PMPN: empty tomb written Mid first centiury

[The Pixie]

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.

No problem. I am enjoying too!

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.

I could have sworn it was you who was claiming the Jews are like modern day Hispanics, while it was me pointing out the political state of the era.

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

What language do you think he preached in?

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.

Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting their was never any such text that Irenaeus refers to; he was mistaken?

If not, then I have a precedent for early Christians writing in Aramaic, which strengthens my case that the PMPN would have been in Aramaic.

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

I have yet to explain the significance, but I will. The point is that Matthew and Luke are believed to be based on a Greek original, not an Aramaic original. It is not proof, but it does point to their authors not having direct access to the PMPN.

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.

I fully accept that it is speculative.

But you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. What you are saying is done to rationalise your belief in Jesus. You need an empty tomb, so you are determined to prove it was in the PMPN. You therefore speculate early dates. Will you acknowledge your own position is based on speculation?

We do not know the date of Mark, we do not know when the PMPN was written, we do not know when the empty tomb appeared in the narrative. All I am saying is that these things could be relatively late. That is all I need to refute your proof.

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.

We are deciding between the author of Matthew, say, having access to Mark and the PMPN, or just to Mark, so your Occam's razor comment is beside the point.

However, this is more about the post-resurrection sightings, so not entirely relevant. If your time is short, we can drop it.

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

What was it you said before?

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

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

And that was enough for Paul. Maybe it was also enough for the disciples in Galilee.

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?

Does God have a physical body? Or is God a ghost? Or perhaps there is some third alternative. Maybe Paul was bright enough to realise that himself.

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.

You actally said nothing about fear at all:

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

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.

You said:

"Josephus got his friends down based upon that same need."

I read that to mean Jesus was Joseph's friend, which implies being a Christian. If Jesus, God incarnate was unable to convince his friends about who he was, why would imagine you could convince anyone? Or have I misunderstood?

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.

Now answer the question. Which tomb would have been closer? The newly commissioned tomb of the rich man, or the tomb for criminals.

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.

And yet in post #78, you claimed the women did just that:

The Pixie: 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.

metacrock: the women

Just to be clear, the issue here is how we know Jesus was resurrected on the third day. Way back in post #59 I said:

"The third day comes not from witnesses, but from the Old Testament (Hosea 6:2 in particular), as Paul clearly says:
1 Corinthians 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

Finally I think that point has been properly addressed. There were no witnesses to the resurrection itself. The only way anyone knew Jesus had been resurrected on the third day, as Paul clearly states, is from the Old Testament.

And if it came from the OT, then the third day motif can easily predate the empty tomb.

[metacrock]

No problem. I am enjoying too!

good

I could have sworn it was you who was claiming the Jews are like modern day Hispanics, while it was me pointing out the political state of the era.

well I used to go up to Taos NM when I lived in Albuquerque that's when I was exposed to that Hispanic culture.

What language do you think he preached in?

probably a mix

Not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting their was never any such text that Irenaeus refers to; he was mistaken?

no but i' not sure if he uses the term "gospel" or how he means it. He could have just meant a saying source, I know he uses the term "Logia" meaning the writings. Koester says early gospels were saying sources. Like Q. Crosson's idea of the cross Gospel is the narratively form that was united with the saying source to produce Gospels as we know them.

If not, then I have a precedent for early Christians writing in Aramaic, which strengthens my case that the PMPN would have been in Aramaic.

possibly

I have yet to explain the significance, but I will. The point is that Matthew and Luke are believed to be based on a Greek original, not an Aramaic original. It is not proof, but it does point to their authors not having direct access to the PMPN.

I don't think the logia was necessarily the PMPN. By definition it was a narrative. so Logia would be part of the Pre Mark lit but not necessarily the Passion narrative.

I fully accept that it is speculative.

o well see my stuff is not, it'll all factual

But you are doing exactly what you accuse me of. What you are saying is done to rationalise your belief in Jesus. You need an empty tomb, so you are determined to prove it was in the PMPN. You therefore speculate early dates. Will you acknowledge your own position is based on speculation?

sure that's probably true. Although I think I'm less dependent than most Christians in apologetics upon literally true bible. I could see being a total liberal and not clinging to as literal resurrection but I don't think that's necessary to fall back on. But I don't tell Crosson he's not a Christian.

