Vorkosigan

[b]I believe that Jesus rose bodily from the grave because it is implied in the resurrection passage. After reading the entire book of Mark the reader expects nothing else than for Jesus to rise from the dead.

Maybe, but how.....????

The angel/man's words (16:6) confirm this expectation. Jesus' body is nowhere to be found which implies that the body is linked to the risen Christ.

Actually, the passage says that Jesus is not there, but -- to really split a hair -- it doesn't say where his body is. You could easily read this Docetically, if you were so inclined.

Furthermore, the angel/man says that the disciples will be able to see Jesus (16:7). I realize that this isn't conclusive but I think it's just as likely (if not more likely) that a "physical" resurrection is meant instead of a "spiritual" resurrection.

I think you're reading later antidocetic Church theology into Mark, at least the Mark we have. In the OT the Witch of Endor called up Samuel and he was seen, but he was a ghost. Angels and spirits, as well as god himself, were seen. Are they all corporeal beings?

I used to think that Mark had no physical resurrection, but lately I've come to believe that John 21 is the original ending of Mark, and that clearly says Jesus was physical (assuming that touch was not redacted in there), so......

Vorkosigan

CX

I've seen this idea mentioned before, but I've never read a good defense of it. What swayed you in arriving at this conclusion. Is there a good scholarly source?

Vorkosigan

Try this website:
<a href="http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/" target="_blank">http://home.att.net/~david.r.ross/Mark/</a>

If you scroll about halfway down, or search for the words "The Missing Ending of Mark" you'll find a discussion of Evan Powell's book. Very convincing.

<a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00619.html" target="_blank">Here is another view</a>

Vorkosigan

Koyaanisqatsi

Irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what the author of Mark wrote and meant:

That states categorically that there was a young man sitting in the tomb.

It's not a matter for the imagination. The author wrote what he allegedly witnessed and/or was revealed to him by God. What he wrote was a "man" not an "angel" is sitting in the already opened tomb. There is no interpretation.

Mark states a man was sitting in the tomb. Period. Are you saying that Mark didn't know the difference between a man and an angel?

Then why did he use the word "angel" in all of the following other sections?

Clearly, the author of Mark knows the difference between a "man" and an "angel" and it is nothing more than your own wish fulfillment--just like the authors who revised Mark--that you "interpret" it differently.

There is no interpretation necessary, since Mark told us what he saw/what God told him. There was a young man sitting in the already open tomb not an angel.

Yes, I know, but you have nothing to go on, but what Mark claims the young man said, which was:
"Just as he told you." Got it? So let's do as you suggest and see what Jesus told them?

Mark 8:31: He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Rise again.

Interesting that you left of 9:10.

Mark 9:9-10: 9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.

Didn't they know what "rising from the dead" meant? He is risen! Right?

Mark 9:30-32:30 They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were,
31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, "The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise."
32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it.

Here, again, they don't know what it means that Jesus will rise.

If it were so clear and so obvious as it seems to be to you, then why isn't clear and obvious to his disciples? He says he's going to die and three days later rise, yet so far, nobody knows what he's talking about.

Mark 10:32-34: 32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him.
33 "We are going up to Jerusalem," he said, "and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles,
34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise."

Same thing. So far, all it says is he "will rise" and the disciples, as we know, haven't figured out what that means.

I don't know why you included these, since there is nothing relevant there.

Mark 14:28:But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

Again, all we have are Jesus saying he will rise again and see them in Galilee with the disciples not knowing exactly what this means.

If it were so obvious that Jesus was referring to a bodily resurrection, then why would there be any questioning going on?

In what way? Jesus' "mockers" taunted him about his claim that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days.

Go any way you like, this still does not mean that Mark thought Jesus had "defeated death" in anything other than a spiritual sense.

Even the plagiarist who tacked on the discredited prologue to Mark shows signs of confusion over whether or not there was a bodily resurrection, or whether or not Jesus came back in spirit:

Mark 16:12: Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.

Beside that nonsense, what has this to do with whether or not the resurrection was a spiritual one or not?

And "implication" is good enough for you, because this is a myth, not a factual document of actual events.

Funny that his disciples don't think he's going to rise in a bodily form, nor did the plagiarist who tacked on the fake ending.

The man's words. He was not an angel as is explicitly stated. He was a "young man" who claims that Jesus is "risen," something, you'll recall, that the disciples did not know what was meant by this obvious fact only to you.

Only to an extremely gullible, ignorant, desperate person, yes.

Man. It says "young man!" There are no such things as "angelmen." There are no such things as angels, either, but at least get your own fantasies straight.

The author of Mark knows the difference between an angel and a man, which is why he stated it was a "young man" sitting in the open tomb.

Just as they would be able to "see" an angel sitting in a tomb?

At least be consistent.

Others disagree.

Which he did not, but go on...

"Resurrected" to modern minds might mean "bodily" but first century Jews would not have considered a resurrection to be bodily.

Spriritualy, meaning that there is an "after life."

Remember, these were Jewish myths.

Not according to the disciples and not, apparently, according to Mark, all of which is entirely irrelevant to my point that the tomb was not empty and that the author of Mark is telling us quite clearly what actually happened.

Fraud.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>