Jesus' Life and Resurrection.

[LiamOS]

In his Head-To-Head debate with otseng, WinePusher claimed that Jesus' life and resurrection can be attested to with outside, objective evidence.

For debate:
Can the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ be supported with objective evidence? If so, please provide such evidence.

[fredonly]

. I would claim that Mark's lack of a nativity is because Mark's Christology is adoptionistic. I wouldn't expect such a genealogy even if there were no other reasons for thinking Mark early. John similarly omits a nativity, but John's Jesus was preexistent. John's Jesus isn't son of David because John's Jesus existed in the beginning.

For me, the clues for the order in which they were written lie primarily in passages and stories that were reused, but modified. Matthew, for example, wants to include Mark's baptism as the start of Jesus' ministry, but now has to deal with the uncomfortable detail that Jesus was already divine at birth. Matthew adds the "to fulfill all righteousness" excuse for the baptism. Mark was first and Matthew used Mark.

I agree that Mark had an adoptionist view of Jesus. And since Mark is the earliest Gospel, it may very well reflect the earliest beliefs about him.

Luke may also have had such a view. Bart Ehrman has pointed to a textual variant of Luke's rendition of Jesus baptism, in which God says, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you", and suggests this may have been the original. Ehrman also says there are old manuscripts of Luke that lack the 1st 2 chapters (which includes the nativity), implying theses chapters were added by later scribes.