Did Jesus die before he was born?

I was under the impression that 1 Corinthians was not under question as a whole nor part, as far as its Pauline authorship. Maybe I'm mistaken. Chapter 15 of that letter, however, mentions the three days, the ascencion, and the appearance to the apostles and crowds.Well, I guess it doesn't mention the ascension specifically, but since the whole chapter is on the resurrection, and he mentions repeatedly that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, it should be safe to assume that he must have ascended at some point.Oh, the ascencion is mentioned specifically in Ephesians 4:8-10; I think another pretty well-accepted writing of Paul.

we can disprove alot of the Bible.. so I am not sure what you are talking about

'Jesus is alive and there aint nothing no body can do about it!'I absolutely 100% agree which is usually what the evo's do, they usually think by agreeing Jesus isn't alive that will make him go away, but the fact is no one can disprove the bible that is simply tosh!
HE IS ALIVE get over it evo's!

' but the fact is he revealed himself to atleast 400 people after he rose again and there is historical information that documents this....The Bible'I totally agree Souljah 1 but they wont agree with us, if a scientist wrote it they would agree with us, but let not the unfaithful deter us! there is nothing they can do to rid Jesus, they can agree with each other all the day long but that dont make them right!!!

Is this necessary? The Jewish diaspora produced synagogues, not that much different than our idea of a church. Since Acts describes trips into synagogues, why invent something different?You are suggesting that Paul formed his own churches or won them over from existing ones. Acts suggested that he formed his own with those won over from existing synagogues, which appeared to be open to speakers. I don't know that your suggestion adds anything here.On the other hand, my interpretation of the writings of the 2nd century church leads me to believe that teachers taught on their own in house churches or in their own house or place of business even in Paul's churches. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch in the early 2nd century, seems to be trying to put a stop to that sort of private teaching, because the gnostics were using it so effectively. I mentioned the last part of your quote in my previous post. Luke seems to be credited among the early Christians with having produced his Gospel under Paul's authority. I don't know how much room the Acts or the Galatians version give for Paul to have learned much of the stories of Christ if they were passed around verbally. Instead, Luke gathered them up at some point, stating that is what he was doing, and Paul may have heard few of them prior to Luke's new career as a journalist, if Luke was even still with him at that point. Jesus' time frame has been curious to me for a long time. Irenaeus, a well-respected bishop of the late 2nd century, suggests that Jesus didn't die until he was at least around fifty. Of course, there are the problems with the census, which didn't happen when Luke said it did. Yet, it did happen. (AD 14 or 14 BC?)There are a lot of claims of being an eye-witness in John's Gospel and letters. If there's any truth to those claims, then it was an "apostle" who wrote the Gospel, no matter what his name, because he was an eye-witness and close companion.{Fixed 1 quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-23-2003]

I commented on this in a closed thread (http://EvC Forum: Is the Bible inspired by God? -->EvC Forum: Is the Bible inspired by God?). Would you be interested in addressing my post here?

Oh? Where is he? Who wants to get rid of him? I'm sure he was a great guy. But he died a very, very long time ago, and left no writings of any kind, as far as we can tell. So who's to say what he did or did not do or say? None of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses to those events, to my knowledge. Actually, it's not so much we agree with each other but that we agree with the evidence.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-23-2003]

He is risen.

Right, but risen to where? (Isn't it "he rose", or at least "he has arisen"?)

Crashfrog I do not understand why you would go to great lengths to argue something you are not sure of. You said in a previous post that none of the writings of the bible were written by eyewitnesses. Well first of all your wrong. Atleast Matthew and John would of been eyewitnesses, not to mention James and Peter two of the other diciples who have writings in the bible. But all this is besides the point. Whether they were eyewitnesses or not you along with the rest of your companions will find a way of trying to disprove that as well. The fact of the matter is Crashfrog, for you to believe in this Jesus we talk about you will need him to pay you a visit, tell you who he is, and then you will probably ask him to prove it some how. You see your mentality as well as many others is "I will believe once I have tangible evidence" And not just any but 100% valid evidence....which to prove to an evolutionists is practically impossible. I mean there are untold books in libraries, even in Encyclopedias which have commentaries of Charles Darwin who professed to the infallibilty of Evolution. You see one of the main professors himself ended up saying it was a lie.....oh but I know you want to hear it from his mouth right? Unfortunately that is impossible as well. You are a sinner crashfrog just like any body else and if God is real and his Word is true, the only way you can be forgiven is through accepting his Son as your personal Savior.....nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. (And I generally don't consider internet forums to be "great lengths" in terms of having arguments.) If you're referring to the existence of god, well, I'm as sure that he doesn't exist as you are that he is. Surer, perhaps, because on my side I have the fact that there's no evidence that god exists. Are you sure about that? I confess immediately, I'm no bible scholar. It was my impression that the earliest that the New Testament could have been written was some 40 years after the events detailed in it. And I wasn't aware that the Peter (as in, Simon Peter?) was the author of any of the books. Which ones was he the author of? Well, only if it's not true. We can hardly disprove something that is true, right? Yes, that's true. I'm not in the habit of believing things for no reason. It's puzzling to me that you think this is a bad thing. Also true. If I can explain your evidence without recourse to gods, then it's not really evidence for the existence of any gods. That's basically Occam's Razor. Nope. It wouldn't be any harder to prove to me god exists than it would be to prove to me that you exist. I don't doubt it. As it turns out, many theologians - even priests - say at one point or another "God doesn't exist." Are we to take them at face value, as well? If your own authority figures don't always believe in god, surely the whole thing is bunk?No? Then why would you apply the same standard to evolution? Kind of a double standard, no? Actually, nope. I'm not a sinner. Good thing I haven't done anything I need forgiving from. Whew! Is my mind ever at ease!

quote:

---

I mean there are untold books in libraries, even in Encyclopedias which have commentaries of Charles Darwin who professed to the infallibilty of Evolution. You see one of the main professors himself ended up saying it was a lie

---

Um... I think you mean "fallibility." If something is infallible, it means it is incapable of error.Regardless, what does Charles Darwin have to do with biblical historical analysis?

Souljah1, I think you need to read some better books.Here are some facts for you. Charles Darwin never denied the truth of evolution.THe authorship of much of the bible - evne the New Testament is very uncertain. The anonymous author of "Matthew" appears to have taken much of his material from Mark (the alternative, that Mark copied from Matthew is less likely). There is no evidence that the author of Matthew was an eye-witness, and the use of material from Mark makes it very unlikely.
The authorship of John is also uncertain and we cannot say whether the author was or was not an eyewitness

Hi TL,I just saw your post, I am a bit busy right now, but I will post a response on sunday or monday. Hope this isnt too much of an inconvenience for you but I have something that needs doing urgently!Brian

Hi, TL! Here's the passage you mention: While there is no strong evidence one way or the other, this is likely a Christian insertion. One piece of evidence for this is that Bishop Irenaeus, despite his familiarity with 1 Corinthians, never mentions the passage in his defense against charges by the Marcion church that the resurrected Jesus had never been observed by any but Paul. The only explanation is that this passage was not present in the copy of 1 Corinthians available to the bishop. This passage simply assumes an ascension, and if you read on through the rest of the passage Paul's meaning becomes increasingly tangled as he says ascension also means descension and more.By ascension I was referring to the witnessed ascension described in Luke. Paul seems completely unaware of it.While it can be argued that Paul's purpose in writing his letters was not to relate the story of Jesus nor even to communicate specific information about Jesus's ministry, it is too amazing to believe that he could have so thoroughly avoided mention of any of Jesus's sayings or acts had he been aware of them. The only explanation is that he was unaware of most of what is described in the gospels, because what appears there is a later construction.--Percy