Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]
Christians believe in the resurrection because we have faith, not because we have demonstrable evidence. Also because it holds our worldview together, explains our religious experiences, and makes sense of how we perceive the world. Oh yeah, and it makes sense.

Why would anyone invent a religious idea that purposely did not hold a worldview together, or explain the involved religious experiences, or makes sense of how they perceive the world? If you were inventing a religion, would you not have it do these things too?

This statement makes as much sense as building a car that does not go anywhere.

Now on to your religion making sense:
- What happened to the souls of the Mayans and Aztecs that never heard about the Bible (obviously these are not the only examples).
- Why wouldn't an omnipotent, all-knowing, perfect God have written the Bible in the way he meant it, in an understandable, clear, unambiguous, truthful, correct way?
- Why would an omniscient God write a creation story in the Bible that is acknowledged to be complete nonsense by tens of thousands of clergy members?
- If God answers medical prayers, then why do you need health insurance?
Mark 11:24 - Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.
- Why does god answer prayers about finding your car keys, but never to my knowledge has he ever made a tooth or a limb grow back?
- If god thinks homosexuals are an abomination, why does he make so many of them?
- I'll just stop here for now, but as you can see, I have a hard time swallowing your claim that "it makes sense", because it doesn't.

[Clownboat]

Those who begin with the belief that there is a God capable of acting in a miraculous manner and that Jesus is Lord find the evidence in favor of Jesus resurrection compelling.

This is all so true. Also, probably the main reason believers tend to indoctrinate their children. If they don't, they wont begin with the belief that there is a god and like you just said, will not be likely to find evidence in favor of Jesus's resurrection as compelling.

[SelectThis!]

Those who begin with the belief that there is a God capable of acting in a miraculous manner and that Jesus is Lord find the evidence in favor of Jesus resurrection compelling.

This is all so true. Also, probably the main reason believers tend to indoctrinate their children. If they don't, they wont begin with the belief that there is a god and like you just said, will not be likely to find evidence in favor of Jesus's resurrection as compelling.

So far, no one has been able to say a word against my evidence. As a matter of fact, it has been ignored for the most part. The reason for this is because it cannot be argued. All of what has been debated on the subject of the resurrection from the past event perspective has been founded on linguistic assumption and what amounts to slander against the ones relating the events of history. How do we verify the events as accurate?

If these men had not claimed divinity, they would have no platform as evidence. Since they do claim divinity, the words must have more power than a standard human possesses. Let's see my evidence again in a smaller form.

God draws the future into the past so we can see it coming from two directions. Additionally, the events of the past foreshadow the events of the future, both of which speak to universal truth, science, history and human nature. None of the evidence I have seen so far can touch this witness in any way. It is true that we cannot verify the events of the past as accurate. Our own recent history is the same. The speculation and assumptions put forward here against the resurrection are just that--assumptions that can go either way.

The question to answer is, "Which way?" Like all opposites, there is polarity to the answer. We must choose the side that is most evident. In light of universal truth, science, history and human nature, the facts speak for themselves. God's word from the past match the events in the future.

Here is a recap of my evidence.

1) MoneyChangers

Matthew 21

12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13 It is written, he said to them, My house will be called a house of prayer,[e] but you are making it a den of robbers.

Are the financial tables of the moneychangers turned over? Do the peacemakers (Doves) have any rest (Benches flipped)? It's clear that this was a foreshadowing to Christ raising the temple from the cornerstone (Giving) as opposed to the Builders (Masons) who are raising it today based on the foundation of sand (Taking/greed and selfishness).

What is the motivation for God in all of this? His will is to give and never take. The thief takes.

Reference Post:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 907#551907

2) 666, Carbon and the New World Order Economic System

Related to the first proof, we have an accurate description of a coming world government that is based on the mark of mankind. That mark is two things. It is Carbon and it is Selfishness.

How much context to this do we posses today? Do the money changers of today identify to 666 with a commerce system? How does that commerce system affect the financial tables? Did the number cause the debt?

Carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. Carbon is the mark of mankind and all life on Earth. It is the main aspect of our fruit of knowledge. What grows from knowledge? What you can produce from it. What is man's fruit? Technology (Graven Images).

Revelation 13

18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e-or of mankind] That number is 666.

In Genesis, we were told to keep our hands from the fruit of knowledge. What is the fruit of knowledge? Obviously what grows from it (TECHNOLOGY). What does man use to generate the energy to manipulate God's perfect fruit (Carbon)? We use the carbon itself to transmute God's gift to us in the center of the garden. The Bible said this to us:

You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.

What has our manipulation of Carbon done to our world? Further, what did Revelation then say about our final use of Carbon? What does Carbon kill? The breath. 7 protons, 7 electrons and 7 neutrons is Nitrogen. 888 is Oxygen. The breath we possess is what Carbon has the potential to kill. Commerce and greed is selfishness and the error of mankind.

Revelation 13

15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

3) Signs of Matthew 24 happening today as a novelty event when seen together at one time. Statistically, we are seeing a novelty event and not simply isolated events.

4) Universal Truth of Giving

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 051#552051

In the link above, I give the reasoning for why Love and Giving create surplus. Taken by itself, this is not Evidence for Christ's words being true. Taken in context to Global Financial Meltdown and the foreshadowing of scripture to our day and age, we have a complement that raises the likely-hood that Christ's words were divine in nature.

5) In the link below, I give the prophecy and chronology of the Isaiah prophecy that shows the EXACT year that the Babylonian captivity ended in 1947. The odds of this being correct to the VERY year are IMPOSSIBLE. The prophecy was given by Isaiah in the 8th Century BC. It came true by calculation from that time-period at exactally 1947 when the Dry Bones of Ezekiel was fulfilled.

Of all the evidence I have shown, this one takes the cake and raises our probability factor to astronomical proportions. Why is the important. CONTEXT! So far, we have motive for Christ's life, we have his predictions of our day and age and we have the time locked to 1947 as a beginning of the last 70-72 years generation before all of Christ's words come true to the letter. That leaves us with no room to doubt his authenticity.

So far, from this point in the thread, I have demonstrated the power of the Word as true and Christ as truthful.

I dare you to argue the timing of the prophecy. Here is the link.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 080#552080

6) In the same post linked directly above, I also delve into the Watchers (Fallen Beings) of Enoch One, the same beings referenced by Genesis 6 and the timing of Enoch's 70 generation judgment delivered from God to the Watchers. I show many references to the same story from many sources in antiquity, including the Mayans and give the most interesting video you will ever see on youtube. In the video, Carl Munck shows evidence and proofs that an early advanced civilization existed around each of the pyramid sites on the Earth. Further, he connects this Radian Geometry and Giza as a Zero Meridian for the Earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xw9lTB0hTNU

You can then verify that Enoch was INDEED speaking of actual events that the Bible backs up with historical account. If you watch the video, you will realize that this is all true. Enoch verifies that Jesus will indeed come, before the events take place.

For more on this subject, you can check out my thread on the 10, 000 year prophecy of Enoch: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread934292/pg1

Although I cannot link it all here, if you would like to research my threads in the link above, you will found thousands of pages of extra evidence for the authenticity for Christ.

7) The Heel that Crushes the Head of Satan

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 080#552080

Check the end of the post. You can also check out this thread, which nobody was able to respond to: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22723

8) For those interested in the Esoteric Mysteries of Freemasonry and other Secret Societies, I linked them to the truth of their context in this post.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 498#552498

This was in answer to someone who claimed our holidays are pagan. On the contrary, they are copies of the original mysteries held in Heaven by God and outlined in the Bible. I show this with little room to argue the context.

9) In this post, I show the context to Christ's words a three universal truths. As a relation to this, physics and the laws of our universe are based on these very laws of collapsing wave function.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 541#552541

Why does this relate to Christ rising from the dead. HE is the one that governs those laws. If he can engage a reality by those laws, he can rise from the dead.

In relation to this, my very first thread on this board outlines the physics behind how this is possible. Not only do I outline it, I show the related theories in physics behind it.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22726

At this point, the probability that the Bible has ALL of this correct is beyond what reason can deny. Despite this, I have more.

10) EVOLUTION

Here, I prove Evolution from the standpoint of Christ's Baptism symbol in the waters of life. Again, the physics are shown by the theory.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 561#552561

Here is a related thread on the same subject:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22693

I have more, but I'll stop here. Why is this evidence that kills the assumptions? I can verify it as true. If everything Christ claimed is true, what else might be true? He has risen indeed!

So far, no one has shown my evidence false. Logic, Reason and Rationality show it to be more than evident. The Bible holds the higher axiom, therefore, the lower contradictions and assumptions against Christ are likely entirely wrong. The most evident answer rises to new life.

[assisigirl]

SelectThis!

I am forced to dismiss your work here as 'divine' nonsense.
Ooberman had a creature, I forget its name but if you were to draw your 'conclusion' I would know what it would look like thanks to Ooberman and his, 'Swingingdiddytingy'.

To tie the fracas in the temple with economic collapse is the equivalent of posthumously handing the patent on the stealth bomber to Da Vinci, no sorry, give it to Daedulus.

SelectThis! Yours is a strange meccano set of connections that might be the result of reading the bible and watching Sky News at the same time. Put the pieces back in the box and start again. Have you ever seen anything 'miraculous'

[Tired of the Nonsense]

As far as authorship goes, that's quite an extensive and tangential topic. Some folk approach it with extreme scepticism, say that they were all written after 70CE by persons unknown, in which case we'd know nothing at all about Jesus with any confidence and the whole discussion is moot. However from the information available it's not unreasonable to suppose the following:
Mark written 65-71CE by Peter's interpretor
Matthew written 70-80CE by a Jewish Christian
Luke/Acts written sometime after 77CE (dependancy on Josephus' Jewish War) by a companion of Paul
John written in the 80s or 90s CE by a disciple of Jesus (probably John)

It may not be "unreasonable to suppose the following" if one is already predisposed to the unquestioned acceptance of resurrections from the dead, faith healing, the ability to foretell the future, and all things supernatural in nature. In other words, magic. The op of this string is concerned with REASON AND LOGIC, however, and there is nothing reasonable and logical about knowing events before they occur. Which the author of Gospel Mark would have had to have done if he wrote about events which occurred in 70 AD prior to them occurring.

Matthew 13:
[2] And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This actually occurred in 70 AD. Knowing that this would occur as much as five years prior to the event would have required supernatural powers. Otherwise it would have been quite literally unthinkable to a believing Jew that the temple at Jerusalem, where Holy God Himself personally resided, could possibly be destroyed. Not until the unthinkable actually occurred at any rate. Mark 13:2 was clearly written AFTER the fact. As all prophecies ultimately prove to be. It is UTTERLY unreasonable to suppose that Gospel Mark was written any time prior to 70 AD.

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
We've had this argument before

Yes I thought we had, which is why I thought it strange that you brought up the same incorrect claim here. Jesus' mother was at the cross. Makes sense and John makes that abundantly clear. In Mark and Matthew, at the cross Jesus' mother is called "Mary the mother of James and Joses," his two oldest brothers. You'd be running headlong into conspiracy theory grounds to deny that: To suggest that those two authors ignored Jesus' mother entirely and just happened to mention a different Mary who just happened to have sons with the same two names as Jesus' brothers. It would be absurd. So for all intents and purposes we can consider it a fact that both Mark and Matthew called her "Mary the mother of James and Joses," rather than "the mother of Jesus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(moth ... _the_Less)
Mary (mother of James the Less)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Along with Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas, Mary the mother of James is known as one of the Three Marys, depicted here by Mikolaj Haberschrack.
Main article: Women at the crucifixion
Mary is identified in the synoptic gospels as one of the women who went to Jesus' tomb after he was buried, and, along with Joanna and Salome, is recognized as one of the three "Myrrhbearers" by the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, being commemorated in the Calendar of Saints on August 3.[1]

Luke 24:10 and Mark 16:1 refer to "Mary the mother of James" as one of the women who went to the tomb, while Matthew 27:56 says that "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" was watching the crucifixion from a distance, while Mark 15:40 calls her "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses" (NKJV). Although James the younger is often identified with James, son of Alphaeus, the New Advent Encyclopedia identifies him with both James, son of Alphaeus and James the Just.[2]

Her relics are revered in Veroli, Italy and her Feast Day May 25.

I considered your theory that the authors of Gospel's Mark and Matthew would have confusingly and somewhat rudely referred to the mother of their Lord as the mother of a couple of his brothers insupportable the first time I heard it, and I consider it insupportable now. "Insupportable," as in, there is no support for it. So expect me to continue on pointing out that none of the Gospels make mention of Mary the mother of Jesus at the site of the empty tomb regardless of your insupportable conclusions. This would be yet another fine example of Christian mythology, if you were really a Christian, and if your theory had any actual support from much of anybody. The Catholic church on the other hand has constructed a beaut' of an example of Christian mythology around the figure of Mary. According to the Catholic church, Joseph's marriage to Mary was in fact his second marriage. The brothers of Jesus; James, Joseph (Joses), Judas and Simon, mentioned in both the Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55"56), were the product of Joseph's earlier marriage to another woman, were therefore Jesus' half brothers. Thus Mary was NOT their mother. Mary and Joseph never fornicated during their marriage, and Mary was therefore, a virgin, the perfect sinless vessel that God created her to be, to her dying day. THIS CONCLUSION IS OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOGMA. The reasoning for this conclusion, according to the Catholic church, is that concept of Mary having sexual relations with her husband is repugnant to the sensibility of all mankind. I am not personally inclined to go along with THAT little insupportable piece of convoluted assertion either. But I do notice that both Mary and Joseph were extremely common names during that era. And I also notice that when the Gospel writers choose to Mention Jesus' mother, they refer to her with the respect she is due as Mary the mother of Jesus. And not the mother of a couple of Jesus' (half?) brothers.

They did not 'in fact' come out to take possession of the tomb. You agree that this detail of Matthew's account is almost certainly fictional - so why pretend that it's a fact, or even remotely comparable to the only slightly dubious information from Mark?

This is all a part of a process required to slowly lead devoted Christians down a path if discovery. You can't run before you first lean to crawl, understand? Unilaterally dismissing the entire Gospel of Matthew as a viable source of in the story of Jesus at the beginning of a discussion with a Christian is very similar to dismissing Jesus' very existence at the beginning of a discussion with a Christian. Most Christians immediately conclude that their opponent is a crackpot and simply drop out of the discussion. The idea that the entire Gospel of Matthew is a complete fabrication is too much too soon. The best plan is to lead the Christian to the point where he or she will begin to question Matthew themselves. IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TO GET THAT FAR! Your process seems to be to run interference for Christians whom have begun to find themselves surprisingly to be on the losing end of an uncomfortable debate concerning nothing more then the very foundations of their entire view of reality. Which has now presumably occurred yet again, since aglassdarkly has failed to reply since Mar. 29.

[SelectThis!]

SelectThis!

I am forced to dismiss your work here as 'divine' nonsense.
Ooberman had a creature, I forget its name but if you were to draw your 'conclusion' I would know what it would look like thanks to Ooberman and his, 'Swingingdiddytingy'.

To tie the fracas in the temple with economic collapse is the equivalent of posthumously handing the patent on the stealth bomber to Da Vinci, no sorry, give it to Daedulus.

SelectThis! Yours is a strange meccano set of connections that might be the result of reading the bible and watching Sky News at the same time. Put the pieces back in the box and start again. Have you ever seen anything 'miraculous'

I give you 10 solid facts about our day and age in a mirror against what Christ said would happen. Logically, this should not be possible unless what Christ and the Bible both say is accurate. Further, we can verify that universal truths are firmly followed, giving us a higher probability that what is said is above human wisdom. It is no wonder you are floundering on this with incredulity. There is no other way to deflect such a reflection.


.

[Mithrae]

As far as authorship goes, that's quite an extensive and tangential topic. Some folk approach it with extreme scepticism, say that they were all written after 70CE by persons unknown, in which case we'd know nothing at all about Jesus with any confidence and the whole discussion is moot. However from the information available it's not unreasonable to suppose the following:
Mark written 65-71CE by Peter's interpretor
Matthew written 70-80CE by a Jewish Christian
Luke/Acts written sometime after 77CE (dependancy on Josephus' Jewish War) by a companion of Paul
John written in the 80s or 90s CE by a disciple of Jesus (probably John)

It may not be "unreasonable to suppose the following" if one is already predisposed to the unquestioned acceptance of resurrections from the dead, faith healing, the ability to foretell the future, and all things supernatural in nature. In other words, magic. The op of this string is concerned with REASON AND LOGIC, however, and there is nothing reasonable and logical about knowing events before they occur. Which the author of Gospel Mark would have had to have done if he wrote about events which occurred in 70 AD prior to them occurring.

Either that, or he'd read the book of Daniel, which says (9:26) that
"Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself;
And the people of the prince who is to come
Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
We know that he or his source had read the book of Daniel, because that's where the 'abomination of desolation' he mentions comes from. There's little or nothing in the chapter which isn't either vague warnings (wars, earthquakes etc) or drawn from Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah and most obviously Daniel. If you're seeing spooky knowledge of the future there, it's from Daniel not Mark and redating the latter doesn't fix your problem. I explained my reasoning regarding Mark and Matthew in more detail in this post of another thread if you're interested (and John in the post below that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(moth ... _the_Less)
Mary (mother of James the Less)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Along with Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas, Mary the mother of James is known as one of the Three Marys, depicted here by Mikolaj Haberschrack.

I considered your theory that the authors of Gospel's Mark and Matthew would have confusingly and somewhat rudely referred to the mother of their Lord as the mother of a couple of his brothers insupportable the first time I heard it, and I consider it insupportable now. "Insupportable," as in, there is no support for it. So expect me to continue on pointing out that none of the Gospels make mention of Mary the mother of Jesus at the site of the empty tomb regardless of your insupportable conclusions.

Like I say, you can believe what you want. I'd forgotten about the wife of Clopas, so that'd make four Marys at the cross at the cross, two of whom had sons named James and Joseph - and along with Mary Magdalene Mark and Matthew made the obvious choice in mentioning the one no-one had ever heard of before or since. Some Christians venerate Jesus' mother as Our Lady of about fifty different cities, and as you say invent all kinds of convoluted relationships to preserve her virginity, so I won't take centuries-later traditions very seriously (and neither should you!).

And I also notice that when the Gospel writers choose to Mention Jesus' mother, they refer to her with the respect she is due as Mary the mother of Jesus. And not the mother of a couple of Jesus' (half?) brothers.

If you assume nothing but "Mary the mother of Jesus" refers to her, of course that's the only way they describe her - a little circular though. But I'm confused about this whole 'due respect' thing; were you talking about these passages?

• Mark 3:21 But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, He is out of His mind. . . . .
  
  31 Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. 32 And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.
  33 But He answered them, saying, Who is My mother, or My brothers? 34 And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, Here are My mother and My brothers! 35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.
  
  
  John 2:3 And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, They have no wine.
  4 Jesus said to her, Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? ..."

As I told you, John makes especially clear this dissociation between Jesus and his earthly kinships - he spells it out in black and white by having Jesus pass his mother off to his disciple:
John 19:26 ...He said to His mother, Woman, behold your son! 27 Then He said to the disciple, Behold your mother!

But believe what you want. Mark and Matthew surely couldn't have done anything similar; obviously they respected Jesus' mother so much that they ignored her entirely and instead mentioned some other Mary with sons called James and Joseph.

They did not 'in fact' come out to take possession of the tomb. You agree that this detail of Matthew's account is almost certainly fictional - so why pretend that it's a fact, or even remotely comparable to the only slightly dubious information from Mark?

This is all a part of a process required to slowly lead devoted Christians down a path if discovery. You can't run before you first lean to crawl, understand? Unilaterally dismissing the entire Gospel of Matthew as a viable source of in the story of Jesus at the beginning of a discussion with a Christian is very similar to dismissing Jesus' very existence at the beginning of a discussion with a Christian.

Whereas picking some bits of the gospel to ridicule as utterly absurd but one particular unlikely detail to emphasise as proof that your strange theory (they moved the body a few hundred metres before the Sabbath) is plausible will just bowl 'em over

Aglassdarkly replied to your comments in post 97.

[Danmark]

70 seems an early date for Matthew given that it was likely written in response to the destruction of the Temple. But even using that early date, it's some 40 years after the death of Jesus. That, plus the fact that Matthew had a point of view, was essentially an argument for one faction's belief, makes it highly suspect as a source of factual truth.

And yet Tired of the Nonsense depends especially on Matthew for his theories: It couldn't have been Jesus' mother at the tomb on Sunday morning because Matthew dismissively calls her "the other Mary"; the disciples couldn't have left Jesus' body there over the Sabbath because they were afraid of the priests and "the priests DID in fact come out to take possession of the tomb." It's a particularly strange inconsistency since my comment in post 31 that Matthew is an especially suspect source of information was met with Tired's full approval. Unless we choose to see things in black and white terms - that we must accept all gospels equally, or reject them entirely - that approach seems arbitrary at best.

Regarding my comments specifically which you quoted I think you (and Tired in his response) mistook my objection, which was my fault for not being clearer. I was merely objecting to the claim that "it was known that the Gospel of Mark... was written sometime after 70"; I included his full quote about Matthew only because I went on to comment about it also. It's a bit of a tangent, but if you're curious I posted my reasons for supposing that Matthew was most probably written by 74 CE and that Mark could have been written even before the revolt began in this post of another thread, with some links to earlier discussions with ThatGirlAgain and Furrowed Brow.

The history of Gospel Matthew is actually quite suspicious. Papias along with his good friend Polycarp, in the second century, indicated that the apostle Matthew undertook to write a Gospel of Jesus Christ during the period in which Peter and Paul were supposed to be attempting to found a Christian church in Rome. This is given to be the period shortly before the great fire in Rome, which occurred in 64. Since it was known that the Gospel of Mark, as well as the other Gospels, was written sometime after 70...

That wasn't known then and isn't known now. Papias (parroted by Irenaeus) said that Matthew wrote while Peter and Paul were in Rome, and that Mark wrote after they (specifically Peter) had departed or died, recording all he remembered of Peter's teaching about Jesus. That could've been any time after 65CE. . . .

Edit: I should probably clarify my views here. There's little in ancient history which is even remotely as certain as things from even 19th or 20th century history, let alone the present day. To believe on such flimsy evidence something as incredible as a resurrection story fraught with contradictions is well beyond my measure of faith. But it is not unreasonable to acknowledge the possibility that in John and Mark we have fairly accurate records of the views of John and Peter; one of whom allegedly lost his brother to execution by Herod Agrippa, the other eventually killed among many others as Nero's scapegoats. Perhaps these disciples were deliberate fraudsters, perpetrating a hoax as Tired suggests; but if so, the evidence isn't there in the bible. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the region of self-delusion, wishful thinking amongst the group and unintentional embellishment of details over time. Or perhaps they really did witness something which defies normal expectations. It depends to no small extent on one's philosophical views whether the last is considered even remotely plausible, just as it can depend on one's theological views whether the others are given fair consideration.

Thanks Mithrae. That was helpful. I'd thought you'd put Matthew as early as 68 CE. My mistake. BTW, shortly after its publication I read Thomas Sheehan's

The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity
www.infidels.org/library/modern/thomas_ ... rstcoming/

It was one of the more influential books I'd read on the subject, showing the contradictions between the gospels and making the case Jesus never claimed to be god.

[SelectThis!]

[Replying to post 105 by Tired of the Nonsense]

It may not be "unreasonable to suppose the following" if one is already predisposed to the unquestioned acceptance of resurrections from the dead, faith healing, the ability to foretell the future, and all things supernatural in nature. In other words, magic. The op of this string is concerned with REASON AND LOGIC, however, and there is nothing reasonable and logical about knowing events before they occur. Which the author of Gospel Mark would have had to have done if he wrote about events which occurred in 70 AD prior to them occurring.

Most Christians do not take what is obvious as unquestioned, but constantly seek to verify what is believed. Most believers are highly skeptical, yet we are not alone in our seeking. We have help, which is not available to the person who denies God. The assurance comes from the evident nature of what is shown, but is guided by the Creator of the process. On all levels, the Bible continues to show us the error in our own lower axioms of reality, physics, human nature and YES, current events, and raises us to new levels. This is the very sign of Jonah that Christ said we would receive as verification over the course of 3 days (3000 years) as he raises the temple on the cornerstone (Giving). You are not hearing what I am saying here it appears. I get that, as it takes faith to collapse the wave function of truth. The reason is not because what I am showing is unreasonable or illogical. It's simply because you do not agree with God at the level of your agreement with yourself. Pride raises us above others, including God. Humility sees what is above rather than trying to raise what is below to our own image.

As for what can be easily seen from what is unseen, it is not entirely logical as you might hope. As you can see from physics and quantum mechanics, this is another evident feature of God's mind. Any physicist will tell you that what is seen arises from what is unseen and the two do not follow the same rules. This is why we still do not understand the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics. A creator would have a much higher reasoning ability from above as compared to our reasoning below. If you are trying to reason why God does things the way he does them, you will fail. If you wish to see what is most evident, the examples are all around you to verify above and below as a mirror.

Isaiah 55:8-9

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,
declares the Lord.
9 As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Everything you have noted so far is an assumption on your part based on human reasoning from lower axioms. You say, "Surly, because of this, it has to be this." I am saying, "Understand the higher axioms and you resolve your own lower conflicts." Rising above dispels your lower reasoning and this is what any Christian will tell you happens from faith. Your reasoning, logic, rationality and intellect rises as well. It's evident by seeing that God's words come true at every level and answers every critic with higher wisdom. Just like the words above, God always answers our questions at every turn of the mind. Because we have evidence that this is so, we have verification that resolves paradox and contradictions created by doubt from lower reasoning. At every place in history, man's wisdom has been shown to be folly when higher wisdom is finally seen by new understanding. As this happen, the Word of God was there first. Your versions of events and words only creates and reinforces those assumed contradictions to what can easily be verified by the power of God's words forward and backward into historical context. By faith, we SEE with clarity that which is unseen by the eyes. By faith, what is hidden becomes manifest to the mind and heart, not simply the eyes and our own pride.

Augustine, from City of God

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;"in the same way, he who says, When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false, says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

Saying why something is so, apart from knowledge of its source, is an assumption. When a mirror exists to show us the comparison, we see evidence. When we are directly told how something is, and those words actually match what we observe, the source of that higher axiom then confirms what we see as a verification. God claims to have ordained these things, then verifies his knowledge of them with precision from parable and allegory so we can understand. The locks on that knowledge come open as our own understanding of the world around us opens. No man could have ordained either what we observe or the highest axiom of what is observed in perfect parable. It's not probable, yet there it is.

Until you get past the OOPART (Out-of-Place-Artifact) of scripture and prophecy, your 'logic' and assumptions fail at the lowest degree of logic. God holds the higher axioms and then shows them to be evident as our own understanding rises.

Throughout all of history, what man intends for evil, God turns to good. When the church took the newly invented printing press to sell indulgences, the English Bible then moved 70 million people out of Europe to a new world. The English Bible then raised literacy to a record still unmatched in our own time of history. This led to the industrial and technological revolutions and the Gospel message reaching the entire World. Examine all events in history and you will see the same work of God to move what we intend for evil to a better outcome. We are in this together and never alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Q6ir3VEEw

Induction, Deduction or Abduction. I have shown you all three. Reasons and Causes cannot be separated. Of course, this is uncertain if there is more than one cause for the same effect. Our uncertainty breaks down, however, if a multidimensional cause and effect chain is seen from a unifying context. What I have done with this abductive reasoning is show you the most logical and evident conclusions based on ONE unifying Word attributed to God Himself. Either he gets fact wrong or he gets the right. Which is it? There are no other explanations you can muster to reason the conclusion away. If Christ's words are true and they have cause and effect that can be verified as beyond reasoning, then we have a match.

Christ is truthful.


.

[Goat]

SelectThis!

I am forced to dismiss your work here as 'divine' nonsense.
Ooberman had a creature, I forget its name but if you were to draw your 'conclusion' I would know what it would look like thanks to Ooberman and his, 'Swingingdiddytingy'.

To tie the fracas in the temple with economic collapse is the equivalent of posthumously handing the patent on the stealth bomber to Da Vinci, no sorry, give it to Daedulus.

SelectThis! Yours is a strange meccano set of connections that might be the result of reading the bible and watching Sky News at the same time. Put the pieces back in the box and start again. Have you ever seen anything 'miraculous'

I give you 10 solid facts about our day and age in a mirror against what Christ said would happen. Logically, this should not be possible unless what Christ and the Bible both say is accurate. Further, we can verify that universal truths are firmly followed, giving us a higher probability that what is said is above human wisdom. It is no wonder you are floundering on this with incredulity. There is no other way to deflect such a reflection.


.

Can you? Or, are you taking vague references, and retorfitting it into the current situation?? Are those '10 solid facts' actually solid facts, or are the very much symbolic?

I have seen claims like that before, and yet, when those 'solid facts' are examined, they aren't solid at all, but a lot of twisting and interpreting going on to shoe horn statements into place.