PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

[seanD]

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.

I suspect everyone would have known because there would have been an inevitable scandal about it, at least those who had interest in Jesus and his movement. Since one's birth had such monumental determination when it came to a claimant the Davidic throne, his enemies would have scrutinized this more than anyone else. What do you think their reaction would have been had they learned that Jesus had no biological father?

[metacrock]

I suspect everyone would have known because there would have been an inevitable scandal about it, at least those who had interest in Jesus and his movement. Since one's birth had such monumental determination when it came to a claimant the Davidic throne, his enemies would have scrutinized this more than anyone else. What do you think their reaction would have been had they learned that Jesus had no biological father?

that would not mean they knew about the Virginal conception, That's not really a clear prophesy it wasn't an expectation. in fact it's not clear that Matt is saying that. It's a midrashic connection.

The people would have made the natural assumption that Jesus was Joe's son of Joe. If Joe did not deny it no one would question it. That gave him the right to the throne.

[metacrock]

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?

Probably Greek

Crosson and Koester say specifically circulated in writing.

Whereas you are assuming there is only version.

not necessarily but I don't assert claims without grounding when they alter the outcome of my position.

And we do not even have that!

It occurs to me we are talking about two different things. I am assuming one source that told of the empty tom but only because I don't know there were others. But we do know there were other sources such as Q,L,M. so I'm not meaning to imply there were no other sources at all.

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

the empty tomb sort of forces belief. Just saying so and so saw him risen not necessarily believable. the situation with the guards and the tomb turned up empty that would be in your face.

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.

no matter how much faith still icing

Maybe it was. That is what they thought.

that's nuts why assert they thought we know they did not think. they expected bodily res not a ghost.

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

We have two separate independent sources. Matt and the other tradition that Gpete uses. One of them is independent of Bible.

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

All the Romans and Sanhedrin had to do was say 'there were no guards." claim would only work if it was true. If they caught them making up such a lie one time they would kill the whole movement at it's most vulnerable time.

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

assuming a particular source is authoritative is not begging the question. My reasons are based upon Buckingham's great arguments for the historicity of John. Much stronger hints of eye witness backing in john,. The BD was probably Lazarus. The final redactor was Elder John who Papias knew. Read Jesus and the eye witnesses, it names eye witnesses all over the book.

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.

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?

That's constantly repeated throughout Koester's discussion of they subject, and Crosson mentions it as well in his own works.

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.

No it's more like I'm asking you. I thought you were talking post but then it occurred check to see if I misunderstand.

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

not anymore. that was the old assumption when they dismissed non canonical gospels as all third century. Ra Brown was one of the first to break that mold by showing GPete has the independent tradition. Mark still accepted as the first of the canonicals. But there are two luces and there is a L v\source Luke uses that may be older so it could be parts of Luke are older than mark.

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.

the women

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.

you are just asserting that because you don't like the consequences of it not beings that is "easygesis." Improper exegetical method.

This is something you steadfastly refuse to address.

I just did

[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...

no because the community recognized their authority they included them in the canon. Besides Crosson might be right and they are from the cross Gospel.

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

He's got 8 guys, all of them major scholars come the leading scholar on Diatesseron. Textual critic. Textual critics are like Kings of theology they are the most respected scholars. This guy in my class got big rep because he studied textual criticism.

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

.

he has no authority over belief in the empty tomb because that is not a matter of textual validity it's a major doctrine of them faith, his reasons are not factual but ideological.

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

O yea no Lutheran theologians ever promote unbelief for ideological reasons so unheard of,never heard of Baultmann? Not just lither but UMC too, Ogden. I went to one of the most liberal seminaries in the world. they have openly gay professors in some of the slots. this is what I've been trying to tell you about liberal theology it's not what you think. it's more common in that milieu to find people who don't believe in the resurrection than those who do.

[The Pixie]

Probably Greek

Crosson and Koester say specifically circulated in writing.

Why would they write in Greek? This was presumably a product of the Jewish Christians, rather than Paul's lot. Why use the language of their imperial overlords, rather than the language of their scripture, the language their saviour and messiah spoke to them in?

By the time the gospels were written, the gentile church was growing, while the Jewish Christians would have been disrupted by the Jewish revolt (though Mark could be pre-revolt), so it is understandable why they were written in Greek. The PMPN less so.

not necessarily but I don't assert claims without grounding when they alter the outcome of my position.

So give me your grounds for thinking the PMPN was not added to at all.

It occurs to me we are talking about two different things. I am assuming one source that told of the empty tom but only because I don't know there were others. But we do know there were other sources such as Q,L,M. so I'm not meaning to imply there were no other sources at all.

I think we are talking about the same thing. I appreciate there were other sources, such as Q, and others. In this context, I was speaking specifically about different versions of the PMPN.

the empty tomb sort of forces belief. Just saying so and so saw him risen not necessarily believable. the situation with the guards and the tomb turned up empty that would be in your face.

But the empty tomb can be explained away. The body was stolen, it was the wrong tomb, the body was never put in the tomb.

On the other hand, someone who is dead appearing in front of you and talking to you would seem to me to be more in your face.

What you are missing here is that no one went to look at the tomb later. We are comparing just saying so and so saw him risen with just saying so and so saw the tomb was empty. Just saying the tomb was empty failed, people said the body was stolen, forcing Matthew to invent the guards on the tomb (and we know people did say that, which is a strong indicator the guards were not part of the original account).

And again, remember that the apostles never cited the empty tomb as evidence in the mass conversions described in Acts. Why not? It had not been invented; it was too soon after the event, and people would be able to check for themselves.

no matter how much faith still icing

?

that's nuts why assert they thought we know they did not think. they expected bodily res not a ghost.

What was expected does not matter as much as what they saw. If what they saw was a non-corporeal Jesus, their beliefs would reflect that.

Later they had to deal with accusations that it was just a ghost, and the narrative changed to include Jesus eating specifically to counter that, just as it changed to include the guards.

The best record we have of what was in the PMPN is what is written in Mark. Mark does not mention Jesus eating fish, he does not mention the guards. It is therefore likely that both were absent from the PMPN.

We have two separate independent sources. Matt and the other tradition that Gpete uses. One of them is independent of Bible.

Two problems with the Gospel of Peter are its dating and how closely what we have resembles the original. It is very much anti-Jewish and pro-Rome, which indicates a later date, probably second century (dated to 70-160 AD here).

Now it may be that the original Gospel of Peter is much earlier, and what we have is a heavily revised version, with the pro-Rome stance edited in. But that does not help your case, because we do not know when the guards on the tomb appeared in the text. Were they also edited in, perhaps in the second century, by a redactor familiar with Matthew? We have no way of knowing.

All the Romans and Sanhedrin had to do was say 'there were no guards." claim would only work if it was true. If they caught them making up such a lie one time they would kill the whole movement at it's most vulnerable time.

Maybe they did. Why would you expect the gospel authors to record the Romans or Sanhedrin saying the narrative was wrong? You have an argument from silence, and in this case we would expect the silence in either case.

Remember also that Matthew is dated to around 90 AD. Would the Romans or Sanhedrin be able to state there were no guards sixty years after the event?

assuming a particular source is authoritative is not begging the question. My reasons are based upon Buckingham's great arguments for the historicity of John. Much stronger hints of eye witness backing in john,. The BD was probably Lazarus. The final redactor was Elder John who Papias knew. Read Jesus and the eye witnesses, it names eye witnesses all over the book.

I feel that is a whole other topic; perhaps for another thread?

That's constantly repeated throughout Koester's discussion of they subject, and Crosson mentions it as well in his own works.

Great. Should be easy for you to find quotes to support your claim then.

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.

No it's more like I'm asking you. I thought you were talking post but then it occurred check to see if I misunderstand.

No, it is not like you were asking me. There was no question asked, instead there was judgement and derision about a position I do not hold.

If you honestly are not sure, you ask a question. If you are confused, you mock a straw man, then later pretend it was just checking to hide the sorry fact that you are losing track of the conversation.

not anymore. that was the old assumption when they dismissed non canonical gospels as all third century. Ra Brown was one of the first to break that mold by showing GPete has the independent tradition. Mark still accepted as the first of the canonicals. But there are two luces and there is a L v\source Luke uses that may be older so it could be parts of Luke are older than mark.

According to here, Mark was the first, including non-canonicals. Okay, a late dating of Mark, and an early for Peter could put Peter first; do you date Mark to after 70AD?

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.

the women

Wrong! They supposedly say Jesus after the resurrection, but did not see the actual resurrection event. Go read the accounts.

Or quote the verse.

you are just asserting that because you don't like the consequences of it not beings that is "easygesis." Improper exegetical method.

I am asserting it on the basis of what Koester appears to believe. Here, I will give the quote again.

"In the first half of the third programme in the series Jesus: The Evidence, Professor H. Koester of Harvard University put forwards a view which must have been surprising, even astonishing, to many, not excluding many New Testament scholars. His argument was (1) that the first Christians must have followed the normal practice of worshipping at the tomb of Jesus; (2) that the Christians who had abandoned Jerusalem shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in AD 66 decided to explain the lack of worship at the tomb by saying the tomb was empty; and (3) that as the Gospels were written down years later, the story quickly began to be used to suggest that the tomb had always been empty."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20tomb&f=false
[quote]

no because the community recognized their authority they included them in the canon. Besides Crosson might be right and they are from the cross Gospel.

Do you think Crossan is right about the cross Gospel?

he has no authority over belief in the empty tomb because that is not a matter of textual validity it's a major doctrine of them faith, his reasons are not factual but ideological.

As an ordaioned priest, his ideology would force him to accept the empty tomb. That he nevertheless rejects it indicates it is not ideological, but based on honest scholarship.

O yea no Lutheran theologians ever promote unbelief for ideological reasons so unheard of,never heard of Baultmann? Not just lither but UMC too, Ogden. I went to one of the most liberal seminaries in the world. they have openly gay professors in some of the slots. this is what I've been trying to tell you about liberal theology it's not what you think. it's more common in that milieu to find people who don't believe in the resurrection than those who do.

