"Do not be alarmed"

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You assholes really ruined the Happy Easter thread with your political bullshit. Let's try again.

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.​

Happy Easter, all.

 

[BradStevens]

You assholes really ruined the Happy Easter thread with your political bullshit. Let's try again.

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.​

Happy Easter, all.

Go check out the thread on Martin Luther and Trump.

NewFarvaGoo is starting a holy war on the Cooler for Easter!

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Go check out the thread on Martin Luther and Trump.

NewFarvaGoo is starting a holy war on the Cooler for Easter!

That does not sound like anything I would be interested in.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

You assholes really ruined the Happy Easter thread with your political bullshit. Let's try again.

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.​

Happy Easter, all.

Thank you Goat.

 

[DrHoops]

You assholes really ruined the Happy Easter thread with your political bullshit. Let's try again.

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.​

Happy Easter, all.

I admire the spirit of your post, but it’s just Bronze Age folklore.

The reality of Easter was trying to bring pagans into the Catholic Church. That’s common knowledge to anyone with access to Google.

Spring, rebirth, rise again, Easter bunnies, having babies, fertility.

It’s so ridiculous to take these story books seriously, no matter how flowery the verbiage.



Side note:

 

[BradStevens]

I admire the spirit of your post, but it’s just Bronze Age folklore.

The reality of Easter was trying to bring pagans into the Catholic Church. That’s common knowledge to anyone with access to Google.

Spring, rebirth, rise again, Easter bunnies, having babies, fertility.

It’s so ridiculous to take these story books seriously, no matter how flowery the verbiage.

View embedded media

Side note:

View embedded media

This is some really deep thinking here. Thanks so much for it.

You’ve once again proven you’re the smartest person here with an uncanny knack at reading the room, interpreting context, and understanding social cues.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

This is some really deep thinking here. Thanks so much for it.

You’ve once again proven you’re the smartest person here with an uncanny knack at reading the room, interpreting context, and understanding social cues.

Well Brad, if you can think of a less douchey way for him to let everyone know how much smarter he is, I’m sure he’s all ears.

 

[Mark Milton]

You assholes really ruined the Happy Easter thread with your political bullshit. Let's try again.

When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?” When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.​

Happy Easter, all.

Kudos to you for actually quoting Mark 16: 1-8 rather than the much later added 9-20.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Kudos to you for actually quoting Mark 16: 1-8 rather than the much later added 9-20.

I feel like the abrupt ending to Mark is a fitting target for meditation that goes too often ignored.

 

[Mark Milton]

I feel like the abrupt ending to Mark is a fitting target for meditation that goes too often ignored.

and totally aligned with the writer's narrative throughout. Agree 100%

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

and totally aligned with the writer's narrative throughout. Agree 100%

Yes, Mark tells the story of a Jesus who remains a mystery to his disciples, who lack understanding of his basic identity. The story ending with their fear and confusion is quite fitting. And it provides for lessons very different from those that we glean from stories of his appearances after resurrection.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

This is some really deep thinking here. Thanks so much for it.

You’ve once again proven you’re the smartest person here with an uncanny knack at reading the room, interpreting context, and understanding social cues.

His wisdom hath murdered his faith, and his heart hath hardened with the lost.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Yes, Mark tells the story of a Jesus who remains a mystery to his disciples, who lack understanding of his basic identity. The story ending with their fear and confusion is quite fitting. And it provides for lessons very different from those that we glean from stories of his appearances after resurrection.

The fact that, even as late as the trial and crucifixion, and even after all they had seen and heard, even the disciples failed to understand, gives humanity the hope it needs. Peter failed. Thomas doubted. And then they became fearless apostles, even unto death.

Meditate, indeed.

 

[BradStevens]

Yes, Mark tells the story of a Jesus who remains a mystery to his disciples, who lack understanding of his basic identity. The story ending with their fear and confusion is quite fitting. And it provides for lessons very different from those that we glean from stories of his appearances after resurrection.

What's the take away from this?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What's the take away from this?

Answering God's call is scary is probably the most basic one.

 

[Mark Milton]

What's the take away from this?

1. The dirty secret in Mark, which Goat hinted at, was that there was only one person in the entirety of Mark who figured out who Jesus was--the Roman Centurion who watched over the crucifixion. Can't remember his exact the exact quote, but the centurion said "surely this was a divine being. This is the theme throughout Mark, which is the first Gospel, and Mathew and Luke copied Mark and changed it some when they wrote their respective gospels.

2. There's also a great line in Mark where Peter has no effing clue who Jesus is, and Jesus says he must go to Jerusalem to die, and Peter, not understanding that Jesus was the professed Messiah, tells Jesus he can't do it. Jesus says something along the lines of "Get behind me Satan". Which is a phrase for suggesting that not only was Peter a dummy, he was being influenced by Satan...

3. The three women (Mary, Mary and Salome), where also the only ones left to see Jesus--the disciples had scattered and ran away. There's a theological explainer for t his, and it is largely unsatisfying. The author of Mark wrote this to purposefully show ambiguity. Where they scared because someone moved the body? That Jesus was the Messiah? That he rose from the dead? Open to interpretation. Mark does not have a virgin birth story and purposefully leaves out the a clear resurrection story.

4. Later edition bibles have altered Mark significantly---the "man in white" became an angel, yet the ancient greek (koine), very specifically uses the word "anthropos" or man. Angel is "angelos".

It helps to have an Uncle who talked your ear off who was a biblical scholar. Whether are a believer or not, it is all quite fascinating

 

[larsIU]

I admire the spirit of your post, but it’s just Bronze Age folklore.

Just like IU basketball history if Purdue wins the natty.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

1. The dirty secret in Mark, which Goat hinted at, was that there was only one person in the entirety of Mark who figured out who Jesus was--the Roman Centurion who watched over the crucifixion. Can't remember his exact the exact quote, but the centurion said "surely this was a divine being. This is the theme throughout Mark, which is the first Gospel, and Mathew and Luke copied Mark and changed it some when they wrote their respective gospels.

2. There's also a great line in Mark where Peter has no effing clue who Jesus is, and Jesus says he must go to Jerusalem to die, and Peter, not understanding that Jesus was the professed Messiah, tells Jesus he can't do it. Jesus says something along the lines of "Get behind me Satan". Which is a phrase for suggesting that not only was Peter a dummy, he was being influenced by Satan...

3. The three women (Mary, Mary and Salome), where also the only ones left to see Jesus--the disciples had scattered and ran away. There's a theological explainer for t his, and it is largely unsatisfying. The author of Mark wrote this to purposefully show ambiguity. Where they scared because someone moved the body? That Jesus was the Messiah? That he rose from the dead? Open to interpretation. Mark does not have a virgin birth story and purposefully leaves out the a clear resurrection story.

4. Later edition bibles have altered Mark significantly---the "man in white" became an angel, yet the ancient greek (koine), very specifically uses the word "anthropos" or man. Angel is "angelos".

It helps to have an Uncle who talked your ear off who was a biblical scholar. Whether are a believer or not, it is all quite fascinating

Of course we should also remember that Mark was writing to a community of Christians who were presumably already familiar with the resurrection. Perhaps he wrote the parts of the story he was commissioned to write and that was it.

 

[abraxis]

Of course we should also remember that Mark was writing to a community of Christians who were presumably already familiar with the resurrection. Perhaps he wrote the parts of the story he was commissioned to write and that was it.

Perhaps he wrote to guarantee a best seller.

 

[Mark Milton]

Of course we should also remember that Mark was writing to a community of Christians who were presumably already familiar with the resurrection. Perhaps he wrote the parts of the story he was commissioned to write and that was it.

Mark was very likely writing to the Romans, which makes sense, as he is the first to take the anti - jewish approach when it comes to the crucifixion. The virgin birth story is almost a certainty that Mark didn't know about it. But he does know about Paul (Mark cites some of the same passages the hebrew bible that Paul does), so Mark knows that something happened post crucifixion, but he doesn't really know what because he is writing 40 years after the events--nearly everyone who claimed to the resurrection (the 12 disciples, Paul (the only one not to see the bodily resurrection but rather sees the a form or the voice), and the mysterious 500 that Paul throws out there. Who knows. My personal take is that Mark tells the cleanest story in New Testament--written like a Greek/Roman myth--the better to convert the gentiles

 

[BradStevens]

Mark was very likely writing to the Romans, which makes sense, as he is the first to take the anti - jewish approach when it comes to the crucifixion. The virgin birth story is almost a certainty that Mark didn't know about it. But he does know about Paul (Mark cites some of the same passages the hebrew bible that Paul does), so Mark knows that something happened post crucifixion, but he doesn't really know what because he is writing 40 years after the events--nearly everyone who claimed to the resurrection (the 12 disciples, Paul (the only one not to see the bodily resurrection but rather sees the a form or the voice), and the mysterious 500 that Paul throws out there. Who knows. My personal take is that Mark tells the cleanest story in New Testament--written like a Greek/Roman myth--the better to convert the gentiles

You bring up an interesting question: did Jesus know of the circumstances of his birth?

 

[Mark Milton]

You bring up an interesting question: did Jesus know of the circumstances of his birth?

it depends. Read mark, and the answer is likely no virgin birth. Read John and he knew he was God.

 

[UncleMark]

it depends. Read mark, and the answer is likely no virgin birth. Read John and he knew he was God.

I was under the impression the Virgin Birth was a contrivance the Roman church came up with later. But I don't claim to know much.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I was under the impression the Virgin Birth was a contrivance the Roman church came up with later. But I don't claim to know much.

The virgin birth is in both Matt and Luke. Perhaps you are thinking of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is not explicitly scriptural (but is a tradition going back to the very early church)?

 

[UncleMark]

The virgin birth is in both Matt and Luke. Perhaps you are thinking of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is not explicitly scriptural (but is a tradition going back to the very early church)?

Oh hell, I don't know. I gave up trying to make sense of any of this shit by the time I was 12 years old. I'm an atheist, so it's not something I care to spend any time thinking about. What's obvious to me is that if God does exist, He's an Asshole.

