The evolution of an atheist.

quote:

---

Why would a non-partisan write about the resurrection? It would only be the partisans, the ones who actually witnessed a resurrected Jesus that would write about it and probably most of them were illiterate

---

Surely you are joking? So, this chap who was dead has now been spotted alive, and you don't think that would interest anyone? It would be banner-headline news in EVERY contemporary writer's account of the times. It would be plastered all over Senica, Philos et al. It would be the most significant event ever.

quote:

---

I can see why Paul wouldn't mention the resurrection directly as his letters were to the specific groups of believers who would have already known about it. He did write the following in his first letter to the Corinthians.

---

I wondered if you would raise this. OK now, doesn't the letter have a pleading quality? Notice also the choice of words 'if it is preached that....'. What Paul is saying is 'look, you HAVE to believe in the resurrection, otherwise it all falls apart'. BUT he offers nothing to help. He might have said 'Look, I have just talked to James and he witnessed the resurrection', or he might have offered any number of witness testimonies as evidence. What does he actually do? He says please, just accept it, otherwise....I think this actually is evidence against, rather than evidence for...

Well, the show had a short run, not even 6 weeks and did not even make it to Off Off Broadway.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Let us not forget the hordes of dead holy-men who walked the earth then as well. That's an easy way to hand wave that away: only morons were the ones who saw it happen. Sounds similar to the reasoning behind why only backwoods rednecks get abducted by aliens.

---

Indeed.
The whole thing is just implausible. I think people often fall into the fallacy of thinking that people of that time were thickos when in fact they were probably much like any contemorary cross section of people. Any credible sighting of Jesus would have been MASSIVE.
Add the fact that Mark 16:9 is an undoubted forgery and the major dissagreements in Matthew John and Luke, and you have a later concoction added to give the new idea of a physical resurrection some support.
Paul and other contemporaries were working on the 'spiritual' resurrection notion and trying to convince that it was true - exactly because it wasn't physical and testable, but a matter of faith.

While I agree that the long ending to Mark certainly is a later addition I think that the term Forgery is a little excessive.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I can't agree. We are not talking about a transcription or copying error. This is substantial addition of new material made to appear as if original - that is a pretty good description of the word forgery.Personally I believe the 'destroyed original' theory. I think that Mark DID originally extend beyond 16:8, but that it was so different to other accounts that it was chopped. That is why the gospel ends so abruptly when it clearly was meant to continue.If you want to call it apocryphal addition like the religious do, then fine. I think that is needless euphamism.Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

I agree it was a much later addition, and that it was written in the style of Mark, but I also understand that our modern concepts of "forgery" is quite different than how it would be viewed at the time. There is a long history of writing or arguing in the style of and also attributing. Just look at the history of Talmudic discourse.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

No, that is different. This was meant to deceive, even at the time, otherwise why do it in the way it was done? Why not just pamphlet or publish a separate apologia/credo/missive?Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Because actual authorship was simply not considered all that important at the time.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Huh? The authors were absolutely important. They were (wrongly) considered to be the apostles and suggesting otherwise would have been very bad for you.
Likewise the words were important - people often learned them, especially if they could not read/write.
No, this is forgery. The fact that the religious like to use the phrase apocryphal addition doesn't really matter - that is THEIR problem.
forgery is meant to deceive. This was.

On what evidence do you base this claim?
Psuedepigraphs are forgeries no matter how you want to spin it. The purpose of these were to decieve. If they were not to deceive they would not have been falsely attributed to start with. The attribution to some one else or the appending to earlier documents was clearly intended to deceive.Your comment is spectacularly wrong.
Galen (ca. 129-ca 200CE) found it necessary to write a book telling how to tell his work from forgeries.
Even Christians thought it was bad form. The church father Tertullian(ca. 160-ca. 225) told a story of how the forger of 3 Corinthians was duly convicted by the ecclesiastical authority for composing this letter and falsely attributing it to Paul.
Source is The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, edited by John Loftus, article The Bible and Modern Scholarship, by Paul Tobin page 168.The claim that authorship was not important and forgeries were well tolerated is an apologist lie. Unless you can provide some sort of proof to back this up, I will have to go with Tertullian and Galen.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Not quite. The ACTUAL authors were not important, who the material was attributed to was important.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

If you want to consider the long ending of Mark a forgery, I really have no problem with it. I do not try to attribute it to Mark, but I also don't have a clue whether or not Mark actually wrote any of the rest.Hey, if your position makes you happy, I'm fine with it. Personally I think forgery is too strong a term but that is just my opinion.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I still call bullshit. Give us some evidence for this claim. It is clearly just apologetics. Show me one instance where a known forgery was accepted as ok because of who it was attributed to.You make an assertion and have as of yet to back it with any evidence. While I have given 2 instances where people from the time period had a huge problem with pseudepigraphy.Apologists uyse the words "pseudepigraphy and "pseudynomity" for one reason. They do not sound as bad as "forgery", but that is what they are forgeries.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts