4th December 2007

“Paul and the evangelists are excruciatingly muddled in their stories about resurrection. What are we to make, for instance, of the fact that the writer of Mark's gospel, written long before the other three, didn't mention the resurrection and made no reference to ghostly post-resurrection 'appearances' by Jesus?”

Dr John Shepherd

24 Responses to “4th December 2007”

  1. Thunder Says:

    * made no reference to ghostly post-resurrection ‘appearances’ by Jesus?” *

    Mr. Shepherd seems to suffer from a voluntary ignorance of scripture. None of the gospels speak of any apparision of Jesus. Jesus first appearance as a (Pseudo-) apparision is in the book of acts meeting Paul on the road to damascus. The gospels refer to a bodily resurrection.

    Darius daughter is not spoken of as an apparision nor is lazarus. If I`m not mistaken both of those instances are in mark. The ending of mark is always in some dispute even among christians. If I`m not mistaken it is the antipathy of the scriptural doctrine of baptism for remission of sins that motivates many to denounce mark 16:16.

  2. Thunder Says:

    And another point. When Jesus ” Materialized” in the upper room with the apostles (including thomas) HE said handle me see it is I. There are previous verses even before his “PASSION” where it is said basically that he “dematerialized”. Those aren`t really counted as miracles because the wording is a little more ambiguous rather than blatant.

  3. GJK Says:

    “None of the gospels speak of any apparision of Jesus.”

    The quote says “appearance” not “apparision”.

    The word “apparision” does not exist anyway – do you mean “apparition”?

  4. GJK Says:

    “The gospels refer to a bodily resurrection.”

    Not all of them – the earliest version of Mark, the first gospel to be written, doesn’t mention anything of the sort.

  5. Thunder Says:

    * The quote says “appearance” not “apparision”. *

    The quote says ” ghostly “. Look up that definition in your dictionary!

    * The word “apparision” does not exist anyway – do you mean “apparition”? *

    Machs Nitcht.

    * Not all of them – the earliest version of Mark, the first gospel to be written, doesn’t mention anything of the sort. *

    UGHHH!!!!! I DID NOT EVEN CLAIM>>>>>> Jesus resurrection was annotated in witness in that book! You`ll have to ask john mark (author?)why he didn`t include it (if you ever get the opportunity).

  6. Thunder Says:

    Also…… apparition and appearance have practically the same root meaning.

  7. Thunder Says:

    Another point…..

    * Not all of them – the earliest version of Mark, the first gospel to be written, doesn’t mention anything of the sort. *

    Mark chapter 9 & 10 do include Jesus prohphecy of his death burial and resurrection.

  8. GJK Says:

    How could the author of Mark’s gospel omit this most remarkable, amazing and fundamental part of the Christian story?

    He writes in great detail about relatively unimportant events and then forgets to include the most fundamental aspect of Christianity!

    He forgets to include the one claim, without which Jesus is just an unremarkable religious zealot who came to an unfortunate end.

  9. Thunder Says:

    * How could the author of Mark’s gospel omit this most remarkable, amazing and fundamental part of the Christian story? *

    You do NOT KNOW that he omitted it. You only know that academiolgy is going with what they have in hand and an abiding supposition that mark 16 was a catholic addition to the text. Guttenburgh wasn`t alive in the first century and the telegraph came around about the turn of the 20th century. Neither you nor academiolgy is interested in the proper spirit of the word study as it is promoted in the scripture themselves. Study to show yourself approved is talking about the absorption of the lessons contained in scripture not the motive to dismantle it.

    * He writes in great detail about relatively unimportant events and then forgets to include the most fundamental aspect of Christianity! *

    There are no unimportant events in scripture. And again the stample of atheism….. you can`t be sure…… You don`t know if he omitted it. You only know that someone has stipulated that mark 16 was added. And if that is not what you heard and you are simply ignorantly supporting a quote from a doubter maybe you could go and read the 16th chapter.

  10. Thunder Says:

    Sorry about my tone. I`ll try to dial it down.

  11. GJK Says:

    I can understand that to a person of faith the historical origins and inconsistencies in the gospels is inconsequential.

    But to an objective observer the evolution and embellishment of Christian doctrine is clear.

  12. Thunder Says:

    * But to an objective observer the evolution and embellishment of Christian doctrine is clear. *

    You have a blind spot. You wouldn`t see that as an inconsistency if you didn`t need ammunition to derail the surviving influence of the bible upon society. You are NOT objective or you wouldn`t claim to be an atheist.

