quote:
My view is that Jesus was saying that if the Jews were to try and oust the Romans militarily then the Romans would do what they always do
Again you fail to address the point.
quote:
It is quite possible that it was written after 70 AD but that doesn’t mean that what was written wasn’t faithful to what had originally been said by Jesus and each of the gospels contain different parts of the entire message that Jesus gave.
Well the evidence for the date of authorship was really the point, although it seems that your view also can't deal with the differences between the version found in Mark and Matthew and the version found in Luke (as well as failing to understand that the Gospel texts may have very little to do with what Jesus really said).
quote:
Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me.
But he never appealed to Jesus' authority as he would if he were repeating Jesus' teachings. And it seems odd that you would think that the resurrection was unimportant to Paul when you yourself said that it was of central importance. So why say so little about it or the post-resurrection appearances ?
Remember that you were the one who argued that if something is not mentioned it is because the author did not know it.
quote:
Not at all. Paul just put the teachings of Jesus into his own words. Also remember that Jesus was speaking to Jews whereas Paul was reaching out to gentiles. Paul wrote about the message of Christ and not his life which makes sense to me.
But it ISN'T implicit, because to have an empty tomb you need an occupied tomb first. If Jesus was buried in a common grave - as was typical for the victims of crucifixion - then there would be no tomb. Thus since Paul mentions the crucifixion it seems more reasonable to say that Paul implies that there was no empty tomb.