Harmonizing Resurrection Accounts

Image result for Giotto resurrection
Geotto 

Skeptics are always using the differences in the number of women at the tomb and who saw Jesus first and told whom in each of the four gospels to foment confusion and doubt. We have no primordial document that can  be reconstructed to  give us the original event. The acounts we have are irreduceable because they are historical  eye witness accounts and cannot be reduced. We can,however, understand the original event to an extent such that we can be assured there is an understandable event behind the accounts.


Each Gospel is the product of a community. Matt for example is the work of a "Matthew community." These communities would have been much like schools or communes.[1] It is my contention that the witnesses broke up and fanned about among these communities, and each Gospel bears the unique perspective of that communitie's band of witnesses. This explains why John focuses on Mary Madeline, she was probably one of the most illustrious witnesses who went to live in the Johannes community. That is crucial to my theory, because it means that the author followed the exploits of that eye witness and as it shows Mary departing at the fist sign of the stone being rolled away, that backs the theory. These groups create a jumbled picture when one looks at all four accounts because the accounts are coming from different perspectives. Some accounts, such as Mark and Matthew indicate that the original event was a confusing a frightening event. Nevertheless, it was a real event and as such most of the "contradictions" can be harmonized. 

I will pull together material from all four gospels and The Gospel of Peter. The reasons for this are as follows: (1) Koseter says that all four Gospels and GPete follow a single early pre-markan source up to and including the empty tomb, but after that the Epiphanies are compiled form different sources. That being the case, we can expect some contradiction in those sources. [2] (2) atheist claims of contradiction as to where Jesus was and whom he appeared to after that point are unimportant. What difference does it make if he appeared to two guys on a road somewhere and then to the 11 in an upper room at the same time? He could pull it off, after creating a universe and rising from the dead.One skeptic indicates a muddled account.
So three women go into the tomb, see it is empty, talk to the guy. Two of the women say nothing, the other talks to the disciples, and tells them of the empty tomb, and they go on to see Jesus, effectively founding Christianity. Some decades later the whole community has not heard about the one women telling the disciples, but is aware of the two women who never said anything, and so Mark records that the women said nothing.[3]
My scenerio is this: 

An undisclosed group of women came to the tomb early on Sunday morning. These definatley included Mary the mother and Mary Magdeline (MM) Plus Salome (Mark) Joanna (Luke) and "the rest" ("also the other women with them--"Luke, "[MM]-took with her the women her friends and (52) came unto the tomb" (GPete). So At least the two Marys and some undisclosed group of other women, They saw the stone moved, Mary Madeline felt certain that the body had been moved. She immediately ran back to tell the others, while the rest of the women ventured into the tomb, where they encountered whatever they encountered  (men in white telling them he had risen according to Luke's account).Meanwhile, Mary arrived at the place where the disciples waited. She brought back with her Peter and John. While Peter and John went inside and examined the empty tomb, Jesus appeared to Mary outside; while the other women were at this time arriving back at the place where the disciples were waiting. 

This harmony comes from reconciling John's account of apparently one women with all the others, The issue is one of one woman vs several in the party. The resolution comes from realizing when Mary departed from the others and that none of them  actually give us full disclosure about how many women were in the party, probably no one knew. except the women themselves.  It may be that owing to fer of the authorities they didn't want to reveal the identity of everyone in the party, The mother of Jesus  and MM would have been expected to be there.Joanna (wife of Chuza and the household manager or steward of King Herod Antipas. Luke 8:3 ) is mentioned in Luke 20:10 preset probably because she was the witness who wound up with the Luke community. Salome follower from Gallilee, at the cross and the tomb (Mark 15:40 16:1) para;e; passage in Matt (27:56) Makes it likely she was the mother of the sons of Zebedee.[4]



Matthew says the women saw  Jesus himself immediately as they left the scene. In Mat the angle tells them to report to the disciples and tell them he will will meet them in Galilee. The angel tells the women to tell this to the disciples (Peter and the boys) he will meet you in Galilee.He did not tell the women he would meet them in Galilee. It's not a contradiction that Jesus appears to the women bearing the message, so they will know it's true. It happens in a time frame that allows harmonizing.

This scenario hinges upon one assumption about a verse that is not stated explicitly in the text. One must assume that the angle and the earthquake and the rolling of the stone in Matt.28:2-4 are part of a "flash back" of sorts, they hearken back to what happened the night before, and that the women did not see this event. For this reason, when the angel begins to speak to the women in v5 this is after a gap of undisclosed time, and it could be either before or after they went into the tomb. The text does not specify where the angle was in relation to the women or the tomb when he begins to speak. 

The reason this is important is because if Mary was with the women and if then had seen the angel roll the stone away and the risen Christ leave the tomb, then it makes no sense of Mary M. to run back to John and say "they've taken away the lord and we don't know where they have laid him!" That is a significant problem and it can only be resolved if Mary didn't see the angel roll back the stone. Mary has her interview with Jesus after she goes back to the tomb with Peter and John.

The senerio described and the interpritation of Matt 28:2-4 as a flashback is justified based upon several facts: 

Reasons supporting MM's Early Departure 

(1)The Greek Text of Matt.28:2-4 supports "Flashback." 


The most important is the Greek verb for "come down" in the v2 phrase "an angel of the Lord had come down." This verb is Katabas from the base from Kantabino which means to come down. The form it is in here is the inflected tense aroist. That tense is a description of past time, but it is different form the regular past tense. The past tense in Greek is usually formed by the imperfect tense, which is continuous action in past time. "She was going to the store." But the Aorist is completed action in past time, "she went to the store." 


In English, and in most other languages, the tense of the verb mainly refers to the 'time' of the action of the verb (present, past, or future time). In Greek, however, although time does bear upon the meaning of tense, the primary consideration of the tense of the verb is not time, but rather the 'kind of action' that the verb portrays. The most important element in Greek tense is kind of action; time is regarded as a secondary element. For this reason, many grammarians have adopted the German word 'aktionsart' (kind of action) to be able to more easily refer to this phenomenon of Greek verbs.[5]
We can see on the chart provided by nt Greek .org that what I say is true:


Kind of Action and Time of Action for Each Verb Tense
Tense Name
Kind of Action
Time Element (In Indicative Mood)
Progressive (or 'Continuous')
present 
Simple (or ‘Summary’) Occurrence
past 
Completed, with Results
past, with present results
Progressive (or 'Continuous')
past 
Simple Occurrence
future 
Completed, with Results
past 
Completed, with Results
future

[6][7]

So the imperfect is like a film of the past, while aroist is like a snapshot of the past. Since this snap shot is place d in the middle of the "film" of the women's experiencing, it is clear that the angel had already come down, Alfred moved the stone; this is an explanation of what happened the night before. Some English translations hint at this: NAS says "an angel of the Lord had come down" in other words, this has already happened. 

