Hi All,
OK, We pretty much have some evidence by way of this forum that each of us has a slightly or very different viewpoint. I've seen in recent responses that "Proof" is demanded, often from people who offer nothing more than a story to begin with. This brought up some interesting banter.
First, there are various levels of proof. Having a tangible artifact that can be tested without any factor of doubt to a known person in Biblical times simply isn't an option.
For centuries it had been said the shroud of Turin was the actual burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth, and bore his exact likeness.
Modern methods now date from the 1400's and to be made from a real human body of a man 6'4" tall. Romans were generally short, as were Bedoans and Judeans of the first century. So a man well over 6 feet tall would not only have been notably tall, he would have been considered a giant.
Forgive my ignorance, but I do not remember anything in scripture regarding his physical stature. If he were in fact 6'4" tall it would have been more than simply worth mentioning it would have been a huge selling point that he was a descendent of God.
The sad fact is we only have a book, yes it's called the Bible, but it is a limited source of information on the subject. The books and stories in contains are all from information nearly over 300 years old when it was commissioned. The purpose was to settle religious riots in Rome and combine the mult-theistic with the Mono-theistic.
Books by Phillip and Thomas were left out and are preserved in the Vatican Library. They portray Jesus to be simply a man. Letters written by Mary Magdeline (yes a woman who could read and write in the first century, there's your miracle) found in the Egyptian scrolls were mostly diplomatic in nature attempting to regroup the arguing apostles after several breakups. So even they could not agree.
There were no indesputable facts then, and it would be silly to argue there could be now. What we do have proof of is nobody agreed then and not much has changed.
If you want proof of something that occurred 2000 years ago, it simple does not exist. Some of the stories are good. Oh, did I leave something out?!
Steve
OK, We pretty much have some evidence by way of this forum that each of us has a slightly or very different viewpoint. I've seen in recent responses that "Proof" is demanded, often from people who offer nothing more than a story to begin with. This brought up some interesting banter.
First, there are various levels of proof. Having a tangible artifact that can be tested without any factor of doubt to a known person in Biblical times simply isn't an option.
For centuries it had been said the shroud of Turin was the actual burial shroud of Jesus of Nazereth, and bore his exact likeness.
Modern methods now date from the 1400's and to be made from a real human body of a man 6'4" tall. Romans were generally short, as were Bedoans and Judeans of the first century. So a man well over 6 feet tall would not only have been notably tall, he would have been considered a giant.
Forgive my ignorance, but I do not remember anything in scripture regarding his physical stature. If he were in fact 6'4" tall it would have been more than simply worth mentioning it would have been a huge selling point that he was a descendent of God.
The sad fact is we only have a book, yes it's called the Bible, but it is a limited source of information on the subject. The books and stories in contains are all from information nearly over 300 years old when it was commissioned. The purpose was to settle religious riots in Rome and combine the mult-theistic with the Mono-theistic.
Books by Phillip and Thomas were left out and are preserved in the Vatican Library. They portray Jesus to be simply a man. Letters written by Mary Magdeline (yes a woman who could read and write in the first century, there's your miracle) found in the Egyptian scrolls were mostly diplomatic in nature attempting to regroup the arguing apostles after several breakups. So even they could not agree.
There were no indesputable facts then, and it would be silly to argue there could be now. What we do have proof of is nobody agreed then and not much has changed.
If you want proof of something that occurred 2000 years ago, it simple does not exist. Some of the stories are good. Oh, did I leave something out?!
Steve
