Greetings, Here is the answer from one of the world's leading experts : Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126. " Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document. (2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Ψ 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20. (3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (του λογου του ισχυρου ον απο ιερουσαλημ οι αποστολοι αυτου εξελθοντες πανταχου εκηρυξαν). (4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now — thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' " How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including ο αιων ουτος, αμαρτανω, απολογεω, αληθινος, υποστρεφω) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (δεινος, ορος, προσλεγω). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14. The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. απιστεω, βλαπτω, βεβαιοω, επακολουθεω, θεαομαι, μετα ταυτα, πορευομαι, συνεργεω, υστερον are found nowhere else in Mark; and θανασιμον and τοις μετ αυτου γενομενοις, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of αναστας δε and the position of πρωτον are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century. The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel. Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist. " From here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html Iasion
ragnarok: I've reposted this to try to get a response from you. then seeing as you've posited that you have proof, I would like the names of the doctors, ( so I can write and confirm it) the medical journal it was written up, ( so I can contact the journalist) the newspapers it must have been in, (again to contact the journalist for verifcation) because this miracle must have took the world by storm and I have never heard anything about it, so anything you have that can prove your case, I would like to see, it must be written down in the Annals of church and media, so I and I'm sure we would like to see this so called evidence, I would also like to know if this miracle has been investigated Thoroughly. you could however alway earn yourself a million dollars, by going here. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html what the fuck has morals to do with religion. but telling them theres a sky daddy looking after them and they must pray to it or else they will go to hell, it's lies and as good as child abuse [mental scaring). no not really, you subjective beliefs are yours and yours alone, thats not my opinion that just is. having no evidence and then lying to children and making them frightened and fearful, is child abuse, this is not my opinion it's fact. please supply the above thank you.
Come on, do you really believe some unknown nobody on the internet can make claims to fantastical stories, (and claim he has proof of it), without other people asking him for evidence? Don't be so naive. Someone asks you for documentation of your fantastical claims and you tell them to "get a life"? What's wrong with you? What did you honestly expect, that you can just make up any old horseshit you can think of and nobody would ever call you on it? If it's honestly 'for you alone', why did you tell anyone else? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the minute you tell other people it's no longer 'for you alone'. Part of telling things to other people is them asking questions concerning it, and with fantastical stories such as alien abduction, visiting leprechauns etc certain evidence is required if you expect people to take you seriously. Thing is you "medical miracle" claimers have it the easiest of everyone. An alien abductee can't ask the aliens to submit a report. You can submit the data right here and now and clear the issue up. The world would be astounded I'm sure, but the minute anyone asks you tell them to "get a life" and "it's for me alone". What tosh. Trial and error. Absolutely. Some time and effort and you'll work out why.
and if there is no afterlife, your lifetime is eternity. so... there are always eternal consequences - so to speak. so right and wrong are relevant... but eternity's not really the reason. it's more about sanity. good mental health and such. which is interesting really, that right and wrong are mental projections of the naturally occuring phenomenon of the mind seeking balance, which take on a life of their own when the balance includes more than just one mind. they become memes. they're passed down through cultures and imprinted upon the impressable like a ten-ton press molds materials into other useful tools.. this tool is as such useful to iteself and the cultural system that molded it. all from the subjective tendency of "conservation of thought", if you will. Maybe you won't. Oh nevermind.
so we can quite clearly say, you were talking out of your arse, when you said you had prove. at least we know where your coming from now, fantasyland.
You have just extrapolated a speculation, and twisted the point. If the enemies of these beliefs also wrote derogatory remarks in their writings, then we can debate. Otherwise, you have missed the point.
Disagree on that point. You can always ask for the women he claims to have slept with. If he balks on the story, why would I pass it on? Irrational response and has no reference to the point. In what ways have humans progressed? Please be clear. There is plenty. You are just content not to know. But in regards to the belief of a person in a major religion, yes it is the issue and it is important. You are showing that you are not well informed. The belief in Santa Claus is stemmed from a historic person and has evolved from that. Do a Google search on St. Nicholas. Yet you have not placed any challenge at all other than denying everything I wrote. You are just showing you are not informed but just want to deny all. Must of your response are off the point and irrational. Plus I was not born in a Christian household, so don’t make speculative charges that are untrue. I guess you haven’t heard of the Book of Judas, the Gnostic gospels, and others of that kind. Your questions only show you are not informed. An empty rant. Try to be rational. That was already done with “The Satanic Verses.” You are not informed and can’t produce a good counter argument without ranting. Baseless assumptions and more ranting. You have no basis to even come to that conclusion after reading your response. Rantings do not prove your conclusion. (Snakelord, have a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. I will respond to your posts after the holidays.) Happy Holidays, everyone.
Two examples to illustrate my point: A) In America they have a “Day of Observance” for the civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., (something short of a national holiday where only government agencies are closed). There are a group of people and biographers who say he should not be honored with this day because he was an adulterer, gambler, and drunkard. The purpose of their charges is to profane his name and degrade his character. Whether the charges are true is not the point, but if future generations found these charges written in their history books they would not deny King existed regardless of what is written. That would be a logical conclusion. B) Suppose it is found that some people are searching for Dorothy of Kansas who went over the rainbow and traveled to the Emerald City to meet the Wizard of Oz. Now let’s say there is an educated group of men intending to write the history of Kansas, and they come across these people. Their research tells them this is a myth, a literary invention. But they write in the history book, “Dorothy was a cocaine addict, overdose, died, and was buried in an unmarked grave.” This would be a lie because what they have done is given credence to the character of Dorothy and declaring her to be a person who existed. For history and for future generations it would be honest not to include anything regarding Dorothy, or they should write, “This person is a fictional character,” because she is a myth. That would be the rational and logical thing to do. It is the same situation in regard to Jesus in The Talmud. Plus you have unbiased sources like the Roman historian Tacitus in his Annals, 110 AD, who mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius," and the Jewish historian Josephus who remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
Ah, yes, but your logic is based on the assumption that the people in question are honest. And just how do you know they were ? My point still stands. Myths are myths. Every sunday morning I see charlatans passing off myth as fact on religous programs.Usually of course to keep people in fear and ignorance and to build up their bank accounts. Example: Joyce Meyers, T.D Jakes, Jack Van Impe, Billy and Franklin Graham,etc, etc. The irony of it all is Christianity stresses the sinfull nature of man, so what makes you think something as important as the "word of God" would be filtered thru human hands without tampering ? Nontheless, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Greetings, No, I went straight to YOUR point and proved it wrong. YOU claimed that : * Jesus existed because * people built beliefs around Jesus and wrote much about him. I showed that point was WRONG, because it argues that figures such as Osiris were real. I directly proved your point wrong. But then, you CHANGED the subject and moved on to another point. Did you think we would not notice? Your point is : * Jesus existed because * people built beliefs around Jesus and wrote much about him. Your point is WRONG, because it argues : * Osiris existed because * people built beliefs around Osiris and wrote much about him. Do you still claim : * Jesus existed because * people built beliefs around Jesus and wrote much about him. Yes, or no? Iasion
Greetings, Well, the enemies of these beliefs DID write derogatory remarks in their writings. I look forward to you joining our debate. Iasion
Greetings, So, you beleive that Jesus : * was the bastard son of a Roman soldier * was stoned to death in Lydda * learned black magic in Egypt ? These are rumours and legends from centuries after the alleged Jesus which are totally DIFFERENT to Christian legends. Explain how YOU believe these variant legends are proof? Regarding the so-called historical "evidence" for Jesus - I dealt with it here : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294. I encourage readers to check this information (SVRP certainly didn't.) Roughly 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however: * Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used. * Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.) * (No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.) This evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records - but merely a few details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time (c.f. Pliny.) So, this passage is NOT evidence for Jesus, it's just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about Jesus. http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php That passage is talking about Jesus son of Damneus. Nothing to do with your Jesus. The phrase about "Christ" is a later Christian forgery. I suggest you check the facts before you preach any more SVRP. The famous Testamonium Flavianum in Josephus is considered probably the best evidence for Jesus, yet it has some serious problems : * the T.F. as it stands uses clearly Christian phrases and names Christ as Messiah, it could not possibly have been written by the Jew Josephus (who refused to call anyone "messiah"), * The T.F. comes in several versions of various ages, * The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era. * The T.F. first showed up in manuscripts of Eusebius, and was still absent from some manuscripts as late as 8th century. * (The other tiny passage in Josephus is probably a later interpolation.) An analysis of Josephus can be found here: http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/supp10.htm In short - this passage is possibly a total forgery (or at best a corrupt form of a lost original.) Iasion
