The Empty Tomb

[Craig B]

Oh, I believe you. I'm just not sure why it points to prior to 70 CE.

Because in all probability Paul was dead in 70CE.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah but that circles right back to: what do we know about Paul, exactly ?

 

[pakeha]

One thing we DO know is that Paul makes no mention of the meeting of the resurrected Jesus and Mary, with or without her companions.

... Here it is as we now have it (1 Cor. 15:3 - 8, bracketed material added):

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [i.e. Peter], then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep [i.e. have died], Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ...

Something to mull over at work this afternoon.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yeah but that circles right back to: what do we know about Paul, exactly ?

He fell off his horse. After that it gets fuzzy.

 

[Craig B]

The accounts of the various "appearances", and in general of all of Jesus' alleged posthumous activities, are hopelessly discrepant. What is interesting is this: Paul refers to appearances to the apostles etc, then to his own experience as if they were of the same order. But Paul's was a revelatory vision of a light in the sky, not a physical interaction with a body emerged from a tomb.

This would suggest that the "physicalisation" of the experiences is a later phenomenon, and it is confirmed by the Gospel accounts. In Mark we have no resurrection events in the authentic text, but by the time we reach John, Jesus is inviting Thomas to poke his fingers into the crucifixion wounds; then he cooks a fish breakfast for the disciples on the beach of the Sea of Galilee. More physical he could not be. Another argument for an early Paul.

 

[edge]

So when asked the question, "why do you use bible passages as if they were some form of historical text", your answer is "you're kidding, right?"


Answer the question or admit you can't answer the question, but do one or the other..

Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.
See, this is the thing about you all that I don’t get, you want an outside source and when one is given, it then isn’t viable either? Go and figure the mind of an ‘atheist?

Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to be genuine and of historical value as an independent Roman source about early Christianity that is in unison with other historical records.Van Voorst states that "of all Roman writers, Tacitus gives us the most precise information about Christ".[40] John Dominic Crossan considers the passage important in establishing that Jesus existed and was crucified, and states: "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."[52]

Quick search from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ


What are you saying? Are you saying that what was written 2000 or more years ago about Jesus, aren’t historical texts?
If we were talking about Lincoln wouldn’t we use the texts that are written about him?
If we are talking about Lincoln walking out of the Grave would not everything written about him be talked about and be drawn from those texts?
Should we use Hindu texts to talk about Jesus? Or are you deliberately trying to go off topic.
If Tim wasn’t using text from the bible to make his anti-point about it, I wouldn’t use it to disprove his points, should he be using Plato’s writings?
Really… you don’t get it?

The Author of Mark is taking down what Peter is recalling to him and Peter is making sure that his name alone is mentioned as he wants to be a New leader of this movement. There is way less said about what the woman’s involvement, cultural Bias at its finest, that is what I see there. Peter in John also leaves out some of the names of those that are there, like I said, Judas, quote, “ That Man”.
From Mark:

“You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

Bolding Mine; Why not name all the disciples, isn’t Peter one of them? I believe that, ( And Peter) was added by Peter wanting recognition for leadership, this made him forget what was really important. Also that he wrote it or dictated Mark to a scribe. IMO
I have to agree with this:

Despite his sinful past, Matthew was uniquely qualified to be a disciple. He was an accurate record keeper and keen observer of people. He captured the smallest details. Those traits served him well when he wrote the Gospel of Matthew some 20 years later. An eyewitness of Jesus's ministry, such as Matthew, would not need to rely on others for information about it"

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew




The writer of Matthew has it all down pretty much and only leaves out a few of the facts.
But when speaking about Judas adds some facts, which were probably added for the reasons I stated in my previous post because of the order of things and Judas following in John.
Back in those days they surly didn’t want to give woman any of the credit and were sure that salvation was available to men only. Look at where the church he started is today, where it all lead through that slightly corrupted thinking of being the most loved. Only recently did they accept woman as priests or witnesses.
I think Paul is more credible and honest and even chastises Peter for wrong way thinking.
Plus the fact that Judas was the favorite.
This whole event was prophesied and for believers that have accepted Jesus, he works in their lives today, for those that don’t won’t see as written and that disbelief increases as written. So there are those truths that are revealed.

As far as 500 witnesses, I am sure that there were from the time of his Crucifixion till his ascension, and there were probably even more. That number has been increasing since then and won’t be stopped till a certain point in history that we might be witnessing in today’s times. I also believe that the account is going to vary which they do because of the different events and details because of absentness and second hand accounts of said events between them all. Thomas is absent then returns later doubting and like you, then needs physical proof and he gets it.
Then there are those like myself who believed then went atheist or highly skeptical and are brought back through proof that this is a spiritual world.
The way that happened for me during those times was, I asked for proof, to show me the truth, then a flood gate of proof both negative and positive was shown to me and there is nothing that you can say or show me that will change my mind again.
I wrote down all of those incidents and as time goes by there are still things I add to the story, and things I take out and editing continues till it’s right, and this is 20 30 years later, but I have it and editing is the only thing left, it’s a big job to get it exact.
One of the main truths I have learned is that all life is connected and on some level the world is a collective organism on a lower level but is connected to us all also. That life force on a higher level is connected to God…

You could do the same thing to U.S. history that you are doing to biblical history and it’s only about 200 years old, it took that long for us to admit that the people we called Indians really aren’t, but we still called them that for 200 years, get it? How long does it take to see the truth and fix it?
The main event is: No one got off the cross alive at the time of Jesus’ death but he did.
It took the Romans 100 years to lighten up which even then was rare, because for another 200 years they killed and persecuted Christians.
You’re of that mindset simply because you don’t see it. Ask and it shall be revealed.

 

[Belz...]

The accounts of the various "appearances", and in general of all of Jesus' alleged posthumous activities, are hopelessly discrepant. What is interesting is this: Paul refers to appearances to the apostles etc, then to his own experience as if they were of the same order. But Paul's was a revelatory vision of a light in the sky, not a physical interaction with a body emerged from a tomb.

This would suggest that the "physicalisation" of the experiences is a later phenomenon, and it is confirmed by the Gospel accounts. In Mark we have no resurrection events in the authentic text, but by the time we reach John, Jesus is inviting Thomas to poke his fingers into the crucifixion wounds; then he cooks a fish breakfast for the disciples on the beach of the Sea of Galilee. More physical he could not be. Another argument for an early Paul.

Oh, no doubt. I'm well aware that Paul probably predates the Gospels. But again, what's the earliest indication for their existence ?

 

[TimCallahan]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan
Again, Paul's references to going to Jerusalem in Galatians and his references to the church in Jerusalem in other epistles all point to a time prior to CE 70.

Oh, I believe you. I'm just not sure why it points to prior to 70 CE.

I'm a bit confused by this response. Since Jerusalem was destroyed in CE 70, Paul's references to Jerusalem as existing refer to a time prior to that destruction.

 

[TimCallahan]

Oh, no doubt. I'm well aware that Paul probably predates the Gospels. But again, what's the earliest indication for their existence ?

As far as dating the gospels goes, we can take a two-pronged attack. First, let's consider the the order in which they were written:

It's generally accepted that John postdates the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke). It's theology is more sophisticated, and its Jesus is more God than man. For example, he doesn't even need to be baptized by John the Baptizer and he suffers no agony in the garden of Gethsemane. He is not so weak from the scourging that he can't carry his own cross, and his last word on the cross are, "It is finished," or, "It is accomplished."

Of the Synoptic Gospels, Mark is considered the earliest by most scholars today for a number of reasons, that I won't go into right now.

Second we can look at manuscript evidence, literary references and clues within the texts:

For example, there are allusions to the Synoptic Gospels and quotations of passages in them by various Christian fathers, such as Justin Martyr, indicating that they were in existence earlier than 150. Irenaeus, writing ca. 180, refers to the Gospel of John. Since it's the latest of the four, we can assume the others were in existence by then. We also have the Rylands Fragment, a scrap of papyrus from John, dated by paleograhic dating to ca. 125. However, as Maximara pointed out to me on another thread, paleographic dating is quite shaky. Along with references from Irenaeus, we have the Bodmer Papyri, which include a copy of John, dated to CE 200. So, I think it would be safe to say that, by late in the second century all four canonical gospels had been written.

Within the Gospel of Mark, as well as n Matthew and Luke, is what is variously called the "Little Apocalypse" or the "Olivet Discourse." Jesus is with his disciples on the Mount of Olives, overlooking the Jerusalem Temple. Some of them are all ga-ga about the temple complex. Jesus gives an apocalyptic prophecy, beginning with the statement that not one stone of the temple will be left standing on another, a prophecy fulfilled in CE 70, when Vespasian, having taken Jerusalem, ordered it razed to the ground. Therefore, the prediction of the destruction of the temple is either divinely inspired prophecy or history written after the fact.

Were this prediction divinely inspired, we would expect other predictions in the Synoptic Gospels to also be divinely inspired and thus true. However, Mark has Jesus say that there are some standing there who will not taste death before they see the kingdom come with power. Matthew's elaboration of this prediction makes it clear that it revers to the second coming and the last Judgment (Mt. 16:27, 28):

"For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That the prediction, as made in Matthew, referring to Jesus repaying every man for what he has done, along with the Son of man, i.e. Jesus, coming, "in the glory of his Father," with angels, precludes the event referred to being the miracle of Pentecost, in which, according to Acts, the Holy Spirit, not the Son of man, descended upon the disciples. Since the second coming and last judgment did not, in fact, take place in the first century, this prediction is falsified, and the gospels cannot be considered divinely inspired. Thus, the prediction of the destruction of the temple is history written after the fact, and even Mark, the earliest of the gospels, had to have been written after CE 70.

So, we can date the canonical gospels to have been written between CE 70 and CE 180. A conservative estimate of their dating would be that Mark was written in CE 70, shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew would be dated as ca. CE 80, Luke / Acts as ca. CE 90 and John as written by CE 125.

 

[Belz...]

I'm a bit confused by this response. Since Jerusalem was destroyed in CE 70, Paul's references to Jerusalem as existing refer to a time prior to that destruction.

Since Jerusalem exists today, I assume it was rebuilt. Maybe it was rebuilt too late to account for the writings, mind you, but I am wondering about that.

So, we can date the canonical gospels to have been written between CE 70 and CE 180. A conservative estimate of their dating would be that Mark was written in CE 70, shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew would be dated as ca. CE 80, Luke / Acts as ca. CE 90 and John as written by CE 125.

That's a mighty big margin, don't you think ? Why choose 70 when you can choose 150, for instance ? And where does this place Paul ? Why pick 50-ish when you can pick 130 ?

 

[Brainache]

Since Jerusalem exists today, I assume it was rebuilt. Maybe it was rebuilt too late to account for the writings, mind you, but I am wondering about that.



That's a mighty big margin, don't you think ? Why choose 70 when you can choose 150, for instance ? And where does this place Paul ? Why pick 50-ish when you can pick 130 ?

There was this post from Oystein earlier:

One anchor is the archeological finding of the Gallio inscription, from which it is known that a Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus was proconsul of the newly constituted senatorial province of Achaea, which includes Corinth. His tenure can be fairly accurately dated to between 51-52 AD or 52-53 AD. According to Acts 18:12-17, Gallio dismissed the charge brought by the Jews against the Apostle Paul. So this must have happened in CE 52 +/-1, and serves as the most accurate date to calibrate the timeline of Paul, who spent ca. 18 months in Corinth during that time.

 

[Belz...]

According to Acts, ok. Does Paul mention this ?

 

[Craig B]

Since Jerusalem exists today, I assume it was rebuilt. Maybe it was rebuilt too late to account for the writings, mind you, but I am wondering about that.

Things changed so much after 70 CE that the new situation would have been reflected in his writings. No going to Jerusalem to meet James and Peter, for example. Place was a ruin for years, and its population dispersed, enslaved or dead.

That's a mighty big margin, don't you think ? Why choose 70 when you can choose 150, for instance ? And where does this place Paul ? Why pick 50-ish when you can pick 130 ?

There is a thing called "evidence" that constrains people from picking dates at random. Thus, I can't just pick 2013 because I want to have a word with Paul in person.

 

[edge]

As far as dating the gospels goes, we can take a two-pronged attack. First, let's consider the the order in which they were written:

It's generally accepted that John postdates the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke). It's theology is more sophisticated, and its Jesus is more God than man. For example, he doesn't even need to be baptized by John the Baptizer and he suffers no agony in the garden of Gethsemane. He is not so weak from the scourging that he can't carry his own cross, and his last word on the cross are, "It is finished," or, "It is accomplished."

Of the Synoptic Gospels, Mark is considered the earliest by most scholars today for a number of reasons, that I won't go into right now.

Second we can look at manuscript evidence, literary references and clues within the texts:

For example, there are allusions to the Synoptic Gospels and quotations of passages in them by various Christian fathers, such as Justin Martyr, indicating that they were in existence earlier than 150. Irenaeus, writing ca. 180, refers to the Gospel of John. Since it's the latest of the four, we can assume the others were in existence by then. We also have the Rylands Fragment, a scrap of papyrus from John, dated by paleograhic dating to ca. 125. However, as Maximara pointed out to me on another thread, paleographic dating is quite shaky. Along with references from Irenaeus, we have the Bodmer Papyri, which include a copy of John, dated to CE 200. So, I think it would be safe to say that, by late in the second century all four canonical gospels had been written.

Within the Gospel of Mark, as well as n Matthew and Luke, is what is variously called the "Little Apocalypse" or the "Olivet Discourse." Jesus is with his disciples on the Mount of Olives, overlooking the Jerusalem Temple. Some of them are all ga-ga about the temple complex. Jesus gives an apocalyptic prophecy, beginning with the statement that not one stone of the temple will be left standing on another, a prophecy fulfilled in CE 70, when Vespasian, having taken Jerusalem, ordered it razed to the ground. Therefore, the prediction of the destruction of the temple is either divinely inspired prophecy or history written after the fact.

Were this prediction divinely inspired, we would expect other predictions in the Synoptic Gospels to also be divinely inspired and thus true. However, Mark has Jesus say that there are some standing there who will not taste death before they see the kingdom come with power. Matthew's elaboration of this prediction makes it clear that it revers to the second coming and the last Judgment (Mt. 16:27, 28): "For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." That the prediction, as made in Matthew, referring to Jesus repaying every man for what he has done, along with the Son of man, i.e. Jesus, coming, "in the glory of his Father," with angels, precludes the event referred to being the miracle of Pentecost, in which, according to Acts, the Holy Spirit, not the Son of man, descended upon the disciples. Since the second coming and last judgment did not, in fact, take place in the first century, this prediction is falsified, and the gospels cannot be considered divinely inspired. Thus, the prediction of the destruction of the temple is history written after the fact, and even Mark, the earliest of the gospels, had to have been written after CE 70.

So, we can date the canonical gospels to have been written between CE 70 and CE 180. A conservative estimate of their dating would be that Mark was written in CE 70, shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew would be dated as ca. CE 80, Luke / Acts as ca. CE 90 and John as written by CE 125.

You haven’t taken in what was Jesus accomplished, so this is not a prediction of the end times in their times, this is a statement as how things are then and now about death and what was accomplished for us.

There are two deaths and I know it is in Enoch, before Jesus there wasn't redemption or life after death.
First death is death of the physical the second death is death of the soul.

Before Jesus there was no redemption until he received glory, there now isn't death or sleep, you go up either to glory or you wait for the final judgment of your soul. Death has been defeated and is only in control of the Christ.
Even skeptical atheists will cross over and see the kingdom come. When you're there we'll talk.

This is what people who die and are resurrected or revived today have to say about crossing over just as written and once again NDEs are proof of that, but you'll say it's the mind making things up, there is proof that it is not.

Unless medical equipment is flawed, then you might be right but we all know it is not.
What they report is very similar to what is written in those passages, will Jesus come back down here?
There are other prophesies that point to his return.

Some of them will pass but some of them won’t, some will taste that first death some won’t.

The disciples might also want it the way you interpret those passages, as did Judas, he wanted action in his life time, but as in the past may have misunderstood what Jesus meant. The proof of what he said happens every day and we are getting the proof though medical sciences. To understand this you have to know that there is more to us than you think, you have to have proof of soul.

Even the disciples don’t know the exact date and time of the second coming, no man does so what sense does it make the way you look at those passages? It doesn’t…


When he says this,

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

Add one word, like you do when you are looking at these verses and it makes sense.

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man when coming in his kingdom."

And this: fits right in:

Mark has Jesus say: that there are some standing there who will not taste death before they see the kingdom come with power.

Add a coma: they see the kingdom come, with power.
The power of life, power of love, the power of God, to go there you will need power not darkness or nothingness, those have no power for you. If you leave it alone you can interpret it like this, (the kingdom coming for you with power).
This is exactly what has been discribed.

Each of these writers/authors has written much truth, but not all of it was understood, but hindsight makes it clear as a bell. It is all about perspective and what and when they witnessed an event, some were there for some of the events, some of them were not, and that has been stated right in John that it happens.

You need to include the whole picture if you can’t look at the whole picture you will never see the truth.
Seeing the truth is much harder than what you all do in here. I know I have done and denied it your way also. If it is to be believed then I think I am pretty right on.

You can deny the proof we see today when Doctors can’t fix someone and then everything that was wrong with someone just all of a sudden disappears, when there is no way possible way of recovering according to past events of others that were effected in the same way, same illness, all they can say then is it’s a miracle.

But it is the patient that confirms what really took place. But you won’t believe them either.
I am just wasting my time with all of you.

 

[Craig B]

... There are two deaths and I know it is in Enoch.

You know something because it is in Enoch? Here are some questions:

1. When was Enoch written?
2. Why is it not in the Bible?
3. When and how did its full text become available to European readers?

 

[SlackerBabbath]

Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. See, this is the thing about you all that I don’t get, you want an outside source and when one is given, it then isn’t viable either? Go and figure the mind of an ‘atheist?

Actualy, no, he doesn't, at least not in the way you are suggesting anyway.
This is everything that Tacitus wrote about him.

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".

As you can see, Tacitus simply mentions that the Christians were named after a person known as 'Christus' who "suffered the extreme penalty" at the hands of Pontious Pilate.
As you obviously already know, 'Christus' or 'Christ' is the Latin word derived from 'Christós' which itself is the Greek word for the Hebrew term 'Mashiach' (or messiah), it isn't a person's name but rather a title, (meaning 'annointed') given to Hebrew priests, kings and apparent prophets.

So, Tacitus doesn't actualy confirm Jesus' name, he doesn't confirm any of the deeds or lessons of Jesus that the New Testament mentions, he doesn't confirm that he came back to life three days after being killed, nor does he even mention the method of his death, he simply says that a person popularly known as 'Christ' was killed by the Romans in an offhand remark during an account about Nero blaming the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD on Christians.

Now, personaly, I agree that, on the face of it, this is certainly enough evidence to consider that the character of Jesus and the stories about him may well be based upon a real person, but it in no way 'confirms' anything written about "Jesus" or the events surrounding his "crucifixion" in the New Testament.

What are you saying? Are you saying that what was written 2000 or more years ago about Jesus, aren’t historical texts?
If we were talking about Lincoln wouldn’t we use the texts that are written about him?
If we are talking about Lincoln walking out of the Grave would not everything written about him be talked about and be drawn from those texts?

Yes, of course we would, if the texts written about him were definitive first hand accounts written by a known author, but the problem with the New Testament gospel texts about Jesus is that they are all anonymous. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all fail to name their authors and are only traditionaly named after these particular desciples, so we have no way of knowing if they are actualy first hand accounts of what really happened 2000 years ago or simply exaggerated or made up stories about a charismatic Jewish teacher of the first century. Infact Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John states that it is a second hand account that is derived from the 'disciple whom Jesus loved'.

Let me put it this way, if the books about Harry Potter were written by an anonymous author who claimed that they were a true account, and if other anonymous texts that appear to be based upon the first anonymous text also existed, would you believe them? Would you believe that a school for children who could perform real magic and had adventures that involved mythological beings definately exists based upon such anonymous texts? Of course you wouldn't, and anyone who would say that you should believe them would obviously be acting unreasonably... so why would you expect anyone else to believe that a person existed 2000 years ago who could perform real miracles based upon 2000 year old anonymous texts?

Please believe me, I'm not having a go at your faith or at you personaly here, I'm simply asking you to be reasonable and look at this from our point of view.

 

[Belz...]

Things changed so much after 70 CE that the new situation would have been reflected in his writings. No going to Jerusalem to meet James and Peter, for example. Place was a ruin for years, and its population dispersed, enslaved or dead.

Ok, sure, but then from Paul's writings, does he mention any historical figure, like the Gospels do, that could help us pinpoint the date of Jesus' life or his disciples ?

 

[R.A.F.]

Now, personaly, I agree that, on the face of it, this is certainly enough evidence to consider that the character of Jesus and the stories about him may well be based upon a real person, but it in no way 'confirms' anything written about "Jesus" or the events surrounding his "crucifixion" in the New Testament.

The bible simply can not be relied on as if is were an historical account of actual events. Tacitus "account" does nothing to confirm events as depicted in the bible, and I wasn't even arguing that a historical Jesus did not exist.


So, Edge... in answer to my question, "why do you use bible passages as if they were some form of historical text?", your apparent answer is "Tacitus confirms the bible"?

Do you see just how insufficient that "answer" is?...

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

this prediction is falsified, and the gospels cannot be considered divinely inspired. Thus, the prediction of the destruction of the temple is history written after the fact, and even Mark, the earliest of the gospels, had to have been written after CE 70.

--snip--

This is fascinating stuff, but I have a question. Bear in mind that I ask it as a person with little to no expertise in this area and who asks only out of ignorant curiosity.

Does this really falsify the temple-destruction prophecy? Could that prophecy not be a lucky guess? Perhaps I am mistaken, but would it not be possible for someone aiding a revolution in the Jewish faith ("revolution" may be the wrong word) to wish for the physical destruction of the temple in that it would signify destruction of the old order, and subsequently predict it out of hope? Or is there more to the post-70CE analysis than this?

Not sure if I am making sense here, but I trust you get the gist.

Thanks

 

[edge]

For you to SlackerBabbath& Tim

The bible simply can not be relied on as if is were an historical account of actual events. Tacitus "account" does nothing to confirm events as depicted in the bible, and I wasn't even arguing that a historical Jesus did not exist.


So, Edge... in answer to my question, "why do you use bible passages as if they were some form of historical text?", your apparent answer is "Tacitus confirms the bible"?

Do you see just how insufficient that "answer" is?...

Again? That's an outside source that helps confirm what took place who else would they be talking about? It doesn't confirm the whole bible.

Not only that but what you aren't is a believer if you were then you would see what I see and experiance what I have till you get it.


Now answer this:
So tell me how you could even believe what you propose to be true when you say and think, and this is for Tim too?

From Tim's post:
Were this prediction divinely inspired, we would expect other predictions in the Synoptic Gospels to also be divinely inspired and thus true. However, Mark has Jesus say that there are some standing there who will not taste death before they see the kingdom come with power. Matthew's elaboration of this prediction makes it clear that it revers to the second coming and the last Judgment (Mt. 16:27, 28):
Bolding is mine:"For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and then he will repay every man for what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That the prediction, as made in Matthew, referring to Jesus repaying every man for what he has done, along with the Son of man, i.e. Jesus, coming, "in the glory of his Father," with angels

Order of things is important; you all seem to have wishful thinking to prove your point, even if they, "the disciples' think this, it is still wishful thinking.

Matthew 24:42,44 Watch therefore: for you know not what hour your Lord does come...

Matthew 25:13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man comes.

Zechariah 14:7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass...

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Acts 1:7 And he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father has put in his own power.

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...

Revelation 3:3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore you shall not watch...

Revelation 16:15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.

Verse 36. - The apostles had asked (ver. 3), "When shall these things be?" Christ does not now expressly answer this question; he puts forth strongly the uncertainty in the knowledge of these great events, and how this ignorance is disciplinary. Of that day (de die illa, Vulgate) and hour, viz. when Christ shall appear in judgment, The expression plainly, implies that a definite day and moment are fixed for this great appearing, but known only to God. Knoweth no man, no, not (οὐδὲ, not even) the angels of heaven. A kind of climax. Man is naturally excluded from the knowledge; but even to the angels it has not been revealed.

From here: http://biblehub.com/matthew/24-36.htm

They are told this when Jesus is alive so it would be the same after his resurrection. So answer this what makes you even think that those verses are about the second coming?

What it’s about is what has been accomplished for man a new beginning and acceptance, forgiveness and truth about the way it is now when we pass over. Believers see this every day now through NDEs and OBEs and healings but as it says not all will or do. I have faith is science or knowledge and in Gods' promise and in todays' world science is helping to confirm what I am saying.