Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Because the average lifespan at that time was about 30, not >100.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The resurrection of Jesus.
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
Because the average lifespan at that time was about 30, not >100.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
That's fascinating...not. Uh, O.K., you believe weird stuff. All kinds of people believe all kinds of weird stuff. Why would that be of general interest, if there is no evidence to support your weird belief?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I guess what I would appreciate from more Christians would be something like:
There is no historical, archeological or evidentiary reason to believe that Jesus was resurrected, but I choose to do so anyway because it meets my emotional needs, so don't bother knocking yourself out to show me the evidence, since it won't to a whit of good.
It would be so much more honest.
You did not come to this belief based on evidence, and no amount of evidence will dissuade you of it.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That is a little misleading actually though. If we look at the statistics, we can see why the average lifespan was only about 30.
First, if we look at the bodies we have discovered in tombs, half of them had died by the age of 5. Second, 1 in 8 births led to the mothers death. Third, many died by the time they were in their mid-teens. These will effect the actual average lifespan.
However, once a person reached 16-17, it was quite possible for them to live in their 40s, or even to their 60s, depending on their diets. So the average lifespan doesn't really tell us much unless we really examine why the average lifespan was that. But we do know that for those who lived past their mid-teens, it was common for them to live in their 40's or even 60s.
So if we take that into consideration, it would be quite possible that an apostle (I assume we're talking about the actual disciples in this case) to live during the time of the writing of Mark. If he was even 20 at the time of the death of Jesus, that would put him at 60. At 30 years old (around the age Jesus would have been), he would be hitting 70. Still possible.
More so, we know that James, the brother of Jesus, lived until 62 C.E. Paul lived possibly as late as 67 C.E. and is thought to have born around the same general time as Jesus. Both of these people, from what we know, were killed, and did not die from natural causes.
Now, if Mark was written in 70 C.E. as is commonly speculated, we see both James, the brother of Jesus dying only 8 years before that, and Paul just as little as 3 years. So it really is quite possible that a disciple was still alive during the time of the writing of Mark at least. It would be less likely that they still lived during the writing of Luke and Matthew, but not out of the question.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
It sounds like the OP, after discounting all the alternatives, must come to the conclusion that Jesus really was bodily raised from the dead.
The alternatives are much more credible!
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Not according to the OP, they discounted the alternatives in the OP.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
The OP does not set standards for credibility.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Uh, O.K. the OP is wrong.
logician
Well-Known Member
Ditto. Of course, if you believe in miracles, they all lived to be a 100.
javajo
Well-Known Member
The authors were eyewitnesses. The oldest COPY, not original was circa 125 of part of John. I'm glad I'm not in the mainstream, I believe the Bible and have trusted Christ as my Saviour, and that is just my personal belief and choice and comes from my personal experiences and studies and I hope people can respect that.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
The authors were not eyewitnesses. That is complete nonsense. Mark was a disciple of Peter, we don't even know who wrote Matthew, Luke was a disciple of Paul, and John definitely didn't write John.
kingdombuilder
Member
"I know in their own terms (the apostles) what they saw was the raised Jesus. That's what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that's what they saw. I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus...I do not know what they saw. But I do know as a historian that they must have seen something." (Paula Fredriksen of Boston University as stated in July 2000 on the ABC network tv special The Search for Jesus hosted by Peter Jennings)
- Well, I guess that is at least 1 non-christian apologist that shows your doubt is not justified.
The 1st know canon list was produced by Marcion in AD 140 and for his own purposes his list includes the Gospel of Luke. First, it should be noted that Luke had to have been written well before this list was written. Second, note that most, if not all scholars agree that Luke was not the first of the 4 main Gospels written, both Matthew and Mark are believed to predate even Luke.
- Strike 2. Care to try for one more swing?
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
kingdombuilder
Member
More could be said concerning this uninformed view but let me simply point out what should be the obvious. You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul. Uh...forgive me, but both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves. So at the very least what you acknowledge here is that both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
- Note as well that you just completely undercut your own previous claim that the "first known gospel was written at least 2 generations after the death of Jesus." Uh...no...according to even you, at least 2 of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus and the first generation of disciples of Jesus! So, thank you for disproving your own argument.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
More could be said concerning this uninformed view but let me simply point out what should be the obvious. You acknowledge (rightly I might add) that Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Luke was a disciple of Paul. Uh...forgive me, but both Peter and Paul claimed to be eyewitnesses themselves. So at the very least what you acknowledge here is that both Mark and Luke were written by disciples of some of the first claimed eyewitnesses of the resurrected Jesus.
- Note as well that you just completely undercut your own previous claim that the "first known gospel was written at least 2 generations after the death of Jesus." Uh...no...according to even you, at least 2 of them were written by contemporaries of Jesus and the first generation of disciples of Jesus! So, thank you for disproving your own argument.
Paul said explicitly the opposite: he was not an eyewitness.
kingdombuilder
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdombuilder
The 1st know canon list was produced by Marcion in AD 140 and for his own purposes his list includes the Gospel of Luke. First, it should be noted that Luke had to have been written well before this list was written. Second, note that most, if not all scholars agree that Luke was not the first of the 4 main Gospels written, both Matthew and Mark are believed to predate even Luke.
- Strike 2. Care to try for one more swing?
- Was this in reply to my point above or who I was replying to? If in reply to my point, what part do you disagree with and why?
Originally Posted by kingdombuilder
The 1st know canon list was produced by Marcion in AD 140 and for his own purposes his list includes the Gospel of Luke. First, it should be noted that Luke had to have been written well before this list was written. Second, note that most, if not all scholars agree that Luke was not the first of the 4 main Gospels written, both Matthew and Mark are believed to predate even Luke.
- Strike 2. Care to try for one more swing?
- Was this in reply to my point above or who I was replying to? If in reply to my point, what part do you disagree with and why?
kingdombuilder
Member
Reference please. It is fine to hold to this belief, but if you are going to state a view like this, then please cite a reference.
Here is at least 1 reference that appears to disagree with your view here:
"After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also..." ( 1 Corinthians 15:7,8).
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdombuilder
The 1st know canon list was produced by Marcion in AD 140 and for his own purposes his list includes the Gospel of Luke. First, it should be noted that Luke had to have been written well before this list was written. Second, note that most, if not all scholars agree that Luke was not the first of the 4 main Gospels written, both Matthew and Mark are believed to predate even Luke.
- Strike 2. Care to try for one more swing?
- Was this in reply to my point above or who I was replying to? If in reply to my point, what part do you disagree with and why?
Well, it's good that you refer to Marcion, but it's rather odd that you don't consider that Marcion's list was created at least 100 years after the resurrection of Christ. That's an awful long time, and Marcion was trying to bring order to the quite open and free editing of the early Christian writings.