The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 3)

[Quagmire]

Obviously, because they were written prior to the destruction of the temple.

Why would that necessarily follow?

Right, and 30+ years later is when the Gospels were written anyway, and should a prophecy such as the destruction of the temple had come to pass in this period, how could this not be included in the narrative?

I already explained why. Basically for the same reasons that Teddy Roosevelt or the sinking of the Titanic aren't mentioned in Gone With the Wind: wrong time-period.

Right, so it had to have been written before the death of Paul. Luke was a friend of Paul, and author of Acts...so why would Luke include the deaths of Stephen, James (brother of John), and King Herod...and NOT include the death of Paul, who was the central figure in the latter part of the book?

Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

Well one possible reason is that the tradition is incorrect.

What??? Added as a footnote? Quag, the entire city of Jerusalem, along with the holy temple of Jerusalem was DESTROYED, and hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed or enslaved.

The magnitude of the event is beside the point if the event doesn't fall within the time-frame of the narrative.

There is no way you could write the book of Acts and not include this in the narrative. Especially when there is less significant things like the death of King Herod, which had absolutely nothing to do with anything, mentioned in the book of Acts.

Again: time-frame. The Book of Acts is essentially the story of Paul. If his story ends before the fall of the temple, there's no reason to expect the event to show up in the story regardless of when it was written.

In the Acts narrative, the disciples are going through their daily lives as disciples of Jesus, going through trials and tribulations, traveling, preaching, etc...there is absolutely no hint of a seige of Jerusalem, nor is there any hint of the temple being destroyed, or 1.1 million Jews dying as a result of the Jewish-Roman war.

Because, again, within the time-frame of the story it hadn't happened yet.

To think that this would have been added as a footnote is to failure to see the signficance of such an event in Jewish history.

The New Testament is not a book about Jewish history.

You wouldn't add the Holocaust or the World Trade Center attacks as a footnote, would you?

If I were writing a book about the American Civil War and, for whatever reason, needed to reference either of those events, yes, it would probably be as a footnote. Why? Because in relation to the subject matter those events hadn't happened yet. Which isn't the same as saying they haven't happened yet in relation to the date of authorship.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Quick question here Call.

In Acts 12:2 it depicts the death of James (Paul's brother and a fellow Apostle) would you agree that this even occurred AFTER Jesus's death? What time would you date this in your personal biblical opinion?

That was actually James, brother of John...and his death is most certainly AFTER Jesus' death. Remember, the book of Acts is a narrative which occurred after Jesus' death because in the beginning of the book, Jesus ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9) and the evangelism and growth of the Christiandom went from there.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That was actually James, brother of John...and his death is most certainly AFTER Jesus' death. Remember, the book of Acts is a narrative which occurred after Jesus' death because in the beginning of the book, Jesus ascended to heaven (Acts 1:9) and the evangelism and growth of the Christiandom went from there.

In your opinion when did he die? Shortly after or a long time after>

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Why would that necessarily follow?

For reasons previously mentioned.

I already explained why. Basically for the same reasons that Teddy Roosevelt or the sinking of the Titanic aren't mentioned in Gone With the Wind: wrong time-period.

The magnitude of the event is beside the point if the event doesn't fall within the time-frame of the narrative.

Ok I can see where you are coming from, but I don't necessarily agree. Luke was the one that wrote his Gospel and also the book of Acts, so he certainly knew about Jesus' prediction of the temple fall, because it is IN HIS GOSPEL. So should the temple been destroyed at the time that he wrote EITHER book, he would have mentioned in the footnote, or otherwise.

If it is 1975 and I have a "wise" cousin, and he tells me "Hey, one day, the WTC will collapse somehow. I just know it. I have a gut feeling"...and I just brush him off and call him crazy, and he dies 5 years later...

In 2005, if I decide to write a book about my "wise" cousin, and I INCLUDE in the narrative his prediction that the WTC will collapse somehow, how can I NOT include his accurate prediction which occurred on Sep 11, 2001 and the WTC collapse? If I am including his prediction, how can I not conclude the fulfillment of the prediction, had it occured at the time of my writing the book??

Makes no sense.

Well one possible reason is that the tradition is incorrect.

What tradition?

Again: time-frame. The Book of Acts is essentially the story of Paul. If his story ends before the fall of the temple, there's no reason to expect the event to show up in the story regardless of when it was written.

Wait a second now, in the book of Acts, are you saying that if the temple was destroyed during the time-frame of Paul (in Acts), that it would have been mentioned in the book of Acts? Yes or no?

Because, again, within the time-frame of the story it hadn't happened yet.

Ok, so please answer the question above.

The New Testament is not a book about Jewish history.

You can't talk about the origin/growth of the Christian faith without a sprinkle of Jewish history with it.

