PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

[metacrock]

Of course it was deflating. That was why they scattered like sheep, as per Jesus' prediction.

But then they saw something miraculous, and that convinced them Jesus had conquered death. I imagine that had the opposite effect.

I can't imagine that succeeding without the empty tomb. It wouldn't have the power otherwise.

What it gives is a precedent for the early Christians embellishing. It seems highly like they made this up, and so it becomes more likely they made other stuff up to to construct the narrative. Certainly the narrative was based on fact, but how can we tell what is fact and what is embellishment?

that's begging the question. It counts against your view so it must be embellishment.

Nicodemus, the guy who only appears in a gospel written sixty years later, and is strangely missing from the gospels that closest follow the PMPN? The guy who is almost certainly a late embellishment? You think he was the witness?

(1) you don't know that he's not in earlier one's or in others, There may well be a Gospel of Nicodemus.

(2) John has the strongest level of eye witness attestation. Buckingham's arguments are solid.

I am well aware there are several in the Bible, thank you.

I am saying there were none in the PMPN.

we don't have a copy so you can't say that.

All the Jerusalem sights were later embellishments.

more question begging. it disproves your view so it must be embellishment. you don't know.

Thinks like dead saints walking around?

there weren't any they were alive,

How long after the Hercules myth was invented until it was written down? Jesus' myth became set in stone, as it were, when it was got written. It did not have time to fragment in the same way. Less time, less fragmentation. Just as we see.

immaterial there never were any other versions as far back as we know up to today no other versions.

Actually, in John he is crucified a day earlier, so in that account he rose on the fourth day (which we would three days later).

no he's not. still Passover, I don't know where you get that but it's silly,

Exactly who witnessed when Jesus was resurrected? The women found the tomb empty, so that gives a maximum time, but he could have been resurrected an hour after burial. There are no witnesses to say otherwise. The third day comes not from witnesses, but from the Old Testament (Hosea 6:2 in particular), as Paul clearly says:

talk about clutching at straws. maybe God is really mean he's just making us feel love to fool us.


1 Corinthians 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,[/QUOTE]

so? most thinkers figure we should take the text at it's word.

[The Pixie]

No those are elements I find that never change in the Jesus story and are consistent and major enough to demarcate one story.

Rubbish! The virgin birth is not present in Mark or John, and not mentioned by Paul. There is no reason to suppose the author of Mark had heard of the virgin birth.

I quoted Koester verbatim saying mid first century

You quoted him saying the PMPN was around mid first century, and you quoted him saying the empty tomb was in the PMPN pre-Mark. I have presented something that indicates he believed the empty tomb was added to the narrative, so we cannot assume it was there mid first century. And your reply here looks suspiciously like you know that, and so answered ambiguously.

[One Bad Pig]

Rubbish! The virgin birth is not present in Mark or John, and not mentioned by Paul. There is no reason to suppose the author of Mark had heard of the virgin birth.

There's no reason to suppose that he hadn't. This is an argument from silence.

[metacrock]

Rubbish! The virgin birth is not present in Mark or John, and not mentioned by Paul. There is no reason to suppose the author of Mark had heard of the virgin birth.

there is no other version, just because there are texts that leave some things out doesn't mean there's another version.

You quoted him saying the PMPN was around mid first century, and you quoted him saying the empty tomb was in the PMPN pre-Mark. I have presented something that indicates he believed the empty tomb was added to the narrative, so we cannot assume it was there mid first century. And your reply here looks suspiciously like you know that, and so answered ambiguously.[/QUOTE]

no he's talking about the PMPN he's not discussing multiple drafts, the multiple drafts of it are the five Gospels we have. you have no warrant for assuming all these versions we don't have.

[The Pixie]

I can't imagine that succeeding without the empty tomb. It wouldn't have the power otherwise.

Why?

The disciples were in Galilee, having scattered (as Jesus had predicted). They were several days from the tomb.

They saw something that they believed was the resurrected Jesus. Do you think their faith was so meagre?

that's begging the question. It counts against your view so it must be embellishment.

No, the facts point to it likely being an embellishment. Remember, we are discussing the details of the trial. No disciples were present, it is unlikely anyone was who was sympathetic to them.

(1) you don't know that he's not in earlier one's or in others, There may well be a Gospel of Nicodemus.

Your own link dates it to fourth century. It is a fake, and a relatively late one at that.

(2) John has the strongest level of eye witness attestation. Buckingham's arguments are solid.

Really? The gospel that deviates most from the PMPN is the best attested? Is that seriously your position?

we don't have a copy so you can't say that.

But we do have the work based on it with Mark, and Mark indicates Jesus would go ahead of the disciples to Galilee and not meet them in Jerusalem. It has Jesus predicting the disciple would scatter after his death (and by implication before his resurrection) and see him in Galilee.

We cannot know for sure, I accept, but all the evidence points to no Jerusalem sightings.

More damning, the text by Koester that you have based this thread on says the PMPN ended with the empty tomb. Are you now saying we should reject Koester? Or wait, this is that cherry picking thing, right?

1 Corinthians 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

so? most thinkers figure we should take the text at it's word.

Right. Jesus was thought to have risen on the third day because of what scripture said, not because of what anyone actually saw. Take the text at its word.

[The Pixie]

There's no reason to suppose that he hadn't. This is an argument from silence.

I accept that, but my point was that metacrock was claiming the virgin birth was i all the accounts, which is clearly not true.

The fact is, we do not know if Mark had heard about the virgin, but chose to omit it as unimportant or unlikely or something else, or because he had not heard about it.

[One Bad Pig]

I accept that, but my point was that metacrock was claiming the virgin birth was i all the accounts, which is clearly not true.

No, he said it was a point that was consistently the same. The fact that it is not in all the accounts is sufficiently obvious that his list should be charitably construed to have an implied "where present."

[seanD]

The fact is, we do not know if Mark had heard about the virgin, but chose to omit it as unimportant or unlikely or something else, or because he had not heard about it.

Seems more likely Mark did know. He calls Jesus huios of Mary, and in every other case properly identifies sons by the father (Mark 10:35, 10:46).

[One Bad Pig]

Seems more likely Mark did know. He calls Jesus huios of Mary, and in every other case properly identifies sons by the father (Mark 10:35, 10:46).

To be fair, that is also how people whose fathers were not known were referenced.

[seanD]

To be fair, that is also how people whose fathers were not known were referenced.

According to John 1:45, Joseph was known.

[One Bad Pig]

According to John 1:45, Joseph was known.

See also Luke 3:23. It seems that Mark knew that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

[seanD]

See also Luke 3:23. It seems that Mark knew that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.

Yes, everyone thought Jesus was the son of Joseph. Then Mark should have also identified Jesus as son of Joseph, unless he understood Jesus' unusual birth, was my point.

[metacrock]

Yes, everyone thought Jesus was the son of Joseph. Then Mark should have also identified Jesus as son of Joseph, unless he understood Jesus' unusual birth, was my point.

If the traditional view holds Mark was in touch with Pete that would be one way he could know. Since I don't necessarily by the traditional view I think that by the time the /gospels were written James and probably talked bout it a thousand times.

[metacrock]

Why?

they needed a big jump start to justify the risk

The disciples were in Galilee, having scattered (as Jesus had predicted). They were several days from the tomb.

immaterial

They saw something that they believed was the resurrected Jesus. Do you think their faith was so meagre?

I don't know what that means I don't why that wouldn't be the resurrected Jesus.

No, the facts point to it likely being an embellishment. Remember, we are discussing the details of the trial. No disciples were present, it is unlikely anyone was who was sympathetic to them.

Begging the question again. If there were guards on the tomb they would have know who put them there. the specifics of the trail have nothing to do with it. It could have been Nicedemus. There is a gospel of palate and the story that Pilate went Christian at end of his lief.

Your own link dates it to fourth century. It is a fake, and a relatively late one at that.

not the only possibility, Besides he is in John that is reason enough to assume he exited.

Really? The gospel that deviates most from the PMPN is the best attested? Is that seriously your position?

get it through your head. you do not have an original of the PMPN so it's silly to try talk you know what's in it. The only things we know were in it are from what's in the canonicals and peter.

But we do have the work based on it with Mark, and Mark indicates Jesus would go ahead of the disciples to Galilee and not meet them in Jerusalem. It has Jesus predicting the disciple would scatter after his death (and by implication before his resurrection) and see him in Galilee.

knock off the stupid fetish for Mark. you still trying to think of Marks as fist Marks no guide to PMPN because was before Mark and it's ion all four. Mark is not a special guide to the original material.

We cannot know for sure, I accept, but all the evidence points to no Jerusalem sightings.

total nonsense. it doesn't even matter unless you mean no triumphal entry no last supper no arrest in gethsemane that is totally unjustified. trying to use Mark as special guider on the outdated assumption that it was written first. Mark was not written first.

More damning, the text by Koester that you have based this thread on says the PMPN ended with the empty tomb. Are you now saying we should reject Koester? Or wait, this is that cherry picking thing, right?

