Court Martial and Death Penalty Sought in Iraq Murder Case

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Josephus is not a reliable source. He refers to Jesus as 'the son of god' in his writings. Someone obviously got to it and tainted the record. Sorry, took a 'Bible as History' class and this was the kind of thing we covered. There actually isn't that much written evidence as to Jesus' existence. A census here and there maybe.



If you put stock in a novel, you deserve everything you get. The Da Vinci Code was neat and it would be awesome if it were true, but come on...

Hey, I took a class too, but I hate going into this stuff

[AlexMack]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Hey, I took a class too, but I hate going into this stuff

Heh, I don't have my notes handy anywhere. I hated the professor but the subject matter was interesting. I'd love to go back and talk with him some more. At the time I hated him because I felt he was attacking my religion. Then his attacks shook my faith to an unrecoverable point. Now I'm grateful for it.
This stuff is fascinating to me.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by centaur532

Heh, I don't have my notes handy anywhere. I hated the professor but the subject matter was interesting. I'd love to go back and talk with him some more. At the time I hated him because I felt he was attacking my religion. Then his attacks shook my faith to an unrecoverable point. Now I'm grateful for it.
This stuff is fascinating to me.

lol my teacher was great too, though since my class was at a Jesuit university the point was seperating "Jesus of History" from "Christ of Faith"

Very good. Some people couldn't deal with it either.

/I also hate to get into these debates at work... can't type as much as I'd like... AND we need a debate forum

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by centaur532

If you put stock in a novel, you deserve everything you get.

And yet some people do.

BTW, you're quite correct that there is little if any real contempory evidence of Jesus's historicity. Those writers that do mention him, like Josephus, do not attest to his actual existence as much as to what was believed/not believed about him, or perhaps have been subject to revisionism.

One could argue that the Gospels and other contemporary writings about Jesus that were not accepted as canonical must have some basis (with regard to the existence and teachings of the person, not necessarily with regard to the resurrection or other beliefs) in historical fact. One could also argue that the growth of the early church cannot be explained absent a historical Jesus who bore at least some resemblence to the Jesus of the Gospels.

At the end, it's definitely a question of faith, not of historical evidence.

Okay. /highjack