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.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,
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.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 is certainly possible, but not at all certain. Just as I cannot prove my hypothesis, you have not proved yours.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.
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.It is inanity to assume they had no facts to go by, not a fair assumption.
Present the evidence it came from eye witnesses. Tell me who those witnesses were. Or could have been.
For some reason Mark chose to record that Jesus prophesied the disciples fleeing Jerusalem. Why?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,
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.
Yes, it is conjecture. This is why it starts "I would guess...".that's conjecture you are piecing that together to suit your agenda,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.
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.
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.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,
The web sites I linked to indicate otherwise.It is the consensus
What evidence do you have that the consensus is that the Empty tomb was part of the PMPN?
Of what point in the development of the narrative?my view is based upon the best snap shot
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.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!