DaVinci Code merged w/ Lost Tomb of Jesus

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html

Hmmmm....this ought to be interesting. Cameron claims that Jesus died, and stayed dead, until some modern day construction workers came upon his family crypt.

[Dilloduck]

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/02/jesus_tales_from_the_crypt.html

Hmmmm....this ought to be interesting. Cameron claims that Jesus died, and stayed dead, until some modern day construction workers came upon his family crypt.

Interesting to say the least. Hopfully Cameron is already working on Mohammeds' life too!

[musicman]

Interesting to say the least. Hopfully Cameron is already working on Mohammeds' life too!

Excellent point, Dillo. I love the way the asshole McGirk tries to portray the asshole Cameron as somehow "plucky" and "courageous":

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene.

I don't recall riots and executions after the (taxpayer-funded) display "Piss Christ". If this fucker is so bold, let him display some of that hubris toward an ape who wields a machete!

[Dilloduck]

Excellent point, Dillo. I love the way the asshole McGirk tries to portray the asshole Cameron as somehow "plucky" and "courageous":

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene.

I don't recall riots and executions after the (taxpayer-funded) display "Piss Christ". If this fucker is so bold, let him display some of that hubris toward an ape who wields a machete!

Odd how he insists the dead on the Titanic be treated with the greatest respect but has no problems experimenting on bones that he claims belong to Jesus and his family. What a fraud.

[Hobbit]

It's like finding a tomb with the name 'Jimmy' on it and claiming it's Jimmy Hoffa based solely on that, except what he's doing is even more outrageous, given the age of the remains he claims to have. I liked it when James Cameron gave funding to an archeologist to investigate Exodus (as that was pretty unbiased), but here, he seems to be grasping at atheistic straws.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Wow.

I guess it has touched a nerve (as I am sure it will do in a bigger way, once there is greater main stream coverage)

Is the subject matter too far out of the realm of possibility, to even be considered a reality?

If you were able to hypothesize for just a minute....what would the repercussions of these actually being the remains of Jesus? Does it make your beliefs any less valid (I don't think so). The tenets of Christianity are not bad, and most who believe are good people....so why would it be so wrong to have found the remains of Jesus' family in a crypt?

[Dilloduck]

Wow.

I guess it has touched a nerve (as I am sure it will do in a bigger way, once there is greater main stream coverage)

Is the subject matter too far out of the realm of possibility, to even be considered a reality?

If you were able to hypothesize for just a minute....what would the repercussions of these actually being the remains of Jesus? Does it make your beliefs any less valid (I don't think so). The tenets of Christianity are not bad, and most who believe are good people....so why would it be so wrong to have found the remains of Jesus' family in a crypt?

Oh please---the anti-Christian movement is almost passe. Cameron is just kicking it up a notch to make a buck off it.

[KarlMarx]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... we've been down this road before. A few years ago, a ossuary (a bone box) surfaced in Israel or some where nearby. Upon it was inscribed "James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in Aramaic. Wow! At last, an artifact that corroborated a passage in the Bible! That is, St. James was indeed the brother of Jesus....

except.....

it turned out after lengthy investigation that the ossuary was a fake.

It actually was an ossuary from the First Century, but the inscription was recent.

So ... what is this all about? James Cameron is engaged in the untiring pursuit of truth? Perhaps. James Cameron is just trying to throw sand in peoples' faces by insinuating that Christianity is just a pack of lies? Likely.

How do you disprove that Christ rose from the dead? I don't see how you can. Why do it? The only reason I can see is that James Cameron has a desire to undermine what Christianity is all about and thus invalidate the religion entirely.

[darin]

Does it make your beliefs any less valid (I don't think so). The tenets of Christianity are not bad, and most who believe are good people....so why would it be so wrong to have found the remains of Jesus' family in a crypt?


It'd mean countless hundreds who had direct knowledge of Christ's resurrection died for something they KNEW was a lie. It'd make Christianity invalid, because it'd show the bible as a lie.


Now the kicker is - people often find what they WANT to find. Id Est, because he WANTS to be Jesus, he'll likely "Confirm" that it's jesus just to fuck with people.

[manu1959]

ok they found bones....lets say they can get dna from them.....what are they going to compare the dna to?

[Gaffer]

Does he have any real archeologists working on this project. My guess is these "coffins" haven't been dated. Coffins were not a pratice in those days. People were laid in tombs wrapped in burial clothes. And exactly where would he get DNA for Jesus?

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Does he have any real archeologists working on this project. My guess is these "coffins" haven't been dated. Coffins were not a pratice in those days. People were laid in tombs wrapped in burial clothes. And exactly where would he get DNA for Jesus?

Charleton Heston?

[5stringJeff]

First of all, what makes James Cameron so sure he has suddenly found Jesus' body, 2000 years after the fact, when the Jews and Romans couldn't find it days/weeks/months after Jesus died?

Secondly, the Bible states that Jesus was wrapped in clothes and laid in the tomb. It then states that John and Peter, on Easter morning, looked into the grave and saw nothing but the grave clothes, empty. A coffin is never mentioned; if Jesus had been buried in a coffin, the Bible would have said that John and Peter found an empty coffin with grave clothes inside, or something to that effect.

I call it a bunch of crap from some schmuck to make a quick buck.
(Hey, that rhymed!)

[KarlMarx]

First of all, what makes James Cameron so sure he has suddenly found Jesus' body, 2000 years after the fact, when the Jews and Romans couldn't find it days/weeks/months after Jesus died?

Secondly, the Bible states that Jesus was wrapped in clothes and laid in the tomb. It then states that John and Peter, on Easter morning, looked into the grave and saw nothing but the grave clothes, empty. A coffin is never mentioned; if Jesus had been buried in a coffin, the Bible would have said that John and Peter found an empty coffin with grave clothes inside, or something to that effect.

I call it a bunch of crap from some schmuck to make a quick buck.
(Hey, that rhymed!)

Oh... by the way... Lord Jesus was not the only fellow with that name at the time. The historian, Josephus, who lived in the 1st century AD, wrote of a priest with the same name who lived several decades after our Lord.

So... probably James Cameron found the grave of Jesus Smith or Jesus Jones, but not Jesus our Lord.

I swear, don't you just want to reach out and slap someone?

[Hobbit]

Oh... by the way... Lord Jesus was not the only fellow with that name at the time. The historian, Josephus, who lived in the 1st century AD, wrote of a priest with the same name who lived several decades after our Lord.

So... probably James Cameron found the grave of Jesus Smith or Jesus Jones, but not Jesus our Lord.

I swear, don't you just want to reach out and slap someone?

It's 2007. I'll live without my flying car if I can taze people through the phone.

[glockmail]

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html


In the feature documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus a case is made that the 2,000-year-old "Tomb of the Ten Ossuaries" belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth.

All leading epigraphers agree about the inscriptions. All archaeologists confirm the nature of the find. It comes down to a matter of statistics. A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

The film also documents DNA extraction from human residue found in two of the ossuaries and reveals new evidence that throws light on Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene.

[Dilloduck]

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

The forum on the website is a pretty interesting read if anyone is interested.

[Gunny]

I really have to wonder just exactly what the purpose to identifying Jesus' tomb is. I mean, is this someone's idea of a worthy expenditure of cash?

[avatar4321]

Yeah... How is DNA supposed to prove anything if we don't have Christ's DNA sample?

[Dilloduck]

Yeah... How is DNA supposed to prove anything if we don't have Christ's DNA sample?

these questions are asked an answered in the forum on the website. More importantly the archeologist who made the discovery claims that all the conclusions being jumped to are BS.

[Gunny]

these questions are asked an answered in the forum on the website. More importantly the archeologist who made the discovery claims that all the conclusions being jumped to are BS.

I'm just curious. Not curious enough to follow the link.

IMO, stuff like this is a monumental waste of resources, time, and money.

Then there is the fact that Christ's body is not in the tomb in which it was placed following crucufixion.:poke:

[musicman]

Wow.

I guess it has touched a nerve (as I am sure it will do in a bigger way, once there is greater main stream coverage)

You're missing the point, Gadget. Touch a nerve with Christians and you get an argument. Touch a nerve with Muslims and you get beheadings. So, please excuse us if we don't "ooo" and "ahhh" over the plucky courage of our media/culture daredevils. It's old, tired shit - much hollow ringing, signifying nothing.

[avatar4321]

Wow.

I guess it has touched a nerve (as I am sure it will do in a bigger way, once there is greater main stream coverage)

Is the subject matter too far out of the realm of possibility, to even be considered a reality?

If you were able to hypothesize for just a minute....what would the repercussions of these actually being the remains of Jesus? Does it make your beliefs any less valid (I don't think so). The tenets of Christianity are not bad, and most who believe are good people....so why would it be so wrong to have found the remains of Jesus' family in a crypt?

If the remains of Christ were found, the tenents of Christianity, no matter how good they are, would be false.

[avatar4321]

It'd mean countless hundreds who had direct knowledge of Christ's resurrection died for something they KNEW was a lie. It'd make Christianity invalid, because it'd show the bible as a lie.


Now the kicker is - people often find what they WANT to find. Id Est, because he WANTS to be Jesus, he'll likely "Confirm" that it's jesus just to fuck with people.

anyone actually dumb enough to believe him is kinda sad. its also kind of sad if he actually believe the stuff he is saying.

If his position was based on truth he wouldnt have to resort to publicity stunts like this to get his point accross.

[avatar4321]

You're missing the point, Gadget. Touch a nerve with Christians and you get an argument. Touch a nerve with Muslims and you get beheadings. So, please excuse us if we don't "ooo" and "ahhh" over the plucky courage of our media/culture daredevils. It's old, tired shit - much hollow ringing, signifying nothing.

This doesnt really touch a nerve for me. its just so outright ridiculous that its stupid and alittle humorous.

[Abbey Marie]

I think it's just another sign of the times, and I expect more attempts to debunk Christianity in the future. The beauty of it is, it will never be successfully accomplished.

[KarlMarx]

You're missing the point, Gadget. Touch a nerve with Christians and you get an argument. Touch a nerve with Muslims and you get beheadings. So, please excuse us if we don't "ooo" and "ahhh" over the plucky courage of our media/culture daredevils. It's old, tired shit - much hollow ringing, signifying nothing.

That reminds me everyone... we'll be torching downtown Endicott on Tuesday in response to this insult to our faith. Please assemble at 6:30, bring your own machete, gun, Molotov cocktails, etc. There will be refreshments served after the wanton maiming, raping, killing and pillaging and murdering of the infidel............................

oh darn... never mind, I thought I was reading the announcements from our local church... I was reading from the announcement from the local mosque instead...

I meant to say that we'll be having a prayer service for the souls of those involved, there will be a bingo game afterwards. Mrs. O'Leary and the ladies of the Holy Rosary Society have kindly donated an afghan for our raffle. The funds raised will go to support the local Catholic Youth Organization.

[Missileman]

Yeah... How is DNA supposed to prove anything if we don't have Christ's DNA sample?

If they could prove, for instance, that one of the Marys was Mary Magdelene through DNA, it would be some very strong circumstantial evidence that the Jesua laying nearby was Christ. If DNA also confirmed that Jesua was the son of the other Mary, it would add even more credence to the evidence.

[Missileman]

Then there is the fact that Christ's body is not in the tomb in which it was placed following crucufixion.:poke:

That "fact" doesn't make it impossible or even unreasonable for the body to show up some place else. :poke:

[glockmail]

I really have to wonder just exactly what the purpose to identifying Jesus' tomb is. I mean, is this someone's idea of a worthy expenditure of cash?

I think it is. The Bible has never been proven wrong, and this too, will support the Holy Text. The more understanding we have about Jesus the better off the human race will be.

[Hobbit]

You're missing the point, Gadget. Touch a nerve with Christians and you get an argument. Touch a nerve with Muslims and you get beheadings. So, please excuse us if we don't "ooo" and "ahhh" over the plucky courage of our media/culture daredevils. It's old, tired shit - much hollow ringing, signifying nothing.

Not only that, but if you touch a nerve with atheists, darwinists, or environmentalists, you get billion dollar lawsuits.

Edit: Oh, and scientologists, too.

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

The topic is not about Muslims, nor atheists, nor any other religion.

I really don't care, one way or the other, I just found it an interesting observation that everyone seems to attack the messenger, and dismiss the possibility without any thought (unless you already had your mind made up that it is an impossibility that Jesus (the savior) married and may have even had children. I think of the positive possibilities if there is a child of Jesus....or his direct blood relation.

....and....there are no bones in the coffins, as I have heard it.....

[glockmail]

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

What board Nazi merged this with a totally unrelated thread? Does Fat Kathianne mod here now?

:pee:

[5stringJeff]

What board Nazi merged this with a totally unrelated thread? Does Fat Kathianne mod here now?

:pee:

It was me. There were two threads on the exact same thing.

[avatar4321]

The topic is not about Muslims, nor atheists, nor any other religion.

I really don't care, one way or the other, I just found it an interesting observation that everyone seems to attack the messenger, and dismiss the possibility without any thought (unless you already had your mind made up that it is an impossibility that Jesus (the savior) married and may have even had children. I think of the positive possibilities if there is a child of Jesus....or his direct blood relation.

....and....there are no bones in the coffins, as I have heard it.....

What the heck are you talking about? There is nothing there to think about. Anyone with even limited understanding of DNA know that in order to conclusively say DNA testing proves something you need to have some sort of DNA to test with. We should believe that this Athiest just happened to find Christ's body with his relatives and because the DNA of the people match its fact despite the fact that we have no clue what their DNA looked like and his conclusion completely begs the question by assuming what he wants to prove to begin with? Especially when archaelogists, scientists, and religious thinkers all agree that the claim is absurd?

Why on earth should we think about it? Its ludicrous to even consider because its based on a logical fallacy.

[glockmail]

It was me. There were two threads on the exact same thing. Oh.

http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/slap.gif

[glockmail]

If the remains of Christ were found, the tenents of Christianity, no matter how good they are, would be false.


It is also a matter of Christian faith that after his resurrection, Jesus ascended to heaven. Some Christians believe that this was a spiritual ascension, i.e., his mortal remains were left behind. Other Christians believe that he ascended with his body to heaven. If Jesus’ mortal remains have been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension but not the idea of a spiritual ascension. The latter is consistent with Christian theology.http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html

[darin]

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html

Uh - NO Christians I've ever met believe Jesus left his body behind when he ascended. That's absurd, really - because After his resurrection Jesus was already in his spiritual, kick-ass body.

[glockmail]

Does he have any real archeologists working on this project. My guess is these "coffins" haven't been dated. Coffins were not a pratice in those days. People were laid in tombs wrapped in burial clothes. And exactly where would he get DNA for Jesus?


People were wrapped in linens and one year later, after decomposision, their bones were put in small boxes and buried.

[glockmail]

Uh - NO Christians I've ever met believe Jesus left his body behind when he ascended. That's absurd, really - because After his resurrection Jesus was already in his spiritual, kick-ass body. I believe that as well, but is there a biblical reference to that, or is that just what we all inferred? I'm not sure that there is.

BTW reading all this stuff, I don't see where they actually claim to have His bones.

[Gaffer]

What the heck are you talking about? There is nothing there to think about. Anyone with even limited understanding of DNA know that in order to conclusively say DNA testing proves something you need to have some sort of DNA to test with. We should believe that this Athiest just happened to find Christ's body with his relatives and because the DNA of the people match its fact despite the fact that we have no clue what their DNA looked like and his conclusion completely begs the question by assuming what he wants to prove to begin with? Especially when archaelogists, scientists, and religious thinkers all agree that the claim is absurd?

Why on earth should we think about it? Its ludicrous to even consider because its based on a logical fallacy.

I agree. As they don't have jesus's body or dna from the time of his death they can't assume something just based on names in a tomb. The most they can psoible find is decendants of these people if there are any. And that's providing there is even any extractable dna.

[glockmail]

Oh... by the way... Lord Jesus was not the only fellow with that name at the time. The historian, Josephus, who lived in the 1st century AD, wrote of a priest with the same name who lived several decades after our Lord.

Statistically the chances of all these related names buried in the same tomb is about 1 in 600. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

[darin]

I believe that as well, but is there a biblical reference to that, or is that just what we all inferred? I'm not sure that there is.


The bible is Specific - Jesus instantly appeared in a locked room - AND was real-enough to Touch.

[glockmail]

The bible is Specific - Jesus instantly appeared in a locked room - AND was real-enough to Touch. Yes and he had scars on his hands and torso. And 'instantly appearing' is evidence that he would not have been in a physical form.

Also, does it not necessarily follow that His old body would not remain on earth? After all, He did not arrive on earth as a physical entity, but a spiritual one joined with the physical. It therefore follows that He would leave the physical behind upon His ascension.

[darin]

Yes and he had scars on his hands and torso. And 'instantly appearing' is evidence that he would not have been in a physical form.


Exactly - He was Sprit-Body AND Physical Body. A Spiritual Body - only - would NOT have scares gained thru physical damage, right?



Also, does it not necessarily follow that His old body would not remain on earth? After all, He did not arrive on earth as a physical entity, but a spiritual one joined with the physical. It therefore follows that He would leave the physical behind upon His ascension.

No - He was Created as a physical body AND fully GOD at the same time. From the instant of inception. If he didn't need his physical body, the Scriptures would NOT have indicated his Physical body was GONE when his followers found the tomb. Since we've just established his physical body was ALSO a spiritual body (He 'appeared' suddenly, AND still had physical properties), it makes no since that his Disciples watched him ascend into heaven if at the same time, his physical body fell to the ground.

I bet scripture would read: "As he was talking, his body collapsed, and his spirit rose above, ascending to the Father..." or whatever. :)

[avatar4321]

Uh - NO Christians I've ever met believe Jesus left his body behind when he ascended. That's absurd, really - because After his resurrection Jesus was already in his spiritual, kick-ass body.

Kind of defeats the purpose of the Resurrection doesnt it?

[glockmail]

[1] Exactly - He was Sprit-Body AND Physical Body. A Spiritual Body - only - would NOT have scares gained thru physical damage, right?



No - He was Created as a physical body AND fully GOD at the same time. From the instant of inception. If he didn't need his physical body, [2] the Scriptures would NOT have indicated his Physical body was GONE when his followers found the tomb. Since we've just established his physical body was ALSO a spiritual body (He 'appeared' suddenly, AND still had physical properties), it makes no since that his Disciples watched him ascend into heaven if at the same time, his physical body fell to the ground.

I bet scripture would read: "As he was talking, his body collapsed, and his spirit rose above, ascending to the Father..." or whatever. :)
1. I think the spiritual body could have any features that He thought useful. Thomas needed to see the scars in order to believe. Others did not.
2. The NT simply states what the Disciples saw.
In the Gospel of Matthew (28:12) it states that a rumor was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This story holds that Jesus' body was moved by his disciples from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, where he was temporarily buried. Ostensibly, his remains were taken to a permanent family tomb. Though Matthew calls this rumor a lie circulated by the high priests, it appears in his Gospel as one of the stories surrounding Jesus’ disappearance from the initial tomb where he was buried. Even if Jesus' body was moved from one tomb to another, however, that does not mean that he could not have been resurrected from the second tomb. Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and documented in the Gospels. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html

[glockmail]

Some more links courtesy Drudge:

Israel may open tomb to public:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894526073&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Filmmaker:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2007-02-26T234554Z_01_N26319137_RTRUKOC_0_US-JESUS-TOMB.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Cameron:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386857-details/I've+found+the+coffin+of+Jesus%2C+says+film+direct or/article.do

Scholars Criticize:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHI2MO2.html

[Gunny]

That "fact" doesn't make it impossible or even unreasonable for the body to show up some place else. :poke:

Sure it does. Read the Scripture.

[Gunny]

I think it is. The Bible has never been proven wrong, and this too, will support the Holy Text. The more understanding we have about Jesus the better off the human race will be.

No it won't. If in fact the human remains of Jesus Christ is found and positively identified, it will destroy Christianity as a religion by disproving the Resurrection and ascendancy to Heaven following crucufixion.

Think.:slap:

[glockmail]

No it won't. If in fact the human remains of Jesus Christ is found and positively identified, it will destroy Christianity as a religion by disproving the Resurrection and ascendancy to Heaven following crucufixion.

Think.:slap:

Wrong, for reasons stated earlier and you choose to ignore. :pee:

[Gaffer]

It would be easier to find aliens from another planet than to find and identify for certain the remains of jesus. And a discovery of aliens would also destory all the major religions.

[manu1959]

It would be easier to find aliens from another planet than to find and identify for certain the remains of jesus. And a discovery of aliens would also destory all the major religions.

unless jesus was an alien....

[glockmail]

....a discovery of aliens would also destory all the major religions.

Why? God made the entire universe. Why wouln't he make other life forms on other rocks?

[Abbey Marie]

Why? God made the entire universe. Why wouln't he make other life forms on other rocks?

I think you may have missed Manu's delicious sense of humor. Or?

[Gunny]

Wrong, for reasons stated earlier and you choose to ignore. :pee:

What reasons would those be? I assure you I am ignoring nothing.

And there ain't enough of you to piss on me.

[KarlMarx]

They have a difficult time tracing familial relationships of pharaohs, and in that case, there are completely preserved bodies.

How do you extract DNA from a bunch of 2,000 year old bones then come to the conclusion that those bones are those of Jesus? It is virtually impossible to prove that the DNA is Jesus', Mary Magdelene's or anyone else's, for that matter.

The translation of the inscription is in doubt, the name may not even be that of Jesus but a different name altogether.

If you go simply by the names, you run into difficulties. Many people in a culture may share a name. For instance, many women in Italy are either named "Ann", "Mary", "Anna Marie", many men are named "Antonio". But that does not mean there is a relationship amongst them. Again, going back to the Egyptians, many pharaohs had the name of "Ramses", but they were not related.

Also different names can be similar, for instance, "Mary", "Marie", "Ann Marie", "Maria", "Mary Anne", "Marian", "Mary Lou", "Mary Joe", "Marybeth".

Add to the fact that semitic languages often do not include vowels, so Jesus could also be confused with Joshua or another similar name.

There are too many uncertainties here. I think those who want it to be Jesus' tomb may have a vested interest in it being so. If Jesus body were found, it would negate the fundamental basis of Christianity. I think that's where many would like to see this reasoning go.

[Abbey Marie]

Enoch and Elijah ascended into heaven without even dying first. I expect that Jesus could do that and more, and would not need to leave His body behind to enter Heaven.

[Gunny]

Wrong, for reasons stated earlier and you choose to ignore. :pee:

If you are referring to this:


Yes and he had scars on his hands and torso. And 'instantly appearing' is evidence that he would not have been in a physical form.

Also, does it not necessarily follow that His old body would not remain on earth? After all, He did not arrive on earth as a physical entity, but a spiritual one joined with the physical. It therefore follows that He would leave the physical behind upon His ascension.

You got one big problem with your theory ....

The Bible states his body was nowhere to be found, implying that he ascended in both physical and sprititual form.

So your little statement doesn't follow the facts. Piss on THAT.

[avatar4321]

It would be easier to find aliens from another planet than to find and identify for certain the remains of jesus. And a discovery of aliens would also destory all the major religions.

Why? Why would the idea that God created worlds without end and populated them with people be so foreign to all major religions? I dont see any reason to believe such a thing.

[avatar4321]

They have a difficult time tracing familial relationships of pharaohs, and in that case, there are completely preserved bodies.

How do you extract DNA from a bunch of 2,000 year old bones then come to the conclusion that those bones are those of Jesus? It is virtually impossible to prove that the DNA is Jesus', Mary Magdelene's or anyone else's, for that matter.

The translation of the inscription is in doubt, the name may not even be that of Jesus but a different name altogether.

If you go simply by the names, you run into difficulties. Many people in a culture may share a name. For instance, many women in Italy are either named "Ann", "Mary", "Anna Marie", many men are named "Antonio". But that does not mean there is a relationship amongst them. Again, going back to the Egyptians, many pharaohs had the name of "Ramses", but they were not related.

Also different names can be similar, for instance, "Mary", "Marie", "Ann Marie", "Maria", "Mary Anne", "Marian", "Mary Lou", "Mary Joe", "Marybeth".

Add to the fact that semitic languages often do not include vowels, so Jesus could also be confused with Joshua or another similar name.

There are too many uncertainties here. I think those who want it to be Jesus' tomb may have a vested interest in it being so. If Jesus body were found, it would negate the fundamental basis of Christianity. I think that's where many would like to see this reasoning go.

I dont think Jesus is going to be confused with Joshua because they are the same name to begin with.

[Gunny]

Why? Why would the idea that God created worlds without end and populated them with people be so foreign to all major religions? I dont see any reason to believe such a thing.

I agree with you on this. Seems to me, an omnipotent Creator could do just about as it pleases, to include things so far beyond our comprehension we haven't got a clue.

[avatar4321]

I agree with you on this. Seems to me, an omnipotent Creator could do just about as it pleases, to include things so far beyond our comprehension we haven't got a clue.

I had some athiest argue that finding life on other planets would somehow prove God doesn't exist. I never figured that argument out. I mean to me it would prove the exact opposite. According to secular scientists, life was created randomly by chance. The correct circumstances just happened to be on this planet. It just happened. and by some chance life just somehow evolved.

That argument doesn't make as much sense if there is life on other worlds. What are the odds life just randomly coming into being and evolving on multiple planets nearby?

[Gunny]

I had some athiest argue that finding life on other planets would somehow prove God doesn't exist. I never figured that argument out. I mean to me it would prove the exact opposite. According to secular scientists, life was created randomly by chance. The correct circumstances just happened to be on this planet. It just happened. and by some chance life just somehow evolved.

That argument doesn't make as much sense if there is life on other worlds. What are the odds life just randomly coming into being and evolving on multiple planets nearby?

The "Big Bang" -- the idea that something came from absolute nothingness, is about as credible as what I call the "Happenstance Theory" -- the one you describe.

I find a Creator to be FAR more likely, and logical. I also think that other life in the universe would be more likely with a Creator than happenstance. I don't see that other life in the universe would refute Creationism at all.

[manu1959]

The "Big Bang" -- the idea that something came from absolute nothingness, is about as credible as what I call the "Happenstance Theory" -- the one you describe.

I find a Creator to be FAR more likely, and logical. I also think that other life in the universe would be more likely with a Creator than happenstance. I don't see that other life in the universe would refute Creationism at all.

anything is possible.....whether or not it is probable is another story

[Gunny]

anything is possible.....whether or not it is probable is another story

Well, almost anything is possible. In the aforementioned "Big Bang Theory," the premise is that something is created from nothing. Scientifically, it is not possible.

The rest of my statement is based on probabilities, in my opinion.

[Missileman]

Scientifically, it is not possible.

Ah well, theologically it is. :poke:

[avatar4321]

Ah well, theologically it is. :poke:

I suppose that depends on your understanding of the Bible. If you look at the word create in Hebrew, forgive me I dont know what the word is exactly, but if you look at the work it implies creation from existing materials. Like how we would create or build a boat. It implies pre-existing materials.

Whether God created as the word implies or ex nihilo, really isn't what's important as much as there are other possibilities and ways to understand.

[5stringJeff]

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central doctrine of Christian faith. Paul recognized as much when he wrote this:

"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

That Christ was raised, in bodily form, with the same body in which he was formerly alive in, is firmly established in the New Testament. We know he was raised with a physical body, because the disciples could hear him, see him, and touch him. In fact, Jesus invited the disciples to touch Him so they could differentiate Him from a ghost. Moreover, Jesus ate food with them on multiple occasions. We know He was raised in the same body He had because of the scars on His body, which He offered to Thomas as proof that it was actually Him. And Thomas, upon seeing them, pronounced, "My Lord and my God," showing that he believed that it was indeed Jesus.

Here's something I wrote on this about 1.5 years ago on a blog at a different forum (link here (http://www.christianforums.com/t2025168)):
-------------
Driving to work the other day, I was dwelling upon the centrality of Christ's resurrection. It is the most profound doctrine of Christianity - and the most important.

We, as Christians, are claiming that a man who was dead made Himself alive again ('I have authority to lay my life down, and the authority to take it back up again' - Jesus in John's gospel). This is, according to the laws of nature, absolutely ludicrous. It just doesn't happen. Doctors can only sometimes, with modern equipment and techniques, revive people from death. How much less a man who was poorly nourished to begin with, then arrested, sleep-deprived, beaten, nailed to two boards to hang for hours, and finally (after His death) stabbed in the chest with a spear? But yet we maintain that He rose again - an event relayed to us by the eyewitnesses of His resurrection. Paul writes that "Jews demand miraculous signs, and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Jesus Christ - and Him crucified." But the reality is that Christ's resurrection proves His deity. After all, what mere mortal could raise Himself up from the dead? If it were possible, we would all be defying death - and then what need would we have for God?

But the resurrection is much more than a parlor trick. It is God's announcement to humankind of several things. First, the resurrection attests to the divinity of Jesus Christ, and thereby shows Christ's teachings to be trustworthy. Second, the resurrection shows us that God is more powerful than death, the curse that has been cast on all life since Eden. Third, it gives us hope, that just as Jesus rose from the dead, all who put their faith in Him can trust that they too will be lifted up.

[5stringJeff]

And now it seems that seveal theologians are coming out with their arguments against Cameron's ludicrous claims.

http://christianpost.com/article/20070227/26040_Christian_Theologians_Reject_Jesus_Family_To mb_Claims.htm

[Pale Rider]

Excellent point, Dillo. I love the way the asshole McGirk tries to portray the asshole Cameron as somehow "plucky" and "courageous":

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene.

I don't recall riots and executions after the (taxpayer-funded) display "Piss Christ". If this fucker is so bold, let him display some of that hubris toward an ape who wields a machete!

Like Jay Leno said, "we can't even prove who the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby is, and this guy thinks he can prove that's Jesus in the tomb"? How arrogant.

[glockmail]

What reasons would those be? I assure you I am ignoring nothing.

... .

There are lots of comments and links that you appear to be ignoring.

[glockmail]

If you are referring to this:



You got one big problem with your theory ....

The Bible states his body was nowhere to be found, implying that he ascended in both physical and sprititual form.

So your little statement doesn't follow the facts. Piss on THAT.

By your logic bin LAden must have ascended as well. Oh, and my old sunglasses...

I'll stop pissing if you stop slapping, soldier.

[glockmail]

[
I suppose that depends on your understanding of the Bible. If you look at the word create in Hebrew, forgive me I dont know what the word is exactly, but if you look at the work it implies creation from existing materials. Like how we would create or build a boat. It implies pre-existing materials.

Whether God created as the word implies or ex nihilo, really isn't what's important as much as there are other possibilities and ways to understand.

e=mc^2. God used His energy to create matter.

[darin]

By your logic bin LAden must have ascended as well. Oh, and my old sunglasses...


That is the weakest, most-lame 'comparison/logic-continuation' example i've ever seen.

[glockmail]

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the central doctrine of Christian faith.....

That Christ was raised, in bodily form, with the same body in which he was formerly alive in, is firmly established in the New Testament. ....

... the resurrection attests to the divinity of Jesus Christ, ......

I agree with all three points, and you have convinced me that I was wrong in my post 44.

However, I still need to be convinced on why His physical ascension is necessary.

[glockmail]

That is the weakest, most-lame 'comparison/logic-continuation' example i've ever seen. Why?

[Mr. P]

Wow.

I guess it has touched a nerve (as I am sure it will do in a bigger way, once there is greater main stream coverage)

Is the subject matter too far out of the realm of possibility, to even be considered a reality?

If you were able to hypothesize for just a minute....what would the repercussions of these actually being the remains of Jesus? Does it make your beliefs any less valid (I don't think so). The tenets of Christianity are not bad, and most who believe are good people....so why would it be so wrong to have found the remains of Jesus' family in a crypt?

It will rock the world as it has done in three pages on this board. And many would never believe it.

[Nienna]

ok they found bones....lets say they can get dna from them.....what are they going to compare the dna to?

That's what I'M talking about!


But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

The DNA evidence is just... weak. Maybe he could show that all these people were somehow related to one another, but how would that show that this was Jesus Christ, not another Yeshua?

[Nienna]

I believe that as well, but is there a biblical reference to that, or is that just what we all inferred? I'm not sure that there is.

BTW reading all this stuff, I don't see where they actually claim to have His bones.

The apostles and disciples touched him, put their hands in his wounds. He had to have had some sort of physical body for them to be able to do this. Also, I believe they relate experiences of having eaten with the risen Lord. I need to check that one, though.

[Nienna]

Statistically the chances of all these related names buried in the same tomb is about 1 in 600. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

All were extremely common names.

[Abbey Marie]

That's what I'M talking about!



The DNA evidence is just... weak. Maybe he could show that all these people were somehow related to one another, but how would that show that this was Jesus Christ, not another Yeshua?

Exactly. I'm not worried about it, and I know you aren't either. :)

We Christians must expect attempts to challenge the divinity of our Lord (and that is what is really going on here). Faith will be tested. In a way it is good, because it may force us to search our hearts and become stronger in the process.

[darin]

The apostles and disciples touched him, put their hands in his wounds. He had to have had some sort of physical body for them to be able to do this. Also, I believe they relate experiences of having eaten with the risen Lord. I need to check that one, though.

Luke 24:


36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

[Nienna]

I think we are forgetting the fact that the Bible is not the only place where Jesus' death was recorded. There are Roman records, too. With the thousands of converts after Pentecost, with the Jewish uprising, if the Romans could have found Jesus' body at that time, they would have been able to parade it through the streets, stopping a lot of political/social unrest. But, the Romans have no record of having found his body.

[darin]

Yesterday on the radio I heard a comment about Muslims; saying Muslims may start killing people if this guy doesn't stop claiming he's found the body of Christ, as Jesus is a Holy Prophet to them. If they killed people because of a cartoon, they'd REALLY be pissed at somebody saying they've found the mortal body of a Holy Saint/type guy.

[mrg666]

back in the day when the media didn't stretch to the shores it does today
mr cameron would have been selling tonic in between his wonders of the world freak show the wolf boy and two headed wotsit in a tent
the thing is people, even though as a whole are better educated are still curious and he knows this

[Bonnie]

Excellent point, Dillo. I love the way the asshole McGirk tries to portray the asshole Cameron as somehow "plucky" and "courageous":

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene.

I don't recall riots and executions after the (taxpayer-funded) display "Piss Christ". If this fucker is so bold, let him display some of that hubris toward an ape who wields a machete!

Hey MM long time no talk!!!! :)

Anway notice how this mocumentary comes out just in time for lent and Easter Season. As for Cameron:slap: shame on him. For whatever reason Hollywood loves to attempt to remove Christ's divinty by making him sinful, and ordinary. So far according we have Christ had sex with and married a hooker, he spent his life doubting his divine purpose, he was neither crucified, nor resurrected, and he settled in France of all places with his hooker wife and kids, probably started a wine making business.......Leave it to the French to claim the be decendants of Jesus...
What next, he was a vaudeville actor?! The first French mime????




BTW for anyone who still believes the Davinci code is real or based on fact listen up....The man who created the family lineage tree testified before the French parliament in the late 1980's that HE MADE THE WHOLE THING UP FROM THIN AIR....KAY??????:coffee:

And no the pope wasn't holding a gun to his head to do that!

[avatar4321]

Yesterday on the radio I heard a comment about Muslims; saying Muslims may start killing people if this guy doesn't stop claiming he's found the body of Christ, as Jesus is a Holy Prophet to them. If they killed people because of a cartoon, they'd REALLY be pissed at somebody saying they've found the mortal body of a Holy Saint/type guy.

There may be a valid concern there.

[glockmail]

The apostles and disciples touched him, put their hands in his wounds. He had to have had some sort of physical body for them to be able to do this. Also, I believe they relate experiences of having eaten with the risen Lord. I need to check that one, though. See post 76.

[glockmail]

.....

Anway notice how this mocumentary comes out just in time for lent and Easter Season. As for Cameron:slap: shame on him. ....

I'm willing to give this thing a fair shake. I am confident that my faith will only be stronger.

[Pale Rider]

I'm willing to give this thing a fair shake. I am confident that my faith will only be stronger.

"A FAIR SHAKE"? When the godless MSM is involved???!!! Not by a long shot.

[glockmail]

"A FAIR SHAKE"? When the godless MSM is involved???!!! Not by a long shot. I'm being open minded about this. Even the MSM is right, oh, about 5% of the time. :laugh2:

[Gunny]

Ah well, theologically it is. :poke:

In theology something does NOT come from nothing. God creates the Universe. God being a preexistent entity prior to the universe's creation.

[Gunny]

There are lots of comments and links that you appear to be ignoring.

Bullshit response. You made an allegation. Support it.

Specifically, what have I ignored that refutes my statement?

[Gunny]

By your logic bin LAden must have ascended as well. Oh, and my old sunglasses...

I'll stop pissing if you stop slapping, soldier.

First off nimrod, I am NOT nor was I EVER a soldier.

Second, if you're going to run your suck and make unsupportable accusations and generally unsupportable and stupid statements, EXPECT to be called on them.

Your resorting to personal insults and off-topic tap-dancing merely confirms your unsupportable stance.

Now, argue your point, without the insults and off-topic BS, or back the fuck down.

Here's a little refresher for you: I made the statement that finding the tomb and/or actual, identifiable human remains of Christ would refute Christianity as it refutes the Resurrection.

You said I was wrong, with vague reference to "lots of."

Well, get hot. Let's SEE specifically what supportable arguments refute mine.

And I'll tell you straight up I'm going to use the Bible to refute whatever you produce.

[Yurt]

There may be a valid concern there.

I do not believe that muslims getting carazy over this "depiction" of Jesus is of any concern. Historical examples are rife with people putting down Jesus in art/movies in the past 20 years and there were no muslim riots. I posed this question on a muslim board once and was told that they would be "equally" ticked, yet, they stress that insulting Muhammad cannot be tolerated because he is the last prophet and he "started" Islam. Started because they claim we are all muslim. :slap:

I also saw this discussed on a muslim board and it was literally a non-issue. They said, oh, well, we know that allah put someone in his place, so these bones are simply that "someone".....

[glockmail]

Bullshit response. You made an allegation. Support it.

Specifically, what have I ignored that refutes my statement? Follow the links, post 16.

[glockmail]

[1]First off nimrod, I am NOT nor was I EVER a soldier.

[2]Second, if you're going to run your suck and make unsupportable accusations and generally unsupportable and stupid statements, EXPECT to be called on them.

[3]Your resorting to personal insults and off-topic tap-dancing merely confirms your unsupportable stance.

Now, argue your point, without the insults and off-topic BS, or back the fuck down.

Here's a little refresher for you: I made the statement that finding the tomb and/or actual, identifiable human remains of Christ would refute Christianity as it refutes the Resurrection.

You said I was wrong, with vague reference to "lots of."

Well, get hot. Let's SEE specifically what supportable arguments refute mine.

And I'll tell you straight up I'm going to use the Bible to refute whatever you produce.


1. Is this the third or fourth time that I posted this?:

Resurrection: It is a matter of Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion circa 30 C.E. This is a central tenet of Christian theology, repeated in all four Gospels. The Lost Tomb of Jesus does not challenge this belief. http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html
2. A sergeant is not a soldier?
3. where did I insult you? Pissing in response to slapping? I hope you have thicker skin than that.

[Gunny]

Follow the links, post 16.

That's IT? Because discovery.com says so? THAT refutes what is written in the Bible?

I think NOT.

[Missileman]

In theology something does NOT come from nothing. God creates the Universe. God being a preexistent entity prior to the universe's creation.

What did he create the universe from, preexistent matter?

[glockmail]

That's IT? Because discovery.com says so? THAT refutes what is written in the Bible?

I think NOT.

You're off base, man. It does not refute. That has been my point all along.

[glockmail]

What did he create the universe from, preexistent matter? Post 74.

[Gunny]

1. Is this the third or fourth time that I posted this?:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html
2. A sergeant is not a soldier?
3. where did I insult you? Pissing in response to slapping? I hope you have thicker skin than that.

You can post it a thousand times if you wish.

Matthew 28

Mark 16

Luke 24

John 20.

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/radio_trans/resurrection.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_Resurrection_of_Jesus

[Missileman]

Post 74.

Let's let Gunny answer shall we? :poke:

[glockmail]

Let's let Gunny answer shall we? :poke::pee:

[Gunny]

What did he create the universe from, preexistent matter?

Not the premise of your argument, nor do I presume to know. He stated that theologically, something is created from nothing. I refuted your statement. Simple as that.

[glockmail]

You can post it a thousand times if you wish.

Matthew 28

Mark 16

Luke 24

John 20.

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/radio_trans/resurrection.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_Resurrection_of_Jesus


I'll look at this in the am. Meantime you can feast your eyes on my new avatar, maybe put you in a better mood. :slap:

:laugh2:

[Gunny]

You're off base, man. It does not refute. That has been my point all along.

I'm not off-base at all. I provided you with the New Testament books zand chapters to research.

The premise of Christ's Resurrection is that he arose from the dead on the third day, and his body was GONE, ascended to heaven. IT is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

The finding of human remains positively identified as that of Jesus Christ DOES refute THAT.

[Missileman]

Not the premise of your argument, nor do I presume to know. He stated that theologically, something is created from nothing. I refuted your statement. Simple as that.

I'll tell you the same thing I told PR..."nuh uh, is not" does not refute anything.

If God created the universe it was either from something or from nothing. Creation to me means making some thing where that thing did not exist before. If the matter for the universe was already present, where did it come from?

Oh BTW, are you suggesting that God isn't capable of creating something from nothing?

[Gunny]

I'll tell you the same thing I told PR..."nuh uh, is not" does not refute anything.

If God created the universe it was either from something or from nothing. Creation to me means making some thing where that thing did not exist before. If the matter for the universe was already present, where did it come from?

Oh BTW, are you suggesting that God isn't capable of creating something from nothing?

I'll tell you the same thing I told you in the other thread when you tried to go off on your literalist misdirections .... no sale. The fact is, you stated that theology presents a theory that creates something from nothing. It does not. Fact. Doesn't matter whether or not you like it, nor does going off on some side-topic change that fact.

Theology presents the theory that the universe was created by God. End of story.

Your last question is desperation at its finest. I'm not suggesting God can or cannot anything.

I am suggesting the scientific theory -- you know -- the same scientific theory that came up with the "Big Bang" -- states that somethign cannot be created from nothing.

As far as where the universe came from, you must be letting something zoom over your head .... God created it. God is, always has been and always will be. If you have further questions on that particular topic I suggest you ask them of God, not me.

[Missileman]

I'll tell you the same thing I told you in the other thread when you tried to go off on your literalist misdirections .... no sale. The fact is, you stated that theology presents a theory that creates something from nothing. It does not. Fact. Doesn't matter whether or not you like it, nor does going off on some side-topic change that fact.

Guess marines don't read so well.

You said, in reference to creating something from nothing, "Scientifically, it isn't possible".

To which I replied, "Ah well, theologically it is".

My response had nothing to do with the myth of creation, but only with the possibility of creating something from nothing. Any additional context was supplied by you.



Your last question is desperation at its finest. I'm not suggesting God can or cannot anything.

The question was asked in the context of my reply explained above, not your imagined context.

Theologically, it is possible to create something from nothing. Going to tell me I'm wrong?

[Gunny]

Guess marines don't read so well.

You said, in reference to creating something from nothing, "Scientifically, it isn't possible".

To which I replied, "Ah well, theologically it is".

My response had nothing to do with the myth of creation, but only with the possibility of creating something from nothing. Any additional context was supplied by you.

I read fine. Your reply implies that theology believes something can be created from nothing. The statement is obvious and requires nothing additional be supplied by me.

Since theology is the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity, how could your comment NOT have been what it obviously is?

Not even a good try.



The question was asked in the context of my reply explained above, not your imagined context.

Theologically, it is possible to create something from nothing. Going to tell me I'm wrong?

Go ahead and post your googled-up link that says one of the tenets of theology is that God created something from nothing.

Problem with THAT particular theory is if God existed, "something" did in fact exist.

[Missileman]

I read fine. Your reply implies that theology believes something can be created from nothing. The statement is obvious and requires nothing additional be supplied by me.

And a widely held tenet within theology is that God is omnipotent. Omnipotence would include the ability to create something from nothing...I suppose you'll continue to act like a retard and argue that's not right either.



I have not only already told you that you are wrong, but pretty-much come to the conclusion you're using a word you don't understand.


Theological: based upon the nature and will of God as revealed to humans.

Apparently, I'm using a word YOU don't understand.

[glockmail]

You can post it a thousand times if you wish.

Matthew 28

Mark 16

Luke 24

John 20.

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~gvcc/radio_trans/resurrection.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_Resurrection_of_Jesus


These have nothing to do with His ascension. :confused:

[glockmail]

I'm not off-base at all. I provided you with the New Testament books zand chapters to research.

The premise of Christ's Resurrection is that he arose from the dead on the third day, and his body was GONE, ascended to heaven. IT is one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

The finding of human remains positively identified as that of Jesus Christ DOES refute THAT.

Here are all 17 references to the word "ascended" that I could find. Nowhere is there a statement that His physical body ascended.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/keywordsearchresults.php?keyword=Ascended++&multiplemethod=all&version1=45&numpageresults=25&sortorder=bookorder

[Missileman]

Here are all 17 references to the word "ascended" that I could find. Nowhere is there a statement that His physical body ascended.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/keywordsearchresults.php?keyword=Ascended++&multiplemethod=all&version1=45&numpageresults=25&sortorder=bookorder

References to another entombment and caring for the corpse?

[glockmail]

References to another entombment and caring for the corpse? Post 104.

:coffee:

[5stringJeff]

And a widely held tenet within theology is that God is omnipotent. Omnipotence would include the ability to create something from nothing...I suppose you'll continue to act like a retard and argue that's not right either.




Theological: based upon the nature and will of God as revealed to humans.

Apparently, I'm using a word YOU don't understand.

Missileman, you are correct in saying that, in Christian theology, God created the universe ex nihilo - out of nothing. One moment, there was absolutely zero matter, the next minute there was matter. Exactly how God did this, or how long it took, is under debate in Christian circles, but the fact that God created something from nothing is not debated.

[Missileman]

Missileman, you are correct in saying that, in Christian theology, God created the universe ex nihilo - out of nothing.

I don't believe that the Bible specifically says so, but that's my impression of the tale.

[QUOTE=5stringJeff;22189]One moment, there was absolutely zero matter, the next minute there was matter. Exactly how God did this, or how long it took, is under debate in Christian circles, but the fact that God created something from nothing is not debated.

Might want to change that "not" to "seldom". :D

[Gunny]

And a widely held tenet within theology is that God is omnipotent. Omnipotence would include the ability to create something from nothing...I suppose you'll continue to act like a retard and argue that's not right either.

I am not, and have not been arguing whether or not God can create something from nothing. That has never been the premise of my argument.

Obviously, omnipotence would include the ability to do whatever.

You made the statement that theologically, something can be created from nothing.

I disagree. The theological belief is that God created the universe from nothing. A completely different argument than creating "something from nothing."

The theological argument is based on God pre-existing the creation of the universe; therefore, as an omnipotent entity, God is the "something" that creates.

As opposed to the Big Bang; which, theorizes that from absolute nothing, energy and matter were suddenly existent from some cosmic explosion. Without energy and matter, there can be no explosion, nor can something be created from absolute nothing.

Theological: based upon the nature and will of God as revealed to humans.

Apparently, I'm using a word YOU don't understand.

The definition I posted is from the dictionary. Any problem with it should be addressed to www.dictionary.com, not me.

[Gunny]

These have nothing to do with His ascension. :confused:

:rolleyes:

All four chapters of the New Testament I posted relate the death and resurrection of Christ to include His ascension.

You are denying the obvious because it isn't suiting your argument.

[Gunny]

Here are all 17 references to the word "ascended" that I could find. Nowhere is there a statement that His physical body ascended.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/keywordsearchresults.php?keyword=Ascended++&multiplemethod=all&version1=45&numpageresults=25&sortorder=bookorder

Ignoring the obvious. Christ stated prior to his death words to the effect that if you killed his body, he would bring it back to life in three days. Three days after he was placed in the tomb, his body had vanished, and he later appeared to His disciples.

What did the angels say to Mary Magdalene when she wasa crying in the empty tomb, fearing Christ's body had been stolen?

Christ's resurrection and ascension to Heaven is predicted many times in the Bible, then accounted when it happened.

What does it take for you see the simple math here?

[Gunny]

Missileman, you are correct in saying that, in Christian theology, God created the universe ex nihilo - out of nothing. One moment, there was absolutely zero matter, the next minute there was matter. Exactly how God did this, or how long it took, is under debate in Christian circles, but the fact that God created something from nothing is not debated.

I refer you to Post 120.

[Missileman]

The definition I posted is from the dictionary. Any problem with it should be addressed to www.dictionary.com, not me.

And so is the definition that I used...go figure.

[Gunny]

And so is the definition that I used...go figure.


the·ol·o·gy /θiˈɒlədʒi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-ol-uh-jee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -gies.

1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.


the·o·log·i·cal /ˌθiəˈlɒdʒɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-loj-i-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or involved with theology: a theological student.
2. based upon the nature and will of God as revealed to humans.

There's the difference. Both are from the same source -- www.dictionary.com

[5stringJeff]

I refer you to Post 120.

I don't quite understand your argument. Are you stating that God created the universe out of Himself?

[glockmail]

:rolleyes:

All four chapters of the New Testament I posted relate the death and resurrection of Christ to include His ascension.

You are denying the obvious because it isn't suiting your argument.

I did your work for you and did a search of that word in the Bible and showed you what I found. Now you have the gall to say that.

Not that gall is bad, mind you.

But why not point out the passage(s) that you refer to instead of having me guess. I can't believe its because you would be lazy.

[glockmail]

Ignoring the obvious. Christ stated prior to his death words to the effect that if you killed his body, he would bring it back to life in three days. Three days after he was placed in the tomb, his body had vanished, and he later appeared to His disciples.

What did the angels say to Mary Magdalene when she wasa crying in the empty tomb, fearing Christ's body had been stolen?

Christ's resurrection and ascension to Heaven is predicted many times in the Bible, then accounted when it happened.

What does it take for you see the simple math here?

Again, I don't think that you understand the argument here. We are talking about two different evets:
1. resurection (physical); and
2. Ascension (not necessarily physical).

[Missileman]

Again, I don't think that you understand the argument here. We are talking about two different evets:
1. resurection (physical); and
2. Ascension (not necessarily physical).

Now that Gunny replied, you wanna take a shot at my question?

Any references anywhere of a second entombment or taking care of Christ's resurrected, then dead again, corpse?

[glockmail]

....

Any references anywhere of a second entombment or taking care of Christ's resurrected, then dead again, corpse? None that I know of.

[Missileman]

None that I know of.

You put so much stock in the ability of the eyewitnesses to accurately recount the ascension, I find it it strange that you would entertain the possibility they would leave out a MAJOR detail like that if it were to have occurred.

[glockmail]

You put so much stock in the ability of the eyewitnesses to accurately recount the ascension, I find it it strange that you would entertain the possibility they would leave out a MAJOR detail like that if it were to have occurred.

I wasn't aware that I did.

Also He could have already left his body before that event.

[Gunny]

I don't quite understand your argument. Are you stating that God created the universe out of Himself?

Ummm .... no. Theology makes the theoretical assumption that the universe did not exist until God created it. Based on that theory, God pre-existed what we know as the universe. As a pre-existing entity, that would qualify God as "something," and would refute the statement that theology believes "something is created from nothing."

I do not presume to know the unanswerable. I couldn't tell you how God existed prior to creating the universe, why, where, nor in what form.

Certainly, as an omnipotent entity, that God could create the universe out of himself is not outside the realm of possibility; however, again, I made no such argument.

My purpose was to show the contrast between theological belief and the scientific theory of the Big Bang; which, in fact DOES believe in something being created from nothing.

[Gunny]

Again, I don't think that you understand the argument here. We are talking about two different evets:
1. resurection (physical); and
2. Ascension (not necessarily physical).

You think I don't understand? LMAO. I understand YOU are trying to make the resurrection of Christ and his ascension two separate events; when according to scripture, they are not.

[glockmail]

You think I don't understand? LMAO. I understand YOU are trying to make the resurrection of Christ and his ascension two separate events; when according to scripture, they are not. Of course they are.

[Gunny]

Of course they are.

You're just dumb.

[glockmail]

You're just dumb. Yeah, that must be it. :rolleyes:

[Gunny]

Yeah, that must be it. :rolleyes:

Pretty-much. You claim to be a Christian; yet, are about as ignorant as it gets to one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Just about covers it.

[glockmail]

Pretty-much. You claim to be a Christian; yet, are about as ignorant as it gets to one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

Just about covers it.

Is calling someone dumb and ignorant always you're way of discussing an issue?

[Gunny]

Is calling someone dumb and ignorant always you're way of discussing an issue?

How long, and in how many ways would you like for me to say the same thing?

And how many times do you think you can reference the same link that was incorrect the FIRST tiem you referenced it?

I don't call that "discussing." I call it :bang3:

You are not open to discussion. As the old Chinese proverb says: Your cup runneth over.

[glockmail]

Saw the show last night. The box with Jesus's name was empty, and they compared supposed mitochondria DNA from dirt inside with same form Mary Magdelene, no match, thereby "proving" that they were married, because only families get buried in the same tomb.

What a crock.

Interesting about the Holy Family, though. First I heard there were multiple siblings.

Don't know if I believe that Jesus had a son with Mary M either.