- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Tomb of Jesus dated for first time, built far earlier than originally believed
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:23 am to celltech1981
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:23 am to celltech1981
quote:
religion than the average christian
Christians should know just enough about religion to reject it the way Christ did.
1
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:28 am to Masterag
quote:
Gotta hand it to him. Y'all won't believe a scientist standing right in front of you, but you'll believe a book from thousands of years ago, that he didn't even write, with no proof of authenticity and no contemporaneous historical confirmations, whatsoever.
You really are ignorant.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:43 am to Masterag
quote:
the bible is as much a history book as the iliad
The New Testament of the Bible is the most accurate historic document in the history of mankind.
Approximate Time Span between original & copy:
New Testament= Less than 100 years.
(Homer) iliad= 500 years.
Number of Copies:
New Testament= 5,600
Homer (iliad)= 643
“we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations and does not concern any moral issues. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ."
“It should be obvious that the biblical documents, especially the New Testament documents, are superior in their quantity, time span from original occurrence, and textual reliability.”
The Bible is by far superior to iliad, Sophocles, Aristotle, Caesar, and Plato. The Bible is in a class by itself when comparing reliably, accuracy, and number of historic copies compared to any historic documents.
This post was edited on 11/29/17 at 9:08 am
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:45 am to RollTide1987
Wait , you mean to tell me that in 4th century AD, with the primitive technology available , a bunch of Romans who knew nothing about Holy Land geography may have gotten the location of Jesus's tomb wrong? Holy crap!?!?
News flash !!!
Jesus wasn't born on December 25.
News flash !!!
Jesus wasn't born on December 25.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:47 am to Masterag
Subtle....tool bag.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:49 am to Masterag
quote:
Masterag
You are just mad because God hates queers, which you are.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 7:51 am to ctiger69
quote:
You really don’t have a clue to what you are talking about. The New Testament of the Bible is the most accurate historic document in the history of mankind.
I like how you ignore half the book lol
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:10 am to McLemore
quote:
Christians should know just enough about religion to reject it the way Christ did.
Jesus did not reject religion. He was, by all accounts, a very devout Jew.
What Jesus rejected is the abuses of the church in His day by those in power. They used Jewish law as a bludgeon to keep people down.
Jesus came to reform the Jewish church and bring more people to God. Jews treated God as their very own. Jesus taught that God loves all, not just Jews (among many other things).
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:31 am to celltech1981
quote:
Edit: I spent years in a seminary.
Sounds like you went to a shitty seminary. Or you slept through all your classes.
This post was edited on 11/29/17 at 8:33 am
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:39 am to Esquire
quote:
I like how you ignore half the book lol
Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I enjoy reading about Jesus which is the NT. The OT has all of the prophecies that Jesus fulfills. There is a lot of good info in the OT. Which part did you want to discuss?
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:48 am to tommy2tone1999
quote:
Sounds like you went to a shitty seminary. Or you slept through all your classes.
LOL I was going to be a Legionnaire of Christ.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 8:50 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
When did we find the tomb of Jesus?
Almost 2,000 years ago. There has been a church over the top of it ever since.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 11:24 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Almost 2,000 years ago. There has been a church over the top of it ever since.
Unless you're being very generous with rounding this is not completely true. There was a temple that was built in the second century AD by a Roman emperor. Some legends say it was to bury the cave of Jesus' burial, some say it was a tribute to Venus.
Constantine was the emperor of Rome that converted to Christianity in the early 300s. His mother was Helena and she made a journey to the Holy Land in the 320s. What an amazing trip she had. She found so much historical stuff in those years. The tomb of Jesus. The true cross. Nails from the crucifixion. Even the location of the burning bush.
Call me skeptical, but I find it hard to believe Helena found any real artifacts.
So what does this find really prove? A lot, but nothing to do with identifying an historical Jesus. The site was demolished in 1009 and rebuilt. Due to that, there has been much speculation that it wasn't even the site that Helena "discovered." What has been found is mortar in the tomb that dates back to the time of Helena's discovery, making it possible that it is the original site she founded.
At this point there is nothing more. One of the articles I read said the mortar that was tested came from a limestone bed believed to have been the resting place for the body of Jesus. Whether it's the real tomb or not, it would stand to reason that Helena would have restored the site and the tests show that something of the sort was done in her time.
Posted on 11/29/17 at 12:42 pm to TheTideMustRoll
quote:
There is independent verification of the existence of Jesus,
there is absolutely zero independent verification of jesus' existence while he lived. a historian confirming 30 years later based on hearsay is not proof.
if you heard some dude was in the quad doing magic tricks and turning water to beer at frat parties back in the 70's, would you believe it?
Posted on 11/29/17 at 5:15 pm to mtntiger
quote:
Jesus came to reform the Jewish church and bring more people to God.
No. I mean not really. He fulfilled the law. He stood as a substitutionary sacrifice. He was the fire the blew through Abraham's sacrifice.
He absolutely rejected religion. No devout Jew would ever dare claim to be YHWH! How was that reforming corruption in the Temple? Yes, he tossed around some money changers, but it wasn't because they were bad Jews.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News