again...the Jesus presented in those texts isn't nearly so different as you might think. i've mentioned that to you time and time again in the context of these discussions. i'm not sure how many of these texts you've read. but i have not read one which radically altered my view of who Christ is.
I have read the "Gospel of Thomas" and parts of other gnostic works. If anyone would read actually read these things instead of accepting what those trying to discredit Christianity tell them, they would basically throw them out. It's been a while, but those books make some ridiculous claims about Jesus.
i realize that's someone else's opinion. have you read them? what is mainstream Christianity? Catholicism? Evangelical Christianity? Lutheran? Episcopalian? Christians have argued for centuries over the details of "religion." Things like, "when is baptism appropriate" and "vegetables and water instead of wine and bread" have divided nations. That's religion. But that has very little to do with the person of Jesus Christ.
i like the Gospel of Peter where the Cross comes out of the tomb and talks to everyone. clearly written as metaphor. but the point is the same. in the Gospel of Thomas, about 75% of what Jesus says is the same thing he says in the synoptic Gospels.
I kind of liked the Gospel of Thomas. There were parts there were too fantastical, but there were a lot of parts in it that I enjoyed, and I thought provided some nice wisdom.
sure it's germane. but weren't you the one saying, "what does it matter if the resurrection was flesh and blood or just spirit?"
It doesn't matter to me, but the point you are making is that they are saying the same things about Jesus, when clearly there are major differences. DD
It was my understanding that there was fairly good consensus that the inscription was "Jesus, Son of Joseph". Otherwise why would the critics repeatedly make the point that Jesus and Joseph were common names in the period.
in many of the gnostic texts, he still does that. in fact, he's spirit to begin with in those texts...and then is crucified and rises again. it's a different interpretation of the same events.
that's the argument (b)...the "in the alternative argument..." in other words...it doesn't seem to say Jesus..here are the reasons why. but even if it does say that, here's why that's not nearly as signficant as you might think....
depends on who is definining "major" i suppose. the message...the idea that he had the keys to heaven...are not lost.
I would really like to see some writings about Jesus when we lose him between the ages of 12 - 30, what happened to the man? Anyway, Max all I am saying is more study is needed, no harm in that, right? Ok, I will buy that. DD
i'll leave it to experts to decide whether more study is necessary. most of the people who wrote of Jesus didn't know anything about him from 12-30. James would be an exception to that. but Paul certainly didn't. neither did any of the Gospel writers. i think, if they had, it would be written off as legendary speculation by most.
Out of curiousity though weren't the other gospels written after the time of Jesus also? My understanding, and I could be totally wrong here, is that the gospels were relayed orally and then written down at a much later date.
yes. but not 300 years later. most historians pin them down at about 30-50 years after his death. around 60-100 AD. and many suggest that there is a common source for Mark and Matthew which would pre-date the earliest Gospels.
As I said earlier this controversy really shows how it is difficult to cover science in the media. It sounds like the producers jumped to many conclusions but I'm not surprised as it would be a pretty boring and confusing show if they just showed the scientific investigative work without offering up conclusions. I mean how many people want to see a show about investigating a Judean tomb of the Roman period that probably not Jesus' tomb. While it looks like some sloppy science was conducted here its sparked an interesting debate and I've learned a lot about Judean burial practices, culture and early Christian text than might've otherwise.
hey, we're talking about it anyway, huh? i hear ya. the problem is...this is all done, not at the intiative of scientists...but of a filmmaker and a journalist. i suspect the conclusion (which made people a lot of money in the DaVinci Code) was arrived at before the facts were arrived at/twisted.
I think all of this needs to be taken with not just a grain of salt but a whole shaker. I didn't see the special but it sounds like they were trying to be more entertaining than educational while The DaVinci Code was a work of fiction. This is a general problem with society that many have a hard time seperating fact from fiction and judge the veracity of things based upon how splashily they are presented. As I said I don't have a solid opinion about it and from this debate am leaning towards doubting this is the tomb of the Christian Jesus but the arguments for and against though are very educational. Possibly more than the special.
