53 of 67 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Who Moved the Stone? (Paperback)
This book, as well as being a gripping read, is a very convinving account of what happened to Jesus in those last days of His life before His crucifixion. But this is really only there to set up the scene. It is Jesus' resurrection which the book sets out to convince us of and it does so very well.
Granted, it relies heavily on the accounts written by Jesus' desciples. But then I've never quite understood why people object to this. Why are we more willing to listen to biased anti-Christian writers like Tacitus and Josephus who wrote long after the events, got there information very second hand and whose writtings we scarcely have any copies written less than 700 years after the originals! With the gospels you eye witness (or in some cases once removed) accounts that were written no more than 30 years after the events took place (and probably long before that), by people who dies for what they had written (so they had to be pretty convinced it was true) and copies of which we have within 100 years of the originals and many fragments much earlier than this. So I think he has every right to use such historical documents as he does. And as to them being inconsistent - they contain just the inconsistencies that you would expect between different eye witnesses. If they were identical then I would smell a rat.
Oh, and in case you were wondering. What little Josephus and Tacitus say about Jesus, agrees with the gospels anyway.
So well done Frank Morison. If you read this boook with an open mind you will surely be convinced of the truth of Christ's resurrection. And if that is true, well then that means we need to take His teaching about Himself pretty seriously too.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 29 Jul 2009 15:25:05 BDT
Errmmm... yes. Except that any historian who has looked at Josephus agrees that the one little passage about Jesus was so out of place in style and content that it was clearly pasted in afterwards by a different author, doubtless within the church.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›