Comments for Ridiculous Ending to the Gospel of Mark
Comments for “Bible: Ridiculous Ending to the Gospel of Mark“
26 Responses to “Comments for Ridiculous Ending to the Gospel of Mark”
|Leave a Reply
|
|
Launches soon:
Essays By Religion
- Bible: Slavery
- Bible: Later Additions
- Bible: Ridiculous Ending to the Gospel of Mark
- Bible: Outrageous Resurrection Account — Gospel of Matthew
- Bible: Messiah replaces animal sacrifice?
- Jesus: Unacceptable Sacrifice
- Jesus: Unoriginal Moral Thinker
- Jesus: Possibly Acceptable Child Sacrifice
- Mohammad: Sex with 9 year old
- Slavery in Islam
- Apostasy in Islam
- Koran: Rules for Wife Beating
- Mohammad: Executioner via Amputation
Motivation and Challenges
Multimedia
Blogroll
Blog Promotion
 
|
|
|
“A Christian who doesn’t accept that the ending is illegitimate has to contend with the fact that his inability to drink bleach without harm either shows Jesus a liar, or himself a non-believer.”
Excellent logic, I think, but why not acknowledge that Jesus might not be a liar, and the Bible might be wrong instead. This way, the Christian has the way out of believing that Jesus himself may have been righteous, while being forced to concede that the Bible itself is fallible. So, maybe your statement above should be changed to, “A Christian who doesn’t accept that the ending is illegitimate has to contend with the fact that his inability to drink bleach without harm shows the Bible flawed, Jesus a liar, or himself a non-believer.”
This is of course one of the points of the “Jefferson Bible” to take out all of the nonsensical and mythological stuff and keep the essential philosophy of the “Great Jewish Reformer”.
However I do not have access to my copy of the Jefferson Bible so I can not verify that this is not in it.
I think it is very important to realize, that this is not a test for the existence of God. It is a test if any person actually is a true believer in God.
Most directly it can be used to dispute the legitimacy of your opponent. Alternatively it can be used against your opponents “fellow Christians”.
I have used this argument in many situations. The strongest impact so far happened in the following situation.
My girlfriend and I were once sitting in an ice cream parlor when we were approached by a Christian who wanted to evangelize us. Before she could say anything I asked her to check Mark 16:17-18. Baffled she returned to her table were another person was waiting for her. When she read the passage she was shattered and had to be comforted by the other person.
Just be aware that a Christian that knows his history will most likely respond by pointing out that the contents of Mark 16:9-20 do not actually exist in the earliest transcripts of the Gospel that we currently have available.
Might want to do some research on this one, because one could argue that you can dismiss these verses because they were added in later, and therefore are not canonical scripture.
source: An NIV bible and the Internet for verification.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. But in the phrase “Mark has Jesus saying something rather important” in relation to the addition, one can argue that because it wasn’t added in later, it wasn’t the original author of Mark who was saying it.
@Kyle – “Might want to do some research on this one, because one could argue that you can dismiss these verses because they were added in later, and therefore are not canonical scripture.”
You clearly didn’t read the essay. This fact is what I began with.
Tactic: Accept a falsehood that your opponent believes for the sake of argument if you can quickly argue a strong win so it is about a “tactical win” for the writer, not about the truth
If you are going to get into religious discussions with Christians, biblical arguments are bound to arise. Ya think? Biblical arguments come in a variety of types: many types are never productive, but there are a few types of biblical arguments that I’ve found can be productive.
Here’s an argument that I’ve had with positive results.
An interesting fact: the end of the Gospel of Mark, everything in Chapter 16 after verse 8 (verses 9-20) is a later addition. The earliest manuscripts we have of mark do not contain them, correct Many Bibles (not all) actually include this helpful fact in the Bible itself. Yes, this alone should tell them something about Christian concern for accuracy and truth. In fact, he seems to be admitting that the early manuscripts of the books of the new testament are reliable!
This curious fact means that the Gospel of Mark originally ended with the frightened women who find the empty tomb running away and not telling anyone what they saw.
***That’s a possible conclusion, not definitive, but I accept it. I do not personally use any of these verses, nor the story in John about the woman being stoned.***
There are no post-resurrection appearances made by Jesus.
***Well, sort of true.***
Weird ending. Why weird?
***The write leaves out that the ending STILL says this:
6″Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
He is NOT going ahead of them if he is still dead, is He?***
….
The Christian you are talking with could potentially accept the challenge, in which case you’ll either see a Christian go to the hospital because he drank bleach — or you’ll see a miracle occur. Hey, keep an open mind, you never know!
The more common response is something like: “These things were for a specific time, and these claims did come true for the people who did them…”
***I agree many Christians probably say those things. My argument would instead be that this I speaking of confirmatory signs given to the original apostles since there was not yet a written Gospel to witness to others. There are other places Jesus says the apostles are given the ability to do certain miracles as a sign that they come from Him and are legitimate apostles. There is much evidence these abilities ceased even before John died, and I am what would be called a “cessasionist”, that is, I believe the ability to perform miracles at will ceased with the death of the 12 apostles and Paul. The writer seems completely unaware of any of this. Matthew 10: 1He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil[a] spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.***
Counter this by going through each statement and ask who is being talked about.
When Jesus says, “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation.” — He’s commissioning all Christians, right?
***Umm, NO He is NOT. Read verse 14: Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He is specifically and explicitly speaking to the 11 living apostles. This argument just fell apart.***
When Jesus continues with, “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”
Jesus continues by talking about those who believe and those who don’t saying that “those who believe … go to heaven” — and presumably the Christian you’re talking to thinks of himself as one of these heaven-bound believers.
When Jesus continues even further with, “And these signs will accompany those who believe…” He’s continuing to talk to those that,
should go into all the world proclaiming the good news, and
those baptized believers that are saved.
The point that if these signs are only supposed to follow believers for a specific time, if baptized believers who are alive today will go to heaven — or only the baptized believers who lived at that special time are called to spread the Gospel.
***see above***
It is, however, considerably more likely that the Christian will resort to a “Don’t put God to the test” type response.
I will post a full response to this common evasive move in the future, but in this case Jesus is giving people a way to identify believers — they will be able to do these things. So He is encouraging the testing in this case. Which would be contradictory to everything else on this sort of sublect e.g. from Matthew: Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’
And if you want to be really conciliatory, ask if it’s impossible for a Christian to ever even accidentally be poisoned.
Of course, more sophisticated Christians will accept that the ending of Mark is a later addition and will sidestep the above line of attack.
The ending to Mark is a later addition:
Now, for the Christian who recognizes that this ending was a later addition you have another fun argument at hand.
Mark has Jesus saying something rather important: “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”
Also realize that neither Matthew nor Luke ever quote Jesus saying anything like it.
***WHAT???????? OK, this writer is officially arguing from ignorance.
-”Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
-Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers
-As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
-All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
-Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
” ‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law –
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[e]
37″Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
-”He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
-”Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
I’m quitting now because that was just from the first 12 chapters of Matthew. Also note the writer never mentions John.***
Markus: I am skeptical
Kyle: Manuscripts, not transcripts
Arthur: actually read it before you accept on blind faith Jesus could have been a “Jewish reformer”
@rob – “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.”
Also realize that neither Matthew nor Luke ever quote Jesus saying anything like it.
rob: “***WHAT???????? OK, this writer is officially arguing from ignorance.”
So this illegitimate ending of Mark has Jesus talking about what it takes to be saved and to be condemned.
Let’s just look at the first half of what Jesus allegedly says. “The one who believes and is baptized will be saved…”
And rob posts 10 different verses… none of which says anything like the even the first half of Jesus’ sentence.
So I stand by my statement unless and until you can quote Matthew or Luke saying that you need to believe and be baptized to get to heaven.
@rob –
“This curious fact means that the Gospel of Mark originally ended with the frightened women who find the empty tomb running away and not telling anyone what they saw.
Weird ending.”
rob: “Why weird?”
Because an account is written down about the only witnesses of the event never telling anyone about it — so
1. how did the writer find out about it?
2. A Gospel about Jesus ending with an empty tomb and no post-resurrection appearances if there were post-resurrection appearances would be a very strange thing for a Gospel writer to leave out.
@rob –
So, because sometime later Jesus is talking to the disciples that means that earlier his statements only applied to them? That doesn’t follow. Jesus, according to the passage, says to proclaim these things to ‘the whole of creation’.
You later say that these abilities immediately ceased after Paul and the disciples died and that there is much ‘evidence’ for this. I would counter that there is no evidence that anyone has ever had any such abilities.
ahhh just give up trying to find fallacies in the bible.
It’s impossible to disprove the bible to someone who isn’t open to the possibility that its a false.
one the bible is so freakin vague
i can argue ANYTHING using the bible
ANYTHING
give me a couple thousand page extremely vague document and i can twist those words around so much it’ll make your head spin.
if science disproves a part of the bible, they just say “oh nevermind this vague writing actually meant THIS.”
and two
its so damn contradictory,
you can just pick whatever section you want to ignore and which ones you want to accept.
makes no sense in an argument.
but hey, when hasn’t a really old book with questionable origins not make a good argument?
so moral of the story here
let them argue their heads off till the end of time
(which they will)
unless you want a very long headache as well
just let them be controlled by their greater man
hey atleast we’re not a sheep =]
(sheep=dont think for themselves)
(sheep=christian)
(christian=dont think for themselves) yay puns!
In reply to WhooYoo's excellent post;
a priest, mind you a priest, once said that the Bible is like a person, if you torture it enough, you can get it to say anything.
Christian: “Do not put God to the test”
Cruel Atheist: “I’m not putting God to the test, I don’t have to test his power to save you to know that he can if he wants to. We both know God saves believers, and without a doubt too, for as you say, we must not test God, but should instead take him on his word. The question is, would God want to save you? Who I am testing is you. Are you really a believer as you say you are? If so, drink this bleach!”
Christians might be delusional as you say, but going along with letting them kill themselves with bleach? Tis’ too much I think. No, no. We can’t have whole congregations drinking bleach, can we?
matthew chapter 4 verses 1 through 7 clear this whole thing up rather nicely.
I know you wouldn’t believe this if I told you, but I’ve seen and heard of these things happening in Mark. What do you say to that? I expect you would make one the following responses:
a) No you didn’t, you’re lying.
b) Really, what is the evidence?
c) That’s amazing, I believe you.
But I highly doubt you would make the last response.
However, these things will happen when people aren’t disobeying God’s commands in the first place, and actually following his will. “Testing” him would be disobeying God directly. Do you think God follows through with his promises while contradicting himself? Would you let your son have a cookie now after you told him you could only have one tomorrow?
also, sometimes the arrogance of atheists makes me jump off high things but since I’m a Christian I don’t die, I just try to out of fantastic blind blown amazement.
@matt – The second response is the most appropriate.
I just tel people not to read the bible. The hero gets killed half way through.
On the Christians being immune to poisons point:-
Given the number of people who convert to christianity whilst on death row surely ths would present serious practical problems in administering death by lethal injection?
Wasn't there a Christian Cult called "The People's Temple" ? What became of them when they drank cyanide laced kool aid? I remember the pictures of bloated bodies lying in the hot Guyana sun. Also, if the poison story is allegory for Christians living on after death (as a priest once tried to convince me in religion class), wouldn't the deliberate consumption of poison constitute suicide? And if that is so, isn't suicide considered a mortal sin? And doesn't anyone who dies with an unrepentant mortal sin on his soul spend eternity in hell?
** the gospel truth isn’t **
Matthew and Luke draw on Mark adding their own embellishments to reinforce narratives for early second century CE audiences. These works are not histories; they are propaganda. They’re “true” because they work. Conversion is a psychological process; the “good news” is a hard-sell Ponzi scheme.
John’s always been the odd man out. For that reason the first three related tales are called the synoptic (same view) gospels. John mixes in half-digested Stoic philosophy or Stoicism as filtered by Philo of Alexandria.
Perhaps John aimed to win over Greeks for whom a pre-existing divinity, the Logos, might be a better sales pitch than a divinized man. Augustus Caesar, for gods’ sake, had temples raised to the divinity of his “genius” outside of Italy.
Anyway, no fundie (bible worshiper, inherent truth fanatic) will care. Any “fool for Christ” will cite Paul’s first letter to the underground xian cell in Corinth:
27 God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things, and the things that are not, to nullify the things that are. . .1Cor1:27-28 NIV
Paul and his fellow revenge seekers created a god sharing their nihilistic values. He and the primitive church had a perverse self-understanding, an inverted snobbery.
Today’s fundies get their anti-intellectual, revengeful, inverted elitism from a document written in about 50 CE to rabble in a city famed for centuries for its palatial homes belonging to well-maintained prostitutes. Paul often admonishes his new xians about giving way to fleshly temptations — those xian love feasts sometimes heated up.
For you anti-supernaturalists, I suggest that you take a look at Michel Onfray’s short, clear, overview of what a working substitute to xianity would have to look like, Atheist Manifesto (2006). His proposal perforce introduces a lot of Jesus-as-fiction scholarship which Onfray summarizes very effectively.
I agree – the Bible is a disparate collection of historical writings, and this should not be a problem for any Christian. The bible requires interpretation. It was not designed as a legalistic or contractual document, and to treat it as such is just a waste of time. I am not an expert or anything, but I believe Christianity is a matter of Faith. The ideas around it are transcendental, in the broadest sense, and pretty immune to any argument or proof one way or the other.
This is not surprising. Remember those billboards that said things like: "'What part of 'thou shalt not' don't you understand?' ~God" that all the Christians loved a few years ago? Wasn't that proof that they don't CARE if it's some marketing person putting words into the mouth of God so long as it supports their narrow agenda?
Matthew 4:7
Jesus said to him, ‘Again it is written, “Do not put the Lord your God to the test.” So drinking bleach would poison people anyway… its not that drinking something dangerous won't hurt them…. its drinking innocently doing the work of the Lord.
Hey this great!!
Since the mortality rate is 100%, and there are young children starving, why don't the humanists sacrifice themselves and their wealth to save them. You know keep the mindless propagation going for future generations to enjoy. That would be perfectly rational. Why don't the metaphysical naturalist contribute in the same way. You know that the universe will collapse in on itself at some point anyway. I mean you folks should stand behind what you believe. Excercise your "Enlightened Common Sense".
I've got one question for you… Who's going to heal your broken heart? I have just witnessed some of the most carnal, grotesque, and destructive, thoughts of my life. And to think you would even dare to try to reason.