    * I can understand that to a person of faith the historical origins and inconsistencies in the gospels is inconsequential. *

    You don`t understand. voyager probably will not survive the ort cloud but it was packed with media inviting who we have not even met yet to visit. Spend billions of dollars on interferrometers and radio telescopes listening for extraterrestrial life. You are people of faith. You just don`t want to find God.

  13. GJK Says:

    “You wouldn`t see that as an inconsistency if you didn`t need ammunition to derail the surviving influence of the bible upon society.”

    Facts about the historical origins of the gospels can’t be ignored because you find them inconvenient.

    If you weren’t uncomfortable with these facts you wouldn’t be reacting in such a defensive manner.

  14. Thunder Says:

    * Facts about the historical origins of the gospels can’t be ignored because you find them inconvenient. *

    Your rejection is not a binding fact. It is an opinion you want to promote and it causes you to make conclusions when all the facts are not in. If you were objective you would have to conclude that this descrepancy you pin your hopes as proof of the human influence of scripture could just as easily be the result of material missing as the natural result of petina. If you were objective you would revel in the amount of scriptural material that has survived the ages when so many other works have turned to powder.

    * If you weren’t uncomfortable with these facts you wouldn’t be reacting in such a defensive manner *

    You misjudge the dynamics of this discussion. I`m not uncomfortable because you have something. I`m pissed because you delude yourself into believing you have something.

  15. GJK Says:

    The known facts about the historical origins of the gospels can’t be ignored because you find them inconvenient.

  16. Thunder Says:

    * The known facts about the historical origins of the gospels can’t be ignored because you find them inconvenient. *

    You have no standing to accused me of ignoring facts that have not been subject to the conversation. Provide an instance where I ignored a fact. You are making a logical fallacy. You are arguing from one of your personally held bigotries against christians. Not only that but two days ago you accused me of being prone to changing the subject…. we started out in dispute over my use of the term apparition in my reply to the initial quote. We got to this point because you have to try and get some of the mud you are slinging to stick to me.

  17. Thunder Says:

    I would like to have an exchange of ideas and not have to continue proving to you that I am in fact a thinking human being.

  18. GJK Says:

    When religious people dispute facts they show that they prefer fantasy to reality.

  19. Thunder Says:

    * When religious people dispute facts……. *

    Stereotypes are not virtuous positions. I`m still waiting for you to supply the instance where I disputed the indisputable.

    * they show that they prefer fantasy to reality. *

    The only fantasy preferred in this discussion is the one that has you in a position of objectivity.

  20. GJK Says:

    “You do NOT KNOW that he omitted it.”

    Disputing facts is an act of desperation.

  21. Thunder Says:

    * Disputing facts is an act of desperation. *

    No way is that a fact. It is an option. One out of three or four. You promote it as fact though the other options have NOT been invalidated and that indicates opperating upon bias and not deductive reason. To contrast that I have not taken a position one way or the other if mark 16 is contrived or missing or extracted or omitted. I`m not the one that is desperate. My belief is not predicated on you demonstrating an apparent inconsistency or an inability to do so. You are trying to derail and dismantle not me.

  22. GJK Says:

    You can stick your head in the sand all you like but it won’t change the facts.

    Next you’ll be claiming the earthquake described in Matthew actually happened!

  23. Thunder Says:

    * You can stick your head in the sand all you like but it won’t change the facts. *

    You are stubborn and you are intentionally inflammatory. You are NOT objective or open minded. You are immune to reason.

    * Next you’ll be claiming the earthquake described in Matthew actually happened! *

    WHAT CLAIM HAVE I MADE!!!!!!! I have yet to speak of the virtue or lack of virtue of anything in scripture. I told you what my motive was and have remained true to that. If conversion were my motive I would not be reasoning that God may be alien. That ain`t in scripture. If scripture is the framework of christianity you can`t convert someone to christianity without scripture. I would be saying things like repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins if my motive were to convert. Or I would say if you want to be christian deny yourself and submit to suffering for sin as Jesus did and follow him. But I have not. If I walked into a church and said God may be an alien they would have the same reaction to that as you did.

  24. Thunder Says:

    You are trying to get me riled up and provoke me so I am kicked off the forum. That is the only answer for your conduct.