Are you actually saying these Christians reject the resurrection for ideological reasons? Please be clear here. Seems to me rather more likely that if they do reject doctrine, they do so despite the ideology.

[metacrock]

Why would they write in Greek? This was presumably a product of the Jewish Christians, rather than Paul's lot. Why use the language of their imperial overlords, rather than the language of their scripture, the language their saviour and messiah spoke to them in?

The Jesus of Jesus' day even in Jerusalem, were big Greek users. That's why the LXX was commissioned; it functioned as the Bible for the early Church and in fact that's why the Jews commissioned a new Greek translation in AD 100. To get away from the Messianic passages the Christians used to show Jesus was Messiah. many Jews spoke Greek rather than Hebrew and all of them probably knew Greek was supplemental language.

By the time the gospels were written, the gentile church was growing, while the Jewish Christians would have been disrupted by the Jewish revolt (though Mark could be pre-revolt), so it is understandable why they were written in Greek. The PMPN less so.

The Jewish church was strong in that period, Although they did leave Jerusalem as the revolt began and that created bad blood with the Jews and helped separate the two. Legend has it that Jesus' cousin who took over the Jerusalem church after James received a vision that told him to take the church and leave. They did right before the temple fell.

So give me your grounds for thinking the PMPN was not added to at all.

I told you I see no warrant for thinking it was. If it was I don't that would do any damage to my argument.

I think we are talking about the same thing. I appreciate there were other sources, such as Q, and others. In this context, I was speaking specifically about different versions of the PMPN.

I don't see any reason to think there were other versions, The Gospels make use of the same material but alter it by their own needs,

But the empty tomb can be explained away. The body was stolen, it was the wrong tomb, the body was never put in the tomb.

that's all BS those kinds of arguments never work. That's the kind of stuff fumdies are real arguing about.

On the other hand, someone who is dead appearing in front of you and talking to you would seem to me to be more in your face.

that's ridiculous. Yet I might scare you more but it[s just av ghost, a ghost does not conquer death I don't you g the resurrection. It's about hope it's a symbol as well as reality.

What you are missing here is that no one went to look at the tomb later. We are comparing just saying so and so saw him risen with just saying so and so saw the tomb was empty. Just saying the tomb was empty failed, people said the body was stolen, forcing Matthew to invent the guards on the tomb (and we know people did say that, which is a strong indicator the guards were not part of the original account).

you are just gain saying the evidence, if that were true the Jews would have the body to show when the church began preaching, but people did go to the tomb. the women did, John and peter did and n doubt others We know from history they venerated the site and continued to keep track of it even after the Romans built on it.

And again, remember that the apostles never cited the empty tomb as evidence in the mass conversions described in Acts. Why not? It had not been invented; it was too soon after the event, and people would be able to check for themselves.

they did site the resurrection. they didn't need to point out that he rose bodily because they all knew it. The tomb was venerated from te beginning. Isralie archaeologist Gayliahay Cornfeld wrote about it.

What was expected does not matter as much as what they saw. If what they saw was a non-corporeal Jesus, their beliefs would reflect that.

what is your motive for that? why does yo0ur rejected of God so desperately depend upon dyeing the resurrection ? a ghost is not resurrected when they said" the dead are raised "in fulfillment of prophecy they did not say :ghosts appear. a sprit with no body is a ghost not a resurrection..

Messiah was to raise all of fallen Israel on the last dead. That's why Jesus is called first fruits of the dead. what sense would it make to say Messiah will bring ghosts of fallen Israel? Where's the victory in that?

Later they had to deal with accusations that it was just a ghost, and the narrative changed to include Jesus eating specifically to counter that, just as it changed to include the guards.

why would there be such accusations if resurrection with no body was accepted? for this argument to work you have to admit that being a ghost is substandard and falls short of resurrection.

The best record we have of what was in the PMPN is what is written in Mark. Mark does not mention Jesus eating fish, he does not mention the guards. It is therefore likely that both were absent from the PMPN.

how many times do I have to point out to you that is old fashioned thinking has been discorded. no one says that now, It's BS. GPete has an independent tradition that is as old or older than Mrk. So no reason to assume Mark is the big key to Pmpn. Moreover Q is not in Mark an it is at least a old or older.

Two problems with the Gospel of Peter are its dating and how closely what we have resembles the original.

we don't have the original. GPete is not derived form the canonicals. that's p[roved by Brown

It is very much anti-Jewish and pro-Rome, which indicates a later date, probably second century (dated to 70-160 AD here).

the argument is not about the age of GPete but the material in GPete for the PN. That is older than the synoptic.

Now it may be that the original Gospel of Peter is much earlier, and what we have is a heavily revised version, with the pro-Rome stance edited in. But that does not help your case, because we do not know when the guards on the tomb appeared in the text. Were they also edited in, perhaps in the second century, by a redactor familiar with Matthew? We have no way of knowing.

not the whole Gospel just material used in it.

[they could nit say there were guards if there were none]

Maybe they did.

I just explained why they could not. amazing you guys rationalize anything,

Why would you expect the gospel authors to record the Romans or Sanhedrin saying the narrative was wrong? You have an argument from silence, and in this case we would expect the silence in either case.

I'm talking about the life of the movement. If the movement was killed because the Romans produced the body there would be no Gospel's to lie about the tomb. there would be no one to read or write them.

[metacrock]

Remember also that Matthew is dated to around 90 AD. Would the Romans or Sanhedrin be able to state there were no guards sixty years after the event?

80. in fact the trend now is to earlier dates. some evidence in the ought's suggested 70 for Matt. You act like they just sat around with no Christians until 60 years latter, wrote Mark and bam!@ instant following. they had a vital movement for years with no written gospels. Now suppose in AD38 the romans produce the body say Here he isl or even the day after Pentecost, here is the body, they would still recognize the face. no Christians non one would give a rat's ass about mark years latter!

I feel that is a whole other topic; perhaps for another thread?

Great.

sure but we have about three topics what do you want?

Should be easy for you to find quotes to support your claim then.

No, it is not like you were asking me. There was no question asked, instead there was judgment and derision about a position I do not hold.

sorry if I gave that impression I didn't mean to it's kind of a habit one of my reasons for leaving CARM is to get over that way of doing.

If you honestly are not sure, you ask a question. If you are confused, you mock a straw man, then later pretend it was just checking to hide the sorry fact that you are losing track of the conversation.

you know what CARM is like. I was on there a long time and under attack by half the board every day for 15 years its takes a toll.

According to here, Mark was the first, including non-canonicals. Okay, a late dating of Mark, and an early for Peter could put Peter first; do you date Mark to after 70AD?

who said that? if Kirby himself I have no respect for him. I already quoted Hendric and Koester and others saying other are older than Mark they don't call it Pre Mark for nothing,

Wrong! They supposedly say Jesus after the resurrection, but did not see the actual resurrection event. Go read the accounts.

BS

Or quote the verse.

I am asserting it on the basis of what Koester appears to believe. Here, I will give the quote again.

"In the first half of the third programme in the series Jesus: The Evidence, Professor H. Koester of Harvard University put forwards a view which must have been surprising, even astonishing, to many, not excluding many New Testament scholars. His argument was (1) that the first Christians must have followed the normal practice of worshipping at the tomb of Jesus; (2) that the Christians who had abandoned Jerusalem shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in AD 66 decided to explain the lack of worship at the tomb by saying the tomb was empty; and (3) that as the Gospels were written down years later, the story quickly began to be used to suggest that the tomb had always been empty."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20tomb&f=false
I already disproved that. . It uses criteria of embarrassment which most atheists repudiate and refuse to take seriously. there is no reason why they would have ot explain less veneration. btw that supports my view from above that they venerated the tomb. so that disproves your position. not up to Koester's usal excellemt standard.

Do you think Crossan is right about the cross Gospel?

to an extent

As an ordaioned priest, his ideology would force him to accept the empty tomb. That he nevertheless rejects it indicates it is not ideological, but based on honest scholarship.

wrong. He could still be a priest even if he said Christianity is a lie. in fact he would still be a priest even if he committed murder, now they wouldn't let him do anything or work in a church but they can never take away priesthood. I don't think he works as a priest.


Are you actually saying these Christians reject the resurrection for ideological reasons? Please be clear here. Seems to me rather more likely that if they do reject doctrine, they do so despite the ideology.[/QUOTE]

Yes. Perhaps I should choose another word. They don't have verifiable historical reasons. It's only because they seek the acceptance of modern academy.

[The Pixie]

The Jesus of Jesus' day even in Jerusalem, were big Greek users. That's why the LXX was commissioned; it functioned as the Bible for the early Church and in fact that's why the Jews commissioned a new Greek translation in AD 100. To get away from the Messianic passages the Christians used to show Jesus was Messiah. many Jews spoke Greek rather than Hebrew and all of them probably knew Greek was supplemental language.

I thought the LXX was commission by Ptolemy II, an Egyptian ruler from a Greek family, and its use was based in Alexandria, rather than Jerusalem.

I appreciate many Jews would have spoken Greek as well as Aramaic, but Aramaic was still their primary language (and I mean the Jewish Christians and in particular the disciples, not the Hellenised Jews like Paul). People like the disciple Matthew would be able to write Greek as a tax collector who routinely had to interact with the Romans, but it is more of a stretch to imagine fishermen from Galilee were fluent in written Greek.

And why would they want to? Would you prefer to use the language Jesus spoke in, or the language of the people who crucified him?

I told you I see no warrant for thinking it was.

And I see no warrant for thinking it was not.

If it was I don't that would do any damage to my argument.

Yes it would. If the empty tomb was added in 65 AD to the PMPN, which Mark then used in 70 AD, that then puts your empty tomb to 35 years after the event.

