All part of our not-too-illustrious history. as late as the late 1800s, the Jesuits in America sold their slaves to raise funds for the Smithsonian.
Do you think that God added to the teachings of Jesus after His Ascencion?
- Thread starter Longfellow
- Start date
That's the question.
The final 12 verses as we have them are not in the oldest manuscripts we hold. In the 4th century, both Eusebius and Jerome stated that nearly all the known Greek manuscripts end the Gospel at v8.
There are also at least two endings. The common one is the short one, and both of them are stylistically and syntactically different to the rest of the Gospel. For these reasons scholars generally accept that the Gospel ended at v8. All modern Bible translations somehow indicate a break between v8 and v9-20.
If, as Hart suggests (and others agree) Mark was written to be performed more than to be read, then the abrupt ending serves a purpose – Don't go home, happy and satisfied with having heard a stirring tale, go on. The last words of the tomb are to the disciples "he precedes you into Galilee, there you will see him" – the story doesn't end here, go where the story leads, now your journey begins – it's a dynamic ending, and the whole text is a dynamic tale, written with the average person in mind.
No, they didn't.
Well here we part ways, I think, as I see the temporal and the spiritual dimension – if Jesus was anything he was an apocalyptic prophet firsrt and foremost, his social polity was determined by that.
I made a mistake here – I was talking about the use of the term 'Christian' to describe the followers of Christ.
The first recorded use is Acts 11, in Antioch, around 44CE.
Agrippa talked with Paul in Caesarea Maritima around 59-60CE (Acts 28).
Bit vague ...
But I get your point of view.
Well not all, and not all the time ... that's a bit of an exaggeration.
Some I do, some I don't.
I tend to look at their evidence and not necessarily rest on their conclusions – a discipline I was taught at a very 'traditional' Catholic institution when I studied for my degree. I was not allowed to harbour my prejudices simply because they believe differently.
Vermes, for example, who has done sterling work to recover 'the Jewishness of Jesus' (as have many, many scholars in recent decades) believes in the Resurrection. Ehrman does not... nor does Crosson, except in a psychological sense ... they are all views to take into account.
If you mean a physical resurrection you would be incorrect. Even an appearance by a nonphysical Jesus is not what Vermes was talking about.
badger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,286
- Reaction score
- 490
- Points
- 83
Evidence?
Where do you find your evidence?
Vermes? No, he does not believe in the resurrection and he left the church. His 'dissection' of the gospels was the clearest work that I have read.
I mentioned Crosson because he clearly does not think of Jesus as more than a man. But that's as far as I support his opinions, Jesus as a 'magic for meal' performer, shuffling from community to community with a small following which went ahead of him to advertise his abilities... Oh dear!
badger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,286
- Reaction score
- 490
- Points
- 83
Surely it must have occurred to Hart that these words are telling that Jesus survived and has gone North to his friends?
G-Mark was absolutely intended to be read.......to put the record straight?
I misconstrued ... my error.
LOL, where do you find yours?
His treatment of the resurrection is not without problems, it seems.
I've downloaded Vermes "The Resurrection".
Not gone into any great detail, but as 1 Corinthians is key in understanding the Resurrection in Paul, the treatment of that chapter in the book is cursory at best, and fails to address the principle issues.
+++
A key critique offered is on the one hand, as Vermes notes, the idea of an afterlife, a resurrection and a judgement was not unfamiliar to those who heard the Word of Christ.
The idea however, that Jesus might rise from the dead before the day of judgment seems antecedent. This is why Jesus could preach of the Resurrection without his disciples realising that he was speaking specifically of himself rather than of the General Resurrection on the Day of Judgment. The surprise then, was understandable.
From the Gospels we might well assume they did not expect His near-immediate resurrection, although they did have an expectation of his immanent return that would initiate the end of the age. (The Pharisees believed that would involve bodily resurrection, contra the Sadducees).
And Paul's 1 Corinthians 15:44 opens a whole debate in precisely what 'body' was resurrected – and one with Vermes does not address.
