Acts 1,3...

[Ricardo_Gomez]

Does any body share especial stories on the interpretation of this passage?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

What would you like to know, Richard? The passage seems pretty straightforward. After his Resurrection, Jesus remained with his apostles for forty days, and he give them many proofs that had, indeed, been raised from the dead. At the end of the forty days, Jesus ascended into heaven.

 

[Ricardo_Gomez]

Lily Bernans, is there any proof of his teachings during those 40 days? Thank you in advance.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m pretty sure there is only what is in the Bible, Ricardo. (I’m sorry I Anglicized your name in the previous post, I even speak some Spanish!). What kind of proof were you talking about? Can you be a bit more specific?

 

[seagal]

John 21:25
“There is much else besides that Jesus did; if all of it were put in writing, I do not think the world itself would contain the books which would have to be written.” All the verified gospels that were written are canonized in the New Testament. There is nothing else.

 

[Ricardo_Gomez]

John 21:25
“There is much else besides that Jesus did; if all of it were put in writing, I do not think the world itself would contain the books which would have to be written.” All the verified gospels that were written are canonized in the New Testament. There is nothing else.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the sypnostic Gospels and it is believe that they were copy from the same source, could the unknown source be the teachings of Christ on the 40 days?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the sypnostic Gospels and it is believe that they were copy from the same source, could the unknown source be the teachings of Christ on the 40 days?

Mark is thought to have been the first gospel written, and the source for it is supposed to be St. Peter or someone to whom Peter related the events of the time he spent with Christ. Matthew and Luke both draw on Mark for source material, and the Q source. Additionally, in each gospel there is material that is unique to that particular gospel. John was supposedly written by the apostle John. Some will say another John wrote it, but most biblical scholars today ascribe the book to John bar Zebedee.

No, we do not know much about what Christ taught during the forty days he remained on earth after his Resurrection.

Regarding the dates of writing:

"Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

By the end of the 19th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist, said: ‘We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.’

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of 'authentic evidence; concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke’s credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: ‘Luke is a historian of the first rank…This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.’"

leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html

 

[seagal]

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the sypnostic Gospels and it is believe that they were copy from the same source, could the unknown source be the teachings of Christ on the 40 days?

If this document existed (and from what I understand it’s still debatable by scholars) and if it contained teachings from those 40 days, don’t you think Matthew, Mark and Luke would have included it in their own gospels?

 

[seagal]

Just to add to my previous post, it’s my personal opinion that anything of importance that Jesus had to impart was done before his death, and that the 40 days was for his apostles alone in preparation for the rough road ahead, or probably explaining more fully his teachings.