Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection ?

[Regens Küchl]

The sacrosanct canonical four gospels have it in it that they avoid to narrate details about or have actual witnesses for their most miraculous and important point.

So we are to assume that in the dark cave Jesus body suddenly regained life and consciousness, stood up, unsheathed the shroud of turin leaving it right there as evidence of the miracle for the future vatican, with newfound superhuman powers opened his tomb careful not to wake up the roman guards and staying nearby did unknown things (garden work?) until he was mistaken for the gardener.

But like a three that falls over in the wood alone, no one witnessed that.
We are at last to assume that no human saw it or found it worth mentioning, for that is indicated by the whole new testament.

The apocryphal gospel of Peter is among the few, perhaps almost the only, (can anyone provide a list, please?) who narrates detailed important information (walking talking cross) about the actual resurrection and also has it witnessed by people.

"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Now It is really funny from every possible standpoint, believer, unbeliever, mythicist, historicist, whatever that we are told of not a one actual witness.

If it was a divine happening to save humanity, then why not let humans witness the most miraculous part of it ?

If it was invented than why not invent actual witnesses too ?

A Believer could say : "Because we have to believe out of faith in the resurrection!" - But this point is moot because we would also have to take it on faith even if the gospels mentioned actual witnesses.

A Mythicist could say : "Because it makes the better drama when witnesses only meet the already risen Jesus!" - But that point is moot beause we, that grew up with this fact in the gospels, are biased that way.

Questions for Debate 1) Why no actual witnesses ?

2) Why dismiss scriptures like the gospel of Peter when it includes actual witnesses and narrates important details.

3) And that is the little brother and second funny thing about the resurrection: The running gag in the gospels about old accquintances never recognicing the risen Jesus at first look.
Mary Magdalene Mistaking him for the gardener, Cleopas and another disciple walking with him to Emmaus without knowing, Apostle Thomas only recognicing him by his wounds . . . .

Why first no actual witnesses and than no recognicing? Dont this two facts together cry aloud : "Hoax"?

[Inigo Montoya]

It appears as though Jesus was made the "messiah" by Roman church officials centuries after his death.

The earliest Christian sources we possess call Jesus the Messiah -- or "Christ," which is the equivalent Greek term. This is explainable only if that concept was part of Christianity from the very beginning. And, needless to say, was therefore not imposed by "Roman church officials" centuries after Jesus' death.

Historia, how does someone go about tempting you to share what you believe is true about YHVH and Yeshua?

Whenever I see you chime in, it's to correct some historical or traditional tidbit that rubs you wrong. Never have I seen you commit to a theological position of your own.

Will you participate in a thread about it, perhaps in the Questions for a Member subforum?

[Clownboat]

If any of you have studied comparative literature (after getting undergraduate degrees in drama and French in Paris, I started out as an English major here in the US, then switched to RC theology and psychology) you will know that myths take at least three to four generations to become established. There are no parallels – none, zero, zip, nada – in other literature or myth developing and being believed in the presence of eyewitnesses within the short time-frame in which the NT was formed, i.e. fewer than 100 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ.

No parallels?!?

I think the Roswell legend is an excellent analogy. There was 31 years between the time of the event (1947) and the first legendary embellishment (1978). Since 1978, the legend has grown to enormous proportions. If Mark was written circa 60 CE, that would be about 30 years from the time of the death of Jesus (circa 30 CE). So if the Roswell story can be embellished in less than 30 years in modern times, why couldn't the story of Jesus be embellished in ancient times? It would have been much easier for the story to take on legendary elements in ancient times.

There are still people today who believe that in 1947 an alien craft crashed and was recovered, along with alien bodies, by the United States government, and that this was subsequently covered up and kept secret. Though the "core story" of a saucer crash arose immediately in 1947, the elaborations began to appear as early as 1978, when an eyewitness, Maj. Jesse Marcel, described the recovery of the spacecraft in an interview. He never recanted his story, and since then the legend has grown enormously, with numerous devoted believers. This represents a clear case of a legendary development only thirty years after the fact, with all the subsequent additions to the legend (alien bodies, government threats against witnesses, storage of the craft on a military base in Arizona, physics-defying pieces of debris, and so on) arising less than fifty years after the fact, less than twenty years after the first legendary development. Even though modern literacy, skepticism, and technology have made it possible to expose this legend with copious evidence, thousands still believe it.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to Danmark]

Apologists always seem to use this as handy to defend what they believe. They state some text is to be taken literally and some not. Yet they are not all consistent in this selection.

The mass resurrection of graves in Matthew is not suppose to be literal by many yet believed by others.

Some revelation..................

[Clownboat]

Paul did not "hijack" Christianity.

I'm not so sure about this un-evidenced claim of yours.

Paul says:
Rom.13
[12] the night is far gone, the day is at hand.
Jesus says:
Luke.21
[8] Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name,
saying, . . . `The time is at hand!' Do not go after them.
It's almost as if Jesus was warning you about Paul.

Paul says:
Rom.14
[9] For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
Jesus says:
Luke.20
[38] Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living;
Lord of the dead if you ask Paul, not lord of the dead if you ask Jesus.

Paul says:
Rom.13
[9] The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus says:
Matt.22
[37] And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
[38] This is the great and first commandment.
[39] And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul highlights loving your neighbor. Jesus highlights loving the Lord your God.

Paul says:
Rom.9
[15] For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
[16] So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.
[18] So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.
Jesus says:
Matt.5
[7] Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Paul claims that god will have mercy on whom he has mercy. Jesus shares with us that the merciful will obtain mercy.

Paul says:
Eph.1
[7] In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace
Rom.4
[25] who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Jesus says:
Matt.6
[14] For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you;
[15] but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Paul says you need to accept the sacrifice of Jesus to be redeemed. Jesus claims that if you forgive others, god will forgive you too.

Paul says:
Rom.3
[24] they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
[28] For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.
Rom.5
[9] Since, therefore, we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Jesus says:
Matt.12
[37] for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
More of Paul making this about the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus on the other hand claims that we will be justified by our words.

Paul says:
Rom.6
[23] For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Jesus says:
Matt.19
[29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.
Luke.14
[28] For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?
[33] So therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.
Paul equals, once again making this about a sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus on the other hand alludes to a very different way to receive eternal life.

Paul says:
2Cor.8
[21] for we aim at what is honorable not only in the Lord's sight but also in the sight of men.
Jesus says:
Luke.16
[15] But he said to them, You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.
Paul, be honorable in the sight of men.
Jesus, what is exalted among men is an abomination in sight of God.

Paul says:
Rom.2
[12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.
Jesus says:
John.12
[48] He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.
Paul says you will be judged by the law.
Jesus says you will be judged by the words he has spoken.

Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Phlm.1
[10] I appeal to you for my child, Ones'imus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.
Jesus says:
Matt.23
[9] And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Paul says he is our father.
Jesus says to call no man on earth your father.

Paul says:
Rom.8
[21] because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Jesus says:
Matt.24
[35] Heaven and earth will pass away,
Paul says creation is set free from decay.
Jesus says that heaven and earth will pass away.

Paul says:
Rom.10
[4] For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.
Jesus says:
Matt.5
[17] Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
[18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Paul said that Chris is the end of the law. Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law.

Paul says:
1Cor.12
[28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third, teachers,
Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,
1Tim.2
[7] For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
2Tim.1
[11] For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,
Jesus says:
Matt.23
[8] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
Paul is setting up a church and talks about the preachers, apostles and teachers. Jesus said that we only have one teacher.

Paul says:
Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors (shepherds) and teachers,
Jesus says:
John.10
[16] And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.
Paul is setting up a church that has many shepherds. Jesus lets us know that there is only one shepherd.

Paul says:
1Cor.4
[15] For though you have countless leaders in Christ . . ..
Jesus says:
Matt.23
[10] Neither be called leaders, for you have one leader, the Christ.
More of the same. Paul justifying the creation of a church, and Jesus sticks to the idea that the kingdom of heaven is within us.


Paul says:
1Cor.5
[7] For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.
Eph.5
[2] And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Jesus says:
Matt.9
[13] Go and learn what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.'
Paul, again all about the sacrifice of Jesus. Jesus claiming that sacrifice is not desired.

Like I said before. If Jesus knew what Paul did to his teachings, he would roll over in his grave I believe.

How is Paul any different than a Joseph Smith?
Paul: No, seriously, I had a vision.
Joseph Smith: No, seriously, I found golden plates.

All it takes is faith in either of these characters. Or gullibility if you prefer.

[PghPanther]

Matthew was, of course, written for a Jewish audience, so why the explanations?

Sweet! Let's ask the Jews about Jesus being a Messiah, dying and rising from the dead and coming back to earth to establish a kingdom.

I kid of course. Just want to point out the irony that the Jews (the Old Testament being their tradition of 'history') don't accept the words of Paul who turned Jesus into a Messiah. The Old Testament and the book of Mathew does not turn this Jesus into their Messiah, therefore to consider him returning (from the standpoint of most (all?) Jews) is nonsensical in the first place.

Only followers of Paul would consider such a thing I would presume. Now why should anybody care about what Paul said? That's the real question. Personally, I think Jesus would roll over in his grave if he knew what Paul did with his message, but Paul contradicting Jesus would deserve a thread of its own.

T have to assume that you do not know that many, many Jews DO accept Christ as the long-awaited Savior. They are called "Messianic Jews," and true to Wikipedia's unreliability, they DID exist in first century Jerusalem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

There are plenty or sites that write of Messianic Jews. Google can be your friend in this regard.

How did Paul turn Jesus into a Messiah? Paul PERSECUTED Jesus until after the crucifixion. Wow, Paul must have been REALLY, REALLY powerful! To single-handedly begin a religion that now contains more than 3.2 billion adherents and has the longest unbroken record of any institution on earth.

I think you know Paul did not turn Jesus into a Messiah. Paul only spread the word. The crucifixion and the Resurrection happened while Paul was a Jesus-hater. So, too the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. No one "turned" Jesus into a Messiah. He simply was the Messiah. The Bible cannot be understood by taking things in isolation. It's like trying to read ANNA KARENINA in bits and pieces. If you turn to a certain page, you'll find that Levin, himself, is attracted to Anna. Someone not conversant with the entire book, and someone who has not read and studied it cover-to-cover would say, "That Levin is a fool for wanting Anna!" Things taken out of context are never understood properly.

I can't help but chuckle at your signature. How long do you think that "man on fire" is going to live? One minute? Three?

There is nothing supernatural or divine about the spread and growth of Christianity as a result of Paul's preaching.............

He took a message of hope to Gentiles in a culture and time when most of the poor and feeble minded lived ignorant and illiterate of reality clinging to gossip and stories of superstition and the supernatural. They lived short difficult lives and died young from diseases and lack of resources.

The idea of hope in a life of eternal bliss was appealing to the uneducated masses and spread as a result. Roman leaders saw this growth and used it to their advantage to manage people who were told to listen and believe in their leaders since "God chose them".

The perfect control mechanism that was later adapted by Constantine to hammer out an orthodoxy from 3 major conflicting movements of Pauline, Petrus and Johannian faiths and numerous Jewish sects of Christ followers into a state religion.

This made Christianity what it is today in the Western world because it maintained that status in Western culture starting with Rome.

There is nothing divine or supernatural about how it came to dominant a faith based world view because it rode on the tails of western democracy.

If not for this it would have been lost in history.

Point of case the Eastern Asian culture remained ignorant of its awareness for centuries until Western democracies started annexing their part of the world in colonizing those cultures.

[Goat]

Matthew was, of course, written for a Jewish audience, so why the explanations?

Sweet! Let's ask the Jews about Jesus being a Messiah, dying and rising from the dead and coming back to earth to establish a kingdom.

I kid of course. Just want to point out the irony that the Jews (the Old Testament being their tradition of 'history') don't accept the words of Paul who turned Jesus into a Messiah. The Old Testament and the book of Mathew does not turn this Jesus into their Messiah, therefore to consider him returning (from the standpoint of most (all?) Jews) is nonsensical in the first place.

Only followers of Paul would consider such a thing I would presume. Now why should anybody care about what Paul said? That's the real question. Personally, I think Jesus would roll over in his grave if he knew what Paul did with his message, but Paul contradicting Jesus would deserve a thread of its own.

T have to assume that you do not know that many, many Jews DO accept Christ as the long-awaited Savior. They are called "Messianic Jews," and true to Wikipedia's unreliability, they DID exist in first century Jerusalem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

There are plenty or sites that write of Messianic Jews. Google can be your friend in this regard.

How did Paul turn Jesus into a Messiah? Paul PERSECUTED Jesus until after the crucifixion. Wow, Paul must have been REALLY, REALLY powerful! To single-handedly begin a religion that now contains more than 3.2 billion adherents and has the longest unbroken record of any institution on earth.

I think you know Paul did not turn Jesus into a Messiah. Paul only spread the word. The crucifixion and the Resurrection happened while Paul was a Jesus-hater. So, too the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. No one "turned" Jesus into a Messiah. He simply was the Messiah. The Bible cannot be understood by taking things in isolation. It's like trying to read ANNA KARENINA in bits and pieces. If you turn to a certain page, you'll find that Levin, himself, is attracted to Anna. Someone not conversant with the entire book, and someone who has not read and studied it cover-to-cover would say, "That Levin is a fool for wanting Anna!" Things taken out of context are never understood properly.

I can't help but chuckle at your signature. How long do you think that "man on fire" is going to live? One minute? Three?

Several points. the current 'messianic Jewish' folks of the Jewish faith. They are Christians that have adopted Jewish terms and the holidays, but their theology and books are Christian. The initial effort to do so was to try to convert Jewish people to Christinaity.

The next point is the Jewish Messiah is not the same kind of term as is used by Christians. The Jews do not expect 'god made flesh', or 'son of God' literally, but of the ones that expect a real messiah, it is supposed to be an extraordinary person who accomplishes specific tasks (which have not yet been accomplished).

[Ancient of Years]

<snip>
The current 'messianic Jewish' folks of the Jewish faith. They are Christians that have adopted Jewish terms and the holidays, but their theology and books are Christian. The initial effort to do so was to try to convert Jewish people to Christianity.

My impression as well. I used to engage Jews for Jesus in conversation and not one of them was ever able to give a convincing account of their life as a Jew. They were Christians pretending to be Jews.

[Danmark]

I can't help but chuckle at your signature.* How long do you think that "man on fire" is going to live? One minute? Three?

Uhhh... Lily? That's the point of the joke.
Thank you for explaining it...
... tho' it does take the humor out of it.

But, on behalf of the one other person who possibly didn't get it, thanks.



_____________________
*You can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, or you can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

[LilytheTheologian]

If any of you have studied comparative literature (after getting undergraduate degrees in drama and French in Paris, I started out as an English major here in the US, then switched to RC theology and psychology) you will know that myths take at least three to four generations to become established. There are no parallels – none, zero, zip, nada – in other literature or myth developing and being believed in the presence of eyewitnesses within the short time-frame in which the NT was formed, i.e. fewer than 100 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ.

No parallels?!?

I think the Roswell legend is an excellent analogy. There was 31 years between the time of the event (1947) and the first legendary embellishment (1978). Since 1978, the legend has grown to enormous proportions. If Mark was written circa 60 CE, that would be about 30 years from the time of the death of Jesus (circa 30 CE). So if the Roswell story can be embellished in less than 30 years in modern times, why couldn't the story of Jesus be embellished in ancient times? It would have been much easier for the story to take on legendary elements in ancient times.

There are still people today who believe that in 1947 an alien craft crashed and was recovered, along with alien bodies, by the United States government, and that this was subsequently covered up and kept secret. Though the "core story" of a saucer crash arose immediately in 1947, the elaborations began to appear as early as 1978, when an eyewitness, Maj. Jesse Marcel, described the recovery of the spacecraft in an interview. He never recanted his story, and since then the legend has grown enormously, with numerous devoted believers. This represents a clear case of a legendary development only thirty years after the fact, with all the subsequent additions to the legend (alien bodies, government threats against witnesses, storage of the craft on a military base in Arizona, physics-defying pieces of debris, and so on) arising less than fifty years after the fact, less than twenty years after the first legendary development. Even though modern literacy, skepticism, and technology have made it possible to expose this legend with copious evidence, thousands still believe it.

Hardly a parallel. Was the Roswell crash foretold in prophecy centuries before it happened? No. Since it wasn't, we won't even go into how Christ did, indeed, fulfill all the prophecies of the HS.

Has the Roswell "incident," whatever it really was, spread over the civilized world? Has "Roswell" become a household name? No. I lived in Europe for many years; almost no one there has even heard of Roswell.

Has the Roswell incident provoked many books, written by the best minds in the field? No.

Thousands believe an alien ship landed (or crashed) in Roswell? Maybe. I would say more like hundreds, but even if it is thousands, it hardly compares with Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church alone now has approx. 3.2 billion members.

Does actual historical evidence exist regarding the Roswell crash that the public can see, even if online? Not to my knowledge.

So there is "a book" from one person claiming to be an eyewitness. I don't doubt it. I don't doubt that he counted on making money or achieving fame from that one book. There are close to 5,700 full or partial Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence. In addition to the thousands of Greek manuscripts, there are an additional 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and thousands of additional manuscripts in Syriac, Aramaic, and Coptic, for a total of about 24,000 full or partial manuscripts of the New Testament. And then there are the estimated one million quotes from the New Testament in the writings of the Church Fathers (A.D. 150–1300).

Anyone who denies that Jesus existed or who claims that the Gospels are filled with historical errors or fabrications will, in good conscience, have to explain why they don’t make the same assessment about the historical works of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Julius Caesar, Livy, Josephus, Tacitus, and other classical authors. Historical details are found in the Gospels and the other books of the New Testament. These include numerous mentions of secular rulers and leaders (Caesar Augustus, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Felix, Archelaus, Agrippa, Gallio), as well as Jewish leaders (Caiaphas, Ananias), the sort of names unlikely to be used inaccurately or even to show up in a “myth.�

Tacitus, though he hated Nero, hated Christ more because he hated anything he considered "foreign." So, he can well be counted on to do his part in NOT spreading a "myth," yet he wrote: ...he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.... (Annals, 15:44)

There are extra-biblical, ancient references to Jesus and early Christianity. Are there for Roswell? No.

As to Joseph Smith, did he fulfill any prophecy, even one, of the HS? No. Paul did not have a "vision." Anyone who says that needs to explain WHY Paul would tell anyone about seeing Jesus IN THE FLESH on the road to Damascus at a time when conditions existed for some to discredit him. If he was going to make up a story, he would have done it at a more advantageous time. Plain old common sense tells anyone, even an elementary school kid that.

[LilytheTheologian]

Matthew was, of course, written for a Jewish audience, so why the explanations?

The next point is the Jewish Messiah is not the same kind of term as is used by Christians. The Jews do not expect 'god made flesh', or 'son of God' literally, but of the ones that expect a real messiah, it is supposed to be an extraordinary person who accomplishes specific tasks (which have not yet been accomplished).

What specific tasks would those be? The ones found in the HS were all accomplished by Christ. If you are going to contend that a "new" messiah could accomplish all the tasks foretold in the HS, then you might as well tell the Jews to give up waiting because it's too late. For example:

The scepter shall not pass from the tribe of Judah until the Messiah comes. In other words, He will come before Israel loses its right to judge her own people. The patriarch Jacob spoke of this:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be (Genesis 49:10).

As Dr. Henry M. Morris’ The Defender’s Bible explains:

This important prophecy has been strikingly fulfilled. Although Judah was neither Jacob’s firstborn son nor the son who would produce the priestly tribe, he was the son through whom God would fulfill His promises to Israel and to the world. The leadership, according to Jacob, was to go to Judah, but this did not happen for over 600 years. Moses came from Levi, Joshua from Ephraim, Gideon from Manasseh, Samson from Dan, Samuel from Ephraim and Saul from Benjamin. But when David finally became king, Judah held the scepter and did not relinquish it until after Shiloh came. “Shiloh� is a name for the Messiah, probably related to the Hebrew word for “peace� (shalom) and meaning in effect, “the one who brings peace.�

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the Sanhedrin of Israel lost the right to truly judge its own people when it lost the right to pass death penalties in 11 A.D. (Josephus, Antiquities, Book 17, Chapter 13). Jesus Christ was certainly born before 11 A.D.

And, another:

He will come while the Temple of Jerusalem is standing ( Malachi 3:1; Psalm 118:26; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 11:13; Haggai 2:7-9). Fulfilled: Matthew 21:12, etc. (Note: The Temple did not exist at certain periods in Jewish history, and it was finally destroyed in 70 A.D.) Was the temple standing when Christ arrived? Yes, it was.

Note: No disrespect meant to the Jewish people. I like them, I respect them, I have known many of them. They are among the best people I have met, so far. However, I think, in looking for a political Messiah, they missed recognizing their own Savior.