Why didn't Jesus appear to his mother?

[Anchorman]

I seem to remember being taught the gospels were written between sixty and a hundred & something years AD. More info regarding dates may have come to light since then though.

   


Yep. But until this fragment turned up, the earliest fragment we have dates from the mid-late second century.
This scrap of throw-away papyrus simply confirms what we already suspected; that Mark was probably down in papyrus less thanfifty years after the Resurrection.

[jeremyp]

Do you accept that that is your opinion and not a fact?

Do you accept that the 'not credible, not possible' argument is flawed?

Well it is a fact unless he didn’t exist at all.

[Anchorman]

I can also remember events going back to my birth 68 years ago, however, I certainly can't remember the exact words that were said to me even last week. So if nothing was written down when Jesus was supposed to have said it, which apparently it wasn't, it is unlikely they were able to write down word for word what he said, or even interpret it correctly.  As for the events attributed to Jesus, how do we know they weren't highly exaggerated, or made up?

   
".....which apparently it wasn't".
Oh?
Do you have some knowledge the rest of us don't?
Sorry, LR, rhat's simply speculation with no evidence.
We simply don't know whether anyone was writing down the events.
To speculate or assume here simply muddies the waters.
All we can do here is deal with the evidence - a very early genuine fragment of a Gospel, rather than evedince we don't know exists - or did not exist.

[Anchorman]

What evidence is there that anyone wrote up what that guy was saying and doing while he was still breathing? The gospels were written well after he died. And even if so called eye witnesses fed them the information, how do we know they didn't exaggerate it, were mistaken or lied? Just because people were followers of Jesus doesn't necessarily mean they were upright citizens who wouldn't tell a porky if it furthered their own interests.

     I was merely pointing out that you cannot assume no such accounts were written down at the time; that's bad history.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
All we CAN do is work with the available evidence, citing it and adding any slant we care to put on it.
As I pointed out,  -in my opinion, which I'm willing to accept isn't evidence, the fragment dating from AD 90 puts the original MSS somewhere between Ad 55-665, assuming this fragment is a copy of a copy, taking into account usage, wear and tear, etc.

[Anchorman]

You have your opinion about Jesus, to which you are entitled, I have mine based on my experience of Christianity when I was a believer as a kid. It Jesus was all that is claimed for him in the Bible why didn't I ever have a sign he existed when I begged and prayed for him to be there for me?

What has that to do with evaluating the evidence we have before us? Isn't that a separate thread?

[Maeght]

Well it is a fact unless he didn’t exist at all.

What?

[Sassy]

HAVE!

AND?  When you have the life and responsibilities I have and walked a mile in my shoes then you would not write such petty and unimportant posts.

[Sassy]

As Mary was the mother of Jesus, surely appearing to her first would have been the decent thing to do.

Come on Roses you are better than that?!

[Sassy]

Maybe he was related, maybe not.  The gospels aren't evidence, they were written well after Jesus was dead, much of what they record is less than credible. As I have said boringly often, truly dead people don't come back to life, but if Jesus did resurrect, why didn't he stick around down here instead of flying off up to heaven?

Well, if you had read the BIBLE you would not be asking such questions... but then again what evidence is there you have read the bible?

Because you don't have the wisdom to work things out for yourself, you should not judge those who do.

[SteveH]

No, it's a claim.

Where is the evidence to support the claim?

Why doesn't the gospel record count?

[Maeght]

Why doesn't the gospel record count?

Evidence really needs to be facts. We cannot consider the reports in the Bible to be facts.

[jeremyp]

What?

That Jesus died 2000 years ago.

If Jesus existed, he lived and died 2,000 years ago. If Jesus didn't exist, he didn't die 2,000 years ago.

[Maeght]

That Jesus died 2000 years ago.

If Jesus existed, he lived and died 2,000 years ago. If Jesus didn't exist, he didn't die 2,000 years ago.

But what was said was '...... Jesus died 2000 years ago and stayed dead ...' You're post seems to refer to the first part but to ignore the second.

[jeremyp]

But what was said was '...... Jesus died 2000 years ago and stayed dead ...' You're post seems to refer to the first part but to ignore the second.

If you don't stay dead, you were never dead in the first place. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. To a reasonable approximation, he died 2,000 years ago. Coming back to life when you are dead is not an option. That is a fact.

[Maeght]

If you don't stay dead, you were never dead in the first place. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. To a reasonable approximation, he died 2,000 years ago. Coming back to life when you are dead is not an option.

Unless a miracle takes place

That is a fact.

No its not.

[SteveH]

If you don't stay dead, you were never dead in the first place. Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. To a reasonable approximation, he died 2,000 years ago. Coming back to life when you are dead is not an option. That is a fact.

That's rather dogmatic. How do you know?

[Maeght]

That's rather dogmatic. How do you know?

He doesn't.

[jeremyp]

That's rather dogmatic. How do you know?

It's an observed fact.

Millions of people die every year. none of them come back to life.

Then there is the problem that the human brain starts turning to mush within minutes of the oxygen supply being cut off. The damage to Jesus' body would have been irreparable long before he was revived.

[jeremyp]

He doesn't.

As far as it's possible to be certain, we know dead things do not come back to life. If Jesus lived 2,000 years ago, he also died 2,000 years ago, just like everybody else who lived at that time.

[ad_orientem]

It's an observed fact.

Millions of people die every year. none of them come back to life.

Then there is the problem that the human brain starts turning to mush within minutes of the oxygen supply being cut off. The damage to Jesus' body would have been irreparable long before he was revived.

Indeed, but then no one is claiming that the resurrection is a natural phenomenon.

[Maeght]

It's an observed fact.

Millions of people die every year. none of them come back to life.

Then there is the problem that the human brain starts turning to mush within minutes of the oxygen supply being cut off. The damage to Jesus' body would have been irreparable long before he was revived.

Irrelevant if a miracle occurred.

[BeRational]

Irrelevant if a miracle occurred.

EVERYTHING is irrelevant if MAGIC happens.

We do not accept the claim of magic, just because someone proposes it.

[Maeght]

EVERYTHING is irrelevant if MAGIC happens.

We do not accept the claim of magic, just because someone proposes it.

I'm not asking anyone to accept it but to argue that a miracle couldn't happen because they don't normally happened is a flawed argument.

[ippy]

Indeed, but then no one is claiming that the resurrection is a natural phenomenon.

Then if it's not a natural phenomenon, how do you or anyone else establish that this supposed coming back to life is anything else other than a natural phenomenon?

Regards ippy

[ad_orientem]

Then if it's not a natural phenomenon, how do you or anyone else establish that this supposed coming back to life is anything else other than a natural phenomenon?

Regards ippy

Eh?