-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Our primary evidence of our risen Christ.
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
And the birth and growth of the Church, how it took over mighty Rome within few centuries
37818
Well-Known Member
That claim is contingent on the Greek NT codices and work of the Holy Spirit in believers. Re: 1) & 2).
Christianity crumbles if the Resurrection is untrue
atpollard
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
Off topic.
2 Corinthians 11:1-15.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
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
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
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 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
Well-Known Member
Genuine Christianity stands or falls on it.
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.
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.
If genuine Christianity stands or falls on the text of the New Testament then it is a newer faith than mine and realky not worth having. The reason is while your faith falls or stands on the Biblical text (and would therefore be lost if you thought you found a mistake) mine stands on and in Christ.
But that was not your point. Your point was that the NT itself is primary evidence of the resurrection. Do you believe Jesus appears in the Americas because it is written in the Book of Mormon?
My point is that primary evidence is Christ Himself.
I'll start a thread on that one. Maybe it deserves discussion.
What do you make of the times shortly before and after the Crucifixion that Nisan started later than it should have?
What do you make of the times it was delayed during the Hasmonean period?
What do you make of Scripture telling us of the Pasdover being observed late in the OT?
How does your scientific wisdom account for those historical events?
Do you even know why Jews during Jesus' day used observation, messengers, and the Sanhedrin ratger than calculated lunar cycles (hint....it was obedience to God, in a very literal way)?
37818
Well-Known Member
Not understanding what is actually true.
No.
What makes you ask such a question?
To determine the end of and beginning of the next Lunar calendar month.
Last edited:
I asked because you consider Christianity to stand or fall on the New Testament text.
Typically Christisns insist that Christianity differs from world religions because world religions stand fall on their sacred text while Christianity stands on the Person of Jesus Christ and not any book.
No, the Jews (then) did not believe it was proper to determine the lunar cycles. Their shift to calculating the lunar cycle was not without debate.
Why were they late in beginning the month in the Selucid period?
Why were they late shortly after the Crucifixion?
Why were they late holding the Passover in Scripture?
You seem to hold a very low view of Scripture. Rather than viewing biblical events as occurring in history you appear to hold the Biblical narrative as a story, or mythology, apart from actual events.
The Jews prior to using a calculated lunar calendar based their new year on what?
Why was this considered a strictly literal adherence to God's Word?
37818
Well-Known Member
Huh. So Bibilical Christianity is.a bad joke?
Your version of Biblical history is more extra Biblical than Biblical.
Less on the Verbal plenary inspiration of God's given word?
Issues with the calendar and actual Bibilical events. The supposed dates that prove events didn't happen? Palm Sunday didn't happen. John 12:1-2, was not a Saturday. [I actually don't believe in Palm Sunday.]
No, "biblical history" is not a "bad joke".
History is events that occurred in the past. This includes biblical history because biblical history is real events.
Your mistake is that you divorce "biblical history" from actual events and by doing so you nullify events described in God's Word as being factual.
I asked you several questions which you promptly ignored. The reason, I believe, is you take "biblical history" as a mythology separated from history.
Why did Israel observe Passover late in Scripture?
Why did Isreal not use the calculated lunar calendar for so long (why was their practice viewed as adhering strictly to God's command while using the calculated lunar calendar would not)?
I don't know why @37818 is so fixated on dates, but for those unaware of why we cannot pinpoint with certainty the date of the crucifixion maybe this will help.
In the 1st century the Jews used a system of observation to set the new year. They looked for the new moon, and when observed reported to the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin evaluated the report (two witnesses were required) and if considered reliable they would declare the start of the month.
This changed in the 4th century AD. The Sanhedrin faced limitations and needed to ensure consistency in the Diaspora. So the calendar transitioned to a fixed, mathematical system based on the lunar and solar cycles.
Can this modern system tell us when the new moon would be in the sky during the 1st century? Yes.
The problem is it cannot determine if it was observable.
The OT notes a time when Passover was late.
History records a time in the 1st century BC Passover was late.
History records the passover being late in the 1st century AD.
It is an error to impose modern systems on ancient people, especially when history testifies to the error.
It is a more serious error to believe that our inability to know without doubt the exact date (in our calendar) means the resurrection is not a historical event.
It is foolish to think that any modern system can tell us what witnesses in the 1st century observed.
It is more foolish to think that knowing an exact date (our calendar) even matters.
In the 1st century the Jews used a system of observation to set the new year. They looked for the new moon, and when observed reported to the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin evaluated the report (two witnesses were required) and if considered reliable they would declare the start of the month.
This changed in the 4th century AD. The Sanhedrin faced limitations and needed to ensure consistency in the Diaspora. So the calendar transitioned to a fixed, mathematical system based on the lunar and solar cycles.
Can this modern system tell us when the new moon would be in the sky during the 1st century? Yes.
The problem is it cannot determine if it was observable.
The OT notes a time when Passover was late.
History records a time in the 1st century BC Passover was late.
History records the passover being late in the 1st century AD.
It is an error to impose modern systems on ancient people, especially when history testifies to the error.
It is a more serious error to believe that our inability to know without doubt the exact date (in our calendar) means the resurrection is not a historical event.
It is foolish to think that any modern system can tell us what witnesses in the 1st century observed.
It is more foolish to think that knowing an exact date (our calendar) even matters.
37818
Well-Known Member
Why then is it to be or not to be denied that the New Testament in the whole or in part, the inerrant God given word?
That by it a believer knows the Jesus to be the risen Christ and knows God.
Last edited:
I do not know who denies or doesn't deny that the New Testament in the whole is the inerrant God given word.
For my part I believe that the Old and New Testament is the perfect and inerrant Word of God.
That is how I know, for example, that the Passover was observed at times on a different date (because it is in God's Word).
And that is why I believe that biblical events are actual historic events rather than an idealistic alternate reality of how things should have occurred.
We know a Passover was a month late because Scripture tells us.
We know that the Jews missed the year by days in the 1st century BC, and we know why.
We know the Passover times were delayed and extended in 65 AD, and we know why.
We know Passovers started days late in the last part of the 1st century due to a conflict within the Sanhedrin.
We also know that the mathematical solar-lunar calculator you use began in the 4th century AD to prevent such errors from occurring again and to help with the Diaspora.
We know these things because they are historical facts.
What you are doing is essentually making binlical truths into myths (existing outside of history, outside of reality).
What issues do you think the 4th century mathematical calendar system was designed to address?
If a person cannot be confident of the resurrection without knowing the exact date do you really believe they are saved? I dont see how. They are simply trying to hold on to a cognitive knowledge.
Per Mormonism, on September 22 1823 Joseph Smith found the golden plates (later gave them to the angel Moroni).
That is an exact date, a Monday.
By your logic since that is an exact date it is a historic event.
Even if we could know the exact date of the Resurrection (we obviously can't) it would not be any more evidence of the resurrection than knowing an exact date Smith found those plates woukd be evidence he actually found them.
One cannot know the true Christ apart from special divine revelation i n the sacred scriptures