Right. Jesus was thought to have risen on the third day because of what scripture said, not because of what anyone actually saw. Take the text at its word.[/QUOTE]

what does go on in your head. you have one template Bible must be wrung .God no good Bible wrong. nothing e3lse will fit. over and over your assumpt5ions are knocked down you just cam;t imagine anything else but Bible bad Bible wrong.

Koester says the PMPN ends with empty tomb. The sittings of Risen Christ he thinks come from many different sources,. They are not necessarily all that much latter or any less authoritative. He and Crosson disagree at that point. Crosson thinks the epiphanies were part of the same text.

I've already explained how saying there was really no empty tomb is a different matter than saying weather or not the empty tom was in a certain text. The latter is based upon historical critical methods and upon texts, the former is totally ideological. Koester is rejecting the implied by the fact of the tomb in the PMPN in order to accept an ideological dogma.

[The Pixie]

Metacrock, a couple of questions first: What language do you think the PMPN was? Greek like the gospels, or Aramaic, as used by Jesus? Also, do you think it was a written record, or purely oral?

no he's talking about the PMPN he's not discussing multiple drafts, the multiple drafts of it are the five Gospels we have. you have no warrant for assuming all these versions we don't have.

Whereas you are assuming there is only version.

And we do not even have that!

they needed a big jump start to justify the risk

And you do not think seeing the resurrected Jesus was enough?

Maybe they had more faith than you give them credit for. It is worth remembering that according to Acts, when the disciples were preaching and getting mass conversions, there is no indication they cited the empty tomb as evidence.

I don't know what that means I don't why that wouldn't be the resurrected Jesus.

Maybe it was. That is what they thought.

Begging the question again. If there were guards on the tomb they would have know who put them there. the specifics of the trail have nothing to do with it. It could have been Nicedemus. There is a gospel of palate and the story that Pilate went Christian at end of his lief.

Why think there are guards on the tomb? Oh, because you are assuming the Biblical accounts are true. I.e., begging the question.

The more likely scenario is the guards were invented to counter claims that the body was stolen.

not the only possibility, Besides he is in John that is reason enough to assume he exited.

Sure, because you are assuming the Biblical accounts are true. I.e., begging the question.

get it through your head. you do not have an original of the PMPN so it's silly to try talk you know what's in it. The only things we know were in it are from what's in the canonicals and peter.

Perhaps you need to get it through your head that we do not have it, and it is silly to try talk you know what is in it.

knock off the stupid fetish for Mark. you still trying to think of Marks as fist Marks no guide to PMPN because was before Mark and it's ion all four. Mark is not a special guide to the original material.

Can you present evidence that any of the other gospel authors had access to the PMPN? Certainly looks as though Matthew and Luke were based on Mark rather than indepently using the PMPN, given how close they are in places, but perhaps you have evidence otherwise?

total nonsense. it doesn't even matter unless you mean no triumphal entry no last supper no arrest in gethsemane that is totally unjustified. trying to use Mark as special guider on the outdated assumption that it was written first. Mark was not written first.

Really? I thought we had already established that I was talking about post-resurrection sightings in Jerusalem, and now here you are pretending I am talking about all sightings in Jerusalem. Get your act together, metacrock.

And most scholars agree that Mark was first of the gospels we have.

what does go on in your head. you have one template Bible must be wrung .God no good Bible wrong. nothing e3lse will fit. over and over your assumpt5ions are knocked down you just cam;t imagine anything else but Bible bad Bible wrong.

So find a witness who saw Jesus resurrected on the third day. Even if we take the gospels as true, I can only see witnesses who saw Jesus after he was resurrected, indicating he was resurrected at some point up to and including the third day.

Koester says the PMPN ends with empty tomb.

I know. He also says the empty tomb was made up, and it seems like to me possible it was added to the PMPN at some point.

This is something you steadfastly refuse to address.

The sittings of Risen Christ he thinks come from many different sources,. They are not necessarily all that much latter or any less authoritative.

Of course they are less authoritive, we have no clue what they are, who wrote them, when they were written what their purpose was, or what was in them. Are you seriously citing such source as being as authoritive as the PMPN? Maybe we need to downgrade the PMPN...

I've already explained how saying there was really no empty tomb is a different matter than saying weather or not the empty tom was in a certain text.

I remember.

You accept Koester's authority with regards to the empty tomb in the PMPN because it agrees with your beliefs.

You reject Koester's authority with regards to the empty tomb as history because it disagrees with your beliefs.

The latter is based upon historical critical methods and upon texts, the former is totally ideological. Koester is rejecting the implied by the fact of the tomb in the PMPN in order to accept an ideological dogma.

So you think Koester, an ordained minster of the Lutheran Church, rejected the empty tomb for ideological reasons? You sure about that?