Steven Carr

If the first reaction of the Jewish authorities was to spread lies that the disciples stole the body, why would Mark make no mention of the fact that the tomb was guarded?

Did he not realise that his Gospel left Christians wide open to claims that the disciples stole the body? Just how dumb was Mark not to mention the fact which refuted the main charge that had been (allegedly) thrown at Christians for decades?

Perhaps Mark was embarrassed by Christians lying about there being guards at the tomb and was compelled to tell the truth?

Or perhaps Christians only made up that lie after somebody read 'Mark' and then attacked Christians by saying that the tomb had been unguarded?

Huon

A possible explanation is that gMark contains the first (awkward) version of the resurrection.

Or that the Christians who read (or heard) gMark were not aware of the easy criticism of this version. Guignebert wrote a "Jesus" in 1938, and says that the hellenistic thought feels repelled by the idea of resurrection of a dead body. Soul, yes, corpse, no.

Steven Carr

Possibly that is indeed the first version of the resurrection that included a Jesus being buried somewhere and a tomb being found.

whitknight23

That's what I've read that seems to be the case. There's a lot of good material on the infidels website about this topic.

dog-on

I would tend to go with your last statement as to why Matthew decided to add his little tidbit about the guards and the plotting bad guys.

aa5874

So, are you implying that the author of gMark was truthful when he reported that Jesus was risen from the dead?

According to gMark, a young man in a long white garment claimed Jesus resurrected.

Mark 16:6 - Did not the author of gMark propagate a Christian lie about the resurrection itself?

Huon

The author of gMark believed that he was reporting a truth. He was sincere. Now, a religious truth is not exactly an ordinary truth...
It is a Christian truth for the Christians. This Christian truth will not convert me or you. Saying it is a lie will not deconvert any Christian.

aa5874

You cannot show that your statement is true.

You cannot identify who wrote gMark, you cannot show under what circumstance the author wrote gMark, you cannot show that the author was not trying to deceive.

But, it can be shown or reasonably deduced that Jesus did not resurrect as written in gMark.

Humans do not resurrect after being dead for three days. It would be reasonably expected that the author of gMark knew that humans do not resurrect therefore it was false to imply that Jesus did.

The author of Mark most likely knew he was lying about the resurrection.

Now, your statement is highly illogical. How can Christians be dishonest or propagate false and erroneous statements about Jesus and then claim that it is the truth for Christians?

It must be obvious that people who call themselves Christians can lie. Even in the NT, a supposed disciple of Jesus lied about knowing him.

And, how in the world can you make such absurd statements about what makes christians deconvert?

Please tell me the reason why I no longer believe the Jesus story?

gdeering

Good try Huon

Solo

I don't think it's 'awkward' version or a lapse. Mark seem to have been quite methodical. I believe the empty tomb was a Paulinist (inside) pun on the flesh-addicted disciples.

Paul 1 Cr 12:27 'Ὑμεῖς δέ ἐστε σῶμα Χριστοῦ', Now you are the body of Christ. (meaning the Pauline Church).

σῶμα (soma) = body, even figuratively, but also corpse.

Jiri