Ending of the Gospel of Mark

[OLDMAN]

How can one read Mathew and not be stunned by the resurrection of all the saints and their entering the holy city? You would think the historians of the day would have made note of that....Mathew 27:52

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It says..."He has risen".

That's already an extraordinary claim no matter how you word it!

Yes, it's an extraordinary claim. But - leaving aside for the moment the classic "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - there isn't even ordinary evidence to support it. All there is, is repetition of the claim by people with a vested interest in pushing it as a true story

The tomb was empty. The physical body was missing. The well-funded Roman and Jewish authorities in power werent able to adequately debunk the claim.

So the story goes. But concrete evidence is there none.

Christianity flourished with exponential growth.

As has been pointed out, the early growth of Xianity is matched by that of Mormonism. And dwarved by the 20th-21st century growth of atheism. The Explosion of Early Christianity, Explained

And the person who wrote that Gospel is stating what was already known believed by many.

Fixed it for you.

So the 'oldest' remnant text - written down quite some time after the event - was written at a time when there were already plenty of early Christians who had already heard the same story.

Or variations thereof, as evidenced by the many discrepancies in the gospels, and the many early Xian sects, each with its own version of events.

 

[Learner]

Not sure what to make of it at the moment will have to read a little more. I noticed some posters of the site beneath the article in your link on the explanation - the growth of Christianity according to a maths example by Rodney Stark .

A poster on the site replies:

"Interesting fact: Rodney Stark is now a Christian, teaching at Baylor.
http://www.rodneystark.com/

Interesting perspective nevertheless.

 

[Learner]

How can one read Mathew and not be stunned by the resurrection of all the saints and their entering the holy city? You would think the historians of the day would have made note of that....Mathew 27:52

I wouldn't doubt the threat of Jesus ,being that the Pharisees were in charge of the Jews way of life and the Roman rulers answering only to Caesar and having their own gods of the day.

 

[Oecolampadius]

How can one read Mathew and not be stunned by the resurrection of all the saints and their entering the holy city? You would think the historians of the day would have made note of that....Mathew 27:52

But even some conservative Christian scholars see that as a literary embellishment rather historical fact. Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Michael Licona:

In a passage in his 2010 book, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, Licona questioned the literal interpretation of the story of the resurrection of the saints in Matthew 27, suggesting the possibility that it might be apocalyptic imagery. This led to controversy with evangelicals Norman Geisler and Albert Mohler, who both accused Licona of denying the full inerrancy of the Bible in general and the Gospel narratives in particular. Licona maintained that the interpretation he proposed had nothing to do with whether the Gospels are inerrant but was a matter of how to interpret it as Matthew had intended (i.e., hermeneutics). In the course of events, Licona resigned in 2011 from his position as research professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary and as apologetics coordinator for the North American Mission Board (NAMB).

 

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Not sure what to make of it at the moment will have to read a little more. I noticed some posters of the site beneath the article in your link on the explanation - the growth of Christianity according to a maths example by Rodney Stark .

A poster on the site replies:

"Interesting fact: Rodney Stark is now a Christian, teaching at Baylor.
http://www.rodneystark.com/

Interesting perspective nevertheless.

Yes, but as the same poster notes in the next post, that fact doesn't affect the argument presented. And, as far as I can tell, Stark hasn't disowned that explanation for the growth of Xianity, despite his conversion.

 

[Lion IRC]

Not sure what to make of it at the moment will have to read a little more. I noticed some posters of the site beneath the article in your link on the explanation - the growth of Christianity according to a maths example by Rodney Stark .

A poster on the site replies:

"Interesting fact: Rodney Stark is now a Christian, teaching at Baylor.
http://www.rodneystark.com/

Interesting perspective nevertheless.

WOW - thx Learner.
Interesting. +Rep

 

[Will Wiley]

How can one read Mathew and not be stunned by the resurrection of all the saints and their entering the holy city? You would think the historians of the day would have made note of that....Mathew 27:52

There aren't many historians from that time and place. Josephus a bit later, Cassius Dio later again. Not that I think it happened

 

[Will Wiley]

Joedad may have a point there Lion. There are other individuals too who call themselves kwistians and chripthians.
It is confusing.

Chrestian and christian are historically distinct. But I'm not holding my breath thinking you might be curious enough to have a look.

We don't have near enough information to say very much about that. You may be right (or wrong). We just have snippets and small pieces of information, nothing to hang your hat on or to get dogmatic about. Not worth it