- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,757
- 52,536
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Does Jesus exist?Probably yes, but some question if he did.
Probably not.
Probably not.
Got it. It didn't happen as promised. But who is to say the disciples will resurrect and then it will happen?The Apostles / disciples of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah will see these things just seconds prior to Peter unlocking the gates to the Kingdom of God on earth. Also seeing these things will be all those who acknowledged Jesus as the promised Messiah. Obviously, the dead in Messiah will rise .... no Tribulation to endure. They will appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to review those noble things they did as Messianics, then WHOOSH! straight into the Kingdom (the 1,000 year reign on earth, centered in Jerusalem).
All of this is post-date to the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the 2nd Coming, and Armageddon.
Does Jesus exist?
Generally doubters argue along these lines:Uh, yes there was a man whose went by John who wrote Revelations, but we have no evidence this was the same John as the disciple.
In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that the First Epistle of John and the Gospel of John are widely agreed upon as his.... Today, many theological scholars continue to accept the traditional authorship. Colin G. Kruse states that since John the Evangelist has been named consistently in the writings of early church fathers, "it is hard to pass by this conclusion, despite widespread reluctance to accept it by many, but by no means all, modern scholars."[14] So, unless you have evidence proving otherwise, probably best to stick with this one. Plus the timeline fits: John the Apostle (Aramaic: ܝܘܚܢܢ ܫܠܝܚܐ Yohanan Shliha; Hebrew: יוחנן בן זבדי Yohanan Ben Zavdai; (Latin and Koine Greek: Ioannes) c. AD 6 – c. 100) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus according to the New Testament. How about the other 2 candidates? What are their qualifications and time lines?As I said in the OP, we commonly use the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to identify what book we are talking about, even though we have no knowledge of who wrote these books. We do not know if the author of the fourth gospel was named John.
No, he got the tense right....I think you are asking, Did Jesus exist. That is a very good question. Got a few hours available to discuss it?
That is not the point. The point is that there is no significant evidence that John the disciple wrote the books of John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John or Revelation.What these scholars, in general refuse to account for, is that John was essentially taking dictation not writing in his own style. When you take dictation for the Boss it comes out in His style, not yours.
Eusibius did not write until after 300 AD and is notoriously unreliable. The fact that he says something about the first century does not prove it is true.In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that the First Epistle of John and the Gospel of John are widely agreed upon as his.... Today, many theological scholars continue to accept the traditional authorship. Colin G. Kruse states that since John the Evangelist has been named consistently in the writings of early church fathers, "it is hard to pass by this conclusion, despite widespread reluctance to accept it by many, but by no means all, modern scholars."[14] So, unless you have evidence proving otherwise, probably best to stick with this one.
How does the fact that it did not come to pass prove that it was not said? That is my very point. Mark says this would happen, but it did not happen like he said it would.And unless we slept thru it this has not happened:
Mar 13:19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be.
Mar 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days.
Mar 13:21 And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it.
Mar 13:22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mar 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Mar 13:24 "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mar 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Mar 13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
(sorry, the verses did come thru on previous post)
And before you say the fall of Jerusalem is the tribulation talked about it hardly qualifies as "has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be." There have been far more cataclysmic events since then and obviously even they have not qualified.
So, no your interpretation of these verses do not support your assertion that Jesus was telling this disciples that he was coming back soon; least ways not as man understands soon.
There is? What is that overwhelming evidence for your early dates of the gospels? I seem to have missed it.The overwhelming evidence is that the synoptic gospels were "early," that is, written prior to 70 a.d.. The destruction of Jerusalem was foretold in Matthew 21:43, Matthew 24, and Mark 13, Luke 21:1-38, well before that year. (Scripture references edited).
I already know He did exist.I think you are asking, Did Jesus exist. That is a very good question. Got a few hours available to discuss it?
I don't know that he even did exist at all.I already know He did exist.
I'm asking you if Jesus does exist still.
AV1611VET considers "thinking something very hard" to be "knowing". I don't think that academic debates about the historicity of Jesus should be censored, I'm all for an open academia without religious censorship (or any other censorship for that matter). But I do think it's more probably than not that Jesus did exist.I don't know that he even did exist at all.
And if he did exist, then no, I do not think he resurrected.
Got it. It didn't happen as promised. But who is to say the disciples will resurrect and then it will happen?
But it says this generation will not pass away. The disciples have passed away.
So you turn to personal attacks, huh? So I am so stupid that I will not understand your arguments so why bother?I had this wonderful post almost ready to refute you and then.....It just came to me that no matter how many times I explain it you will never understand until you believe. As Paul said, to the natural man scripture is foolishness because it is spiritually discerned. I wish you well on you journey.
Then why does my Bible translate it as "generation" when it means "age"? Were the translators incompetent?The generation in existence at that time will not pass away before it happens. "Generation" can also be translated as "age" ... that age of existence will not pass away before.......
So reading Mark 13 in context, could it be Jesus is saying you 4 disciples will die and resurrect and after you resurrect with an immortal body you will then see all these things? Reading Mark 13, it is hard for me to see that this is what he is saying.The resurrection of the disciples is pointed out in scripture. Daniel 12:1-3 occurs in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament), along with the resurrection of the OT saints who come to enjoy the millennial reign of the Son of David (Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37:1-14).
Uh no that is not the nature of history. Good historians documented their sources.
But even if it was true that no ancient historians ever wrote with sufficient reliability, that would not mean we should just trust them anyway. If all ancient writings were unreliable, it would mean we don't know much about history.
But thankfully, many ancient historians actually wrote in reliable ways we can trust.
Sure I can. Look at the historians who documented Alexander the Great. Arrian is probably the best. Although he writes 500 years after Alexander he quotes specific sources from two of his generals. He explains the merit of his sources and how he used them. Because of this, we count his history as reliable. In addition, we have multiple reliable independent writers that verify what Arrian wrote, and there is much physical evidence for Alexander such as coins with his inscription and rubble that matches the time and place of the accounts. We have none of this for Jesus.Such as? You can't even name one, among the thousand nations on earth with 5000 years of history since humans can write! Just name one which actually followed your said standard!
So? We have copies of the original.Plus that you don't even have the original copy of what has been written first hand by someone 2000 years ago and before!
So are you saying that all ancient history is unreliable? Then don't trust any of it! If the stories of both Alexander and Jesus are both unreliable, then don't trust either. But you seem to be saying they are both unreliable, so therefore trust both. That is ridiculous. If the accounts aren't reliable, then we should not trust them.And that's the nature of what history is!
Then why does my Bible translate it as "generation" when it means "age"? Were the translators incompetent?
If "generation" can mean the age of existence and extend for millenia, how did Strong's miss that? Here is their definition for the Greek word used here -- https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1074&t=KJV
So reading Mark 13 in context, could it be Jesus is saying you 4 disciples will die and resurrect and after you resurrect with an immortal body you will then see all these things? Reading Mark 13, it is hard for me to see that this is what he is saying.
When Jesus said, "When you see these things begin to come to pass..." did he mean "When you come back in a resurrected body and then see these things begin to come to pass"? I don't think so.
It doesn't matter, it is the providence of God (and not men) to see that His word does not return void, but is carried forward according to His purpose.In a previous thread there was some discussion on where the gospels came from. Who wrote them? When? What sources did they use?
I'll start with my views. I think Mark was first, writing about 70 AD. We don't know who he was or what his sources were. We don't know if we can trust him.
Note that throughout I will use the common names "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" since we all recognize those names with the books. In reality we don't know who wrote any of these books.
Matthew rewrote Mark, adding a nativity story, a post-resurrection narrative, and a lot of teaching. The teaching included morality similar to the Greek Cynics, an emphasis on Judaism, and a harsh condemnation of those who didn't go along with him. He also offered an explanation for why the Son of Man had not come right away as Mark implies. Again, we don't know who Matthew was, or his sources. Probably he wrote sometime between 75 to 100 AD.
Luke, another anonymous writer, liked Matthew's concept, but restructured it per his ideas. He totally rebuilt the nativity and post-resurrection stories. He took out the distinctive Jewish flavor of Matthew, making his gospel more universal. He adds an introduction that makes it sound historical, and adds a lot of references to then current events. Personally I think he wrote after both Matthew and Josephus somewhere between 95 AD and 120 AD.
John completely rewrites the story, using Mark and Luke where needed. His story is all about belief and about fantastic claims by Jesus. Again, we don't know who wrote it, but he claims an unidentified disciple as a source. He probably wrote after Luke, perhaps 100 AD-130 AD.
Then there is Acts. The final compilation of Luke and Acts were probably by the same person, again unidentified. It was probably written 90 AD- 150 AD, but I think it was closer to 150 AD.
What do you think?
Using the link you provided, initiate a page search for "age". You will note that it is an alternative rendering of the Greek G1074.
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?