MortalWombat

I don't mean to speak for Vork, but perhaps he meant that Mark and Luke do not merely contain supernatural events, but the whole story is based on a supernatural event.

ex-preacher

May I suggest you read Mark again, noting that virtually all scholars agree that the original ending was at 16:8.

Toto

What he said was

Mark and Luke do not "contain" supernatural events, Jesus himself, as portrayed in the gospels, is a supernatural event. .

Snipping the first half of the sentence reverses the meaning.

Layman

This is incorrect. What "virtually all scholars agree" is that the sections of Mark in our modern bibles beyond 16:8 were not in the original manuscript.

However, many scholars believe that the original ending of Mark was not 16:8, but was lost due to damage to the manuscript. B.H. Streeter, Robert Gundry, and Ben Witherington are some noted scholars who have accepted this as a likely explanation for Mark's ending.

ex-preacher

Valid point.

The evangelical NIV Study Bible puts it this way in their note to Mark 16:9-20:

"Serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost."

Do you think that was a bit sloppy of the Almighty - to allow the original ending to be lost and to have this non-Markan ending attached for centuries?

Layman

Ummm. If someone admits they are relying on other reports, and then claim to have carefully investigated the event, how are they supposed to avoid using "someone else's story?"

I'm frankly very encouraged that Luke decided to use sources to write his history. I would be more worried if he claimed to have carefully investigated events that he admits he did not witness himself, and then proceeded to write without giving any hint of relying on previous sources.

And you know Mark only makes up less than half of his Gospel?

ex-preacher

True. I'd be a lot more worried if he had said something like: "And you can know this is true because God inspired me."


<strong> Yes.

Layman

I'm rather amused to find a skeptic relying on the NIV commentary as his only authority.

And I think a metaphysical discussion on why God allows humans to screw things up is beyond the scope of this thread -- if not also this Forum.

ex-preacher

Some people are easily amused. It's not my only authority. Perhaps you are too accustomed to people who constantly bow down to one book as "the authority." I was merely using it as a "hostile witness" to substantiate my claims. Before you attack the NIV commentary too strenuously, you might want to check the names of the commentators. I wouldn't want you to embarass yourself.

<strong> Probably so. I find it amusing that every good thing in this world or in the Bible is attributed by Christians to God's goodness, while every bad thing or biblical blunder is attributed to human failure. A bit of a double standard, you think?

Is your God accountable for anything?

Layman

Ahh, well. You have failed to substantiate your claim at all. Not even the NIV commentary claims that "virtually all scholars" agree that mark 16:8 is the original ending. At most, it just says that it is their opinion.

And how would I embarass myself by disagreeing with the NIV editors? I'm sure they are well-respected scholars. Probably moderate to conservative ones as well. That certainly does not mean I have to share their opinion on every item they happen to write about.

Besides, I did not offer my own opinion. I merely pointed out how wrong your statement was. As for my opinion, I lean towards believing there was a longer ending that was lost. Its an area I hope to study more in the future.


Well, not withstanding the fact that I said nothing of the sort you spout off about here, I don't plan on debating your characterizations on this thread or in this forum.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>