(2) All other accounts, including Peter, say that the stone  had been moved already when the women got there. 

Mark 16:4

4 "Looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away."

Luke 24:2

2 "And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb..."

Peter 13:55

55 "And they went and found the sepulchre open."
(see John 20:1-2 below).


(3) John says that Mary departed as soon as she saw the stone had been moved. 

John 20: 

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark,and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved,and said to them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him."
If we assume other women where with her (the "we") it works. They stayed and had their encounter in the tomb.

(4) "We don't know" in John 20:2 indicates Mary was not alone. 

One major apparent contradiction is that Mary seems to go alone in John, and with several different people in the other accounts.But what she says in John indicates that she was with other people, but John just chooses to focus on her alone, for reasons explained below. Moreover, that is also added reason to assume the flashback-departure theory, since the text of John validates the idea that Mary left the others as soon as she saw that the stone had been moved. I first realized it reading the book  Who Moved The Stone? He makes that argument.[8]


(5) The focuss of John upon just the actions of Mary is expalined by the ancient legeond that says Mary Magdeline helped John care for Jesus' mother and that she was associated with his ministry after the asscention. 


New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia 
"The Greek Church maintains that the saint retired to Ephesus with the Blessed Virgin and there died, that her relics were transferred to Constantinople in 886 and are there preserved. Gregory of Tours (De miraculis, I, xxx) supports the statement that she went to Ephesus.[9]

This actually does link her with the John community, see my Gospel of John page to find out how. 


Thus, there is reason to believe that the tradition of John preserves a neauance of the orignal event not covered by the others. The "flashback" idea haromonizes the chronological sequnce of the stone being moved with the other sources, and Mary's early departer explians why she went to John and said "we don't know where they laid him." Because even if the women had seen the angel and the rolling back of the stone, Mary didn't, she was already gone. I further contend that The other women didn't see it either, it had happened the night before. After Mary left, the other women went inside the tomb where they saw the angel, or angels. 

There is a charge of contradiction between the Matt account where the angel begins speaking in v5 and is sitting on top of the stone. That necessitates that the women saw him outside the tomb before going in, which contradicts all other accounts. But this assumes that the events of v2-4 are immediate and that the women aw this action. If the flash back idea is right, there is an undisclosed gap of time between v4 and 5, the span of which we are not told. So the angel begins talking to the women in v5 we are not told if they had already gone in the tomb or if this is outside the tomb. 


The reader might want to consult my handy dandy  "Res Harmony Table of Texts" to get straight the differences in readings between Gospels



Sources

[1] Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament:An Interpretation. Philadelphia:Fortress Press,1986

[2] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels:Their History and Development.Trinity Press International; 2nd prt. edition (March 1, 1992..218-220
caveat on using apocrypha

[3] Poster known as "Pixie" , "Historicity of Women at the Tomb." comment section Cadre Blog,   http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-historicity-of-women-of-tomb_4.html?showComment=1518198360570#c8412604307798279175
(accessed feb 9,2018)

[4]Justin Taylor, "Who Where the Women at The Empty Tomb?" The Gospel Coalition (April 11, 2014).
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/women-empty-tomb/
(accessed feb 9,2018)

[5] Corey Keating, ed. "Greek Verb Teses. NT Greek.org.
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm
(accessed feb 9,2018)

[6] Ibid.

[7] Henry Lamar Crosby and John Nevin Schaeffer, An Introduction to Greek. Miniolla NY: Dover Publication, 2009, original 1928, 30.

This was my first Greek grammar book at UT Arlington when I learned Greek. The story goes that two bothers studying at Yale paired houses for summers to get money for the year,they conversed in classical Greek as they painted,

[8] Frank Morrison,Who Moved The Stone? Grand Rapods, Michigan:Zondervan; Reprint edition (August 27, 1987)

[9] Charles George Herbermann, et al, ed.The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on ..., Volume 9 Robert Appelton company 1910,762.
https://books.google.com/books?id=JoRPAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA762&lpg=PA762&dq=The+Greek+Church+maintains+that+the+saint+retired+to+Ephesus+with+the+Blessed+Virgin+and+there+died,+that+her+relics+were+transferred+to+Constantinople+in+886+and+are+there+preserved.+Gregory+of+Tours+(De+miraculis,+I,+xxx)+supports+the+statement+that+she+went+to+Ephesus&source=bl&ots=nbjmlLfGnV&sig=vBCxZwH0ACpnQEag-KnUEmDUm3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwix_Ibx5ZjZAhVH4YMKHW2ODAIQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q&f=false
(accessed feb 9,2018)




Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: An undisclosed group of women came to the tomb early on Sunday morning.

Why were they there? Was it to anoint the body as earlier gospels state? Or had the body already been drowned in 20 gallons of the stuff?

Joe: These definatley included Mary the mother and Mary Magdeline (MM) Plus Salome (Mark) Joanna (Luke) and "the rest" ("also the other women with them--"Luke, "[MM]-took with her the women her friends and (52) came unto the tomb" (GPete). So At least the two Marys and some undisclosed group of other women, They saw the stone moved, Mary Madeline felt certain that the body had been moved.

What were the Roman guards doing at this point?

Was the angel sat on the stone, as it states in Matthew 28:2? Did Mary see the angel?

Joe: She immediately ran back to tell the others, while the rest of the women ventured into the tomb, where they encountered whatever they encountered (men in white telling them he had risen according to Luke's account).

And the Roman guards did not stop them going into the tomb? Why were the guards there?

Joe: Meanwhile, Mary arrived at the place where the disciples waited. She brought back with her Peter and John. While Peter and John went inside and examined the empty tomb, Jesus appeared to Mary outside; while the other women were at this time arriving back at the place where the disciples were waiting.

I am not sure splitting Mary off helps. Matthew specifically states that after seeing the angel, they did tell everyone:

Mat 28:8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Can this verse if massaged so it refers to MM telling the disciple without seeing the angel? I do not think so. This is a direct contradiction of Mark who has they tell no one.

Joe: It's not a contradiction that Jesus appears to the women bearing the message, so they will know it's true. It happens in a time frame that allows harmonizing.

It is a contradiction because the earlier account says Jesus had already gone to Galilee.
Joe Hinman said…
The Pixie said...
Joe: An undisclosed group of women came to the tomb early on Sunday morning.

Why were they there? Was it to anoint the body as earlier gospels state? Or had the body already been drowned in 20 gallons of the stuff?

Peter Luke and Mark talk about spices the others don't give a forewarn.Peter goes into the most detail about that,making it clear that they had not had time to finish before.

Joe: These definatley included Mary the mother and Mary Magdeline (MM) Plus Salome (Mark) Joanna (Luke) and "the rest" ("also the other women with them--"Luke, "[MM]-took with her the women her friends and (52) came unto the tomb" (GPete). So At least the two Marys and some undisclosed group of other women, They saw the stone moved, Mary Madeline felt certain that the body had been moved.

What were the Roman guards doing at this point?


I made that pretty clear did you not read the material. I don't see any point in discussing this if you don't read it,

Was the angel sat on the stone, as it states in Matthew 28:2? Did Mary see the angel?

read my essay then we can talk

J18 06:52:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
I am not sure splitting Mary off helps. Matthew specifically states that after seeing the angel, they did tell everyone:

No he does not state that, He specifically says(in the Greek) that the angel came down the night before.I had a table on the grammar an I cited two grammatical sources to prove it, Catabino, aroist = compelted action in past,

Mat 28:8 So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Can this verse if massaged so it refers to MM telling the disciple without seeing the angel? I do not think so. This is a direct contradiction of Mark who has they tell no one.

she split off before they saw him, she did not go into the tomb

Joe: It's not a contradiction that Jesus appears to the women bearing the message, so they will know it's true. It happens in a time frame that allows harmonizing.

It is a contradiction because the earlier account says Jesus had already gone to Galilee.

Jesus = God.worked miracles

more importantly you totally miss the whole point

It's not inerrent get it? it doesn't matter if it contradicts on minute details That's based upon the limited perspective of different sets of witnesses,

the important point is none of them at all no one anywhere contradicts that the tomb was empty and he rose from the dead,
The Pixie said…
Joe: Peter Luke and Mark talk about spices the others don't give a forewarn.Peter goes into the most detail about that,making it clear that they had not had time to finish before.

Or Peter was later redacted to try to harmonise the other accounts.

Joe: I made that pretty clear did you not read the material. I don't see any point in discussing this if you don't read it,

I cannot find the words "roman" or "guard" anywhere in your post. I also looked at "Res Harmony Table of Texts", but that is only the verses from the gospels, nothing about how it can be harmonised or what you think the Roman guards were doing.

Joe: read my essay then we can talk

I had read it, but missed that bit! My bad.

Joe: No he does not state that, He specifically says(in the Greek) that the angel came down the night before.I had a table on the grammar an I cited two grammatical sources to prove it, Catabino, aroist = compelted action in past,

The angel may have come down earlier, but according to Matthew the women talked to the angel, who instructed them to tell the disciples, and they promptly did just that:

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Joe: she split off before they saw him, she did not go into the tomb

Right, but Matthew is quite clear that the other women told the disciples. Which contradicts Mark, who tells us they did not.

Joe: Jesus = God.worked miracles

So you are claiming that the angel said Jesus had gone to Galilee, but then Jesus changed his mind, and decided to see the disciples right thern in Jerusalem, rather than wait to see them in Galilee?

Joe: more importantly you totally miss the whole point
It's not inerrent get it? it doesn't matter if it contradicts on minute details That's based upon the limited perspective of different sets of witnesses,
the important point is none of them at all no one anywhere contradicts that the tomb was empty and he rose from the dead,


But we have to wonder why they wrote what they did. Of course they all agree the tomb was empty and he rose from the dead, these were early beliefs from which the later accounts grew. What we see is a clear progression of more and more fantastic accounts as time passed.

Why did Mark write that Jesus had already gone to Galilee if he was aware of Jesus seeing the disciples in Jerusalem? You can shrug this off as a minor detail, but whether or not Jesus was seen in Jerusalem that day seems a pretty important "detail".
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joe: Peter Luke and Mark talk about spices the others don't give a forewarn.Peter goes into the most detail about that,making it clear that they had not had time to finish before.

Or Peter was later redacted to try to harmonize the other accounts.

that's our, Tyere no documents we know of that would serve as the source of material not any other source such flagellation,So you don;t harmonize by producing new material,

Joe: I made that pretty clear did you not read the material. I don't see any point in discussing this if you don't read it,

I cannot find the words "roman" or "guard" anywhere in your post. I also looked at "Res Harmony Table of Texts", but that is only the verses from the gospels, nothing about how it can be harmonised or what you think the Roman guards were doing.

you changed the context, you dio this a lot, You can get the context in which I spoke of you not reading,the issue was the angle,did MM see the angel

Joe: read my essay then we can talk

I had read it, but missed that bit! My bad.

you could not miss it it had a talbe illustrating Greek tenses,

Joe: No he does not state that, He specifically says(in the Greek) that the angel came down the night before.I had a table on the grammar an I cited two grammatical sources to prove it, Catabino, aroist = compelted action in past,

The angel may have come down earlier, but according to Matthew the women talked to the angel, who instructed them to tell the disciples, and they promptly did just that:

after they entered the tomb so MM had already left,

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

after MM departed

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: she split off before they saw him, she did not go into the tomb

Right, but Matthew is quite clear that the other women told the disciples. Which contradicts Mark, who tells us they did not.

but I explained that many ties you have not answered it he was speaking of the party of women not of MM who had already gone off alone,

Joe: Jesus = God.worked miracles

So you are claiming that the angel said Jesus had gone to Galilee, but then Jesus changed his mind, and decided to see the disciples right thern in Jerusalem, rather than wait to see them in Galilee?

kind of easy when you are omipresent,

Joe: more importantly you totally miss the whole point
It's not inerrent get it? it doesn't matter if it contradicts on minute details That's based upon the limited perspective of different sets of witnesses,
the important point is none of them at all no one anywhere contradicts that the tomb was empty and he rose from the dead,

But we have to wonder why they wrote what they did.

I just explained why


Of course they all agree the tomb was empty and he rose from the dead, these were early beliefs from which the later accounts grew. What we see is a clear progression of more and more fantastic accounts as time passed.

that does not explain how such an idea could get started and people would take it seriously, besides we know GPet contains readings from the oldest levee pre dates Mark

Why did Mark write that Jesus had already gone to Galilee if he was aware of Jesus seeing the disciples in Jerusalem?

I did not say he was aware of it, since we wasn;t there he not may not have been aware


You can shrug this off as a minor detail, but whether or not Jesus was seen in Jerusalem that day seems a pretty important "detail".

why? it's not like he;s limited to a three day journey like everyone else

2/14/2018 04:22:00 AM Delete
Leave your comment
Anonymous said…
Joe: but I explained that many ties you have not answered it he was speaking of the party of women not of MM who had already gone off alone,

Yes, but every time your explanation fails to make sense.

Suppose they split off, so we have MM on her own, and then the other women. Mark is talking about women in the plural, specifically those who had been inside tomb; the group of women (excluding MM if you like), said nothing:

Mark 16:8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Matthew is equally clear. He too is talking about a group of women who went inside the tomb (okay, excluding MM if you like). But they ran to tell the disciples.

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Whether you split MM off or not, you have two contradictory versions. In one, the women who went into the tomb said nothing, in the other they promptly told the disciples.

Joe: kind of easy when you are omipresent,

Did the authors believe he was? I do not think they did. From Mark's perspective, Jesus was not in Jerusalem - the guy in the tomb specifically says that - because he was in Galilee.

Joe: that does not explain how such an idea could get started and people would take it seriously,

I never claimed it did. I would guess the disciples really did see something, in Galilee, and Peter saw it first. What it was, I do not know, because we have virtually nothing of those appearances.

Joe: besides we know GPet contains readings from the oldest levee pre dates Mark

And we know Peter also draws from later traditions.

Joe: I did not say he was aware of it, since we wasn;t there he not may not have been aware

How could he fail to have heard about it? I thought he was Peter's scribe. Do you think Peter never spoke of it at all? Never mentioned it when he was preaching over some forty years?

You do know you are clutching at straws, right?

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
Anonymous said…
Joe: but I explained that many times you have not answered it he was speaking of the party of women not of MM who had already gone off alone,

Yes, but every time your explanation fails to make sense.

Then I guess you are not trying to follow the scenario because it makes makes perfect sense. MM departed as soon as she saw the stone ajar. The others went into the tomb and saw the angel but MM had not seen the angel. when it speaks of "they did not tell anyone" it means the women who went into the tomb because MM had already gone to tell them, that explains every thing, it ties up all the loose ends, It explains how they knew if the women never told it explains the focus of John on just MM, even though the others d have more than one woman,

that explains why she she sees Jesus in John she thinks he's the gardener, she had not seen the angel


Joe Hinman said…
Suppose they split off, so we have MM on her own, and then the other women. Mark is talking about women in the plural, specifically those who had been inside tomb; the group of women (excluding MM if you like), said nothing:

right,exactly

Mark 16:8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Matthew is equally clear. He too is talking about a group of women who went inside the tomb (okay, excluding MM if you like). But they ran to tell the disciples.

If Matt was written by Matt then he was there and Mark was not, Mark is going by what he was told and he's piecing it together and filling the gaps with his own assumptions, Matt might actually know how it really happened.

both agree the tomb was empty and Jesus rose.


Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Whether you split MM off or not, you have two contradictory versions. In one, the women who went into the tomb said nothing, in the other they promptly told the disciples.

no you have contradiction in a minor detail, The major issue is the empty tomb not weather the women told the dcsicpilpes that day or next day or a week latter or never, someone told, they found out,

Joe: kind of easy when you are omipresent,

Did the authors believe he was? I do not think they did. From Mark's perspective, Jesus was not in Jerusalem - the guy in the tomb specifically says that - because he was in Galilee.

the authors are not omniscient their understanding does not extend beyond the facts they were and it is irrelevant.

Did those women never speak to another human being again? they never told anyone ever? that's crazy to think that,


Joe: that does not explain how such an idea could get started and people would take it seriously,

I never claimed it did. I would guess the disciples really did see something, in Galilee, and Peter saw it first. What it was, I do not know, because we have virtually nothing of those appearances.

so why cling to these minor ideas so tenaciousness?

Joe: besides we know GPet contains readings from the oldest level pre dates Mark

And we know Peter also draws from later traditions.

we know how to tell the difference too, that;s how Danker and co, argue for the PMPN

Joe: I did not say he was aware of it, since we wasn;t there he not may not have been aware

How could he fail to have heard about it? I thought he was Peter's scribe. Do you think Peter never spoke of it at all? Never mentioned it when he was preaching over some forty years?

Peter didn't fill in the gaps. He wasn't obsessed with did the woman tell anyone is there a contradiction in the witness accounts? why would that ever cross his mid? If Jesus rose, Peter knew he rose,why would he concern himself with that? also that is a modern evidential standard they did not have in the first century,

You do know you are clutching at straws, right?

No offense man because I know you are very intelligent but that is stupid. just think about it, we are talking about people who actuality talked with the risen Lord of the universe you expect them obsess over these minor detail no one would have cared about,

you are obviously the one clutching at straws because you are obsessed with these little picky shit details that have no real bearing on anything. You really expect people the ancient world to think;we need iron out all the details down to the most minute contradiction because someday modern scientifically minded skeptics will need proof?

The Pixie said…
Joe: Then I guess you are not trying to follow the scenario because it makes makes perfect sense. MM departed as soon as she saw the stone ajar. The others went into the tomb and saw the angel but MM had not seen the angel. when it speaks of "they did not tell anyone" it means the women who went into the tomb because MM had already gone to tell them, that explains every thing, it ties up all the loose ends, It explains how they knew if the women never told it explains the focus of John on just MM, even though the others d have more than one woman,

That does not fit with Matthew. Matthew specifically says "they departed quickly from the tomb", so if we suppose MM split off, then this MUST refer to the others.

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Joe: that explains why she she sees Jesus in John she thinks he's the gardener, she had not seen the angel

That is not the issue.

Joe: If Matt was written by Matt then he was there and Mark was not, Mark is going by what he was told and he's piecing it together and filling the gaps with his own assumptions, Matt might actually know how it really happened.

Scholars pretty much agree Matthew was not the author.

Joe: both agree the tomb was empty and Jesus rose.

Sure, these claims were established earlier (that Jesus rose, much earlier). What we see is an evolving story with more and more elaboration as time went by. In the earliest telling, Jesus was buried and then rose, as we read in 1 Cor 15. Later the empty tomb is added. Later the women are added. Later the women telling the disciples is added. Later Jesus appearing briefly in Jerusalem is added. Later the extended Jerusalem appearances are added. The number of points of agreement depend on when two texts being compared where written in relation to that evolving narrative.

Joe: no you have contradiction in a minor detail, The major issue is the empty tomb not weather the women told the dcsicpilpes that day or next day or a week latter or never, someone told, they found out,

The point is that the narrative was subject to embellishment. It may be a minor detail, but it points to some serious revision of the story between Mark and Matthew.

Joe: the authors are not omniscient their understanding does not extend beyond the facts they were and it is irrelevant.

The understanding of the authors is vital if we are to have any clue as to why they wrote what they did. Mark may have been wrong, but he clearly did not believe Jesus was omnipresent. He clearly believed (rightly or wrongly) that Jesus was not in Jerusalem when the empty tomb was found. That is inconsistent with the Jerusalem appearances.

Either we have to suppose Mark somehow never heard of those appearances, despite living in a community that preached about them every chance it could for 30 to 40 years... or they were made up after Mark was written.

