Six Levels of Verification for the Gospels
This is a thumb nail summary I did to post on CARM showing the eight levels of verification I've researched for the Gospels and listing the sources I use to back each one up. For the content see my "Historical Validity of the Gospels 1-3."
what's the point? Atheists are too easily dismissing the concept of validity by just declaring that Bible has none and no book has any. they have no tetrameters for what validity means, totally ignore the fact that scholars have scientific rules for establishing validity and taking the Bible out of the picture as though it doesn't exist by just stipulating that it's a pile a crap and not bothering to deal with the huge amazingly immense body of scholarly work surrounding the Gospels. This little thumb-nail is not even scratching the surface. This is just to highlight how ridiculous the atheist position is to simply ignore this whole discipline that's hundreds of years old and well proved.
Eight levels of Verification for Gospels underrigd belief in Res.
This post first saw life as an answer to other arguments I was making on the "other" board. It refers to things I have already documented and the names of the scholars I use to document them.
The argument it backs is this:
(1) There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight.
(2) These stores were first written must 18 years , not 40, not 60 after he events. Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong.
(3) While this hypothesis can't be proved absolutely the evidence for it is strong enough to foster confidence in the hypothesis: the resurrection is historical validated.
(4) logicians accept placing confidence in a partially proved hypothesis. so when I say that the evidence is strong enough to place confidence that means it's logical to accept the belief, especially if one has modern confirmations.*
*religious experience lending credence to belief.
Evdience:
the eight levels of verification
8 levels of Verification for Gospels
None of the atheist has answered these levels. A few have tried. Most have not even mentioned them. Most are just asserting they "can't be true" without even considering the facts.
those who have given it a good shot include GS and Elf, maybe a couple of others I can't recall my apologies if I can't.
those who have not even attempted yet asserting I haven't offered any evidence, even though they haven not attempted an answer include "Big thinker"Of course and Maybrick.
following is a summary of the sources I used. most of you were not willing even look at the links.
I list only 6 numberically the other 2 are a and b and c under Pauline.
1) The original pre Mark redaction
Sources of proof include Koester's book Ancient Christian Gospels, Jurgen denker,
John D. Crosson,
Ray Brown,
Hennecke-
Schneemelcher-
Wilson,
Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte, 646
Peter kirby says its consensus in the field.
(2)the Pauline corups
....(a) what he got form people who were there
Quoting Paul himself: quotes James, the Jerusalem church's creedal formula and hymns.
....(b) his saying source.
Koester documents
synoptic saying source
........(c) the chruch tradition he learned in Jerusalem
(3) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
Koester documents
Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha 1.96
Charles Hendrick and Paul Mirecki
Ron Cameron, ed., The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press 1982), pp. 23-37.)
Peter KIrby's site "Gosepel of Thoams"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html
Stephen J. Patterson, Gospel of Thomas and Jesus
Stevan L. Davies, The Gospel of Thomas: Annotated and Explained (Skylight Paths Pub 2002)
(4) Oral tradition
Papias (from Eusebius)
Robert C. Cully,Oral Tradition and Biblical Studies
(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.
(6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
1 Clement (the source)
Richardson and Fairweather, et al. Early Christian Fathers, New York: MacMillian, 1970 p.45-46).
F.F. Bruce, NT documents
Irenaeus, Agaisnt heresies and missing fragment supplied by Calvin ....college
Eusebius Ecclesiastic histories
Papias, fragments (Peter Kirby, Early Christian Writings, site:http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/papias.html
Schoedel 1967: 91-92;
Kortner 1983: 89-94, 167-72, 225-26).
Documents of the Christian Church, edited by Henry Bettonson, Oxford University press 1963, 27).
Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 1
Calvin College
Iranaeus describes works of Papis
Seteven Carlson's site:http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/...ext/papias.htm
these face statements like "the Gospels have no backing" and telling me I haven't done anything to prove anything, this is not good enough see? It's' an untruth.
Here are three pages on religious A priori that apply the above outline and flesh it out with the actual quotations.
Comments
(2) These stores were first written must 18 years , not 40, not 60 after he events. Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong.
But what exactly was in the original story circulating at that time? Certainly not the post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem - they clearly post date Mark.
Some scholars say the Empty Tomb pre-dates Mark. Let us suppose there was a story that the tomb was discoverted empty by three women and that they never told anyone - as Mark records it - there clearly would not be "a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong". In fact, there would only be three peple who could say it was wrong, and if they happened to be dead - and were specifically chosen because they werte dead - then there would be no witnesses to correct he claims.
Joe: (3) While this hypothesis can't be proved absolutely the evidence for it is strong enough to foster confidence in the hypothesis: the resurrection is historical validated.
It only shows they believed Jesus was resurrected, not that he was.
(4) logicians accept placing confidence in a partially proved hypothesis. so when I say that the evidence is strong enough to place confidence that means it's logical to accept the belief, especially if one has modern confirmations.*
So let's take a look at your six "levels":
Joe: 1) The original pre Mark redaction
There is a consensus that it exists, proving there was a very early belief in the resurrection.
That does not prove the resurrection happened.
That does not prove they believed the resurrection happened as described in the later gosdels with Jesus wondering around Jerusalem eating fish and showing off the crucifixion wounds.
(2)the Pauline corups
Again, this shows there was a very early belief in the resurrection. No more than that.
(3) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
This is just nonsense. The Gospel of Thomas has nothing about passion, so to claim it somehow supports the resurrection is just stupid.
Raymond Brown, who made his career based on his scholarship of Peter, believes the gospel was composed by a man who was very familiar with the canonical gospels, but was working from memory.
Joe: (4) Oral tradition
Papias (from Eusebius)
Papias was born three decades after Jesus died. He was a long way from the original events, allowing a lot of time for new stories to get invented (such as those appearances in Jerusalem).
Seriously, in what sense do you think Papias verifies the resurrection?
Joe: (5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.
Do they? How many of the people who were with Jesus were still alive when Matthew, Luke and John were written? How many were in the communities that produced the gospels? Matthew was probably written in Antioch. How many of those who knew Jesus were in the Christian community in Antioch in AD 80? Very few, possibly none.
Joe: (6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
How is this different to number 4?
What we have is good evidence in the pre-Markan passion narrative and in the creed at the start of 1 Cor 15 that the early Christians believed they had seen the risen Jesus. From Mark (and just possibly Peter) that was almost certainly in Galilee, and I strongly suspect what they saw and understood to be Jesus was a bright light, just as Paul saw and just as Jews expected the resurrected to appear (Dan 12:3).
(2) These stores were first written must 18 years , not 40, not 60 after he events. Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong.
But what exactly was in the original story circulating at that time? Certainly not the post-resurrection appearances in Jerusalem - they clearly post date Mark.
still open for deate
Some scholars say the Empty Tomb pre-dates Mark. Let us suppose there was a story that the tomb was discoverted empty by three women and that they never told anyone - as Mark records it - there clearly would not be "a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong". In fact, there would only be three peple who could say it was wrong, and if they happened to be dead - and were specifically chosen because they werte dead - then there would be no witnesses to correct he claims.
that's a materialism worthy of a fundamentalist. We can't take that idea literally they clearly told someone sometime, but the fact of Mary m. and John going to the tomb separately make the women; testimony irrelevant,
It only shows they believed Jesus was resurrected, not that he was.
but their reasons for belief were that they saw him alive again
(4) logicians accept placing confidence in a partially proved hypothesis. so when I say that the evidence is strong enough to place confidence that means it's logical to accept the belief, especially if one has modern confirmations.*
So let's take a look at your six "levels":
Joe: 1) The original pre Mark redaction
There is a consensus that it exists, proving there was a very early belief in the resurrection.
That does not prove the resurrection happened.
It doesn't have to
That does not prove they believed the resurrection happened as described in the later gosdels with Jesus wondering around Jerusalem eating fish and showing off the crucifixion wounds.
your reason for doubting it is ideological not historical
Again, this shows there was a very early belief in the resurrection. No more than that.
you make no answer
(3) extra canonical Gospels such as Peter and Thomas
This is just nonsense. The Gospel of Thomas has nothing about passion, so to claim it somehow supports the resurrection is just stupid.
It is a collection of sayings it has no narrative structure But the sayings are important,reinforce the story
Raymond Brown, who made his career based on his scholarship of Peter, believes the gospel was composed by a man who was very familiar with the canonical gospels, but was working from memory.
how many times do you need correction? I quoted Brown several times He dies not say that as a definitive rebuttal to eye witness claims. He also says Peter used independent tradition that are not derived from the canonical.
Joe: (4) Oral tradition
Papias (from Eusebius)
Papias was born three decades after Jesus died. He was a long way from the original events, allowing a lot of time for new stories to get invented (such as those appearances in Jerusalem).
he was taught by John and knew other eye witnesses as well
Seriously, in what sense do you think Papias verifies the resurrection?
he also studied with two other major writers of the era Polycarp and Ignatius,together they affirm they knew John and other eye witnesses to Jesus' life.
Joe: (5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.
Do they? How many of the people who were with Jesus were still alive when Matthew, Luke and John were written? How many were in the communities that produced the gospels? Matthew was probably written in Antioch. How many of those who knew Jesus were in the Christian community in Antioch in AD 80? Very few, possibly none.
the important thing is the pre Mark redaction not those canonical gospels.Pre Mark Passion narrative
Joe: (6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
How is this different to number 4?
two toally different concepts, 4 is about the stories that make up the pericopes being handed on through the community in organized sessions where the contents were recited and memorized, (6) is about certain people recounting their knwoeldege of figures who witnessed Jesus; life.
What we have is good evidence in the pre-Markan passion narrative and in the creed at the start of 1 Cor 15 that the early Christians believed they had seen the risen Jesus. From Mark (and just possibly Peter) that was almost certainly in Galilee, and I strongly suspect what they saw and understood to be Jesus was a bright light, just as Paul saw and just as Jews expected the resurrected to appear (Dan 12:3).
that would not be posssible without no 4 so thatcofirms my poimt 4.
Agreed.
Joe: that's a materialism worthy of a fundamentalist. We can't take that idea literally they clearly told someone sometime, but the fact of Mary m. and John going to the tomb separately make the women; testimony irrelevant,
If we assume the story is true, then "clearly told someone sometime". But that is a circular argument. If the story was made up, then it is quite a different situation.
Joe: but their reasons for belief were that they saw him alive again
How do you know they were not mistaken?
Joe: your reason for doubting it is ideological not historical
My reason for doubting it is the lack of evidence.
Joe: you make no answer
All the evidence says is they believed the resurrection happened, and the evidence points to that happening in Galilee, and what they saw was likely a bright light.
Joe: It is a collection of sayings it has no narrative structure But the sayings are important,reinforce the story
"Story" is right! NOTHING in Thomas supports the resurrection.
Joe: how many times do you need correction? I quoted Brown several times He dies not say that as a definitive rebuttal to eye witness claims. He also says Peter used independent tradition that are not derived from the canonical.
That independent source for the guards - according to Brown - is a story made up subsequent to Mark. No support for your resurrection.
Joe: he was taught by John and knew other eye witnesses as well
Okay, so quote Papias on the resurrection. Otherwise you have nothing.
Joe: the important thing is the pre Mark redaction not those canonical gospels.Pre Mark Passion narrative
I agree. That and the creed in 1 Cor 15 are the only "levels" you have.
Pix
"An ancient collection of sayings ascribed to Jesus, about half of which parallel sayings found in the canonical NT gospels. Thomas is the most important text relevant to gospel scholarship discovered in the 20th c.
This work is an assortment of 114 sayings (aphorisms, parables, mini-dialogs, & sayings clusters) without any connecting narrative. Sayings are prefaced with minimal introduction ("Jesus said:...," "And he said:...," "The disciples said:..."). The only other statement is the prologue: https://virtualreligion.net/primer/thomas.html
Joe: that's a liberalism worthy of a fundamentalist. We can't take that idea literally they clearly told someone sometime, but the fact of Mary m. and John going to the tomb separately make the women; testimony irrelevant,
pxIf we assume the story is true, then "clearly told someone sometime". But that is a circular argument. If the story was made up, then it is quite a different situation.
