(October 1, 2015 at 8:07 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Edit to Add: I see Aractus did a good job of explaining why, even if we accept the earliest possible dates of the writings in question, they don't prove what you're claiming, Randy. Nice work, Aractus.
Second Editing: I see Randy still doesn't grasp that people writing "he is risen" doesn't mean that the stories told are eyewitness accounts that thereby imply the full "He was buried in the tomb of Joesph of Arimathea and when we came a few days later to look, he was no longer in the same tomb we saw him buried in and then he appeared and spoke to us and we watched him ascend into heaven, and none of this stuff I'm writing down 20+ years later is an embellishment from the retelling of the original basic version".
What does it mean for Jesus to have "risen", rocket?
What does it mean for people to have seen Jesus AFTER the resurrection?
But yes, Mark knew that Jesus was buried in a tomb belonging to JoA (cf Mark 15). He also knew that Jesus was risen since he wrote "he is risen" (cf. Mark 16:6)
And since 1 Cor 15:1-8 can be dated to about AD 35, then yeah, it does kinda mean that Mark heard Peter say the same things in AD 50 that Paul heard Peter say in AD 35.
That's the whole point.
