Proof of Jesus' Resurrection

Well, surely showing the people at the temple how smart he was wasn't the only thing that happened to him growing up. "My hour is not yet come" kind of got blown out of the water when he showed the teachers at the temple how vast his knowledge of scripture was. Discounting that as a miracle, since it wasn't, it surely was worthy of note, hence it's inclusion in the bible. But nothing else? Until his ministry started, there was nothing else he did that someone, someplace, thought "Hey, I should remember he did that"?
If not, then fine. I just find it a little odd that the son of God had done nothing worthy of note growing up.

0 Replies

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. " -- John 21:25

0 Replies

Ah, so some thought was put into it. I didn't realize that was in the bible. Thank you for sharing that, nick.
You seem to know your stuff. Let me run this one past you, since I only got a very vague response from my parents, who are both Christians. Why are Christians so offended at the possibility of Jesus' being married? I mean, throw out the Merovingian bloodline stuff for now, and just worry about the possibility of marriage. From what I understand, all young men at that time married. ALL of them. Why does it offend Christians so to think about the possibility of Jesus having taken a wife at some point?
I apologise if this was covered in another thread, but there are so many of these it is getting hard to keep track of them.

0 Replies

nick17 wrote:

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. " -- John 21:25

Now, there's a weak argument, apart from the fact it is irrelevant to the non-existence of externally corroborative documentation.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Quote:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others while liberal scholars usually date as late as possible. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

* Mark: c. 68-73
* Matthew: c. 70-100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80-100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90-110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship over most of the last 2 millennia has generally come to different conclusions assigning earlier dates. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

* Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70's
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50's to 70

SOURCE

Ok. First hand witnesses? Even by the most conservative christian estimates, the earliest of the gospels was not written until 50 years after the putative death of christ. These 'first hand witnesses' must have had impressive lifespans, even by todays standards.

Did you learn math in public school?

0 Replies

arthur, for one thing Jesus' marriage would sure blow hell out of any justification for a celibate priesthood--"if it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me".

0 Replies

But the common argument for Jesus was that he needed to live a "perfect life" in order to atone for the sins of man. How does marriage not fit into that "perfect life", if marriage was ordained by god?

0 Replies

Claiming that Jesus was married carries massive implications. If He was married He would mos probably not have been celibate so if He wasn't celibate then He may have had children and that brings us back to the main problem; claiming that Jesus was married has implications of decendents. The bloodline thing cant be seperated from it.

Also if Jesus had given his love to a woman, then how could he love us all equally, surely he would love His hypothetical 'wife and kids' the most. He had to love us all equally to give us the ultimate sacrifice. Otherwise He would have been torn, i.e. 'If i allow myself to die, my wife will be left without a husband and my childeren without a father; but i will save humanity. What do i do?'

0 Replies

If he were truly "perfect", he should have no trouble loving all mankind equally, including wife and/or children. I can't imagine Jesus, as the son of god, would have been torn between the duty he was sent to earth to perform, and disobeying his "father" to raise a family. And surely the lord would have no trouble staying celebate, even after marriage. One certainly gets the impression that his disciples were favored over others, too. He chose them, they didn't just start following him out of the blue one day. Doesn't this imply he showed more love for them than for others? It certainly seems he favored Peter, calling him the rock upon which he would build his church (or something to that effect).
By the way, did I miss something? It's been years since I read the bible, but I don't recall anything in there about "all men need to be loved equally to be saved." I can't recall that being a condition of the sacrifice he made.
Just so you know, I'm not trying to start a fight here with anyone. I'm just curious as to what the Christian mindset is for these things, since these answers were never given to me while I was being brought up in Christian home. "The Lord works in mysterious ways" usually carried the day.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others while liberal scholars usually date as late as possible. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

* Mark: c. 68-73
* Matthew: c. 70-100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80-100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90-110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship over most of the last 2 millennia has generally come to different conclusions assigning earlier dates. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

* Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70's
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50's to 70

SOURCE

Ok. First hand witnesses? Even by the most conservative christian estimates, the earliest of the gospels was not written until 50 years after the putative death of christ. These 'first hand witnesses' must have had impressive lifespans, even by todays standards.

By the earliest estimate, the author of John, if he were a 'first hand witness', would have had to have been at least 80-100 years old at the time it was written.
Maybe not impressive if you believe noah lived 900 years (ell oh ell) but definately WELL beyond the average lifespan of anyone living in that primitive age.
You are really losing it 'real life'. It must be such a struggle to try to hold such an internally inconsistant belief system together, so I can't really blame you...

0 Replies

Quote:

the duty he was sent to earth to perform

Yes, thats right. The duty he was sent to earth to do:

"For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." -- John 18:37

If He had been married, surely that would have diverted Him from His duty.

Quote:

If he were truly "perfect", he should have no trouble loving all mankind equally, including wife and/or children.

"And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." -- Luke 4:12

Quote:

and disobeying his "father"

But he did ask his Father to take away his suffering

"And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt." -- Matthew 26:39

Quote:

One certainly gets the impression that his disciples were favored over others, too. He chose them, they didn't just start following him out of the blue one day. Doesn't this imply he showed more love for them than for others? It certainly seems he favored Peter, calling him the rock upon which he would build his church (or something to that effect).

Jesus asks all men to follow him, the diciples obeyed, they left there fishing (their lively-hood) and followd Him. This doesn't mean they were loved above others. They were the first preists

"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." -- Matthew 28:19-20

Quote:

I don't recall anything in there about "all men need to be loved equally to be saved." I can't recall that being a condition of the sacrifice he made.

Well I don't recall saying it was a condition or that all men NEED to be loved equally. But that all men ARE loved equally

"And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

"There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28

0 Replies

By the way, who decided what gospels were canon and should be included in the bible? What about the other disciples? Did they write anything? And could there not possibly be other gospels out there, waiting to be discovered? I don't think the bible says "Thou shalt only pay attention to these gospels; any others shall be ignored or called heresy". At what point was it decided that enough was enough, and the bible was complete from that point on?

0 Replies

Some other apostles wrote epistles. As for other Gospels, there have been fake gospels, in the days of the early church there were many, the Church (with authority from Christ himself) sorted through them and got rid of the heretical ones and so forth until only the reliable four we have today remained. There is a novel out kind of competing with the Da Vinci code on how many Christians it can annoy - The Gospel of Judas. I dont know the exact time when the four Gospels were 'complete' to use your word. sounds like Dok has had an influence on you.

Well your obviously getting angry so i'll call it a day.

0 Replies

nick17 wrote:

Quote:
the duty he was sent to earth to perform

Yes, thats right. The duty he was sent to earth to do:

"For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth." -- John 18:37

If He had been married, surely that would have diverted Him from His duty.

I'll begrudginly concede this. I still can't see how or why being married would have changed anything for him, since that's the way the world was then. But I'll let it go. If someone else wants to pick it up and run with it, fine.

nick17 wrote:

Quote:
If he were truly "perfect", he should have no trouble loving all mankind equally, including wife and/or children.

"And Jesus answering, said to him: It is said: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." -- Luke 4:12

This verse is in refernce to his temptation by satan, and has little or nothing to do with the question other than providing an out of context answer.

nick17 wrote:

Quote:
and disobeying his "father"

But he did ask his Father to take away his suffering

"And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt." -- Matthew 26:39

Okay. You answered this one. Thank you.

nick17 wrote:

Quote:
One certainly gets the impression that his disciples were favored over others, too. He chose them, they didn't just start following him out of the blue one day. Doesn't this imply he showed more love for them than for others? It certainly seems he favored Peter, calling him the rock upon which he would build his church (or something to that effect).

Jesus asks all men to follow him, the diciples obeyed, they left there fishing (their lively-hood) and followd Him. This doesn't mean they were loved above others. They were the first preists

"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." -- Matthew 28:19-20

But the fact remains, he chose then specifically. He didn't just show up in their towns and announce "I'm Jesus, the Son of God. Anyone want to come along with me for a while?" And I know, they were sinners and he was showing he came for the sinner by choosing such, but it sure doesn't look good for the argument against not showing them favor. Look at all they were privy to that no one else saw. Jesus walking on water, the last supper, even some of them were along when Jesus conversed with the spirits of Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17). Sure, others saw miracles, and the disciples were bound to see more of them than others since they travelled with him everywhere, but he showed them, and only them, certain things that would likely have been deal breakers for other non-believers. It certainly implies favor, in my book.

nick17 wrote:

Quote:
I don't recall anything in there about "all men need to be loved equally to be saved." I can't recall that being a condition of the sacrifice he made.

Well I don't recall saying it was a condition or that all men NEED to be loved equally. But that all men ARE loved equally

"And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

"There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." -- Galatians 3:28

Point conceded again. Thank you. At least, to the point you made of all men being loved equally (and I use men in the biblical sense, to mean "all", not just men). But I still refer you above to the point about seeming to show favor.

As for your answer to the other post, I'm not getting angry. Not at you, anyhow. These are questions that were ignored when I asked them at my former church. No one has had an influence on me. When I became atheist, it was because I chose to do so. I stopped believing in the fairy tales the church told me, and began to see for myself. And by "gospels", I meant all the books of the bible, not just the big four. I should have been clearer on that. Sorry.
So, if you are leaving, then I'll just toss this next question out for someone else to answer. How did the church have the authority of Christ to toss out other books from being included in the bible?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

real life wrote:
Doktor S wrote:
Quote:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others while liberal scholars usually date as late as possible. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996:

* Mark: c. 68-73
* Matthew: c. 70-100 as the majority view; the minority of conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80-100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
* John: c. 90-110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship over most of the last 2 millennia has generally come to different conclusions assigning earlier dates. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

* Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's
* Matthew: c. 50 to 70's
* Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's
* John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50's to 70

SOURCE

Ok. First hand witnesses? Even by the most conservative christian estimates, the earliest of the gospels was not written until 50 years after the putative death of christ. These 'first hand witnesses' must have had impressive lifespans, even by todays standards.

Did you learn math in public school?

By the earliest estimate, the author of John, if he were a 'first hand witness', would have had to have been at least 80-100 years old at the time it was written.
Maybe not impressive if you believe noah lived 900 years (ell oh ell) but definately WELL beyond the average lifespan of anyone living in that primitive age.
You are really losing it 'real life'. It must be such a struggle to try to hold such an internally inconsistant belief system together, so I can't really blame you...

Your statement was regarding the 'earliest of the gospels' , which by both sets of figures that you provided would be Mark.

You referred to the 'most conservative estimated date' which would be 50 A.D. for Mark (and within 10 years we have the corresponding earliest estimates for Matthew and Luke).

Now the date for Mark, which you referenced (the earliest gospel) doesn't seem to be 50 years after the crucifixion[/b] of Christ (as you had stated), but rather 50 years after His birth[/b] and easily still within the SAME generation which witnessed His death.

Perhaps you learned to count in Florida? Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

Now the date for Mark, which you referenced (the earliest gospel) doesn't seem to be 50 years after the crucifixion of Christ (as you had stated), but rather 50 years after His birth and easily still within the SAME generation which witnessed His death.

Hmm it seems you are correct in this instance. I rescind my argument.

However, it still remains unlikely that john could have been written by one who observed these things first hand.

And that creates a bit of a slippery slope, wouldn't you say?

0 Replies

Quote:

And by "gospels", I meant all the books of the bible, not just the big four.

I also made a reference to Galatians.

But personally I find the Gospels easiest to reference.

0 Replies

Quote:

How did the church have the authority of Christ to toss out other books from being included in the bible?

"And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

0 Replies

http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm

0 Replies

tin_sword_arthur wrote:

. . . How did the church have the authority of Christ to toss out other books from being included in the bible?

The bible was completed around the year 100 C.E. The earliest known canonical catalogue, The Muratorian fragment, dates back to about 170 C.E. It included all of the NT with the exception of Hebrews and James and showed some doubt about 1Peter and 3John. By the time of Origen in 230 C.E. and long before Constantine, the canon as we know it today had been completely established. It should be noted that none of the major catalogues included the apocryphal books. While those books may have historical value, they contained many references to magic and superstition not supported by scripture.

0 Replies

Proof of Jesus' Resurrection

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know