No scholar takes seriously the idea that they were just made up. Everyone knows the gospels are records of events known by the community to be history
Joe: but their reasons for belief were that they saw him alive again
pxHow do you know they were not mistaken?
One or two might be but as many as 5oo saw him he walked trough the centerr town of Bethany and was seen by huge crowd. He appeared to apostle several times.
Joe: your reason for doubting it is ideological not historical
pxMy reason for doubting it is the lack of evidence.
I just gave you six levels of evidence, So far our only real argument is: I refuse to believe,"
Joe: you make no answer
pxAll the evidence says is they believed the resurrection happened, and the evidence points to that happening in Galilee, and what they saw was likely a bright light.
they believed because they saw him alive again
Joe: It is a collection of sayings it has no narrative structure But the sayings are important,reinforce the story
px"Story" is right! NOTHING in Thomas supports the resurrection.
I didn't say they were, I said the levels of verification are general or gospel events,not just for that one.
Joe: how many times do you need correction? I quoted Brown several times He dies not say that as a definitive rebuttal to eye witness claims. He also says Peter used independent tradition that are not derived from the canonical.
Brown as a believer
pxThat independent source for the guards - according to Brown - is a story made up subsequent to Mark. No support for your resurrection.
Nope he did not, he never said it was post Mark, he also believed in the resurrection himself.
pxOkay, so quote Papias on the resurrection. Otherwise you have nothing.
His words are famous
"It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. "
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
Joe: the important thing is the pre Mark redaction not those canonical gospels.Pre Mark Passion narrative
pxI agree. That and the creed in 1 Cor 15 are the only "levels" you have.
you don't even understand the basic issues.I have sustained every level I've answered every bogus busllshit argument you made.
-Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 3.34.1-3.36.2
That is simply not true, and that you are trying to promote such a falsehood speaks vcolumes about your schoilarship here.
Most scholars do not think the Empty Tomb was even in the passion narrative, as this page shows:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion-young.html
The two scholars you routinely trot out as dating the Empty Tomb earlier are Crossen and Koester, but Crossan famously thinks the body was not even buried, but left for dogs to eat! And it is questionable if Koester even holds that position; I have yet to see a quote to support your claim.
Joe: One or two might be but as many as 5oo saw him he walked trough the centerr town of Bethany and was seen by huge crowd. He appeared to apostle several times.
As a Christian fundie, you are obliged to assume the gospel accounts are true I suppose. The appearances in Jerusalem (including Bethany) were almost certainly made up after Mark was written, and those who lived at the time were dead. The earliest creed is believed to be verses 3 to 5, i.e., excluding the appearance to the 500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15
What the Jews expected to see with regards to a resurrected saint was a bright light, shining like a star. I think it quite plausible that such a light was seen on more than one occasion, and mistaken for the resurrected Jesus on each occasion, especially given the power of suggestion after the first appearance to Peter.
Joe: I just gave you six levels of evidence, So far our only real argument is: I refuse to believe,"
I refuse to believe because your evidence is so slight, and there is better evidence that you are wrong.
* The Gospel of Mark clearly indicates Jesus was seen first in Galilee in both chapters 14 and 16, which is strong evidence all the Jerusalem appearances were made up.
* Most scholars think the Empty Tomb was absent from the earlier narrative, and those who disagree think it was made up; good reason to think it was made up.
Joe: I didn't say they were, I said the levels of verification are general or gospel events,not just for that one.
If you just want to say Jesus said a bunch of stuff, then so what? Most atheists will agree with you - as will Jews and Muslims. So what? Are you really just going for such a low hanging fruit?
Or is this the usual Joe Hinman bait and switch? Argue for something non-controversial, then when you win, pretend it was about something else.
Bait: I have proved the mind is not reducible to the brain (which plenty of atheists believe).
Switch: Therefore I have shown those stupid atheists there is a spirit/soul that persists after death.
Bait: I have proved the gospels are right in places about Jesus saying some stuff (which plenty of atheists believe).
Switch: Therefore I have shown those stupid atheists that Jesus was resurrected.
Nevertheless, he agrees with me on this point.
And that is pretty damning for your argument.
Joe: Nope he did not, he never said it was post Mark
Yes he did. Perhaps you meant to say that he never did in the bits of his text you cherry pick.
Brown is very clear the guard on the tomb never happened in his view (from pages 1311-1312):
Yet there is a major argument against historicity that is impressive indeed. Not only do the other gospels not mention the guard at the sepulcher, but the presence of the guard there would make what they narrate about the tomb almost unintelligible. The three other canonical Gospels have women come to the tomb on Easter, and the only obstacle mentioned is the stone. Certainly the evangelists would have to explain how the women hoped to get into the tomb if there was a guard placed there precisely to prevent entry. In the other Gospels the stone is already removed or rolled back when the women get there. How can we reconcile that with Matt's account where, while the women are at the sepulcher, an angel comes down out of heaven and rolls back the stone? There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account (e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about his resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); but they touch on the minor details of the story.The lack of harmony with the other Gospels touches on the heart of the story, i.e., the very existence of a guard.
Pix: Okay, so quote Papias on the resurrection. Otherwise you have nothing.
Joe: His words are famous
"It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his...
Those are not his words! They are someone else writing about him.
Joe: "It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above. We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day. He also mentions another miracle relating to Justus, surnamed Barsabas, how he swallowed a deadly poison, and received no harm, on account of the grace of the Lord. The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. "
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
I think we have already established that you failed to read the text, so you will not realise that it does not help you position one jot. Firstly, it says it got the information "from tradition", rather than "he was taught by John and knew other eye witnesses as well" as you claimed.
Furthermore, with regards to what actually happened, this tells us next to nothing. Is it even about Jesus? It could as easily refer to Lazarus, or - more likely - to some more recent supposed miracle. But even if we suppose this does refer to Jesus, it gives no support to the Jerusalem appearances, no support to the Empty Tomb, no support to the sighting by the 500.
I would also add that nothing else on that web page mentions the resurrection at all. All Papias tells us is that they believed Jesus was resurrected; no more than we already had from the creed in 1 Cor 15 and the passion narrative.
Joe: No scholar takes seriously the idea that they were just made up. Everyone knows the gospels are records of events known by the community to be history
That is simply not true, and that you are trying to promote such a falsehood speaks vcolumes about your schoilarship here.
Most scholars do not think the Empty Tomb was even in the passion narrative, as this page shows:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion-young.html
The two scholars you routinely trot out as dating the Empty Tomb earlier are Crossen and Koester, but Crossan famously thinks the body was not even buried, but left for dogs to eat! And it is questionable if Koester even holds that position; I have yet to see a quote to support your claim.
that is not the same as saying the narrative was just made up! You are saying the truth of what happened is different from the narrative,I am saying that does not mean they sat down and said "ok let;s invent a lie that will sucker people." You have not quoted a scholar who said they did that.
Cross never says the purposelessly invented a false narrative.
Joe: One or two might be but as many as 5oo saw him he walked trough the center town of Bethany and was seen by huge crowd. He appeared to apostle several times.
As a Christian fundie, you are obliged to assume the gospel accounts are true I suppose.
I am not a fundamentalist,why would you think I would be? Ignorance of theology
The appearances in Jerusalem (including Bethany) were almost certainly made up after Mark was written, and those who lived at the time were dead. The earliest creed is believed to be verses 3 to 5, i.e., excluding the appearance to the 500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15
More idiotic reliance upon Mark. thinking Marl is the origin of the narrative gives you a sense of having it all nailed down but but it's just self deception.
What the Jews expected to see with regards to a resurrected saint was a bright light, shining like a star. I think it quite plausible that such a light was seen on more than one occasion, and mistaken for the resurrected Jesus on each occasion, especially given the power of suggestion after the first appearance to Peter.
what bull shit, what statement are you taking too literally to get that?
Joe: I just gave you six levels of evidence, So far our only real argument is: I refuse to believe,"
I refuse to believe because your evidence is so slight, and there is better evidence that you are wrong.
you have not offered a single argent to disprove it,you are merely asserting that you are right
* The Gospel of Mark clearly indicates Jesus was seen first in Galilee in both chapters 14 and 16, which is strong evidence all the Jerusalem appearances were made up.
if the Jerusalem appearances are made up that doesn't disprove the Galilee appearances. He still rose.Even so why assume Mark is the gold standard? that is not proof that Jerusalem appearances were made up. No one makimng things up.
* Most scholars think the Empty Tomb was absent from the earlier narrative, and those who disagree think it was made up; good reason to think it was made up.
No wrong, The Rabbi Pincus who is major scholar and ethos have made a big deal out of the empty tomb being part of it from the beginning. William Lane Carig's "om the third day" argument is good. That phrase is as old as any it goes all the way back it implies a set narrate was in place from very early.
Joe: I didn't say they were, I said the levels of verification are general or gospel events,not just for that one.
If you just want to say Jesus said a bunch of stuff, then so what? Most atheists will agree with you - as will Jews and Muslims. So what? Are you really just going for such a low hanging fruit?
we could codify the body of his tracings, those form a complete corpus going all the way back ,they were already developed before Mark. That is not amazing. The thing that made him noteworthy must have included a set body of teaching. That would be true in any case.
I gave six levels you admitted to three of them; any one of them should be enough to justify belief. (I actually have eight levels it;s a problem with clarification).
Or is this the usual Joe Hinman bait and switch? Argue for something non-controversial, then when you win, pretend it was about something else.
tired of losing?
Bait: I have proved the mind is not reducible to the brain (which plenty of atheists believe).
Switch: Therefore I have shown those stupid atheists there is a spirit/soul that persists after death.
What that really means is you fear that my arguments prove that,I never actually said that. I regard the soul as a part of the package not something that can be proven on it's own,
Bait: I have proved the gospels are right in places about Jesus saying some stuff (which plenty of atheists believe).
Switch: Therefore I have shown those stupid atheists that Jesus was resurrected.
I actually spelled out six areas where the story is verified, you have done nothing to undermine any of them (actually you admitted to tree),
12/03/2019 12:19:00 AM Delete
Nevertheless, he agrees with me on this point.
And that is pretty damning for your argument.
No he does not, you are trying to streak what he said to imply something he never meant,
Joe: Nope he did not, he never said it was post Mark
Yes he did. Perhaps you meant to say that he never did in the bits of his text you cherry pick.
quote the section where he says no one copies that way. I've disproved this several times now,how many times are you going to repeat it? errant nonsense,
Brown is very clear the guard on the tomb never happened in his view (from pages 1311-1312):
o I predisposed that im not messing with it again
No reason to think the women knew about the guards. they were not privie to the decisions of government. just because they only talked about what they knew the stone doesn;t mean the guards were not there.
Harmony of Resurrection accounts
How can we reconcile that with Matt's account where, while the women are at the sepulcher, an angel comes down out of heaven and rolls back the stone? There are other internal implausibilities in Matt's account
read it in Greek, The tense is aorist meaning it happened in the past, they were not there while the stone was being rolled,that was a flash back, the Greek verb tense tells us so.
(e.g., that the Jewish authorities knew the words of Jesus about his resurrection and understood them, when his own disciples did not; that the guards could lie successfully about the astounding heavenly intervention); but they touch on the minor details of the story.The lack of harmony with the other Gospels touches on the heart of the story, i.e., the very existence of a guard.
the disciples understood it when it happened.
Pix: Okay, so quote Papias on the resurrection. Otherwise you have nothing.
I did quote him in my last post,
Joe: His words are famous
"It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his...
Those are not his words! They are someone else writing about him.
that guy is quoting him so he just introduces his words but they are his words.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html
I think we have already established that you failed to read the text, so you will not realise that it does not help you position one jot. Firstly, it says it got the information "from tradition", rather than "he was taught by John and knew other eye witnesses as well" as you claimed.
you prove that that is not an actuate report on his belief. if he believed in a resurrection from his own time why would he not believe in Christ's resurrection?" We know from Paul they already taught Jesus' resurrection from the 50's.
Furthermore, with regards to what actually happened, this tells us next to nothing. Is it even about Jesus? It could as easily refer to Lazarus, or - more likely - to some more recent supposed miracle. But even if we suppose this does refer to Jesus, it gives no support to the Jerusalem appearances, no support to the Empty Tomb, no support to the sighting by the 500.
are you seriously trying to argue that we don't know they taught the resurrection as early as the AD 50s? I;ve not only proven that several times with the pre Mark passion narrative but Paul proves it too.. and Acts.that is such abhorrent ignorance.
I would also add that nothing else on that web page mentions the resurrection at all. All Papias tells us is that they believed Jesus was resurrected; no more than we already had from the creed in 1 Cor 15 and the passion narrative.
That's enough what else do you want him to say?
12/03/2019 12:20:00 AM Delete
"If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice."
Papias
Polycarp
Ignatious
three major links from Apostles into second century
https://www.risenjesus.com/the-early-church-fathers-on-jesus
"Two of the earliest Church Fathers, Polycarp and Ignatius taught the deity of Christ. The early Church father, Irenaeus (circa A. D. 120-190) wrote that Polycarp was “instructed” and “appointed” by the apostles, “conversed with many who had seen Christ,” “having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles,”(2) “the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,'”(3) So his view of Jesus is very important. In The Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, he mentions “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “our Lord and God Jesus Christ.”(4)
You take Mark as the only valid source and indeed the origin of the whole religion because it's older. That's a very mature mistake,
John indicates that Mary Madeline left the women at the tomb and went to get John and Peter' those three came back separately and fond the tomb and saw the risen Jesus.The next day everyone in Jerusalem knew of the empty tomb,
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lake.html
"The hospitality of the Philippians -- Their faith
1 I rejoice greatly with you in our Lord Jesus Christ that you have followed the pattern of true love, and have helped on their way, as opportunity was given you, those who were bound in chains, which become the saints, and are the diadems of those who have been truly chosen by God and our Lord. 2 I rejoice also that your firmly rooted faith, which was famous in past years, still flourishes and bears fruit unto our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured for our sins, even to the suffering of death, "whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of Hades, 3 in whom, though you did not see him, you believed in unspeakable and glorified joy," -- into which joy many desire to come, knowing that "by grace ye are saved, not by works" but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."
That is not what happened. They sincerely believed the resurrection happened, and invented additions to the story to support promoting that belief.
Joe: Cross never says the purposelessly invented a false narrative.
So what do you think Crossen does belief? He thinks the Empty Tomb story is false, and he surely thinks the story is part of the gospels. Did it magically appear?
Joe: I am not a fundamentalist,why would you think I would be? Ignorance of theology
In some areas you cling to the Bible narrative with the same tenacity as a fundamentalist. You assume the Empty Tomb is fact. You assume the Jerusalem appearances actually happened exactly as written. What is your evidence? It is in the gospels, therefore it must be true, right?
Joe: More idiotic reliance upon Mark. thinking Marl is the origin of the narrative gives you a sense of having it all nailed down but but it's just self deception.
Mark is the earliest narrative we have (besides the very brief verses in 1 Cor 15), and was the only gospel we have that was written when the witnesses were likely still around to correct the more outrageous embellishments. I think that that is a great reason to think that Mark is significantly more reliable than the later gospels.
You alluded to this in your post:
"There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight."
"... Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong."
This was true of Mark, but not of the later gospels. But as a typical fundie, you cherry-pick. If an argument supports one claim you embrace it, but when the same argument indicates you are wrong, you disregard it.
Joe: what bull shit, what statement are you taking too literally to get that?
Daniel 12. what evidence do you have they expected something else?
Presumably there was something that actually happened in Galilee, and was the basis for their belief in the resurrection. Whether it was Jesus resurrected we do not know; we do not even know what sort of a thing they saw.
Joe: ... He still rose.Even so why assume Mark is the gold standard?...
Because Mark is the earliest account we have, written when witnesses were still around to correct the narrative. Surely this is obvious, given you made this same point yourself in the original post?
Joe: ... that is not proof that Jerusalem appearances were made up. No one makimng things up.
And yet Bible scholars - and Christian ones at that - think some aspects of the story were not true. How can that be unless those Christian Biblical scholars believe some of the stories were indeed made up?
See, this is what I mean about your fundamentalism. You are so utterly convinced the gospels are true in every particular.
Joe: No wrong, The Rabbi Pincus who is major scholar and ethos have made a big deal out of the empty tomb being part of it from the beginning.
I never said all scholars, so a single example does not make me wrong.
Joe: William Lane Carig's "om the third day" argument is good. That phrase is as old as any it goes all the way back it implies a set narrate was in place from very early.
That does not prove Jesus was seen on the third day. Much of the passion narrative was deduced from the Old Testament, and this is likely to be the same. Jonah was in the whale three days, so Jesus was in the ground three days. The likelihood is that the appearances in Galilee (whatever it actually was) were several days later, perhaps even months, given it would take a few days for them to walk there (the accounts in John 21 and Peter suggest they had resumed their old lives as fisherman before they saw it).
Joe: we could codify the body of his tracings, those form a complete corpus going all the way back ,they were already developed before Mark. That is not amazing. The thing that made him noteworthy must have included a set body of teaching. That would be true in any case.
So what? As Paul rightly points out, without the resurrection, Christianity is nothing.
Joe: I actually spelled out six areas where the story is verified, you have done nothing to undermine any of them (actually you admitted to tree),
What story? What Jesus preached? Big deal!
Wake me up when you have something worth reading about.
Joe: No he does not, you are trying to streak what he said to imply something he never meant,
Brown is clear that he believes the guard on the tomb is made up.
That is not what happened. They sincerely believed the resurrection happened, and invented additions to the story to support promoting that belief.
At least we agree that is a viable scenario that deserves thought.
Joe: Cross never says the purposelessly invented a false narrative.
So what do you think Crossen does belief? He thinks the Empty Tomb story is false, and he surely thinks the story is part of the gospels. Did it magically appear?
He holds to a modern rationalist view,I can partially sympathize with that although I reject it as too self consciously modern,
Joe: I am not a fundamentalist,why would you think I would be? Ignorance of theology
In some areas you cling to the Bible narrative with the same tenacity as a fundamentalist. You assume the Empty Tomb is fact. You assume the Jerusalem appearances actually happened exactly as written. What is your evidence? It is in the gospels, therefore it must be true, right?
Fundies are committed to truth. Not liking truth is not their problem. Their problem is too unsophisticated a notion of truth. I admire their dedication to truth itself.
Joe: More idiotic reliance upon Mark. thinking Mark is the origin of the narrative gives you a sense of having it all nailed down but but it's just self deception.
Mark is the earliest narrative we have (besides the very brief verses in 1 Cor 15), and was the only gospel we have that was written when the witnesses were likely still around to correct the more outrageous embellishments. I think that that is a great reason to think that Mark is significantly more reliable than the later gospels.
Earliest of the canonical. But some of the non canonical Gospels might be as old. For example the synoptic sayings in Thomas are probably older than Mark.
You alluded to this in your post:
"There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight."
"... Still a major source of eye witnesses lived in order to correct the statements should they be wrong."
This was true of Mark, but not of the later gospels. But as a typical fundie, you cherry-pick. If an argument supports one claim you embrace it, but when the same argument indicates you are wrong, you disregard it.
No you are misunderstanding what it means to say Mark was the first written,it means of the canonical gospels not the first ever Gospel. Material in Matt,Luke and John is older than Mark's writing,the versions of Mark used by Matt and by Luke are to different versions. they are both older than the copy of mark we have now. see Koester Early Christian Gospels
Joe: what bull shit, what statement are you taking too literally to get that?
Daniel 12. what evidence do you have they expected something else?
Read Koester, you don't have a clear understanding of the process of transmission. We have our different versions of Mark. There'san old theory about an UR Mark.
Presumably there was something that actually happened in Galilee, and was the basis for their belief in the resurrection. Whether it was Jesus resurrected we do not know; we do not even know what sort of a thing they saw.
I don't see why we should not take them at their word. I also don't see why we should ignore the Jerusalem sightings. Of the witnesses fanned out to different communities then we are just getting paces of the same puzzle.
Joe: ... He still rose.Even so why assume Mark is the gold standard?...
Because Mark is the earliest account we have, written when witnesses were still around to correct the narrative. Surely this is obvious, given you made this same point yourself in the original post?
there's like a five year difference in Mark and Luke. The version of Mark used by Matt is not the version used by Luke, the version we have as mark itself is not as old as the version used by Matt, All if that means they are using the same pool of witnesses and stories. Mark just has a faster pen. Moreover, Papias said Mark did not bother to put things in chronological order, so that means John is closer to the order of events.
Joe: ... that is not proof that Jerusalem appearances were made up. No one makimng things up.
And yet Bible scholars - and Christian ones at that - think some aspects of the story were not true. How can that be unless those Christian Biblical scholars believe some of the stories were indeed made up?
Getting wrong and making up are two different things
See, this is what I mean about your fundamentalism. You are so utterly convinced the gospels are true in every particular.
I don't think so But I don;t discount things just for the sake of being modern,
Joe: No wrong, The Rabbi Pincus who is major scholar and ethos have made a big deal out of the empty tomb being part of it from the beginning.
I never said all scholars, so a single example does not make me wrong.
It's more than one guy
Joe: William Lane Carig's "on the third day" argument is good. That phrase is as old as any it goes all the way back it implies a set narrate was in place from very early.
That does not prove Jesus was seen on the third day. Much of the passion narrative was deduced from the Old Testament, and this is likely to be the same. Jonah was in the whale three days, so Jesus was in the ground three days. The likelihood is that the appearances in Galilee (whatever it actually was) were several days later, perhaps even months, given it would take a few days for them to walk there (the accounts in John 21 and Peter suggest they had resumed their old lives as fisherman before they saw it).
You are discounting a huge tradition of eyewitness testimony in favor of an unproveable theory merely for the sake of not being labeled a certain way.
So what? As Paul rightly points out, without the resurrection, Christianity is nothing.
that was Paul the rhetorician. Logically it's not true. But what the hell, I do believe in the Res.
Joe: I actually spelled out six areas where the story is verified, you have done nothing to undermine any of them (actually you admitted to tree),
What story? What Jesus preached? Big deal!
Koester's argument of the Pre mark passion narrative. the basic story the four Gospels follow from the advent of Jesus ministry to the empty tomb.
Wake me up when you have something worth reading about.
closed minded don't be stick in the mud.Don't be a modernist party pooper!
Joe: No he does not, you are trying to streak what he said to imply something he never meant,
Brown is clear that he believes the guard on the tomb is made up.
Quote him
Brown is atheist Darling of the year. the one they all trot out become someone who hadn't read much of his work thought he supported their scathing hatred of the bible. But we went through the same thing with Crosson around 2000. Every atheist had his set of Crosson quotes and anything they needed Crosson was Trotted out.
I helped kill their attachment to Crosson when I started quoting his faith statements. they dropped him like a hot rock. O think Crosson himself did it when he criticized the Jesus' mythers harshly but I made that known to them.
Therefore he does not think the story of the empty tomb appeared by magic, therefore - given he thinks it is not true - he thinks it was made up.
Joe: Fundies are committed to truth. Not liking truth is not their problem. Their problem is too unsophisticated a notion of truth. I admire their dedication to truth itself.
Fundies are dedicated to a particular story that they consider to be true. Their problem is that they make the unwarranted assumption the story is true, and then ignore any evidence that suggests they are wrong - and indeed are unable to accept the possibility of being wrong. You may not consider the OT to be literal, but with regards to the NT, you are a fundie. You assume every word is true, and seem unable to even consider the possibility that may not be the case.
Pix: Mark is the earliest narrative we have ...
Joe: Earliest of the canonical. But some of the non canonical Gospels might be as old. For example the synoptic sayings in Thomas are probably older than Mark.
But I was talking about the passion narrative, which is entirely absent from Thomas. Thomas may be earlier than Mark, but it is not an earlier narrative.
Joe: No you are misunderstanding what it means to say Mark was the first written,it means of the canonical gospels not the first ever Gospel. Material in Matt,Luke and John is older than Mark's writing,the versions of Mark used by Matt and by Luke are to different versions. they are both older than the copy of mark we have now. see Koester Early Christian Gospels
No misunderstanding on my part. The point here is that the later gospels did not have the benefit of witnesses still being alive to ensure they were not outlandishly embellished.
The issue is not whether the additional material is older - some of it likely is - but whether some of it was made up. And again, some of it likely was.
The authors were compilers first and foremost. They collected stories from various sources (the authors of Matthew and Luke from Mark especially), and those sources could have been reliable and old, but they could have been relatively recent (to the author) and made up. When it comes to the nativity stories, for example, or the guard on the tomb, these were almost certainly made up relatively recently; stories that could only circulate once the actual witnesses had died.
Joe: Read Koester, you don't have a clear understanding of the process of transmission. We have our different versions of Mark. There'san old theory about an UR Mark.
I appreciate that what we have is not the original, nevertheless, Mark is still the best guide we have.
Joe: I don't see why we should not take them at their word. I also don't see why we should ignore the Jerusalem sightings. Of the witnesses fanned out to different communities then we are just getting paces of the same puzzle.
You are a fundie, so of course you have to take them at their word.
I can see that Mark states Jesus went on ahead to Galilee, whilst Luke and John have no mention of Galilee, but claim Jesus was seen that day in Jerusalem. Mark says the women never told anyone, Matthew that they immediate told the disciples. I personally think the simplest explanation is that they made stuff up (or included stories others had made up).
More like 10 to 30, during some very turbulent times.
Joe: The version of Mark used by Matt is not the version used by Luke, the version we have as mark itself is not as old as the version used by Matt, All if that means they are using the same pool of witnesses and stories. Mark just has a faster pen. Moreover, Papias said Mark did not bother to put things in chronological order, so that means John is closer to the order of events.
Not sure what your point is. It is generally accepted that what we have today is pretty close to the original - this is why we still call it the Gospel of Mark. Was Papias comparing Mark and John? If not, then how can we suppose John is any better n his ordering. If he is, it is likely Papias is using John as his standard - he is assuming John is better. What are his reasons for doing that?
Joe: Getting wrong and making up are two different things
And when it comes to the empty tomb, the guard on the tomb, the spear in Jesus' side, the anointing the corpse by Josephus and Nicodemus; these are not just people getting it wrong, it is people making stuff up.
Joe: I don't think so But I don;t discount things just for the sake of being modern,
Good. Discount them because the evidence indicates they never happened, because the Biblical scholars you routinely cite say they never happened.
Joe: You are discounting a huge tradition of eyewitness testimony in favor of an unproveable theory merely for the sake of not being labeled a certain way.
The tradition that Jesus was seen on the third day only appeared after Mark was written! Nothing in Mark, the Pauline epistles, or even the gospels of Thomas and Peter. Nothing until Matthew was written around AD 80.
Why is that? Because it was made up, and prior to that time witnesses were still around who had lived in Jerusalem and knew Jesus had not been seen there.
Joe: I actually spelled out six areas where the story is verified, you have done nothing to undermine any of them (actually you admitted to tree),
Pix: What story? What Jesus preached? Big deal!
Joe: Koester's argument of the Pre mark passion narrative. the basic story the four Gospels follow from the advent of Jesus ministry to the empty tomb.
Here is that bait-and-switch in action. You spelled out six areas the story - Jesus preaching some stuff - was verified, and then conclude the Empty Tomb!
Joe: Quote him
I have - on numerous threads including this one. But as a fundie, you have already decided he agrees with you, so just ignore it.
Joe: Brown is atheist Darling of the year. the one they all trot out become someone who hadn't read much of his work thought he supported their scathing hatred of the bible. But we went through the same thing with Crosson around 2000. Every atheist had his set of Crosson quotes and anything they needed Crosson was Trotted out.
I helped kill their attachment to Crosson when I started quoting his faith statements. they dropped him like a hot rock. O think Crosson himself did it when he criticized the Jesus' mythers harshly but I made that known to them.
Brown and Crossan have their faith, and I disagree with them on that, but their scholarly positions seem very reasonable - and rather more aligned to my view than yours. I have read Brown's book, and found with each point I either agreed with it or was persuaded by it. I have recently purchased "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" by Crossan, though have yet to read much of it; again, I think I will agree with much of it.
PxTherefore he does not think the story of the empty tomb appeared by magic, therefore - given he thinks it is not true - he thinks it was made up.
so much for modern rationalism
Joe: Fundies are committed to truth. Not liking truth is not their problem. Their problem is too unsophisticated a notion of truth. I admire their dedication to truth itself.
Fundies are dedicated to a particular story that they consider to be true. Their problem is that they make the unwarranted assumption the story is true, and then ignore any evidence that suggests they are wrong - and indeed are unable to accept the possibility of being wrong. You may not consider the OT to be literal, but with regards to the NT, you are a fundie. You assume every word is true, and seem unable to even consider the possibility that may not be the case.
that's is saying nothing other than the fact that they and you have different interpretations of the facts. Labels can clarify but they can also get in the way.I don't do history by labels.Rather i draw my labels according to how I see the facts.
Pix: Mark is the earliest narrative we have ...
Joe: Earliest of the canonical. But some of the non canonical Gospels might be as old. For example the synoptic sayings in Thomas are probably older than Mark.
Pix:But I was talking about the passion narrative, which is entirely absent from Thomas. Thomas may be earlier than Mark, but it is not an earlier narrative.
there is no narrative in Thomas it's a saying source. That nails down the teaching, it also affirms the theology of the synoptic.
Joe: No you are misunderstanding what it means to say Mark was the first written,it means of the canonical gospels not the first ever Gospel. Material in Matt,Luke and John is older than Mark's writing,the versions of Mark used by Matt and by Luke are to different versions. they are both older than the copy of mark we have now. see Koester Early Christian Gospels
Pix:No misunderstanding on my part. The point here is that the later gospels did not have the benefit of witnesses still being alive to ensure they were not outlandishly embellished.
that is utter bull shit! (1) Koester and Crossss agree om pre Mark redaction being written in 50. Mark is written in 70 but they show a Pre Mark writing in 50. 20 years sealer.(2) Matt is dated to 80, just ten years latter. The claim that Matt doesn't accepss to the witnesses is wrong,
you are making a subjective alleviation as to what to accept.
Pix:The authors were compilers first and foremost. They collected stories from various sources (the authors of Matthew and Luke from Mark especially), and those sources could have been reliable and old, but they could have been relatively recent (to the author) and made up. When it comes to the nativity stories, for example, or the guard on the tomb, these were almost certainly made up relatively recently; stories that could only circulate once the actual witnesses had died.
Being compilers does not mean Mark got all the authoritative witnesses and Matt and Luke missed out.You keep ignoringthefactofthe pre Mark redaction AD50, 20 years beforeaMark.
Joe: Read Koester, you don't have a clear understanding of the process of transmission. We have our different versions of Mark. There's an old theory about an UR Mark.
Pix:I appreciate that what we have is not the original, nevertheless, Mark is still the best guide we have.
You think that because it lets you off the hook on the resurrection,Ut's not the best. The version of Mark Matt had did not convince him to can the resurrection
Joe: I don't see why we should not take them at their word. I also don't see why we should ignore the Jerusalem sightings. Of the witnesses fanned out to different communities then we are just getting paces of the same puzzle.
Pix:You are a fundie, so of course you have to take them at their word.
That really proves it. if you label me in a devastating way like that I have to accept your view. wow!
I can see that Mark states Jesus went on ahead to Galilee, whilst Luke and John have no mention of Galilee, but claim Jesus was seen that day in Jerusalem. Mark says the women never told anyone, Matthew that they immediate told the disciples. I personally think the simplest explanation is that they made stuff up (or included stories others had made up)
Mark got the story fro Peter. Peter was frl the Galilee. he probably went there and that;s where he saw the risen Christ that;s what he told Mark Matt had witnesses with other experiences.
Joe: there's like a five year difference in Mark and Luke.
More like 10 to 30, during some very turbulent times.
wrong. the vast majoirity of scholars accept this,It;sin most refences books,
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gospel
Composition. "The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses, though some scholars defend the traditional attribution."
Mark = 70 and Matt -85.
Joe: The version of Mark used by Matt is not the version used by Luke, the version we have as mark itself is not as old as the version used by Matt, All if that means they are using the same pool of witnesses and stories. Mark just has a faster pen. Moreover, Papias said Mark did not bother to put things in chronological order, so that means John is closer to the order of events.
Not sure what your point is. It is generally accepted that what we have today is pretty close to the original - this is why we still call it the Gospel of Mark. Was Papias comparing Mark and John? If not, then how can we suppose John is any better n his ordering. If he is, it is likely Papias is using John as his standard - he is assuming John is better. What are his reasons for doing that?
John's order of events is different from synoptic,if the synoptic order is not chronological then Joh's probably is then it tells us real history it's more historically authoritative.
Joe: Getting wrong and making up are two different things
PX;And when it comes to the empty tomb, the guard on the tomb, the spear in Jesus' side, the anointing the corpse by Josephus and Nicodemus; these are not just people getting it wrong, it is people making stuff up.
That is entirely based upon your desire to believe something and not believe something it is not about facts. John account is the only one that claims to be an eye witness to Jesus on the cross.
Joe: I don't think so But I don;t discount things just for the sake of being modern,
PX:Good. Discount them because the evidence indicates they never happened, because the Biblical scholars you routinely cite say they never happened.
John is better evidence for Jesus death than Mark.You have no evidence. no evidence proves Mark is historical and the others are not. We have evidence Mark is not in line with historical events..
Joe: You are discounting a huge tradition of eyewitness testimony in favor of an unproveable theory merely for the sake of not being labeled a certain way.
PX:The tradition that Jesus was seen on the third day only appeared after Mark was written! Nothing in Mark, the Pauline epistles, or even the gospels of Thomas and Peter. Nothing until Matthew was written around AD 80.
I've already proven that BS because Koester and Crosson both date the PMR to AD50 and say it ends with empty tomb! they were already preaching the empty tomb 20 years before Mark was written, Oe of the two says the epiphanies were part of the PMR.
PS:Why is that? Because it was made up, and prior to that time witnesses were still around who had lived in Jerusalem and knew Jesus had not been seen there.
don't you need to quote Brown saying that?
Pix: What story? What Jesus preached? Big deal!
Joe: Koester's argument of the Pre mark passion narrative. the basic story the four Gospels follow from the advent of Jesus ministry to the empty tomb.
PX:Here is that bait-and-switch in action. You spelled out six areas the story - Jesus preaching some stuff - was verified, and then conclude the Empty Tomb!
I've already shown the PMR ends with the empty tomb that means the resurrection,
Joe: Quote him
I have - on numerous threads including this one. But as a fundie, you have already decided he agrees with you, so just ignore it.
I quoted hi saying the guards are from an independent source that was not matt,
Joe: Brown is atheist Darling of the year. the one they all trot out become someone who hadn't read much of his work thought he supported their scathing hatred of the bible. But we went through the same thing with Crosson around 2000. Every atheist had his set of Crosson quotes and anything they needed Crosson was Trotted out.
I helped kill their attachment to Crosson when I started quoting his faith statements. they dropped him like a hot rock. O think Crosson himself did it when he criticized the Jesus' mythers harshly but I made that known to them.
Brown and Crossan have their faith, and I disagree with them on that, but their scholarly positions seem very reasonable - and rather more aligned to my view than yours. I have read Brown's book, and found with each point I either agreed with it or was persuaded by it. I have recently purchased "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant" by Crossan, though have yet to read much of it; again, I think I will agree with much of it.
You think it reasonable because you fear being laughed at if you accept miracles
I.e., you can find no fault with it, so disparage it as "modern".
Joe: that's is saying nothing other than the fact that they and you have different interpretations of the facts. Labels can clarify but they can also get in the way.I don't do history by labels.Rather i draw my labels according to how I see the facts.
My interpretation is based on evidence. For a fundie, the evidence is twisted or ignored to fit their interpretation.
A great example of that is your supposed explanation for the women at the tomb both telling no one and also immediately telling the disciples. You have already decided both accounts are true, so twist the text to say they split up.
Joe: there is no narrative in Thomas it's a saying source.
Therefore you are wrong to call it an earlier narrative. Of course, you will not admit you were wrong, because... fundie.
Joe: that is utter bull shit! (1) Koester and Crossss agree om pre Mark redaction being written in 50. Mark is written in 70 but they show a Pre Mark writing in 50. 20 years sealer.(2) Matt is dated to 80, just ten years latter. The claim that Matt doesn't accepss to the witnesses is wrong,
This is just plain dishonest. The point about access to other witnesses is that the witnesses will correct the narrative if the author starts making stuff up. As you said: There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight.
That is NOT the case for Matthew, as you know full well, so you silently change the rules of the game, and now you say Matthew is reliable because the author had access to the witnesses because he could read what they had written. That is entirely different, and trying to conflate the two is deliberately misleading.
And frankly, this is just the sort of chicanery a fundie would try to pull off.
Joe: you are making a subjective alleviation as to what to accept.
And you are failing to do just that. As a typical fundie you have decided in advanced to blindly accept it all.
Joe: Being compilers does not mean Mark got all the authoritative witnesses and Matt and Luke missed out.You keep ignoringthefactofthe pre Mark redaction AD50, 20 years beforeaMark.
But for Mark the witnesses were still alive and there was only a very short period of time since the community in Jerusalem was broken up by the Jewish War. Not so for Matthew or Luke.
Joe: You think that because it lets you off the hook on the resurrection,Ut's not the best. The version of Mark Matt had did not convince him to can the resurrection
No idea what your point is.
Joe: That really proves it. if you label me in a devastating way like that I have to accept your view. wow!
I appreciate you will never change your mind; you cannot as you are a fundie. You cannot admit one word of the NT is wrong. However, I can point this out to others, and show that your ideas are invalid, as they are based on twisting the evidence to fit your interpretation, rather than interpreting the evidence.
And Mark never talked to any of the other disciples, so never heard about Jesus appearing to all twelve disciples in a room in Jerusalem? How can you post just obvious nonsense?
The earliest account we have is the creed in 1 Cor 15, which states Peter saw Jesus first. Do you thing that that is right? If it is, then Peter travelled to Galilee, a journey of some days, saw Jesus there, then came back to Jerusalem, travelling for a few more days, and still arrived back in time to see Jesus just two days after the crucifixion.
This is a great example of you ignoring the evidence, and clinging desperately to your belief that every word must be true.
Joe: there's like a five year difference in Mark and Luke.
Pix: More like 10 to 30, during some very turbulent times.
Joe: wrong. the vast majoirity of scholars accept this,It;sin most refences books,
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gospel
Composition. "The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses, though some scholars defend the traditional attribution."
This is another great example of you ignoring the evidence - even when that evidence is something you have quoted yourself. Those dates in Wiki indicate between 15 and 34 years between Mark and Luke. I think that is pretty close to the 10 to 30 I said. It very much refutes your own figure of 5.
Joe: John's order of events is different from synoptic,if the synoptic order is not chronological then Joh's probably is ...
If we assume the NT is all true, that is. In reality one account being wrong is no indicator that a second is right.
Joe: That is entirely based upon your desire to believe something and not believe something it is not about facts. John account is the only one that claims to be an eye witness to Jesus on the cross.
And as a fundie, you blindly believe it. I do not.
Joe: John is better evidence for Jesus death than Mark.You have no evidence. no evidence proves Mark is historical and the others are not. We have evidence Mark is not in line with historical events..
What are you trying to pull now? We both agree Jesus died on the cross.
Mark is relatively more historical than the others for the reason you gave in the original post: "There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight."
Joe: I've already proven that BS because Koester and Crosson both date the PMR to AD50 and say it ends with empty tomb! they were already preaching the empty tomb 20 years before Mark was written, Oe of the two says the epiphanies were part of the PMR.
Again, you want to pretend we are discussing one thing, when actually we are discussing another. We are discussing whether Jesus was seen on the third day! If you want to claim that either Koester of Crossan believe that was in the passion narrative, go find the quote to support that claim.
The fact that Mark has no such appearance is very strong evidence it was not there.
Joe: I quoted hi saying the guards are from an independent source that was not matt,
Sure, but a source that made it up for apologetic reasons, subsequent to the writing of Mark. Brown is clear that he considers the guards to be not historical. Of course, as a fundie you cannot accept you are wrong, so cling desperately to this, as you must.
I think you confuse "source" with "eye witness". They are not the same thing. A source can as readily be the guy that made the story up.
It was Mary M. who told the apostles,she broke off from the others so she was not part of the group said to have told no one.you need to read my harmony.
Joe: there is no narrative in Thomas it's a saying source.
Therefore you are wrong to call it an earlier narrative. Of course, you will not admit you were wrong, because... fundie.
Name calling proves nothing, I just disproved your argument,
Joe: that is utter bull shit! (1) Koester and Crosson agree on pre Mark redaction being written in 50. Mark is written in 70 but they show a Pre Mark writing in 50. 20 years sealer.(2) Matt is dated to 80, just ten years latter. The claim that Matt doesn't accepss to the witnesses is wrong,
This is just plain dishonest. The point about access to other witnesses is that the witnesses will correct the narrative if the author starts making stuff up. As you said: There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight.
Ni the Gospels are written too late to have many witnesses correct them expost facto. But they benefited from the stories the witnesses told in oral tradition,
That is NOT the case for Matthew, as you know full well, so you silently change the rules of the game, and now you say Matthew is reliable because the author had access to the witnesses because he could read what they had written. That is entirely different, and trying to conflate the two is deliberately misleading.
both Matt and Mark inherited the same pool of testimony from the original community. In my view Matt was based upon the actual source written by Matthew himself. Mark was not a witness.But by tradition had Peter as his source. they both benefit from the same community.
And frankly, this is just the sort of chicanery a fundie would try to pull off.
????
And you are failing to do just that. As a typical fundie you have decided in advanced to blindly accept it all.
stop slinging lables and deal wth the issues, you have no argument to suppport your nane calling,
Joe: Being compilers does not mean Mark got all the authoritative witnesses and Matt and Luke missed out.You keep ignoringthefactofthe pre Mark redaction AD50, 20 years beforeaMark.
But for Mark the witnesses were still alive and there was only a very short period of time since the community in Jerusalem was broken up by the Jewish War. Not so for Matthew or Luke.
You are so ignorant, neither gospel is corrected by a post publication critique both are products of witness not screed by them after. There were few witnesses living in AD 70 when Mark was published. That as 50 years Mat was just five or ten years latter. they were no re write so post publication witnessing is not an issue
Joe: You think that because it lets you off the hook on the resurrection,Ut's not the best. The version of Mark Matt had did not convince him to can the resurrection
No idea what your point is.
You like mark over Matt because it's testimoly for the res. is so weak. Itallows youto just assert there was no resurrection,
Joe: That really proves it. if you label me in a devastating way like that I have to accept your view. wow!
I appreciate you will never change your mind; you cannot as you are a fundie. You cannot admit one word of the NT is wrong. However, I can point this out to others, and show that your ideas are invalid, as they are based on twisting the evidence to fit your interpretation, rather than interpreting the evidence.
calling me a fundie just makes you look like a typical ignorant atheist. you are not conversant with the issues that really make one a fundie.
I am definitely not going to change my mind just becasue you call me a fundie
And Mark never talked to any of the other disciples, so never heard about Jesus appearing to all twelve disciples in a room in Jerusalem? How can you post just obvious nonsense?
Mark is said to be Peter's interpreter in Rome. So he had only Peter to consult.Mark is imprudence the letters of Paul.His mother was a Pauline convert he comes into the cultus from the Pauline circle. Ot is entirely palatable that by the time he wrote his gospel he had not been to Jerusalem or and not heard the other stories. But that's not my reasoning,I just assume he was only interested in Peter's experiences.
The earliest account we have is the creed in 1 Cor 15, which states Peter saw Jesus first. Do you thing that that is right? If it is, then Peter travelled to Galilee, a journey of some days, saw Jesus there, then came back to Jerusalem, travelling for a few more days, and still arrived back in time to see Jesus just two days after the crucifixion.
This is a great example of you ignoring the evidence, and clinging desperately to your belief that every word must be true.
Paul does not say Peter saw Jesus first in Galilee. He said go there he will meet you there not you will see him there first. Even so it;snot that far his first sighting could have been there.
Joe: there's like a five year difference in Mark and Luke.
Pix: More like 10 to 30, during some very turbulent times.
No one dates Matt that late, 10 at most.
Joe: wrong. the vast majoirity of scholars accept this,It;sin most refences books,
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gospel
Composition. "The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses, though some scholars defend the traditional attribution."
You can shop for the broadest gap you wont find one wider than that, 70-85 15 years at most and there's a good chance it's more like 10.
https://owlcation.com/humanities/Comparing-the-Gospels-Matthew-Mark-Luke-and-John
Mark = 60-70 Matt 75-80 but that means the difference could be as little as five years.10 years is not a big difference.
This is another great example of you ignoring the evidence - even when that evidence is something you have quoted yourself. Those dates in Wiki indicate between 15 and 34 years between Mark and Luke. I think that is pretty close to the 10 to 30 I said. It very much refutes your own figure of 5.
You speaks as though Wiki is the big authority you know better than that. no one gives it a wide birth as 30 years: 10 or 15 at most.
If we assume the NT is all true, that is. In reality one account being wrong is no indicator that a second is right.
You to assume the basic story line that's not the same as assuming miracles.
Joe: That is entirely based upon your desire to believe something and not believe something it is not about facts. John account is the only one that claims to be an eye witness to Jesus on the cross.
And as a fundie, you blindly believe it. I do not.
avoiding the label off fundie is just as knee jerk and thoughtful as earning the label
Joe: John is better evidence for Jesus death than Mark.You have no evidence. no evidence proves Mark is historical and the others are not. We have evidence Mark is not in line with historical events..
What are you trying to pull now? We both agree Jesus died on the cross.
You are trying to expunge all testimony of post res sightings by taking mark as the only authentic gospel.
Mark is relatively more historical than the others for the reason you gave in the original post: "There's real strong evidence to suggest that the stories that became the synoptic and John were told in the original community under controlled conditions, where eye witnesses were plentiful and could help keep it all straight."
that statement includes all four Someplace you are tring to take only Mark.
We know that is bull shit from reading Paul Paul's epistles are written from AD 56-64.Not only does he talk about the resurrection but he uses the phrase "on the third day" (1 cor 15:4)proving it was so often told it was set into a specific formulation expression.see
link 3d day
Joe: I've already proven that BS because Koester and Crosson both date the PMR to AD50 and say it ends with empty tomb! they were already preaching the empty tomb 20 years before Mark was written, Oe of the two says the epiphanies were part of the PMR.
Again, you want to pretend we are discussing one thing, when actually we are discussing another. We are discussing whether Jesus was seen on the third day! If you want to claim that either Koester of Crossan believe that was in the passion narrative, go find the quote to support that claim.
You really think the early chruh taught that Jesus rose on the third day but no one saw him? That's stupid.John says Mary saw him on the third day. Paul says he appeared first to Peter do you think that means several days latter?
The fact that Mark has no such appearance is very strong evidence it was not there.
only because you buy the atheist myth that Mark invented the resurrection. Very clearly the Pre Mark redaction ends with the empty tomb according to Koester amd Crosson. That means the empty tomb aka the resurrection was clearly taut before the writtig of Mark.
Joe: I quoted hi saying the guards are from an independent source that was not matt,
Sure, but a source that made it up for apologetic reasons,
Merely your supposition
subsequent to the writing of Mark. Brown is clear that he considers the guards to be not historical. Of course, as a fundie you cannot accept you are wrong, so cling desperately to this, as you must.
Brown is the atheist Darling he is not the authority.
I think you confuse "source" with "eye witness". They are not the same thing. A source can as readily be the guy that made the story up.
You are gainsaying the evidence, The only historical evidence we have suggests the res was tauht before Mark going all the way back, Paul talks about it.
But NONE of the texts say that happened. You are just making it up!
Joe: Name calling proves nothing, I just disproved your argument,
I really do not think you have a clue what we were discussing. I said Mark was the earliest narrative, you then claimed Thomas was earlier, but subsequently conceded Thomas is not a narrative. That means I was right, and yet here you are claiming you disproved my argument!
Are you delusional, Joe?
Joe: Ni the Gospels are written too late to have many witnesses correct them expost facto. But they benefited from the stories the witnesses told in oral tradition,
Which is what I said numerous times.
Joe: both Matt and Mark inherited the same pool of testimony from the original community. In my view Matt was based upon the actual source written by Matthew himself. Mark was not a witness.But by tradition had Peter as his source. they both benefit from the same community.
Yes, the author of Matthew had access to earlier works, such as Q, conceivably written by Matthew himself (but a book of sayings). Matthew also had the added "benefit" of all the stories made up after Mark was written - such as the guard on the tomb.
Joe: stop slinging lables and deal wth the issues, you have no argument to suppport your nane calling,
The name calling seems appropriate. You have blindly accepted that the NT is true, and twist the evidence to fit that faith-claim. Your twisting of the women story illustrates that perfectly.
Joe: You are so ignorant, neither gospel is corrected by a post publication critique both are products of witness not screed by them after. There were few witnesses living in AD 70 when Mark was published. That as 50 years Mat was just five or ten years latter. they were no re write so post publication witnessing is not an issue
The gospels were products of their communities. It was the community that edited the story, prior to it being written. The community up to Mark, for most of that time, had witnesses to keep the narrative straight. In the last few years that may have been less the case, especially with the Jewish war, but that was for a relatively short time.
Matthew was perhaps 20 years later, giving plenty of time for new stories to circulate, and become part of the accepted narrative.
Joe: calling me a fundie just makes you look like a typical ignorant atheist. you are not conversant with the issues that really make one a fundie.
And yet it is clear that, like a fundie, you consider every word of the NT true, and will twist the evidence to fit that view, rather than fit your view to the evidence.
Pix
How many times have you insisted there was an earlier passion narrative? And yet now, you want to abandon that and instead say that actually Mark based his account of the passion purely on what he heard from Peter.
This is what makes you look like a fundie. You just cannot keep your story straight. You say one thing to support one passage, and will happily say quite the opposite to support another passage. This is cognitive dissonance pure and simple, a classic sign of a fundie.
Joe: Paul does not say Peter saw Jesus first in Galilee. He said go there he will meet you there not you will see him there first. Even so it;snot that far his first sighting could have been there.
Right, so when discussing 1 Cor 15 you believe Peter say Jesus first in Jerusalem, but when discussing Mark 16 you claim that actually that first appearance was in Galilee!
Cognitive dissonance again. Can you see why you look like a fundie?
Joe: No one dates Matt that late, 10 at most.
The Wiki page YOU quoted does just that! As does this web site:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Joe: You speaks as though Wiki is the big authority you know better than that. no one gives it a wide birth as 30 years: 10 or 15 at most.
It was you who quoted Wiki first! You are starting to look delusional, Joe.
Pix
Joe: It was Mary M. who told the apostles,she broke off from the others so she was not part of the group said to have told no one.you need to read my harmony.
But NONE of the texts say that happened. You are just making it up!
not in so many words but clearly implied by John when he says MM came in and said "we don't know where they laid him" she takes Peter and John back to the tomb. "We" being a reference to herself and the other women, when it says the stone was rolled away that is in a splice kind of past tense,aorist meaning a single act in past time. So it;s saying the stone had already rolled away.
Joe: Name calling proves nothing, I just disproved your argument,
I really do not think you have a clue what we were discussing. I said Mark was the earliest narrative, you then claimed Thomas was earlier, but subsequently conceded Thomas is not a narrative. That means I was right, and yet here you are claiming you disproved my argument!
I said there were other narratives as old or older than Mark, I did not say Thomas was one of them it is a source of teaching older than Mark.
Are you delusional, Joe?
don't get abusive
Joe: Ni the Gospels are written too late to have many witnesses correct them expost facto. But they benefited from the stories the witnesses told in oral tradition,
Which is what I said numerous times.
That has never been an issues, you have said the resurrection wasn't part of the early Kyrigma and that is wrong
Joe: both Matt and Mark inherited the same pool of testimony from the original community. In my view Matt was based upon the actual source written by Matthew himself. Mark was not a witness.But by tradition had Peter as his source. they both benefit from the same community.
Yes, the author of Matthew had access to earlier works, such as Q, conceivably written by Matthew himself (but a book of sayings). Matthew also had the added "benefit" of all the stories made up after Mark was written - such as the guard on the tomb.
that really silly to think that little ten year period could Providence such changes.
The name calling seems appropriate. You have blindly accepted that the NT is true, and twist the evidence to fit that faith-claim. Your twisting of the women story illustrates that perfectly.
that is completely studio, you have no competence of the time and effort i put in to study I studied Greek so I read it in the original you have o idea what questions i asked of the text. Arrogant ignorance.
Joe: You are so ignorant, neither gospel is corrected by a post publication critique both are products of witness not screed by them after. There were few witnesses living in AD 70 when Mark was published. That as 50 years Mat was just five or ten years latter. they were no re write so post publication witnessing is not an issue
The gospels were products of their communities. It was the community that edited the story, prior to it being written. The community up to Mark, for most of that time, had witnesses to keep the narrative straight. In the last few years that may have been less the case, especially with the Jewish war, but that was for a relatively short time.
Yes and Matt draws from that a same pool and the resurrection and the empty tomb were part of the teaching they drew from.That's empirical read Paul.
Matthew was perhaps 20 years later, giving plenty of time for new stories to circulate, and become part of the accepted narrative.
show me any scholar who seriously things Matt was 20 years after Mark. No one thinks that 10 is outside,
Joe: calling me a fundie just makes you look like a typical ignorant atheist. you are not conversant with the issues that really make one a fundie.
And yet it is clear that, like a fundie, you consider every word of the NT true, and will twist the evidence to fit that view, rather than fit your view to the evidence.
If you have ready anythig I;'ve written you know that;s true but even if it was it would be irrelevant,
Joe: Mark is said to be Peter's interpreter in Rome. So he had only Peter to consult.Mark is imprudence the letters of Paul.His mother was a Pauline convert he comes into the cultus from the Pauline circle. Ot is entirely palatable that by the time he wrote his gospel he had not been to Jerusalem or and not heard the other stories. But that's not my reasoning,I just assume he was only interested in Peter's experiences.
How many times have you insisted there was an earlier passion narrative? And yet now, you want to abandon that and instead say that actually Mark based his account of the passion purely on what he heard from Peter.
I did not say Mark had never heard the passion narrative. Bit took the material for his Gospel from Peter,ad he did not bother with chronology.That's what Papias tells us.
This is what makes you look like a fundie. You just cannot keep your story straight. You say one thing to support one passage, and will happily say quite the opposite to support another passage. This is cognitive dissonance pure and simple, a classic sign of a fundie.
You don;t follow the details. Nothing i;ve said contradicts my thesis. You don't follow the fine points.
Joe: Paul does not say Peter saw Jesus first in Galilee. He said go there he will meet you there not you will see him there first. Even so it;snot that far his first sighting could have been there.
Right, so when discussing 1 Cor 15 you believe Peter say Jesus first in Jerusalem, but when discussing Mark 16 you claim that actually that first appearance was in Galilee!
U am discussing possibilities not pinning it down
Cognitive dissonance again. Can you see why you look like a fundie?
no
Joe: No one dates Matt that late, 10 at most.
The Wiki page YOU quoted does just that! As does this web site:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
no the outside marge is 15 it also gave an inside range. that is not the one I used to for the dates of Mark and Matt Baht is Peter Kirdy I used it several days ago for soemthing else.
Joe: You speaks as though Wiki is the big authority you know better than that. no one gives it a wide birth as 30 years: 10 or 15 at most.
It was you who quoted Wiki first! You are starting to look delusional, Joe.
It's not that it is used but how it;s used try to pay attention
Here is one point he makes abouit no contradictions:
Let’s let the Bible itself speak on this.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh which I command you (Deuteronomy 4:2).
The verse from 1 Timothy tells us that any passage, even the ones that make Christians squirm, should be read and followed, and the one from Deuteronomy says that the Bible must be allowed to speak for itself and not be treated like a marionette. So next time you pick the more pleasing verse and pretend the “difficult” verse doesn’t exist, don’t!
I doesn't say anything about folwoing,The old testament is nailed to the cross,
Principle #4: Begin with the assumption that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.
saying God breathed is not the same as saying follow it, Because the OT is obsolete dom't live under Mosaic law.
those are straw man principles the ahteist is laying down.
Kid yourself all you like, the text indicates nothing of the sort. She could as easily be noting that neither herself nor those who are not present knew where the body was. The text says MM went there; you want to pretend that means MM and the others because that you have decided in advance that every verse of the NT must be true, so twist the text to fit that.
More likely "we" is a hold over from the earlier story. The author wanted to play down the role of the women, so edits most of them out, has them merely find the stone rolled aside, but does a bad job of it, so we end up with MM seeing the stone is rolled away, and somehow without looking inside she just knows the body has gone.
Joe: I said there were other narratives as old or older than Mark, I did not say Thomas was one of them it is a source of teaching older than Mark.
Yes you did! I said Mark was the earliest narrative, and you said that was wrong because Thomas was probably older. It is right there in your post from 12/04/2019 03:32:00 AM
Pix: "Mark is the earliest narrative we have ..."
Joe: "Earliest of the canonical. But some of the non canonical Gospels might be as old. For example the synoptic sayings in Thomas are probably older than Mark."
Joe: don't get abusive
And yet here you are claiming you never said Thomas is an older narrative than Mark, when very clearly you did. Should I conclude you are lying?
How about your damning comments on Wiki, when it was you who originally cited Wiki as an authority? Or indeed using Wiki to support you claim that Matthew was five years after Mark, when the text you quoted clearly says 15 to 24. And still you cannot admit you were wrong. That is three separate issues where you seem to be denying reality. If you want me to stop calling you delusional, stop acting like it!
Joe: That has never been an issues, you have said the resurrection wasn't part of the early Kyrigma and that is wrong
And again, I must ask if you are delusional? When have suggested that? Never! Once more you spout nonsense that has no connection to reality.
Joe: that really silly to think that little ten year period could Providence such changes.
It is ten to twenty years. The stories could have been circulating earlier, but did not gain traction. The guard on the tomb might have been as early as say AD 60, but Mark did not include it because there were people around who were there at the time who said it did not happen like that. Twenty years later, those witnesses are dead, and the story becomes accepted as fact, and so gets included by Matthew.
Joe: Yes and Matt draws from that a same pool and the resurrection and the empty tomb were part of the teaching they drew from.That's empirical read Paul.
When mark was writing, the pool was relatively clean; the witnesses still alive kept it free of the more outlandish embellishments, and even though the witnesses were becoming fewer and fewer, the pool was still pretty good. But when Matthew was written, that filter had gone, perhaps for twenty years, and the pool had been diluted with any number of made up stories.
Remember: This is a point you made yourself in the original post.
Pix
Joe: that is completely studio, you have no competence of the time and effort i put in to study I studied Greek so I read it in the original you have o idea what questions i asked of the text. Arrogant ignorance.
So point me to a verse in the NT that claims something happens, but you think did not happen.
I think you cannot do that; I think that you blindly believe every verse of the NT. I invite you to prove me wrong.
Pix
Joe: I did not say Mark had never heard the passion narrative.
You said: "Mark is said to be Peter's interpreter in Rome. So he had only Peter to consult." The implication is that he used Peter and not the passion narrative. Of course, that is utter nonsense, as you now concede.
The problem is that you will spout any nonsense when it supports your faith-position that every verse of the NT is true, without thinking through the implication.
The context here is why Mark omits the sightings in Jerusalem. According to John, Peter was right there in Jerusalem, but you ignore that inconvenient fact. According to all scholars, Mark is based on the passion narrative, but you ignore that inconvenient fact. You are discussing Mark 16, and for Mark 16 - viewed in perfect isolation - you make your claim. In the wider context it is nonsense, but you ignore that inconvenient fact.
Joe: You don;t follow the details. Nothing i;ve said contradicts my thesis. You don't follow the fine points.
So give me the "finer points" of what happened on that first Easter. Who saw Jesus first, second, third? Where were those appearances? What did each gospel author know of it, and why did they not know of the other aspects (eg, why did Mark say Jesus went on to Galilee)?
I am sure you will not do it. I am sure that on some level you know the narratives hold contradictions, and so you will not even try to harmonise them.
Joe: U am discussing possibilities not pinning it down
Heaven forbid! The last thing a Christian wants is to be pinned down to the same story for the whole NT.
I think you cannot do it; I think that you cannot provide a detailed - if speculative - account with all the "finer details" of what actually happened. I invite you to prove me wrong.
Pix
Challenge 1
Joe: that is completely studio, you have no competence of the time and effort i put in to study I studied Greek so I read it in the original you have o idea what questions i asked of the text. Arrogant ignorance.
So point me to a verse in the NT that claims something happens, but you think did not happen.
I think you cannot do that; I think that you blindly believe every verse of the NT. I invite you to prove me wrong.
You think doubting the bible is a badge of intelligence or something that's pathetic. Childish. I think the only rock solid things that can't be doubted are the incarnation the death burial and resurrection of Christ and the theology of redemption, Every thing else is up for grabs but I doubt doubt anything merely for the sake of being acceptable to modernity,
The problem is that you will spout any nonsense when it supports your faith-position that every verse of the NT is true, without thinking through the implication.
so you actually don't know that John Mark has an identity in the new Tempest, he's a recurring character, that is really ignorant. Or do you just figure it's your duty as an atheist to doubt it? You refuse to accept historical evidence because it's your duty to doubt?
The context here is why Mark omits the sightings in Jerusalem. According to John, Peter was right there in Jerusalem, but you ignore that inconvenient fact. According to all scholars, Mark is based on the passion narrative, but you ignore that inconvenient fact. You are discussing Mark 16, and for Mark 16 - viewed in perfect isolation - you make your claim. In the wider context it is nonsense, but you ignore that inconvenient fact.
I argued the pre Mark passion narrate against your arguments,can;t you follow a simple line of reasoning? O but of course you are duty bound to doubt everything positive about the Bible.you have set up a phony contradiction based upon your elitism
Joe: You don;t follow the details. Nothing i;ve said contradicts my thesis. You don't follow the fine points.
So give me the "finer points" of what happened on that first Easter. Who saw Jesus first, second, third? Where were those appearances? What did each gospel author know of it, and why did they not know of the other aspects (eg, why did Mark say Jesus went on to Galilee)?
I have linked to my harmony page try reading it this time
harmony of resurrection events
I am sure you will not do it. I am sure that on some level you know the narratives hold contradictions, and so you will not even try to harmonise them.
I don;t care no contradictions are big enoigh to wreck the faith. I am not against contradictions in principle but the point of doing apologetic is to answers problems I have so far been able to answer all the problems
Joe: I am discussing possibilities not pinning it down
Heaven forbid! The last thing a Christian wants is to be pinned down to the same story for the whole NT.
I see you want it both ways, If it;s pinned down then I;m a fuindie if I don;t pin it down then it;s contradictory and not worth believing,so which is it it? you want to doubt whatever is believed.
I think you cannot do it; I think that you cannot provide a detailed - if speculative - account with all the "finer details" of what actually happened. I invite you to prove me wrong.
see the link above
Resurrection Harmony
I think blindly accepting every word is the sign of a fundie, the antitheisis of scholarship. If you cannot find one single claim in the NT that you think is not true, then you are more fundie than scholar.
Joe: so you actually don't know that John Mark has an identity in the new Tempest, he's a recurring character, that is really ignorant. Or do you just figure it's your duty as an atheist to doubt it? You refuse to accept historical evidence because it's your duty to doubt?
I have literally no idea what you are talking.
You previously claimed Mark only included the Galilee sightings because his only source was Peter. I dispute that because scholarship is pretty much unanimous that his source was the passion narrative. How you leap from that to the above BS is a complete mystery.
Joe: I argued the pre Mark passion narrate against your arguments,can;t you follow a simple line of reasoning? O but of course you are duty bound to doubt everything positive about the Bible.you have set up a phony contradiction based upon your elitism
And again, what on earth are you talking about?
You are the one who says - when it is convenient - that Mark's source was Peter. I have consistently said Mark's source is the passion narrative.
This is why I question if you are delusional. What you think I have said bears no relation to what I actually said.
Joe: I have linked to my harmony page try reading it this time
harmony of resurrection events
I checked all three pages, the only mention of Galilee is in the verses in Mark. Your harmonisation gives no suggestion Jesus was ever seen there. Do you think Mark was wrong about that?
Joe: I see you want it both ways, If it;s pinned down then I;m a fuindie if I don;t pin it down then it;s contradictory and not worth believing,so which is it it? you want to doubt whatever is believed.
You should be able to construct a scenario that fits the evidence. A single scenario, for all the evidence.
Not one scenario that fits one set of evidence, and another that fits other bits of evidence (as your current harmonisation does). That would be indicative of contradictions.
If there are no contradictions, one scenario must be possible. You may need to speculate as the texts are not exact, and where you speculate, you may not be right. But you should be able to contrive a plausible scenario that fits all the evidence, not just the selective bits.
And that scenario has to mention Galilee, because Mark was clearly of the opinion that Jesus was seen there.
Pix
I think blindly accepting every word is the sign of a fundie, the antitheisis of scholarship. If you cannot find one single claim in the NT that you think is not true, then you are more fundie than scholar.
compare these phrases Pix.
(1) the only rock solid things that can't be doubted are the incarnation the death burial and resurrection of Christ and the theology of redemption, Every thing else is up for grabs
(2) blindly accepting every word
Joe: so you actually don't know that John Mark has an identity in the new Tempest, he's a recurring character, that is really ignorant. Or do you just figure it's your duty as an atheist to doubt it? You refuse to accept historical evidence because it's your duty to doubt?
I have literally no idea what you are talking.
Perhaps of you would read what I write you would
You previously claimed Mark only included the Galilee sightings because his only source was Peter. I dispute that because scholarship is pretty much unanimous that his source was the passion narrative. How you leap from that to the above BS is a complete mystery.
Papias who knew John said Mark used Peter. Passion narrative is hypothetical. we have no copy of it.you think that gives Mark more credibility than the other gospels but they use it too. so that does not make Mark the only valid Gospel.
Joe: I argued the pre Mark passion narrate against your arguments,can;t you follow a simple line of reasoning? O but of course you are duty bound to doubt everything positive about the Bible.you have set up a phony contradiction based upon your elitism
And again, what on earth are you talking about?
what I just said.
You are the one who says - when it is convenient - that Mark's source was Peter. I have consistently said Mark's source is the passion narrative.
we don;t have a copy of it but church fathers who where in a position to know siad Marked used peter,
This is why I question if you are delusional. What you think I have said bears no relation to what I actually said.
you are clearly dereliction. read the top of this page<'b>
(1) what I saidL the only rock solid things that can't be doubted are the incarnation the death burial and resurrection of Christ and the theology of redemption, Every thing else is up for grabs
(2)what you claim I said: blindly accepting every word
harmony of resurrection events
I checked all three pages, the only mention of Galilee is in the verses in Mark. Your harmonisation gives no suggestion Jesus was ever seen there. Do you think Mark was wrong about that?
I wrote that decades ago way before I knew you and that question was not on my radar. It's not a major issue
Joe: I see you want it both ways, If it;s pinned down then I;m a fuindie if I don;t pin it down then it;s contradictory and not worth believing,so which is it it? you want to doubt whatever is believed.
You should be able to construct a scenario that fits the evidence. A single scenario, for all the evidence.
It fits the major evidence pretty well. You are obsessed with this Galeiee thing because you think it gives you a way out
Not one scenario that fits one set of evidence, and another that fits other bits of evidence (as your current harmonisation does). That would be indicative of contradictions.
there too many variables to grasp them all it;s just too complex, but it;s not an importation issue.
If there are no contradictions, one scenario must be possible. You may need to speculate as the texts are not exact, and where you speculate, you may not be right. But you should be able to contrive a plausible scenario that fits all the evidence, not just the selective bits.
there are always contradictions,a kerosene without contradictions is too contorted and phony the point is are the contradictions of a sort that would kill faith
And that scenario has to mention Galilee, because Mark was clearly of the opinion that Jesus was seen there.
you want to keep that as a problem because it frees you from belief, it;s a minor problem. He told them he would meet them in Galilee that doesn;t negate his appearing to some in Jerusalem.
(1) the only rock solid things that can't be doubted are the incarnation the death burial and resurrection of Christ and the theology of redemption, Every thing else is up for grabs
(2) blindly accepting every word
So cite any claim in the NT that you think is false. I challenged you to do this previously and you failed. I feel sure you fail again.
Therefore I conclude you blindly accept every word.
Joe: Perhaps of you would read what I write you would
Why? Are you incapable of explaining what you meant? I guess so.
Joe: Papias who knew John said Mark used Peter. Passion narrative is hypothetical. we have no copy of it.you think that gives Mark more credibility than the other gospels but they use it too. so that does not make Mark the only valid Gospel.
And so you flip between Mark using Peter as his source and Mark using the passion narrative as and when it suits you.
You just cannot stick to one story because the stories contradict.
Joe: what I just said.
So a load of nonsense that you no longer have any clue about, it seems.
Joe: we don;t have a copy of it but church fathers who where in a position to know siad Marked used peter,
And modern scholars say Mark used the passion narrative. Which is right? According to you, which ever helps the argument of the moment.
Sticking to one answer is just for atheists, I suppose.
Joe: I wrote that decades ago way before I knew you and that question was not on my radar. It's not a major issue
So when asked for a harmonisation you point me to a version you no longer accept?
Seems you failed the second challenge too.
Joe: It fits the major evidence pretty well. You are obsessed with this Galeiee thing because you think it gives you a way out
I "obsess" on it because it shows your version is wrong.
Joe: there too many variables to grasp them all it;s just too complex, but it;s not an importation issue.
What a great cop out!
Christianity has had nearly 2000 years to work this out - with God's help we might suppose - but apparently it is just too complex for a Christian to work out.
So just pretend what actually happened it is not important. Again, this is where Christians differ from atheists.
Joe: there are always contradictions,a kerosene without contradictions is too contorted and phony the point is are the contradictions of a sort that would kill faith
There is no contradiction in the truth.
There are contradictions in the NT because some of it is not true.
Joe: you want to keep that as a problem because it frees you from belief, it;s a minor problem. He told them he would meet them in Galilee that doesn;t negate his appearing to some in Jerusalem.
For some reason, Mark believed Jesus was first seen in Galilee. You have no explanation for that because your scenario is wrong.
Pix
Joe: compare these phrases Pix.
(1) the only rock solid things that can't be doubted are the incarnation the death burial and resurrection of Christ and the theology of redemption, Every thing else is up for grabs
(2) blindly accepting every word
So cite any claim in the NT that you think is false. I challenged you to do this previously and you failed. I feel sure you fail again.
Therefore I conclude you blindly accept every word.
Unless one doubts some specific thing one accepts every thing blindly? That's stupid! can't you see that? that's a childish standard, Obligatory doubt is just bad as blind fundie faith. Why not live by a reasonable standard of evidence? I specifically said I only take four things as indubitable. Obvious then I'm willing to accept that lots of things could be wrong, just because I don't have a list doesn't mean I don't hold that that principle.If that does not satisfy your childish sense of adolescent rebellion too bad.
Yes!
Seriously, if you cannot find any wrong verse across nearly 8000, when you boldly claim to have studied it all in depth, even in the original Greek, then the conclusion is you just accept it all blindly.
Joe: That's stupid! can't you see that? that's a childish standard, Obligatory doubt is just bad as blind fundie faith. Why not live by a reasonable standard of evidence?
You derive fundies for blind faith, but how is your position any different other than you restrict your literalism to the NT?
Joe: I specifically said I only take four things as indubitable. Obvious then I'm willing to accept that lots of things could be wrong, just because I don't have a list doesn't mean I don't hold that that principle.If that does not satisfy your childish sense of adolescent rebellion too bad.
You SAY you take just those four things as definitely true, but the reality seems quite different.
I am not asking for a list, just one thing. But you cannot because of your faith. When you find a contradiction you twist the text, like with the women on the tomb, or trot out one explanation for one passage and a contradictory explanation for the other passage, as with Mark and Galilee. That is twisting the evidence to fit your belief.
Pix
Seriously, if you cannot find any wrong verse across nearly 8000, when you boldly claim to have studied it all in depth, even in the original Greek, then the conclusion is you just accept it all blindly.
Joe: That's stupid! can't you see that? that's a childish standard, Obligatory doubt is just bad as blind fundie faith. Why not live by a reasonable standard of evidence?
You derive fundies for blind faith, but how is your position any different other than you restrict your literalism to the NT?
Joe: I specifically said I only take four things as indubitable. Obvious then I'm willing to accept that lots of things could be wrong, just because I don't have a list doesn't mean I don't hold that that principle.If that does not satisfy your childish sense of adolescent rebellion too bad.
You SAY you take just those four things as definitely true, but the reality seems quite different.
I am not asking for a list, just one thing. But you cannot because of your faith. When you find a contradiction you twist the text, like with the women on the tomb, or trot out one explanation for one passage and a contradictory explanation for the other passage, as with Mark and Galilee. That is twisting the evidence to fit your belief.
Pix
You do not know the first thing about history, I am an historian,I was trained as a historian and I spent most of my life learning to think like one. you know noting about that, stop trying to impose your ignorance on me.
I did once doubted everything and worried and worked at disproving the bible and I worked my way through that I don/t need to keep doing it. You have no empty for belief because you have no belief, you believe in nothing so you have no understanding what it means to believe in something.
History is a matter of probability it can't be proven. We can't go back and make sure Jesus healed a given man or did not heal the man on a given day. We may accept in principle that he might have done or that it's probable or not but there is no way to know. It's foolish and bull shit to expect me to be dogmatic and say I know for sure this is not true. No you have no understanding of history.
It's such bull shit to get your knickers in a twist (dig my Brit vernacular) over the refusal to be dogmatic when I have accepted the principle that any such event might be false.
So show your historical training! Show how you use the evidence to construct a plausible scenario, rather than just blinding believing the text is true is every regasrd, and twisting the evidence to fit your faith position.
Joe: look there are two kinds of phenomena to be judged in NT. One is theological issues the other is historical events. One can find contradictions in theological themes in the NT. Certainly several of the books are pseudepigrapha. But we can find ways to harmonize and rationalize theology Especially since I am a believer,I an not interested in disproving what I have already proven to myself.
So show how the passion narrative can be harmonized. I challenged you to do, and so far your response has been to pretend Mark never mentioned Galilee.
Say the texts can be harmonised is easy.
Actually doing it is an entirely different thing.
Christianity has been pretending the former and failing at the latter for near 2000 years now.
Joe: History is a matter of probability it can't be proven. We can't go back and make sure Jesus healed a given man or did not heal the man on a given day. We may accept in principle that he might have done or that it's probable or not but there is no way to know. It's foolish and bull shit to expect me to be dogmatic and say I know for sure this is not true. No you have no understanding of history.
You should be able to contrive a plausible narrative that explains all the evidence. Of course you will not be able to prove it is true, this is why I said "You may need to speculate as the texts are not exact, and where you speculate, you may not be right". However, if you cannot present a plausible scenario that fits the evidence, then your underlying assumptionsd are wrong.
Joe: BTW I accept that the Pastoral epistles were not written by Paul.
Great! So we both agree the early Christians would on occasion saying thing that were not true when it would help their apologetic purpose. So now explain why you insist that the gospel accounts must be true in every particular, given you acknowledge the NT is not all true.
Pix
So show your historical training! Show how you use the evidence to construct a plausible scenario, rather than just blinding believing the text is true is every regasrd, and twisting the evidence to fit your faith position.
You do he same in reverse, Your unguents are irrational
I said I am a historian not a textual critic. We have no text of the PMPN. Building one is the task of textual critics, I don't have time to research that. You have not actually presented a problem with my view. I'm not dogmatically doubting that is not a problem in my book.It's all you have.
Joe: look there are two kinds of phenomena to be judged in NT. One is theological issues the other is historical events. One can find contradictions in theological themes in the NT. Certainly several of the books are pseudepigrapha. But we can find ways to harmonize and rationalize theology. Especially since I am a believer,I an not interested in disproving what I have already proven to myself.
So show how the passion narrative can be harmonized. I challenged you to do, and so far your response has been to pretend Mark never mentioned Galilee.
It has been harmonizer the use of four Gospels that use it. We have a harmonious theology based upon those texts, saying that I speak as though Mark never mentioned Galailee is clearly irrational when I accounted for it in elation to eruslaeme.
Besides, if I say it;s false that Jesus told them to go to Galilee that;s something I think is false,, isn;t that what you want? you want me to say things are false
Say the texts can be harmonised is easy.
Actually doing it is an entirely different thing.
so?
Christianity has been pretending the former and failing at the latter for near 2000 years now.
give me an example of what's failing?
You should be able to contrive a plausible narrative that explains all the evidence. Of course you will not be able to prove it is true, this is why I said "You may need to speculate as the texts are not exact, and where you speculate, you may not be right". However, if you cannot present a plausible scenario that fits the evidence, then your underlying assumptionsd are wrong.
I already did it, yo haven no argument
Joe: BTW I accept that the Pastoral epistles were not written by Paul.
Great! So we both agree the early Christians would on occasion saying thing that were not true when it would help their apologetic purpose. So now explain why you insist that the gospel accounts must be true in every particular, given you acknowledge the NT is not all true.
see you can;t resist spin doctoring,
you are thinking like Trump now, declaring that you won regardless of the reality,why don't you just call it all fake news?"
Easy to say. Not so easy to prove.
When I say your arguments are irrational, I quote them and then say why. But then, when I say it, it is true, so I have a big advantage.
Joe: I said I am a historian not a textual critic. We have no text of the PMPN. Building one is the task of textual critics, I don't have time to research that.
So use the research of others. This is how history is done. Each scholar builds on the work of previous scholars, they do not each and every one start from square one. If you read an academic paper, you will see it has references at the end. You know this, so I am sure you know well well what BS this is.
Joe: You have not actually presented a problem with my view. I'm not dogmatically doubting that is not a problem in my book.It's all you have.
The problem with your view is the inherent contradictions. You are claiming that Mark used Peter as his only source AND that Mark used the passion narrative.
Joe: It has been harmonizer the use of four Gospels that use it. We have a harmonious theology based upon those texts, saying that I speak as though Mark never mentioned Galailee is clearly irrational when I accounted for it in elation to eruslaeme.
So where is this supposed harmony? Why not state it or link to it?
Because we both it will be full of inconsistencies with the gospel texts, and that I will rip it to shreds if you dare present it.
Joe: Besides, if I say it;s false that Jesus told them to go to Galilee that;s something I think is false,, isn;t that what you want? you want me to say things are false
If your supposed harmonisation is plausible, then it has to explain why Mark said Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee. Was he mistaken? If so, then why? How could a member of the Christian community be wrong about something so fundamental to the belief?
Your scenario has to explain all the evidence because whatever actually happened produced that evidence.
Pix
Easy to say. Not so easy to prove.
When I say your arguments are irrational, I quote them and then say why. But then, when I say it, it is true, so I have a big advantage.
Joe: I said I am a historian not a textual critic. We have no text of the PMPN. Building one is the task of textual critics, I don't have time to research that.
So use the research of others. This is how history is done. Each scholar builds on the work of previous scholars, they do not each and every one start from square one. If you read an academic paper, you will see it has references at the end. You know this, so I am sure you know well well what BS this is.
Joe: You have not actually presented a problem with my view. I'm not dogmatically doubting that is not a problem in my book.It's all you have.
The problem with your view is the inherent contradictions. You are claiming that Mark used Peter as his only source AND that Mark used the passion narrative.
Joe: It has been harmonizer the use of four Gospels that use it. We have a harmonious theology based upon those texts, saying that I speak as though Mark never mentioned Galailee is clearly irrational when I accounted for it in elation to eruslaeme.
So where is this supposed harmony? Why not state it or link to it?
Because we both it will be full of inconsistencies with the gospel texts, and that I will rip it to shreds if you dare present it.
Joe: Besides, if I say it;s false that Jesus told them to go to Galilee that;s something I think is false,, isn;t that what you want? you want me to say things are false
If your supposed harmonisation is plausible, then it has to explain why Mark said Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee. Was he mistaken? If so, then why? How could a member of the Christian community be wrong about something so fundamental to the belief?
why couldn't he tell the to go to Galilee? souds like maybe he was reported to have been seen there, some resewn they had too explain.
Your scenario has to explain all the evidence because whatever actually happened produced that evidence.
It does. what is not explained?
According to Mark, Jesus said, before he was resurrected, that he would go on ahead to Galilee. In chapter 16, the man (or angel) said Jesus was not there because he had gone on ahead. Mark was either lying, or believe that when the empty tomb was found, Jesus had already left Jerusalem.
Joe: It does. what is not explained?
Among other things, why Mark believed Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee.
Joe: It doesn't have to explain things no other Senior can explain
That is ridiculous.
Something happened. Whatever really happened produce the evidence we have today. There is a reason for each and every verse in the Bible being written. For some, it is doubtless because that is what happened. For others, it is that the author mistakenly believed they happened. Other verses have apologetic or other reasons.
For a scenario to be plausible, it must be capable of explaining every verse. And there has to be at least one plausible scenario.
Pix
According to Mark, Jesus said, before he was resurrected, that he would go on ahead to Galilee. In chapter 16, the man (or angel) said Jesus was not there because he had gone on ahead. Mark was either lying, or believe that when the empty tomb was found, Jesus had already left Jerusalem.
He does not say "he is in Galilee right now so he can't appear in Jerusalem," that is your conjecture
He says that in Matt too. He does not say "I will make no appearances around here," it is not a contradiction that he did
Joe: It does. what is not explained?
Among other things, why Mark believed Jesus had gone on ahead to Galilee.
that is explained, it's not exploited why he wanted to go to Galilee
Joe: It doesn't have to explain things no other gospel can explain
That is ridiculous.
Something happened. Whatever really happened produce the evidence we have today. There is a reason for each and every verse in the Bible being written. For some, it is doubtless because that is what happened. For others, it is that the author mistakenly believed they happened. Other verses have apologetic or other reasons.
Obviously doesn't help
For a scenario to be plausible, it must be capable of explaining every verse. And there has to be at least one plausible scenario.
I gave a plausible reason for going to Galilee you don't have one
he is said to b going to meet them in Galilee but it is not said he is there now. He goes on and meets them in Jerusalem v9
Mark: "6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”"
that does not say hes already in Galilee