If I were writing a book about the American Civil War and, for whatever reason, needed to reference either of those events, yes, it would probably be as a footnote. Why? Because in relation to the subject matter those events hadn't happened yet. Which isn't the same as saying they haven't happened yet in relation to the date of authorship.

If you are writing about a Messiah that fulfilled prophecies and one was fulfilled during the time that you are writing, then the fulfillment of the prophecy HAS happened "yet".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In your opinion when did he die? Shortly after or a long time after>

Did James die shortly or after a long time from what?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

If the Gospel of Mark, written by Peter's companion, was written in the 50s, before Peter died, why wasn't it called the Gospel of Peter?

Mark says the transfiguration was witnessed by Peter, James, and John. If the Gospel of John is by the disciple, why doesn't he mention such an important event? And why does he have the crucifixion on Thursday instead of Friday?

If the Gospel of Luke, clearly by the author of Acts, was the real Luke, why does he say Paul returned to Jerusalem after his vision on the road to Damascus, when Paul says he didn't?

If Mathew, Luke, and John are authentic, why do they teach the incarnation and virgin birth, never mentioned by Mark and denied by Paul: "on the human level he was born of David’s stock".

Papias, about 100, knows Mark's gospel and a collection of sayings of Jesus in the original Aramaic made by Matthew. If the other three gospels existed at that time, how come he never knew them?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Did James die shortly or after a long time from what?

Did he die shortly after Yeshua's death or was it a significant time after?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If the Gospel of Mark, written by Peter's companion, was written in the 50s, before Peter died, why wasn't it called the Gospel of Peter?

Because as you just said, IT WASN'T WRITTEN BY PETER.

Mark says the transfiguration was witnessed by Peter, James, and John. If the Gospel of John is by the disciple, why doesn't he mention such an important event?

The fact that some authors mentions things that the others didn't that only goes to show that these were independent accounts, and as independent accounts, we should expect things like that.

And why does he have the crucifixion on Thursday instead of Friday?

He does have the crucifixion of a Friday. John 19:31 states "Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath". The Sabbath day is on Saturdays, so if the "next day" was the Sabbath, the prior day was Friday.

If the Gospel of Luke, clearly by the author of Acts, was the real Luke, why does he say Paul returned to Jerusalem after his vision on the road to Damascus, when Paul says he didn't?

Actually Paul said he went to Arabia, THEN Damascus, and THEN Jerusalem (Gal 1:17). Luke only stated that Paul went to Damascus, which is NOT to say that Paul didn't go to Arabia first, but Luke apparently felt he didn't have to annotate every single stop that Paul made along his journey, and come to think of it, I don't either.

If Mathew, Luke, and John are authentic, why do they teach the incarnation and virgin birth, never mentioned by Mark and denied by Paul: "on the human level he was born of David’s stock".

Failure of one Gospel to mention things that other Gospels mentioned means nothing. And Jesus' step-father Joseph's lineage can be traced back to David, which would mean he was "born" of David's stock.

Papias, about 100, knows Mark's gospel and a collection of sayings of Jesus in the original Aramaic made by Matthew. If the other three gospels existed at that time, how come he never knew them?

Whose to say he didn't? Papias is where everyone seems to think that Irenaues got his information from, and he names all four books, so if he knew them and Papias is his source, then doesn't that mean that Papias knew them?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think something may be missing from this thread, that is important for non-christians to understand, that are unfamiliar with the subject. First Jesus had told the Pharisees:
TEMPLE OF GOD

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? 21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.[/FONT]

Later on he had told Apostles:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Matthew 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The book of Luke also details that "these things" are "goodly stones and gifts".[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]And in Mark "manner of stones and what buildings [are here]".[/FONT]

But here is what it had to do with the Gospel. The temple was torn down to illuminate the path to God during the Christian era.
During the Christian era God's people ARE His temple. He resides in us.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The temple is Jesus' body, rebuilt as the corporate body of Christ, through His crucifixion, death and resurrection.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The following also indicates that the temple of God is the corporate body of Christ:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Ephesians 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone]; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"Builded together" "through the Spirit" we understand:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]So during the Christian era the "temple of God" is the corporate body of Christ, composed of born again individuals, assembled together through the Holy Spirit.[/FONT]

Jesus was specifically talking about his bodily Resurrection...so he said "destroy this temple, and I will raise it in three days."

This only harmonizes with Paul's teaching in 1Corin 6:19 "Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, whom you have received from God".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Did he die shortly after Yeshua's death or was it a significant time after?

His death had to be between 41-44AD. Jesus was crucified at around 33AD...so James' death was 8-10 years later.

 

[Nada]

James, the brother of John, evidently died in 44 C.E. Herod Agrippa I had him executed with the sword. He was the first of the 12 apostles to die as a martyr.

Acts 12:1-3
1 About that time Herod the king began mistreating some of those of the congregation. 2 He put James the brother of John to death by the sword. 3 When he saw that it was pleasing to the Jews, he also went on to arrest Peter. (This was during the days of the Unleavened Bread.)

Many confuse this James with James the brother of Jesus

 

[Monk Of Reason]

His death had to be between 41-44AD. Jesus was crucified at around 33AD...so James' death was 8-10 years later.

Alright. Good to know.

Now a seperate question.

Is it possible, at all, that the writers of the gospels changed, modified, spun or altered any of the information they had received in order to suit their purposes?

Secondly, is it possible that the writers of the gospels heard different stories or slight alterations of the events?

 

[Quagmire]

For reasons previously mentioned.

Ok I can see where you are coming from, but I don't necessarily agree. Luke was the one that wrote his Gospel and also the book of Acts, so he certainly knew about Jesus' prediction of the temple fall, because it is IN HIS GOSPEL. So should the temple been destroyed at the time that he wrote EITHER book, he would have mentioned in the footnote, or otherwise.

I can understand how it would seem reasonable to expect that if someone were writing an account that included a prophesy that had been fulfilled by the time of the account's composition, there would be some mention of the fulfillment.

What I mean is if this shows up . . .:

Luke:21:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.”

. . . in a book written after the temple had fallen, some mention of it wouldn't be surprising, but would it have been necessary?

I'm guessing that almost everyone reading that gospel around the time of it's composition would be well aware that the temple had fallen (as you pointed out, the fall of Jerusalem was a major event) so adding something like "btw, this has been fulfilled" to the passage would have been redundant. The destruction of the temple would have been common knowledge. Anyone who believed what was written in Luke would be able to see a fulfilled prophecy in that passage without having to be told that's what it was.

If it is 1975 and I have a "wise" cousin, and he tells me "Hey, one day, the WTC will collapse somehow. I just know it. I have a gut feeling"...and I just brush him off and call him crazy, and he dies 5 years later...

In 2005, if I decide to write a book about my "wise" cousin, and I INCLUDE in the narrative his prediction that the WTC will collapse somehow, how can I NOT include his accurate prediction which occurred on Sep 11, 2001 and the WTC collapse? If I am including his prediction, how can I not conclude the fulfillment of the prediction, had it occured at the time of my writing the book??

You can conclude it, and so would your readers, all on their own. You wouldn't have to say, "btw, this was fulfilled". The significance of the prediction would be self-explanatory.

You could, of course, add something like, "btw, this has been fulfilled" if for whatever reason you felt it necessary, but I don't think anyone would see it as a major omission if you didn't. The point of the prediction would stand on it's own.

Makes no sense.



What tradition?

The one that says Paul was executed in 65 C.E.

Wait a second now, in the book of Acts, are you saying that if the temple was destroyed during the time-frame of Paul (in Acts), that it would have been mentioned in the book of Acts? Yes or no?

Of course. If the destruction of Jerusalem had occurred during Paul's ministry, no doubt an account would have shown up in Acts. But as I pointed out earlier, Paul's ministry (by all accounts, tradition included) concluded prior to the event.

Ok, so please answer the question above.



You can't talk about the origin/growth of the Christian faith without a sprinkle of Jewish history with it.

You're talking about more than a sprinkle. Especially if you're expecting any mention of events that happen outside of the stories time-frame.

If you are writing about a Messiah that fulfilled prophecies and one was fulfilled during the time that you are writing, then the fulfillment of the prophecy HAS happened "yet".

Not within the context of the story it hasn't.

 

[Nada]

Alright. Good to know.

Now a seperate question.

Is it possible, at all, that the writers of the gospels changed, modified, spun or altered any of the information they had received in order to suit their purposes?

Secondly, is it possible that the writers of the gospels heard different stories or slight alterations of the events?

#1.If God truly inspired the Holy scriptures to be written by His holy spirit ,then everything written in it is factual.

#2.There were many stories floating around,but some disciples,such as Luke,were careful not to believe such stories.Everything that was heard by second hand accounts was carefully verified.

Luke was not physically present during the time of Jesus.Mark was a kid during the time of jesus and the disciples used to meet at his mothers house.Marks information in the book of Mark was given to him by Peter.

Writings, much much later, that were altered, were done so by worldly men who were not anointed.Not disciples.Thats why there are so many different bibles.Words have been changed and even removed.If one wants to really go in depth and read what was really said,one must go to the original languages that the writings were written in.The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.The NT was written in all Koine Greek.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

#1.If God truly inspired the Holy scriptures to be written by His holy spirit ,then everything written in it is factual.

Is it possible that it is not a God inspired holy book?

#2.There were many stories floating around,but some disciples,such as Luke,were careful not to believe such stories.Everything that was heard by second hand accounts was carefully verified.

How do we know he got everything correct? By what process did he verify them?

Luke was not physically present during the time of Jesus.Mark was a kid during the time of jesus and the disciples used to meet at his mothers house.Marks information in the book of Mark was given to him by Peter.

Writings, much much later, that were altered, were done so by worldly men who were not anointed.Not disciples.Thats why there are so many different bibles.Words have been changed and even removed.If one wants to really go in depth and read what was really said,one must go to the original languages that the writings were written in.The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.The NT was written in all Koine Greek.

So you are saying that works have been tampered with?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Alright. Good to know.

Now a seperate question.

Is it possible, at all, that the writers of the gospels changed, modified, spun or altered any of the information they had received in order to suit their purposes?

Secondly, is it possible that the writers of the gospels heard different stories or slight alterations of the events?

Yeah it is possible, but i dont think it is plausible. I dont think anything was said or written to deceive anyone....I mean, no matter which Gospel you read, the central message is the same in all accounts...that Jesus was/is the Son of the living God and that he died for the sins of mankind and he Resurrected from the dead and was seen alive by his followers and a few skeptics. All Gospels agree on those key points (the earliest versions of Mark dont have post mortem appearances), and it is those points that Christians hang our hats on.

The only minor differences we have are in fact...minor...like how many men were at the empty tomb and things like that...insignificant stuff which bears no real problems regarding the Resurrection itself.

 

[Bunyip]

As pointless as you think they are, the question still remains...even if the authors purposely put words in Jesus' mouth to make it appear as if was making such a prediction, why wouldn't the author also put a fulfillment of the prophecy in the narrative if it was written after the event?

Makes no sense.

Yes, you make no sense.

Why wouldn't the author put a fulfillment of the prophecy in the narrative?

A: Because there was no fulfilled prophecy obviously.

 

[fantome profane]

Yeah it is possible, but i dont think it is plausible. I dont think anything was said or written to deceive anyone....I mean, no matter which Gospel you read, the central message is the same in all accounts...that Jesus was/is the Son of the living God and that he died for the sins of mankind and he Resurrected from the dead and was seen alive by his followers and a few skeptics. All Gospels agree on those key points (the earliest versions of Mark dont have post mortem appearances), and it is those points that Christians hang our hats on.

The only minor differences we have are in fact...minor...like how many men were at the empty tomb and things like that...insignificant stuff which bears no real problems regarding the Resurrection itself.

Interesting.

Do you personally believe that Jesus was a per-existing being that exited from the beginning of time?

Is there anything in the Gospel of Mark that indicates Jesus as a pre-existing being?

Is there anything in the Gosple of Matthew that indicates Jesus as a pre-existiong being?

Is there anything in the Gospel of Luke (or Acts) that indicates Jesus as a pre-existiong being?

Is there anything in the Gospel of John that indicates Jesus as a pre-existiong being?


(If you don't see why these questions are relevant, just answer them and I think the relevance will become immediately apparent)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yeah it is possible, but i dont think it is plausible. I dont think anything was said or written to deceive anyone....I mean, no matter which Gospel you read, the central message is the same in all accounts...that Jesus was/is the Son of the living God and that he died for the sins of mankind and he Resurrected from the dead and was seen alive by his followers and a few skeptics. All Gospels agree on those key points (the earliest versions of Mark dont have post mortem appearances), and it is those points that Christians hang our hats on.

Good. good progress.
So you admit that it is "possible" but not "plausable" because you feel they wouldn't misinterpret Jesus's message? Do you think its possible that all 4 of the authors did not have the exact same viewpoints on all the different scriptures? We know for a fact alterations have been made after the fact to the bible and other passages because of such reasoning and it was done with the best of intentions as they believed they were giving the account god wanted them to give. But they were still only human.

The only minor differences we have are in fact...minor...like how many men were at the empty tomb and things like that...insignificant stuff which bears no real problems regarding the Resurrection itself.

Mark originally didn't include the Resurrection. It was later added by a bishop. It is also important to note that all of these books were ratified and chosen much later (over 300 years later actually).

Just giving a broader image of what might be "plausible".

 

[Nada]

Is it possible that it is not a God inspired holy book?

How do we know he got everything correct? By what process did he verify them?


So you are saying that works have been tampered with?

Well one way to verify Gods Word is to look into the prophecies.When you study these you can clearly see that no man could have done this accurately.For instance,the 2,520 year prophecy spoken of in Daniel.Also the 70 weeks prophecy.

The stories were verified by those who walked with Christ,such as Peter.

Yes the works have been tampered with.When the disciples wrote them they were correct and complete.After the disciples of Jesus Christ were all dead and gone,thats when the apostasy went full throttle.