jgibson000

I would have been honoured just to have been nominated.

But thanks for showing the strength of your argument.

Jeffrey Gibson

JoeWallack

JW:
Well I guess I can not exactly accuse you of bias (how long have you been a Skeptic?). I'm mainly interested in what the Text implies. As far as what "Mark's" readers (emphasis on "Mark's" as opposed to readers of other Gospels) knew/assumed my guess is Kelber is correct in saying Peter and the Disciples stayed in Jerusalem after Jesus died and their movement was largely destroyed when Jerusalem was destroyed. I think "Mark's" audience knew this was historically what happened and that they were being invited to replace the original disciples in Galilee (not Jerusalem). I don't think the text implies though that Peter and the Disciples stayed in Jerusalem.

Trying to evaluate different possible scenarios (you know, just like they do in the real world, outside of Religion) for what outcome is Implied by the Text, the one farthest from Orthodox Christianity (OC) is that Peter and the Disciples abandoned Jesus and never saw him again. This is where I Am at.

The next closest scenario is Peter and the Disciples abandoned Jesus and returned to Galilee and only saw Jesus there because they were in the same geographical area. Their beliefs towards Jesus though did not change in any way. This is where you are at. I see this position as possible and if the Galilee predictions by Jesus are original this still allows the supposed prophecy to be fulfilled, but in an Ironic, unexpected way which is consistent with the Style of "Mark" and the same type "fulfillment" as James and John drinking from the same cup as Jesus (they did it literally and not figuratively).

My question to you Doug is what exactly is there in the Text that makes you think "appearance to the disciples is implied by the text" since I believe you agree that "Mark" is largely a discrediting of Peter and the Disciples' witness?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

Started in my late teens but it wasn't applied to my religious beliefs until I was in college. Let's just say about 20 years.

"But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:7, KJV)

The fact that the promise is placed in the mouth of Jesus is the primary factor for me. Regardless of the repeatedly emphasized inadequacies of the disciples and regardless of the fearful silence of the women, Jesus states that they will see him.

Solo

Problem with this theory, Joe, is that Mark's J. knew his disciples were going to fail him and knowing that he still promises to meet with them in Galilee to manifest his moral superiority as resurrected Messiah. So, obviously, even if you don't want to see the reconciliation motif, there is still Jesus' word and Mark's one-upsmanship over the disciples to deny.

Three denials and you're out ! :wave:

'in the same geographical area' meaning 'in Jesus' ghost range' ?

Jiri

Ben C Smith

Is this the way it works in these circles? Make a reasonable statement and your membership status is called into question?

Doug is one of the most fair-minded posters on this board.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
I agree. The reason is not because of his ability to change other people's positions but his ability to change his position.



Joseph


http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Amaleq13

I have book-marked this post for future abuse!!




ETA: thanks for the kind words

Ben C Smith

So... next time you and I go a few rounds I can expect to see this thrown back at me a few times?

Ben.

Amaleq13

I'm having T-shirts printed even as I type.

judge

Problem is Jesus is not seen to rebuke Peter for identifying him. He warns them all not to disclose who he is but does not rebuke anyone.

It is only in response to Peters attempt to interfere with his mission that Jesus rebukes peter and calls him satan.

Had Peter not indicated his inclination that Jesus should not be handed over and killed, Jesus would not have called him satan.

At least that is how I read it.