+++
Christian Brady, DPhil (Oxon.), Professor of Ancient Hebrew and Jewish Literature, was dubious of Vermes' thesis:
"If we as historians offer another reading of an historical event (real or recounted) then we ought to have some evidence in support of our alternate view and at the least our new reconstruction ought to be more plausible within the original historical context. A "spiritual resurrection" theory sounds more like trying to appease someones’ consciouses rather than a legitimate historical assessment."
A.N. Wilson:
"... The thing about Geza Vermes is that he really reads the first-century evidence well, as you’d expect. He’s not doing a John Dominic Crossan thing and tracing the whole thing back to a hypothetical source, nor is he doing a James Crossley thing and saying the tomb wasn’t empty. He’s saying the tomb was empty, the early Christians did see appearances of Jesus, they did talk about a body coming back to life again, and that the other explanations offered don’t account for the evidence. And then just when you think he’s going to announce Jesus is risen, he ducks behind materialism and science and legality and says that because no skeptic will believe the resurrection story, we’d better try and work out why the early church believed it...
"The presupposition, obviously, is that in a rational, scientific, materialist world like ours, the resurrection story can’t be true. But the whole point about miracles is this: you can only be sure they never happen if you can be sure there isn’t a God. And since you can’t, miracles must at least be possible, and so Vermes’ response falls at the last fence."
(From an online interview)
Not gone into any great detail, but as 1 Corinthians is key in understanding the Resurrection in Paul, the treatment of that chapter in the book is cursory at best, and fails to address the principle issues.
+++
A key critique offered is on the one hand, as Vermes notes, the idea of an afterlife, a resurrection and a judgement was not unfamiliar to those who heard the Word of Christ.
The idea however, that Jesus might rise from the dead before the day of judgment seems antecedent. This is why Jesus could preach of the Resurrection without his disciples realising that he was speaking specifically of himself rather than of the General Resurrection on the Day of Judgment. The surprise then, was understandable.
From the Gospels we might well assume they did not expect His near-immediate resurrection, although they did have an expectation of his immanent return that would initiate the end of the age. (The Pharisees believed that would involve bodily resurrection, contra the Sadducees).
And Paul's 1 Corinthians 15:44 opens a whole debate in precisely what 'body' was resurrected – and one with Vermes does not address.
+++
Christian Brady, DPhil (Oxon.), Professor of Ancient Hebrew and Jewish Literature, was dubious of Vermes' thesis:
"If we as historians offer another reading of an historical event (real or recounted) then we ought to have some evidence in support of our alternate view and at the least our new reconstruction ought to be more plausible within the original historical context. A "spiritual resurrection" theory sounds more like trying to appease someones’ consciouses rather than a legitimate historical assessment."
A.N. Wilson:
"... The thing about Geza Vermes is that he really reads the first-century evidence well, as you’d expect. He’s not doing a John Dominic Crossan thing and tracing the whole thing back to a hypothetical source, nor is he doing a James Crossley thing and saying the tomb wasn’t empty. He’s saying the tomb was empty, the early Christians did see appearances of Jesus, they did talk about a body coming back to life again, and that the other explanations offered don’t account for the evidence. And then just when you think he’s going to announce Jesus is risen, he ducks behind materialism and science and legality and says that because no skeptic will believe the resurrection story, we’d better try and work out why the early church believed it...
"The presupposition, obviously, is that in a rational, scientific, materialist world like ours, the resurrection story can’t be true. But the whole point about miracles is this: you can only be sure they never happen if you can be sure there isn’t a God. And since you can’t, miracles must at least be possible, and so Vermes’ response falls at the last fence."
(From an online interview)
badger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,286
- Reaction score
- 490
- Points
- 83
The gospels. The writings of Celcus (via Orogen). Josephus. Archeology reports from Northern Provinces and the Galilee. Ancient history of Cornwall. .......and on....and on.
I never read about that. But I will read your next post, for sure.
I do not believe in the resurrection.
badger
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,286
- Reaction score
- 490
- Points
- 83
Reading the gospels it occurs to me that that the whole story of Jesus is a temporal one, and therefore he most certainly was seen by his friends afterwards, did have the injuries to hands, etc. I could offer natural explanations for most if not all of his 'miracles' in G-Mark.
The record, an idiom, 'outting the record straight' in English meaning to tell a story more accurately than 'chatter' which is going around.