Jesus wasn't resurrected

[The_Horned_King]

Originally Posted by LuvDuke
Btw, The Gospels were not written by any one with those first hand accounts.

You say that as if it's established fact. A quick google search shows that's not necessarily the case.

While nothing is established as fact...I happen to agree with LuvDuke. Here is a very interesting link to someone questioning when the gospels were written.
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html

here's a quote form it...

So this is the question that we will deal with here: Were the gospels written before 50AD, as these Christians claim, or after 70AD, as critical scholarship claims?

The obvious place to begin our search is to look at the gospels themselves, to see when they claim to be written. Alas, the authors do not identify themselves, and they make no mention of the date of writing. So this doesn't help us.

Our search next takes us to early documents that refer to the gospels. We notice something odd. The gospels appear to be completely unknown to Paul and the other first-century Christians. Now if Paul or another first-century writer had referred to a gospel, we could use that information to date the gospels prior to that apostle. But the first century writings are no help here. Instead we find no clear mention of the gospels until well into the second century. [4][5] This absence-of-evidence would hint that the gospels were not written before the later part of the first century, but, of course, this is not conclusive.

It continues on for along time and is very interesting.
Many people conclude that they were not written until 70ad((both believers and not)) and I did a google search also..and just as many pages and links support this view...Many of them not linked to such sites as catholic.net
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html

It also depends on how you put it into google. As what you search will get more answers to support your cause. Believe what you want.

I choose to believe they were not first hand accounts.

 

[JoyG]

I will admit, I have never given much thought to whether the resurrection and bodily assumption into heaven was a crucial part of my faith. And I have to say - based on the media coverage of this documentary, I think I'm not the only one.

If anything good can come from this documentary, I think addressing that question is one. I think anyone who considers themselves a christian should think about what part the resurrection plays in the faith...what the implications for our faith would be if it were not true.

 

[LuvDuke]

While nothing is established as fact...I happen to agree with LuvDuke. Here is a very interestign link to some questioning when the gospels were written.
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html

here's a quote form it...


It continues on for along time and is very interesting.
Most people conclude that most of them were not written until 70ad((both belives and not)) and I did a google search too..and just as many pages and links support this view...many of them not linked to such sites as catholic.net
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Homiletic/May97/gospels.html

It also depends how you put it into google as to what why you will get more answers to support your cause. Believe what you want.

I choose to believe they were not first hand accounts.

Maybe I can clarify what I was trying to say. For example, John witnessed firsthand what Jesus did. But, John was not the one to write the Gospel according to John. The same with Matthew, Mark, and Luke. There's no doubt that Paul did not know Jesus firsthand. And Revelations was written by a "John" but not John the Evangelist.

And, again correct me if I'm wrong, but the gospels were written in Greek which was not the language of illiterate fisherman from Galilee.

I see the Gospels as someone writing down the oral tradition as it was passed down. And in that respect, they are not firsthand accounts but a retelling of the story.

 

[The_Horned_King]

I see the Gospels as someone writing down the oral tradition as it was passed down. And in that respect, they are not firsthand accounts but a retelling of the story.

Exactly...they were written well after the fact based on oral traditions((which can be changed..like playing a game of telephone)) not written first hand by John, ect.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Well, supposedly Jesus was from the line of David. I'm not sure if there's dna available to prove that, but there certainly are dna tests that show certain African tribes are descendants of the Jews. Which gives to rise the whole question of the 12 tribes.

Certainly, dna testing can prove if some Jews are Levy's or Cohen's. I don't know if that is also true for the House of David.

They can trace most Koheins bac to a common anestor but that's it as far as I know...Levi is really a catch all group that includes converts

 

[JoyG]

From Wikipedia:

[edit] Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical Gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the Gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Conservative scholars tend to date earlier than others, while liberal scholars usually date later. The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996 (for a fuller discussion of dating, please see the articles for each Gospel):

Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65. Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50's. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis

I wanted to add to The Horned King's dates listed above. One thing I wanted to point out, it's a common misconception that the gospels were written hundreds of years after Jesus. Although it wasn't mentioned recently, someone did say that earlier in the thread. According to the dates above (if you figure Jesus was crucified in 30-33) the first gospel could have been written 35 years after his death, not hundreds.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Have any of you guys read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel? It is a fascinating book that addresses many of these topics. He was a Yale educated, atheist, journalist who began an investigation into the life of Christ after his wife became a believer. I highly recommend it!

I've read it..I didnt find it convincing at all. It was a good read though

 

[salmoneous]

I choose to believe they were not first hand accounts.

Even if you believe that the books of Matthew, John, etc. were written by guys who hung around with Jesus, that *doesn't* make them first hand accounts.

Ever wonder how Luke knew what the Angle said to the Shepherds?

 

[JennyMominRI]

But Jesus didn't say that at all. He didn't say, "in the past there were other ways, but in the future you will have to say a salvation prayer to me and believe in my resurrection to get into heaven." All Christ said was that He was "the way". At that moment, he hadn't even died. Yet we all believe that the Jews who died then aren't excluded from God's presence.

So when Christ said "I am the way" he is leaving open more than one way to access that path. If more than one way was open in the past, why must we believe that it is the only way today. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

The way I see it its a non-issue...Jews don't need salvation..Jews weren't looking for a savior. Maybe Christians needs salvation..Jews don't

 

[LuvDuke]

I've read it..I didnt find it convincing at all. It was a good read though

And then there's the Piso family:

http://www.konformist.com/blasphemy/piso.htm

 

[LuvDuke]

Exactly...they were written well after the fact based on oral traditions((which can be changed..like playing a game of telephone)) not written first hand by John, ect.

A game of telephone, for example: "Blessed are the cheesemakers".

 

[magicmato]

The way I see it its a non-issue...Jews don't need salvation..Jews weren't looking for a savior. Maybe Christians needs salvation..Jews don't

What do Jews (in general) seem to think when Christians tell them that they will go to hell for not believing in Jesus as Savior?

 

[magicmato]

A game of telephone, for example: "Blessed are the cheesemakers".

MMmmmmmm! Cheese....!!!

 

[salmoneous]

The way I see it its a non-issue...Jews don't need salvation..Jews weren't looking for a savior. Maybe Christians needs salvation..Jews don't

I was thinking about you when I was writing Jesus doesn't necessarily speak about salvation, but about being a pathway to God - which is how I tried to word my note. Faith for many - Christian and others - is more about communion with God than about having a get-out-of-heck-free card.

 

[magicmato]

I was thinking about you when I was writing Jesus doesn't necessarily speak about salvation, but about being a pathway to God - which is how I tried to word my note. Faith for many - Christian and others - is more about communion with God than about having a get-out-of-heck-free card.

I guess that depends on the believer and the faith. I have been told more times than I can count that I shall be burning in my own special version of hell, all for the mere fact that I was baptized in a church that I do not practice in. Apparently, that makes me a heretic and there is a special damnation for us! Woot! Party in the hizzouse! Who's bringing the wine and cheese?

 

[aquinas]

Actually I do. I believe that God made different ways for different peoples. For me it is Christianity but for others it is another way. My God is kind and merciful and would not turn about 4.5 billion people.

A merciful God wouldnt drown thousands of people either. no He did just that.

A merciful God wouldnt destroy cities and kill scores of people. Wait a minute, He destroyed Sodom & Gamorah.

A merciful God wouldnt harden Pharoah's heart and send plagues upon people and even kill their first born. Wait, He did that too?

God IS a God of mercy but also a God that demands justice as well.

So according to you, everyone gets to heaven? There is no narrow road?

 

[LuvDuke]

I guess that depends on the believer and the faith. I have been told more times that I can count that I shall be burning in my own special version of hell, all for the mere fact that I was baptized in a church that I do not practice in. Apparently, that makes me a heretic and there is a special damnation for us! Woot! Party in the hizzouse! Who's bringing the wine and cheese?

I'm saving seats at the bar in Purgatory.

 

[ead79]

Does anyone know the exact title of the show or its air date so I can set my TiVo to record it? I'd like to see it before I decide my opinion about it.

As far as the resurrection goes, I agree with JoyG. Without that event, my faith in Jesus would be misplaced. To me it makes all the difference. I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that He died and rose again. Without that, Jesus simply would've been a good man and teacher, which is not what I believe, though I know that many people do hold that belief about Jesus.

As has been mentioned before, faith is a crucial part of my belief. To me it is not a blind faith, as I have many personal experiences that validate my faith in Christ to me. But at the same time, I don't believe it can be either proven or disproven in factual terms. That is the essence of faith to me.

 

[JennyMominRI]

What do Jews (in general) seem to think when Christians tell them that they will go to hell for not believing in Jesus as Savior?

Most just sort of shrug and go about there business.I mean,we don't even believe in a place called hell and we certainly don't believe a merciful g-d condemns some one for what they believe.
..You very quickly get used to be *different*... I think that a lot of Christians would get a better perspective if they spent a year or two in a country that was filled with predominately another religion..I know it was eye opening for me when I became Jewish.

 

[agnes!]

magicmato -

Most Christians I know do not "believe" that Jews are going to Hell. I don't think that anyone posting here has stated that either.


Jenny -

I get your point that Jews don't need a Savior or salvation. Is The Messiah/ha'mashiach the same thing as a Savior? I thought that Jews were still awaiting God's Son, but that they don't believe that Jesus of Nazareth was that person.

agnes!