UV2003

Quick comment, I just started reading it and find it interesting so far. It seems most on here believe Mark to be fictional, but do you believe that a real Jesus was physically resurrected to inspire the account?

Nom

No.

Amaleq13

There is no account of a physically resurrected Jesus in Mark. There is only a promise that a resurrected Jesus would appear to the disciples. Whether this resurrection was to involve the revived body of Jesus or a less physical manifestation is not specified.

Am I misunderstanding the question? I think the author of Mark was inspired by faith in the resurrection of Jesus but I think the notion that this involved the literal reanimation of his body is a later theological development.

UV2003

True, if we regard the women being afraid and not telling anyone as the end of the original account. I know some have argued that the other verses were original, but I don't know much about that.

But still, the young man said he was risen, so I just wonder whether Mark's author was inspired by belief that this really truly happened or just wishful thinking that it did.

Really I'm just trying my best to weigh all sides of the arguments, having spoken to Christians in church who generally don't read much about criticism of their faith, and now to atheists who do.
When I apply a modern standard of evidence, I am left thinking this resurrection story is just a fiction since I'm not aware of any physically resurrected people in modern times. But, I could be wrong!

-UV

gridleyjason

Let me see if I have this straight. Your proof that Dowd, Mitchell, and Hooker are "oath bound" to say and believe certain things (whatever they might otherwise think), is what a university at which _one_ of them _teaches_ allegedly did to one of its students?

Do you know how to say "unwarranted inductive leap"? How about "false dichotomy" or "arguing an irrelevant thesis"?

In any case, if you knew _anything_ about these women (I'm privleged to say I know each personally), you'd know how absurd it is to say that they'd not speak their minds even if it were to cost them their jobs.

Jason

Vinnie

Distinction noted. THe parallel is still flimsy and tenuous.

As I have shown, there is theological motivation at Mark's roots. He calls the disciples idiots for not understanding one of Jesus' parables which Mark thinks means the food laws no longer apply.

What mistakes did Jesus rectify? Most mistakes were all about misunderstanding and all throughout the story the apostles misunderstand. Once in a while Jesus helps them out with an explanation but their mistakes persist and also throughout the second half of Mark they fail to undertand that Jesus must die. He never rectifies this mistake in the text. The women go to rub oils on Jesus' body. But the women are wrong. THey should know Jesus is risen already. Jesus predicted it all along.

There is one hero in Mark. The lady at Bethany who annoints Jesus. She alone understands what must happen. She correctly annoints Jesus before he dies. The women go too late. The disciples never understand. They are, however, given a post-resurrectional promise which indicates that their failure was not definitive.

Just because Odysseus's crew were stupid and Jesus' followers were stupid is not enough. It may very well be true but I would need to know and see more information first.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I am pretty sure bodily rez is there. Thats the point of the programmatic dennigration. The lady at bethany understands and annoints Jesus' body. The women go with the spices too late. Aka there is no dead body to rub oils on. Also the missing body at the end of Mark.

Mark's specific thoughtd on the risen body are unknown however and the other records we have contradict one another on the nature of the risen Jesus.

Bodily Rez occurs first stratum with Paul. Paul was a Pharisee. The only reasonal conclusion (aka the noninterpolated creed in 1 Cor 15) is that as a Pharisee, who all believed in bodily resurrection, Paul accepted some form of bodily resurrection as well. He thought the body was transformed though. For example, the seed//flower metaphor.

Vinnie

Toto

Odysseus' crew disobeyed and died. Odysseus had to finish his journey by himself.

Jesus' "crew" misunderstood, but in the end Jesus died and they lived; and Jesus was resurrected (in the story) to cure them of their misunderstandings.

This is no more "flimsy" than accepting that Paul must have believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus because he claimed to be a Pharisee at one time (until, of course, he saw the risen Jesus).

Amaleq13

A missing body does not require a revived corpse but is consistent with a transformed corpse. I don't consider that a physical resurrection. Paul clearly did not consider the risen Christ to have a physical body but a spiritual one. I also don't consider that a physical resurrection.

Later depictions of the risen Christ as eating or having people poke their hands into his wounds, however, certainly suggest that his previously dead body had been revived. Then again, those same Gospels suggest that his appearance had changed sufficiently that even Mary didn't recognize him.

Magical thinking doesn't always follow logic, I suppose.

Vinnie

Thats why Paul says spirit body. Not spirit. Not body. Spirit body.

Vinnie