I don't see any reason to think there were other versions, The Gospels make use of the same material but alter it by their own needs,

Do we actually have any reason to think the authors of Luke, Matthew or John had direct access to the PMPN, rather than to Mark?

If not, then all we know of the PMPN is what was in Mark (and possibly Peter). That is one (perhaps two) snapshot of what the PMPN was like at one moment in time. At the time it included the empty tomb. We do not know whether earlier versions did too.

that's all BS those kinds of arguments never work. That's the kind of stuff fumdies are real arguing about.

Take a step back and think about what you are saying. Your argument is that the empty tomb is better evidence for Jesus' resurrection than seeing Jesus himself.

What caused Paul to convert? A physical body? The empty tomb? Or a bright light and and a voice?

that's ridiculous. Yet I might scare you more but it[s just av ghost, a ghost does not conquer death I don't you g the resurrection. It's about hope it's a symbol as well as reality.

And I do not think you get the resurrection as the first Christians saw it. I do not know what they saw in Galilee, but they saw something that convinced them Jesus had conquered death, and therefore was not merely a ghost. I find it bizarre that you are so sure Jesus could not convince his follows that he was not a ghost!

you are just gain saying the evidence, if that were true the Jews would have the body to show when the church began preaching, but people did go to the tomb. the women did, John and peter did and n doubt others

Most likely Jesus was buried in an unknown tomb for criminals, or as Crossan believes, eaten by dogs. There was no empty tomb when the disciples were preaching in the accounts on Acts, so they never cited the empty tomb as evidence and the Jews never countered by producing a body.

The accounts of people going to the tomb appeared decades later.

We know from history they venerated the site and continued to keep track of it even after the Romans built on it.

Can you support this claim?

And again, remember that the apostles never cited the empty tomb as evidence in the mass conversions described in Acts. Why not? It had not been invented; it was too soon after the event, and people would be able to check for themselves.

they did site the resurrection. they didn't need to point out that he rose bodily because they all knew it.

Your attempt to change the issue speaks volumes.

The apostles cited the resurrection, not the empty tomb, as you tacitly admit.

The tomb was venerated from te beginning. Isralie archaeologist Gayliahay Cornfeld wrote about it.

Then I trust you can quoting him saying that - and not just from early times.

what is your motive for that? why does yo0ur rejected of God so desperately depend upon dyeing the resurrection ? a ghost is not resurrected when they said" the dead are raised "in fulfillment of prophecy they did not say :ghosts appear. a sprit with no body is a ghost not a resurrection..

Messiah was to raise all of fallen Israel on the last dead. That's why Jesus is called first fruits of the dead. what sense would it make to say Messiah will bring ghosts of fallen Israel? Where's the victory in that?

Read Paul. He saw Jesus as a bright light, in a new heavenly body. I am aware you have on-going health problems. Do you hope you will be resurrected in your current body (or what your body will be like a few decades down the line)? I think most people would want a new body, one not troubled by earthly concerns, such as using the toilet. So called "pleasures of the flesh" will be no more, as Jesus alludes to in Matthew 22:30.

Not a ghost, not an earthly body, but a new heavenly body.

why would there be such accusations if resurrection with no body was accepted? for this argument to work you have to admit that being a ghost is substandard and falls short of resurrection.

As you have said, the Jews were expecting a bodily resurrection. I am not disagreeing with that. What the first Christians saw was not what they expected, but they had to accept what they saw. If Jesus appeared in a non-physical heaven body to them, they were obliged to accept that that was how Jesus was.

The best record we have of what was in the PMPN is what is written in Mark. Mark does not mention Jesus eating fish, he does not mention the guards. It is therefore likely that both were absent from the PMPN.

how many times do I have to point out to you that is old fashioned thinking has been discorded. no one says that now, It's BS. GPete has an independent tradition that is as old or older than Mrk. So no reason to assume Mark is the big key to Pmpn. Moreover Q is not in Mark an it is at least a old or older.

So what do you think is the best record of what was in the PMPN?

Two problems with the Gospel of Peter are its dating and how closely what we have resembles the original.

we don't have the original. GPete is not derived form the canonicals. that's p[roved by Brown

I thought we had got over that. Brown proved it is deprived from something else, but that does not prove it is not also derived from (or at least influenced by) one of the canonicals (remember, Matthew is derived from both Mark and Q).

the argument is not about the age of GPete but the material in GPete for the PN. That is older than the synoptic.

How can you know it is older than the synoptic if you do not know the age of Peter? If Peter is dated to 160 AD, then its source could be second century.

not the whole Gospel just material used in it.

Which could be second century.

All the Romans and Sanhedrin had to do was say 'there were no guards." claim would only work if it was true. If they caught them making up such a lie one time they would kill the whole movement at it's most vulnerable time.

Maybe they did. Why would you expect the gospel authors to record the Romans or Sanhedrin saying the narrative was wrong? You have an argument from silence, and in this case we would expect the silence in either case.

Remember also that Matthew is dated to around 90 AD. Would the Romans or Sanhedrin be able to state there were no guards sixty years after the event?