Joe: Did those women never speak to another human being again? they never told anyone ever? that's crazy to think that,

They never told anyone about the empty tomb because they never saw it. They are a device Mark uses to link the empty tomb to the appearance of Jesus in Galilee.

Joe: so why cling to these minor ideas so tenaciousness?

Because they refute the appearances in Jerusalem and cast doubt on the empty tomb.

Why do you cling to the appearances in Jerusalem and the empty tomb? The first Christians did not need them. Paul did not need them. The basic message of Christianity is unchanged.
The Pixie said…
Joe: we know how to tell the difference too, that;s how Danker and co, argue for the PMPN

Sure. When the text talks about "the Jews" as a group in a derogatory manner, we can be sure that text is later.

Joe: Peter didn't fill in the gaps. He wasn't obsessed with did the woman tell anyone is there a contradiction in the witness accounts? why would that ever cross his mid? If Jesus rose, Peter knew he rose,why would he concern himself with that? also that is a modern evidential standard they did not have in the first century,

I meant the man Peter, not the gospel, and how much he spoke of the Jerusalem appearances. Your position appears to be that Mark, the scribe of St Peter, had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances, despite living in the community for some thirty years, hearing them tell everyone about the resurrection every chance they got.

I find that implausible.

Joe: No offense man because I know you are very intelligent but that is stupid. just think about it, we are talking about people who actuality talked with the risen Lord of the universe you expect them obsess over these minor detail no one would have cared about,

I am talking about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem. That really is NOT a minor detail, that is a huge deal. I expect them to have obsessed over those appearances, and I find it completely implausible that Mark would not have heard about them in the thirty years he was part of that community.

Joe: You really expect people the ancient world to think;we need iron out all the details down to the most minute contradiction because someday modern scientifically minded skeptics will need proof?

On the contrary, I think they did not. I think Mark made up the women in the tomb without any consideration for how anyone would know it had happened. I think this was later pointed out, and so Matthew deliberately changed the story to say that actually they had told the disciples.
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joe: Then I guess you are not trying to follow the scenario because it makes makes perfect sense. MM departed as soon as she saw the stone ajar. The others went into the tomb and saw the angel but MM had not seen the angel. when it speaks of "they did not tell anyone" it means the women who went into the tomb because MM had already gone to tell them, that explains every thing, it ties up all the loose ends, It explains how they knew if the women never told it explains the focus of John on just MM, even though the others d have more than one woman,

That does not fit with Matthew. Matthew specifically says "they departed quickly from the tomb", so if we suppose MM split off, then this MUST refer to the others.

you have got to be joking, that is so mindlessly legalistic and literal, no one is going to take it seriously.If MM split off before they went in the tomb then obviously the group that went in becomes "they" and she is no longer prat of them,

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

Joe: that explains why she she sees Jesus in John she thinks he's the gardener, she had not seen the angel

That is not the issue.

one of many that i was working on solving. your only issue is "I have this litteralistic phraseology that serves the interest of my skeptical wrench in the works I have to cling to it"

Joe: If Matt was written by Matt then he was there and Mark was not, Mark is going by what he was told and he's piecing it together and filling the gaps with his own assumptions, Matt might actually know how it really happened.

Scholars pretty much agree Matthew was not the author.


you didn't pay attachment on the one about the women that;s the old form critical assumptions: going down,old hat.

Joe: both agree the tomb was empty and Jesus rose.

Sure, these claims were established earlier (that Jesus rose, much earlier). What we see is an evolving story with more and more elaboration as time went by. In the earliest telling, Jesus was buried and then rose, as we read in 1 Cor 15.

the "evolving" scenario has been disprove,(1) It;s based upon the German folklore assumption of oral tradition which is bull shit and we disprove it now,(2) The readings in Gpet are more evolved some ways than Mark or even Matt. (3) evolution in story telling does not equal less truth in the original event, There is still only one story, The core elements are there in earliest writing,

Later the empty tomb is added.

bzzzZZZZZZzzzzz assumption not in evidence. It'there in PMPN and as per Koester.

Later the women are added.

no fragment of any writing about the resurrection lacks the women, they are PMPN


Later the women telling the disciples is added.

there's a perfect example of how your convenient little evolutionary BS is disproved, The early writing PMPN showing up in Gpet has the women telling.


Later Jesus appearing briefly in Jerusalem is added. Later the extended Jerusalem appearances are added. The number of points of agreement depend on when two texts being compared where written in relation to that evolving narrative.

did you sleep though the discussion on the Jerusalem pipe dream? That was disproved in so many ways,

The Pixie said…
Joe: you have got to be joking, that is so mindlessly legalistic and literal, no one is going to take it seriously.If MM split off before they went in the tomb then obviously the group that went in becomes "they" and she is no longer prat of them,

You seem to have misunderstood. I am not saying MM was necessarily part of the group, I am saying that the group told the disciples according to Matthew, but did not according to Mark.

Group of women head to the tomb
They see it is open
MM leaves
The others - "they" - go inside the tomb and see it is empty

So far so good. Now, did the group who entered the tomb tell anyone?

Mark 16:8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Mat 28:8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

That is a contradiction.

Joe: the "evolving" scenario has been disprove,(1) It;s based upon the German folklore assumption of oral tradition which is bull shit and we disprove it now,(2) The readings in Gpet are more evolved some ways than Mark or even Matt. (3) evolution in story telling does not equal less truth in the original event, There is still only one story, The core elements are there in earliest writing,

I would love to see that proof.

(1) It is based on what we see in the gospels.

(2) Peter is more developed because it was heavily revised later

(3) Okay, but the original is that Jesus was buried and then rose. The empty tomb was added later. The Jerusalem sightings were added even later.

Joe: bzzzZZZZZZzzzzz assumption not in evidence. It'there in PMPN and as per Koester.

But absent from 1 Cor 15. Clearly in was invented between the two.

Joe: no fragment of any writing about the resurrection lacks the women, they are PMPN

Because we have no writing from that long ago. The earliest we have is Mark, who likely invented them, and Peter, which was heavily edited to include them at a later date.

Joe: there's a perfect example of how your convenient little evolutionary BS is disproved, The early writing PMPN showing up in Gpet has the women telling.

The fact that they, a group of Jews, were supposedly afraid of "the Jews" is a clear indication that section of Peter is a later addition.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe: no you have contradiction in a minor detail, The major issue is the empty tomb not weather the women told the dcsicpilpes that day or next day or a week latter or never, someone told, they found out,

The point is that the narrative was subject to embellishment. It may be a minor detail, but it points to some serious revision of the story between Mark and Matthew.

all narratives et embellished, embellishment is not falsehood it's a matter of the style of story telling. What matters is how may elements of the core story were present in the early version. Those core elements hold over times

Joe: the authors are not omniscient their understanding does not extend beyond the facts they were and it is irrelevant.

