Magus55

Context. Read the previous verses of Mark 16. Jesus ridicules the apostles for their unbelief, because not all of them believe his miracles. Those that do believe, he provides protection while they are out fullfilling his mission of spreading the gospel to both the Jew and the Gentile. In another book for example, Paul was attacked by a viper, and wasn't injured. Not every believer is given those protections, and the verse never states as much.

Johnny Skeptic

If this was the first thread that I had participated in, what would you say then? The issue at hand is "this" thread, and it is the "contents" of any particular post that is most important, not "who" wrote it. Do you have a reply to make to my opening post or not? If you have any comments to make about my posts at the GRD forum, the EofG forum, or elsewhere at this forum, then make them in the appropriate threads, or have you not embarrassed yourself enough already replying to my posts?

How many skeptics do you suppose believe that Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead? Am I so unusual for a skeptic?

Amaleq13

I think you need to reread that quote. It is the letter from Clement that is described as considered authentic.

With regard to Secret Mark, I don't know that there is a consensus.

Kosh

Magus,

you have been told this over and over, and over and over, and over and over...

Simple logic: One cannot prove a negative.

Therefore, the burden of proof is on you and other Christians to prove that miracles did happen.

And this is the point of the post. There is no evidence that the miracles happened.

Got evidence? Put up, or shut up.

Now, please do us all a favor and stop repeating the same bad arguments ad nauseum when you have been educated about them many times in the past.

Mythra

You speak of context in the Marcan Appendix? Please.

Since these verses of Mark, including the post-resurrection appearance, are not present in Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Syriacus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bobiensis, approximately 100 early Armenian translations, and the two oldest Georgian translations, we can confidently say that they were not present in the original autograph.

In other words - these verses have no business even being called part of the New Testament.

pharoah

I don't see much separation between the two. If the letter is authentic, then that's pretty compelling evidence for Secret Mark. The real battleground is over whether Smith forged the letter or not.

David B

There is good evidence that lots of people claim to be able to paranormally heal sick people.

There is good evidence that lots of sick people have claimed to have been paranormally cured.

There is no good evidence, AFAIK, that any of these claims stand up to critical examination.

David B (sees no reason to place the healing claims made on behalf of Jesus above or below any other paranormal healing claims)

Magus55

That post wasn't direct to you. I was referring to aa5784.

Magus55

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. aa claimed that Jesus did not perform miracles. He is the one making the claim. I don't have the burden of proof, because i'm not making any claims other than aa5784's post was purely based on his opinion, and had no evidentiary support.

Malachi151

If "Secret Mark" is real, as I believe that it is, then it clearly shows that the Lazarus story is made up based on a mythic tradition.