Real Contradiction in the Resurrection Accounts?

Image result for women at the tomb resurrection of christ



Our atheist friend the regular on the comment section "Pixie" has an argument about the Resurrection accounts that is interesting and deserves answering: 

Mark is clear that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee. This is in both chapter 14 and 16. The supposed appearances in Jerusalem contradict that. You page on harmonization fails to even mention Galilee, totally ignoring both Mark and Matthew!...Okay, I should have said oldest that we have, and therefore closest to the original. We know Luke and Matthew were based on Mark, and yet they chose to remove the claim that the women did not say anything. They (their respective communities) were adding their own embellishments, and it made more sense to have the women talk, so they changed the text.

again:
We have a whole bunch of facts that need to be pieced together to make a coherent narrative. The author of Mark wrote what he wrote for a reason. I suggest he wrote that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee because that is what he believed, because when he was writing there were no stories of Jerusalem appearances. He wrote of the Empty Tomb because that is what the community held to, and wrote that the women said nothing because that explained why stories of the Empty Tomb were not circulating at the time.[1]

So he is saying in Mark the angel tells the women Jesus will go meet them in Galilee they should go there, That is a contradiction to all the Jerusalem-based sightings of the risen Christ, In fact the same statement is made in two Gospels:


mark 16

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.6 He said to them, “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold, the place where they laid him. 7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.’”
Matt 28
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
Matthew records that they did go to Galilee and that's where he gives them the great commission.


Mat 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
The problem is the time frame created by Luke is so tightly constructed that it doesn't allow for them to go to Galilee. He shows the travelers on the road to Emmaus meet Jesus. It tells us "on that same day":(24:13) that is Easter, the day of the resurrection, Then they invite Jesus to break bread when they get home. They realize who he is and he disappears and they get up and go back to Jerusalem and tell the 12 then and there. The journey was only about five miles. Jesus appears among them he eats in front of them, Then he leads then out to Bethany where he ascends into the sky, It all happens in one day and evening  no time to go to Galilee which would be abut a three day walk.

Dr. Joseph R. Nally, answers the problem by asserting there's a gap at v 44, an invisible seem that separates everything after 44 as happening days later in Galilee. [2] The justification for the dividing line the Greek word "de"(pronounced "day"). The NIV translates it merely as"he said to them" some versions put "then he said..." "I maintain that it is a merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44ff on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11)."[3]


He wants us to assume that there's an invisible break we are just not told about. It puts several days between v43 where he eats fish and 44 where he shows his hands and feet. In the part of Texas from which I come we call this "rationalization," (one of our folksy colloquialisms). Because it's unlikely he would wait so long, he just ate to prove he is flesh and blood then why wait several days to show his hands and feet? That's bad enough but Luke lowers the boom on this answer in v50 where he leads then back to Bethany for the ascension.So they waited three days to walk down to Galilee to see his hands and feet then turned and walked back to Bethany to watch him ascend.I think in the way Luke tries to pin it down he actually does create a contradiction with the other Synoptics (Matthew and Mark).


This need not be a faith destroying problem.We know Luke was not a eye witness  he does not claim to be. He tries to tie the account to the documentation of his research but in so doing leaves out room for other accounts he did not consult. Clearly Luke draws upon a Jerusalem based tradition (which is consistent with the  the Pauline circle since Paul made contact with James who stayed in Jerusalem).[4] The witnesses of the Jerusalem community  omitted rather than renounced the Galilee community, but they conflated the time frame,

Remember my basic assumption is that the witnesses fanned out among the various communities. Thus, each community reflects the perspective of those witnesses in its midst. Thus John  focused on Mary Madeline as the major witness to the resurrection, the others do not. John's account seems to be told from Mary's perspective but it does acknowledge that there were other women with her at the tomb too ("we don't know where they have laid him"--John 20:2). The most likely explanation for the focus on her perspective is that she is the one of the major witnesses that wound up in that community.

 I am not saying the James' Church was at odds with the Galilee band. I am just saying that over time the accounts conflated the experience of  the community to the exclusion of others in some way. Interestingly enough there was a very early tradition that had Peter and some others of the 12 went back to Galilee having heard of the resurrection but not having yet seen the Lord.There is a part of the apocryphal gospel of Peter that records a trace of this tradition.After the amazing resurrection scene where Jesus is escorted out of the tomb followed by talking cross, there is a much more realistic account of Peter and others going back to Galilee to fish and wait for the Lord.[5] This fragment fits much more closely the tone of  fear,  mystery, and silence of Mark rather than the positive "Godspell" tone of Matthew, Luke, and John.



[58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many went out returning to their home since the feast was over. [59] But we twelve disciples of the Lord were weeping and sorrowful; and each one, sorrowful because of what had come to pass, departed to his home. [60] But I, Simon Peter, and my brother Andrew, having taken our nets, went off to the sea. And there was with us Levi of Alphaeus whom the Lord ...[6]
James Tabor argues  that this constitutes an early independent tradition. He thinks that Luke suggests that the injunction to stay in Jerusalem was counter to the faction that returned to the Galilee.[7] We know there was some mild power struggle in the early church in which Peter and James vied to impress one another,[8]

Omission is not contradiction. It is well known that major aspects of the synoptic are left out of John and that John includes major aspects not in the synoptic; for example John includes the whole Galilean ministry not  in the synoptic.  "Prior visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the passion week are mentioned in John but not found in the synoptics. The seventh sign-miracle, the resurrection of Lazarus (John 11) is not mentioned in the synoptics. The extended Farewell Discourse (John 13—17) is not found in the synoptic Gospels."[9] Yet no serious scholar tries to suggest that this is an out-and-out contradiction. It's merely a difference in sources. A difference in the "take."

Now the question arises, how do we know what in the account is genuine and what is not? This is not the hopeless conundrum the skeptic will try to build it into.  Were it not possible to answer this point by means of textual criticism we would not have it as a problem in the first place.Two points enable solution: (1) We can spot the older readings as the discovery of  the Pre Mark Passion Narrative (PMPN) has been consistent with MS evidence;  the existence or pre mark redaction--sources of the gospel written before Mark of course not canonical but nevertheless influenced the canonical gospels. This view is now consensus.[10]  for more on PMPN (see my article article "story of empty tomb dated mid first century."[11] (2) we can ascertain those points upon which all witnesses  agree. They all agree that the tomb was empty they all agree Jesus was seen alive again. None of the accounts including apocryphal accounts deny these points, for at least three centuries after the events. Each account is fueled by the unique perspective of the set of witnesses in that community. They do not contradict each other they are cumulative.

My Point is we can take agreement between canonical and extra canonical sources as consensus. We don't want to use them as theological guides but as historical artifacts. Like a pot shard these apocryphal works testify as to the beliefs going around in given era and given local. It can be reckoned as fairly obvious that the   cross, the empty, tomb the resurrection of Jesus were early and universal, and undisputed. Two major sources of which I speak are the Gospel of Peter (GPet) and Gospel of Thomas(GTom). There is the Epistle of the Apostles, very orthodox but attributed to middle of second century.Epistle  Egerton 2. Most of these are tainted with Gnosticism and contradict orthodox theology. For this reason many Christian apologists just date them to later second century and dismiss them as false and ignore them. That's not honest because major scholarship, even by orthodox schools (such as Raymond Brown)  place these works as early or as  containing  early influences. Some perhaps even earlier than the canonical gospels. Again they are not theologically reliable but as historical artifacts we can't overlook them.

Skeptics often argue that Mark ends with no resurrection even though clearly says he is risen and in an atmosphere of fear and secrecy. But Marks's ending is lost so we don't know what it said. But in echoing the Galilee command it acknowledges that tradition, That's even more interesting that Mark is said to be the memoirs of Peter who according to the Pre Mark redaction led the contingent back to Galilee. Matthew not only preserves the command but says they went.  All gospels, both canonical and otherwise agree with the empty tomb and the resurrection. In light of these facts we can;t regard the omission of Luke, who was not privy to the original events, as a serious contradiction to events. 



The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction...Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12)...None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection.[12]

 Why the dichotomy between meeting places? Who knows. Perhaps that reflects a factional split in the early church. Or maybe Jesus wanted to reminisce about his childhood before ascending to heaven. I know that sounds sarcastic but onerously what I mean is we can't know. We don't know all the things Jesus attended to during that period. He may have taken the disciples back were it all started for their own psychological needs. If it is a contradiction is it  really a major one?


Sources


[1] Anonymous (aka "Pixie") Comment Section,in Joseph Hinman, 
 "Breaking News: Liberals are not fundies; Answering Atheist assertions about folklore in Gospels," Cadre Comments blog (Jan, 7, 2018)
http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2018/01/breaking-news-liberals-are-not-fundies.html
(accessed Jan 11, 2018)

[2] Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr. "God and Stay Discrepancy," Reformed Answers (third Millennial Ministries) (no date given)
(accessed 1/11/18)
Nally is D.D., M.Div. is the Theological Editor at Third Millennium Ministries (IIIM).

[3] Ibid.

[4] James was from Galilee but we know he stayed in Jerusalem because he became head of the Jerusalem church according to Josephus' "brother passage."
[5] "The Gospel of Peter," Trans Raymond Brown, Early Christian Writings. Peter Kirby Editor. (website coywrite 2001)
(accessed 1/11/18)
[6] Ibid

[7] James Tabor, "The Surprising Ending of The Lost Gospel of Peter," Taborblog, published by Christian Origins website (December. 2015).
(accessed 1/11/18)
James D. Tabor (born 1946 in Texas) is a Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989 and served as Chair from 2004–14. He previously held positions at Ambassador College (1968–70 while a student at Pepperdine University), the University of Notre Dame (1979–85), and the College of William and Mary (1985–89).
Tabor is a fine scholar but his Jesus Dynasty book denies the resurrection,  [8] Ibid

[9] W Hall Harris III, "Two Major Differences in John and The Synoptic," from Commentary on the Gospel of John,    Bible .Org Web site.
(access 1/25/18)
Harris is Prof  New Testament Dallas Theological Seminary. 
[10] Peter Kirbey, "The Passion Narrative," Early Christian Writings, website
(access 1/25/18)
"Nevertheless, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context, on which I am dependent for the following observations."
Image result for Giotto the empty tomb

[11] Joseph Hinman, "Story of Empty Tomb Dated To Mid First Century." Cadre Comments Blog, (April 2, 2017)
(access 1/25/18) also published in Holding's anthology Deeding the Resurrection

[12]  Eric Lyons, "To Galilee or Jerusalem?,"Apologetics Press (2004)
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=730
(accessed Dec 8,2019) 


Comments

The Pixie said…
Joe: The problem is the time frame created by Luke is so tightly constructed that it doesn't allow for them to go to Galilee.

No, that is not the problem (and it is disheartening that after so many posts you still do not get it). Luke and Acts were written by the same author, and Acts records that Jesus was around for 40 days before the ascension, so clearly the author did not believe Jesus ascended the same day that the empty tomb was found.

The question is whether Jesus was first seen in Galilee or in Jerusalem (and surrounding area) after the crucifixion. Mark says it was Galilee, the later authors say it was Jerusalem.

Bear in mind it takes about three days to travel from one to the other. We can suppose that Jesus was miraculously in two places at the same time, but not Peter (or the other disciples). If Peter saw Jesus in Jerusalem on that first Sunday, he simply cannot have seen Jesus in Galilee on that day too.


Mark

Mark says Jesus intended to go on ahead to Galilee, and see the disciples there:

27 And Jesus *said to them, “You will all [k]fall away, because it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.’ 28 But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

And that is what happened:

Mark 16:7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”


Luke and John

Luke is very clear that the disciples were in Jerusalem when the Empty Tomb was found:

Luke 24:13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was [d]about seven miles from Jerusalem.
...
32 They said to one another, “[k]Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was [l]explaining the Scriptures to us?” 33 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them, 34 saying, “The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 They began to relate [m]their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.”

Similarly John insists it was that same day:

John 20:3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he *saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *saw the linen wrappings lying there,
...
19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, “[b]Peace be with you.”


A Contradiction!

Either the disciples, and more specifically Peter, believed they saw the risen Jesus first in Galilee or in Jerusalem. One of these must be wrong. Which one?

And how did the author get something so fundamental to the faith so very wrong?
The Pixie said…
Is it plausible that Mark had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances? According to tradition, Mark was Peter's secretary (even if Mark was not the author, the gospel is generally believed to have been written in Rome, where Peter was bishop and the same argument applies), so we have to question whether Mark would have heard from Peter the events in Luke 24 and John 20. Is is plausible that Peter never mentioned to Mark that he was one of the two disciples who found the tomb empty? Is it plausible that Peter never mentioned Jesus appearing to him and most of the other disciples that day? No. This was the most important single day of Peter's life and there is no way Peter would not be talking about it endlessly for the rest of his days - if the Gospels of Luke and John have it right.

The only plausible answer is that John is wrong. Mark did not mention the appearances in Jerusalem because he had not heard of them, and the reason he had not heard of them is that they had yet to be invented. They were made up some time after Mark was written.

In fact, if we look at Matthew we can see an intermediate step in the evolution of the story. In Mark it all happened in Galilee, while in John and Luke it all happened in Jerusalem. In Matthew, however, Jesus is seen briefly in Jerusalem by the women, and later in Galilee by the disciples.
The Pixie said…
Joe: James Tabor argues that this constitutes an early independent tradition. He thinks that Luke suggests that the injunction to stay in Jerusalem was counter to the faction that returned to the Galilee.

