Major problems in Mark's account of Jesus' Resurrection appearances

[rakovsky]

A critical reading of Mark's accounts of Jesus' resurrection appearances shows that it was probably not original but added later, and that the accounts include information that either tends to mislead or is untrue.

1. Mark's account of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances (the verses after Mark 16:8) were apparently added later onto Mark's original gospel, as the Christian apologetics website Tectonics explains: tektonics.org/lp/markend.php
For example, the early Church writer Eusebius said that the accurate copies of Mark lack the added part. That part basically just takes short pieces from what the other gospels say. And Mark 16:9 starts the added part on a note out of harmony with the earlier part of the chapter, since verse 9 begins introducing Mary Magdalene as the woman with 7 demons after it already introduced her at the beginning of the chapter.

It's noticeable that Mark doesn't include the miraculous virgin birth either in the beginning of his gospel. Since the post resurrection appearances and the virgin birth are the most fantastic parts of the gospels, "bookending" them at the beginning and end, it's not so surprising that Mark didn't include the resurrection appearances.

This is not to say that Mark didn't see Jesus as divine or believe in the Resurrection. On the contrary, a close reading of Mark (up to 16:8) shows that he suggests them to the reading, particularly with the empty tomb and the promise that Jesus would meet the apostles again in Galilee. But if the account was added in later by unknown editors, those accounts' reliability decreases.

And why wouldn't Mark discuss in detail and clearly such topics as the incarnation, Jesus' divinity or the resurrection appearances? Either he did not want to overemphasize them to a person hearing the story for the first time, or because the details directly proving them were unclear, doubtful, or, as in the case of the virgin birth, unknown to him.

2. The added account includes claims that either tend to mislead or are untrue.

A. In Matthew and in the original version of Mark without the added ending, at the tomb the women are told that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee. Matthew and John later describe Jesus' appearances to groups of disciples on a mountain in Galilee and at the Sea of Tiberias. Then Acts 1 describes Jesus' ascension about 40 days after the resurrection and how the disciples came back from the Mount of Olives, where Church tradition says the Ascension happened.

In the added part in Mark (Mk 9-20), Jesus visits two disciples on the road to Emmaus, the disciples tell the other apostles, and then Jesus shows up to criticize the apostles for failing to believe the earlier reports of His appearances and gives them instructions. "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven". This leads the reader to think that there was only one appearance to the disciples as a group, after which Jesus ascended.

Mark's ending appears to take this appearance from Luke's account, but that has even more contradictions. "That same day" as the Resurrection, Jesus visits two disciples on the road to Emmaus, that "same hour", the disciples go to tell the rest of the apostles, then while they give the report, Jesus shows up in their midst and tells them to stay in Jerusalem until they get the Holy Spirit (50 days later), "And he led them out as far as to Bethany",(not just the vicinity of Bethany) where he Ascended.

This can be found in Luke 24:
24:13 "that same day" as the empty tomb was found, the two apostles went to Emmaus and saw Jesus
24:33 "the same hour" as they saw Jesus, they went to tell the apostles
24:36: as they told the apostles this, Jesus showed up
24:49: Jesus told them right then to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost
24:50: Then he made the Ascension at Bethany

So in Matthew, John, and Acts, Jesus appears to them in Galilee at least twice and ascends on, seemingly, the Mount of Olives on Day 40, while in Luke it says Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem until Day 50, and after saying this He ascended at Bethany.

B. In Mark 16:8, after hearing the young man's/angel's instructions to tell the apostles about Jesus going to Galilee, "they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." And here Mark's original gospel ends. This leads the reader to the impression that they kept quiet at least for a long period of time.

For example, if some girls meet a very strange man in the woods who tells them to give a message to their friends, and they say nothing to anyone, it leads the reader to think that they did not tell their friends either.

But in Matthew and Luke, they immediately went to tell the apostles about the angel, and the disciples came back and looked at the tomb.

C. When Jesus appears to all the disciples in Mark to give them their mission, He says: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That sounds categorical and would lead some people to think that everything depends on belief alone.

But first, it doesn't appear that the Bible actually teaches that judgment is only based on belief. James' Epistle says that faith without works is dead, suggesting that even if a person believes, the belief might not bring salvation if the person lacks works.

And second, it seems wrong to categorically and morally condemn all nonbelievers. It makes sense to morally condemn someone for an unrepented, immoral act. But why should the rational issue of whether a factual event occurred or not be grounds for moral condemnation. Couldn't a good, moral person find the gospels inspiring, but due to a psychology of strong mental skepticism about the world and society fail to achieve an affirmative belief that the event happened at a certain time and place? In the New Testament, apostles like Thomas themselves disbelieved until Jesus appeared to them. Why should other disbelievers be morally condemned for the same failure in mental reasoning.

D. Jesus then says in Mark 16:17-18, "these signs shall follow them that believe; ...They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them". This brings to mind Jesus' previous instructions to the disciples in Luke 10:19: 'Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

But is it true that nothing would hurt the apostles and that a miraculous sign following believers is drinking anything deadly without harm? Some apostles were flogged and eventually killed, so perhaps the promised protection only applied to a limited period following Jesus' commission to them in Luke 10:19, rather than to their later missions given after the resurrection.

As for drinking position, I suppose some Christians' strong belief could give them special fortitude and thus a better chance of survival. But this must be very rare and I am hesitant to agree that their poison survival rate is significantly higher than nonbelievers'.

C. Earlier in the gospels, Jesus repeatedly said that no sign would be given to the generation besides the miracle of Jonah.

An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. Matthew 12:39, 16:4

And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. Mark 8:12

This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. Luke 11:29

But Mark's gospel ends by saying that the apostles "went forth, ...the Lord... confirming the word with signs following." In fact, the gospels and Acts repeatedly discuss the public miracles of Jesus and the apostles like Jesus feeding the multitudes with muliplying bread and fish.

So when Jesus said no other miracles would be given to the generation, was He just talking about his particular audience, since the Greek word for "generation" could mean a related term like a race. But was Jesus' resurrection the only miracle of which they heard about Jesus? Or does it mean that the resurrection was the only sign meant to bring that particular group of people to faith?

In conclusion, these claims or stories are misleading, because Luke 24 leaves the impression that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem until Pentecost and Jesus ascended at Bethany on Day 1 or Day 2 of the resurrection, Mark 16 leaves the impression that the women didn't tell anyone about the angel at the tomb for a long time, Jesus' words in Mark sound like judgment depends categorically on whether someone believes or not, His words also sound like people will survive deadly poison unharmed as a sign of Christianity and that nothing would hurt the apostles, and in three gospels it sounds like He rules out public miracles for his audience besides the resurrection even though they heard about other miracles like they didn't the resurrection, which they didn't see. The claims appear to run counter to other Biblical stories or to real facts.

This is not to say that these claims or stories must be totally wrong, but rather they give the wrong impression when left unclarified by information in other New Testament writings. This is in turn creates the more important problem that there may be other parts in the Bible, particularly the Resurrection accounts, that also give the wrong impression but are not clarified by other Biblical writings.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

That's the reason the NASB brackets those verses. They are not realiably known to have been included int he original gospel John Mark wrote as Peter's account -- with some of his own observations thrown in, no doubt -- of Christ's ministry, arrest, trial, burial and resurrection.

 

[CWJ]

Hello there,

I believe that each gospel record is written with different objectives in view. Therefore although each account should be referred to and compared to gain the greatest amount of detai; each should also be read separately and appreciated in their own right; not with a critical eye, but in recognition of their separate purpose. Each one is Divinely inspired and ordered, and therefore should be honoured as such.

God's Word is perfect: it is our perception that is at fault.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Vernon]

First post claims a gospel is in error? Interesting

 

[MarcR]

=rakovsky;2071206]A critical reading of Mark's accounts of Jesus' resurrection appearances shows that it was probably not original but added later, and that the accounts include information that either tends to mislead or is untrue.

As I have pointed out in other threads, this is debatable.

1. Mark's account of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances (the verses after Mark 16:8) were apparently added later onto Mark's original gospel, as the Christian apologetics website Tectonics explains: tektonics.org/lp/markend.php
For example, the early Church writer Eusebius said that the accurate copies of Mark lack the added part. That part basically just takes short pieces from what the other gospels say. And Mark 16:9 starts the added part on a note out of harmony with the earlier part of the chapter, since verse 9 begins introducing Mary Magdalene as the woman with 7 demons after it already introduced her at the beginning of the chapter.

