Talk:Jesus Christ
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
[edit] Assumption of Biblical Power of Christ?
One of Jesus' most notable acts was purported to be the resurrection of Lazarus. Since the immortal Flint claimed to have been Lazarus, it seems that Jesus did not actually bring him back to life. However, it is equally likely that Flint was embellishing his own history and may not actually have been Lazarus.
Would it be equally appropriate to say something along the lines of "it is also equally as likely that Christ didn't actually have the power of resurrection, which was incorrectly attributed to him based on Lazarus' hardiness, and longevity"? Or would that be too controversial to bother with?
I'm being serious about this, and only looking at things from the MA point of view. It would *seem* theres an assumption happening here. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I'm not trying to "make a point". If this subject is more trouble then its worth, I'll be happy to just leave it alone. I have a feeling I'm not the first to bring this subject up in some way (I read the discussion pages about BCE/CE, versus BC/AD).
Feel free to tell me not to go there, and I wont. -- Hossrex 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really see a problem discussing this.
- I think the assumption that Jesus did actually have the power to resurrect people is avoided because the first sentence only states that he purportedly did so.
- In any case, to avoid any misunderstandings the last sentence should probably read "It is also possible that Flint..." – Cleanse 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I made the change.– Cleanse 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
