately meets the women that attended
to his grave and repeats what the angel said. Matthew is careful to
add a hint that this was a physical Jesus, having the women grovel and
grab his feet as he speaks.

Then, Luke appears and suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic
allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance,
complete with a dramatic reenactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and
seeing the empty death shroud for himself.  As in Matthew, other
details have grown. The one young man of Mark, which became a flying
angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become 2 men, this time
not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment.  And to make the new
story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of
his way to say that he is not a vision, and provies it by asking the
Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though Mark and
Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the
story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and
prestigious Jerusalem.

Finally, along comes John. *To be continued*</P

Log in to write a note

dude you look like my lil bro

I like this debate. It’s well written and researched. I’ve been reading “Jesus The Man” which is written from an Anthropological and Archaeological piont of view. The evidence presented makes sense and I also like the Gnostic Gospels too. But as you know, the Gnostics were killed off by the Big Bad Roman Dude of the time because he decided Literalist Christianity was the way to go. I thik it was

the way he went because it made it easier to control the population through fear tactics. But that’s my 0.02c. And yes, I am a Christian but I’m a follower of Christ’s teachings. I also adhere to Buddhism and read Tarot’s so I’m probably considered Devil’s Spawn by most other Christians 🙂 But that’s their opinion and they’re entitled to it.

September 26, 2004

Sorry…but you need to do some more research. Most of your facts about the disciples are wrong.

September 26, 2004

hope0500 – Perhaps it’s really you that need to do more research?

September 26, 2004

I’m with hope on this one: your facts are all (ALL!) wrong. Totally. But I’m not going to tell you which ones (ALL!) or correct them (ALL OF THEM!)–I’m just going to assert that you’re wrong and let it stand at that. (Which also implies I’m right. Which I am. Indubitably.) I shall now retire to my own diary, by your leave, your royal wrongness. (ALL WRONG!)