lemm.ee

1 point

10 months ago

Christ confessor: the person who answers Jesus when he asks who I am for the first time. Check for yourself the first three gospels it is Peter the fourth it is Mary.

The endings of Mark wasn’t part of the original. They were attempts at harmonizing the text. The original ending ends with Mary fleeing the tomb and telling no one.

report

[ - ]

Flax@feddit.uk

1 point

10 months ago

The original ending was likely a literary device - perhaps encouraging the reader to do what Jesus said as Mary wouldn’t do it. It is still recognised as a very early addition, and the fact it was just someone tying up the story to make it read better was also recorded early on. As a matter of fact, if you remove verse 8, it actually makes sense again, so verse 8 seems to be an intentional cliffhanger.

report

[ - ]

1 point

10 months ago

What blog did you copy that from? And yes it was a literary device but that doesn’t suddenly mean whatever ending you want goes there.

report

[ - ]

Flax@feddit.uk

1 point

10 months ago

You are right there in the sense that we know the early church added on to it, but basically every copy of the Bible I have minus the KJV (which doesn’t use footnotes and is from 1611 anyway) mentions that they were added on. They aren’t even that significant, unless you’re that snake handling denomination. Everything said there is backed up by the other three gospels.

report

[ - ]

1 point

10 months ago

It is only backed up because the other gospels plagiarized from it. This is like being amazed that Batman is an orphan in the comics, movies, cartoons, and graphic novels.

Mark diminished Mary’s role just like he did with the entire ministry. Matthew invented what happened next by trying to figure out what Paul was talking about in the letters.

Welcome to the Bible where what really happened doesn’t matter.

report

[ - ]

Flax@feddit.uk

1 point

10 months ago

The greek language structure of Mark seems to be cut off abruptly at the end. It doesn’t conclude the Gospel properly. It wouldn’t have made sense to end it here either as we know from Paul’s letters which were written before. The end of the Gospel of Mark was likely a call to respond, to do what the women were told to do.

Secondly, you even seemed to say so yourself that John was written more isolated from the synoptics, so if they were trying to “censor” out when making stuff up, why would he include her in his gospel in the first place?

Lastly, that’s assuming Marcan priority, which generally tries to presuppose that Matthew wasn’t an eyewitness account in the first place. The early church clearly records Matthew as being written first and Matthew being written by Matthew (keep in mind that the Gospels were widely circulated by then and they had already rejected forgeries under names such as Peter) and Marcan priority was only hypothesised in the late 18th century, yet is still quite debated. Athiestic Bible scholars like it because it is useful for them to explain away the Bible.

report

[ - ]

1 point

10 months ago

It made perfect sense to cut it there. It was a cliffhanger with Paul finishing up.

Secondly, you even seemed to say so yourself that John was written more isolated from the synoptics, so if they were trying to “censor” out when making stuff up, why would he include her in his gospel in the first place?

Because there is no “they”. It was separate groups putting out works.

Lastly, that’s assuming Marcan priority, which generally tries to presuppose that Matthew wasn’t an eyewitness account in the first place

Which is a valid assumption since Matthew was not an eyewitness and Matthew copied Mark word for word at places. There is no presupposing here. Whomever wrote those two books were liars writing propaganda.

The early church clearly records Matthew as being written first and Matthew being written by Matthew

Genetic fallacy, sub-type argument from authority, logical fallacy. Something is true because it happened not because someone said it happened.

keep in mind that the Gospels were widely circulated by then and they had already rejected forgeries under names such as Peter)

Irrelevant. Being right about one thing doesn’t mean being right about everything.

and Marcan priority was only hypothesised in the late 18th century,

And so was the germ theory of disease which I sincerely hope you buy into.

yet is still quite debated.

The existence of an argument doesn’t mean both sides are equally likely to be true.

Athiestic Bible scholars like it because it is useful for them to explain away the Bible.

Circumstantial ad homunium attack. Another logical fallacy. 4th by my count.

I suggest you read up on logic a bit before going further.

report