1
   

Proof of Jesus' Resurrection

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 04:41 pm
neologist wrote:
By the time of Origen in 230 C.E. and long before Constantine, the canon as we know it today had been completely established.


What exactly is a "the canon"?
0 Replies
 
tin sword arthur
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 04:56 pm
nick17 wrote:
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."

Ah, yes. That which formed the plot of the Kevin Smith film "Dogma". I should have remembered that one.
Good to know. Thanks for your answers to my questions.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 07:40 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
By the time of Origen in 230 C.E. and long before Constantine, the canon as we know it today had been completely established.


What exactly is a "the canon"?
Good discussion here as it applies to a catalogue or list of accepted documents. (Scroll to bottom of the page.)
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 08:14 pm
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
By the time of Origen in 230 C.E. and long before Constantine, the canon as we know it today had been completely established.


What exactly is a "the canon"?
Good discussion here as it applies to a catalogue or list of accepted documents. (Scroll to bottom of the page.)


Good link, but holy cripes, I've never seen so many words in a paragraph that I didn't understand.

It's interesting that I understand the language of science better than I do the language of theology. I wonder if it was the other way around if I would be tend to believe differently than I do?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 08:36 pm
Doktor S wrote:
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?


Not at all, even if we accept the rather late dates proposed for John's gospel.

(However it is interesting to note that others have assigned a date of between 50-70 A.D. according to the info you provided.)

John, unlike all the other apostles, was not martyred but is known to have lived to a very old age. He trained Polycarp in his old age.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 09:26 pm
Re: Proof of Jesus' Resurrection
Doktor S wrote:
annoyed111 wrote:
Is there physical proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead? (Such as an empty tomb?)

let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Before we can move on to proof of resurection, we should examine proof of existance, which is yet to be found. (much as proof of hercules is yet to be found)


How 'bout your boy, Satan - is he (it/she) real?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 10:59 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Good link, but holy cripes, I've never seen so many words in a paragraph that I didn't understand.

It's interesting that I understand the language of science better than I do the language of theology. I wonder if it was the other way around if I would be tend to believe differently than I do?
Yeah, I've noticed that about religionists in general. that's why I was turned off for so many years myself.

So would you settle for a definition of the bible canon as the generally accepted list of authorized books?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 06:40 am
tin_sword_arthur wrote:
nick17 wrote:
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."

Ah, yes. That which formed the plot of the Kevin Smith film "Dogma".


What a good movie. I love anything Kevin Smith. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 06:58 am
All I know is this... Jesus died unusually early. Every other prisoner that was executed that day had to have their legs broken to speed up their deaths. Also, for some bizarre reason (and I can't remember where I read this) Joseph of Aramathea was bringing Aloe plants to Jesus' tomb after his crucifixion.

Aloe plants are healing plants and not the traditional plants that are brought to tombs.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:06 am
neologist wrote:
So would you settle for a definition of the bible canon as the generally accepted list of authorized books?


That works for me. Who "authorizes" the books? Is that the Pope? Or scholars in general?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:22 am
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
So would you settle for a definition of the bible canon as the generally accepted list of authorized books?


That works for me. Who "authorizes" the books? Is that the Pope? Or scholars in general?


No idea, but according to a Focus UK Magazine article on "the Da Vinci Code", the selection process for the Gospels began well before Constantine (the claim in Da Vinci Code being that it began with Constantine).

In 150AD, what is now Modern Turkey, Marcion of Sinope had proposed a single, definitive 'canon' of scriptures. Around 180AD, Irenaeus of Lyon insisted on the centrality of the four Gospels.

During the 4th Century, bitter arguments raged over the nature of Christ's divinity: was he the divine Son of God who became human, or was he simultaneously divine and human?

The latter was decreed in 367AD to be the case by Bishop Ahtanasius of Alexandria and all but the 27 books of the present NT were labelled heretical.
0 Replies
 
tin sword arthur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:29 am
Such a highly decisive selection process used there. "Well, I say these books are right and these are wrong, because I feel that's the way it should be. Everything else is now heresy."
Good on ya, Bishop.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:31 am
Oops. Typo. That should have read Athanasius, not Ahtanasius.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:32 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
So would you settle for a definition of the bible canon as the generally accepted list of authorized books?


That works for me. Who "authorizes" the books? Is that the Pope? Or scholars in general?


No idea, but according to a Focus UK Magazine article on "the Da Vinci Code", the selection process for the Gospels began well before Constantine (the claim in Da Vinci Code being that it began with Constantine).

In 150AD, what is now Modern Turkey, Marcion of Sinope had proposed a single, definitive 'canon' of scriptures. Around 180AD, Irenaeus of Lyon insisted on the centrality of the four Gospels.

During the 4th Century, bitter arguments raged over the nature of Christ's divinity: was he the divine Son of God who became human, or was he simultaneously divine and human?

The latter was decreed in 367AD to be the case by Bishop Ahtanasius of Alexandria and all but the 27 books of the present NT were labelled heretical.


Sounds like total chaos to me.

Old men from hundreds of years ago, arguing over tattered tablets from thousands of years ago, interpreting different languages and saying only what the power elite of the time approve of saying. All with narry a shred of physical evidence against which to validate anything.

A giant multi-generational cluster f**k.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:34 am
Ros

Thousands? You mean, hundreds right? I said 4th Century, not 4th Millennium. Unless... You're from the future, aren't you? What's it like? Laughing
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:38 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
All I know is this... Jesus died unusually early. Every other prisoner that was executed that day had to have their legs broken to speed up their deaths. Also, for some bizarre reason (and I can't remember where I read this) Joseph of Aramathea was bringing Aloe plants to Jesus' tomb after his crucifixion.

Aloe plants are healing plants and not the traditional plants that are brought to tombs.


Yes He did die early Wolf. But consider several factors that would not have necessarily been a factor for the two others crucified. Jesus was scourged prior to being crucified. He spent the previous night being marched around Jerusalem, first being taken before Caiaphas (sp?), then to Pilate, then over to Herod, then back to Pilate. What little sleep (if any) He got could not have been very restful. By the time He spent several hours on the cross, these factors would have contributed heavily to His not having the strength to push himself up in order to breathe, thus hastening His death.

Keep in mind also that by the time of Jesus, the Romans were quite good at the crucifixion game. They would not have allowed anyone down off their crosses without being sure they were dead. Even in the case of Jesus, after seeing he was dead, a soldier ran a spear into Him just to be sure.

As far as the story about the Aloe, I cannot comment because I have never heard that one before. I would be curious to know where that originated.
0 Replies
 
tin sword arthur
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:48 am
Found it. From John 19:
38And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

39And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

40Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

They did use aloe. I didn't realize that.
I'm glad I bookmarked that bible reference site during all this.
http://bibledev.azaz.com/bibleresources/bible_kjv.php in case anyone else wants it for reference.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 07:54 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Ros

Thousands? You mean, hundreds right? I said 4th Century, not 4th Millennium. Unless... You're from the future, aren't you? What's it like? Laughing


Well, hundreds is bad enough, but I was referring to the root documents which are the basis of christianity. At least over a thousand years old, right?
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 08:03 am
Thanks TSA.

As to why they may have used Aloes, the sap from the plants is bitter tasting and tends to keep animals and insects from eating the plant. So it would make sense for people back then to use aloe in the burial process for preservation of the body.
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 08:04 am
Jesus dies VERY young seeing as people from those days lived for hundreds of year!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 03:34:43