“So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”
so there clearly isn’t any good news to share here. could it be that the author of mark thought that the man in the tomb was possessed by the evil one and may have done shape shifting?
On the ending of Marks gospel, I think it was the original ending. On reason I heard why it ended that way was because of the empty tomb story. The empty tomb story did not develop until decades later contrary to Christian apologist claims. This explains why Paul never mentioned it.
The gospel ends with the women fleeing from the tomb in terror and amazement and not telling anyone. The reason Mark ended it this way was because people were asking why they have never heard the empty tomb story before. Marks ending is basically, “you know how women are, they are undependable and cannot be trusted to communicate the story’.
Jimmy said
The reason Mark ended it this way was because people were asking why they have never heard the empty tomb story before. Marks ending is basically, “you know how women are, they are undependable and cannot be trusted to communicate the story’.
Agreed, but I’d be reluctant to say things like “The reason Mark ended it this way was because….” Shouldn’t let speculation pose as fact. After all, belief in the resurrection was quite early. It’s hard to believe that people believed Jesus was resurrected, but didn’t realize that meant there would be an empty tomb
Jimmy said
The empty tomb story did not develop until decades later contrary to Christian apologist claims. This explains why Paul never mentioned it.
Not sure how (or why) Paul (or anyone else) would write 1Cor 15 if they didn’t believe the tomb was empty?
especially
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile …
Quartus said
Jimmy said
The empty tomb story did not develop until decades later contrary to Christian apologist claims. This explains why Paul never mentioned it.
Not sure how (or why) Paul (or anyone else) would write 1Cor 15 if they didn’t believe the tomb was empty?especially
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile …
Good point Q
but maybe the question is about the significance of the empty tomb. Certainly it was not originally considered proof of a Resurrection. So maybe Mark’s point was to declare the importance of it? You have to agree, Mark’s ending is striking both for its cliff hanger style and that the women never tell anyone. Also for it’s lack of “appearances”
maybe the question is about the significance of the empty tomb. Certainly it was not originally considered proof of a Resurrection. So maybe Mark’s point was to declare the importance of it? You have to agree, Mark’s ending is striking both for its cliff hanger style and that the women never tell anyone. Also for it’s lack of “appearances”
If we didn’t expect the gospels to present different aspects of the same events, then we would have to expect them to be identical with each other, would we not? So now it depends on which direction they are approached from, whether we come looking for contradictions or seeing complimentary detail. If the end of any gospel was the end of the story, it seems we wouldn’t have Acts… As we do have Acts, it seems the end of any gospel was not the end of the story.
Acts or history (whichever) indicates that it wasn’t the end, not even the beginning of the end, but only the end of the beginning.
The crucifixion left the disciples quaking in their sandals. As an entity they were dead in the water. The Jews were out to kill them, and all the Romans wanted was a quiet life….
Something changed the disciples, something that became powerful enough to convince followers to be burned as torches in Nero’s gardens, or other Roman amusements.
If it was it wasn’t the resurrection and the empty tomb and the appearances, then it must have been something else. What could that something else have been?
spiker said
Quartus said
Jimmy said
The empty tomb story did not develop until decades later contrary to Christian apologist claims. This explains why Paul never mentioned it.
Not sure how (or why) Paul (or anyone else) would write 1Cor 15 if they didn’t believe the tomb was empty?especially
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile …Good point Q
but maybe the question is about the significance of the empty tomb. Certainly it was not originally considered proof of a Resurrection. So maybe Mark’s point was to declare the importance of it? You have to agree, Mark’s ending is striking both for its cliff hanger style and that the women never tell anyone. Also for it’s lack of “appearances”
Ehrman addresses why the empty tomb story is likely just that, an empty tomb story.
If it was it wasn’t the resurrection and the empty tomb and the appearances, then it must have been something else.
it must have been something else for paul because he didn’t find the empty tomb, alleged appearances to the disiples etc convincing.
it is the jewish argument that millions of them heard their god speak and that number trumps the unknown 12 disciples. jewish apologists say that they (their ancestors) heard their gods voice and saw no image and it was in the millions.
Quartus said
Not sure how (or why) Paul (or anyone else) would write 1Cor 15 if they didn’t believe the tomb was empty?
especially
1Co 15:12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co 15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vainand your faith is in vain.
1Co 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
1Co 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised.
1Co 15:17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile …
are you saying that 1 co 15:17 implies discovered empty tomb?
Kazibwe Edris said are you saying that 1 co 15:17 implies discovered empty tomb?
Q. I understand “resurrection” to require that. Can you be resurrected and still remain in the grave/tomb?
Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
1Co 15:22-23 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
Q. If it was it wasn’t the resurrection and the empty tomb and the appearances, then it must have been something else.
Kazibwe Edris said it must have been something else for paul because he didn’t find the empty tomb, alleged appearances to the disiples etc convincing.
Paul’s testimony:
1Cor 15:4-8 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
Kazibwe Edris said
it is the jewish argument that millions of them heard their god speak and that number trumps the unknown 12 disciples. jewish apologists say that they (their ancestors) heard their gods voice and saw no image and it was in the millions.
If we define “God” in the way that Christ defined the Father, we have to allow
Joh 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
therefore I suggest the OT references that you refer to would be a divine angel, speaking the words of God, as did Christ:
Joh 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Paul’s testimony:
1Cor 15:4-8 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
this is after paul got a vision, but before he did not find empty tomb, appearances etc convincing.
Q. I understand “resurrection” to require that. Can you be resurrected and still remain in the grave/tomb?
what does “Can you be resurrected and still remain in the grave/tomb?” anything to do with discovering an empty tomb and finding no body in it?
I do not think that Paul in first Corinthians implies an empty tomb story. Luke chapter nine ( if it is to be believed) says
3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.
7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing.
This sounds like some kind of spiritual appearance of Jesus, not a physical one.
In the first Corinthians mention of the resurrection appearance Paul does not make a distinction between his appearance and the appearance to Cephas, the twelve, the five hundred, James, all of the apostles .
At the end of the chapter Paul talks about the resurrection body. It sounds to me that he talks about some kind of spiritual body and not a physical one. A spiritual resurrection does not require an empty tomb.
Kaz, Jimmy,
Sorry, seems I was a bit slow. I believe at death the believer sleeps in the grave, awaiting the resurrection.
I don’t believe in the immortal soul theory or in any difference between soul/spirit and the body.
It follows from that, my understanding would be that if Paul believes the resurrection occurred at all, then he must also believe the tomb is empty, and yes of course, there was certainly a time when Paul didn’t believe the disciples.
Regarding the spiritual body, we know it does differ from the natural body of flesh and blood (1Cor15:50)
but nevertheless it still has to have a physical existence to be consistent with
Luk 24:39-40 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
Also, if Christ is the firstfruits – of what exactly is he the first?
Joh 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice (KJV)
The ESV, RV and others, translate “graves” as “tombs”, and Strong’s concordance gives the translations of “mnemeion” as “grave, sepulchre, tomb” and identifies it as the same Greek word used twice (for tomb and again for sepulchre) in Matt 27:60 (KJV).
Jimmy said
I do not think that Paul in first Corinthians implies an empty tomb story.
Yet he speaks of burial in Corinthians 15. He believes in the resurrection and arguably believes resurrection is physical so I’m not sure how one can honestly think he doesn’t imply an empty tomb?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)