American Uproar Over Jesus's Tomb

[Bro Deal]

You said the "resurrection ending." Resurrection is not mentioned in the verses you reference. It is found before that. The section you mention is the "commission" ending (see v.15).

And I did not define what I meant by that did I? So don't try to create a strawman with your own definition. Quite a lot was added with the additional versus. The gospel of Mark went from we were told he rose from the dead to he came back and chilled with his homeboys.

It's interesting that a "nobody" has had more historical influence than anybody else I am aware of in history- including "one of the most important men in Roman history" - Sulla. Sulla who? We do not live in the Year of Sulla, 2007.

You are completely missing the point. Sulla was one of the most important men in roman history and his actions led directly to the fall of the republic. Yet we don't have important writings from him, writings that would have been considered essential history for the next several hundred years. If those writings could be lost then it is rather ludicrous to think something recording the existence of a carpenter, who would not become important for nearly three hundred years and who lived in an outer province, would have survived.

The fact is that he is one of the most influencial men in history, whether we agree with him or not.

Of course, he was. But that does not have anything to do with the fact that there is no historical evidence of his existence. The "evidence"is so weak that the range of time for his death date spans ten years. This does not mean he did not exist. I think if you were to make an assertion that he did not then you would need something a lot stronger than the lack of two thousand year old records. You would need some sort of evidence of a hoax.

I am just ****ling with the statement that historical records of Jesus existence exist. The passage of Josephus was written forty to fifty years after Jesus' death and has been modified so much by christian scholars that it is impossible to determine what was originally written by Josphus, or whether the passage existed in the original at all.

 

[Bro Deal]

Too many people define 'Christianity" as the Falwells of the world.

But it should be up to christians to distance themselves from Falwell and Robertson, to make it clear that these loons do not represent the majority of christians. But that is not the case. Instead the american christians have bonded into a political block.

 

[jhuskey]

But it should be up to christians to distance themselves from Falwell and Robertson, to make it clear that these loons do not represent the majority of christians. But that is not the case. Instead the american christians have bonded into a political block.

It is up to each individual to sift through what is good reasoning and what is pure ****.
In the old days I believe they were called "false prophets".
Good luck in your quest to decipher who is "pure at heart".

 

[garyj]

But it should be up to christians to distance themselves from Falwell and Robertson, to make it clear that these loons do not represent the majority of christians. But that is not the case. Instead the american christians have bonded into a political block.

Newspapers and TV make it look that way, but that is not how it really is. I have friends within the church who are of many political views. One is even a Democrat ;-)

What Jesus taught has nothing to do with politics. The church and politicians were conspirators in his death. If he came back today I think the same groups would want him out of here.

 

[Wurm]

The dude said some very cool things and if we humans lived by those teachings,which we do not a lot of the time,we would live in a much better world.

The dude didn't say anything different than other religious dudes have said throughout history.

As for me, I still play my Stones records backwards.

 

[jhuskey]

The dude didn't say anything different than other religious dudes have said throughout history.

As for me, I still play my Stones records backwards.

Good sense can be contagious.

 

[Bro Deal]

Newspapers and TV make it look that way, but that is not how it really is. I have friends within the church who are of many political views. One is even a Democrat ;-)

Yeah, but those Southern California christians are a wee bit different than the fire breathing. born again, Southern christians. The Pat Robertson Fatwa Hour, where he announces who in the world needs to be killed or punished by god, does not play too well to the metrosexuals in SoCal.

Personally, I am not too fond of the war against science that is being waged by the believers in the U.S.

 

[Wurm]

Good sense can be contagious.

Eastern religions were talking "good sense" long before Jesus (allegedly) showed up.

 

[jhuskey]

Eastern religions were talking "good sense" long before Jesus (allegedly) showed up.

Yes they were, but live and believe as you will as will I.

 

[garyj]

Yeah, but those Southern California christians are a wee bit different than the fire breathing. born again, Southern christians. The Pat Robertson Fatwa Hour, where he announces who in the world needs to be killed or punished by god, does not play too well to the metrosexuals in SoCal.

Personally, I am not too fond of the war against science that is being waged by the believers in the U.S.

It is interesting that at this time it isn't Christians who are making generalizations and putting down other beliefs on this thread. To quote, "Get the beam out of your own eye before you worry about the splinter in someone else's."