We do not know the date of Mark, we do not know when the PMPN was written, we do not know when the empty tomb appeared in the narrative. All I am saying is that these things could be relatively late. That is all I need to refute your proof.

true but we have good idea of general time frame.

We are deciding between the author of Matthew, say, having access to Mark and the PMPN, or just to Mark, so your Occam's razor comment is beside the point. that pertained to coming up with new intermediary docs between the fist writing and Matt not to deciding shat sources mat used We kno he used at least three. Mark, Q and M. If PPMN was Q that's one otherwise four sources.

However, this is more about the post-resurrection sightings, so not entirely relevant. If your time is short, we can drop it.

ok but I was afraid that would be point of confusion. That dichotomy between Crosson and Koester will be important.

What was it you said before?

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

seems logical to me. would he be more likely to think peole with bodies talk or disembodied lights talk?

And that was enough for Paul. Maybe it was also enough for the disciples in Galilee.

you keep acting like he says the light with no body was Jesus. he never says it!

Does God have a physical body? Or is God a ghost? Or perhaps there is some third alternative. Maybe Paul was bright enough to realise that himself.

\

the issue is what would Paul think? They might have actually thought God had a body.

You actally said nothing about fear at all:

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

that is the implied motivation. I thought he knew from CARM I don't believe in hell? I thought that was well established.

You said:

"Josephus got his friends down based upon that same need."

I read that to mean Jesus was Joseph's friend, which implies being a Christian. If Jesus, God incarnate was unable to convince his friends about who he was, why would imagine you could convince anyone? Or have I misunderstood?

NO!there is an incident Jo writes about where he had three friends who were crucified .He saw that this profaned the holy day he used that as an excuse to get them down, I don't remember if one or two were dead but some were. The Romans gave him all three they did not to our knowledge force him to bury the dead in a shallow grave he buried them with honor.

Now answer the question. Which tomb would have been closer? The newly commissioned tomb of the rich man, or the tomb for criminals.

the tomb for the criminals would have profaned the Holy day. that would not help.


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.

And yet in post #78, you claimed the women did just that:

The Pixie: 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.

metacrock: the women

I didn't see how literal you were being I just meant they saw the result of the event not the event itself.,

Just to be clear, the issue here is how we know Jesus was resurrected on the third day. Way back in post #59 I said:

"The third day comes not from witnesses, but from the Old Testament (Hosea 6:2 in particular), as Paul clearly says:
1 Corinthians 15:4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,"

Finally I think that point has been properly addressed. There were no witnesses to the resurrection itself. The only way anyone knew Jesus had been resurrected on the third day, as Paul clearly states, is from the Old Testament.

are you actually saying if he rose on the fourth day it wouldn't count? look two answers (1) the angel told them it just happened in the night (2) they would know from the time they put him n to the empty tomb how many days it was.
\
If he is actually going to raise from the dead i'ts obvious he's in God's power so can't we just assume it's the right time?

And if it came from the OT, then the third day motif can easily predate the empty tomb.

so he comes back to life and hangs around in the tomb waiting for day 3?

[The Pixie]

well I used to go up to Taos NM when I lived in Albuquerque that's when I was exposed to that Hispanic culture.

And do you think it is safe to assume twenty-first century Taos is a good model for the ANE?

probably a mix

Based on what? I ask because I have never heard anyone claim Jesus preached in Greek before on either side of the debate.

no but i' not sure if he uses the term "gospel" or how he means it. He could have just meant a saying source, I know he uses the term "Logia" meaning the writings. Koester says early gospels were saying sources. Like Q. Crosson's idea of the cross Gospel is the narratively form that was united with the saying source to produce Gospels as we know them.

I do not think that is important. The point is that we have good evidence things were written down in Aramaic/Hebrew in the pre-Markan church.

I don't think the logia was necessarily the PMPN. By definition it was a narrative. so Logia would be part of the Pre Mark lit but not necessarily the Passion narrative.

My point is that Luke, Matthew and John probably had access to the PMPN via Mark, and not directly.

o well see my stuff is not, it'll all factual

So is my stuff!

true but we have good idea of general time frame.

But it is vague enough that either of us could be right.

seems logical to me. would he be more likely to think peole with bodies talk or disembodied lights talk?

If I encountered a talking light, I would say the latter. Given Paul saw a talking light, which do you think he would believe?

you keep acting like he says the light with no body was Jesus. he never says it!

And that means you can pretend there was a body?

If we get to make stuff up, I can say Jesus was revived by time travellers. It never says time travellers did not bring him back to life, right?

the issue is what would Paul think? They might have actually thought God had a body.

The issue is what Paul would have thought having seen a bright light.

NO!there is an incident Jo writes about where he had three friends who were crucified .He saw that this profaned the holy day he used that as an excuse to get them down, I don't remember if one or two were dead but some were. The Romans gave him all three they did not to our knowledge force him to bury the dead in a shallow grave he buried them with honor.

I have to admit I have never heard of that. What is the source for that account?

the tomb for the criminals would have profaned the Holy day. that would not help.

It was not the holy day.

I didn't see how literal you were being I just meant they saw the result of the event not the event itself.,

I had hoped I was being clear, but at least we have it sorted.

are you actually saying if he rose on the fourth day it wouldn't count? look two answers (1) the angel told them it just happened in the night (2) they would know from the time they put him n to the empty tomb how many days it was.
\
If he is actually going to raise from the dead i'ts obvious he's in God's power so can't we just assume it's the right time?

The point here is that the story of Jesus being resurrected on the third day predates the story of the empty tomb. Thus we see Paul saying Jesus was resurrected on the third day, an assumption drawn from scripture as he says, but nothing about the empty tomb, which had yet to be invented (or the newly invented story had yet to reach him).

so he comes back to life and hangs around in the tomb waiting for day 3?

No, he came back to life, then proceeded to Galilee, as he predicted he would, and as the ending of Mark states.

[metacrock]

And do you think it is safe to assume twenty-first century Taos is a good model for the ANE?

no I didn't offer it as proof. It's an analogy its just clarification.

Based on what? I ask because I have never heard anyone claim Jesus preached in Greek before on either side of the debate.

since no one actually heard him (living today) no one knows. Anything anyone says on that is guessing.my guess is based upon knowing the prevalence of both languages in that time/place. I was speaking more of his daily conversation not of preaching per se..

I do not think that is important. The point is that we have good evidence things were written down in Aramaic/Hebrew in the pre-Markan church.

no we don't. as I said at least when I was studying Greek no one seemed to agree with the Hebrewism theory.

My point is that Luke, Matthew and John probably had access to the PMPN via Mark, and not directly.

I don't think Koester, Crosson or Danlker agree

So is my stuff!

O sure, you an I are both great men of letters. (well I wantedd to be)

But it is vague enough that either of us could be right.

Probably

If I encountered a talking light, I would say the latter. Given Paul saw a talking light, which do you think he would believe?

I must admit I never really thought about it. I always assumed He would have thought as I thought the body is behind the light.

And that means you can pretend there was a body?

you are pretending there wasn't. Well actually If you asked me is Jesus up there in bodily form o would say no. he transformer back to limitless omnipresence. That doesn't support the no body res theory. that idea is as wacked as the Jesus myth thing, you can be an atheist and accept that the early church preached bodily res and that Jesus really existed.

If we get to make stuff up, I can say Jesus was revived by time travellers. It never says time travellers did not bring him back to life, right?

I'm not making anything up. Don't be a CARM atheist. you can overcome the CARM factor.



The issue is what Paul would have thought having seen a bright light.

I have to admit I have never heard of that. What is the source for that account?

I read it in Josephus. Can't give chapter and verse it was years ago, but I did read it I know it's real and it stopped the no tomb argument for a while.

It was not the holy day.

I thought you never heard of it. It was religious related it might have been sundown, gotta look it up.

The point here is that the story of Jesus being resurrected on the third day predates the story of the empty tomb. Thus we see Paul saying Jesus was resurrected on the third day, an assumption drawn from scripture as he says, but nothing about the empty tomb, which had yet to be invented (or the newly invented story had yet to reach him).

you still have proof, you are making arbitrary assumption, since it was in the PMPN you have no evidence it was added then there is every reason to think it was from the beginning.

put it this way: cards on table what is your proof of that?

No, he came back to life, then proceeded to Galilee, as he predicted he would, and as the ending of Mark states.

from the replacement ending?

[metacrock]

the assentation was some time after the res. it was a month or so.
\co8ple of importasnt points you fo9cus on:

(1) Mark does mention the empty tomb, 16:1-8 prior to the lost ending.

they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

that scene is in the empty tomb. even if they only got the PZMPN from Mark they would still have the empty tom.

(2) you assert that Matt, Luke John did not have PMPN that is false. they did no9t just copy mark. this point is made by Koester a number of times. he clearly says they call used it. Not that's they copied mark's use but they all used it.

[The Pixie]

I do not think that is important. The point is that we have good evidence things were written down in Aramaic/Hebrew in the pre-Markan church.

no we don't. as I said at least when I was studying Greek no one seemed to agree with the Hebrewism theory.

So when Iraneous said Matthew wrote something in Hebrew, do you think he was lying or mistaken?

Where we have direct quotes of Jesus, is he speaking Hebrew or Greek? For example:



I appreciate this is quoting the Psalm, but it does suggest Jesus spoke in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Hebrew was the holy language; when talking of holy things, why would Jesus use the language of the conquering overlords?

If you want an analogy from the modern world, how much do you think the French spoke German when talking amongst themselves when the country was occupied in WW2?

I don't think Koester, Crosson or Danlker agree

Can you find any evidence to support that?

I must admit I never really thought about it. I always assumed He would have thought as I thought the body is behind the light.

I would not exclude the possibility of a body or some sort, but not Jesus' earthly body. Recall that Jesus said that in the afterlife the resurrected will be like angels in heaven.

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

I appreciate this is an unconventional reading, but it seems to me that Jesus is saying the resurrected will not have earthly bodies that are interested in pleasures of the flesh, but in heavenly bodies like those of angels. And that fits perfectly with what Paul saw.

you are pretending there wasn't.

I am going by the text, supported by other texts by Paul.

I'm not making anything up.

You are making up a physical body on the road to Damascus. It is not in the text, but your belief requires it, so you make it up.

I read it in Josephus. Can't give chapter and verse it was years ago, but I did read it I know it's real and it stopped the no tomb argument for a while.

Flavious Josephus reported trying to save three friends from crucifixion. Are you mixing up Joseph and Josephus?
https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-ta...o-crucifixion/

I thought you never heard of it. It was religious related it might have been sundown, gotta look it up.

As I understand it, it became a religious day at sundown.

you still have proof, you are making arbitrary assumption, since it was in the PMPN you have no evidence it was added then there is every reason to think it was from the beginning.

put it this way: cards on table what is your proof of that?

The earlist account we still have is this:

i Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you [b]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

It states the third day motif comes from scripture, and it misses the empty tomb.

We have now established there was no actual witness to know one way or the other. Where do you think the idea that Jesus was resurrected on the third day comes from?

from the replacement ending?

No, from the original version:

the assentation was some time after the res. it was a month or so.
\co8ple of importasnt points you fo9cus on:

(1) Mark does mention the empty tomb, 16:1-8 prior to the lost ending.

that scene is in the empty tomb. even if they only got the PZMPN from Mark they would still have the empty tom.

Yes, I know. My guess is Mark added it, but Koester and Crossan may be right, and it was in the PMPN. If so, I suspect it was a later addition.

(2) you assert that Matt, Luke John did not have PMPN that is false. they did no9t just copy mark. this point is made by Koester a number of times. he clearly says they call used it. Not that's they copied mark's use but they all used it.

What is the evidence for that?

I do not doubt they used other texts, and clearly the PMPN via Mark. What is the specific evidence they had direct access to the PMPN?

What bits of the passion narrative do you think Matthew and Luke take from the PMPN, rather than from Mark? Matthew has Judas killing himself, but that seems likely to be an embellishment, given Acts has Judas buying a field later, and Paul says Jesus appeared to the twelve, not the eleven. Doubtful that account was in the PMPN. Luke has Jesus before Herod, and there are other differences, but they seem as likely to be later embellishments as they are to be parts of the original text that Mark chose to exclude.

[metacrock]

So when Iraneous said Matthew wrote something in Hebrew, do you think he was lying or mistaken?

I said he wrote a saying source. Not the Gospel of Matt as we know it.

