Mythra

In my mind, the ending of GMark in the most ancient texts is the biggest problem of all - for those advocating the gospels as history.

The women were at the tomb. No body. They told no one for they were afraid. End of story.

Whoa. Something stinketh here.

Who would end the story there? Leaving out the earth shattering appearances by the Risen Christ? Leaving out the scene with doubting Thomas. Leaving out the Great Commission. Leaving out the glorious ascension, as witnessed by many.

No one would end the story with the women at the tomb. Unless the rest hadn't been thought up yet.

And there aren't enough creative apologists in the world to provide a credible answer for this difficulty.

Roger Pearse

Um. Are you sure that you want to attribute that view to me?

I've snipped the remainder of your comments, since unfortunately they all seem to involve not actually reading what I wrote. You will appreciate my lack of interest in writing more!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ray Moscow

At the risk of referring to Robert Price too often: the original ending was similar to other fictional works of that time, in which ended in a ????? regarding an empty tomb or similar plot device.

No, the rest of the stuff had not been thought up yet. There is no way the original Mark would have left out that exciting stuff if he had it.

Ray

Roger Pearse

You will appreciate that few people feel under much obligation to prove things to people who profess that they have the right to assert whatever they like and others have to prove them wrong.

Everyone has to show that what they think is correct, regardless.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Magdlyn

All we appreciate is that you are either out of arguments or just can't be buggered to present any evidence on which you base your "beliefs". Why bother to respond to the thread?

Jake M

I connected historical events to biblical teachings and put them in a historical context.

That's better than mythology...... which is what the entire bible is.......

Unless you have physical evidence for each passage in the bible, each passage without evidence is mythology

angelo

We do not know who wrote the gospels. When they first appeared, they circulated anonymously and were only later attributed to important figures in the early church. The authors were Jewish Christians, who wrote in Greek and lived in the Hellenistic cities of the Roman empire.
Mark was written around 70, Matthew and Luke in the late 80s, and John in the late 90s. Not one of these creative writers was an apostle of Jesus according to scholars. Remembering that Palestine was at that time in turmoil because of the Jewish uprising, their temple being destroyed, they would have been in a confused state and trying to comprehend it all, what it all meant to their faith, was god punishing them.? They may have believed that Jesus was in some way associated to the temples destruction.
The temple was the centre of Jewish worship and sacrifice to their god who dwelled in the temple. :huh:

Joan of Bark

If you're including Paul, then there is an excellent reason to add a passage or two. For instance, the ending of the gospels in which Jesus tells his disciples to go and baptize the nations of the world was probably added in order to justify the inclusion of gentiles in the sect. Earlier passages had Jesus claiming that he had come only for "the lost sheep of the house of Israel".

burning flames

im more into the book now, there are definitely some relevant changes in texts.

angelo

Relevant changes? Boy is that an understatement. The whole thing was translated that many times, and the various translators all added their version of proceedings in their various places in the Roman Empire. Not forgetting that these translations were meant for different churches in different provinces of the Empire.