- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 7,692
- Reaction score
- 3,368
- Location
- TN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I believe your dating is wrong for the Gospels and eyewitnesses. Here's a more scholarly view on that:
A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books
All dates within the probable lifetimes of the Gospel authors and eyewitnesses.
Also, the earliest mention of the resurrection was likely less than a decade after the event.
Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ « The Righter Report
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
"I never said that, what I said was you can keep your plan until the insurance companies change it"
Delusional defined...your leader
Wow! Stunning....If this is reviewed, and verified, what, and how do you see this effecting Christianity? Especially considering the open attack it is under today?
Nor does He have a wife and son
Okay. So we'll say it was written at those time points. According to J.D. Crossan, the average age of a Palestinian man in these times was 29 years.
So let's assume that these are eyewitness accounts. Also, let's assume Jesus did die in 33 A.D. If the Gospel according to Mark was written in 61 A.D. and the average life expectancy was 29 years, that would make him 4 years old at the time of Jesus' death. AND THAT'S THE EARLIEST DATE. John was written in 86 A.D. (your source, not mine). He would have had to have been almost 50 when he was writing this to even have been at the death and resurrection of Jesus if he was a newborn infant when it happened. Oh, and lest we forget, this is in a largely illiterate area. So sure, it makes sense that a four year old in an illiterate area would write down and have perfect recollection from memory (25+ years later mind you) a supernatural story. Yeah. Right. :roll:
Many Christians will refuse to believe Jesus was married. Many consider it blasphemy.
I wouldn't consider J.D. Crossan to be believable on a lot of things. He's a classic theological liberal - one of the founders of the theologically liberal "Jesus Seminar," whose members cast colored beads to vote on what they thought was "acceptable." Anything supernatural, like the miracles of Jesus, his resurrection, etc., all went flying out the window - not based on anything objective - but based on their 'a priori' anti-supernatural bias. They love their theories and hypotheses, but from what I've seen there's seldom any historical, archaeological or traditional evidences to back them up. And then they call that "scholarship." :roll:
But back to the issue here -
Herod the Great lived to be 69, and the Jews, perhaps because of their Biblical diets, lived roughly 70 years. And tradition says that the Apostle John lived to be a very old man. "The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away." - Psalm 90:10
We also have the earliest church fathers who verified the traditional Gospel authors, so I don't see where the skeptics have a leg to stand on with the age argument.
You did nothing to address the post above besides attack a theologian -- one of your believing ilk.
How do you know they lived to be seventy, though? You're a priori assuming that Psalms is stating the truth.
Verified what about them? They existed. Great. That's kind of immaterial. What matters is were they eyewitnesses? Otherwise it's hearsay. I would think there's a pretty strong case for the latter.
Indubitably 30 years later there would be inaccuracies, and that's the point. This has been tested and proven many times throughout history. And not only that, until the Protestant reformation, and better publishing abilities, the corrupt Catholic Church was in control of the "scriptures" and their duplication. Dubious at best.
So Peter directly passing down his eyewitness accounts to Mark wouldn't qualify as a eyewitness account ?
As an example I could give eyewitness accounts of things my Grandfather did 30 years ago to my son.
Does that make those accounts false ?
Okay. So we'll say it was written at those time points. According to J.D. Crossan, the average age of a Palestinian man in these times was 29 years. So let's assume that these are eyewitness accounts. Also, let's assume Jesus did die in 33 A.D. If the Gospel according to Mark was written in 61 A.D. and the average life expectancy was 29 years, that would make him 4 years old at the time of Jesus' death. AND THAT'S THE EARLIEST DATE. John was written in 86 A.D. (your source, not mine). He would have had to have been almost 50 when he was writing this to even have been at the death and resurrection of Jesus if he was a newborn infant when it happened. Oh, and lest we forget, this is in a largely illiterate area. So sure, it makes sense that a four year old in an illiterate area would write down and have perfect recollection from memory (25+ years later mind you) a supernatural story. Yeah. Right. :roll:
That's because there's zero credible historical evidence of it.
There are a lot of things in the bible that have zero credible evidence too. Can you actually prove Jesus existed?
There's also no evidence King Herod killed first born children either. And so on.
Impressive.
You folks trying to tell me a 50, 60, or 70 year old man couldn't remember a physical resurrection from the dead of a crucified individual?
There are a lot of things in the bible that have zero credible evidence too.
There are 83 independently confirmed archaeological facts in the second half of the book of Acts alone.
So Peter directly passing down his eyewitness accounts to Mark wouldn't qualify as a eyewitness account ?
As an example I could give eyewitness accounts of things my Grandfather did 30 years ago to my son.
Does that make those accounts false ?
There are 83 independently confirmed archaeological facts in the second half of the book of Acts alone.
Yes, they also have archaeological evidence from events inside of many books, their is no evidence for any of the supposed "miracles" or unrealistic claims. Also, I'd love you to back this up.[/QUOTE]
That would be incorrect.
Here's a confirmed miracle:
http://righterreport.com/2007/07/14/documenting-a-miracle/
Also, miracles have now been documented.
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525
Yes, they also have archaeological evidence from events inside of many books, their is no evidence for any of the supposed "miracles" or unrealistic claims. Also, I'd love you to back this up.
Dovkan: Yes, they also have archaeological evidence from events inside of many books, their is no evidence for any of the supposed "miracles" or unrealistic claims. Also, I'd love you to back this up.
That would be incorrect.
Here's a confirmed miracle:
http://righterreport.com/2007/07/14/documenting-a-miracle/
Also, miracles have now been documented.
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525
Yes, they also have archaeological evidence from events inside of many books, their is no evidence for any of the supposed "miracles" or unrealistic claims.
Also, I'd love you to back this up
No, but if your grandfather says he met god incarnate, we're going to need more evidence. Have you ever played "the telephone game"?
Do any of those archaeological facts show that people used to have magical powers?
The Telephone Game, while a common reference, is a poor analogy to the texts under discussion. A key ingredient of message degradation in the telephone game is the secrecy of transmission - you don't know what was said three people down, no one can hear what you say. This is the opposite of what occurs in an open community sharing events that many of them partook in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?