Posted on 10/12/2004 2:54:10 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
And that's why they are identical to each other!
Probably not. Did they write it down? Probably not. If they had, would the documents be around today? Probably not, unless they were copied and recopied by monks over the centuries...
What's disturbing is not that some fool decided to make a movie declaring that Christ never existed. What's disturbing is that people will believe it if the director can get a guest spot on TRL.
Welcome aboard Navy man. From a Navy dad.
Perhaps, since I was basing it on the total dollar loss. But it's quite possible Gigli was seen by fewer people.
Generally true, except for these ongoing miraculous events (except for Fatima, which is otherwise well-documented):
Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
The Tilma of Guadalupe
Incorrupt bodies of the saints
Fatima
Shroud of Turin
Sudarium of Oviedo
I thought that there was mention of Jesus in Roman records of the time. Tax records maybe? I can't remember.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Synoptic Gospels have a common source, what do you do with John?
Another point: my father fought in WWII, over 50 years ago. Recently he gave an account of the Italian campaign to my daughter for a history class. That's "decades post" WWII - five whole decades. Does that invalidate his account? It seems likely that the memories of those who knew Jesus are as good or better than my dad's recall (which is remarkably detailed.)
In the case of the Gospels, you have multiple sources, varying with their own individual recollections but confirming the basic facts of what occurred. You would expect accounts to be similar (but not identical) given that they are recounting the same story. And they are. As C.S. Lewis says, either the Evangelists anticipated the modern school of "realistic fiction" by about 1900 years, or they were telling the truth.
Right! They all got together one night over a glass of wine and said "hey, I've got an idea on how to make some big shekels!".
This same vile group has thousands of so called reporters and newscasters who daily attack our President with lies.
A prime example was Tom Hays of the AP. He was the maggot who did the fake article re the boos at the GW meeting in Wisconsin when GW announced that Clintoon was in the hospital.
For an interesting and revealing exercise, whenever you see a name associated with something like this. Go to Yahoo search and enter the name and Gay and run the search. The results can be quite revealing.
He declared Himself the Messiah. If He wasn't, He was an imposter - a liar who preyed on the emotions of a vulnerable society of oppressed Jews. You call that kind and considerate?
I don’t really know if He declared Himself the Messiah or not. I do know that His followers wrote that He did.
As I posted earlier, should The Christ be held accountable for the actions of others?
Stop the insanity!!!
Jesus is referenced by name by the Roman historian Suetonius in Twelve Caesars.
Whoops! Now I'm going to have to rely on suspension of disbelief.
Don't dismiss intellectual arguments for the existence of God. The Design Argument is even mentioned in the Bible:
Romans 1:18-22The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.
I thought it was reported that there were some references to Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found near Quomran (sp?)?
In a work issued in 1959, Father Kirschbaum, a member of the archeological commission excavating under the basilica during the 1940's, has given a summary of the findings. These are in brief that it is reasonably certain that the place where St. Peter was buried has been discovered. According to historical records, supplemented by these new discoveries, this is the "history" of the tomb. The Christians buried the Apostle's body in a simple grave on the southern slope of Vatican Hill and covered it with a few brick slabs. Soon other graves were made near that of St. Peter, and these have been recently discovered. Their existence and inscriptions on the wall make clear that from the very first St. Peter's tomb was a place of pilgrimage so that there was uninterrupted Christian veneration and observation of this spot.About the middle of the second century the grave was marked by a simple monumental slab, the "trophy" mentioned by Father Gaius about 200. During Valerian's persecution, when Christian cemeteries were closed for the first time, St. Peter's relics, but probably only the skull, were moved to a more secure place on the Via Appia. They were returned in the fourth century when Constantine began the first basilica over St. Peter's tomb. To this end he went to great labor and expense to fill up piles on the sloping Vatican Hill to provide a level foundation. This is why St. Peter's tomb is at a considerably lower level than the floor of the Basilica of Constantine and its modern replacement.
St. Gregory the Great carried out extensive alterations between 594 and 604, placing an altar over the tomb, but leaving a shaft through which objects might be lowered to touch the tomb for the veneration of pilgrims. During a Saracen raid in 846 much of the basilica and tomb were plundered, although the actual grave was not penetrated. It was soon after, probably, that the skull was removed and placed, together with that of St. Paul, in the Lateran, where they still remain. To prevent further vandalism the tomb shaft was filled up and the crypt sealed.
In 1503, work was begun to construct the modern basilica which was built over the tomb without disturbing it. During construction some attempts were made to reach the tomb, but were abandoned, it is now clear, before reaching the actual grave. The discoveries of 1940-51, however, successively penetrated the various layers and reached the actual site of the original grave of St. Peter. Here were found bones, all belonging to the same person, "an elderly and vigorous man," with the skull missing.
The cautious archeologists will affirm no more than that these bones were believed to have been those of St. Peter by those who detached the skull for preservation during Valerian's persecution in the third century. In view of the continuous record up to that time of Christian devotion to the tomb, we believe that this ought to be enough to satisfy any reasonable man.
We may conclude, then, that not only St. Peter's authority and spirit, but even the relics of his body, have remained in Rome. Nature and grace have conspired to justify the Latin inscription on the dome of St. Peter's Basilica, towering some 400 feet above the once simple earthen grave: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and I will give you the keys of heaven."
Readers of Dan Brown's tripe should flock to this.
I know you. I've met you many times. The detached observer who swivels in his chair and resists the desire to commit fully to any idea. Bully for you.
In Jesus' case, the shroud was left behind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.