The understanding of the authors is vital if we are to have any clue as to why they wrote what they did. Mark may have been wrong, but he clearly did not believe Jesus was omnipresent. He clearly believed (rightly or wrongly) that Jesus was not in Jerusalem when the empty tomb was found. That is inconsistent with the Jerusalem appearances.


Knowing the truth of an event depends upon core elements remaining present and stable over time,that's what you have in the resuscitation there is one story one only it is never changed in those elements,

Either we have to suppose Mark somehow never heard of those appearances, despite living in a community that preached about them every chance it could for 30 to 40 years... or they were made up after Mark was written.

Mark did not live in Jerusalem and the Gospel of Mark is thought to have come out of syria. The community of a Gospel is relative to that Gospel not to Jerusalem per se,

Joe: Did those women never speak to another human being again? they never told anyone ever? that's crazy to think that,

They never told anyone about the empty tomb because they never saw it. They are a device Mark uses to link the empty tomb to the appearance of Jesus in Galilee.

that is based upon a guy who lived in Grease. Rome and Egypt Papias says Mark wrote Peter;s memoirs but Peter did not tell them in order,he gathered them as paramedicals of an old man.

Joe: so why cling to these minor ideas so tenaciousness?

Because they refute the appearances in Jerusalem and cast doubt on the empty tomb.

exactly! that says it all, they give you a straw to cling to so you don't have to believe i biog mean no fun God.not because it;'s logical or makes senses but because it refutes something you don't like.

Why do you cling to the appearances in Jerusalem and the empty tomb? The first Christians did not need them. Paul did not need them. The basic message of Christianity is unchanged.

because they are in the earliest strata and they are agreed upon by all five accounts there are no other versions or cuter accosts

Now that's three reasons you you must answer them all


2/15/2018 01:15:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…


The Pixie said...
Joe: we know how to tell the difference too, that;s how Danker and co, argue for the PMPN

Sure. When the text talks about "the Jews" as a group in a derogatory manner, we can be sure that text is later.

that is not indicative of gentile authorship

Joe: Peter didn't fill in the gaps. He wasn't obsessed with did the woman tell anyone is there a contradiction in the witness accounts? why would that ever cross his mid? If Jesus rose, Peter knew he rose,why would he concern himself with that? also that is a modern evidential standard they did not have in the first century,

I meant the man Peter, not the gospel, and how much he spoke of the Jerusalem appearances. Your position appears to be that Mark, the scribe of St Peter, had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances, despite living in the community for some thirty years, hearing them tell everyone about the resurrection every chance they got.


I was talking about the man Peter as well because I said "He," your answer is not responsive you didn't answer my argument.it does not assume that they had not heard of it, it assumes only that as an old man Peter was focused on his own group and Mark only spoke of the things Peter spoke of,

I find that implausible.

you are building a whole school of Biblical criticism based upon one sentence, that;s implausible

Joe: No offense man because I know you are very intelligent but that is stupid. just think about it, we are talking about people who actuality talked with the risen Lord of the universe you expect them obsess over these minor detail no one would have cared about,

I am talking about Jesus appearing to the disciples in Jerusalem. That really is NOT a minor detail, that is a huge deal. I expect them to have obsessed over those appearances, and I find it completely implausible that Mark would not have heard about them in the thirty years he was part of that community.

yes it is, trivial. you are not thinking about the the nature of the events or the conditions under which the stores were being told, different sets of witness in different communities,

It;s worse if we make those from critical assumptions


Joe: You really expect people the ancient world to think;we need iron out all the details down to the most minute contradiction because someday modern scientifically minded skeptics will need proof?

On the contrary, I think they did not. I think Mark made up the women in the tomb without any consideration for how anyone would know it had happened. I think this was later pointed out, and so Matthew deliberately changed the story to say that actually they had told the disciples.

Ok you re just full if shit, you area friend,I respect your intelligent as a thinker ,but on this point you are full of o9t!

agio, vor teh umpiotyumth time THE WOMEN BELONG TO THE PRE MARK REDACTION. I gave you three reasons you did not answer them,
The Pixie said…
Joe: all narratives et embellished, embellishment is not falsehood it's a matter of the style of story telling. What matters is how may elements of the core story were present in the early version. Those core elements hold over times

What matters is what actually happened. Everything points to the Jerusalem appearances being embellishments - they never happened. It looks like the women in the empty tomb, and indeed the empty tomb itself, despite being relatively early.

Joe: Knowing the truth of an event depends upon core elements remaining present and stable over time,that's what you have in the resuscitation there is one story one only it is never changed in those elements,

The basic story is embedded early, and the idea of the resurrection is fundamental, so we would not expect them to change. That said, the resurrection event itself is not witnessed in any account, so really all we can say is the concept is consistently there. The nature of the resurrected body changes, the nature of Jesus changes. There is a lot that changes.

Joe: Mark did not live in Jerusalem and the Gospel of Mark is thought to have come out of syria. The community of a Gospel is relative to that Gospel not to Jerusalem per se,

So he knew the details of Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin, but not that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem? Really?

Joe: that is based upon a guy who lived in Grease. Rome and Egypt Papias says Mark wrote Peter;s memoirs but Peter did not tell them in order,he gathered them as paramedicals of an old man.

This is based on a guy who considered himself sufficiently knowledgeable of the events that he wrote a book on it, and that book was regarded as sufficient accurate that it was used by the authors of Matthew and Luke, and eventually become canon.

And you want us to believe he was not aware of the Jerusalem appearances?

Joe: exactly! that says it all, they give you a straw to cling to so you don't have to believe i biog mean no fun God.not because it;'s logical or makes senses but because it refutes something you don't like.

My motivations do not affect the validity of my argument. You clearly have your own motivation for turning a blind eye to the contradictions.

Joe: because they are in the earliest strata and they are agreed upon by all five accounts there are no other versions or cuter accosts
Now that's three reasons you you must answer them all


No problem.

For the empty tomb, 1 Cor 15 destroys all three.

For the Jerusalem appearances, the earliest accounts, Mark and Peter (if you are right about that) do not have them, so your claims are just wrong.
The Pixie said…
Joe: that is not indicative of gentile authorship

Of course it is. It does not prove it, but it is indicative. The alternative is a community of Jews who now saw themselves as separate to the rest. The early Christians certainly did not see themselves as separate; they saw Jesus as part of their faith. So either way, the text indicates it was written late.

Compare Peter to this text in John:

John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

In both we see "the Jews" as a group blamed for Jesus' death, when the eart;ly Christians saw themselves as Jews. In both Jesus is handed over to the Jews to be crucified, when the reality is that the Romans did it. This anti-Jewish slant is very much indicative of relatively late authorship (or redaction of an earlier work), certainly after Matthew.

