|
Brain -> RE: Christ Wasnt Crucified: Scholar (6/26/2010 12:34:06 PM)
|
I hope scholars respond because I would be interested in what they have to say. I think it would be very informative especially for me because when I went to church it was all in Greek, much different from taking Greek in the household and difficult to understand.
Bill
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: pahunkboy
No I wont ignore it.
We are studying Jude in Bible study. My church is less about ritual and ceremony and more about good foundations. I go with my neighbor- we have a 3rd neighbor now joining us. (the kid of)
Being mad at the world - the establishment does not cut it with me.
The topic is somewhat insulting. Boarders on blasphemy.
...and if not- it takes alot to study the Bible.
So the author of the article just wants attention. (IMO)
Ok, since you insist ...
The first thing that I found "interesting" was the article's claim that "the scholar" (a divinity student, actually, who did this research for his degree), found that there is no historical evidence for crucifixion in the ancient world, even in Rome.
When I looked at some of his works, and comments, he seems to be claiming that it was "suspension" of some kind from "a pole".
Brian's thread seems to be an attempt to discredit Christianity by throwing doubt on the historical validity of the common interpretation of Jesus's suffering.
First, one divinity student's research isn't likely going to be definitive. I think many scholars will argue that "crucifixion didn't exist in the Roman world" is likely not accurate.
Second, I'm not sure that "proving" that Jesus was suspended from "a pole" rather than "a cross" makes much differences in the message that Jesus was teaching. The point was his sacrifice and suffering.
Tempest in a teapot.
Firm
|
|
|
|