Where we have direct quotes of Jesus, is he speaking Hebrew or Greek? For example:

I said several times my profs in Greek did not accept Hebraisms. that means they did not see any basis for the idea that we can find Hebrew words suggested as standing behind the Greek in Matt.

I appreciate this is quoting the Psalm, but it does suggest Jesus spoke in Hebrew (or Aramaic). Hebrew was the holy language; when talking of holy things, why would Jesus use the language of the conquering overlords?

so what if he did. that does not disprove the PMPN

If you want an analogy from the modern world, how much do you think the French spoke German when talking amongst themselves when the country was occupied in WW2?

Can you find any evidence to support that?

that's argument from analogy it's fallacious.

I would not exclude the possibility of a body or some sort, but not Jesus' earthly body. Recall that Jesus said that in the afterlife the resurrected will be like angels in heaven.

how do you know what angle bodies are like?

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the physical state of their bodies,. Just that they don't marry.

I appreciate this is an unconventional reading, but it seems to me that Jesus is saying the resurrected will not have earthly bodies that are interested in pleasures of the flesh, but in heavenly bodies like those of angels. And that fits perfectly with what Paul saw.

you are reading that in because doesn't say it. the stuff about the nail prints and eating food were to show he wasn't a ghost.

I am going by the text, supported by other texts by Paul.

no you are not, you asserting the meaning of texts that are explicitly stated. no passage says bodies in heaven are insubstantial no passage says Jesus did not rise bodily.

You are making up a physical body on the road to Damascus. It is not in the text, but your belief requires it, so you make it up.

clearly I am not making it up because I didn't claim it's in the text, I'm assuming it and for good reason, I have better reasons for asserting it than you have for denying it.

Flavious Josephus reported trying to save three friends from crucifixion. Are you mixing up Joseph and Josephus?
https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-ta...o-crucifixion/

no I said Josephus. where would I get info on Joseph. I told I red it. what would I have read by Joseph?

As I understand it, it became a religious day at sundown.

The earlist account we still have is this:

i Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you [b]as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Mark describes the empty tomb.

It states the third day motif comes from scripture, and it misses the empty tomb.

It doesn't exclude it. Just because it wasn't part of the creedal formula in the early days didn't mean they didn't know of it. Hev is quoting a creedal formula and hes doing it to evoke his status as Orthdox, he is using an early creedal formula.

We have now established there was no actual witness to know one way or the other. Where do you think the idea that Jesus was resurrected on the third day comes from?

No I said no one saw the actual even transpire I didn't say there's no evidence to confirm it.

No, from the original version:

nothing about that disproves the empty tomb. It doesn't disprove Mary seeing Jesus and it doesn't disprove angels talking to the women. I can defend all that with my harmony table I just didn't realize how you were putting it together.

Yes, I know. My guess is Mark added it, but Koester and Crossan may be right, and it was in the PMPN. If so, I suspect it was a later addition.

Koester and Crosson say it aw not latter don't you understand that? I'e said it about ten times.

you assert that Matt, Luke John did not have PMPN that is false. they did no9t just copy mark. this point is made by Koester a number of times. he clearly says they call used it. Not that's they copied mark's use but they all used it.

What is the evidence for that?

Koester points it out over and over again Crosson too.

I do not doubt they used other texts, and clearly the PMPN via Mark. What is the specific evidence they had direct access to the PMPN?

no. Q is not in Mark so Mat used Q. what's the big deal? we know they used other sources.

What bits of the passion narrative do you think Matthew and Luke take from the PMPN, rather than from Mark? Matthew has Judas killing himself, but that seems likely to be an embellishment, given Acts has Judas buying a field later, and Paul says Jesus appeared to the twelve, not the eleven. Doubtful that account was in the PMPN. Luke has Jesus before Herod, and there are other differences, but they seem as likely to be later embellishments as they are to be parts of the original text that Mark chose to exclude.

we can't know that without a text, Koster goes into detail on that but I don't have the gook with me now.


Koester, ACG 220

"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)

It does not say Matt and Luke by way of Mark. it simples they all used it themselves. Since GPete gives an early indepedmet tradition that law so includes the empty tomb and guards there is no reason to assume otherwise.

Mark has no guards where matt get them? since Pete has them too that means Mat it's likely that matt used early source independent of Mark that spoke of the empty tomb.

[metacrock]

about the message to into galilee to meet Jesus that does not contradict the tomb. It does not contradict mary M's sighting of Jesus because she was not with the other women when she was told that.

I think we can piece together the stories and get a coherent event. that event sees MM leaving when they first saw the stone moved.

She did not see the angels,. she goes back to get Peter and John They come back after the other women are gone,so do not hear the message go to galilee then MM sees Jesus.

[The Pixie]

I said several times my profs in Greek did not accept Hebraisms. that means they did not see any basis for the idea that we can find Hebrew words suggested as standing behind the Greek in Matt.

Having done some research, I am going to concede this point (that the PMPN was in Greek). I will skip the bits related to this issue.

how do you know what angle bodies are like?

that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the physical state of their bodies,. Just that they don't marry.

We do not know, but we do get hints.

Jesus says they do not marry, which suggests they do not have sex (as having sex outside of marriage would be a sin). This in turn suggests they are not concerned with earthly matters. Do you think angels need to wee and poo? I doubt it. That in turn suggests they do not need to eat. Do you think angels get backache, colds, etc? Seems unlikely. Jesus says in the afterlife the resurrected are like that, and Paul says you get a new heavenly body, an imperishable body.

What do you think? Do you think angels feel lust, have sex, poo and wee, suffer back ache and colds? Do you think people in heaven feel lust, have sex, poo and wee, suffer back ache and colds? Do you think that in the afterlife a person's body is the one he died in, exactly as it was at the point of death?

We do not know what heaven is like, but we can think about what is reasonable. You tell me was is reasonable to you.

you are reading that in because doesn't say it. the stuff about the nail prints and eating food were to show he wasn't a ghost.

I agree the purpose of examining the nail holes and eating fish in the narrative was to counter claims he was a ghost. However, I suggest these were made up later. Again, you are assuming because it is in the Bible it must have happened.

Paul is very clear that the resurrected get a new imperishable body. And yet John says Jesus is in his old body, complete with death injuries.

no you are not, you asserting the meaning of texts that are explicitly stated. no passage says bodies in heaven are insubstantial no passage says Jesus did not rise bodily.

Not necessarily insubstantial, but certainly not the original body. And Paul is clear that the resurrected get a new, heavenly body.

no I said Josephus. where would I get info on Joseph. I told I red it. what would I have read by Joseph?

So what is your point?

Mark describes the empty tomb.

Yes. So it was made up after Paul, but before or by Mark.

It doesn't exclude it.

Yes it does. It is not in the text. It is therefore excluded from the text.

Just because it wasn't part of the creedal formula in the early days didn't mean they didn't know of it. Hev is quoting a creedal formula and hes doing it to evoke his status as Orthdox, he is using an early creedal formula.

A creedal formula that excludes the empty tomb.

Many Christians think the empty tomb is vital to their faith - just look at you on this thread. And yet this vital event is absent from the early creed. We do not know why, but the most likely reason is that it had not been invented.

We have now established there was no actual witness to know one way or the other. Where do you think the idea that Jesus was resurrected on the third day comes from?

No I said no one saw the actual even transpire I didn't say there's no evidence to confirm it.

Okay. Now answer the question: Where do you think the idea that Jesus was resurrected on the third day comes from?

I accept that. By the time Mark was written, the empty tomb, discovered by the women, was in the narrative. However, we were discussing what Jesus did after being resurrected. In Mark the disciple scattered, and Jesus went to Galilee to meet them; he was not seen in Jerusalem.

Koester and Crosson say it aw not latter don't you understand that? I'e said it about ten times.

Sure, I understand that. But that does not mean I have to accept it as fact.

Koester and Crossan say the empty tomb was made up, and I have said that to you about ten times. Do you understand that? Do you accept it as fact? Can you see the difference?

Koester points it out over and over again Crosson too.

Cool. Should be easy for you to find a quote by each to support your claim that the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN then.

I do not doubt they used other texts, and clearly the PMPN via Mark. What is the specific evidence they had direct access to the PMPN?

no. Q is not in Mark so Mat used Q. what's the big deal? we know they used other sources.

Of course they used other sources, I do not dispute that. What we are discussing is whether the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN.

we can't know that without a text, Koster goes into detail on that but I don't have the gook with me now.

So what is the evidence that the authors of Matthew, Luke and John all had direct access to the PMPN?

Koester, ACG 220

"Studies of the passion narrative have shown that all gospels were dependent upon one and the same basic account of the suffering, crucifixion, death and burial of Jesus. But this account ended with the discovery of the empty tomb. With respect to the stories of Jesus' appearances, each of the extant gospels of the canon used different traditions of epiphany stories which they appended to the one canon passion account. This also applies to the Gospel of Peter. There is no reason to assume that any of the epiphany stories at the end of the gospel derive from the same source on which the account of the passion is based."(Ibid)

It does not say Matt and Luke by way of Mark. it simples they all used it themselves. Since GPete gives an early indepedmet tradition that law so includes the empty tomb and guards there is no reason to assume otherwise.

You are aware that "dependant" is not the same as having direct access, right? The quote by Koester is consistent with Mark using the PMPN, and then the other authors using Mark. All then depend on the PMPN, but only one of the actually saw it.

Mark has no guards where matt get them? since Pete has them too that means Mat it's likely that matt used early source independent of Mark that spoke of the empty tomb.

Or the author of Matthew made it up and the author of Peter copied Matthew (remembering that Peter has been dated t as late as 160 AD). Or the author of Matthew made it up and a later redactor of Peter inserted it after reading Matthew, which allows for an early authorship of Peter too.

This is why the dating of Peter is important.

[metacrock]

I probably wont get to this until real late tonight because I have things to do today, but I'll get to it. I will commemt on one thing:

Jesus says they do not marry, which suggests they do not have sex (as having sex outside of marriage would be a sin). This in turn suggests they are not concerned with earthly matters. Do you think angels need to wee and poo? I doubt it. That in turn suggests they do not need to eat. Do you think angels get backache, colds, etc? Seems unlikely. Jesus says in the afterlife the resurrected are like that, and Paul says you get a new heavenly body, an imperishable body.

What do you think? Do you think angels feel lust, have sex, poo and wee, suffer back ache and colds? Do you think people in heaven feel lust, have sex, poo and wee, suffer back ache and colds? Do you think that in the afterlife a person's body is the one he died in, exactly as it was at the point of death?

We do not know what heaven is like, but we can think about what is reasonable. You tell me was is reasonable to you.

there is a middle ground between lust driven fleshly bodies and no body at all. not popular now days but don't be shocked it is possible to be fleshly and blood and abstain from sex haaa!(gasp)

the resurrection body is "glorified" so you can't judge or measure it by our bodies. they are not like us but not bodiless either.

[The Pixie]

there is a middle ground between lust driven fleshly bodies and no body at all. not popular now days but don't be shocked it is possible to be fleshly and blood and abstain from sex haaa!(gasp)

the resurrection body is "glorified" so you can't judge or measure it by our bodies. they are not like us but not bodiless either.

Not bodiless, Paul is clear about that:

2 Cor 5:1 For we know that when this earthly tent we live in is taken down (that is, when we die and leave this earthly body), we will have a house in heaven, an eternal body made for us by God himself and not by human hands. 2 We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing. 3 For we will put on heavenly bodies; we will not be spirits without bodies

But a new heavenly body that presumably has no interest in sex.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

[Adam]

Wrong question. You're assuming the best representation of the Passion Narrative is in Mark or the Synoptics, and in Greek. My research shows it was originally in Aramaic and can best now be found in the Gospel of John:
The foundation source from John Mark is the following:
(include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.}
John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii. John Mark gives the story of this one week in his life, best called the Passion Diary. (The Roman numerals indicate my rough count of how many eyewitness touches seem evident in the verse(s).)
http://www.christianforums.com/threa...7910997/page-2

[Adam]

At Post #26 (by "Korah")

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Wrong question. You're assuming the best representation of the Passion Narrative is in Mark or the Synoptics, and in Greek. My research shows it was originally in Aramaic and can best now be found in the Gospel of John:
The foundation source from John Mark is the following:
(include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.}
John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii. John Mark gives the story of this one week in his life, best called the Passion Diary. (The Roman numerals indicate my rough count of how many eyewitness touches seem evident in the verse(s).)
http://www.christianforums.com/threa...7910997/page-2

And which scholars adhere to this radical thesis?