is there proof, or even logic, to back up the resurrection?

Historians agree that Jesus' disciples claimed that he came back from the dead shortly after his crucifixion. However, a lot of people claim that the disciples claims were bogus. That seems easy to understand. A group of people running around yelling about a guy raising himself from the dead would come across as weird. But what about defending that? Where's the extrabiblical accounts? I suppose there are some, but I'm not sure. But let's look at it this way:
Let's say a bunch of disciples did go around claiming that Jesus rose from the dead, don't you think the religious leaders would've wanted to put a stop to that? Maybe check it out? OK, let's say they do, if they found something...maybe a decaying body in the tomb, a skeleton even, they would've published those findings for certain. But there's NO record of any discoveries like that.
There are other arguments that could be given for and against the ressurection of Christ. But I'm writing a paragraph long-blog, not a book. If you wanna read more about that you should check out the article "Miracles and Miracle Stories" in the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (p 558-559). Oh, and another good source for that stuff is The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. It's got some great stuff in there, and I think it's important to know the in's and out's of this issue.
"In a profound sense, Christianity without the ressurection is not simply Christianity without its final chapter. It is not Christianity at all." - Gerald O'Collins

Alex H

Faith and Deeds...in regard to Jesus?

Jesus’ miracles were never attributed to his divinity. At every healing he would say, “Your faith has healed you.” This begs the question: if the faith of the inflicted is what healed them, then why were they not healed prior to seeing Jesus? Could it have to do with the James passage in chapter 2: “Faith without deeds is dead”? The paralytic man, who was lowered through the roof, was not healed strictly because of their faith; if that were the case then they would not have had to carry him all the way to Jesus. It is the same with the Centurion with the sick child and the woman with the hemorrhages.

-Zach

The powerlessness of Christ?

I particularly enjoyed the section of the Authority and Power article in DJG that discussed the fact that Jesus seemed to be in a sense powerless against the authorities that performed his execution. The article points out many ideas that should be considered for a proper understanding of this topic, such as the fact that Jesus "identifies himself with the poor and afflicted" by allowing himself to be executed by the seemingly powerful Roman authorities. DJG says that the "divine authority" of Christ is not only the freedom to stop his execution if he wished, but the ability to be used to carry out the will of God, and references Gethsemane. WOW! That is amazing to me. We have always heard from our days in Children's Church or Sunday School that Jesus could have chosen to "call down ten legions of angels" to stop his execution. I suppose that is true, but DJG has really put this in perspective. Christ's freedom not to stop his execution and save himself speaks louder than his ability to stop it.

Huh, just when you think you know everything there is to know about a topic, God goes and shows you that you don't know as much as you thought you did.

-Steven

Shush yo mouth

In this weeks reading of the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels I really enjoyed the section Mark, Gospel of 3.3.1. Silencing the Demons. Alex and I were talking about this section and I found it very interesting about how Jesus showed his authority by silencing the demons. Also this section mentions how exorcist would normally battle with demons for power or control by calling on name different names. But with Jesus it was different, first the ones who were possessed came to Jesus. They did not wait for Jesus to come to them, they came to Jesus and then begged "Please don’t hurt me". Once Jesus spoke the demon would obey and be silenced and the come out. To study about the awesome power of God through Christ plows me away, because Jesus did not have to call up on different names, because he is a part of God.
Matt Justice

John...the first Southern Baptist???

In seminary we heard a lot of corny jokes, from professors and chapel speakers, referring to John being the first Southern Baptist, since he is named John the Baptist. Most of us would just shake our heads at these poor attempts to make a joke. I appreciate how Garland, who has taught and is teaching at Baptist seminaries and schools, handles John by referring to him as John the Baptizer. Garland's reference holds John in higher esteem and places emphasis on what his purpose was. Garland states, "John was calling Israel to acknowledge God's judgment on Israel. Passing through the waters of the promise again, a new, forgiven Israel would emerge. " John was an awesome man, who stated in another gospel that Jesus must become more and he must become less, even if he was not the first Southern Baptist.

For the love of country

Through the reading in the commentary I have been able to better understand the Pharisees. They have good intentions of following the law but they are overly legalistic. They have an affinity for the Sabbath. A unique thing about Christianity is that there are so special days of observance required, such as the Sabbath. The Sabbath is what helped the Israelites have a national identity. The Pharisees felt that they were not just struggling for a strict adherence to the law but they were trying to hold their country together. Then Jesus csme along and in their eyes he seems to be doing all he can to spoil that. Its hard to let go of tradition and to change. Tradition was what made the pharisees feel safe, they knew that some things would always be the same. I think this idea sheds a little more light on the disposition of the Pharisees.

Toby Shelton

Sabbath Smabbath

In the first chapter of Mark Jesus goes to the synagogue and casts out a demon. The people like him and all is well.
“After Jesus left the synagogue…they went to Simon and Andrew’s home.”
Jesus then proceeds to heal Simon’s sick mother-in-law (good for her, for Simon, not so much)
Then Mark makes a point to say “that evening AFTER SUNSET, many sick and demon possessed people were brought to Jesus.”
From this one can infer that Jesus healed Simon’s mother-in-law on the Sabbath, and little was said against it. In oral law it was permissible for one to heal on the Sabbath if one was in danger of death, and this may have been the case. Possibly the disciples were less strict than the religious leaders. Possibly Mark just did not comment on their questioning of Jesus’ methods. Maybe they were just so happy she was well that it slipped their mind. But I think that the reason this healing on the Sabbath was not addressed here is because it is not an issue, and should not be one.

Mark Who?

I thought the discussion near the end of class last Wednesday was very interesting. It's been over a year since I have had New Testament survey, and I had forgotten that Mark was not neccesarily named after Mark. To hear that the title of Mark was added much later reminded me of truly how much you need to know the history of the text and who wrote it and all of the other important details about the text. Without researching and having a good understanding of those things, it becomes much harder to interpret in most cases. However, in this case Dr. Foster brought up the question of whether knowing or not knowing the author really matters in this case. That is a very intruiging question. I'm looking forward to more little things that I have forgotten from New Testament, going into much more detail on some of those, and even learning a whole lot of new things.

Clothed with camel hair!!

This post was recognized as a poet of the weAk for honoring M. Henry and DC Talk as great academicians. Repent and sin no more. -rlf 1/24/2007

While reading Mark, the fact that John the Baptist was clothed with camel's hair and ate locusts and wild honey stood out to me. What would we think? "Oh there's the preacher man...just eating locusts and wearing camel hair..." Why did he do these things? Perhaps those were his only options, but I believe that self-denial could have been a reason. Matthew Henry says it was for mortification of the flesh and a holy contempt of the world, and non-conformity to it. "The more we sit loose to the body, and live above the world, the better we are prepared for Jesus Christ," says Henry. I think the main idea is self-denial. We live in a world where self-denial equals insanity. But as Christians, we are to deny ourselves daily. Well, in the words of DC Talk, "What will people say when they find out I'm a Jesus freak?" Well....what will they say?

As you are going.......

As I read this week I often caught myself having "oh yeah" moments, particularly on page twenty four of the commentary. I would like to think that I have a good grasp on what the gospel truly is and the significance it holds. However, after reading this section I have realized that "pop-culture" has put a spin on what the gospel's meaning currently consist of. This chapter helped me peel back the layers of loving bunnies and treating mother nature right. Garland says, "the gospel has to do with God's redemptive action in Jesus, which reveals God's love for humans and judgment on human sin and satanic evil." WOW! That made me think for a minute, the fact that God took/takes action for those who are far far from perfect. It amazes me that God can not be held down by mans lack of understanding as it pertains to his Son.

The Good Stuff

My best friend in high school considered herself to be very "religious". She thought if she acted a certain way and did all of the "right" things in life, she was okay in God's eyes. She still hasn't grasped the idea of forgiveness and the true meaning of Christ's death on the cross. I spoke with her the other day for the first time in quite a few months, and I realized just how lost and consumed she is with the idea of living a "good" life in order to earn her way into heaven. I couldn't help but relate this story to part of the introduction of the NIV Commentary. On page 24 it says, "In the religious world, the good news about Jesus Christ is watered down to good advice. People are told to be kind, smile a lot, to love all creatures, to think positively, and to feel good about themselves. But the true gospel about Jesus Christ is far more radical and explosive." The gospel involves my Jesus who offers unfailling love and mercy. The gospel involves my Jesus who bled and was beaten severely JUST to save all of us from the death we so richly deserve. Salvation involves complete faith and surrendering a lifestyle full of sin. I've tried explaining this concept to my friend, but because of her religion, she feels she has to earn every bit of her salvation. It breaks my heart...there's more to it than just being "good." Salvation takes faith and the ablility to step out of the 'number 1' place and let God take over that position in our lives. The message of the gospel is life-changing, and I wish everyone would accept it...

all in God's plan

i like what garland had to say about the beginning of mark. he pointed out that the coming of john the baptist and Jesus seem to be out of the blue, they were in God's plan from the beginning. mark uses the old testament from the torah and both major and minor prophets to make it clear that God had planned this all along. he also refers to isaiah, further emphasizes the fulfillment of prophecy was found in Christ. we must not forget that the original readers of this material were already familiar with the story of Jesus, as well as old testament prophecies. by connecting the two here he makes a connection with his audience and an overall theme that God set Jesus and john the baptist to start the beginning of Christianity.

bobby dixon

A Breath of Fresh Air

Normally, I find little instant gratification from reading a textbook, but Garland's commentary on Mark has been amazing! Reading it alongside the book of Mark is like reading the book of Mark for the very first time. I have even found the occasional use for the Greek I have been learning! I just want to share some of the little things from Garland's commentaries that have impressed me--some were WOW moments. I found that Mark is concerned with details that matter. He has his point, and he makes it. Page 30 contains an awesome testimony to the power of Christ, "When he speaks, the winds cease, demons flee, and the dead rise!" Garland's discussion of baptism was amazing. I'd often wondered about the point of water baptism, both then and now. For these Jews to come and be baptized was for them to say they were completely unclean. There was no self-righteous here... They needed to be cleansed...all of them. John the Baptist was basically saying that Israel was defiled. What a powerful words preceding the ministry of Christ! They speak volumes to me about Israel's need for a savior--about why God came down to us as Christ. Another point that Garland makes that wowed me refers again to Christ's baptism. The heavens were TORN open..not smoothly, or easily. Whether Garland's point is significant or not, the fact that the very heavens were ripped apart at the baptism of Jesus is fascinating! I could go on and on about the new things Garland brought to light. I don't know if he's 100% correct all the time nor do I understand everything he says, but the point is that for the first time in a while, I am excited about reading the scriptures, they are new and fresh, and I want to learn more about the powerful God that I serve!

Melanie Swaty

Qumran....not post of the weAk

i felt the need to read in the Holman Bible Atlas about the Dead Sea Scrolls. it told about the qumran people that lived in the area and how much they were like the essenes. i found it interesting in their views of the coming messiah that they believed there would be 1 prophet and two messiahs. so i wonder what their reaction to Jesus the Messiah was during his ministry. the most intriguing part of the article that i found was to be admitted to the Qumran people group one had to "face a two-or possibly three-year period of examinations, instruction, and discipline." they had to be trained to be a Qumran because i believe it was demanding, they shared everything so that no one was more wealthy than another. I do appreciate the opportunity to come to Williams and be a part of a 4 or possibly 5 year period of examinations (papers!!), instuction and discipline so that i can be more prepared to disciple people i come in contact with. the article didn't say a whole lot about the actual scrolls except they were found after 1947 and onward, "some manuscripts are virtually intact, such as Isaiah; many more are fragmentary. Only Esther remains unrepresented amoung the Old Testament materials."

My Three Sons

Son of God. Son of Man. Son of David. Who is this man? Or better yet, who does this man think He is? Are the messianic expectations of 2nd Temple Judaism in line with the idea of Jesus as the son of God or did this arise in the traditions of the early church? When did Jesus become aware that he was indeed the son of God? At his baptism? At the tranfiguration? At the resurrection? The statement in Mark 1:11 seems to at least confirm or inform Jesus of His messianic status. Or did this statement from God the Father initate Jesus' own self-consciousness of his divine sonship (DJG 772). I have no answers and I will not offer any here, but I do welcome any and every suggestion. This is an interesting debate. When would of Jesus recognized himself as O UIOS TOU THEOU;

Bwasts of the Wilderness! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!

When Jesus went into the wilderness for fourty days, it says that he was there with beasts and as well with satan. What I find interesting is the look at the beasts, or animals whatever you may wish to call, that were there with Jesus. When looking at this since the word beast is udsed it would appear that these were not nice tamed animals that jesus was with but instead mean and untamed animals that most people would be scared to be near. In a way this shows the power Jesus has, because while he was with these so called beast, nothing happened that we know of, other than the fact that Jesus was victorious over satan and these beast while he was there, as he will be again later on. Its just interesting to see that Jesus even had power over the animals while he was on this earth as he also shows he has control of the weather as well. Showing us that there is nothing Jesus can not handle.

Victory In Jesus!

In the twenty-first century the word "gospel" has pretty well been established as a book or story about Jesus, especially in the Bible belt. I found it interesting that the greek word for gospel, evangelizo, was used as an announcement of vicotry after battle. Not only that, but many of the "gospels" first readers would have used the term as the birth of an heir to the empire. I bet calling the stories of Jesus gospels really ruffled some feathers back in the day. For believers, however, I can see how it would give them hope. The savior of the world had come and established Himself as King!
Mark is careful, though, to make sure his readers know what it will be like to live in this Kingdom with Jesus as their king. He wrote down parables and what Jesus had to say about how hard it would be to follow him. Christ did come and His Kingdom is here, but following Christ will be hard. There is no way around it. If life is easy, one should be worried. There is hope for the future, though. Jesus not only told us it would be hard, but He also told us He would be with us and that He is coming back.

Aaron Abbott

Dessert? Well, it would've been more pleasant then the sand.

Why did Jesus go into the desert? I know that in verse 12 it says that the Spirit led him out there, but why on God's green earth did he NEED to go out there? What's in the desert? God's out there. OK. Now Jesus is out there. OK. Good. Now we have God and Jesus out in the desert. What's NOT in the desert? Distractions. Alright, Jesus went out to get away from distractions. So, he just wanted some alone time with God. Why? Was he trying to figure out what his ministry was? Well, in Luke 2:49 Jesus states that God is his father, which would imply that he already knew that he was the son of God. OK, so God wasn't revealing to Jesus that he was divine...we already had that news flash. Was it more of a one man pep rally? "Alright, Jesus! Who's the God?" "I am!" "Who's the God?" "I'm the God!" "What'cha gonna do?!" "Save the people! Save the People!"
Maybe not exactly like that, but possibly God set Jesus out in the middle of nowhere in order for him and him (which is just him) to run over the details, pray, fast (obviously), and just meditate on what he had to do.
But Wait! Verse 13 of Mark 1 says that he was out there and Satan was tempting him! What the heck are you doing out there? Leave him alone! He's studying! Quiet hours! Holy cow!
Not only did it say that he was out there it says, "and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan." Now maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to imply that Satan was on Jesus the entire forty days! I know why Satan would want that, but why did Jesus and God allow it? What was the point? At any point in those forty days Jesus could've said, "Satan, get outta my face!" and that would've been the end of that. But he endured it...not only did he endure it, he withstood it. Hmm... Why? Well, maybe he was trying to prove to us that he was indeed perfect. I mean, really that's the only account of Jesus being tempted. If it weren't for that (and other records of the same instance) we would not have seen how human Christ really was. He faced temptation just like we do. Not only did he face it, he opposed it, which proves his diety as well. Sweet. What a fantastic example of Christ's humanity and deity in one 40 day sitting.
Good job, God.

Alex H

bullington

This post was recognized as Post of the Week! for promting good discussion. -rlf 1/24/2007

Throughout most of the reading I cannot get past the thought that the author or the decleration of an author simply does not matter. Throughout my entire educational career I have never read anything that was not pushed upon me to read where the main innitiative was not the matter of who wrote the book, article, or poem. Very few times have I ever been prompted to read something that was in authorship anonymous. However I find the example of the Gospel according to Mark that the authorship whether stated, implied, or even unknown matters very little to me. The inspiration behind the writing gives great insight as to who truly the author is. Much like the other writings throught the Bible the true author is God! This has now given me great peace in trying to understand why Mark or Paul or even Solomon wrote what they wrote. They wrote through the direction of the Holy Spirit.