It's noticeable that Mark doesn't include the miraculous virgin birth either in the beginning of his gospel. Since the post resurrection appearances and the virgin birth are the most fantastic parts of the gospels, "bookending" them at the beginning and end, it's not so surprising that Mark didn't include the resurrection appearances.

This is not to say that Mark didn't see Jesus as divine or believe in the Resurrection. On the contrary, a close reading of Mark (up to 16:8) shows that he suggests them to the reading, particularly with the empty tomb and the promise that Jesus would meet the apostles again in Galilee. But if the account was added in later by unknown editors, those accounts' reliability decreases.

And why wouldn't Mark discuss in detail and clearly such topics as the incarnation, Jesus' divinity or the resurrection appearances? Either he did not want to overemphasize them to a person hearing the story for the first time, or because the details directly proving them were unclear, doubtful, or, as in the case of the virgin birth, unknown to him.

2. The added account includes claims that either tend to mislead or are untrue.

This is quite a leap from " possibly added later" to denunciation. Possibly added later is arguable denunciation is IMO unsupportable.

A. In Matthew and in the original version of Mark without the added ending, at the tomb the women are told that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee. Matthew and John later describe Jesus' appearances to groups of disciples on a mountain in Galilee and at the Sea of Tiberias. Then Acts 1 describes Jesus' ascension about 40 days after the resurrection and how the disciples came back from the Mount of Olives, where Church tradition says the Ascension happened.

In the added part in Mark (Mk 9-20), Jesus visits two disciples on the road to Emmaus, the disciples tell the other apostles, and then Jesus shows up to criticize the apostles for failing to believe the earlier reports of His appearances and gives them instructions. "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven". This leads the reader to think that there was only one appearance to the disciples as a group, after which Jesus ascended.

Mark's ending appears to take this appearance from Luke's account, but that has even more contradictions. "That same day" as the Resurrection, Jesus visits two disciples on the road to Emmaus, that "same hour", the disciples go to tell the rest of the apostles, then while they give the report, Jesus shows up in their midst and tells them to stay in Jerusalem until they get the Holy Spirit (50 days later), "And he led them out as far as to Bethany",(not just the vicinity of Bethany) where he Ascended.

This can be found in Luke 24:
24:13 "that same day" as the empty tomb was found, the two apostles went to Emmaus and saw Jesus
24:33 "the same hour" as they saw Jesus, they went to tell the apostles
24:36: as they told the apostles this, Jesus showed up
24:49: Jesus told them right then to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost
24:50: Then he made the Ascension at Bethany

So in Matthew, John, and Acts, Jesus appears to them in Galilee at least twice and ascends on, seemingly, the Mount of Olives on Day 40, while in Luke it says Jesus told them to stay in Jerusalem until Day 50, and after saying this He ascended at Bethany.

Mk 16:12-19
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 .They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
KJV

The words After that in verse 12 do not say how long after that; but verse 19 suggests that it was on the 40th day, just before the ascension.

Lk 24:30-52

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
39 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.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:
KJV

we see here that the instruction to tarry in Jerusalem is part of a parallel account in Luke of this same 40th day appearance.


Mk 16:5-7
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
KJV

Here we see that the instruction to the women on Resurrection Sunday, the first day of the Resurrected Lord's appearances can NOT be in conflict with instructions given on the 40th day; because they are intended for different times.

B. In Mark 16:8, after hearing the young man's/angel's instructions to tell the apostles about Jesus going to Galilee, "they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid." And here Mark's original gospel ends. This leads the reader to the impression that they kept quiet at least for a long period of time.

For example, if some girls meet a very strange man in the woods who tells them to give a message to their friends, and they say nothing to anyone, it leads the reader to think that they did not tell their friends either.

But in Matthew and Luke, they immediately went to tell the apostles about the angel, and the disciples came back and looked at the tomb.

Mk 16:7-8
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
KJV

Assuming the basic premise that Scripture does not contradict Scripture; it is reasonable to assume that verse 8, which is accepted as inspired, refers to their trip home since we know from other scripture that they obediently told the deciples on their arrival.

C. When Jesus appears to all the disciples in Mark to give them their mission, He says: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That sounds categorical and would lead some people to think that everything depends on belief alone.

But first, it doesn't appear that the Bible actually teaches that judgment is only based on belief. James' Epistle says that faith without works is dead, suggesting that even if a person believes, the belief might not bring salvation if the person lacks works.

And second, it seems wrong to categorically and morally condemn all nonbelievers. It makes sense to morally condemn someone for an unrepented, immoral act. But why should the rational issue of whether a factual event occurred or not be grounds for moral condemnation. Couldn't a good, moral person find the gospels inspiring, but due to a psychology of strong mental skepticism about the world and society fail to achieve an affirmative belief that the event happened at a certain time and place? In the New Testament, apostles like Thomas themselves disbelieved until Jesus appeared to them. Why should other disbelievers be morally condemned for the same failure in mental reasoning.

That sounds categorical and would lead some people to think that everything depends on belief alone.

I and the majority on the forum (as demonstrated by polls) believe that is exactly how it is intended

D. Jesus then says in Mark 16:17-18, "these signs shall follow them that believe; ...They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them". This brings to mind Jesus' previous instructions to the disciples in Luke 10:19: 'Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

But is it true that nothing would hurt the apostles and that a miraculous sign following believers is drinking anything deadly without harm? Some apostles were flogged and eventually killed, so perhaps the promised protection only applied to a limited period following Jesus' commission to them in Luke 10:19, rather than to their later missions given after the resurrection.

As for drinking position, I suppose some Christians' strong belief could give them special fortitude and thus a better chance of survival. But this must be very rare and I am hesitant to agree that their poison survival rate is significantly higher than nonbelievers'.

C. Earlier in the gospels, Jesus repeatedly said that no sign would be given to the generation besides the miracle of Jonah.


But Mark's gospel ends by saying that the apostles "went forth, ...the Lord... confirming the word with signs following." In fact, the gospels and Acts repeatedly discuss the public miracles of Jesus and the apostles like Jesus feeding the multitudes with muliplying bread and fish.

So when Jesus said no other miracles would be given to the generation, was He just talking about his particular audience, since the Greek word for "generation" could mean a related term like a race. But was Jesus' resurrection the only miracle of which they heard about Jesus? Or does it mean that the resurrection was the only sign meant to bring that particular group of people to faith?

The signs in question were not addressed to "that wicked and perverse generation; but rather to believers until the end of the age

In conclusion, these claims or stories are misleading, because Luke 24 leaves the impression that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem until Pentecost and Jesus ascended at Bethany on Day 1 or Day 2 of the resurrection, Mark 16 leaves the impression that the women didn't tell anyone about the angel at the tomb for a long time, Jesus' words in Mark sound like judgment depends categorically on whether someone believes or not, His words also sound like people will survive deadly poison unharmed as a sign of Christianity and that nothing would hurt the apostles, and in three gospels it sounds like He rules out public miracles for his audience besides the resurrection even though they heard about other miracles like they didn't the resurrection, which they didn't see. The claims appear to run counter to other Biblical stories or to real facts.

This is not to say that these claims or stories must be totally wrong, but rather they give the wrong impression when left unclarified by information in other New Testament writings. This is in turn creates the more important problem that there may be other parts in the Bible, particularly the Resurrection accounts, that also give the wrong impression but are not clarified by other Biblical writings.

I believe that i have shown the conclusion to be based on arguable assumptions; and hence arguable itself

 

[know1]

No wonder why you don't see God do anything miraculous in your life.
His word works for me with signs following, so what is your problem.
How can any of you have faith in the gospel you tare apart, turning it from being God's word to man's.

 

[rakovsky]

That's the reason the NASB brackets those verses. They are not realiably known to have been included int he original gospel John Mark wrote as Peter's account -- with some of his own observations thrown in, no doubt -- of Christ's ministry, arrest, trial, burial and resurrection.

Hello, Vigilant.
I agree. Mark's account includes the resurrection - the empty tomb, the youth sitting in it, and the prediction that Jesus would meet the apostles in Galillee, the fulfillment of which is described in Matthew. But Mark's original ending doesn't describe any appearances as having occurred.

 

[rakovsky]

I believe that each gospel record is written with different objectives in view. Therefore although each account should be referred to and compared to gain the greatest amount of detai; each should also be read separately and appreciated in their own right; not with a critical eye, but in recognition of their separate purpose. Each one is Divinely inspired and ordered, and therefore should be honoured as such.

God's Word is perfect: it is our perception that is at fault.

Hello CWJ,

Thanks for your answer! Yes, Mark's gospel has a different goal than the others in important ways. Mark tried to write more briefly and quickly than other gospels. I do believe Mark was trying to make a narrative that was either more believable or more realistic, and this was why even though his companion Paul knew about the virgin birth (see Galatians), Mark didn't mention that nor did he very directly and explicitly emphasize that Jesus was literally God's son. The lack of mention of the resurrection appearances I think are explained by a similar motivation. This doesn't mean of course that Mark didn't believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection. Just as he implied strongly Jesus was God's son, he implies the resurrection strongly with the mention of the tomb being empty and the predicted Galilean appearances.

So why didn't he discuss those supernatural events more openly and directly and in detail? I think it's either because (A) it really happened and he wanted it to be easier for people to believe and relate to, or (B) because whether it did was in fact shady and mysterious even for Mark, and he wanted to put down the things the apostles all believed and could say reliably happened. Under alternative (B) things like the virgin birth were more murky and myth sounding even to Mark.

However, I am very doubtful that we should not read the gospels with a critical eye. The reason is that we are asked to believe in Christianity, not just follow its morals. And to believe in something, a reasonable person should look at claims in a way to give them a good understanding, including using a critical eye. If someone tells you a lengthy story and you don't think about it critically, then your belief is really just accepting something "at first glance" or at face value. In general I think that this is not a good way to look at something that is so important, like one's religion.

 

[rakovsky]

First post claims a gospel is in error? Interesting

Hi Vernon.

Christian Chat is one of the most active Christian forums online and so I hope to express my doubts here about the gospel accounts of the resurrection appearances in order to get feedback from users like yourself that would address my doubts.

Thank you.

 

[rakovsky]

Dear Marc,

Thank you for writing!

Mk 16:12-19
12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world,...
19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
KJV

The words After that in verse 12 do not say how long after that; but verse 19 suggests that it was on the 40th day, just before the ascension.

You are exactly right that verse 19 suggests that this time Jesus appeared was right before the Ascension. And this is exactly why I said that Mark's account is misleading. You yourself have been misled into thinking that this appearance (when Jesus appeared to prove the two walkers correct) was just before the Ascension.

The problem is that as Luke 24 said, this particular appearance was on Day 1 or 2 of the Resurrection:
24:13 "that same day" as the empty tomb was found, the two apostles went to Emmaus and saw Jesus
24:33 "the same hour" as they saw Jesus, they went to tell the apostles
24:36: as they told the apostles this, Jesus showed up (to prove the two walkers correct)

As you can see, Luke 24 presents this particular appearance to the 11 as occurring on Day 1 or Day 2, and Luke 24 and Mark 16 both present this as happening right before the Ascension, which was your own conclusion. However, Acts says that the Ascension was on Day 40. So that's why the passage leads people incorrectly.

Next, you wrote:

Lk 24:30-52
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he...
52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:

we see here that the instruction to tarry in Jerusalem is part of a parallel account in Luke of this same 40th day appearance.

What you are suggesting is that in Luke 24, Jesus showed up on day 40 and told them to stay in Jerusalem until Pentecost (Day 50).
The problem with this is that Luke 24 explains that this appearance was on Day 1 or 2 of the resurrection (see Luke 24:13 and 24:33 - "same day"... the "same hour" the apostles went to tell the apostles).

Thus when Jesus shows up on Day 1 or 2 and tells them to stay in Jerusalem, it seems to go in the opposite direction of the appearances in Galilee on the mountain there and the Sea of Tiberias.


I agree with you here that you have found the only consisten explanation:

Mk 16:7-8
7 But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.
KJV

Assuming the basic premise that Scripture does not contradict Scripture; it is reasonable to assume that verse 8, which is accepted as inspired, refers to their trip home since we know from other scripture that they obediently told the deciples on their arrival.

Nonetheless, the problem is not that one could think of a way to harmonize them, but rather that the two accounts go in different directions, since Mark ends on that note. If I told you that "Two girls saw a strange man in the woods who gave them a message to tell their family, and the girls were scared so they did not tell anyone anything", wouldn't you suppose that they didn't immediately run home to tell their family? "Did not tell anyone anything" sounds like a categorical statement.
Next, you said:

When Jesus appears to all the disciples in Mark to give them their mission, He says: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." That sounds categorical and would lead some people to think that everything depends on belief alone.

I and the majority on the forum (as demonstrated by polls) believe that is exactly how it is intended

However, in that case, the polls are confirming my impression that the passage misleads people into believing that salvation is categorically solely dependent on faith. And such an idea runs up against the two issues I raised.

In fact, faith alone is not the only criterion for salvation, as it says:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. -- Matthew 7:21

Matthew 25 says:
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.... [SUP]
40 [/SUP]And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.[SUP]41 [/SUP]Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[SUP]42 [/SUP]For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat:... Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

[SUP]46 [/SUP]And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. -- James 2:17

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? -- James 2:14, 17, 20, 24, 26

Based on these verses it is not enough to say that Jesus is Lord. Even the demons repeatedly acknowledged and believed that was true. Matthew explains that people who did things like feeding the poor and visiting prisoners are those who get saved.
Likewise, believing is not enough as James says, because just believing is dead when it lacks works. Faith without works doesn't save.

So that is why belief is not categorically the only criterion like the end of Mark 16:11-20 has led some people to think.


Turning to the issue of whether signs were presented, Luke 11 says:

11:29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
11:30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.

You responded about Mark 16's prediction of signs accompanying mission work:

The signs in question were not addressed to "that wicked and perverse generation; but rather to believers until the end of the age

However, Jesus said that He "came not to call the righteous but sinners", (Luke 5)so wouldn't that mean that His target for missionizing certainly did focus on bad and perverse people?
Second, weren't the audience in Luke 11 of the same generation as the believers you mentioned: mid-1st century Judeans?
Third, presuming that the audience in Luke 11 was a bad generation different than the believers you mentioned, in what sense was the resurrection a sign to that bad generation such that the many other alleged public miracles in the New Testament were not? One example is the healing of a woman and sending her to the Judean priest as a "proof"/"testimony to them" (Matthew 8:4)

You concluded:

I believe that i have shown the conclusion to be based on arguable assumptions; and hence arguable itself

I thought you made good arguments, although you didn't discuss the issue of whether Christians drinking poison unharmed was a sign. (C in the original post) What do you think? Have believers, objectively speaking, survived poison at a higher rate than nonbelievers?
Maybe having spiritual fortitude makes one stronger against physical ailments like poison and thus it has helped them do this?

Regards.

 

[Willie-T]

You do realize, don't you, that the Bible is not "authoritative." Nowhere does it make that claim. All that is ever said is that the Scriptures are "inspired" and can be used to do some teaching.

Don't try to make it any more than that, and you won't get yourself upset when one man happens to write differently than another one does.

 

[rakovsky]

No wonder why you don't see God do anything miraculous in your life.
His word works for me with signs following, so what is your problem.
How can any of you have faith in the gospel you tare apart, turning it from being God's word to man's.

Hello Know1.
Life itself is "miraculous". If the universe is only inanimate matter, why should there be life in it? Why should I have amind that is looking at the world instead of everything being robotic?

The problem with seeing signs, some of which I think are real, as total proof is that other, nonChristian religions claim miracles and healings too. That said, I do see signs as good evidence for Christianity.

I can have faith in at least some of the gospel, particularly its moral teachings, since morality exists. I love its teaching on mercy. The reason for what you see as tearing it apart is that I want to come to a serious opinion on what it says about the main miracle claims. For someone to come to an opinion on a lengthy story as a real fact in history, it is very helpful to think about it critically, rather than just accept a story at its "initial face value".

Regards.

 

[psychomom]

Hello Know1.
Life itself is "miraculous". If the universe is only inanimate matter, why should there be life in it? Why should I have amind that is looking at the world instead of everything being robotic?

The problem with seeing signs, some of which I think are real, as total proof is that other, nonChristian religions claim miracles and healings too. That said, I do see signs as good evidence for Christianity.

I can have faith in at least some of the gospel, particularly its moral teachings, since morality exists. I love its teaching on mercy. The reason for what you see as tearing it apart is that I want to come to a serious opinion on what it says about the main miracle claims. For someone to come to an opinion on a lengthy story as a real fact in history, it is very helpful to think about it critically, rather than just accept a story at its "initial face value".

Regards.

how's that working out for you?

flesh and blood cannot reveal it to you.
your own intellect cannot reveal it to you.
critical thinking can't, either.

 

[jb]

A critical reading of Mark's accounts of Jesus' resurrection appearances shows that it was probably not original but added later, and that the accounts include information that either tends to mislead or is untrue...

The key word here is "probably"!

I think you need to research fully (Mark 16v9-20) so that you can say definitely one way or the other, and not just "probably"!

Yahweh Shalom

PS: It is in the original, and Mark's Gospel is actually Peter's Gospel, as it is Peter's account of his time with His Lord while He was upon earth, John Mark simply penned what Peter recounted to him, and this is confirmed by Papius at the beginning of the 2nd century.

 

[CWJ]

Hello CWJ,

Thanks for your answer! Yes, Mark's gospel has a different goal than the others in important ways. Mark tried to write more briefly and quickly than other gospels. I do believe Mark was trying to make a narrative that was either more believable or more realistic, and this was why even though his companion Paul knew about the virgin birth (see Galatians), Mark didn't mention that nor did he very directly and explicitly emphasize that Jesus was literally God's son. The lack of mention of the resurrection appearances I think are explained by a similar motivation. This doesn't mean of course that Mark didn't believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection. Just as he implied strongly Jesus was God's son, he implies the resurrection strongly with the mention of the tomb being empty and the predicted Galilean appearances.

So why didn't he discuss those supernatural events more openly and directly and in detail? I think it's either because (A) it really happened and he wanted it to be easier for people to believe and relate to, or (B) because whether it did was in fact shady and mysterious even for Mark, and he wanted to put down the things the apostles all believed and could say reliably happened. Under alternative (B) things like the virgin birth were more murky and myth sounding even to Mark.

However, I am very doubtful that we should not read the gospels with a critical eye. The reason is that we are asked to believe in Christianity, not just follow its morals. And to believe in something, a reasonable person should look at claims in a way to give them a good understanding, including using a critical eye. If someone tells you a lengthy story and you don't think about it critically, then your belief is really just accepting something "at first glance" or at face value. In general I think that this is not a good way to look at something that is so important, like one's religion.

Hello rakovsky,

Thank you for responding to my post as you have.

I believe that God's Word is there to be believed. To be studied, yes, but with faith.

It is GOD's Word written: written with the object of revealing to our inner eyes, 'The Living Word', Whose person and work is the sum of all God's will made known. Christ Jesus our risen and glorified Lord and Saviour.

Praise His Holy Name!

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Nick01]

Actually, the main reason those verses shouldn't be there is textual - on the basis of the manuscript evidence, those verses didn't appear in the autograph or earliest copiest.

I am always incredibly wary of adjudicating on what is original or not on the basis of apparent textual contradictions or doctrinal considerations, or at least on those alone.

 

[p_rehbein]

QUOTE:


I can have faith in at least some of the gospel, particularly its moral teachings, since morality exists. I love its teaching on mercy. The reason for what you see as tearing it apart is that I want to come to a serious opinion on what it says about the main miracle claims. For someone to come to an opinion on a lengthy story as a real fact in history, it is very helpful to think about it critically, rather than just accept a story at its "initial face value".

END QUOTE.........

Sorry, but this is just too sad, and not of God. Either you believe in the Word of God or you do not. You do not get to "pick and choose" which parts of His Word you believe, not if you desire to be a faithful disciple of Christ. Just the way it is.

 

[Galahad]

You do realize, don't you, that the Bible is not "authoritative." Nowhere does it make that claim. All that is ever said is that the Scriptures are "inspired" and can be used to do some teaching.

Don't try to make it any more than that, and you won't get yourself upset when one man happens to write differently than another one does.

So what book or teaching would you suggest a person follow?

 

[Galahad]

You do realize, don't you, that the Bible is not "authoritative." Nowhere does it make that claim. All that is ever said is that the Scriptures are "inspired" and can be used to do some teaching.

Don't try to make it any more than that, and you won't get yourself upset when one man happens to write differently than another one does.

Are those authoritative statements, or should I just take them as not being authoritative?

 

[Willie-T]

Are those authoritative statements, or should I just take them as not being authoritative?

Oh that? That's just truth. Perhaps you aren't familiar with it?