I just explained why they could not. amazing you guys rationalize anything,

I'm talking about the life of the movement. If the movement was killed because the Romans produced the body there would be no Gospel's to lie about the tomb. there would be no one to read or write them.

We are talking about claims made decades later. The guards on the tomb, absent from Mark, first appear in Matthew, around 90 AD. You are actually asking why the Romans did not say there were no guards on a tomb sixty years earlier? Maybe no one in the garrison at that time was that old. Maybe they did not care; it was just another Jewish cult.

80. in fact the trend now is to earlier dates. some evidence in the ought's suggested 70 for Matt.

Even then you have the guards invented 40 years after the event. Do you think anyone in the Roman garrison had been there forty years earlier?

You act like they just sat around with no Christians until 60 years latter, wrote Mark and bam!@ instant following. they had a vital movement for years with no written gospels. Now suppose in AD38 the romans produce the body say Here he isl or even the day after Pentecost, here is the body, they would still recognize the face. no Christians non one would give a rat's ass about mark years latter!

They did not produce the body in 38 AD because: (1) no one was claiming an empty tomb at that time: (2) Jesus had been tossed into an unmarked tomb for criminals and no one knew where the body was; and (3) the Roman's probably did not care about yet another splinter of the Jewish faith.

sorry if I gave that impression I didn't mean to it's kind of a habit one of my reasons for leaving CARM is to get over that way of doing.

you know what CARM is like. I was on there a long time and under attack by half the board every day for 15 years its takes a toll.

Okay, no problem.

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

not anymore. that was the old assumption when they dismissed non canonical gospels as all third century. Ra Brown was one of the first to break that mold by showing GPete has the independent tradition. Mark still accepted as the first of the canonicals. But there are two luces and there is a L v\source Luke uses that may be older so it could be parts of Luke are older than mark.

According to here, Mark was the first, including non-canonicals. Okay, a late dating of Mark, and an early for Peter could put Peter first; do you date Mark to after 70AD?

who said that? if Kirby himself I have no respect for him. I already quoted Hendric and Koester and others saying other are older than Mark they don't call it Pre Mark for nothing,

Except we do not have the PMPN, do we?

Wrong! They supposedly say Jesus after the resurrection, but did not see the actual resurrection event. Go read the accounts.

BS

So quote the verses.

We both know you cannot.

[metacrock]

I'll get the rest of your post latter maybe in stages, here's stage 1.\
\



Originally Posted by metacrock View Post

Me:The Jesus of Jesus' day even in Jerusalem, were big Greek users. That's why the LXX was commissioned; it functioned as the Bible for the early Church and in fact that's why the Jews commissioned a new Greek translation in AD 100. To get away from the Messianic passages the Christians used to show Jesus was Messiah. many Jews spoke Greek rather than Hebrew and all of them probably knew Greek was supplemental language.

I thought the LXX was commission by Ptolemy II, an Egyptian ruler from a Greek family, and its use was based in Alexandria, rather than Jerusalem.

It came in two stages. The first was the first five books and that was in Alexandria. Then a century latte4r or so the rest of it and it was commissioned because the elders were afraid scripture was being forgotten because Greek was so prevalent.

I appreciate many Jews would have spoken Greek as well as Aramaic, but Aramaic was still their primary language (and I mean the Jewish Christians and in particular the disciples, not the Hellenised Jews like Paul). People like the disciple Matthew would be able to write Greek as a tax collector who routinely had to interact with the Romans, but it is more of a stretch to imagine fishermen from Galilee were fluent in written Greek.

they all spoke Greek like Hispanics in the American SW peak English. they mostly speak both but do all official business and school in English. I've heard conversations where one guy spoke Spanish and one spoke English to each other in the same conversation.

And why would they want to? Would you prefer to use the language Jesus spoke in, or the language of the people who crucified him?

o come omn that's a nonsequitter. The spoke what they spoke. American southerners didn't give up English to express disgust over the civil war. Greek was not a foreign linage to them. kit si not secret the LXX was the biblee of early church

[metacrock]

Yes it would. If the empty tomb was added in 65 AD to the PMPN, which Mark then used in 70 AD, that then puts your empty tomb to 35 years after the event.

no reason to date it that late. even so you are still stuck in the atheist way of thinking where a guy just write a story and bamo i'ts a religion as son as anyone reads it. All of this stuff was in oral tradition. if the empty was written first in 65 it was probably being talked about in 45.l

Do we actually have any reason to think the authors of Luke, Matthew or John had direct access to the PMPN, rather than to Mark?

If not, then all we know of the PMPN is what was in Mark (and possibly Peter). That is one (perhaps two) snapshot of what the PMPN was like at one moment in time. At the time it included the empty tomb. We do not know whether earlier versions did too.

none of the scholars talk about it oi9ke that. no one thinks Mat just copied Mark and made up a bit more thet'[s the end.

Take a step back and think about what you are saying. Your argument is that the empty tomb is better evidence for Jesus' resurrection than seeing Jesus himself.