Tabor's own words, from the conclusion of your reference 7:

"If one accepts that the empty tomb visit by Mary Magdalene and the women early Sunday morning belongs to a more original or earlier strata of the GPeter, as I am convinced is the case, then we have another independent witness to this all but forgotten post-resurrection scenario with no appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Jerusalem following the discovery of the empty tomb and their return to their fishing business in Galilee. This essential outline of things is supported by Mark, Matthew, John 21, and the GPeter with the alternative Jerusalem scenario found only in Luke 24 and John 20."

The emphasis is in the original. Tabor fully agrees with me on this.
Joe: The problem is the time frame created by Luke is so tightly constructed that it doesn't allow for them to go to Galilee.

No, that is not the problem (and it is disheartening that after so many posts you still do not get it). Luke and Acts were written by the same author, and Acts records that Jesus was around for 40 days before the ascension, so clearly the author did not believe Jesus ascended the same day that the empty tomb was found.

well don;t you think a contradiction of an author by himself is a bigger contradiction than if he merely at odds with other witnesses? Luke contradiction Acts is much greater mileage for am atheist than Luke committing Matt.

The question is whether Jesus was first seen in Galilee or in Jerusalem (and surrounding area) after the crucifixion. Mark says it was Galilee, the later authors say it was Jerusalem.

He was seen the moment he stepped out of the tomb the guards saw him he was seen in Jerusalem.

Bear in mind it takes about three days to travel from one to the other. We can suppose that Jesus was miraculously in two places at the same time, but not Peter (or the other disciples). If Peter saw Jesus in Jerusalem on that first Sunday, he simply cannot have seen Jesus in Galilee on that day too.

It would take Peter three days to travel fro Jerusalem to Galilee it would not take Jesus one second to make that journey.


Mark says Jesus intended to go on ahead to Galilee, and see the disciples there:

27 And Jesus *said to them, “You will all [k]fall away, because it is written, ‘I will strike down the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.’ 28 But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”

And that is what happened:

Mark 16:7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’”


Mark was not there. Mark was distilling longer accounts. Matthew also says he would meet them in Galilee but he also has him meeting them in Jerusalem too..


Luke and John

Luke is very clear that the disciples were in Jerusalem when the Empty Tomb was found:

Luke 24:13 And behold, two of them were going that very day to a village named Emmaus, which was [d]about seven miles from Jerusalem.

Not a contradiction beaus they had time to go to Galilee to see him agaun,amaatthewwhowas there says they sawin oth Places. the two on the road did not have time to sprig over to Jersuele but Jesus could use supernatural means to travel.
...
32 They said to one another, “[k]Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was [l]explaining the Scriptures to us?” 33 And they got up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found gathered together the eleven and those who were with them, 34 saying, “The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.” 35 They began to relate [m]their experiences on the road and how He was recognized by them in the breaking of the bread.
36 While they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.”

Similarly John insists it was that same day:

John 20:3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he *saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also *came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he *saw the linen wrappings lying there,
...
19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, “[b]Peace be with you.”


A Contradiction!

Not a contradistinction you are working hard to make it one. The women went to the tomb in the morning before it was light, this passage just said it was evening when the 12 saw him (v19)so it;almost a day latter. plenty of time.

Either the disciples, and more specifically Peter, believed they saw the risen Jesus first in Galilee or in Jerusalem. One of these must be wrong. Which one?

Peter and John did not see him at the tomb they only saw the grave clothes Mary saw him alone, after the two nen left,

And how did the author get something so fundamental to the faith so very wrong?

you are staining your brain to find contradictions not accepting the natural flow of the text,

there is a contradiction with him saying go meet me in Galilee then he shows himself in Jersulame .but it;s not a damaging problem because it can be explained any number of ways incliuduing the fact that it's recorded in book by a non eyewitness,


I have to get to the rest of this latter. like after lunch ,don;t do any more until I answer all.
Luke is very clear that the disciples were in Jerusalem when the Empty Tomb was found:


where else are they going to find the empty tomb? they have to find it where it is
Is it plausible that Mark had not heard of the Jerusalem appearances? According to tradition, Mark was Peter's secretary (even if Mark was not the author, the gospel is generally believed to have been written in Rome, where Peter was bishop and the same argument applies), so we have to question whether Mark would have heard from Peter the events in Luke 24 and John 20. Is is plausible that Peter never mentioned to Mark that he was one of the two disciples who found the tomb empty? Is it plausible that Peter never mentioned Jesus appearing to him and most of the other disciples that day? No. This was the most important single day of Peter's life and there is no way Peter would not be talking about it endlessly for the rest of his days - if the Gospels of Luke and John have it right.

You Know there is a strong tradition about a lost ending of Mark. So it's entirely plausible that Mark had more to say.

The only plausible answer is that John is wrong.

wrong I just gave you another plausible answer.

Mark did not mention the appearances in Jerusalem because he had not heard of them, and the reason he had not heard of them is that they had yet to be invented. They were made up some time after Mark was written.

Why does Matt include both? have you ever even considered that? He has the 'go to Galilee' statement, but has also has them seeing Jesus in Jerusalem first.



In fact, if we look at Matthew we can see an intermediate step in the evolution of the story. In Mark it all happened in Galilee, while in John and Luke it all happened in Jerusalem. In Matthew, however, Jesus is seen briefly in Jerusalem by the women, and later in Galilee by the disciples.

Of course you assuming Mark is the first tome Jesus is ever talked about it's first mention ever made of the Resurrection or empty tomb. that is just unrealistic Bull shit, that's atheist junk history. The truth is the empty tomb was old in oral tradition before it was ever written about which was firs time AD 50. pre Mark redaction. 20 year before Mark was penned.

the idea that you are observing an evolution is just artificially imposed to match your argument. In reality that empty tomb was written about in AD 50 in works we don't even have now. Baht destroys your evolutionary scenario.
Joe: James Tabor argues that this constitutes an early independent tradition. He thinks that Luke suggests that the injunction to stay in Jerusalem was counter to the faction that returned to the Galilee.

Tabor's own words, from the conclusion of your reference 7:

"If one accepts that the empty tomb visit by Mary Magdalene and the women early Sunday morning belongs to a more original or earlier strata of the GPeter, as I am convinced is the case, then we have another independent witness to this all but forgotten post-resurrection scenario with no appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Jerusalem following the discovery of the empty tomb and their return to their fishing business in Galilee. This essential outline of things is supported by Mark, Matthew, John 21, and the GPeter with the alternative Jerusalem scenario found only in Luke 24 and John 20."

The emphasis is in the original. Tabor fully agrees with me on this.

read it more carefully he is not saying this is the real original truth., He's sahing this one Verizon of truth among others,

"then we have another independent witness "

Matt and John were eye witnesses, Mark and Luke were not there. Now if you want to separate all counts from their namesakes then Mark still has no priority.It was not the first Gospel ever written,
The Pixie said…
Joe: well don;t you think a contradiction of an author by himself is a bigger contradiction than if he merely at odds with other witnesses? Luke contradiction Acts is much greater mileage for am atheist than Luke committing Matt.

