One Christian Thought

The argument for Mark's story being accurate is here . Bart Ehrman has mentioned (as other skeptical scholars have argued) that the empty tomb was invented because it has to be. Since Jesus became to be interpreted as being physically resurrected, He would of course leave an empty tomb behind. This is why there is growing legend with Mark first only having that, and then Matthew, Luke, and John have Jesus being touched and maybe eating. However, if the empty tomb was invented to emphasize a physical body, certainly a legend writer would have included more details (like being touched). As a growing legend it doesn't make sense to leave out because it's just something they'd think of anyway. Being able to be touched is an important part of having a physical body, and makes it more explicit.  Moreover, even if that did make sense, there still is a lack of embellishment in how Jesus's empty grave was found.  I mentioned in the original post it could be argued that if Ma...

Jesus's honorable burial The original post is here . What I realized around the time of finishing it up is just this paragraph below, which draws all the main points together: Why would a legend writer stick so faithfully to the facts, the embarrassing ones, despite an early church that had disdain for the Jewish leaders, and people would know about a specific member Joseph of Arimathea even into the second generation? The closest argument I can imagine is because it fits Mark's theology, but why bother with just this one thing? But here, the fact that Mark's Gospel has Pontius Pilate and the two men crucified with Him not developed shows that Mark definitely didn't need a bad-guy-turned-good-guy to bury Jesus.  That idea is so... arbitrary.  I haven't really said this explicitly before, but it goes right along with my arguments for Mark as the true lost Gospel of Peter: Mark was recording primarily a history, making the facts fit a theological motive but working in...

In part 2 of the original blog project , loaded down with embarrassing testimony, there were four claims which go to the heart of a miracle, all quoted below. Thus, if it can be shown that they really fit the criterion of dissimilarity, there is strong evidence Peter reported what actually happened and didn't make it up. Jesus's apparent ignorance " 5:30 Jesus was unaware of the woman He healed.  He asked, "Who touched my clothes?" and searched for her. But Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit (1:10) and "Jesus knew in His Spirit" when people were against Him (2:8). Later on He makes many accurate predictions (11:2-6; 14:13-16, 27 and 50; 30 and 72)." I don't think that Jesus was really unaware at all of what He had done, even as a human. I think what he was doing was trying to draw out the woman who was scared of Him, so she could grow by facing her fear and He could talk to her. But I've come up with some arguments that this could fit ...

C.S. Lewis once said, Muslims (other people can as well) can charge that the Trinity is too complex. But he responds, who says the truth has to be simple? I recently got to thinking about an argument against the criterion of dissimilarity, and have to point out that the truth is not necessarily the first straightforward answer. Distinguishing what claims in Mark are unlikely inventions is almost all of the argument for it.  But if Christianity is false, then embarrassing claims make sense because Mark didn't have a perfect leader. On the other hand, if it is true, then there definitely is a theological explanation to everything. Also, what are religious record keepers going to do when they bump over an embarrassing report? Ignore it? How improbable that a Gospel writer wouldn't think about what he's writing. An explanation would be crafted sooner or later.  But a good response is that even if there is so far as theological purposes behind mentioning something (as opposed to...

Because of reading Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene by Bart Ehrman, and using other knowledge (theology theory and specific considerations for purported evidence), I have come to be able to create what is to me a thorough and powerful case against the internal evidence for the book of Mark being the true Gospel of Peter. But, as suggested in the title, and if you already know about me, it is safe to assume I haven't abandoned belief that there is strong evidence in the Gospel of Mark to prove it as eyewitness material.  If you have read my 6 part blog project titled "The True Lost Gospel of Peter," you've already come across why I believe the miracles in the book of Mark (the conclusion contains the five other links), although the material dealt with here was first recorded in what I call " my primitive post ." Don't bother looking at it now: everything is dealt with here, where we can be more confident of my conclusion because of the cross-examination....

How can this argument prove anything? As you've probably noticed, if you've read the five other posts before this one, my argument that the Gospel of Mark really is the true eyewitness material of Peter is cumulative . This is important. It's not like the only internal evidence we have to go back specifically to Peter is his name as the first and last Disciple mentioned, and that there are few pieces of embarrassing testimony, say just Jesus coming from Nazareth and the Disciples being thick-headed sometimes. Instead, there is 25+ pieces of embarrassing testimony (different scenarios are sometimes clumped together), and 21 of those examples are left theologically unexplained. Here is the links to read my "True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded blog project in order: Introduction Part 1: NON-legendary Claims Part 2: Embarrassing Testimony Part 3: Theology Theory, Primary Considerations Part 4: Theology Theory, Less Direct Issues The thing with cumulative c...

Theology theory does not fit Peter's nature. Accept the church tradition that the ring leader of the Disciples was martyred for his faith or not, it is not debatable that he did convert back to belief in Jesus after the crucifixion. Therefore, he surely suffered and definitely was aware that he was risking death because of his faith. For more information, see this three page pdf located here that argues for the resurrection by going to it as the foundation for the Christian faith (i.e. something like not proving Jesus by proving his other miracles since the Gospels are accurate).  With this in mind, Christian apologist Frank Turek and the great late Norman Geisler wrote: "There's no reason to doubt, and every reason to believe, the New Testament accounts. While many people will die for a lie that they think is truth, no sane person will die for what they know is a lie. The New Testament writers and other apostles knew for sure that Jesus had resurrected, and they demonstr...

Dr. Robert Miller took part in a debate between William Lane Craig and former chairman of the Jesus Seminar, Dr. John Crossan, whom he supported. When I read Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? , I must say that I was quite disturbed by the idea which they pressed. Miller explained it here: "We need to ask: Who is the audience of the Gospels? For whom did the Evangelists write? The answer is clear: the Gospels were written for Christians. They presuppose that their audiences already believe in Jesus. Although a few outsiders may read a Gospel, it is most unlikely that any of them will come to believe in Jesus by reading that text. This is especially so in the case of the resurrection stories. How likely is it that a Jew or a pagan would read one of these stories and then conclude that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead and that therefore he is God? No, the resurrection stories presume a friendly audience, people who already believe that Jesus has risen. The stories pr...