fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

The Prophecy of Christ's Resurrection in Plain Words
and the Disciples' Reaction: The Prophecy of Christ's Resurrection in Metaphorical Words
and the Disciples' Recollection: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : save spaceEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.

One more dying liar like yourself, with an anti-supernatural bias won't make much difference to the triumph of the truth.

Erased.Not worth it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Reason for edit ?
Good Question - a waste of time with this poster.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : Not worth it.

Direct eyewitness testimony was either written or superintended the writing concerning the supernatural deeds and life of Jesus.In the Gospels the eyewitnesses were Matthew, Peter (through Mark), and John. Other eyewitnesses and written accounts were utlized by Luke and Paul. So there is a substantial body of testimonial.The death of Jesus was witnessed by John (John 19:26,27) and by His mother standing by. Some Roman soldiers also were witnesses. Members of the observing crowd also probably furnished witnesses, like the women standing nearby (John 19:25 compare Mark 15:40,41).On the resurrection, which was a crucial event, the New Testament claims these eyewitnesses:

1.) Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)

​

2.) Mary the mother of James (Matt. 28:2)

​

3.) Salome and Joanna (Luke 24:10)

​

4.) Several other women from Galilee (Luke 23:55)

​

5.) Peter (Luke 24:34)

​

6.) Cleopas and a another disciple (Luke 24:13-32)

​

7.) Later to 10 apostles in Jerusalem (John 20:24)

​

8.) Eleven apostles (Thomas present) a week latter (John 20:26-29)

​

9.) To eleven disciples on a mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20)

​

10.) To over 500 disciples at one time (1 Cor. 15:6)

​

11.) To James the brother of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:7)

​

12.) To the disciples on Mt. of Olives before ascension
(Acts 1:4-12)This furnishes more ample testimony than is possessed by any event in ancient history according to Norm Giesler.We have good reason to believe that in three days Jesus did rise though they sought to destroy Him.They're still seeking to destroy Him as is witnessed by the warped anti-supernatural bias of some posters on this thread.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

PaulK wrote: 1.) Maybe Jesus didn't make the statement.But it is written there by some liar or crazy person making up myths ( I guess ).
Who wrote John's Gospel to deceive us? What did he get out of it?
What about the people who were almost two thousand years closer to the event than PaulK?He boasts of better methods of research. It seems he means "better methods" which will garantee anti-supernatural bias against the miracles of Christ.2.) It doesn't matter what Jesus meant. It only matters what they thought Jesus meant.3.) John may not have been a disciple. No one knows.4.) If Jesus said it it is more likely that Jesus meant nothing more than the Temple in Jeru was to be destroyed.5.) John (if he was a disciple) made his comment "much latter".What else is new? Did PaulK expect him to write it all down the day it was happening?And what is "much latter" have to do with it? I know much latter that the twin towers were run into by a couple of airplanes. I'll probably remember it until the day I die. Some things are impressive enough to be remembered accurately much latter.Calling this reasoning a consipracy is almost too good for it.PaulK's only job is to raise plausible doubts about as much of the text as possible. It cannot possibly be, to him, that a eyewitness saw and heard and understood, was sufficiently impressed so as to want to pass on the criticality of the event to future generations.Can't be that simple. And PaulK then refers to more straight forward reading of the text of the NT.Saying conspiracy theory is in this skepticism is an understatement.An underlying anti-supernatural bias permeates his "analysis". It requires more of a blind "leap of faith" to take his explanations as to how the Gospel of John was written.I would expect PaulK now to twist this post into saying it proves that I "agree" with him on something.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Me: Right here. He may say "Ah so you agree with me that these are plausible doubts."Anyway, the question to consider now is - Did the disciples display gullibleness in the matter of Christ's resurrection?Think not. They were not disposed to believe at first. They were scolded by Christ for their unbelief after His resurrection. Go find it and read it.In Matthew after His resurrection appearance "some doubted" (or wavered Matt. 28:17)). The men assumed that the women were being foolish. But they being so clear went back to sleep. It was over. "Jesus is DEAD -Give it up already." That was their attitude.In Mark's gospel the resurrected Jesus scolded them for their unbelief. Mark 16:14 says He reproached their unbelief and hardnesss of heartSome disciples also showed signs of fear (Matt.28:9). Would Jesus forgive them for forsaking Him? The account is credible to me. Peter probably expected never again to be a leader among the disciples. Jesus had to tell Mary to go tell His disciples "and Peter" knowing that Peter needed special care. Peter had cursed and swore that he didn't know Jesus, and before a little powerless maiden too. He was the lead disciple and he forsook the Master.In Luke He said that they were "slow of heart" to believe. They did not appear gullible. But when they did become convinced they were willing to die for that belief. That's history."So are Moslems willing to die" some will retort. True in some cases. I have seen Buddhist monks also set themselves ablaze with fire to protest something And you have to compare and make up your mind. Sure, here and there individuals died for something. Dying is not the only evidence of the Resurrection we offer. The case is accumulative.Thomas, one of the twelve disciples, was not easily persuaded. We're thankful for "Doubting Thomas". He wanted solid scientific and empirical proof that the Master had risen.Thomas was determined not to jump on any bandwagon of belief. He said he would not believe unless he stuck his hands in the wounds in the side and hands of Jesus.In fact Jesus would appear and disappear from their sight over a period of 40 days. Peter the lead disciple took the the lead to go back to fishing his profession. Sounds very realistic to me.I believe Jesus was training them to realize that though they could not see Him He was still with them. The Bible says that He disappeared from their sight and not that He went away. He was training the apostles to live by His invisible presence. And they got well trained. "We cannot see Jesus. But we know He is with us. He is with us until the consummation of the age - (Matt. 28:20).Along with training the apostles that He was with them though they could not see Him, He also presented Himself alive again with many proofs. Luke says infallible proofs. Luke doesn't list them all.The NT shows that they handled His physical body. He ate fish with them. He had breakfast with them. He insured that they observed physical and tanginle evidence of His resurrection.Besides the invitation for the doubting disciple Thomas to put his hands in His wounds, He offered "many other signs" (John 20:31).The divergent details of the resurrection appearances could be strongly argued to indicate that no colussion took place. The divergent details are enough to draw the allegation of contradiction.
The disciples could have easily "fixed" any contradictions. If they lied they could have coordinated to get their lies consistent.Neither is it necessary that each and every disciple have all the details. Some had this collection of details. Others had another collection of details. Concerning the last words of Jesus it is not necessary that there be no divergent details concerning this.The disciples also do not beg people to believe. They state the facts honestly in a matter of fact way. There is nothing suggesting begging - you get it or you don't period. You believe or you reject.John does tell us that he is writing so the we would believe. Most people I know trying to pass on a lie do not say "I am telling you this so that you would believe." That is too obvious.The writer John realizes that these are not everyday matters he is reporting. It is encredible. But He simply says that he is writing so that we would believe in Jesus the Son of God and have life in His name.And his writing is the tip of the iceberg. There are many other impressive things that this Jesus did. There is enough, John says, to fill up the world with books. He selected some things to pass on to us that we would believe and have life in the name of Jesus.To have life in His name means really to have Himself as a living Person. John's writing is not simply to pass on objective data even though true. Jesus rose and is a living Person.Paul writes what agrees with the talk of Jesus in John 14 - 16 about the coming of the Holy Spirit to convey the Person of Christ into His disciples - "The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 cor. 15:45)It was said that why should my "religious experience be trusted over anyone elses?" Maybe you won't know unless you experience for yourself.The term "religious experience" is a socialogist's tool. The secular world of the natural minded has to have some way to discribe spirituality. So the socialogical construct is "religious experience". As far as Jesus being a living Person is concerned I don't know anything about "religious experience". I know something about experiencing the Jesus Who is alive and can be known as - the life giving Spirit (1 cor. 15:45) - prepared in a form in which He can be united with the regenerated human spirit -"He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you live in Israel?

