Sponsor |  lesoldham | Feb 4, 6:53am | This New American Standard version was established by a very conservative Foundation specifically looking to remove historical mistakes in translations and to employ modern scholarly techniques to verify early manuscripts and copies. They found no credible evidence that Mark omitted this passage.
Mar 16:5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.
Mar 16:6 And he *said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the
Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold,
{here is} the place where they laid Him.
Mar 16:7 "But go, tell His disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.' "
Mar 16:8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment
had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were
afraid.
Mar 16:9 [Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first
appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.
|
|
|  |  438731 | Feb 4, 9:35am | Seven demons. Wow! You just don't seem to get that these days, apart from in some under-developed, uneducated, witch-fearing corners of darkest Africa. Coincidence? I think not.
But seriously, it is well known that 16:9 onwards are not present in the oldest available manuscripts, nor are there any reference to these verses in any other manuscripts prior to the 5th century. |
|
|
Sponsor | |
| | | 438731 | Feb 4, 5:01pm | | What about it? No resurrection there. A missing body and a claim of an ascension or something. Doesn't do it for me, nor it seems to whoever decided that they'd better tack on a few chapters to make their story sound more convincing. And "going ahead" is a wishful translation at best. It more likely intended to mean "leading" or "guiding" (as in spiritually NOT physically). |
|
| 
|  JRyanStevens | Feb 4, 6:16pm | All these stories would have more credibility if they had been written closer in time to when these events are claimed to have taken place.
If these events are central to salvation, I certainly wouldn't have waited so long to jot down a few notes. |
|
| | | 438731 | Feb 5, 12:31am | | Very good point JR. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Ewtn2000 | Feb 5, 7:54am | From what I have read on the old manuscripts is that Mark 16 does have the resurrection but that chapter ends abruptly and in the early manuscripts the ending from verse 9-20 weren't there, but verses 1-8 were. So if you read verse 6 it does mention that Christ is risen. But again, the Council of Trent has all this documented when this came up (325 Ad or so). This is nothing new. You should take the time to read the Church Fathers on their take on this. It is great reading.
Your point JR would be a good one if it was just about men. But when you add the whole Jesus and God element in it, you see that God works in His time. Establishing the Church was the most crucial task prior to sitting down and writing about what happen. That is why oral teaching and tradition are held in high esteem because that is the way the Gospel was spread the first 30 some out years after the crucifixion. That is also why the writings are said to be inspired by God, because He guided the Apostles to the time and words to be written according to the experiences they each had. |
|
| | | 438731 | Feb 5, 9:56am | | Ewtn, while I appreciate your efforts to aid our understanding of these anomalies, you've played a few cards that I should really take you up on. Firstly in post 6, you've claimed that errors in the text make it somehow more believable. A claim that I find absurd. Then you have gone on to say that errors may be there because of human error, but somehow scripture remains inerrant. Which is it? Was the bible divinely inspired or not? And how can it contain the errors of man if it was divinely inspired? And just now, you've played your trump card of "God works in his own time". That's just obscurantism. Not only that, but if you're assuming that the goal is to deliver his truth to the masses, he would presumably have to ensure that whatever transpires is believable to us mere mortals. Not guiding one of his meat puppets to document these most important of events AT THE TIME, severely impacts on his credibility. It makes it unbelievable. How would you explain away that? (Without resorting to "he works in mysterious ways" shenanigans!) |
|
|
Sponsor | | lesoldham | Feb 5, 5:53pm | 14- The word "risen" in Mark 16:6 is the same Greek word used elsewhere in the New Testament referring to resurrection. You claimed in post 5 that Mark made NO mention of resurrection. That just isn't the case.
15- We cannot take the date of the earliest existing copies as evidence that the material was originally written at that time. There was a three hundred year long period in which every attempt was made to destroy belief in Christ by every government and every nation. Frankly It is a wonder that anything survived.
But setting that aside, most Christians do not believe the Bible by the witness of the words alone. Most know the truth of those words as witnessed by the Spirit inside them. This is something that keeps the word alive in us, teaching us different things at different times according to what the Spirit is revealing to us at that season of our life. The same verse may speak one thing to us one year and another thing in another year and another at another time depending on what He is able to teach us at that stage of our life.
We know that Christ has resurrected from the dead because we feel Him in our hearts exhorting us to do right, reminding us that we are loved, changing our lives for the better every day.
We are not in a philosophy forum here. We are not constrained to use only reason. We listen to the fire that is burning in our hearts. And though I may disagree with fireforchrist or EWTN2000 on doctrinal issues I am convinced that they feel the fire of His resurection as surely as I do. You may not shove us into a logical box so that you can win the debate. The debate in our hearts has already been won by Jesus.
|
|
|
| | JRyanStevens | Feb 6, 12:53am | 19. We are not in a philosophy forum here. We are not constrained to use only reason... You may not shove us into a logical box so that you can win the debate.
I'm a former believer, so I know the "debate in our hearts" as well as any of you. I stopped believing not by choice. It simply wasn't convincing--despite my sincere desire to believe and the fire that burned in my heart. How are we not constrained to use only reason? If a proposition is irrational, it isn't convincing. I doubt that you can sincerely believe in an invisible pink unicorn any easier than I can. I can't honestly say to myself that I believe something that doesn't appeal to reason. If something doesn't make sense, how can I believe it?
This is something that keeps the word alive in us, teaching us different things at different times... The same verse may speak one thing to us one year and another thing in another year and another at another time...
This is a human experience--not a Christian experience. The fact that I can be inspired in different ways at different times by the same literature doesn't say anything about a Spirit inside me giving me those feelings. I understand that personal feelings and experiences are a form of evidence (at least in the sense that emotion and experience can make something convincing)--but this doesn't help validate any particular belief since all beliefs, creeds, and religions have this personal evidence.
We know that Christ has resurrected from the dead because we feel Him in our hearts exhorting us to do right, reminding us that we are loved, changing our lives for the better every day.
If this is taken as evidence, then other religions are equally as inspired as Christianity.
And though I may disagree with fireforchrist or EWTN2000 on doctrinal issues I am convinced that they feel the fire of His resurection as surely as I do.
Is the same Spirit inspiring you to believe different doctrines? I'm sure you all feel equally strong about the issues, so how can inspired truth be determined by feelings?
I'm a seeker after truth. Truth can never be opposed to truth. If we are each guided to contradictory truths by our feelings, then does that not mean that feelings are not a proper guide? Why not use logic and reason? Truth need not fear scrutiny. |
| |
| |
Apologetics → Discussion