If he was just a ghost he wasn't resurrected

What caused Paul to convert? A physical body? The empty tomb? Or a bright light and a voice?

Paul probably did not assume it;s jut light and nothing more, that's daft. why are you so desperate to deny the body if you are wiling to accept the ghost? he can still send you to hell.

And I do not think you get the resurrection as the first Christians saw it. I do not know what they saw in Galilee, but they saw something that convinced them Jesus had conquered death, and therefore was not merely a ghost. I find it bizarre that you are so sure Jesus could not convince his follows that he was not a ghost!

Most likely Jesus was buried in an unknown tomb for criminals, or as Crossan believes, eaten by dogs. There was no empty tomb when the disciples were preaching in the accounts on Acts, so they never cited the empty tomb as evidence and the Jews never countered by producing a body.

\
that's not most likely it's an unwarranted assumption. 'they had to prevent profaning the holiday. Josephus got his friends down based upon that same need. If they gave him the body nothing to prevent him burrrying them.

[metacrock]

I've touched on the main things, I'm enjoying our discussion so please continue. your move.

[Roy]

BS

So quote the verses.

We both know you cannot.

Metacrock has yet to learn that stating some-one is 'wrong, Wrong, WRONG" without bothering to explain why is an excellent way to indicate to readers that they are in fact right.

[metacrock]

Metacrock has yet to learn that stating some-one is 'wrong, Wrong, WRONG" without bothering to explain why is an excellent way to indicate to readers that they are in fact right.

I've only explained why about 50 times now. Roy you don't have an argument, you have no data you no docs.

[The Pixie]

they all spoke Greek like Hispanics in the American SW peak English. they mostly speak both but do all official business and school in English. I've heard conversations where one guy spoke Spanish and one spoke English to each other in the same conversation.

Is it really like Hispanics in America? Do they routinely crucify Hispanic rebels in the US? Do you think in a couple of decades, the Hispanics will rise up in open revolt against the US? I think what you are missing is that the Roman's were the hated overlords. The messiah was the guy who was supposed to free he Jews from their conquerors.

o come omn that's a nonsequitter. The spoke what they spoke. American southerners didn't give up English to express disgust over the civil war. Greek was not a foreign linage to them. kit si not secret the LXX was the biblee of early church

What language did Jesus speak?

It is also worth quoting Irenaeus here:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)"

I doubt he was talking about the gospel we have, but this is strong evidence there were early texts written in Aramaic.

no reason to date it that late. even so you are still stuck in the atheist way of thinking where a guy just write a story and bamo i'ts a religion as son as anyone reads it. All of this stuff was in oral tradition. if the empty was written first in 65 it was probably being talked about in 45.l

No reason not to date it later. And no reason to suppose the empty tomb was not invented by the guy writing the text. All you have is supposition. Sure, the empty tomb might have been in the oral tradition in 45 AD, but are you really hanging your claim on a "might be"?

Do we actually have any reason to think the authors of Luke, Matthew or John had direct access to the PMPN, rather than to Mark?
If not, then all we know of the PMPN is what was in Mark (and possibly Peter). That is one (perhaps two) snapshot of what the PMPN was like at one moment in time. At the time it included the empty tomb. We do not know whether earlier versions did too.

none of the scholars talk about it oi9ke that. no one thinks Mat just copied Mark and made up a bit more thet'[s the end.

The issue here is whether the authors of Luke, Matthew and John had direct access to the PMPN. You have not addressed that at all. Can I take that as a tacit admission that they did not?

If he was just a ghost he wasn't resurrected

So clearly Paul did not think the disembodied light was a ghost.

Paul probably did not assume it;s jut light and nothing more, that's daft.

Of course he did not assume it was just light, he believed it was the resurrected Jesus.

Despite not seeing a physical body!

why are you so desperate to deny the body if you are wiling to accept the ghost? he can still send you to hell.

Why do Christians always fall back to the threat of hell? I guess they know deep down that that is the best argument they have.

that's not most likely it's an unwarranted assumption. 'they had to prevent profaning the holiday. Josephus got his friends down based upon that same need. If they gave him the body nothing to prevent him burrrying them.

See there you go assuming the Bible is true. Begging the question again. The idea that Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian is almost certainly a later embellishment that was not in Mark (or Peter either), and likely not in the PMPN. Sure, they had to prevent profaning the holiday, but that was Jewish law, not because Joseph was a friend. Read the accounts in Mark and Peter.

Then consider which would be closer to the place criminals were crucified - Joseph's unused tomb or the tomb for crucified criminals. Whilst thinking on that, consider why Joseph of Arimathea would commission his tomb near such an awful place. Also bear in mind Roman efficiency. It is almost certain the crucified were buried nearby, and any Jew rich enough to have his own tomb would site it as far from there as possible.

By the way, you still have not found any Bible verse when anyone witnesses the resurrection. I am still wondering how we know Jesus was raised on the third, as opposed to discovered to have been resurrected on the third day.

