tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post919385384528984831..comments2022-04-08T18:32:31.410-07:00Comments on On Creationism: Post-crucifixion sightings of Jesus in JerusalemUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-89123612664450146652016-04-22T01:34:56.124-07:002016-04-22T01:34:56.124-07:00Sorry, yes. Paul was first for the works we still ...Sorry, yes. Paul was first for the works we still have, but there may well have been earlier works. The point, however, is that we do not have them, so have no reason to suppose they included the Jerusalem sightings. The PMPN likely ended before or just after the empty tomb. Q was likely a collection of sayings.<br /><br />What are you not getting? I am proposing that all the sightings of Jesus in Jerusalem and its surroundings (anywhere other than Galilee) after the crucifixion were made up subsequent to the Gospel of Mark.F2Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215640430687543082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-45795547171936613962016-04-21T10:49:49.157-07:002016-04-21T10:49:49.157-07:00Paul was not the first because Koester thinks he h...Paul was not the first because Koester thinks he had a saying source. The PMPN was probably first. I( still don't understand what you think you are say8ng with th thing about Jerusalem sightings,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-15513084529942163822016-04-21T05:08:40.901-07:002016-04-21T05:08:40.901-07:00It is generally reckoned Luke used other sources, ...It is generally reckoned Luke used other sources, and I think it quite possible the Jerusalem sightings were in them. However, it is still possible (and likely in my view) that these accounts Luke used were made up. What we know is the Mark did not have any Jerusalem sightings, and the way he words it indicates he was not even away of any. The most likely explanation is the Jerusalem sightings were made up after Mark was writing.<br /><br />You say; "Mark was not the first to write about Jesus." That would be Paul, but Paul gives little at all about what actually happened (which is understandable, in context). If you are thinking that Matthew was before Mark, then I disagree, for reasons I outlined in September in a post called, "Which was first: Matthew or Mark?"F2Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14215640430687543082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6388626602586411180.post-3025767201720923982016-04-20T19:48:55.074-07:002016-04-20T19:48:55.074-07:00your assumption is wrong. Just because mark is the...your assumption is wrong. Just because mark is the first canonical written doesn't mean Luke for example didn't use older material in some cases. Mark was not the first to write about Jesus. So when Luke has him ascend in Bethany that's a Jerusalem sitting.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com