BadBadBad

I just think this is fascinating. This is the crux of christianity we're talking about, and the most crucial part of the Jesus story is corrupted beyond recognition. By that I mean no one is able to conclusively determine the truth on how the most crucial story in the Bible ends.

Vinnie, I've read a lot of your posts, and I take it you're a theist with a much more realistic view of the Bible than most I've encountered. If you believe the ending of Mark is corrupted, how does that affect your views on the credibility of the stories in both Paul and the Gospels?

Thanks for all the replies. I've enjoyed reading about this from both sides.

Vinnie

I missed a few words towards the end. It should be:

...when Luke reprints only 60% of Mark and Luke's view on the PN differs theologically from Matthew and Mark's view which is so close as to be inseperable.

A thought just occured to me. Maybe Luke's version of Mark had the ending but Matthews didn't?

Vinnie

Vinnie

Metzger's only fault is that he thinks that Mark would not have ended at v. 8

It depends on what stories you are referring to. As far as Mark goes I think the Gospel may have been misunderstood. Everyone thought it needed an ending when it didn't. I take it the creators of the endings were familiar with stories of resurrection appearances and even possibly other Gospels which had them and decided 16:8 did not constitute an appropriate ending to a written gospel.

Vinnie

BadBadBad

We have Mark without any witnesses to the resurrection. We have fabricated endings cannonized as the inspired word of God. We have Matthew and Luke copying Mark and adding minor bits to the story like earth quakes, walking dead saints, angels, and witnesses. I'm just curious as to what you make of that. What do you make of the arguments I've seen for the credibility of the resurrection due to the "witnesses" and accuracy of the transmitted text? Do you believe that the resurrection being in fact true is the best and most logical explanation for the history of this text and the incredible stories we find within?

What I've heard christians argue, as their principal argument, is that we have witnesses, we have reliable transmission of texts. Do you agree that this damages these arguments? What's the basis of your beliefs in the resurrection?

Vinnie

Historical methodology cannot reconstruct miracles so Christians who try argue for a bodily resurrection on the basis of history are simply mistaken.

Vinnie

BadBadBad

If we take away any basis from history, what other arguments are left to believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Vinnie

The usual answer is the creeds but I accept them on a functional basis alone.

Vinnie

BadBadBad

That's circular isn't it? The Gospels were the basis for the creeds. Now you're saying they are your basis for believing the resurrection as described in the Gospels.

Vinnie

Actually it would be said that the transforming and living Jesus was the basis for the Gospels and the creeds. I never said this was my "basis for believing the resurrection as described in the Gospels". I stated that I accept the creeds only on a functional level meaning I have no real concern on whether or not they are historically true.

Vinnie

BadBadBad

I asked if you take away history, what other basis is there for believing the resurrection story. You said the usual answer is the creeds. Jesus was the basis for the Gospels which was the basis for the creeds. It's circular then to say that the creeds are the basis for the Gospels.

That still leaves me wondering what basis there is for establishing the truth about the resurrection story if not history. Your opinion is that you don't care whether they are historically true. Is historically true the same as in fact true? Does that then boil down to Pascal's wager and faith?

Is that the only basis we have left to believe with confidence in Christianity? I see that as a pretty empty basis given the totality of what the Bible says, the history of how it reached us and the reality we see around us.