[/quote]The Pixie wrote:No it does not. However:Metacrock wrote:Doesn't invalidate his dating Josephus shows us he got people down from cross so they did not always wind up in mass graves, or unhurried.
1. It makes it look as if you cherry-pick the data that fits your own pet theory. You accept Crossan's data when it agrees with you, and reject it when it disagrees.
since we both know not true why bring it up? the conclusion he reaches about empty tomb is not data its an opinion,its not a fact it's not proven.
No it's not, its much more consistent with it being true,2. It is apparent that the dating is consistent with the empty tomb being made-up.
That's the whole point of both Brow n and Koester talking about diatesseron (Koester) identifying older readings, I had already fojmulated the idea that GTom had a older core before I knew about the PN.Okay. But that only follows if those points are not derived from the same source.Metacrock wrote:I did not argue that they are true as documents, I argued that points in agreement with orthodoxy are more likely to be true.
Yes and Crosson makes that point, but by the time those sources have become part of other docs like GTom And GPete and canonical they are the acceptance of different communities,so all of those communities are the sources that say "ok we know this is true," they are ratifying as true the same points.If Peter draws from the PMPN, then Peter is not independent of the synoptics, and does not help at all. And if the guards were added in a later editing, based on the account in Matthew, then that does not help you either.
they are backed by two sources and you can;t account for it in any other way,
that's an opinon nota fact and I think youare pullinga fast one, he does noit have MS with out empty tob,He;snot basing thaton older reading like he is the PNYes, Joe, I can. And have. Here it is again:
The author of Matthew made it up. A later redactor of Peter inserted into that text, embellishing it to shore up the holes.