Here's a cool skeptic website where he broke down all the different breakdowns of Jesus. From birth, parents, marriage, adolescent years, resurrection etc - It also gives an account that the father of jesus was in fact a roman soldier, with his findings.
http://www.jesusreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=18&Itemid=31
CBS posted an interview and report where people discussed the validity of the virgin birth. This goes along with the idea that Mary may not have been a virgin, but in fact hoped to be the story of the old testiment.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/19/48hours/main1135330_page2.shtml
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
OK I see all your notes, but where are my backgammon photos?
Ok, so a real comment...
That Gospel of Phillip is one of those that was written 100s of years after Jesus, and that is why it is just ridiculous to give it any credit.
In your class do you guys ever talk about the gnostics? They were a sect that was all about obtaining secret knowledge, its was real popular in the first couple centuries of after Jesus. That is why there were all these false gospels out there, cause people wanted to show that they had secret knowledge about Jesus, but really it was all just a farce.
And as for the birth accounts, have you guys ever studied into the gospel Q? It is a theoretical gospel that supposedly predates Matthew and Luke. The theory is that since Matthew and Luke are so similar, that maybe they copied from a lost document called Q. That would be one reason why Mark would not have it, and Matthew and Luke would. Cause they both consulted a source that had that account. As for Mark not having the birth account, it was a much simpler gospel, and one that was likely rushed in its writings compared to the others, so it is not surprising that it is missing from that gospel. While both Matthew and especially Luke seem to have researched the stories a lot more before they wrote their gospels.
Post a Comment