|
|
#21
04-03-2006, 02:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: you can take one of 2 options
[ QUOTE ]
That's the Gnostic gospels not the Agnostic gospels. [/ QUOTE ] The Agnostic Gospels: In the beginning was the, well we really aren't sure, but possibly something, or maybe nothing, either way who knows.... 
|
|
#22
04-03-2006, 02:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you can take one of 2 options
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ok not many people will say that Jesus never existed-OK thats been proven [/ QUOTE ] I'm no historian so I don't really feel qualified to comment on this. Except to say - I remember people used to actually debate this issue. It seems to have slowly been accepted as undisputed fact. I find it hard to believe that new and compelling evidence has been found over the last decade or so - what's up with that? [/ QUOTE ] Actually I'm not so sure about that. The comment in josephus is most likely a forgery, and the city where jesus was supposed to be born didn't exist at that time. We have no mention of jesus in documents that were written during the time he was supposed to have lived. Nothing in the roman records about conviction of him. Nothing written at the time about people rising from the dead or an earthquake in jerusulem. No mention of the 3hr eclise that was supposed to have happened following the cruxifiction was ever written about by the astronomers and astrologers at the time, anywhere in the world. In short, if jesus did exist at that time then Tammy Faye Baker gets better press than him.
|
|
#23
04-03-2006, 03:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: you can take one of 2 options
Well, I have no idea to be honest, I don't know enough about it to form a view. It's just I remember when I was a kid (I'm only 26) there used to be articles in major newspapers and documentaries on TV and the like debating this issue, as if it was a great contention point of history. Yet in the last decade or so it seems to have gradually moved into the realm of undisputed fact, despite the fact that (I assume?) no new evidence has been found. And now the idea that Jesus didn't exist is the domain of obscure pseudo-scientific homepages and the like. It just seems really strange is all. Really, I'm much more interested in the reasons behind this shift than I am the actual question of whether Jesus existed.
I also always get nervous when I hear academics talk about 'consensus' opinion, because that generally means they don't understand what's going on.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