I am more interested in looking at why there is a contradiction, as I think resolving that can potentially lead us to what actually happened. Yes, there is a contradiction between Luke and Acts, but I think that that is just a narrative decision by Luke, perhaps to make the former sound more dramatic, whilst the latter was (in his view) more accurate. I do not think either are actually true, so I am not actually that interested in the issue.

Joe: He was seen the moment he stepped out of the tomb the guards saw him he was seen in Jerusalem.

And already you sound like a fundie. You are assuming the gospel accounts are true is every way. We are discussing whether the gospel accounts are true. To base your argument of the assumption that they are true is clearly circular.

Joe: It would take Peter three days to travel fro Jerusalem to Galilee it would not take Jesus one second to make that journey.

I take it you did not actually read the paragraph you were responding to. If you did, you would realise that I said exactly that.

Joe: Mark was not there. Mark was distilling longer accounts. Matthew also says he would meet them in Galilee but he also has him meeting them in Jerusalem too..

None of the gospel authors were there. Matthew and John were not written by Matthew or John, and Luke was not there. As you keep saying, pretty much all scholars agree the passion is based on a single earlier narrative.

Or rather, as you say when it is convenient. Otherwise you ignore it and claim each gospel is based on its own tradition.

Joe: Not a contradiction beaus they had time to go to Galilee to see him agaun,amaatthewwhowas there says they sawin oth Places. the two on the road did not have time to sprig over to Jersuele but Jesus could use supernatural means to travel.

And again, I must ask that you actually READ what I type.

The issue is where the risen Jesus was seen FIRST.

Joe: Not a contradistinction you are working hard to make it one. The women went to the tomb in the morning before it was light, this passage just said it was evening when the 12 saw him (v19)so it;almost a day latter. plenty of time.

And again: The issue is where the risen Jesus was seen FIRST.

Joe: Peter and John did not see him at the tomb they only saw the grave clothes Mary saw him alone, after the two nen left,

The point is that both Luke and John are clear that Jesus was seen by Peter in Jerusalem that Sunday. Mark says that Jesus went on ahead to Galilee to see the disciples there.

Joe: there is a contradiction with him saying go meet me in Galilee then he shows himself in Jersulame .but it;s not a damaging problem because it can be explained any number of ways incliuduing the fact that it's recorded in book by a non eyewitness,

So give a plausible explanation that tells us why Peter's secretary was not aware that Peter saw Jesus in Jerusalem on that Sunday. Paul knew about the first appearance to Peter; how come Mark did not?

Joe: where else are they going to find the empty tomb? they have to find it where it is

The point - again - is that both Luke and John are clear that Jesus was seen by Peter in Jerusalem that Sunday.

Joe: You Know there is a strong tradition about a lost ending of Mark. So it's entirely plausible that Mark had more to say.

Sure, about a first sighting in Galilee. One that would contradict John and Luke - perhaps that is why it got lost.
The Pixie said…
Joe: Why does Matt include both? have you ever even considered that? He has the 'go to Galilee' statement, but has also has them seeing Jesus in Jerusalem first.

Addressed in the paragraph directly after the one you responded to.

Joe: Of course you assuming Mark is the first tome Jesus is ever talked about it's first mention ever made of the Resurrection or empty tomb. that is just unrealistic Bull shit, that's atheist junk history. The truth is the empty tomb was old in oral tradition before it was ever written about which was firs time AD 50. pre Mark redaction. 20 year before Mark was penned.

I have no idea how that relates to what I said.

Furthermore: I am not assuming Mark is the first time Jesus is talked about; I am not assuming Mark is the first mention of the resurrection; I am not assuming Mark is the first mention of the empty tomb. When you come out with BS like this, this is when I think you are delusional.

Joe: the idea that you are observing an evolution is just artificially imposed to match your argument. In reality that empty tomb was written about in AD 50 in works we don't even have now. Baht destroys your evolutionary scenario.

I am talking about the evolution from Mark to Luke/John. Matthew is an intermediate stage between them, in which Jesus is seen by the disciples in Galilee, as Mark records, but is also seen in Jerusalem by the women.

Joe: read it more carefully he is not saying this is the real original truth., He's sahing this one Verizon of truth among others,

Tabor is saying that there are two different scenarios, with the former being the early one:

"all but forgotten post-resurrection scenario with no appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Jerusalem following the discovery of the empty tomb and their return to their fishing business in Galilee. This essential outline of things is supported by Mark, Matthew, John 21, and the GPeter"

"the alternative Jerusalem scenario found only in Luke 24 and John 20"

That is fully in agreement with my position, and disagrees with your claim that this is just one scenario, with the disciples commuting between Galilee and Jerusalem as and when it suits you.

Joe: Matt and John were eye witnesses...

Sure. But not authors.
The Pixie said…
Tabor's position is a little more clear here:
https://jamestabor.com/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/

"Mark knows of no accounts of people encountering the revived corpse of Jesus, wounds and all, walking around Jerusalem. His tradition is that the disciples experienced their epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus once they returned to Galilee after the eight day Passover festival and had returned to their fishing in despair. This is precisely what we find in the Gospel of Peter..."
All of your ideas about it are based upon Mark as the origin of the empty tomb. so your view is just wrong to begin with, it's disproved by the PMR stuff.
The Pixie said…
Joe: All of your ideas about it are based upon Mark as the origin of the empty tomb. so your view is just wrong to begin with, it's disproved by the PMR stuff.

Where have I said anything about that in this discussion? If this is indicative of your ability to comprehend, it is no wonder you are so mistaken about what the Bible says and what the scholars you cite actually believe.

Either Mark is wrong or Luke and John are wrong. My personal view is that Mark is the original - and that is perfectly consistent with the resurrection and empty tomb being historical, which appears to be Tabor's position. Luke and John are then later embellishments.

You seem to say Luke and John are right, but either way, there is a contradiction.

If you claim Mark is wrong, then to be plausible, you need to explain how and why Mark failed to mention the very first appearance of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday, given this was the single most important event in Christian history and given it supposedly happened to Peter, a man Mark knew very well as his secretary.

It is literally beyond belief that Peter, as the bishop of Rome, would not mention that event on a regular basis, perhaps a few times a week even, for the four decades up to the writing of the gospel.

It is literally beyond belief that Peter's secretary would chose to indicate there was no such appearance.
Either Mark is wrong or Luke and John are wrong. My personal view is that Mark is the original - and that is perfectly consistent with the resurrection and empty tomb being historical, which appears to be Tabor's position. Luke and John are then later embellishments.

Jesus never said I will not appear to anyone in Jerusalem, Matt has him doing both there no reason why he could not do both.. Odd that you never mention Matt

You seem to say Luke and John are right, but either way, there is a contradiction.


Did you read my OP? I am pretty clearly said Luke created a contradiction the way he wrote to exclude the possibly of Galilee sightings.But it's not a contradiction that impends upon the truth of the res because he was reconstructing from other people's memories.


If you claim Mark is wrong, then to be plausible, you need to explain how and why Mark failed to mention the very first appearance of the risen Jesus in Jerusalem on that first Easter Sunday, given this was the single most important event in Christian history and given it supposedly happened to Peter, a man Mark knew very well as his secretary.


you have a dilemma. If you end the account at v8 he just doesn't say enough he doesn't cover appearances,he kooks forward to Galilee but he doesn't rule out some Jerusalem appearances. Then there is is possibility that there are missing passes in those he have may included Jerusalem appearances. You are still assuming mark as the first account and now it was written about 20 years before that. Obviously there was a tradition of Jerusalem sightings so they probably had some.


It is literally beyond belief that Peter, as the bishop of Rome, would not mention that event on a regular basis, perhaps a few times a week even, for the four decades up to the writing of the gospel.

There was no Bishop of Rome. that title was expost facto. We don;t have the ending of Mark

It is literally beyond belief that Peter's secretary would chose to indicate there was no such appearance


there is yet another possibility that mark was not written by Mark.


The Pixie said…
Joe: Jesus never said I will not appear to anyone in Jerusalem, Matt has him doing both there no reason why he could not do both..

The issue is which he does first. Perhaps you should actually READ what I post?

From my first comment (bold in the original):

"The question is whether Jesus was first seen in Galilee or in Jerusalem (and surrounding area) after the crucifixion. Mark says it was Galilee, the later authors say it was Jerusalem."

From my comment from 12/09/2019 11:56:00 (bold and caps in the original):

"The issue is where the risen Jesus was seen FIRST."

"And again: The issue is where the risen Jesus was seen FIRST."

Try to get it through your head what it is we are arguing here, Joe. You might look less of a delusional idiot if you can actually follow the discussion.

Joe: Odd that you never mention Matt

You said that before and I pointed out it was not true, and yet still to contine.

Joe: Did you read my OP? I am pretty clearly said Luke created a contradiction the way he wrote to exclude the possibly of Galilee sightings.But it's not a contradiction that impends upon the truth of the res because he was reconstructing from other people's memories.

So what is your point? I agree Luke was constructed from what others said happened. The point is that many of those stories by that time were made up. All the people that remembered it were dead.

Joe: you have a dilemma. If you end the account at v8 he just doesn't say enough he doesn't cover appearances,he kooks forward to Galilee but he doesn't rule out some Jerusalem appearances.

Yes, it does rule out the appearances in Jerusalem as the first appearance, because it says Jesus has already gone on ahead to Galilee.

Why would Mark say that if he was aware of Jesus appearing to Jesus that same day in Jerusalem. He would not. He would only have the man saying Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee if he was not aware of the Jerusalem appearances, and given his connection to Peter that is only plausible if they never happened.

Joe: Then there is is possibility that there are missing passes in those he have may included Jerusalem appearances. You are still assuming mark as the first account and now it was written about 20 years before that. Obviously there was a tradition of Jerusalem sightings so they probably had some.

The issue is where the first sighting was. Was Jesus seen by the disciples on Easter Sunday in Jerusalem, as Luke and John clearly state, or did they first see Jesus days later in Galilee as Mark clearly indicates? Speculating on an ending on Mark does not help align Mark here.

Joe: There was no Bishop of Rome. that title was expost facto. We don;t have the ending of Mark

Does that help explain why Peter never told Mark about the first time the risen Jesus appeared to him?

Joe: there is yet another possibility that mark was not written by Mark.

So an unknown Christian took it on himself to write the gospel; this is quite reasonable. But you still need to explain how this guy did not hear about the first appearance of the risen Jesus to one of the three pillars of the early church.

How many times have YOU heard the Easter story at church? You think this unknown Christian was any different? You think maybe he was sick every time the story was repeated, and so missed it? You think he was that bad at research that when writing the gospel, he never talked to anyone about what happened on that day, the most important day ever for a Christian?

I keep asking you to give a plausible scenario that explains why the author of Mark indicates Jesus was not seen by the disciples on the first Easter Sunday, and you consistently fail to offer one. I think we both know that you cannot. The only scenario that makes sense is that the Jerusalem stories were made up.
Joe: Jesus never said I will not appear to anyone in Jerusalem, Matt has him doing both there no reason why he could not do both..


The issue is which he does first. Perhaps you should actually READ what I post?

From my first comment (bold in the original):

"The question is whether Jesus was first seen in Galilee or in Jerusalem (and surrounding area) after the crucifixion. Mark says it was Galilee, the later authors say it was Jerusalem."

From my comment from 12/09/2019 11:56:00 (bold and caps in the original):

"The issue is where the risen Jesus was seen FIRST."

"And again: The issue is where the risen Jesus was seen FIRST."


Not just first but first by Peter! We know he was first seen by the guards and by Mary that was in Jerusalem. Mary saw him right after they found the empty tomb so Peter had not had time to even begin a trip to Galilee.



Try to get it through your head what it is we are arguing here, Joe. You might look less of a delusional idiot if you can actually follow the discussion.


apaloia hipotzugion!

Joe: Odd that you never mention Matt




Joe: Did you read my OP? I am pretty clearly said Luke created a contradiction the way he wrote to exclude the possibly of Galilee sightings.But it's not a contradiction that impends upon the truth of the res because he was reconstructing from other people's memories.

So what is your point? I agree Luke was constructed from what others said happened. The point is that many of those stories by that time were made up. All the people that remembered it were dead.

If I explain it again will you suddenly absorb it this time? It's a real event, it's not made up. so if Luke's reports leave out events they are leaving out true events not made up ones.



Joe: you have a dilemma. If you end the account at v8 he just doesn't say enough he doesn't cover appearances,he looks forward to Galilee but he doesn't rule out some Jerusalem appearances.

Yes, it does rule out the appearances in Jerusalem as the first appearance, because it says Jesus has already gone on ahead to Galilee.

Yes way Mark pits it, but I'm assuming there was a real event it's only half told.Maybe the Mark community only had Salome and a couple of nameless women in it but John community had Mary M.

Why would Mark say that if he was aware of Jesus appearing to Jesus that same day in Jerusalem. He would not. He would only have the man saying Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee if he was not aware of the Jerusalem appearances, and given his connection to Peter that is only plausible if they never happened.

Joe: Then there is is possibility that there are missing passes in those he have may included Jerusalem appearances. You are still assuming mark as the first account and now it was written about 20 years before that. Obviously there was a tradition of Jerusalem sightings so they probably had some.

The issue is where the first sighting was. Was Jesus seen by the disciples on Easter Sunday in Jerusalem, as Luke and John clearly state, or did they first see Jesus days later in Galilee as Mark clearly indicates? Speculating on an ending on Mark does not help align Mark here.

Mark does not indicate that,learn to read. He says nothing about sightings. He only says to meet him in Galilee. He says nothing about where they actually saw him unless it's in the lost passage, but we don't have it. That's a real possibility that you are not facing if we had the lost ending it might totally disprove your nonsense



Joe: There was no Bishop of Rome. that title was expost facto. We don;t have the ending of Mark

Does that help explain why Peter never told Mark about the first time the risen Jesus appeared to him?

what did I just say? lost ending, it's obvious sightings would be in the lost ending because they would cone after the women.


Joe: there is yet another possibility that mark was not written by Mark.

So an unknown Christian took it on himself to write the gospel; this is quite reasonable. But you still need to explain how this guy did not hear about the first appearance of the risen Jesus to one of the three pillars of the early church.


that's really stupid.have you not followed along? How did any of these guys get their info? they wrote what the witnesses were saying. What do trial lawyers tell us about witness? they say they always contradict. So conflicts are just par for the course


How many times have YOU heard the Easter story at church? You think this unknown Christian was any different? You think maybe he was sick every time the story was repeated, and so missed it? You think he was that bad at research that when writing the gospel, he never talked to anyone about what happened on that day, the most important day ever for a Christian?

you are being obtuse

I keep asking you to give a plausible scenario that explains why the author of Mark indicates Jesus was not seen by the disciples on the first Easter Sunday, and you consistently fail to offer one. I think we both know that you cannot. The only scenario that makes sense is that the Jerusalem stories were made up.

the problem there is you must able to recognize one and you are not
Anonymous said…
Joe: Not just first but first by Peter! We know he was first seen by the guards and by Mary that was in Jerusalem. Mary saw him right after they found the empty tomb so Peter had not had time to even begin a trip to Galilee.

Okay, if you want to frame it that way.

Luke and John say John was the first disciple, and that that was in Jerusalem. Mark says that Jesus had gone on ahead, and would first see the disciples in Galilee, some days later. Contradiction.

Joe: If I explain it again will you suddenly absorb it this time? It's a real event, it's not made up. so if Luke's reports leave out events they are leaving out true events not made up ones.

You are making the usual fundie assumption that every word is true!

Joe: If I explain it again will you suddenly absorb it this time? It's a real event, it's not made up. so if Luke's reports leave out events they are leaving out true events not made up ones.

So explain why Mark chose to omit the appearances in Jerusalem. i keep asking you to do this, and you keep failing to do so.

Joe: Yes way Mark pits it, but I'm assuming there was a real event it's only half told.Maybe the Mark community only had Salome and a couple of nameless women in it but John community had Mary M.

So explain how Mark's community was not aware that the disciples saw Jesus in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday. Again and again you fail to do this.

Joe: Mark does not indicate that,learn to read. He says nothing about sightings. He only says to meet him in Galilee. He says nothing about where they actually saw him unless it's in the lost passage, but we don't have it. That's a real possibility that you are not facing if we had the lost ending it might totally disprove your nonsense

That is pretty desperate! Why does the man in the tomb say Jesus has gone on ahead, if not for a meeting with the disciples - where they will see Jesus.

Again and again I ask you to explain why Mark wrote what he did; again and again you fail to do so.

Joe: what did I just say?

That Peter never actually had the title "Bishop of Rome". Nothing relevant.

Joe: lost ending, it's obvious sightings would be in the lost ending because they would cone after the women.?

Sightings in Galilee. He said Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee, so if there were sightings in the lost ending, they were in Galilee. See also the Gospel of Peter.

Joe: that's really stupid.have you not followed along? How did any of these guys get their info? they wrote what the witnesses were saying. What do trial lawyers tell us about witness? they say they always contradict. So conflicts are just par for the course

But the four accounts are based on a single witness, via the passion narrative. The conflicts are due to later embellishments.

If this was a trial, and one guy said Jesus was in Galilee, and the other two said he was in Jerusalem on that day, one account would be throw out.

Joe: the problem there is you must able to recognize one and you are not

The problem is you cannot explain why Mark stated Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee.

Pix
Anonymous said…
http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/07/karlo-broussards-ignorance-about-mormon.html

Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: Not just first but first by Peter! We know he was first seen by the guards and by Mary that was in Jerusalem. Mary saw him right after they found the empty tomb so Peter had not had time to even begin a trip to Galilee.

Okay, if you want to frame it that way.

well that blows your argument so I do.

Luke and John say John was the first disciple, and that that was in Jerusalem. Mark says that Jesus had gone on ahead, and would first see the disciples in Galilee, some days later. Contradiction.

Mark 16:7 " ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’" He is going ahead not that he's already gone. It could easily be rendered "he is going down there latter"



Joe: If I explain it again will you suddenly absorb it this time? It's a real event, it's not made up. so if Luke's reports leave out events they are leaving out true events not made up ones.

You are making the usual fundie assumption that every word is true!

Obviously not! Since I said Luke wrote it in a biased slanted manner, the words do not carry the kind of literalism a fundie pusts on them. I am literally saying the words are wrong The question is how wrong?


Joe: If I explain it again will you suddenly absorb it this time? It's a real event, it's not made up. so if Luke's reports leave out events they are leaving out true events not made up ones.

So explain why Mark chose to omit the appearances in Jerusalem. i keep asking you to do this, and you keep failing to do so.

I've said this every time, we have o text where Mark discusses appearances. The only appearance we have is the angle appearing not Jesus. Then there's the lost ending now it;s lost so we do;t know what it said

Joe: Yes way Mark pits it, but I'm assuming there was a real event it's only half told.Maybe the Mark community only had Salome and a couple of nameless women in it but John community had Mary M.

So explain how Mark's community was not aware that the disciples saw Jesus in Jerusalem on Easter Sunday. Again and again you fail to do this.

again one more time:we have no text where Mark discusses appearances. The only appearance we have is the angle appearing not Jesus. Then there's the lost ending now it;s lost so we dom't know what it said



Joe: Mark does not indicate that,learn to read. He says nothing about sightings. He only says to meet him in Galilee. He says nothing about where they actually saw him unless it's in the lost passage, but we don't have it. That's a real possibility that you are not facing if we had the lost ending it might totally disprove your nonsense

That is pretty desperate! Why does the man in the tomb say Jesus has gone on ahead, if not for a meeting with the disciples - where they will see Jesus.


again it does not say that That;s a translation. it's in Greek. "he is going ahead e of you" does not mean he's already there or he's already left, it can just as well mean he is going to go ahead of you. peter and the guys ad not even heard of the empty tomb at the time the angle said that he's talking to the women.


Again and again I ask you to explain why Mark wrote what he did; again and again you fail to do so.

read what I just said because I just told you.

Joe: what did I just say?

That Peter never actually had the title "Bishop of Rome". Nothing relevant.

you know that is not the only thing I said at that point. your typical obfuscation


Joe: lost ending, it's obvious sightings would be in the lost ending because they would cone after the women.?

Sightings in Galilee. He said Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee, so if there were sightings in the lost ending, they were in Galilee. See also the Gospel of Peter.


Nope! He is going = going to go.


Joe: that's really stupid.have you not followed along? How did any of these guys get their info? they wrote what the witnesses were saying. What do trial lawyers tell us about witness? they say they always contradict. So conflicts are just par for the course

But the four accounts are based on a single witness, via the passion narrative. The conflicts are due to later embellishments.

Nope, that is a misconception They all make use of the passion narrative but they all have unique material not in the others as well. Matt has M, Q, Luke has L,


If this was a trial, and one guy said Jesus was in Galilee, and the other two said he was in Jerusalem on that day, one account would be throw out.


No one said Jesus was in Galillee. he said he's going down there before you do. He did not say he is there right now." In John Mary sees Jesus while the angle is telling the other women. So he clearly wasn't there yet.

Joe: the problem there is you must able to recognize one and you are not

The problem is you cannot explain why Mark stated Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee.
I did;he did not say it. You are not translating the Greek you are translitterating English into your Senior
Just so there is no misunderstanding, Mark 16:8 is in present tense.It is not future it does not say literally:He is going to go.' I argue that it does not literally tell us he is literally on his way at this very moment. It connotes that his departure is immanent.


Moreover, at the very moment the women were hearing the angel tell them that, (if my harmony is right) Jesus was back at the tomb appearing to Mary M.
I really am in the dark about your use of that merman christology link. I am not a Mormon, did you think I was?
The Pixie said…
Joe: well that blows your argument so I do.

How? Mark says Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee to see the disciples there. Luke and John say Jesus saw the disciples that day in Jerusalem. That is still a contradiction.

Joe: Mark 16:7 " ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’" He is going ahead not that he's already gone. It could easily be rendered "he is going down there latter"

But it does not say that. It is the present tense; Jesus is already on his way.

Joe: Obviously not! Since I said Luke wrote it in a biased slanted manner, the words do not carry the kind of literalism a fundie pusts on them. I am literally saying the words are wrong The question is how wrong?

You are assuming Jesus was seen in Jerusalem on the Easter Sunday because that it what it says in the gospels. Assuming the gospels are true is the fundie approach, and quite the opposite to the scholars you routinely trot out. Brown rejects the guards on the tomb, Crossan rejects the empty tomb, Tabor rejects the Jerusalem appearances. They all take the same approach I do, look at the evidence and try to fit an explanation to the evidence. You have decided the gospels are true, so twist the evidence to fit your faith position.

Joe: I've said this every time, we have o text where Mark discusses appearances. The only appearance we have is the angle appearing not Jesus. Then there's the lost ending now it;s lost so we do;t know what it said

And I have addressed it every time. We do not know what the lost ending said - or even if there was one - but we do know it happened in Galilee, because the verses we do have are quite clear on that.

Read again what Tabor says in your reference 7:

"If one accepts that the empty tomb visit by Mary Magdalene and the women early Sunday morning belongs to a more original or earlier strata of the GPeter, as I am convinced is the case, then we have another independent witness to this all but forgotten post-resurrection scenario with no appearances of Jesus to the disciples in Jerusalem following the discovery of the empty tomb and their return to their fishing business in Galilee. This essential outline of things is supported by Mark, Matthew, John 21, and the GPeter with the alternative Jerusalem scenario found only in Luke 24 and John 20."

The emphasis is in the original. Tabor fully agrees with me on this. But then, he is a scholar, not a fundie, even though he is a Christian.

Joe: again it does not say that That;s a translation. it's in Greek. "he is going ahead e of you" does not mean he's already there or he's already left, it can just as well mean he is going to go ahead of you. peter and the guys ad not even heard of the empty tomb at the time the angle said that he's talking to the women.

The Greek is Προάγει, which Bible Hub translates as "He goes before". Are you saying they have the tense wrong? Or that in Koine Greek they was no difference between the present tense and the future tense?

Fortunately, there is a full list of all the inflections of the word here:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%AC%CE%B3%CF%89

It looks like Προάγει is either the present tense, active, indicative, third person or present tense, passive, indicative, second person. Given the context, we know it must be the third person, so it has to be the former.

Therefore, Mark has recorded it as the present tense. As the man was speaking, Jesus was already doing it, Jesus was already on his way to Galilee.

Mark believed Jesus had already left Jerusalem at the point when the tomb was found empty.
The Pixie said…
Pix: Again and again I ask you to explain why Mark wrote what he did; again and again you fail to do so.

Joe: read what I just said because I just told you.

But your explanation fails, because Mark chose to use the present tense, indicating Jesus was already on his way, rather than he was planning on setting off sometime in the future.

Joe: you know that is not the only thing I said at that point. your typical obfuscation

But of course you cannot repeat it because.... Oh, right, because it is a fantasy in your head.

Joe: Nope, that is a misconception They all make use of the passion narrative but they all have unique material not in the others as well. Matt has M, Q, Luke has L,

Q is believed to be a collection of sayings, so offers nothing with regards to that first Easter. M and L is just material unique to the respective gospels; it gives no suggestion as to the origin. It could as easily be rumours made up in their communities.

Joe: No one said Jesus was in Galillee. he said he's going down there before you do. He did not say he is there right now." In John Mary sees Jesus while the angle is telling the other women. So he clearly wasn't there yet.

Clearly he is not there yet if we assume the gospels are true! That is the fundie position, right?

Joe: I did;he did not say it. You are not translating the Greek you are translitterating English into your Senior

The Greek indicates the present tense, i.e., Jesus was already going to Galilee, not the future tense.

Joe: Just so there is no misunderstanding, Mark 16:8 is in present tense.It is not future it does not say literally:He is going to go.' I argue that it does not literally tell us he is literally on his way at this very moment. It connotes that his departure is immanent.

So in fact I WAS translating the Greek rather than merely transliterating English.

Joe: Moreover, at the very moment the women were hearing the angel tell them that, (if my harmony is right) Jesus was back at the tomb appearing to Mary M.

So in your harmony, the man in the tomb was wrong?

Joe: I really am in the dark about your use of that merman christology link. I am not a Mormon, did you think I was?

Nothing to do with me, despite the signature.
PX:But it does not say that. It is the present tense; Jesus is already on his way.

I could tell someone "I am going to Florida. I have plans to leave for Fibroid next week.I could say I am going to Florida that would be preened tense refers to the future. The angel did not say he is right now in Galilee.



Joe: Obviously not! Since I said Luke wrote it in a biased slanted manner, the words do not carry the kind of literalism a fundie pusts on them. I am literally saying the words are wrong The question is how wrong?

You are assuming Jesus was seen in Jerusalem on the Easter Sunday because that it what it says in the gospels. Assuming the gospels are true is the fundie approach, and quite the opposite to the scholars you routinely trot out.

(1)clnuk! that is the sound of your argument hitting the flood because you dropped it. (2) You are assuming Mark is true. Mark says Jesus rose,if people see him risen in Galilee he is still risen even if those are the only sightings.


Brown rejects the guards on the tomb, Crossan rejects the empty tomb, Tabor rejects the Jerusalem appearances.

clearly he did not, you have no quote where he says he does.
(2) Brown is not the greatest scholar ever he is not be all end all of Biblical scholarship.
(3) my belief was never predicated upon Brown



They all take the same approach I do, look at the evidence and try to fit an explanation to the evidence. You have decided the gospels are true, so twist the evidence to fit your faith position.


Bull shit. you are playing the atheist game Mark vs all. Mark is the only valid one bcause you mistakenly think it creates the evolutionary senerio.
The Greek is Προάγει, which Bible Hub translates as "He goes before". Are you saying they have the tense wrong? Or that in Koine Greek they was no difference between the present tense and the future tense?

I quoted the interlinear ver batim it said "he is going." he currently in process. it we can infer that at the moment the spike he had not left yet. the trip is in the works. Why would Jesus transport be bound by ordinary limitations of space and time?


Joe: Nope, that is a misconception They all make use of the passion narrative but they all have unique material not in the others as well. Matt has M, Q, Luke has L,

Q is believed to be a collection of sayings, so offers nothing with regards to that first Easter. M and L is just material unique to the respective gospels; it gives no suggestion as to the origin. It could as easily be rumours made up in their communities.

your jadeite propaganda divide and cosponsor wont work. Mark believed in the Resurrection, Even if we take Mark as the only gospel you still have risen Christ,
But your explanation fails, because Mark chose to use the present tense, indicating Jesus was already on his way, rather than he was planning on setting off sometime in the future.

that die not follow in English he is gong down there does not mean he is already there, The angel says Peter he will meet you there that'x what he;s saing not that he;already gone that he will meet him
The Pixie said…
Joe: I could tell someone "I am going to Florida. I have plans to leave for Fibroid next week.I could say I am going to Florida that would be preened tense refers to the future. The angel did not say he is right now in Galilee.

Are you claiming that the Greek can be translated as meaning 'Jesus is planning to go to Galilee'? Can you find anything to support that claim? Any scholars who hold that view?

The fact that every Bible translates it as saying Jesus is going on ahead, rather than intending to or planning to or will tells me this is just BS. This is the present tense, Joe. Something happening right now, not tomorrow.

Joe: (1)clnuk! that is the sound of your argument hitting the flood because you dropped it. (2) You are assuming Mark is true. Mark says Jesus rose,if people see him risen in Galilee he is still risen even if those are the only sightings.

I think Mark is more reliable because it was written closer to the events, and there was less time for stories to get invented. For most of the time between the events happening and Mark being written, witnesses were around who could shut down the more outrageous stories.

That does not mean Mark is 100% historical, and it is frankly bizarre that you would think that follows.

Mark certainly believed people saw the risen Jesus in Galilee, and furthermore I would say that those people believed they had seen the risen Jesus in Galilee. But that does not mean they actually saw the risen Jesus.

Joe: clearly he did not, you have no quote where he says he does.
(2) Brown is not the greatest scholar ever he is not be all end all of Biblical scholarship.
(3) my belief was never predicated upon Brown


If "he" is Brown, then yes, I do have a quote, and it appears in nearly every discussion we have. That you claim otherwise shows how your religion has blinded you to the truth. Look at the end of page 1311 to 1312.

Or close your eyes and pretend he agrees with you.

Joe: Bull shit. you are playing the atheist game ...

I.e., looking at the evidence and trying to work out what happened from that.

Joe: Bull shit. you are playing the atheist game Mark vs all. Mark is the only valid one bcause you mistakenly think it creates the evolutionary senerio.

Mark is more reliable because it was written closer to the events, and there was less time for stories to get invented.

Joe: I quoted the interlinear ver batim it said "he is going." he currently in process. it we can infer that at the moment the spike he had not left yet. the trip is in the works. ...

As you concede, he is currently in the process of going. That is travelling right now. If you are travelling tomorrow, then you are not in the process of going.

Joe: ... Why would Jesus transport be bound by ordinary limitations of space and time?

Possibly Mark was not as familiar with Star Trek as we are, and idea that Jesus could just teleport never occurred to him.

Joe: your jadeite propaganda divide and cosponsor wont work. Mark believed in the Resurrection, Even if we take Mark as the only gospel you still have risen Christ,

And that is James Tabor's position, the guy you cited as supporting your position!

In reality we have a number of disciples in Galilee who believed they saw the risen Jesus. That does not necessarily imply they actually saw Jesus.

In all this, you still have failed to explain why Mark gives no indication that Jesus was seen that day in Jerusalem by Peter.
Anonymous said…
And Joseph loses the debate as usual. What an ass.
you already lost, you are just repeating points I;ve already beaten you on
In all this, you still have failed to explain why Mark gives no indication that Jesus was seen that day in Jerusalem by Peter.

I;ve answered that more than once, go read the thread again do your hone work
Hint what did I say about the end of Mark?

why have you never answered the fact that Matthew contains everything Mark says in last chapter ?????????
The Pixie said…
Joe: I;ve answered that more than once, go read the thread again do your hone work

The point is that what we have of Mark indicates he was unaware of any appearances in Jerusalem before the appearance in Galilee. You can fantasize all you like about missing endings; what we have contradicts the later gospels that claim Peter and the other saw Jesus that day. What we have tells us the author believed Jesus had already gone to Galilee, and that that is where Jesus would first be seen.

In fact, it is more likely the ending is missing because it contradicts the later gospels (if there ever was any more to the ending).

Joe: why have you never answered the fact that Matthew contains everything Mark says in last chapter ?????????

Matthew is based on Mark, so of course it contains everything. So what? Matthew shows us how the story evolved over the next 10 to 20 years, with the addition of the guard on the tomb, the women immediately telling the disciples instead of never saying anything, and the addition of the appearance of Jesus to the women. These things are all embellishments that were made up later, so were not in Mark.

Now it is possible the appearance in Galilee that Matthew describes in your lost ending of Mark. It certainly fits with what we have of Mark - which the above do not.
your anwser is superficial. obviously Matt did not merely reproduce Mark ver batum he added other materiel, he makes sense of the problem of Galilee vs Jerusalem it is not a problem for him.

Ok I[m Im closing the thread, read todays post

Popular posts from this blog

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

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger