CADRE Comments

The Gospel of Mark is often puzzled over: while often accepted as the earliest of the four gospel accounts in the New Testament (written c. AD 66-70, or potentially earlier), it ends abruptly as the women who had discovered the empty tomb “went out and fled … for terror and amazement had seized them” (16:8). It is widely believed that, since the shorter and longer endings to Mark after 16:8 were not present in the earliest manuscripts, they were not original to the text; this is a consensus to the extent that most modern Bible translations make this clear by bracketing off these sections. This means that the original version Mark makes no direct reference to seeing Jesus raised from the dead. Does this imply there was a legendary development of a Resurrection narrative from the basic Mark narrative to the more detailed accounts in the other gospels? If this were the case, two concepts would need to be true: Mark must be the earliest source available referring to the dea...

   I'm going against advice and deal with arguments by carm atheists because I think it's important to remember that certain things have been answered. Dealing with an old article by Richard Carrier that was sighted recently on CARM. Even though it's old these guys are rallying around it like its new and the same bunck is being noised about by atheists all the time. Carrier's article is here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...n/lecture.html this is prompted by Fleetmouse's statement that: "You have no answers to Carrier's essay. " He seems the most worked up over the idea that since carrier proves the superstitious nature of the folks of Jesus day, like he never considered that. That's something I knew about as a kid. I used it in highschool to justify my own atheism (1973).  I can't imagine anyone being impressed by it. Be that as it may that's not an argument so examine it.   Carrier My first reaction...

   I'm going against advice and deal with arguments by carm atheists because I think it's important to remember that certain things have been answered. Dealing with an old article by Richard Carrier that was sighted recently on CARM. Even though it's old these guys are rallying around it like its new and the same bunck is being noised about by atheists all the time. Carrier's article is here: http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...n/lecture.html this is prompted by Fleetmouse's statement that: "You have no answers to Carrier's essay. " He seems the most worked up over the idea that since carrier proves the superstitious nature of the folks of Jesus day, like he never considered that. That's something I knew about as a kid. I used it in highschool to justify my own atheism (1973).  I can't imagine anyone being impressed by it. Be that as it may that's not an argument so examine it.   Carrier My fi...