Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Feb 25th, 2004, 10:04 AM       
I don't believe anyone has ever agrued for archelogical evidence of Plato's existance. Maybe Vinth was thinking of Play dough, which when petrified is very hrd to identify as having once been a maleable childs toy, is biodegradeable and hasn't been around very long in any case.

No one was actually arguing against the existance of Jesus, they were saying that archelogical evidence of the speciffics of his life are hrd to find. No biblical or religous scholar I'm aware of argues that the four Gospels are contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. I think there are two extra biblical references to Jesus in contemporary hostories, both of them brief.

I'm myself don't doubt his factual exitance, I do however doubt his divinity, which people should believe on faith iof they believe it at all, and not go looking for proofs, a sign of very shallow beliefs.

However, with the earliest Gospel being written some seventy years after the death of Jesus, during a time in the early Jesus movement when conversion was a key concern and schisms between various Christian communities were widespread, it is very hard to make speciffic historical claims about speciffic events in his life. I don't see any reason why this would bother anyone with serious religious convictions, and I think Gibsons claims of historical legitmacy are where all of the problems arise.

This, like any interpretation of the life of Jesus is a gospel ACCORDING TO, in this case, according to Mel. I have no problem with him making it, I have no problem with him showing it.

I personally do not want Vinth or Pern to suffer, despite anything either of them might have said. I don't think Jesus would want either of them to suffer either. I always figured tht was part of the reason Christians thought he allowed himself to be crucified, so as to help others suffer less. Me, I'm just a Jew. I don't think he allowed anything. I think those miserable Roman Jesus Killers crucifed him against his will. I don't hold it against their Italian descendants though. I mean, that would be pretty much retarded, right?
Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:45 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.