 

[limerickman]

Yeah, but those Southern California christians are a wee bit different than the fire breathing. born again, Southern christians. The Pat Robertson Fatwa Hour, where he announces who in the world needs to be killed or punished by god, does not play too well to the metrosexuals in SoCal.

Personally, I am not too fond of the war against science that is being waged by the believers in the U.S.

My own view is that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.
One can/should accept the science - where science provides an explanation.

For example, there are some who call themselves Christians who claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
This is patent nonsense.
They take the literal words of the Bible - and deduce the calculation thus.

Science tells us that Earth is 1.4billion years old.

I take Michael Faraday's line - the great English scientist and devote Christian
-- on the issue of science/belief/faith.
He said "the natural laws (science) are in the hand of God.
Scientists are like small children peering under a corner of the carpet - as we roll back the carpet, more is revealed. God allows us to see more - through Science He allows us to understand His universe".

 

[jhuskey]

My own view is that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive.
One can/should accept the science - where science provides an explanation.

For example, there are some who call themselves Christians who claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
This is patent nonsense.
They take the literal words of the Bible - and deduce the calculation thus.

Science tells us that Earth is 1.4billion years old.

I take Michael Faraday's line - the great English scientist and devote Christian
-- on the issue of science/belief/faith.
He said "the natural laws (science) are in the hand of God.
Scientists are like small children peering under a corner of the carpet - as we roll back the carpet, more is revealed. God allows us to see more - through Science He allows us to understand His universe".

Humans are unduly arrogant and wallow in our technical knowledge which fails us daily.
We know much less than what there is to be known.
For every advance that we make I believe that we lose something in our spirit.
Despite this I still feel that there is more good in the world than bad.

 

[garyj]

In the "faith chapter" of the Bible it states that, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen...." (Hebrews 11:1) In this verse faith and evidence (the main tool of the sciences) compliment each other. Faith isn't the enemy of science, nor science of faith. Each day gives us the opportunity to experience both and to use them to build a life that benefits others. It would be short sighted to overlook either.

 

[limerickman]

In the "faith chapter" of the Bible it states that, "Faith is the evidence of things unseen...." (Hebrews 11:1) In this verse faith and evidence (the main tool of the sciences) compliment each other. Faith isn't the enemy of science, nor science of faith. Each day gives us the opportunity to experience both and to use them to build a life that benefits others. It would be short sighted to overlook either.

Agreed.

But the point made earlier was that there is a radical shift in parts of the USA to try to over ride scientific fact, and to replace it with Christian dogma.
This sort of shift isn't good - on a number of levels.
It's a move back to the dark ages.

Church and State should be kept separate ay all times.

 

[bigpedaler]

i think we've gotten just a bit sideways here...the OP was about the new tomb story, not the validity of faith vs. science -- that one will never go away.

to be scientific about it -- the folks who deny or question Jesus' existence can't too well say this story has any truth to it, can they? and the ones who say that He wasn't like the Bible claims aren't going to find any support here, either...because there's no way to validate any DNA that may be found! and those who accept the Bible as fact are already dismissing the story as another attack on their faith -- some with undue vehemence, as if their own faith is so shallow that it could be destroyed by the tomb saga.

personally, if these yahoos want to waste/spend their time with this tomb, it'll keep them busy, and their loved ones fed; i'm not going to change my view about anything. people in general are still screwups (i'm not excluding myself here, either), as they have been throughout history. those of you that would say "look at '_______________'(your favorite achievement of man)", i will say this, quoting the movie:

"the sun even shines on a dog's a** once in a while."

stop taking yourselves so sriously, and life will get 1% easier -- believe me, we need all the help with that we can get!!

 

[Bro Deal]

Humans are unduly arrogant and wallow in our technical knowledge which fails us daily.
We know much less than what there is to be known.
For every advance that we make I believe that we lose something in our spirit.
Despite this I still feel that there is more good in the world than bad.

I don't think I could disagree anymore than I do to this. Perhaps it is because I would have diad on two separate occassions if it weren't for medical advances made within twenty years of the time they benefitted me, but I don't buy into the any ambiguous loss of spirit due to scientific advances. It is easy to see what life would be like without our technology. Just go look at one of these sad little tribes that still hang on in little pockets of the world and that still attempt to maintain their traditional lifestyles. Even a couple hundred years ago in Western nations, life was pretty shitty for the majority of citizens.

 

[Carrera]

A well-written and logical post, Lim. It demonstrates that you've done some research into the topic and can probably make a decent defence of your views.
Now, here is my take on the theme:
I know Jesus Christ existed. This is beyond doubt. He's mentioned by the Roman writers Tacitus and Suetonius.
Nevertheless, my own view is Jesus was a breakaway leader of mainstream Judaism, possibly a member of the Essene branch which John The Baptist represented. Evidently he acted and spoke in a manner that alienated himself from the Pharisees and Sadducees and fell foul of the authorities.
The fundamental point is the resurrection. I don't believe it ever happened. Of course, I can't prove it didn't happen but this takes me to the next point.
Fundamentalist evangelical churches in the U.S. teach that unless folk believe Jesus was the son of God, equal to the Father and Holy Ghost, this person will go to hell to be tormented in eternity.
This latter assertion is the one I find most irrational. The question begs to be asked: How can a creator (or rational being) expect free-thinking minds to believe as gospel an event that happened in the Middle East 2000 years ago, the account of which probably wouldn't hold up in a modern court of law?
By that I mean, the accounts vary in detail with several reports of sightings of Jesus where he appeared, say, as a gardener and not recognized initially.
My excuse: I wasn't there at the time, the evidence is incomplete and not conclusive and I'm highly skeptical the genuine gospel message that is now bing preached was the same one as had originally been intended.
This matter split Jews, Christians and Moslems apart for centuries so maybe it's a good thing this film is asking some tough questions.

Early Christianity is an interesting topic.

It is accepted that Jesus Christ existed - both in an historical sense and in terms of faith.
Historically, there are records which show that Jesus Christ existed.
The fork in the road appears when the issue of faith is introduced and whether or not people choose to believe that Jesus Christ is (the Son of) God.

The early Christian Church (AD 50 - AD 200) from it's inception was at pains to decide if it was a Judeo-Christian group, or a Christian-Judeo group.
That early debate centred around the issue of whether or not the new Christian Church would be based upon Judaism or one which was completely new and separate.
St.Paul and St.Peter argued over this - for example, could a Gentile be converted to the new Christian Church, did one have to be circumcised to join the new Church, were the dietary customs of the Old Religion applicable to Christianity.
This debate raged for many years.

The question of orthodoxy was established initially at the Council of Nicea approx 300 years after the death of Jesus.
Nicea ruled on issue such as the Divinity of Jesus Christ and it tried to bring a consensus to what had been in place, throughout different locations, for the first two centuries after the death of Jesus Christ.

 

[Carrera]

There was some upset over this tomb matter on another website. Many Americans are irate over the issue - those who've embraced more fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity.
Jewish and Christian archeologists, thus far, haven't made a big deal about the tomb per se as the names inscribed were common place. Plus, the tomb was a fairly wealthy tomb that Joseph couldn't have afforded.
However, it seems like a case of a seed of doubt causing a gut reaction and outcry. This is far from conclusive proof but the claim needs to be analysed and considered before it's refuted.
Before long we'll be seeing folks marching in the streets calling for this movie maker's head.

Agreed.

But the point made earlier was that there is a radical shift in parts of the USA to try to over ride scientific fact, and to replace it with Christian dogma.
This sort of shift isn't good - on a number of levels.
It's a move back to the dark ages.

Church and State should be kept separate ay all times.

 

[limerickman]

Fundamentalist evangelical churches in the U.S. teach that unless folk believe Jesus was the son of God, equal to the Father and Holy Ghost, this person will go to hell to be tormented in eternity.

Again that harks back to the literal interpretation of the Bible, which most of this evangelical churches seem to endorse.
Personally I don't accept that a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ, but who lives a good life, would be condemned to hell.
In fact, Pope John Paul wrote some very interesting words on this same subject.
To paraphrase, if someone leads a good life and has a belief in God, in good conscience, that person enjoys God's favour.

My excuse: I wasn't there at the time, the evidence is incomplete and not conclusive and I'm highly skeptical the genuine gospel message that is now bing preached was the same one as had originally been intended.
This matter split Jews, Christians and Moslems apart for centuries so maybe it's a good thing this film is asking some tough questions.

It's the age-old dilemma.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

To paraphrase, if someone leads a good life and has a belief in God, in good conscience, that person enjoys God's favour.

Does that mean Christ was crucified in vain?