But you're not going to commit yourself to saying positively that that is what happened. You are just throwing up what you think are plausible alternatives to the John's simple presentation of the life of Jesus.By not definitely commiting yourself to saying that this is what happened, then if someone charges you with that view you can always say that they are fabricating things which you did not say.I don't see you taking a position. I see you deliberately only submitting suggestions like innuendos. That is one reason why I would not trust you on the subject.I call this "throwing dust in the air." It seems your only goal is to just cloud the issue with possibilities to which you will not definitely commit. Speak for yourself. I have no problem understanding what He meant.I don't see you commiting in a definite way to Jesus meaning other than what John tells us He meant. I see you hiding behind subjectivity that no one can prove it one way or another.You seem not to want to be pinned down to a position. I see you just raising what you think are plausible problems none of which you will positively stand by as what you believed actually happened.It is a simplier matter. John records what Jesus said. John records what Jesus meant. This is another vague and non-committal position. And it pretends objective neutrality. It conceals your own bias behind pretended objectivity.I am not going to waste energy in debating a position that you will not definitely take. But the evidence that John was a disciple is stronger.It is a simplier matter. John was the young disciple among the twelve. And he wrote a gospel called after his name which circulated among the churches in the early days of the Christian church.The use of pseudo names and pretended apostolic epistles does not mean that ALL writings were apochryphal. The advent of many other religious writings does not mean that all New Testament documents are pseudepigraphal. I don't know what you consider "Mainstream". Does the "mainstream" opinion reject the resurrection of Christ? Then I guess I am not for the mainstream opinion. I think the minor stream opinion is the truth.Give us five names of your "Mainstream" NT scholars are representatives of the view you like. The source I am presently looking at says that the Gospel of John was written approximately in A.D. 90.The note is probably by Dr. Kerry S. Robichaux of the editorial staff of the Living Stream Ministry - the Publishers of the Recovery Version of the Bible. That is the luxury of not commiting definitely to a position. When you are countered you can always accuse the other of fabricating your views.I think it is a bit cowardly. Commit to a point. Tell us that you definitely believe that THIS is what occured rather than Jesus saying something and John assisting us in knowing what He meant.Now I have to charge YOU with fabrication. Anyone who goes back over this discussion should be able to see that I DID answer a lot of your objections.So grandstanding here now and crowing about me not being able to answer your objections only shows your own irrelevant conceit.You put out some "theories". I addressed them. You spent a lot of time denying that you hold this or that position. I called some of them conspiracy theories. They are "less probable theories."But your apparent basic distrust of John's Gospel implies to a great degree for some kind of conspiracy to go into its making. It requires that someone along the line knew the truth but concealed it and gave the impression that something else was at play.For example, either John knew Jesus did not refer to His body, or some copyist knew John did not write that but inserted it like he did. It is hard for me to read John 2:21 as a mistake.Either someone is telling us the truth or someone is conspiring to mislead us. I don't see verse 21 as being a case of a "Pass the Secret" style embellishment error. That is going from mouth to mouth and slowly something ELSE became transformed into verse 21. There is nothing particularly "Johannine" about Jesus promising to be raised from the dead.I believe the Gospel of John in its essential message. If you want to call that bias go ahead.But your reasoning is definitely with an anti-supernatural bias. I think you probably start out with the basic assumption that miracles from God do not happen. Therefore you probably reason that it is unlikely that anything involving the resurrection of Christ happened.But the luxury of not definitely stating that position is that you can always not accuse me of fabricating a opinion that didn't state.That is clever debating. But not trustworthy interpretation of the New Testament. To which I reply: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I have not seen any effective rebuttal to my argument that Jesus prophesied that He was the human house of God and that if destroyed He would be raised in three days, from what I wrote about John 14 or Acts 7.I think both went over Paulk's head. I don't know if he had a clue of what I was talking about.Well, there is no getting around the fact that John's writings have a mystical and divine quality. In John 14 Jesus goes on about Him being the Father's house which after His resurrection will include now His disciples as well.And Acts 7 records Stephen's understanding that God's long awaited promise was that He would dwell in a man or in man as His dwelling place. This was based on the prophecy in Isaiah 66.These two portions of the New Testament make it all the more clear to many of us that Jesus regarded Himself as the house of the Father, the dwelling place of God in a man. He was. He was Bethel, the house of God.If they destroyed this house, He would raise it up in three days. Don't believe PaulK's "Pass the Secret" transformation theory that the interpretation was an embellishment gradually formalized."But He spoke of the temple of His body" means just what it says. And that is what Jesus meant.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

PK writes: This issue is is A.D. 90 "close" to the events of the life of Jesus or not close? Is it so unclose that we cannot trust the Gospel of John to be historically accurate?Perhaps when PaulK reads what historians write about which occured over 20 years ago he says "That's impossible to remember something that happened that long ago." It is now 2008. Some historians are writing about the 1950s. Are we to dismiss all their writings as impossible because people can't remember that long ago?In the last eight or nine years I wrote a certain aged composer about some movie music he wrote about 38 years ago. I asked him for a piano score of the theme to some movie music he composed and he sent it to me. Obviously to this man it was something worth remembering.My father is over 85 years old. He can recount for me many experiences he had in World War II. That is around 60 years ago. His mind is very sharp. I play him chess every week over the Internet and seldom defeat him.Not everyone gets altzhiemer's desease in the mind in old age. Are there any readers reading this post who can remember what you were doing when you first heard that John F. Kennedy was assasinated? I can ( dating myself here ). I was coming in off of the playground in junior high school. And a boy by the name of Dick Vanzant (who I knew was a Republican) came running out of the building telling everyone that the President of the US had been assasinated.My point is that certain events which had strong emotional impact may be remembered by people even decades latter. Sometimes older people can remember events of 30 years ago better than they can remember events of 30 minutes ago.The events of the New Testament were written as eyewitness accounts within two generations of those events. Historical research shows that myths cannot be begin to crowd out historical facts while the eyewitnesses are still alive.William Lane Craig counters historian A.N. Sherwin-White's view of a mythological New Testament. Craig writes "The tests that even two generations is too short to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts."Consider today's attempt to declare that the Jewish Holocaust never happened. Some revisionists are trying re-write the history of the Holocaust now because many of the eyewitnesses have now died. But they are having a hard time denying the Holocaust because of the fact that much eyewitness testimony has been written down.If the New Testament was written within 60 years of the events it records, it is difficult that we are reading something legendary in them.In addition the culture of first century Palistine was adept at remembering historical things. The memorization of oral traditions in large amounts was a skill highly prized. Children from an early age were taught to remember sacred traditions. They learned at home, in school and in synagogues. The disciples would have been careful in this regard with the sacred history of their Master Jesus.Most common people of that age were illiterate. So the need to write down memorized oral tradition may not have been a necessity within the first 15 to 20 years of the earthly ministry of Jesus.They disciples also may have not written the documents immediately because they had high expectations that Jesus would return physically to them sooner. Paulk somewhere previously argued that a living generation was expecting certain events. If so that could explain also why they didn't write some things as soon as they could have.As the Christian faith spread and as the original witnesses died out the need to write down the sacred oral traditions became more urgent.Some scholars believe that fragments found in the Dead Sea scrolls were from the Gospel of Mark. If so then Mark's Gospel may have been written in the A.D. 30s because the fragments are copies of something previously written. Copies of the original (say from the 50s) indicate originals written earlier.Luke says that "many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us ..." (Luke 1:1). Luke may have referenced Mark's gospel or other gospel writings. He seems to refer to public court records of the trial of Jesus.The documents we know about are early enough. And in addition most agree that Luke, Matthew, and possibly Mark contain even earlier source material. So the date of the sources used by the writings are more important than the date of the writings. I also include in my reasoning the divine oversight of God. Jesus had told the disciples that the Holy Spirit would bring to their rememberance the important things which Jesus taught. So I don't follow PaulK's reasoning that the truth of the deeds and saying if Jesus all got lost in faulty memories. And the intended or unintended insuation that God is so incompetent as to know how to presevere these important facts for our salvation, I reject.The ancient brothers already sorted through the plethora of writings and recognized the authoritative ones from the apochyphal ones. They did not bestow authority on the Gospel of John. They recognized authority in the Gospel of John.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Given the moral power of the teacing of Jesus and His prophecy fulfilling birth, miracles done by Him, such as resurrection, are not out of character or surprising.If someone told me the Mahammed performed miracles I would find it less credible because the teachings of Mohammed are to me more commonplace. But it would not be surprising for Jesus of Nazareth to display supernatural miracles in conjunction with profound moral teachings.Of course PaulK said in essence that he wasn't too impressed by the teaching of Jesus. Some of us on earth over the last two millennia don't agree with PaulK in his ho-hum attitude.Even skeptical H.G. Wells said that when Jesus opened His mouth He embraced the whole world with what He taught. I agree with Wells on that.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The authors of the New Testament Gospels wrote many things which indicate thier honesty. Had they been purely propogandists of largly fictional material there are many things that we would NOT expect them to have written which they did write.Here are some:1.) The authors write that they failed to understand what Jesus was teaching. To what advantage to them would it be to write what revealed thier potential dim-wittedness? Mark 9:32; Luke 18:34; John 12:16)We would expect a false propogandist to always portray themselves as very smartly following everything Jesus taught them lucidly. Why would they want to run the risk of people saying "Boy, these disciples were not too smart."2.) The authors made admitions that revealed they were at times uncaring. Mark 14:32-41Why would they run the risk of their readers thinking "These weren't very good disciples. They didn't seem to care much in this instance."?3.) The authors record Jesus rebuking the leader of the disciples, Peter, addressing him as "Satan". Mark 8:33That is definitely a negative on Peter's record. We would expect the false propogandist to conceal embaressing material about the unfitness of the leader of the disciples.4.) The authors of the Gospels admit that they acted cowardly and went to hide when Jesus went to the cross. Peter claims that he will never desert Jesus only to break his promise. Matt. 26:33-35)We would rather expect this damning incident of cowardice to be concealed. Of dubious profit it would be for the disciples to admit that they forsook their Master in fear. This admition suggests candor, frankness, and faithfulness to the facts of embaressing details.5.) All the disciples are recorded as hiding from the Jews for fear.We would expect the false propogandist to portray themselves always in heroic and favorable light. The inclusion of the record of their cowardice suggests not bias but stark and realistic frankness of their unfitness to be disciples of Jesus.6.) The authors of the Gospels portray that there were doubters among them. Despite Jesus teaching that He would rise from the dead the disciples admit they doubted when they heard of His resurrection.John 2:18-22; 3:14-18; Matt. 12:39-41; 17:9, 22-23Some doubted after His resurrection Matt:28:17)We would expect the false propogandist not to run the risk of his reader saying "Well, if you didn't believe it yourself, and you were there, how do you expect me to believe it?"The admition of thier doubts suggests candor rather than false bias of the fabricating propogandist.7.) The authors record that the own family of Jesus thought at one time He was out of His mind. Mark 3:21,31The false propogandist would be more likely to conceal that Jesuss own family regarded Him as not mentally sound.8.) The authors of the Gospels record that even the brothers of Jesus did not believe in Him. John 7:5This is adverse information that we would expect the propogandist to conceal. How condemning to future readers it could be to know that even the brothers of Jesus regarded His claims as false.The inclusion of this information suggests realism and candidness.9.) The Gospel writers say that Jesus was regarded as a deceiver. John 7:12That doesn't seem to help their case. It would be wiser for them to conceal such condemning facts.10.) The Gospel writers even show Jesus turning off some of the Jews who did believe in Him. John 8:30-31 compare verse 59.How potentially embaressing it would be to record that some who did believe in Jesus latter wanted to change their minds.The inclusion of this information suggests candor and a willingness to pass on all the fact without preference.11.) The Gospel writers record that Jesus was called a "drunkard."This also runs the risk of furnishing the skeptical with negative information about Jesus. "Maybe He was drunk. I mean they called Him a drunkard."I would expect the disciples to exclude such negative reports.12.) The Gospel writers record that He was accused of having a demon. Mark 3:22; John 7:20, 8:48.It would be more likely for the bias propogandist to hide that fact that their Master may have been demon possessed.13.) They say that Jesus was called a "madman". John 10:20Recording public statments that reflect so negatively on the character of Jesus we would expect to be excluded, concealed rather than admitted. The reader of their testimony might say "No wonder Jesus made such claims. The people thought He was a madman anyway."14.) The authors of the Gospels run the risk of showing Jesus was lustful after women. They record that a prostitute wiped his feet with her hair. And He allowed it. Luke 7:36-39To falsly exagerate the moral purity of Jesus the propogandist would conceal information that might be taken as someone making sexual advances on Jesus.15. The record Jesus saying "My God, My God why have you forsaken Me?"This has the strong potential of persuading their readers that Jesus Himself lost faith. The inclusion of this cry suggests candor.16.) The Jewish authors include information that anyone hung on a tree was cursed by God.See Paul's word in Galatians 3:13 compared with Deut. 21:23.For someone wanting to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, why would he volunteer this totally condemning information?17.) The authors of the Gospel record Jesus saying "The Father is greater than I" (John 14:28)But John want to portray Jesus as God Himself become flesh (John 1:1 and 14). I would expect the false propogandist not to include a saying which seems contradictory to his major theme - that Jesus was God.The inclusion of the saying suggests faithfulness to difficult things which Jesus said which seem contradictory.18.) The discples indicate sayings which seem to be understood as Jesus coming back to them again in one generation. Matt.24:34You would think the biased progandist would exclude difficult teachings which might suggest errors made by Jesus.19.) The authors indicate that Jesus was unable to perform miracles even in His own hometown, except to heal a few sick people. Mark 6:5Even in His own hometown He was unable to perform some miraculous things. What potential problems this might cause to future readers of the biography of Jesus? It inclusion suggests unbiased faithfulness to facts.20.) The authors record saying of Jesus which are hard to accept. Such as for a man even look at a woman to lust after her is to commit adultery with her in his heart. Matt. 5:28That condemns practically all members of the male species. If you're a man you should know it. We're all guilty guys.The disciples didn't exclude potentially unfavorable and difficult saying of Jesus. Their inclusions does not argue for the theory of false propogandizing.21.) The teaching about divorce in Matthew 5:32 is difficult.Human nature is to be easy on the self. The inclusion of this difficult word of Jesus suggests candor at all costs. It does not suggest biased reporting making things easy on the disciples of Jesus.22.) The authors of the Gospel record Jesus teaching for disciples to love their enemies. Matt. 5:44-45Human nature is to hate your enemies and love your friends. The disciples recorded difficult sayings to accept. This does not argue for biased reporting. It involves the recording disciples of Jesus in difficulties potentially impossible for them to extricate themselves from.There other examples. These are some demanding, difficult, potentially embaressing, contradictory sayings and facts about Jesus which argue for the candor of the Gospel authors.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The following is a clear example of Jesus fulfilling prophecy on the spot before many witnesses even as they looked on and heard Him. Jesus began His ministry in Galilee by reading Isaiah 61:1-2 and teaching that at that moment He was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prohecy.This was "real time" prophecy fulfillment combining the reading of the prophecy with the fulfillment of it at the same time.PS.In the previous section there was an instance in which I did not understand properly what PaulK was writing. I erased that response upon learning this.I admit that in that case it is correct that my response was not about what was written at all.Now, leaving the matter of the raised "temple" of the body of Jesus I submit this example in Luke 4:16-21 as fulfilled prophecy on the spot by Jesus.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Some scholars believe that Mark put his signature on the gospel after his name in a certain humble incident.That incident is the fleeing away of a young man naked, after the guards had tried to grab him by the cloths at the arrest of Jesus. Maybe this was Mark's humble signature of something that happened directly to him on the night Jesus was portrayed. If so, I would not say he was one of the disciples in an appointed sense. But it is not at all difficult to believe that the youngster Mark witnessed some events about Jesus that night.Possibly other things he witnessed as well as a little boy somehow around the disciples on occasion.At any rate John Mark is traditionally believed to have been an assistant to the Apostle Peter. We can expect that he would write his Gospel with much material he heard Peter preach about. Luke employed historian's methods and most likely interviewed people. He could have checked the veracity detailed accounts with any number of the following types of people:1.) Former persecutors of Jesus who became disciples.2.) People who were healed.3.) People related to or very close to others who were healed.4.) Roman guards who witnessed things Jesus did. Perhaps they became believing disciples.5.) Public records of trials6.) Politicians7.) Authors of previously written accounts about Jesus.8.) Paul, whom he accompanied on ministry journeys. And Paul could have had information about former priests, students, scribes, and Pharisees who passed on to Paul eyewitness testimony about Jesus. What Paul knew most likely would have been passed on to Luke. This is not at all true that only John says that Jesus was God.Matthew declares that Jesus is "Emmanual, which is translated - God with us" (Matt.1:23) signaling the reader that an important aspect of his Gospel is - God incarnated as a man, Jesus. Matthew also closes his Gospel with Jesus saying "Behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age" (28:20). In other words He is "God with us" virtually from now on. Matthew never records the ascencion of Jesus up into heaven. As far as Matthew is concerned Jesus never went anywhere but if Emmanual - "God with us" having all authority in heaven and in earth in His hands (28:18) throughout the coming future.Also Matthew clearly depicts Jesus as teaching that He was the God of the Old Testament Who like a parent bird, sought to protect Jerusalem under her wings: "It was always God Himself who cared fpr Jerusalem, as a bird flutters over her young (Isa. 31:5; Deut. 32:11-12). When Jesus said "I desired to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her brood under her wings," He indicated that He was God Himself.Whereas the other Gospels beside John make mention of Jesus teaching that He was God, John clearly has it as a main emphasis in his Gospel. And maybe PaulK is wrong and Jesus is indeed Who He says He is. And maybe the eleven apostles got it right, were significantly impressed that the world should know what they came to know. Less likely that they invented very difficult teachings and put them into the mouth of Jesus.As if they didn't have enough problems already without inventing tough teachings from the Master falsly, to make more enemies for themselves and less amiable audiences of their teachings. This goes to strengthen my very point I think. The authors did not shrink back from recording difficult and potentially unpopular sayings of Jesus. The propogandist wanting to "sell" his product to the largest possible amiable audience would be expected to conceal unfavorable information about his "product". I don't see how any of these comments do anything but to strengthen to very point I am making. I don't know of what use they have to Paul for any other point.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

For someone seemingly eager to always go with the majority view why this strange inconsistancy?So PaulK runs with the majority depending on what is believed? And then runs with the minority when it suites his purpose to do so?I dare say your average fella or gal on the street, whatever else they may believe, will probably identify Jesus of Nazareth as one of the "great moral teachers" in history. Even in Atheistville, USA you'd probably get mostly positive responses to the question "Was Jesus a great moral teacher?"Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.