tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post820419422798372247..comments2024-03-29T03:30:25.637-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Did Mark Invent the Empty Tomb?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18614175106825217582015-02-12T14:47:22.847-08:002015-02-12T14:47:22.847-08:00Jesus' resurrection after his death is the ult...Jesus' resurrection after his death is the ultimate and defining proof of Jesus' divinity. Just about everyone knows the story, which is summarized in the Apostles' Creed. Jesus was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />There is only one way for Jesus to prove that he rose from the dead. He had to appear to people. Therefore, several different places in the Bible describe Jesus' appearances after his death:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />•Matthew chapter 28 <br />•Mark chapter 16 <br />•Luke chapter 24 <br />•John Chapter 20 and 21<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />1 Corinthians 15:3-6 provides a nice summary of those passages, as written by Paul:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />As you can see in this passage, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people a number of different times.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Being like Paul: When we look at these Bible passages, there is a question that comes to mind -- why did Jesus stop making these appearances? Why isn't Jesus appearing today? It really is odd.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Obviously Paul benefitted from a personal meeting with the resurrected Christ. Because of the personal visit, Paul could see for himself the truth of the resurrection, and he could ask Jesus questions. So... Why doesn't Jesus appear to everyone and prove that he is resurrected, just like he appeared to Paul? There is nothing to stop Jesus from materializing in your kitchen tonight to have a personal chat with you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />And if you think about it, Jesus really does need to appear to each of us. If Paul needed a personal visit from Jesus to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why wouldn't you? It is an important question for the following reasons:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />•We are told by the Bible that Jesus appeared to hundreds of people.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />•We therefore know that it is OK for Jesus to appear to people -- it does not take away their free will, for example.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />•We know that it would be easy for Jesus to appear to everyone all through history, since Jesus is all-powerful and timeless.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />•We know that, if Jesus did reappear to everyone, it would be incredibly helpful. We could all know, personally, that Jesus is resurrected and that Jesus is God. If Paul (and all the other people in the Bible) needed a personal visit to know that Jesus was resurrected, then why not you and me? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Yet, we all know that Jesus has not appeared to anyone in 2,000 years.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />THINK, folks! Which is more likely: A dead man walked out of his grave 2,000 years ago, ate a broiled fish lunch with his fishing buddies and then 40 days later levitated into outer space, or, this entire story of a Resurrection is a legend: a legend based on false sightings and/or visions and hallucinations, of well-intentioned but uneducated, illiterate, hope-shattered, superstitious Galilean peasants, desperately trying to keep alive their only source of hope in their miserable, first century existence?<br />Garyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02519721717265344702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-57008461471616538892014-04-21T06:10:32.008-07:002014-04-21T06:10:32.008-07:00the post of his that I took out was a duplication....the post of his that I took out was a duplication. somehow blogger posted it twice. The rest of his comment.<br /><br />"None of your argument demonstrates that the empty tomb wasn't invented."<br /><br />Yes I'm afraid it does because I proved beyond a doubt that the story existed before Mark was written. At least our version of Mark. That prove Mark did not invent the empty tomb.<br /><br />"And...I thought one of the strengths of Mark was that he was an eyewitness or very close to one. If that's the case, why would you want to say he used something other than his own version of events to describe what happened?"<br /><br /><b>that assume Markan authorship is made up for apologetic reasons. Yet if they were going to make up an authorship there's no reason not to attribute it to an unknown like Mark. Why not say Barnabas wrote it? Or James or whomever was famous.<br /><br />The entire community is the author. Mark was probably the original collector of Peter's memoirs and then that collection was re-worked by redactors int eh community to reflect the witness fo he whole community.<br /><br />atheists are stuck in the 19th century. Modern scholarship no longer sees the indivuidal author as important. The Gospels were produced by whole communities.<br /><br />we don't need to know an individual name to know it has veracity. We have so many points of comparison now we know the four canonical Gospels are most historical.</b> Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-20896506647528762152014-04-21T06:00:50.128-07:002014-04-21T06:00:50.128-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-56654050992886536082014-04-21T05:58:52.527-07:002014-04-21T05:58:52.527-07:00"So, your argument here is that "Mark&qu..."So, your argument here is that "Mark" didn't write this part of Mark. That it existed prior to the final form of Mark."<br /><br /><br /><b>Not that he didn't write the section. that the element of the empty tomb he did not invent.</b><br /><br /><br /> "You seem to acknowledge that it still might constitute one source by an unknown author (whose name is presumably not Mark, but why that matters, I don't know). Your argument seems to be that if you can get the origin of the story to within 20 years of the supposed event, then it must be true?"<br /><br /><br /><b>Ok it looks like what we have here is a fundamenatlist who stopped believing but still thinks like a fudie. you are judging real textual criticisms by the standards of fundamentlism. that makes no sense.<br /><br />I assume you mean to say you don't accept Mark as the author anyway, since you put the name in quotes. So you think the author is unknown anyway so what difference does that make?<br /><br />modern historical methods assume the author is the community. So it doesn't matter that we don't know an individual name. the whole community is testifying to their experiences. </b> Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1155567601860730282014-04-20T11:59:34.339-07:002014-04-20T11:59:34.339-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.gbarretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12919315704094699096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21500255172855805952014-04-20T11:58:25.134-07:002014-04-20T11:58:25.134-07:00"It constitutes two independent sources testi... "It constitutes two independent sources testifying to the empty tomb early on, Mark (Ur Mark) and Pre Mark passion narrative. Even if we want to say it's just one source which stands behind all of these different Gospels it removes the onus that Mark invented the tomb and it places the tomb well witin living memory of eye witnesses. "<br /><br />So, your argument here is that "Mark" didn't write this part of Mark. That it existed prior to the final form of Mark. You seem to acknowledge that it still might constitute one source by an unknown author (whose name is presumably not Mark, but why that matters, I don't know). Your argument seems to be that if you can get the origin of the story to within 20 years of the supposed event, then it must be true? <br /><br />None of your argument demonstrates that the empty tomb wasn't invented. <br /><br />And...I thought one of the strengths of Mark was that he was an eyewitness or very close to one. If that's the case, why would you want to say he used something other than his own version of events to describe what happened?gbarretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12919315704094699096noreply@blogger.com