Re: Secular Historians regarding Jesus
Originally Posted by BrckBrln
I don't think it's "outrageous" although I believe the guy did exist.
But I'm not talking about the empty tomb here, I'm talking about the existence of Jesus. I don't have a problem with people denying an empty tomb, I do have a problem with the claim that Jesus never existed, only because it's so outrageous.
Because he left behind an empire. Someone did all that fighting and conquering.
Nobody forces you to believe in Jesus' 'mythological' powers either. It seemed to be your contention that because we don't have a written source written during the lifetime of Jesus that means we can't know very much about him and even that his very existence is a question (i.e. your 'leaning' to him existing). My contention is this is an unreasonable requirement because it can easily be applied to other ancient figure like Alexander the Great. Why do you believe what you do about him when there is no surviving source written during his lifetime?
"all meaning"? No. Is something lost? I think so, yes.
I don't see that I do. Do you really think all meaning is lost when something is translated into another language?
For example, I happen to be personally fond of the KJV because it captures the poetry of the Hebrew even though it's not a good translation keeping to the fidelity of the text.
There's no substitute for the original.
I never seriously made such a comment. I only said you seem to lack understanding with the particular issue we were dealing with. That's not a swipe, I lack understanding in many things.
Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it on the islands from afar, and say, "He Who scattered Israel will gather them together and watch them as a shepherd his flock."