Posted by sean at 170.148.92.44 on August 22, 2003 at 16:50:59:
In Reply to: nice article posted by sean on August 22, 2003 at 16:39:58:
"The exact words of Jesus may not be contained in the New Testament, but the essence of his teachings appeared to be confirmed from sources outside the New Testament."
So, by proving that he, physically, existed, that also proves that the things he said are essentially the same as what's said in the New Testament? I don't quite see that jump. It seems like that website proves that he existed, and proves that people followed what has now become Christianity, but the whole section about 'the early Christian schism' brings up several points that aren't covered, or dismissed, or anything, anywhere else in the article, specifically, "The result is that Christian theology as it is taught today is not the teachings of Jesus and the apostles", which is said a few different ways in that section (also "This sometimes is said to be the case, for instance, because the Gospels represent the teachings of the early church and not those of Jesus himself" with it). I know that they're quoting somebody else, and not neccessarily saying that's true, only that that's what's been said in the past. But the article contains nothing to refute that, and then concludes that the essence of his teachings is confirmed.
But I love that section, because of what it says about the Gnostics, and because of the idea that Jesus didn't want to start his own religion. I just think it's cool, if true, that his message would ring that strongly for people.