Jesus may have visited UK
Discussion
dr_gn said:
G_T said:
Digga said:
rs1952 said:
Now post some photos of the centre of Merthyr Tydfil 
I spent my first four years of The pic above is, I think, taken with the old A5 visible on the other side of lake (Llyn Ogewn?), towards Devil's Kitchen. Noth great views - not my pics.
Digga said:
dr_gn said:
G_T said:
Digga said:
rs1952 said:
Now post some photos of the centre of Merthyr Tydfil
I spent my first four years of The pic above is, I think, taken with the old A5 visible on the other side of lake (Llyn Ogewn?), towards Devil's Kitchen. Noth great views - not my pics.
FourWheelDrift said:
dr_gn said:
But surely you can't study the Bible for several years and still come to the conclusion it's all true?
I don't know how anyone reading any part of the bible can believe any of it is true, let alone all of it.The vast majority of the Bible is a tribal history. The authors attributed (rightly or wrongly depending on weather or not you believe in God) to Gods will. That doesn't invalidate the history, it's just the way they saw their world.
I have actually read a lot of ancient texts including about half of the Bible. I have also read the excellent "Test of time" that places biblical events in their historical context.
If someone wrote a book about World War 1 and stated that a soldier put his safe return down to his mother's prayers would you immediately conclude that the war never happened? Or would you conclude that his mum had a religious faith that was irrelevant to the proven history?
Test of Time is not an accepted proof of the existence of biblical characters and events. All Rohl did was use Old Testament stories to identify possible historical characters, by shifting time lines by up to 400 years in some cases to match events up. Archaeologists and historians have rubbished it.
I place it alongside The Da Vinci Code in terms of accuracy.
I place it alongside The Da Vinci Code in terms of accuracy.
FourWheelDrift said:
Test of Time is not an accepted proof of the existence of biblical characters and events. All Rohl did was use Old Testament stories to identify possible historical characters, by shifting time lines by up to 400 years in some cases to match events up. Archaeologists and historians have rubbished it.
I place it alongside The Da Vinci Code in terms of accuracy.
What? The DaVinci Code's true: it must be because it had Tom Hanks in it.I place it alongside The Da Vinci Code in terms of accuracy.
k all difference.FourWheelDrift said:
Test of Time is not an accepted proof of the existence of biblical characters and events. All Rohl did was use Old Testament stories to identify possible historical characters, by shifting time lines by up to 400 hundred years in some cases to match events up. Archaeologists and historians have rubbished it.
I place it alongside The Da Vinci Code in terms of accuracy.
That depends on who you talk to.I place it alongside The Da Vinci Code in terms of accuracy.
Rohl didn't arbitarily swop dates around. He moved the early old testament forwards by 360 years so that, for example, an event conventionally placed in 1360BC would actually occur in 1000BC.
This was done by redating the Egyptian calendar based on several bits of evidence, including observations of a solar eclipse.
Perhaps the disent is due to people not liking change?
The trouble is, the the idea of Jesus building a physical church anywhere, let alone Britain, doesn't fit the rest of the picture for his ministry. At no point in the gospels (synoptic, cononical or gnostic) is there any mention af this kind of activity going on. Besides, it's the apostles who go off and evengelise after Jesus departs the scene and spread the word in a way that caused churches to be built. Modern Christianity is of course based on Pauls version of events, and lets not forget, he's a man who never met Jesus.
Joseph of Arimathea was no doubt an influencial man, the gospels say that he was a member of the Sanedrin as well as being wealthy. He does of course persuade Pilate to hand over the body so he must have carried some influence. Thats all being said, it seems feasable that he may have travelled on well established trade routes to Britain, however, are there any other primary sources for Joseph of Arimathea other than the bible? If not then these legends that he was Marys (jesus's mother) uncle, among others are really simply that, legends. Thats not to say they aren't correct, just unsubstantiated.
However, is the film trying to suggest that Jesus visited britain AFTER the crucifixion? It's entirely reasonable to conclude he did survive it. If so then it's still rather unlikely that he would build a church due to what I mentioned at the start. Besides, there are better candidates for his patronage after the crucifixion than Britain.
The whole dying and rising god character however does tend to cloud the issue doesn't it. Far more likely that Joshua ben Joseph was the genuine heir to the throne who was executed by the Romans because of this and the associated trouble he caused because of it. Crucifiction was a punishment reserved for crimes against the Roman state, of which that would vcertainly qualify. After all, it would seem to be de rigeur for any self respecting deity to be born of a virgin, be executed by his oppressors then rise again 3 days later and even be born on 25th of December.
Joseph of Arimathea was no doubt an influencial man, the gospels say that he was a member of the Sanedrin as well as being wealthy. He does of course persuade Pilate to hand over the body so he must have carried some influence. Thats all being said, it seems feasable that he may have travelled on well established trade routes to Britain, however, are there any other primary sources for Joseph of Arimathea other than the bible? If not then these legends that he was Marys (jesus's mother) uncle, among others are really simply that, legends. Thats not to say they aren't correct, just unsubstantiated.
However, is the film trying to suggest that Jesus visited britain AFTER the crucifixion? It's entirely reasonable to conclude he did survive it. If so then it's still rather unlikely that he would build a church due to what I mentioned at the start. Besides, there are better candidates for his patronage after the crucifixion than Britain.
The whole dying and rising god character however does tend to cloud the issue doesn't it. Far more likely that Joshua ben Joseph was the genuine heir to the throne who was executed by the Romans because of this and the associated trouble he caused because of it. Crucifiction was a punishment reserved for crimes against the Roman state, of which that would vcertainly qualify. After all, it would seem to be de rigeur for any self respecting deity to be born of a virgin, be executed by his oppressors then rise again 3 days later and even be born on 25th of December.
The following images are scans from a guidebook entitled 'The story of Place; St. Anthony in Roseland' I often visited there during the 1960's and picked up this book.
Place Manor and St Anthony's Church are ajoining buildings. They used to be run as Place Manor Hotel. I believe they are now a private dwelling.
The guide was writen by the hotel owner, so may be biased. He 'told a good story' when he gave guided tours. I'm not sure if he 'sexed up' the story to promote trade.
The arch is the one mentioned in the text.
Place Manor and St Anthony's Church are ajoining buildings. They used to be run as Place Manor Hotel. I believe they are now a private dwelling.
The guide was writen by the hotel owner, so may be biased. He 'told a good story' when he gave guided tours. I'm not sure if he 'sexed up' the story to promote trade.
The arch is the one mentioned in the text.
Edited by Uncle Fester on Saturday 28th November 22:56
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff