Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Discuss either theological doctrines, ideas about God, or Biblical criticism. I don't want any debates about creation vs evolution.

Moderator: Metacrock

Forum rules
(1) be interesting (2) be nice.

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby The Pixie on Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:14 am

Metacrock wrote:It's total silliness to do thing all or nothing thing, either everything he says is right or everything is wrong that's nonsense,

I know, I was being facetious. However, it is equally nonsense to declare one of his opinions as fact and another as wrong just on the basis of what you want to be true.
he doesn't say they are the only two. But yes they had ample time to hear from the two Marys since they were in the community.

That it what the text implies. He indicates the disciples fled Jerusalem in Mark 14, and no one else is mentioned in the rest of the narrative.
that's fallacious, you base that upon their structure of the narrative drawing upon OT that does not prove its invented, that only proves they had to invent a narrative structure, they still had a set of facts, trey are only drawing upon OT to know how to organize them.

That is certainly possible, but not at all certain. Just as I cannot prove my hypothesis, you have not proved yours.
It is inanity to assume they had no facts to go by, not a fair assumption.

It is based on the text we have (i.e., Mark) and the fact that it used a lot of the OT. You consider it not "fair" because it disagrees with your belief.

Present the evidence it came from eye witnesses. Tell me who those witnesses were. Or could have been.
you are back reading that into every moment of Jesus; ministry. You are also creating a canon within the canons by making that one phrase the key to everything, what if that was the phrase added latter? Someone would have known what happened in that gap and they pieced it together latter, they are not filming a documentary,

For some reason Mark chose to record that Jesus prophesied the disciples fleeing Jerusalem. Why?

I think the most likely scenario is that the disciples fled Jerusalem, and fairly early in the development of the PMPN these words were put in Jesus' mouth (in fairness, he maybe even said; he may have expected it). Mark included the prophecy because he knew that the disciples had indeed fled.

If the disciples did not flee, then Jesus' prophecy failed. Why would Mark choose to include a failed prophecy? He would not. He would drop it from the story, just as the authors of Matthew and Luke did years later, once the narrative had changed so the disciples were still in Jerusalem after the crucifixion.
I would guess the disciples saw something that hey thought was Jesus resurrected, but that was later in Galilee - as the first account in Mark says. The various appearances in Jerusalem were written by different groups long after the event, once the people who would have been there were dead.

that's conjecture you are piecing that together to suit your agenda,

Yes, it is conjecture. This is why it starts "I would guess...".

However, it is conjecture based on the evidence we have. The fact is that Mark indicates there were no post resurrection appearances in Jerusalem, only in Galilee. This is something you are ignoring to suit your agenda.
that's bull shit, it only mentions the it's silly to think no one else was there.you re assuming Mark is the original author who made it all up,Mark got it from other people, He edited it to his own needs,

I am assuming Mark is the best guide we have to what was written in the PMPN. And Mark indicates the disciple fled Jerusalem, so it is reasonable to assume that that happened.
It is the consensus

The web sites I linked to indicate otherwise.

What evidence do you have that the consensus is that the Empty tomb was part of the PMPN?
my view is based upon the best snap shot

Of what point in the development of the narrative?
Peter Kirby's sight his research is biased and he is not honest, he kicked me off his message board because I was winning all the arguments, but his a article says PMPN is consensus!

Stop moving the goal posts. We both agree there was a PMPN; that is not the argument. The discussion is about whether it included the Empty Tomb.
The Pixie
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:49 am

I am not moving the goal post that illusion is created because you keep bribing up things i have disproved and settled,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9910
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby Metacrock on Sat Oct 14, 2017 3:51 am

The web sites I linked to indicate otherwise.

What evidence do you have that the consensus is that the Empty tomb was part of the PMPN?


no they do not, Kirby himself says it's consensus and you quoted that source yourself.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief
User avatar
Metacrock
 
Posts: 9910
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location: Dallas

Re: Eight Levels of Verification for the Gospels

Postby The Pixie on Sat Oct 14, 2017 4:55 am

Metacrock wrote:
The web sites I linked to indicate otherwise.

What evidence do you have that the consensus is that the Empty tomb was part of the PMPN?


no they do not, Kirby himself says it's consensus and you quoted that source yourself.

Did you read the sources? This one ends at 15:47, with the implication that none of the 87 scholars believed the passion nasrrative continued after that:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/p ... young.html

This one finishes on 15:37, with Jesus dying.
https://sites.google.com/site/briansgre ... -narrative

So again, what evidence do you have that the consensus is that the Empty tomb was part of the PMPN?
The Pixie
 
Posts: 809
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Previous

Return to Theology/Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests