Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?

[lukethethird]

Sixty-two scholars date the Book of Acts as being written, on average, 67 AD, well within the lifetimes of Paul and the many of the Apostles. Conservative scholars overwhelmingly cite Luke as the author.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

It is not known when Acts was written, the first attestation we have of Acts is about 270 C.E.

 

[Spartan]

It is not known when Acts was written, the first attestation we have of Acts is about 270 C.E.

Not a chance. Scholars date the entire New Testament to the 1st century.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

When was the book of Acts written? | CARM.org

 

[Milton Platt]

Sixty-two scholars date the Book of Acts as being written, on average, 67 AD, well within the lifetimes of Paul and the many of the Apostles. Conservative scholars overwhelmingly cite Luke as the author.

A Chronological Order of The New Testament Books

Few people lived well into their 60's in those days. Note also that a date of writing of 67 is an average, not a firm date. Nonetheless, I do not believe the author of Acts was a witness, unless he was at most a baby or small child.

 

[Milton Platt]

"I say that it is anonymous"

Not only you say that the four Gospels were anonymous documents but the Catholic-Encylopedia also affirms that these were anonymous documents. Right, please?
The names of the Gospels do not suggest that the the accounts written were written by these disciples, their names were just assigned to give them some credulity. Right, please?
None, emphasis none, of the Gospel writers was the eye-witness of Jesus Crucifixion. Right, please?

Regards

______________
"The first four historical books of the New Testament are supplied with titles ( Euaggelion kata Matthaion, Euaggelion kata Markon , etc.), which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those sacred writings. "
Gospel and Gospels - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online

Yes, they are anonymous

 

[Milton Platt]

"The claim that anything in the bible is "god inspired" is just an unfounded assertion."

It will be as good to say that none of the NT-Bible is "god inspired".

Regards

I know of no books at all that can be demonstrated to be god inspired, nor have I seen any sound evidence that there is a god to inspire anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you just said it with no more intent than if you'd
offered some other fact, such as that there is ice
in Antarctica.

Maybe it unfamiliarity with argumentum ad populum
as worthless.*

Maybe this is a vocab issue.

Argument-

1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views,
   
   
2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others

*As Mark Twain said about the witnesses to the
marvellous gold books of Joseph Smith;

"I could not be more convinced if ever single member
of the Whitner and Smith families had signed!"

....... and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer

Jacob Whitmer

Peter Whitmer, Jun.

John Whitmer

Hiram Page

Joseph Smith, Sen.

Hyrum Smith

Samuel H. Smith

Worse yet it even fails even on that level since no matter what one's religious beliefs are there are far more that disagree than agree with anyone.

 

[Audie]

Worse yet it even fails even on that level since no matter what one's religious beliefs are there are far more that disagree than agree with anyone.

Its ok, shmog agreed with me, his response was to just
repost what I said.

 

[Audie]

Are you aware you just reposted my words?

 

[shmogie]

Are you aware you just reposted my words?

Yep, so profound, a replay was required.

 

[Spartan]

Few people lived well into their 60's in those days. Note also that a date of writing of 67 is an average, not a firm date. Nonetheless, I do not believe the author of Acts was a witness, unless he was at most a baby or small child.

Well, the Apostle John lived to a ripe old age and I'm sure many others did also.

Also, the average incorporated other scholars who dated it even earlier than 67 AD.

As for the author of the Book of Acts, the following is clear:

"In my former book, Theophilus..." Acts 1:11

His former book was the Gospel of Luke. So the author was Luke.

 

[Audie]

Yep, so profound, a replay was required.

You would be better off with silence than insincerity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, the Apostle John lived to a ripe old age and I'm sure many others did also.

Also, the average incorporated other scholars who dated it even earlier than 67 AD.

As for the author of the Book of Acts, the following is clear:

"In my former book, Theophilus..." Acts 1:11

His former book was the Gospel of Luke. So the author was Luke.

Acts and Luke are thought to be by the same author. Luke unfortunately is anonymous too so that does not help you much. Also the Gospel of Luke openly states at the start that it is not based upon eyewitness testimony. It is based upon the local legend.

 

[Spartan]

Acts and Luke are thought to be by the same author. Luke unfortunately is anonymous too so that does not help you much. Also the Gospel of Luke openly states at the start that it is not based upon eyewitness testimony. It is based upon the local legend.

There's evidence that Luke is the author of his Gospel, and Acts. For the Gospel of Luke:

"External evidence for Lucan authorship of both books is strong. Writing to Trypho the Jew concerning Luke 22:44 Justin Martyr (A.D. 103-165) affirms the authority of the third Gospel as well as its author being a follower of the apostles: “For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that…”(24). The 2nd century writer Irenaeus reports an early tradition stating that “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”(25) In the same work Irenaeus, concerning Luke documenting his travels with Paul in Acts, thus writing Acts, says: “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself… As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing…”(26) In the earliest orthodox list of books dated to around A.D. 190 known as the “Muratorian Canon” we read: “The third book of the gospel is according to Luke. This Luke was a physician who Paul had taken after the ascension of Christ to be a legal expert. Yet he had not seen the Lord in the flesh. So, as far as he could, he begins his story with the birth of John.”(27). The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (A.D. 160-180) identifies Luke as the author when it says: “Luke, a Syrian of Antioch, doctor by profession… Luke, under impulse of the Holy Spirit, wrote his gospel in the region of Achaia.”(28) In his work against the heretic Marcion Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) attests to Lucan authorship: “… the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel... therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards… Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.”(29). P75 (A.D. 174-225) the oldest manuscript of the third Gospel designates Luke as the author as well. All early Lucan manuscripts we possess have the title. In his commentary on Matthew Origen (A.D. 185-254) also affirms that Luke wrote both the third Gospel and Acts when he says “And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts… Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.”(30) Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's evidence that Luke is the author of his Gospel, and Acts. For the Gospel of Luke:

"External evidence for Lucan authorship of both books is strong. Writing to Trypho the Jew concerning Luke 22:44 Justin Martyr (A.D. 103-165) affirms the authority of the third Gospel as well as its author being a follower of the apostles: “For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that…”(24). The 2nd century writer Irenaeus reports an early tradition stating that “Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”(25) In the same work Irenaeus, concerning Luke documenting his travels with Paul in Acts, thus writing Acts, says: “But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself… As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing…”(26) In the earliest orthodox list of books dated to around A.D. 190 known as the “Muratorian Canon” we read: “The third book of the gospel is according to Luke. This Luke was a physician who Paul had taken after the ascension of Christ to be a legal expert. Yet he had not seen the Lord in the flesh. So, as far as he could, he begins his story with the birth of John.”(27). The Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (A.D. 160-180) identifies Luke as the author when it says: “Luke, a Syrian of Antioch, doctor by profession… Luke, under impulse of the Holy Spirit, wrote his gospel in the region of Achaia.”(28) In his work against the heretic Marcion Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) attests to Lucan authorship: “… the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel... therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; while of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards… Now, of the authors whom we possess, Marcion seems to have singled out Luke for his mutilating process.”(29). P75 (A.D. 174-225) the oldest manuscript of the third Gospel designates Luke as the author as well. All early Lucan manuscripts we possess have the title. In his commentary on Matthew Origen (A.D. 185-254) also affirms that Luke wrote both the third Gospel and Acts when he says “And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts… Luke, the author of the Gospel and the Acts, wrote it.”(30) Who Wrote the Gospels? Internal and External Arguments for Traditional Authorship

How is that evidence? He wrote that at the very least 50 years after Luke-Acts were written and probably longer. Contemporary claims or people that at least knew him would be a bit more convincing.

 

[Spartan]

How is that evidence? He wrote that at the very least 50 years after Luke-Acts were written and probably longer.

Here's when numerous scholars date the writing of Luke and Acts - well within the lifetime of Luke. The fact that he wrote it some years after the events noted doesn't matter. I can still recall vividly events from the Vietnam war and that's 50 years ago.

Dating the New Testament, based on the opinions of several hundred New Testament scholars

iPage

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's when numerous scholars date the writing of Luke and Acts - well within the lifetime of Luke. The fact that he wrote it some years after the events noted doesn't matter. I can still recall vividly events from the Vietnam war and that's 50 years ago.

Dating the New Testament, based on the opinions of several hundred New Testament scholars

iPage

You can't rely on bogus Christian scholars that want to distort the facts to match their myth. And your link does not work anyway. Most put the date after 70 AD, those that do so before then only do so in an attempt to make a vague prophecy be "fulfilled". That is not a valid reason to put an early date on the book.

 

[Spartan]

You can't rely on bogus Christian scholars that want to distort the facts to match their myth.

You don't even know those scholars and you say they're bogus and want to distort the facts.

Recommend you back up your claim.

 

[Muffled]

I believe they reported it that way because that is the way it appeared to them. However they did report correctly what happened and one wonders how they knew.

 

[Muffled]

Did Jesus die and rise from the dead?
The answer depends entirely on ones indoctrination, or lack thereof.

I believe that is not so with me.

 

[Muffled]

It appears it was a vision similar to the one the disciples had on Mount Tabor.

And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elijah talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead." (Matthew 17:1–9, KJV)

Thou didst ask as to the transfiguration of Jesus, with Moses and Elias and the Heavenly Father on Mount Tabor, as referred to in the Bible. This occurrence was perceived by the disciples with their inner eye, wherefore it was a secret hidden away, and was a spiritual discovery of theirs. Otherwise, if the intent be that they witnessed physical forms, that is, witnessed that transfiguration with their outward eyes, then there were many others at hand on that plain and mountain, and why did they fail to behold it? And why did the Lord charge them that they should tell no man? It is clear that this was a spiritual vision and a scene of the Kingdom. Wherefore did the Messiah bid them to keep this hidden, ‘till the Son of Man were risen from the dead,’ 1 —that is, until the Cause of God should be exalted, and the Word of God prevail, and the reality of Christ rise up.(Baha’i Writings)

I believe the resurrection was a spiritual vision also.

I believe the Biblical evidence does not support that concept.