The Virgin Birth, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension

[Patriotic Voter]

Something that is very frustrating when I talk to people who are not Christians about Jesus is they deny the fact - one that archaeologists and different theologians have found compelling evidence of - Jesus rose from the dead three days after he was crucified . . . yet also say they believe the entire Bible, which tells the story four times in the New Testament. These events - along with the way Jesus returned to Heaven - would not be possible if another one had not happened approximately 32 years earlier: A virgin named Mary being impregnated with Jesus. So believing the entire Bible also requires a belief that Jesus does not have a biological father, but is the Son of God. Denying any one of these events is a denial Jesus actually is God Himself and makes the rest moot.

I used to be an atheist. I believed Jesus had a human father (Joseph) and died on the cross, but his death was permanent. Since becoming a Christian, however, I have been convinced there is no way anyone can believe Jesus is the "Son of God" without also believing his mother was a virgin at the time she got pregnant, he rose from the dead three days after being crucified, and his ascension to heaven did not happen until 40 days after the Resurrection.

So please, if you claim to believe the whole Bible, but not the miracle Jesus is from Mary's pregnancy to the Ascension, show me proof in the Gospels that Christians have the wrong interpretations of historical facts. I am happy to read and write Bible passages, but you have to do the same.

 

[Daisy]

but is the Son of God. Denying any one of these events is a denial Jesus actually is God Himself

I agree with everything you said except this one contradiction...Jesus cannot be both the Son of God and God Himself, nor did he make that claim...even when the Sanhedrin falsely accused Jesus of blasphemy for making himself a god, Jesus never claimed such a thing...even then he only claimed he was God's Son...

33 The Jews answered him: “We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god.”

34 Jesus answered them: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said: “You are gods”’?

35 If he called ‘gods’ those against whom the word of God came—and yet the scripture cannot be nullified—

36 do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Do you believe Jesus was risen from the dead? If so, how does that NOT prove Jesus is God?

 

[Daisy]

Do you believe Jesus was risen from the dead? If so, how does that NOT prove Jesus is God?

In the same way Lazarus rose from the dead...Jehovah god granted Jesus the powers that originally only Jehovah had...

"I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative." John 5:30

 

[Patriotic Voter]

In the same way Lazarus rose from the dead...Jehovah God granted Jesus the powers that originally only Jehovah had...

"I cannot do a single thing of my own initiative." John 5:30

The reason Jesus can't do anything of his own initiative is he and the Father are the same God. If Jesus was only God's son (lowercase s), he could do everything on his own, just following God's instructions. Saying he cannot do anything of his own initiative means, of course, somebody is controlling him completely - everything he says and does, as if he was a robot. The verse you cited actually supports my view.

 

[btthegreat]

I will be impressed if you can prove the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension of Jesus without the Bible. The Bible as literature and as a picture into a specific culture in several historical periods, has some limited value. The Bible as a document of historical truth and accuracy, is utterly worthless.

 

[Daisy]

The reason Jesus can't do anything of his own initiative is he and the Father are the same God. If Jesus was only God's son (lowercase s), he could do everything on his own, just following God's instructions. Saying he cannot do anything of his own initiative means, of course, somebody is controlling him completely - everything he says and does, as if he was a robot. The verse you cited actually supports my view.

Actually, it doesn't...Jesus also said, in quoting Deuteronomy 6:4...

"Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah," Mark 12:29

And then, of course there is 2 Samuel 7:22...no one compares to Jehovah God...He is unique, the one and only....

"That is why you are truly great, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah. There is no one like you, and there is no God except you; everything we have heard with our ears confirms this."

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I will be impressed if you can prove the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension of Jesus without the Bible. The Bible as literature and as a picture into a specific culture in several historical periods, has some limited value. The Bible as a document of historical truth and accuracy, is utterly worthless.

If you do not believe the Bible just because it is a history book, cast doubt on every other nonfiction book ever written without scientific and historical proof of all the facts.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Actually, it doesn't...Jesus also said, in quoting Deuteronomy 6:4...

"Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah," Mark 12:29

And then, of course there is 2 Samuel 7:22...no one compares to Jehovah God...He is unique, the one and only....

"That is why you are truly great, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah. There is no one like you, and there is no God except you; everything we have heard with our ears confirms this."

That is how we know Jesus is not a separate God from the Father who sent him.

 

[dairyair]

If you do not believe the Bible just because it is a history book, cast doubt on every other nonfiction book ever written without scientific and historical proof of all the facts.

It's not a history book.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

It's not a history book.

Right, because it has a lot more than history. But the events I am talking about are definitely history.

 

[Daisy]

That is how we know Jesus is not a separate God from the Father who sent him.

The Scriptures bear witness to the fact that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his pre-human existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God...Jesus is a separate creation.. it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, that Almighty God created all other things...

"there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." 1 Corinthians 8:6

 

[dairyair]

Right, because it has a lot more than history. But the events I am talking about are definitely history.

A resurrection is not history. It may not even be real.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The Scriptures bear witness to the fact that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his pre-human existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God...Jesus is a separate creation.. it was by means of this master worker, his junior partner, that Almighty God created all other things...

"there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." 1 Corinthians 8:6

Lord and God mean exactly the same thing in the Bible. Also, Jesus could not have created all things if he was not the same God as the Creator - his Father.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

A resurrection is not history. It may not even be real.

A deadly crucifixion certainly is.

 

[dairyair]

A deadly crucifixion certainly is.

huh?

 

[Daisy]

Lord and God mean exactly the same thing in the Bible. Also, Jesus could not have created all things if he was not the same God as the Creator - his Father.

No, they don't...there are times it refers to Jehovah and there are other times when it refers to Jesus...lord is merely a title of respect...the apostle Peter even cited Sarah as a good example for Christian wives because of her obedience to Abraham, “calling him ‘lord'...

The Greek “Kyrios.” This Greek word is an adjective, signifying the possessing of power (kyʹros) or authority, and it is also used as a noun. It appears in each book of the Christian Greek Scriptures except Titus and the letters of John. The term corresponds to the Hebrew ʼA·dhohnʹ. As God’s created Son and Servant, Jesus Christ properly addresses his Father and God (Joh 20:17) as “Lord” (ʼAdho·naiʹ or Kyʹri·os), the One having superior power and authority, his Head. (Mt 11:25; 1Co 11:3) As the one exalted to his Father’s right hand, Jesus is “Lord of lords” as respects all except his Father, God the Almighty.—Re 17:14; 19:15, 16; compare 1Co 15:27, 28.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002771

As I told you before, Jehovah granted Jesus his power...Jesus is and always has been in subjection to Jehovah...everything Jesus has accomplished has been through that power granted him from God...

"But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone." 1 Corinthians 15:28

 

[btthegreat]

If you do not believe the Bible just because it is a history book, cast doubt on every other nonfiction book ever written without scientific and historical proof of all the facts.

I am just going to tell you to reread my post. Every word in there had a purpose to be there so they all matter. Books written by credible historians, people who by profession, research, document and write about history, actually cite their sources, and provide a bibliography so that other historians can in fact trace where they got their facts, and how they drew their conclusions. We should be very skeptical of any history tome that does not provide a method of historical verification.

Now not all 'facts' require the same level of proof. If I told you that Alaska Airlines provided a flight from Portland to Seattle that landed at 4:26 pm on 12-16-2020 and you knew that Alaska Airlines provides those flights routinely as a course of business, I doubt you'd demand multiple sources and cross checking. But if I told you that a UFO, shaped like a triangle, without any sign of an engine but instead had flying aliens lifting it, rose from the Portland sky and glided across the Columbia River and landed in Seattle on 12-16-2020, You'd want to see a hell of a lot of proof because nobody has ever seen or heard of anything like that in all of human history.

Now which of those two examples should we compare to virginal births and resurrections from death, and ascensions into heaven? Believe on faith if you like, no skin off my nose if you do, but the Bible as a source of those historical facts is just not going to cut it!

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Bit, the second example could be mostly proven by collecting and examining forensic evidence. The exception, of course, being the exact time it took off and landed - assuming there were no witnesses.

The Crucifixion/Resurrection story is supported by archaeologists findings at Calvary Hill and the tomb site that confirm witness testimonies in the Bible.

 

[btthegreat]

Bit, the second example could be mostly proven by collecting and examining forensic evidence. The exception, of course, being the exact time it took off and landed - assuming there were no witnesses.

The Crucifixion/Resurrection story is supported by archaeologists findings at Calvary Hill and the tomb site that confirm witness testimonies in the Bible.

I specifically did not include crucifixion, because that does not require treating a 'miracle' as a fact. Got no problem with the notion that this Jesus figure was crucified and died thereby, or that he was entombed in the vicinity. Not all that uncommon back then. I am simply not interested in personal 'witness' testimony of supernatural phenomena that is centuries old, documented in writing as hearsay or double hearsay, many years after their death years later, and translated into one language, then two languages even later.

I don't have forensic evidence of this alien spaceship, and you don't have forensic evidence of an immaculate conception or a resurrection and ascension. The difference is I really don't expect you or anyone to believe either story absent some pretty compelling forensic evidence.

 

[mrjurrs]

I will be impressed if you can prove the virgin birth, resurrection and ascension of Jesus without the Bible. The Bible as literature and as a picture into a specific culture in several historical periods, has some limited value. The Bible as a document of historical truth and accuracy, is utterly worthless.

Almost as hard to explain as the virgin birth, the miracle of the Caucasian birth can't be explained. How did someone born in the middle east of two middle eastern parents end up looking like this?

 

[btthegreat]

Almost as hard to explain as the virgin birth, the miracle of the Caucasian birth can't be explained. How did someone born in the middle east of two middle eastern parents end up looking like this?
View attachment 67319041

Well you can't blame that on the Codus Vaticanus, or early Christians. Its actually a better marketing plan if your target audience changes from Middle Eastern or Greek to Northern European to blanche this guy's skin and hair to look more like the local demographic.

 

[Luce]

Something that is very frustrating when I talk to people who are not Christians about Jesus is they deny the fact - one that archaeologists and different theologians have found compelling evidence of - Jesus rose from the dead three days after he was crucified . .

Archaeologists, you say?

Any citations to offer?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Something that is very frustrating when I talk to people who are not Christians about Jesus is they deny the fact - one that archaeologists and different theologians have found compelling evidence of - Jesus rose from the dead three days after he was crucified . . . yet also say they believe the entire Bible, which tells the story four times in the New Testament. These events - along with the way Jesus returned to Heaven - would not be possible if another one had not happened approximately 32 years earlier: A virgin named Mary being impregnated with Jesus. So believing the entire Bible also requires a belief that Jesus does not have a biological father, but is the Son of God. Denying any one of these events is a denial Jesus actually is God Himself and makes the rest moot.

I used to be an atheist. I believed Jesus had a human father (Joseph) and died on the cross, but his death was permanent. Since becoming a Christian, however, I have been convinced there is no way anyone can believe Jesus is the "Son of God" without also believing his mother was a virgin at the time she got pregnant, he rose from the dead three days after being crucified, and his ascension to heaven did not happen until 40 days after the Resurrection.

So please, if you claim to believe the whole Bible, but not the miracle Jesus is from Mary's pregnancy to the Ascension, show me proof in the Gospels that Christians have the wrong interpretations of historical facts. I am happy to read and write Bible passages, but you have to do the same.

There is no archaeology to support any of your claims.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Bit, the second example could be mostly proven by collecting and examining forensic evidence. The exception, of course, being the exact time it took off and landed - assuming there were no witnesses.

The Crucifixion/Resurrection story is supported by archaeologists findings at Calvary Hill and the tomb site that confirm witness testimonies in the Bible.

No. It's a leap of faith from a few dusty stones to highly edited and redacted myths