Re: American Uproar Over Jesus's Tomb
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by garyj
If you feel that the reference to "Chrestus" "obviously" could not refer to Christ, then it follows that most of the recorded names found in the "Jesus Tomb" could not be those referenced in the New Testament documents, because their spellings do not match those of our day and language either. Your logic rebuts the Jesus Tomb book and documentary.
|
As far as the tomb goes, it looks to be a fraud being sensationalized for the almighty buck.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by garyj
You are not correct on the Mark 16 comment. It is the section of Mark verses 9-20 that are not included in the earliest texts, not the entire chapter. You will find "resurrection" mentioned in all earlier manuscripts (v.6 for example).
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by garyj
I'm not sure how "close to contemporary" you believe historical documents/investigation need be. We are drawing conclusions from the assassination of JFK over 40 years ago and Martin Luther King Jr years ago, and it's pretty clear that 2000 years from now we will be considered contempories of those events.
|
It should not be surprising that nothing exists to prove Jesus existed. We are talking about events that happened two thousand years ago, and a man who at the time was a nobody. Just because his followers would eventually grow into a worldwide religion does not make him important to anyone who dealt with him when he was alive. Huge amounts of writings from Roman times have disappeared, unfortunately. We don't have the memoirs of Sulla, one of the most important men in Roman history; so why should we expect to have a record of one of many self proclaimed prophets in a province of the Roman empire?