Greetings, It's very simple concept. Let me explain it to you. They BELIEVED he existed. Just like YOU do. So what? People believe all sorts of things. Why write about Krishna if he didn't exist? Why write about Osiris if he didn't exist? Why write about Odysseus if he didn't exist? See? People DO believe in religious myths. People DO write about religious myths. It proves nothing - other than that people believe and write about myths. Iasion
Greetings, Your point is completely spurious. There is overwhelming evidence for MLK - evidence of good actions, and not so good. This evidence is CONTEMPORARY. MLK's existence does NOT hang on the NEGATIVE claims at all - your argument is completely wrong. MLK's existance hangs on the EVIDENCE of his existence - a huge body of 100% certain proof. The fact that some of the CONTEMPORARY evidence is a rather negative kind does HELP to prove he was a real human (because real humans often do do negative things.) MLK's existence is not proven by negative comments, but by EVIDENCE. But, for Jesus - it's totally DIFFERENT : For Jesus - we have NO CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE at all ! None. No contemporary writers mention Jesus at all (e.g. Philo, Seneca.) http://qdj.50megs.com/EarlyWriters.html No early Christian writer knows any details for the life of Jesus - no Mary, Joseph, miracles, trials etc. are mentioned by any Christian writer until mid 2nd century : http://qdj.50megs.com/Table.html What we have for Jesus is * stories from long afterwards, * by UNKNOWN people * which are completely UN-realistic (miracles etc.) * but follow the religious themes ans myths of the day. Then, CENTURIES later, after Christianity has become widespread and Jesus has become a household name - Then, the Jews (who are in clear conflict with the Christians) start circulating nasty stories about Jesus, which are totally DIFFERENT to the various differing Christian versions of the story. So what? It proves nothing - except that the Jews had heard of Jesus and didn't like him. So what? You really still seem to believe that any criticism makes someone real. What about the attacks on Krishna by other sects? Does that make Krishna real? What about the attacks on the Gnostics by the Christians? Does that make Barbelo real? What about the attacks on Osiris by Aknaten? Does that make Osiris real? What about the attacks on Harry Potter by fundamentalist Christians? Does that make Harry Potter real? Of course not. So why do you think attacks on Jesus make him real? Iasion
Greetings, Your second argument is also false. We know Dorothy is fiction. But, the writers of the Talmud thought Jesus was real. Simply because so many other (gullible, uneducated, illiterate) people believed in Jesus. So what? Many people assumed Osiris was real. Many people assumed Krishna was real. Many people assumed Odysseus was real. So what? Just because people from centuries later assumed Jesus existed does not prove he existed at all. Finally, what about the specific criticisms which DO claim the Gospels are fiction? So far on this thread there has been little acknowledgement of this evidence that many early writers DID attack the Gospel stories as fiction and myth. Consider Julian the Roman Emperor - he claimed the Gospel stories were : * spurious * counterfeit * a fiction * composed by wickedness Celsus said the Gospel stories were : * fiction * based on myth Porphryry said the Evangelists were : * inventors, not historians See here: http://qdj.50megs.com/Doubts.html The obvious, rational conclusion is that Jesus was fiction. Iasion
Get a life Yo dude get a life. Who cares. Your post sucks. Does it really matter if the man existed or not? Does anyone really care about what you think? I don't think so. It is more about the message not the man. The fact is you are just quoteing what someone else wrote. Big deal. Do you own research smarty instead of stealing someone elses idea. Did 9/11 happen was it a conspiracy? Did the US govt kill its own people? Did the govt steer the hurricane at New Orleans to kill the "useless eaters) Well you could do a post on that and there is plenty of evidence that is on the internet to support it but does that make it ture? Life is an individual thing and if your not true to yourself and live it by your own terms what is the point? What happens when you die? No one knows and does it really matter.........we can't talk to dead people so it is not certainly usefull to the living. I advise you regardless what you believe: have compassion, be nice to children, spread love not hate. Basic things that everyone can do. The before and after does it matter? I don't know......... Here is a book for you (this goes for all of the stupid people here, myself included) Read "The Dilbert Principle" By Scott Adams. That will explain it all. Direct quote by Adams: We're a planet of nearly six billion ninnies living in a civilization that was designed by a few thousand amazingly smart deviants. (that is the truth in a nut shell) We all appear smarter thanks to the printing press and now the internet. We don't even have to think anymore just cut and paste someones else's ideas. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dork So Iasion I like the way you come to your conclusion with you last little statement. And who are you? Someone of average intelligent that read something that someone wrote. Big deal you stole someone elses conclusion and made it your own. How original. :bugeye:
GReetings, So, it's about the "message" - the quotes of Jesus - that matter. Oh, so now it's bad to quote? So, is it OK to quote what someone else (Gospels) said that someone else said that Jesus said? I DID ! I read the ancient documents, formed a view, and posted the evidence here. Anyone can CHECK the facts. You didn't. All you have done is insult and preach. What the? What on earth is your point? What on earth is your point there? I do. I advise you to stop preaching in a debate forum. Iasion
