(http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0) The forum user Historia recommended having a separate thread for problems in what is considered by some scholars to be an added account of resurrection appearances, Mark 16:9-20:
Let's now turn to those issues:
5. Could a rational person seriously doubt whether the two disciples actually saw Jesus going to Emmaus because they didn't physically see the stranger's appearance as Jesus' but only guessed later that it was Him because of the way he discussed Messianic prophecy and broke bread?
Mark mentions that the other disciples didn't believe that those the two apostles had seen Jesus. Why not? Luke 24 gives the account in greater detail. It says that they did not recognize the stranger as Jesus by looking at him. Instead, He first told them that the prophets talked about the Messiah's death and resurrection, and it made the apostles very inspired. However, I don't consider it next to impossible that some Jews in the first century would teach the belief in a dying and Resurrected Messiah. The Talmud's traditions connect Isaiah 53 to the Messiah, and the prophets really did predict the Messiah's death and resurrection like Zechariah 11-13. Even nowadays there are Jewish sects like that of the alleged Messiah Schneerson who connected Isaiah 53 to the idea of a Messiah.
Secondly, it was only "in the breaking of the bread" (Luke 24:35) that the apostles recognized Jesus. Jesus ritual breaking of bread was a common ritual even in the first century. I could see the apostles torn by grief and inspired by the discussion hearing the stranger performing the bread breaking ritual himself and being inspired by it. It's strange that it says the visitor vanished from their sight, but does that mean that he quietly got up and left as soon as they started looking surprised? So this story by itself also raises a question for me of what exactly happened at that meeting, since it was with a person who did not physically appear to them to look like Jesus.
6. Is it philosophically correct to condemn good people who are nonetheless skeptical of others' accounts like the apostles were?
It says that Jesus appeared to the eleven and said among other things: "...he that believeth not shall be damned." That's pretty troubling, since the apostles themselves were not believing before Jesus physically appeared to them. And it doesn't seem right for Jesus to condemn all nonbelievers because I think some of them are good. At best, I would try to reconcile this by saying that Jesus was only laying out a general rule, since the Bible emphasizes good works as criteria in judgment too.
7. Does Mark's added resurrection account correctly record that Jesus told the disciples that Christians can handle snakes and drink anything deadly without being harmed, and is this statement true?
Jesus told them in this talk that Christians "shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them". But to me this is also doubtful. I suppose a person who prays and is calm will be much better at handling snakes. But I am afraid that it might be quite random whether people survive after drinking poison.
8. Is Luke 24 right that Jesus ascended on Day 1 or 2 of the Resurrection at Bethany when He appeared to the 11 disciples while they were listening to the report from Emmaus? (Mark's added account seems to be repeating Luke 24's story, when it talks about Jesus upbraiding the disciples for not believing those reports and then Ascending to heaven, Mk 16:14,19)
Acts 1 says that "the day in which he was taken up" was 40 days after the Resurrection. So either Jesus had two Ascensions, or Mark and Luke give the reader the wrong impression when they apparently say that the Ascension was on Day 1 or 2.
9. Does Jesus' repeated announcement that no sign would be given to that generation besides the resurrection (Mark 8:12) contradict the many miracles that the gospels and Acts say that Jesus and the apostles publicly performed? Jesus himself had told John the Baptist's disciples to tell John about Jesus' healings when John the Baptist sent them to ask Jesus if He was the Messiah.
Mark's gospel ends by saying that the apostles confirmed Christianity with many signs. Yet the gospels repeatedly say that no miracles were given to the public besides the sign of Jonah:
​An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. Matthew 12:39, 16:4
And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. Mark 8:12
This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. Luke 11:29
I suppose one could say that the Resurrection would be the only one openly confirmable for everyone because they could all openly see the empty tomb. But still, it seems like it works at odds with the other miracles. After all, what about the very public miracle of the loaves and fishes? Was the empty tomb itself such a stronger proof of a miracle than those proofs of the other miracles?