[metacrock]

I am enjoying our dialogue but I don't have time for the super long ones so I'm trying to just pick up what I think is the mot important issues.

Is it really like Hispanics in America? Do they routinely crucify Hispanic rebels in the US? Do you think in a couple of decades, the Hispanics will rise up in open revolt against the US? I think what you are missing is that the Roman's were the hated overlords. The messiah was the guy who was supposed to free he Jews from their conquerors.

You are trying to base speculation answers upon how you think people would feel in a culture your are not a part of in a time long before you lived.

What language did Jesus speak?

No doubt He spoke Aramaic but probably also Greek and Hebrew. At least some.

It is also worth quoting Irenaeus here:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)"

I'm well aware of that. That has served as the focal point my resolution of the synoptic problem for decades. Probably his Aramaic version was not a full Narrative but a saying source. Then they combined it with a narrative in using Mark as the basis. I studied Greek for a few years and I read the NT in Greek. Been a long time but I know several of my profs thought the Hebraism thing was wrong. I;ve never seen any real proof. I'm certain a friend of mine who was way more advanced and latter wound up teaching languages in Germany was against it.

I doubt he was talking about the gospel we have, but this is strong evidence there were early texts written in Aramaic.

No reason not

even so that doesn't disprove the empty tomb as part of the PMPN. I can't remember the significance.

to date it later. And no reason to suppose the empty tomb was not invented by the guy writing the text. All you have is supposition. Sure, the empty tomb might have been in the oral tradition in 45 AD, but are you really hanging your claim on a "might be"?

that's just self interest. can't you see that? you are only saying that because it helps you rationalize not believing in Jesus. it's arbitrary and speculative and has no proof to back it up.

The issue here is whether the authors of Luke, Matthew and John had direct access to the PMPN. You have not addressed that at all. Can I take that as a tacit admission that they did not?

Of course that's something we can't know, but no it's mot important. It's not indicative of the tomb being real or not. I have the impression that Danker and co would assume they did have it. Occam's razor, the inventing or more theoretical texts is less likely should be avoided.

So clearly Paul did not think the disembodied light was a ghost.

he probably assumed there was a body generating the light and he couldn't see past the light.

Of course he did not assume it was just light, he believed it was the resurrected Jesus.

the fact that it said it was Jesus probably determines that.

Despite not seeing a physical body!

why would you expect to see a body with this bright light in your eyes? He didn't see a city in the sky don't think he assumed there was a heaven? He didn't see God but didn't he assume God?

Why do Christians always fall back to the threat of hell? I guess they know deep down that that is the best argument they have.

where did I do that? I said you fear hell I s\didn't say you need to fear it. One time I was joking and I said I would unleash on this big atheist the secret weapon of Christianity Petula Clark and her song "Downtown.' that guy just went ape about how I was trying to use hell to manipulate him. As though Petula Clark is really a thing to fear.

See there you go assuming the Bible is true. Begging the question again. The idea that Joseph of Arimathea was a Christian is almost certainly a later embellishment that was not in Mark (or Peter either), and likely not in the PMPN. Sure, they had to prevent profaning the holiday, but that was Jewish law, not because Joseph was a friend. Read the accounts in Mark and Peter.

It's not an embellishment its an assumption. I didn't say he was a Christian. I don't think he was. he doesn't have to be for the argument to work. I do believe the Bible is basically true and that is going to be a foundational assumption for me. That is not illogical it's not fallacious it' not begging the question. it's only begging the question if I use it as a proof. I did not.

Then consider which would be closer to the place criminals were crucified - Joseph's unused tomb or the tomb for crucified criminals. Whilst thinking on that, consider why Joseph of Arimathea would commission his tomb near such an awful place. Also bear in mind Roman efficiency. It is almost certain the crucified were buried nearby, and any Jew rich enough to have his own tomb would site it as far from there as possible.

they weren't able to treat the situation as normal because of the holy day. J of A does not have to be Christian he was a Jew who saw answer to the issue by providing a tomb. you foregut the point of the story of Jo and his friends on the cross is that he needed to prevent profaning of a day.

By the way, you still have not found any Bible verse when anyone witnesses the resurrection. I am still wondering how we know Jesus was raised on the third, as opposed to discovered to have been resurrected on the third day.

that's a silly demand because n one did. the guards were fainted and the believers weren't around. if the guards were awake they would not have seen the actual event because he was inside the closed tomb.

[Adam]

Ithat's a silly demand because n one did. the guards were fainted and the believers weren't around. if the guards were awake they would not have seen the actual event because he was inside the closed tomb.

Well, yeah,
But I doubt that that's his point. The PMPN nor any early source but the widely-scorned Gospel of Peter contains any account of seeing the Resurrection happen nor its immediate aftermath.
Surprisingly enough, there STILL IS evidence of the actual event. Regardless of the phony tests to disparage it, I believe that the Shroud of Turin (and the associated Sudarian of Oviedo) witness to us today the Resurrection event. Further proof of the non-greatness of Pope John Paul II is that he let such a shoddy test disparage the other proofs of its early Middle Eastern provenance.