Our primary evidence of our risen Christ.

[37818]

1) The 27 New Testament books from the 1st century.
2) The believers' knowing God, per Romans 8:16.
3) The resurrection having an actual 1st century date.

 

[JesusFan]

1) The 27 New Testament books from the 1st century.
2) The believers' knowing God, per Romans 8:16.
3) The resurrection having an actual 1st century date.

And the birth and growth of the Church, how it took over mighty Rome within few centuries

 

[37818]

And the birth and growth of the Church, how it took over mighty Rome within few centuries

That claim is contingent on the Greek NT codices and work of the Holy Spirit in believers. Re: 1) & 2).

 

[Marooncat79]

Christianity crumbles if the Resurrection is untrue

 

[atpollard]

How would one explain the conversion of Saul (setting aside the miraculous account) if Jesus was just a man and had not risen? What would compel a high official to go from zealously crushing a “heresy” to abandoning his lifestyle, position and faith in order to become an evangelical proponent of that “heresy”?

How many Cardinals in the RCC resigned the Catholic Church to follow Mormonism as pre-eminent Mormon evangelists and apologists?
Jesus’ claims (and those of the early Christians) were far more radical than any claims the Mormon’s made. Only “Divine Truth” could have inspired so great a transformation in belief.

 

[37818]

Off topic.

How would one explain the conversion of Saul (setting aside the miraculous account) if Jesus was just a man and had not risen? What would compel a high official to go from zealously crushing a “heresy” to abandoning his lifestyle, position and faith in order to become an evangelical proponent of that “heresy”?

How many Cardinals in the RCC resigned the Catholic Church to follow Mormonism as pre-eminent Mormon evangelists and apologists?
Jesus’ claims (and those of the early Christians) were far more radical than any claims the Mormon’s made. Only “Divine Truth” could have inspired so great a transformation in belief.

2 Corinthians 11:1-15.

 

[37818]

Christianity crumbles if the Resurrection is untrue

If Romans 8,:16 wasn't true.

1 Corinthians 15:17, And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

 

[canadyjd]

As part of the Apostle Paul’s list of what is of “first importance”…

The eye witness account of more than 500 people who saw Jesus alive after watching/knowing He had been dead and buried.

It was based on the testimony of many of these disciples the early church grew with the power of God Holy Spirit.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

I disagree with the OP.

The reason is speculating on a date cannot be included. A primary evidence of our faith can't be something not in Scripture that even theologians disagree about. That is depending on "the wisdom of man".

I may even speculate that God chose a time in history where the practiced observations often differed from actual lunar cycles to prevent Christians from making an idol of modern understanding.

We cannot say the passover occurred on a specific date, or even that the Jewish year started on a specific date, because we know that before and after the Crucifixion the dates of the New Year and Passover were not correct using actual lunar cycles.

So I do lean on this being God's timing so as to maintain a holy people and even looking for specific dates as Satan's work distracting believers (many will fall aside into these things).

The NT books themselves are not evidence. There were many books written, and most unreliable. But the testimony and history is evidence. But they are evidence to the believer (not our primary evidence).

I'm not sure what is meant by #2, but the way I take it, I agree. This IS the primary evidence (our experience with God, knowing His righteousness).

 

[JonC]

I disagree with the OP.

The reason is speculating on a date cannot be included. A primary evidence of our faith can't be something not in Scripture that even theologians disagree about. That is depending on "the wisdom of man".

I may even speculate that God chose a time in history where the practiced observations often differed from actual lunar cycles to prevent Christians from making an idol of modern understanding.

We cannot say the passover occurred on a specific date, or even that the Jewish year started on a specific date, because we know that before and after the Crucifixion the dates of the New Year and Passover were not correct using actual lunar cycles.

So I do lean on this being God's timing so as to maintain a holy people and even looking for specific dates as Satan's work distracting believers (many will fall aside into these things).

The NT books themselves are not evidence. There were many books written, and most unreliable. But the testimony and history is evidence. But they are evidence to the believer (not our primary evidence).

I'm not sure what is meant by #2, but the way I take it, I agree. This IS the primary evidence (our experience with God, knowing His righteousness).

@37818

It isn't sad at all. They were trying to follow God's command, but had boxed themselves in with how this was followed. In the end, the only people bothered by this are Christians who place Scripture beneath the secular sciences.

Not only do we know of examples in secular history where Passover was celebrated late per the lunar calendar, but we know from Scripture it was celebrated late in the OT by a lot more than a few days.


The Bible is not evidence, although the testimony therein can be considered a type of evidence. By your reasoning the Book of Mormin is evidence that Jesus appeared in the Americas.

The evidence, the primary evidence, is God's work of redemption. Without this I doubt you'd consider the Bible true.


I hate seeing Christians drifting away into secularism. But we all know this happens. Chriatisns think we have to rewrite history to fit modern science, or modern calendars, explain using science how the sea could part, find the star of Bethlehem using astrological movements, etc. I hate it because that lack of faith tends to grow.

 

[37818]

I disagree with the OP.

The reason is speculating on a date cannot be included. A primary evidence of our faith can't be something not in Scripture that even theologians disagree about. That is depending on "the wisdom of man".

I may even speculate that God chose a time in history where the practiced observations often differed from actual lunar cycles to prevent Christians from making an idol of modern understanding.

We cannot say the passover occurred on a specific date, or even that the Jewish year started on a specific date, because we know that before and after the Crucifixion the dates of the New Year and Passover were not correct using actual lunar cycles.

So I do lean on this being God's timing so as to maintain a holy people and even looking for specific dates as Satan's work distracting believers (many will fall aside into these things).

The NT books themselves are not evidence. There were many books written, and most unreliable. But the testimony and history is evidence. But they are evidence to the believer (not our primary evidence).

I'm not sure what is meant by #2, but the way I take it, I agree. This IS the primary evidence (our experience with God, knowing His righteousness).

The NT books themselves are not evidence.

Genuine Christianity stands or falls on it.

I'm not sure what is meant by #2, but the way I take it, I agree. This IS the primary evidence (our experience with God, knowing His righteousness).

1 John 4:7-8, Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

We cannot say the passover occurred on a specific date, or even that the Jewish year started on a specific date, because we know that before and after the Crucifixion the dates of the New Year and Passover were not correct using actual lunar cycles.

Sir Isaac Newton gave us 33 AD, Julian date Friday April 3.
The Wednesday Julian date 30 AD April 5.
Other dates have been proposed.