 

[Mark Milton]

I was under the impression the Virgin Birth was a contrivance the Roman church came up with later. But I don't claim to know much.

matthew was the first reference to virgin birth of Jesus. Around 80-85 AD.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh hell, I don't know. I gave up trying to make sense of any of this shit by the time I was 12 years old. I'm an atheist, so it's not something I care to spend any time thinking about. What's obvious to me is that if God does exist, He's an Asshole.

The argument from evil is I think the strongest argument for atheism.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

matthew was the first reference to virgin birth of Jesus. Around 80-85 AD.

You seem very well versed in this. We used to have some really great discussions about textual criticism. Wish you'd been here.

 

[BradStevens]

matthew was the first reference to virgin birth of Jesus. Around 80-85 AD.

There were a lot of other myths/legends before Jesus that also involved virgin births.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

matthew was the first reference to virgin birth of Jesus. Around 80-85 AD.

All that said, it's likely that the tradition is older. Matt the finished product is from the 80s, but M the source could be decades older. And since the L telling is entirely different, we know there were multiple versions of the virgin birth story floating around by the time the redactors got to them.

 

[larsIU]

Oh hell, I don't know. I gave up trying to make sense of any of this shit by the time I was 12 years old. I'm an atheist, so it's not something I care to spend any time thinking about. What's obvious to me is that if God does exist, He's an Asshole.

*She

FIFY

If god were a man the flood really would have killed us all. But a woman?

Nobody plays the long game like a woman.

 

[BradStevens]

matthew was the first reference to virgin birth of Jesus. Around 80-85 AD.

How can scholars pin point it that accurately? By the way, have you ever read Asimov's Guide to the Bible? Sounds like you know it all, anyway.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

How can scholars pin point it that accurately? By the way, have you ever read Asimov's Guide to the Bible? Sounds like you know it all, anyway.

Lots of ways. References in the text, for one. Mark contains passages that seem to reference the Jewish War, which suggests it was written around 70 AD, for example. Another one is language usage. Just like English changes over time, so did other languages. So scholars can pinpoint texts to specific periods of time based on how they use language. Basically, dating things with slang. Another, more difficult method is trying to time things based on theological development. For example, we think John is later (very late 1st C., or even early 2nd C.) because it seems to espouse a theology/christology that we have no evidence existed before then.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

All that said, it's likely that the tradition is older. Matt the finished product is from the 80s, but M the source could be decades older. And since the L telling is entirely different, we know there were multiple versions of the virgin birth story floating around by the time the redactors got to them.

Did you take Old Testament from Dr. Bevin at Kentucky Wesleyan? You speak about this issue with learned athority.

 

[Mark Milton]

How can scholars pin point it that accurately? By the way, have you ever read Asimov's Guide to the Bible? Sounds like you know it all, anyway.

haha i really know nothing. Just ask my wife

 

[Mark Milton]

There were a lot of other myths/legends before Jesus that also involved virgin births.

Ironically, Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were said to have been born of a virgin. Every religion in the world has the virgin birth story. Every religion in the world has a god banging someone young female. Never bought into that one.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I have been reading Adam Hamilton's Making Sense of the Bible. I am FAR from a Biblical scholar, so it has been enlightening. He has been discussing pretty much this thread, the audience for the Gospels and what they used for original source material. And he is in Biblical inerrancy now where he uses the different Easter stories to point out why he doesn't believe in inerrancy.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Did you take Old Testament from Dr. Bevin at Kentucky Wesleyan? You speak about this issue with learned athority.

Steven Weitzman at IUB. He's at UPenn now.

 

[Mark Milton]

All that said, it's likely that the tradition is older. Matt the finished product is from the 80s, but M the source could be decades older. And since the L telling is entirely different, we know there were multiple versions of the virgin birth story floating around by the time the redactors got to them.

To me the most logical answer is that we know Paul wrote from 50-60 AD--the earliest writings we have. We know that Paul traveled all throughout Asia preaching and knew James, Peter, etc. His calling (his words not conversion), happened 3 years after the crucifixion. He never mentions it despite knowing all the players--including James, Jesus' brother. Mark doesn't either and the author in Mark read Paul and knew someone who was tight with Peter. Matthew and Luke were almost 100% not written by Mathew and Luke. David Litwa has a great book on this about how the Gospels tried to blend in facts with mythology--a very Greco-Roman style of writing. Robin Walsh has another book that just came out discussing some of these issues, but Litwa's is fascinating.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

To me the most logical answer is that we know Paul wrote from 50-60 AD--the earliest writings we have. We know that Paul traveled all throughout Asia preaching and knew James, Peter, etc. His calling (his words not conversion), happened 3 years after the crucifixion. He never mentions it despite knowing all the players--including James, Jesus' brother. Mark doesn't either and the author in Mark read Paul and knew someone who was tight with Peter. Matthew and Luke were almost 100% not written by Mathew and Luke. David Litwa has a great book on this about how the Gospels tried to blend in facts with mythology--a very Greco-Roman style of writing. Robin Walsh has another book that just came out discussing some of these issues, but Litwa's is fascinating.

Good point. A possible counter: Paul didn't seem to care much at all about the life of Jesus. To him, only the risen Christ is important.