Joe: I was talking about the man Peter as well because I said "He," your answer is not responsive you didn't answer my argument.it does not assume that they had not heard of it, it assumes only that as an old man Peter was focused on his own group and Mark only spoke of the things Peter spoke of,

Okay, then I misunderstood.

So what gaps did Peter not fill? Your position is founded on the claim that Mark had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances. Are you really saying that was just a gap Peter neglected to fill in? Over some thirty years of talking about the resurrection?

Joe: you are building a whole school of Biblical criticism based upon one sentence, that;s implausible

Compared to the idea that Mark had never hear of the Jerusalem appearances? I do not think so.

Joe: yes it is, trivial. you are not thinking about the the nature of the events or the conditions under which the stores were being told, different sets of witness in different communities,
It;s worse if we make those from critical assumptions


Talk me through how it might have happened. Explain how Mark, as an early Christian and scribe to Peter, failed to hear about the Jerusalem appearances, including the ascension, when the community was involved in telling everyone about the resurrection for thirty years.

But he did know about Jesus ' encounter with the Sanhedrin and with Pilate.

Oh, be sure to say why the PMPN did not mention the Jerusalem appearances.
Joe Hinman said…
he Pixie said...
Joe: all narratives et embellished, embellishment is not falsehood it's a matter of the style of story telling. What matters is how may elements of the core story were present in the early version. Those core elements hold over times

What matters is what actually happened.

begging the question,the argument is about how to know what happened I gave you criteria you did not refute it,

Everything points to the Jerusalem appearances being embellishments - they never happened. It looks like the women in the empty tomb, and indeed the empty tomb itself, despite being relatively early.

saying "everything" is silliness. Three out of four Gospels talk about them, but you are still missing the point in several major ways.For one thing even if we assert the sightings are made up that doesn't quash the resurrection. Yet you have no valid reason for your hype, it's wall based upon obsession with litterism, and a single verse, my scenario aout MM just tears it apart

Joe: Knowing the truth of an event depends upon core elements remaining present and stable over time,that's what you have in the resuscitation there is one story one only it is never changed in those elements,

The basic story is embedded early, and the idea of the resurrection is fundamental, so we would not expect them to change. That said, the resurrection event itself is not witnessed in any account, so really all we can say is the concept is consistently there. The nature of the resurrected body changes, the nature of Jesus changes. There is a lot that changes.

that does not answer my point! I said more than just they believe the res ,I said there are core elements that remain through the tradition don't change, and there is essentially one story,there no alternate version,that is indicative of fact, Mythology always proliferates, one story means everyone knew it was true and no one chenged it,

Joe: Mark did not live in Jerusalem and the Gospel of Mark is thought to have come out of syria. The community of a Gospel is relative to that Gospel not to Jerusalem per se,

So he knew the details of Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin, but not that Jesus appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem? Really?

you don;t listen well do you? go back and read what I said you are missing it, I argued that Mark copied Peter's remonstrance off the duff not in a systematic presentation. he did not discuss the Jerusalem factious Mark didn't record it.because he didn;t talkaboutit,
But you are making a lot of assumptions like it;s written by mark there;s no lost ending they didn;t have a faction fight


Joe: that is based upon a guy who lived in Grease. Rome and Egypt Papias says Mark wrote Peter;s memoirs but Peter did not tell them in order,he gathered them as paramedicals of an old man.

This is based on a guy who considered himself sufficiently knowledgeable of the events that he wrote a book on it, and that book was regarded as sufficient accurate that it was used by the authors of Matthew and Luke, and eventually become canon.


all of your metastases there are loaded with modern understanding,It meant nothing to Mark write what we call a bool.it;s not a boo in our modern sense. we only call a book in the bible. IO he was copying the words of Peter that in itself would be all he neeeded to know and a good reason not to question it if Peter if Peter said nothing acquit Jerusalem sightings, of course that assumes a lot of things like no lost ending where he did talk about them.

And you want us to believe he was not aware of the Jerusalem appearances?

try to pay attention

Joe Hinman said…
Joe: exactly! that says it all, they give you a straw to cling to so you don't have to believe i biog mean no fun God.not because it;'s logical or makes senses but because it refutes something you don't like.

My motivations do not affect the validity of my argument. You clearly have your own motivation for turning a blind eye to the contradictions.

you just said they do! your position is bankrupt, it;s mature it makes fundie assumption

you want us to belie this guy who followed Peter to execution would write a meaningless ending to Jesus life that fizzles out into nothing with women who play no role, but they are made up but for no reason,


Joe: because they are in the earliest strata and they are agreed upon by all five accounts there are no other versions or cuter accosts
Now that's three reasons you you must answer them all

No problem.

For the empty tomb, 1 Cor 15 destroys all three.

again you not following what I'm saying, the three arguments I spoke of are reasons to place the women in the PMPN.

(1)MM identified as disciple indicatesearly
(2) flagellation as a sign of mourning
(3) attention to detail on the spice,

women exist before Mark so he could not have made them up



For the Jerusalem appearances, the earliest accounts, Mark and Peter (if you are right about that) do not have them, so your claims are just wrong.

that is not the way it works. just because they are not in Gpet doesn't mean they aren;t early. For one thing GPet really has a lost ending. Ihavne;t studied teh Jerusalem sightings enouh to rule them out ofPMPN

2/15/2018 07:48:00 AM Delete
Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: that is not indicative of gentile authorship

Of course it is. It does not prove it, but it is indicative. The alternative is a community of Jews who now saw themselves as separate to the rest. The early Christians certainly did not see themselves as separate; they saw Jesus as part of their faith. So either way, the text indicates it was written late.


wrong. (1) Koester dates writing of PMN to around 50 AD. by 50 persecution like the one Saul of Tarsus began and the Jews kicking Christians out of the synagogues (Acts) could have been enough to force a sense of separation

(2) liberal scholars used to argue Tahiti a proof of John being written in second century, but no one thinks that now because of the John Rylands fragment.


(3) The attribution of fear of the Jews could have been add latter but the parts I pointed out in relation to the women are indicative of early readings.


(4) they had no reason to fear the Jews in the second century, they had less of one by late second century.

Joe Hinman said…
Compare Peter to this text in John:

John 19:14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.

In both we see "the Jews" as a group blamed for Jesus' death, when the eart;ly Christians saw themselves as Jews. In both Jesus is handed over to the Jews to be crucified, when the reality is that the Romans did it. This anti-Jewish slant is very much indicative of relatively late authorship (or redaction of an earlier work), certainly after Matthew.

that may have been a good argumemt in 33 but not by 50 for reasons stated above

the passage you sight is not indicative of conflict with Jews. the villains in that drama is the Sanhedrin,and those they were able to manipulate,that passage shows us how they could manipulate the crowd. is no more infinitive of conflict with Jews than it is among them,


Joe: I was talking about the man Peter as well because I said "He," your answer is not responsive you didn't answer my argument.it does not assume that they had not heard of it, it assumes only that as an old man Peter was focused on his own group and Mark only spoke of the things Peter spoke of,

Okay, then I misunderstood.

So what gaps did Peter not fill? Your position is founded on the claim that Mark had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances. Are you really saying that was just a gap Peter neglected to fill in? Over some thirty years of talking about the resurrection?

I did not say he had not heard of them.I said Peter didn't talk about them so Mark didn't either, but he could have heard of them,

Joe: you are building a whole school of Biblical criticism based upon one sentence, that;s implausible

Compared to the idea that Mark had never hear of the Jerusalem appearances? I do not think so.

now you are making your refutations and defenses rest upon misconstruing my statements ,when I when I correct you you have no defendse

Joe: yes it is, trivial. you are not thinking about the the nature of the events or the conditions under which the stores were being told, different sets of witness in different communities,
It;s worse if we make those from critical assumptions

Talk me through how it might have happened. Explain how Mark, as an early Christian and scribe to Peter, failed to hear about the Jerusalem appearances, including the ascension, when the community was involved in telling everyone about the resurrection for thirty years.

first learn to read me accurately then read what i said above,I've corrected you on this several times now

But he did know about Jesus ' encounter with the Sanhedrin and with Pilate.

extrusions issues,

2/15/2018 07:51:00 AM Delete
Anonymous said…
You seem to have gone quiet on the group of women - excluding MM of course - who went into the tomb, and whether they told no one, as Mark states, or ran to tell the disciplers, as Matthew states.

Joe: saying "everything" is silliness. Three out of four Gospels talk about them, but you are still missing the point in several major ways.For one thing even if we assert the sightings are made up that doesn't quash the resurrection. Yet you have no valid reason for your hype, it's wall based upon obsession with litterism, and a single verse, my scenario aout MM just tears it apart

There was a reason each author wrote what they wrote. If Mark said Jesus had already left Jerusalem, the most probable reason is that he believed that was the case. And saying he just had not heard of the Jerusalem sightings just does not make sense, given his background.

Joe: that does not answer my point! I said more than just they believe the res ,I said there are core elements that remain through the tradition don't change, and there is essentially one story,there no alternate version,that is indicative of fact, Mythology always proliferates, one story means everyone knew it was true and no one chenged it,

Matthew and Luke copied directly from Mark, and Peter and John drew either on Peter or the same original source. Of course there are core elements that are common to them all.

However, very clearly they did change it, as the empty tomb appeared after Paul was writing, the Jerusalem appearance after Mark. These are big changes! Besides some kind of resurrection, the only core elements the gospel have in common are the mundane story of the arrest, trial and crucifixion.

Joe: you don;t listen well do you? go back and read what I said you are missing it, I argued that Mark copied Peter's remonstrance off the duff not in a systematic presentation. he did not discuss the Jerusalem factious Mark didn't record it.because he didn;t talkaboutit,
But you are making a lot of assumptions like it;s written by mark there;s no lost ending they didn;t have a faction fight


Mark states that Jesus had departed Jerusalem. That is not the wording of a guy who believed Jesus had been seen in Jerusalem, but wanted to focus on the Galilean appearances. Or of a guy who then wrote about the Jerusalem appearances, but that ending was lost (a more likely scenario is the Galilean appearances were deliberately lost as they contradicted the later Jerusalem appearances).

If you want to suggest factions in-fighting, talk me through it. What other evidence is there? Who was in the factions? For example, was Peter in the same faction as his scribe?

Joe: all of your metastases there are loaded with modern understanding,It meant nothing to Mark write what we call a bool.it;s not a boo in our modern sense. we only call a book in the bible. IO he was copying the words of Peter that in itself would be all he neeeded to know and a good reason not to question it if Peter if Peter said nothing acquit Jerusalem sightings, of course that assumes a lot of things like no lost ending where he did talk about them.

So now we have to question why Peter chose to say Jesus went straight to Galilee, when he knew that that was not true.

And then we can discuss how Mark's gospel was so highly regarded given it skipped the most important events.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
be sure to say why the PMPN did not mention the Jerusalem appearances.

we don't know that it doesn't. GPet has a lost ending, even more obvious than Mark's.The synoptic all make use of PMPN which means there could have been a Jerusalem sightings in it,

Koestr ad Croson had a disgruntlement over the epiphanies. Crosson saw the as part of the same narrative and coming from the PMPN and Koester saw them a coming from different successor,.

Just because one source is earlier and we call pre mark doesn't mean others of those ounces were not also pre Marl. You are conditioned by atheism to think there has to be one first oldest source that made it all up.,
The Pixie said…
Joe: we don't know that it doesn't. GPet has a lost ending, even more obvious than Mark's.The synoptic all make use of PMPN which means there could have been a Jerusalem sightings in it,

In the scenario you were suggesting, Mark had never heard of the Jerusalem sightings, but he did have access to the PMPN. Therefore the PMPN cannot have had the Jerusalem sightings in it.

This means that if you are insisting the PMPN did actually include the Jerusalem sightings, then your scenario is refuted, and you need to find some other rational for Mark saying that Jesus was not in Jerusalem when the empty tomb was found.

Joe: Just because one source is earlier and we call pre mark doesn't mean others of those ounces were not also pre Marl. You are conditioned by atheism to think there has to be one first oldest source that made it all up.,

No, no. I am saying much of it - such as the Jerusalem sightings - was made up later. I am doing so because it fits the evidence. You are conditioned by Christianity to assume the Jerusalem sightings actually happened, and so ignore the evidence that indicates they did not - or propose a scenario where Mark had not heard of the Jerusalem sightings, despite basing his passion narrative on an account that included them!
Joe Hinman said…
hey Pix it's been fun and productive but now it's getting samie,I'm going to close the topic but I will make a final comment.Your arguments especially your final one ("In the scenario you were suggesting, Mark had never heard of the Jerusalem sightings, but he did have access to the PMPN. Therefore the PMPN cannot have had the Jerusalem sightings in it.") this is based upo two fallacies I see in your thinking:

1) that there was only one document prior to Mark. PMPN could have been told in numerous documents, and could have included many forms, All those resurrection epiphanies could have existed alongside it. GPet has lost ending,ark has lost ending.

(2) if Mark knew about Jerusalem sightings he had to use them, he did not.


TOPPIC CLSOED
monarchshorestz said…
Accounts of the resurrection can be interesting things to look at.
Joe Hinman said…
yes they sure are.I love rummaging through that kind of literature.


welcome to the blog, hope you stick around,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Fine Tuning Bait and Switch

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger