tecoyah put it about as well as it possibly could be... we have plenty of direct evidence that george washington lived. but we have teh same amount of evidence for the boogey man as we do for a historical jesus. i think it's possible that there was a man that was the mythical jesus was partially based on, but who he was, what his name was, are things we're likely to never know or be able to find out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FailedEagle
I could just as easily have made up this person years and year and years ago when storytelling was the major medium. I could have fabricated to my audience when they were sitting around me the whole story. I could have made three false paintings of what he looked like and people could have continued from what they saw and fabricated his picture also. I'm not for one second saying that George Washington didn't exist, I'm just telling you that after no one is alive that lived during the times that these things happened, they could just as easily become fictional stories that someone made up for personal gain. Eventually these stories become real. Another theory is similar to The Village. If you have seen that movie, you know that there was a small village seperated from the "outside" world in which they created their own realities.
|
you could have fabricated all of the stuff you mention about telling, paintings, etc, but can you fake a 300 year old painting that will pass the scrutiny of experts? probably not. you use of the the movie 'the village' is kinda amusing... they maintain their reality by keeping those not in the know ignorant. seems a good analogy for christianity if you ask me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FailedEagle
My belief is that Christ was too humble for a painting. Or perhaps they just sucked at drawing. I can't draw worth a lick. I could be asked to draw my mother, and I promise you couldn't tell who she was supposed to be. The bible is the most accurate book that I have ever read. Contradictions don't exist, unless you want them too.
|
too humble for a painting? i doubt sitting for a portrait was something that required vast amounts of pride or egotism. and your thoughts on the apostle's drawing ability... well, you're really pulling outta thin air there...
again, going back to 'fabricated realities,' if you think that the bible is the most accurate book ever, then you're in your own reality. read the link i posted, it discusses just a few of the discrepancies. i guess you can say it's the most accurate since one of the many things it says on the same topic must be right, eh?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FailedEagle
We know that Jesus was of Arab decent with black hair. According to you we don't even know that he was on a cross, these things weren't written before he'd been risen for 30 years. Why do we not think that perhaps these things were written down during his lifetime, and perhaps, revised or edited later? We write rough drafts, then second drafts, then third drafts, then fourth drafts, before finally getting to something that is worth publishing. Why would something as important as Christ not go under the same scruitny?
|
well, there's no contemporary account of him being on the cross, no evidence of it, so no, we don't know that he was on it. based on the actual evidence we have for him, if that's enough for you, then we could just as well convict someone of killing someone even though no one saw it, we don't have the murder weapon. nothing but a story.
if the bible is the inerrant word of god given to us through humans, then there's no need for rewrites. maybe translations, but thats it. you can't edit or rewrite the word of god, eh?