|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Man, you don't even understand what I mean by mentioning the movie, your
> appreciation is too shallow and deny complexity, plus is not well
> informed about the History about Jesus: what non-religious experts
> (Paleontologists, Historians, Anthropologists, Archaeologists, etc.)
> have discovered and documented about it.
>
> I suggest you see: Banned from the Bible, History Channel documentary.
Sigh.. You are missing the point. First you have to prove the man even
existed at all. The problem with all the people you list here is that
not **one** of them can present history, (Uh.. just why would
paleontologists be involve with this???), artifacts, or writings
**earlier** than the known date of publication of the parts of the NT
they are using as primary sources. This is a bit like claiming that you
found evidence at a convention site, showing that people actually
dressed up as Jedi last year, and therefor you concluded that George
Lucas merely "recorded" events, instead of making them up. After all,
too many people have, at this point, by such logic, written about,
dressed up as, joined a fake religions based on, or otherwise treated as
semi-real, Jedis, for them to have been made up in the 1970s...
It doesn't work that way. You first have to establish that **someone**
actually new the guy existed "prior" to 50-100 years after the fact. You
have to find actual records of the person, of his family, a
**convincing** reason why anyone would believe he was born in a town
that didn't **exist** when he is supposed to have been born and raised
there, etc.
So what if "some" of the stuff in the movie was glommed off of people
looking at things written 200, or 300 years after the fact? You first
have to convince people that the stuff written only 50-100 years after
describes a real person, and ***no one*** has done so, despite 2,000
years of following the religion, and probably 50 years of the most
intense study of records, artifacts, and records, all **dedicated** to
proving that he actually existed in the first place.
This, for skeptics, and even for *many* Biblical scholars, is a
**serious** problem, and makes the movie (and I laugh at the idea that
you pick the movie as a better authority than the book it is based
on..), basically a Biblical equivalent of, "The illustrated encyclopedia
of more stuff people made up, to fit into the Harry Potter universe." In
short, its interesting, but you have to prove the central point *before*
you start getting excited about other stuff people made up even later
on, to support the original story. It makes no more sense than if you
tried to defend the validity of the gospel of Judas, by pointing out the
existence of the KJV Bible (which doesn't, as none of them do, contain
it). You can only prove that people that believed in the original story
told other stories about the central character, until/unless you can
prove the existence of the character *first*, and that requires more
than, "So and so thought X was true about him, but we have no record
linking that belief to *any* original document, from his own time."
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |