Wow, I didn't realised they could get people's names from their DNA. That's impressive.
Hollywood giant James Cameron has set himself his biggest challenge yet – rewriting the bible after discovering that Jesus sired a son before being buried outside Jerusalem. Cameron claims to have found the, now empty, tomb of one Jesua, son of Joseph. The sepulchre also apparently contained the bodies of Mary. As well as …
As a Christian I will pray for James Cameron as deception is one of the strongest motivators in the world. Just because "today's" science says it does not mean it is true. There is nothing in scripture about this subject. In fact, scripture suggest that to not be married is best. I am married and in no way claim to have all the answers. But I believe we should weigh all we see & read in light of the scriptures.
Please be careful watching this. Jesus said Himself that people would call the truth a lie and a lie the truth.
Thanks & God Bless!!!
I'm by no means a christian, I did have a christian upbringing.
So while I don't care all that much if Jesus did or didn't do this or that, its clearly stated he didn't start his 'ministry' until he was 32. In biblical terms that leaves 20 years of his life undocumented.
So why not raise a family? It would be the normal Jewish thing to do.
Happy to be a skeptic, but lets use data that isn't flawed to prove our points!
I think it's important at this time that we all keep an open mind. If it is true what does that mean to you? That he was not sent hear by God? No. I was raised a Catholic, but to my mothers disappointment I do not follow. That does not change the fact that I believe in God, and in Jesus. The truth is the truth. We should never fear that. If this does prove that he was MAN, it does not change the fact that he was God's messenger. He changed the world forever. Please try to remember that. The bible has changed hands so many times. It's impossible for me to believe that things have not been left out , changed, or even made up. Again, keep an open mind, and an open heart.
So if I understand this correctly we now have the DNA of not only Gods son Jesus (and any putative grandchildren) but also that of his father god himself?
Well that brings me to the interesting claims of one Green peace leader over his true linage!
Would the son of god please step up to the bar for a swab;-)
All you bible thumpers need to get a life. Nobody ever rose from the dead. Dead is dead. End of story. Stop believing BS stories in the bible.
Oh, and before telling others what to do and how to feel, learn how to spell and speak (write) correctly. You look like idiots with your poor grammar. Example: Melissa wrote: "That he was not sent hear by God?" It's "HERE" not "HEAR"! You "hear" with your ears!!!
...to see those of faith leaping too quickly to the defence of their creed - on the merest mention of some kind of evidence of something perhaps relating to that creed.
"...call the truth a lie and a lie the truth...", "Keep an open heart". Hmmm. Any fact may be right or may be wrong - emotional attachment to facts is a worry.
All facts have one thing in common though. Facts are, and always should be regarded as, dull. If a fact isn't dull to you then you've not found an interesting fact :- you've just found out you've got an emotional agenda, a vested interest, a political alignment, a dogma, a cunning plan. Now that IS interesting - as indeed all ideas are.
Remember - the biased, fiery, dogma within your skull and the cool, neutral truths of the world outside it are detached and truly unrelated to each other. To believe otherwise is deluded.
It's even more difficult for catholics than for the rest of us, since they apparently believe that Mary went up into heaven as well. That's two bodies too many.
Except, I wonder how many people there were with those names in first century Jerusalem. Wouldn't it be embarrassing if Cameron had found the WRONG grave?
And for goodness sake, what is the DNA supposed to prove?
Why would Jesus' family have a tomb in or near Jerusalem? They had no ties to the area, and Jesus died in poverty and disgrace (which, theologically, is kind of the point...). If his body was still around (which depends on whether you think the resurrection was physical, metaphorical, or a fraud) it would be buried in Nazareth, not Jerusalem. So would the bodies of the rest of his family, who had even less reason to be buried in Jerusalem.
Second, remember that biblical fakes are practically an industry in the Middle East, and have been for hundreds of years. Just last year, a box that was supposedly an ossuary related to Jesus was "discovered", but it turned out to be an ancient box with a modern inscription added with meticulous care and one subtle mistake.
So lets wait for the science to be in before jumping to the conslusions...
Something people do quite a bit when they do not have all of the facts is create an assumption instead of searching for the truth. Please understand Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who lived just as any other Jew would at that time. It amazes me how many people speak in contradiction to the Bible even though they have never bothered to read and understand it.
In regards to "Yes but..." what Jesus Christ did between the age of thirteen and thirty is found in Jewish history. From what I understand, it was customary for a Jewish male who was found to be gifted in scriptural understanding to go on to study for the next fifteen or so years of his life, and then go on to become a rabbi. In response to "The Truth", I do believe you have just insulted most every Jew on the planet. To say that the Bible is not historically accurate is to say that all historical records of antiquity are also inaccurate. The Jewish scribes (e.g. Talmudists, Maseorites, etc.), who's single job was to transcribe scrolls, were held to very specific standards while performing their job.
Last of all, let's not forget that Christianity is FAITH based. It is up to each of us to choose what we believe and what we do not believe.
i have already seen the bible bashers on an american site getting ready to spit roast mr cameron for this.
hopefully we can finally put the bible back into the fiction category, use our brains and live life for the good of humanity rather than kneeling at the feet of oppressive religions and crazy leaders.
im so surprised in this day and age that there are pseudo intelligent religious types who believe the bible and all the rubbish in it. do you even know how many bits have been modified, edited out and just rewritten for the 'good' of christianity. lots of stupid, scared men trying to control the world - we dont need it - we have george W for that! :(
organised religion is just a scary thing in this day and age! im intelligent enough to not covert my neighbours oxen (even tho its all kinds of sexy :))
"To say that the Bible is not historically accurate is to say that all historical records of antiquity are also inaccurate"
Who was it that said "History is written by the winners" ?
All history texts are subjective, from the view of the author.
"Last of all, let's not forget that Christianity is FAITH based. It is up to each of us to choose what we believe and what we do not believe."
Do you actually think that the Lord, as pure as he was, would have his remains left behind in this sinful world.
If your answer is yes, then maybe the end is nearer then we realize and it is a last desperate attempt on the Lord's part to get through to some ignorant individuals.
However, I do believe the Bible. He who tampers with the Bible will pay, according to our Lord.
God Save Us!
Why work so hard to debunk something he doesn't believe to begin with? My perspective is a bit unusual - as a Christian pastor and a molecular biologist. All the DNA profiling proves is that the ossuaries contained remains from related individuals. Fact is these names (if they are transcribed correctly - a big if), are incredibly common first century names. No archaeologist in Israel appears to believe that this casket held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth.
But there again, why let the facts get in the way of a bad story?
This is just another ploy to make money off of the easily convinced "skeptics." Just like "the passion" was a way to make money off the easily convinced "Christians." Might as well call this new documentary The Da Vinci Code 2. Religion is a hot selling item right now whether it is pro or anti Christianity. I try to ignore media bull like this entirely. Tired of people making money off of this stuff. Everyone needs to open their eye and realize the real reason these programs are being produced ($$$$$). Religion is something you find within yourself not a TV program or a book. Whatever a person believes in is their choice and no one elses.
Once its aired the Christian movement will bring its media arm into play and a dozen debunking programs will be produced, each graded to appeal to the myriad types of believers.
And when the dust settles it will be business as usual, people will believe in some sort of god or not. Regardless of whether it is Christian, Islamic, Zionist etc. no minds will be changed and a significant proportion of the worlds population will continue to believe their own version of a fairytale.
I learned a long time ago not to argue with someone who had faith and this documentary wont change a thing, regardless of any 'truth' it may contain.
1) The usage of DNA is testing to see if the bodies found in the tombs are related to each other, husband, wife, child. DNA is not being used to determine identity.
2) Given the fact that it was not until the Council of Nicea in 390(?) AD, that it was decided by the powers-that-be within the church that
a - Jesus was the only son of Mary and Joseph, casting his 3 brothers and 2 sisters forever into obscurity
b - "Immaculate Conception" was unknown until 390 years AFTER the fact.
c - Mary became the "Virgin Eternal", signifying that Mary did not have any more children after Jesus (contrary to all evidence otherwise), and placing a barrier between Jesus and his own blood brother Judas, yes, THAT Judas.
3) The Bible (New Testament) was written over a period of approximately 500 years, thus relegating "eye-witness facts" to the realm of "hearsay". Read the various passages to do with the Ressurection. Why do none of them agree on exactly what happened, and who was there when it supposedly did?
Mumbo-Jumbo BS about "God working in mysterious ways" is just a lame cop-out.
I fervently hope that the editors at El Reg are selecting only the more virulent comments to post, or that only the most myopic people are generally deciding to post.
The irony is that both 'sides' of this pointless flamewar agree implicitly on one thing: They've both created the same imaginary fence, just so they can sit on opposite sides of it and throw rotten fruit at one another.
It's really kind of embarassing.
(Oh, and lest I fail to make the cut for this discussion: Those who disagree with me are fundamentalists or heathen, depending; want to tell me how to think; are totally and obviously wrong; and will either die and rot, or burn in hell, depending. Also, they have bad grammar and are poopy-heads. Pllbbbbth.)
Wow Ian I think you just convinced me to be an atheist. Do you really think that anything you say on here is going to change a persons faith. Everyone should just quit wasting their breath on this. Its almost a joke to see how self righteous some atheists and christians are. To me they are both in the same boat. Funny how people claim ideas and so passionately believe them like they were thier own, when in fact no one knows what is going on.
The council of Nicea was convened in about 325 AD mainly to resolve conflicts about whether Jesus was part of the God-head (trinity) or merely a creation of God. The overwhelming majority of Bishops in attendance (300+ vs. 2 or 3) decided that Jesus was one with God (they decided so because it's what the original apostles used to teach). The creed that was adopted at this council doesn't even mention the virgin birth (that didn't happen until the council of Constantinople and it only declares that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus.). Furthermore, Mary's virgin conception of Jesus was known before the Nicene creed - it was written in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
Besides, the Bible says that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
All of the Gospels were written less than 70 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. They differ slightly because they are the written from separate points of view.
Finally, Judas Iscariot was not Jesus's brother, otherwise he would have been identified Judas of Nazareth as this was Jesus's family's hometown (hence Jesus of Nazareth or the Nazarene). Also, Judas was a very common name at that time, thus the Judas identified as Jesus's brother would have been a different Judas (the disciples identified as Thomas and Jude were also named Judas, btw). Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter. Supposing that Judas Iscariot was Jesus's brother or cousin, what would it change? I would say it changes absolutely nothing. To focus on that would be to entirely miss the point of Jesus's birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection.
I would like to point out this is not the first tomb to be discovered which is attributed to Jesus and his family. Infact there about eight years ago a tomb was discovered just outside of Jerusalem of a disciple name Barsabas (Judas' replacement) and their was a coffin bearing the name of Jesus in there as well (although empty) so which, of all of these is correct.
Jesus, Joseph and Mary were among the most common names of the period. The DNA evidence could only prove the the people in the coffins were related and no more. Unless as so many have pointed out, that some one has and entire DNA database of all Israel residents of the circa first century period.
Before you point out me bad grammar like, makes me argument no less correct. I can't see how there can be proof and as usual it comes down to people's own faith.
DNA technology can only apply if some DNA from Jesus was available today. Complicating bogus claims with scientific jargon simply appeals to the naive and simple minds.
It is so cheap to set out to prove something that is so complicated as spiritual matters. Jesus's claims can not be scientifically disproved/proved and as such it takes speiritually enlightened minds to configure this mysterious man.
This whole thing is all about greed and fame. The Da vinci code started off as big thing but after clear minds looked closely, it was found to be a mere money seeking venture just like this one is!
Once you meet the saviour, you will not ask any further questions because he is the truth, the light and the door
Since the books Blood and the Holy Grail and the DaVinci code both claim there are living relatives of Jesus surely a comparison of their DNA to the ossiaries would prove the relationship (or not). There is an outfit in the UK that traces paternal or maternal lines back to the earliest times in Europe.
Maybe I'm related to God too, I can't wait to find out.
It's quite clear what the DNA sample is needed for. Just like Steven Speilburg did with the dinosaur DNA Cameron wants to create a Jesus jungle adventure park. With our lord and saviour gene's on tap he could clone entire Jesus parades to roam around on floats entertaining the patrons with classic Jesus miracles like water into wine and loves and fishes tricks.
Or if could be something more sinister, the ultimate super soldier based on Jesus DNA. Imagine a Chuck Norris Jesus hybrid!
I'm sure the Church will want to claim usage rights over the Jesus brand however and all this will get tied up in red tape for years.
That was hilarious, a jurassic jesus themepark, i couldnt have said it better myself, although i am kind of in between on the subject, yeah they can find out if the 3 were related, but how will that prove it was jesus, mary, and the son, i would love for it to be, just to prove that he DID NOT come back from the dead, his diciples came back, killed the guards, and stole his body so that he could rest in peace, sounds more reasonable doesnt it
when I read posts like the one below I often wonder what makes one persons beliefs BS and anothers fact? On what do you base that? Very curious. And, I love people who bash others for simple everyday errors (like you have never, in your hurry to get your perfect opinion out there made a spelling error....? right)
Very interesting. Personally - I don't care if this is fact or fiction - it makes for good reading.....
(see this post for why I say these things)
Posted Monday 26th February 2007 15:50 GMT All you bible thumpers need to get a life. Nobody ever rose from the dead. Dead is dead. End of story. Stop believing BS stories in the bible.
Oh, and before telling others what to do and how to feel, learn how to spell and speak (write) correctly. You look like idiots with your poor grammar. Example: Melissa wrote: "That he was not sent hear by God?" It's "HERE" not "HEAR"! You "hear" with your ears!!! "
What I find to be interesting is that those who posted in an attempt to discredit or damn the Bible are those who are speaking in the most anger and contempt. It's the Christian's that seem to be the most calm, rational and educated. It's also interesting that "Liam" speaks of "organized" religion as being oppressive. "Organized Religion" is a very different thing from actual Christianity. It is very clear that God hates "religion". What an oppressive, corrupt Catholic Church of the middle ages or an equally oppressive Anglican Church of the same time did to smudge God's true Word for centuries is not in line with the true teachings of Jesus. Anyone who compares the two ideas is just uneducated in both Christian and Secular history.
In response to the many athiests spewing their hate and asserting that those who believe in the Bible are uneducated, let it be said that I am a highly educated Christian working on my Master's Degree (and not in theology). In fact, I did not turn to Jesus until after obtaining my Bachelor's of SCIENCE degree. And the funny thing is, I could easily "reason" as to why the Bible may be difficult to believe at times. But, the thing is, I have FAITH. I have no rhyme or reason for believing in the Bible other than my honest love for God and how he has worked in my life. And never, Sir Liam, have I felt oppressed by my faith is Jesus Christ. In fact, I've been freed by it...freed to live a more positive, blessed and satisfying life. Doing drugs, getting drunk and speaking lewdly did nothing but make me feel dirty and confused. Interestingly, it is those WITHOUT faith that seem most oppressed to me. Christianity, in its true form, is not oppressive. It is true that, many time, Christians have been oppressed by others outside the Faith, but never has the Faith oppressed us.
James Cameron can not shake my Faith nor can widely discredited findings from 27 years ago. My Faith has saved my marriage, helped me make better decisions and brightened my life every day. Show me an athiest who can claim that ANYTHING in their life has done that.
Finally, let me say that I think it's best, in the interest of "loving our neighbors as ourselves", that the Christians who feel compelled to respond in anger to those who are bashing Christianity take a moment to pray for those who are so unexplicably angry about the Bible (if you don't believe in it, why care if anyone else does?) and hope that they seek the Truth in their own lives one day.
I can't understand why people can quickly believe this story but reject the biblical account of Jesus resurrection.
I mean there are only two stories right? Either the biblical story that says that Jesus was raised from the dead or the one that James Cameron is claiming, that Jesus' remains have been found, which attempts to disprove the biblical account (if you believe his claims).
At the end of the day doesn't it take faith to believe either of the two stories? What is your source of truth?
I was the one who wrote that. To answer your question, yes, I don't make stupid mistakes like that. Do I make spelling mistakes when typing quickly? SURE! But "here" and hear" are two totally different words which makes it a grammatical issue and not an everyday spelling issue. Can you tell the difference?
Why do I think I can say the bible is BS? Because it is! It's obvious! People are just too stupid and/or brainwashed to see that is complete BS. Why are people jumping to discredit this find and so willing to believe that a person, a human being, can come back FROM THE DEAD, and walk on earth again! Why is that? If anyone today claimed they knew of someone coming back from the dead several days later, you can bet your bottom dollar that this person would be immediately fitted with a straitjacket and admitted into a mental institution. So, why was it ok to state such a thing 2000 years ago? Any why do people believe it today? Same reason why we were at odds with Russia in the 80's and the same reason why we're in Iraq today... FEAR!!!!!!!
Melissa, just to comment on your post. You said, "If this does prove that he was MAN, it does not change the fact that he was God's messenger."
This isn't trying to "prove that he was a MAN." It's trying to prove that He was not raised from the dead. If THAT is true and it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt (which I think is impossible). Then it would change EVERYTHING!
The strongest claim that Christianity rests upon is that Jesus was raised from the dead and that He is seated at the right hand of God. If it can be proven that these in fact are His remains, then the truth is He was NOT raised from the dead and therefore Christianity is a farse!
Why do I say that? Because if you can't believe the part that says that He was raised from the dead then you can't believe ANY of it. It's all relative at that point.
...believing in God is ridiculous...
THEN isn't getting angry about someone else's faith just as silly?
I am amazed at the amount of people who extend nearly reasonable arguments (obviously intelligent humans) toward the so-called disproof of God, and then allow the concept of faith to ire them so deeply.
Truly, it is those who do not believe in God, yet get all aggressively riled up over someone else's doing so, who need to be getting "a life."
If you believe the Bible is OBVIOUSLY BS, be careful as this could belie some brainwashing (or stupidity) on your part.
A good lesson in argument is that saying "it's obvious" is never the best way of proving a point. In fact, it doesn't prove anything, saying so simply ASSUMES that what you are trying to prove is already proven.
On this note, DNA evidence could never PROVE whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. At some point, belief is required either way. You either BELIEVE he did or BELIEVE he didn't.
Also, do you really think that people preaching Jesus' ressurection were not considered crazy 2000 years ago? It's a radical idea that requires faith. It also requires not assuming that the physical world is all there is, which, again, is an ASSUMPTION that cannot be PROVEN (or DISPROVEN) by the senses and reason alone.
i'm a catholic ,but im not so much a religous person!but i have faith in the one called jesus !and i dont think something will change if he was risin from dead or not,if he had a child or not,if he had any affar will magdalene or not!
i was reading this article and to be honest nothing had surprised me!
this is all about science ,wich i have nothing against it!but my question is ,assuming that this is true that a dna test will show that cameron is right,will that change people beliefs!? i dont really think so!
we were born in different countries,different religions,different families..the only thing in common we have is that we have all our beliefs ,our faith in someone or something that we feel much bigger than us!!
does any one believe that if someone have faith or beliefs in something,another can destroys his beliefs??
I think the biggest reason many 'unbelievers' get so angry over subject like this is because they use the basic facts of reality to support their claim, and the 'believers' use a 2000 year old book and a claim that they can believe whatever they want (which is fine, but isn't an excuse to believe in such ridiculous claims).
I am just waiting for the day (hopefully in my lifetime, probably not) that science finally disproves religion for good, it already has disproved many of the churches and the bibles claims. (IE, the earth is round, we are not the center of the universe nor our own galaxy, and the earth and our universe is far older than a few thousand years).
In the end, logic and solid thinking, combined with evolution will wipe out such an old and animalistic idea such as 'faith', using science to understand the concepts of life and all things instead of making things up to feel secure.
I'm not here to say whether Jesus was simply a man or a messenger of God. I have alot of questions on the subject, so I suppose you could say I'm an agnostic. It would be nice if true, but I tend to lean more towards science. I mean are we so arrogant as to think that we are alone in the universe?
I do agree that DNA will not prove the identities of those found in the tomb/grave. I doubt there will be any evidence found that will be taken seriously by both sides of this debate. It will only turn into a vicious cycle of trying to prove points as I've seen while reading these comments.
Lastly, just be content with what YOU believe, it's all that really matters.
Somewhat unrelated to this topic:
You said "It also requires not assuming that the physical world is all there is, which, again, is an ASSUMPTION that cannot be PROVEN (or DISPROVEN) by the senses and reason alone."
I think the only thing that can be proven by reason is that God can NOT be DISPROVEN. That is the problem with atheism. You see the atheist statement, "God does NOT exist" is an absolute statement. However in order for ANY absolute to be true one must know ABSOLUTELY everything about the topic being refuted.
For example, if I say, "there is NO gold in China." I have to know EVERY single thing about China I have to have visited every corner of China in order to make that claim. I even have to know whether or not there is gold in the mouth of someone who lives in China. If there is even a gold filling in the mouth of someone who lives in China then guess what? There IS gold in China.
So this nonsense about "there is NO God" is just that NON-sense.
Again, I know I'm way off topic... just wanted to get this off my chest for the sake of the atheists or skeptics that may be reading this.
I am appalled that some arguements from some quarters on the forum feel comfortable to look down on those that have a belief in the existence of a "christian belief" as being "uneducated" and of little reasoning ability. I wonder how I managed to get my PHD, Mphil and Barchelor's degree in Architecture and yet am a Christian...mmmmm I wonder what level of reasoning I have!
I think Cameron is running on the heels of the Di Vinci code, and yes I think it's all about interest and lots of Cash ola!!!!
What bothers me about this on so many levels, is that scripture within historic Christianity, has been scrutinzed over the past 2 thousand years. These are solid writings of antiquity, more factual, more proof than you could ever need to prove the case. But, perhaps the average person doesn't know that.
I don't think anyone could argue over the prophets of the Old testiment being REAL people, or the apostles being REAL people in a real historical setting. But when you get to Jesus and the claims that he made, well that's where the road turns ugly for most sceptic's. But the scriptures tell the story and the scriptures are factual writings. Believing them is the Churches business, the scriptures are their foundation. The biblical witnesses that claimed to have seen the risen Lord, were over five hundred (for those who have never read it).
There is more evidence in the scriptures, then in this farce, but Mr. Cameron will get into your pockets and entertain you and fix the worlds problem in ONE documentary hour.
Well! All these posts seem to take the view tht there was such a person as Jesus. The other POV, of course, is that the man and his earthly life are entirely mythical, invented by the writer of the gospel of Mark years after the early epistles.
Go see http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/ , and google "ahistoricist".
I don't quite remember James Cameron being present with the dig to locate the tomb of Christ, however it seems that he wants to take ALL the credit in doing so. Now isn't that fraud? Hmmmm!!! Also, who's and what DNA are they using to determine that this was in fact Jesus the son on God and not another man with the same name. Which was a very common name of that time as it still is today. There will never be enough true evidence to proove anything of this matter. God and Christ have worked miricles in my life as they have also done so for many others. I will today and forever always praise God through this storm as I do with any other. Haven't we always been taught to love one another unconditionally? Then why should this be any different? Why should there be any doubt in any Christians mind that Christ was the son of God and that there will never be another. We need to have faith that God will see us through this as he does with everything else.
Love in Christ alone, A True Christian :-)
The Judas who betrayed Jesus was Judas Iscariot.
Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Mary was kept a virgin till after Jesus' birth.
Over 500 believers saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion.
The Prophet Isaiah prophisied a virgin would be with child over 500 years before Jesus was born.
An angel stood on a hill in Israel as Jesus ascended into heaven and said, "Why are you standing gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which you have seen shall come again in the same way you have seen him go."
Here's a hint-Look for nail prints in his hands and feet and a spear gash in his side. Anyone else is selling something.
The "free" gift of God is eternal life.
The gift is still available. Humble yourself and receive life.
66 books with one message: "There is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved" - Jesus.
Read all about it for yourself if you don't believe me.
I think one of the biggest reasons that unbelievers get upset over these types of topics is that they assume certain "basic facts of reality" while missing some critical thinking. If you think the statement "there is no God" is a basic fact of reality, then you miss the FACT that God's existence or non-existence cannot be proven by science. (Indeed, one of the flaws of modern science is that it does not know its own limitations, or that it ignores them.)
Cameron, for someone who does not believe in the strict literal interpretation of the Bible (and Roman Catholics fall into this category), none of the biblical claims that have, according to you, been disproven constitute articles of faith. I would be interested if you could name one true article of faith that you think science has disproven. Also, the thought that evolution will rid the world of religion is a bit obtuse. What if certain religious beliefs constitute non-genetic (environmental) evolutionary advantages? (Which families tend to have more offspring, religious or athiest/agnostic?)
Jay, I think you make some very fine points that are quite pertinent to this discussion. Those sceptical of religion often point to "facts" and may not want to follow your train of logic because it is not "science," that is, physical science. One of the great fallacies of our age is the BELIEF/assumption that all facts can be known by science or, in other words, that if something is outside the "normal" realm of science, it cannot be factual. The post-modern skeptic's response is also slipshod: make a cute joke about a topic we don't think is serious. Unfortunately for them, this does not make the topic any less serious.
I think people are missing the point of this discovery. sceptics find it extremely difficult to believe something without proof. If this is proof that Jesus walked this earth, great! no more senseless debates. i know faith is more important than proof, but how can you have faith in such an oppressive church? the church tell us what to believe and that has changed significatly, for instance, early church leaders were married but the church banned this as they didn't want their wealth or power lost.
The bible was not written by Jesus, it was written by his followers many years after his death, so how can we be sure that the bible is telling us how jesus and god wanted us to live? it was written by MEN, not the son of god. The bible should be discredited as it is not a hard copy from heaven, but SOMEONES OPINION.
I have my faith, and to be honest i wouldn't care less if Jesus was married with a child. When you look back on history it would be quite unusual is he didn't.
Would it be such a bad thing if he was a normal man? He was a great prophet, but i don't believe he was divine.
It's amazing that people say that 500 witnessed Jesus resurrect and use this as a FACT!!! of his divinity. Just because it is written on a book (bible).
The divinity of Christ was "established" in the 4th century as well as many other "holes" in this nice fairy tail. Early Cristians did not believe that he resurrected (is it possible they knew more?)
Resurrection is what made Jesus different from all the other prophets and is used by Cristians in order to "say" that their
religion is the REAL one. If he had died, all his life/miracles etc. would not be helpful to base/create a new religion.
Because Cristianity is a western religion, it was influenced by the western philoshophy/thinking of the time which (as opossed to the Eastern) was linear (birth-life-death). Eastern way of thinking is the circle. That's why their religion does not need a ressurection in order to be based on --> (birth-life-death-birth-life-death ...)
The world around us, the planets, the seasons, everything is following the "circular" model, that's why eastern philoshopers believed in reincarnation. On the other hand, since reincarnation is very "democratic" (you can be a king and then a poor) did not fit with what Constantine/high priests/kings would like their people to believe in :-)
It's much safer to tell them that what matters is after this life:
Pay your taxes now and shut up and you will go to heaven :-)
P.S. Sorry for my english :-)
I read your post and was intrigued by some of your thoughts - and don't worry I won't pick you up on your English!
Firstly, Christianity is an Eastern Religion as an offshoot of Judaism - rather than a Western one as commonly is thought. The roots of the church began in Jerusalem following the festival of Pentacost in approx. 33 CE and then spread across, what was known as, Asia Minor and other countries under Roman Rule. These facts are not simply recorded in the bible but are also recorded by Jewish scholars, notably Josephus - the scholar writing between 30 and 90 CE from whom we base many of our assumptions regarding the rule of the Roman Emperors. Christianity only spread to the West in the 1700s with the establishment of the American nation.
Secondly. I was really interested in some of the re-incarnation issues that you raised. I don't really know much about this form of spirituatlity but would like to know more. However, I don't think that it is fair to say that ALL Eastern religions believe in the circular models of spirituality. Once again, Judaism is an Eastern religion with a clear sense of the after life, not to mention Islam - one of the biggest of Eastern religions following the 6th century which also rejects re-incarnation as against the teachings of Muhammad.
Thirdly, the issue of Jesus' divinity was discussed prior to the 4th century. Besides Jesus' divinity being recorded in the Gospels (written between 60 and 110 CE) it is also discussed in many non-Canonical writings as well, all of which date before the 4th century. It was these writings, written by both Christians and enemies of Christinas, that were drawn on by the critics discussing the issue of Jesus' divinity at the Council's held in the 500s.
Would love to hear your thoughts/reply and welcome open discussion regarding my remarks. As I Christian I enjoy hearing other people's points of view as well as rationally discussing my own thoughts.
Hi there people with open minds
I believe that this finds where meant to be found sooner or later
the dna testing can only test, the similarity o uniquenes of the dna between the interred bodies that is to find ouf if they are relatives, providing that they found at least some good tissue or bone fractions.
I believe jesus or yoshua did existed but he was a just a regular man, with a great ease to speak just like modern evangelist preachers.
anyway keep your minds open, becuse if you believe in a book just because it has been read for so many centurys then physical facts are even stronger facts...
pardon my english but is not my first language
I want to discuss the PROOF of the authenticity of the Bible as compared to other writings. If you want to read more on this subject I refer you to THE EVER LOVING TRUTH by Dr. Voddie Baucham, Jr.
Here goes: Why Believe the Bible?
The question is not whether men wrote any book, but whether the information contained in that book is accurate and reliable. The reason we believe the Pythagorean theorem is that it works! The reason we believe a history book is that is is consistent with evidence and corroborated by other accountsl In fact, we often believe history books without such evidence. No one questions the validity of the information basedupon the fact that it is contained in a book written by a man or woman. Nor should we question the content of the Bible. The question should be "Do we have reliable historical information?" The answer is a resounding, "Yes!"
Pleawse stay with me. Five main arguments support the historicity of the Bible.
Argument 1: The Bible comes from varied, yet consistent sources.
Argument 2: There is an abundance of early copies lf the biblical texts.
Argument 3: The Bible was translated into other languages verysoon after being compiled.
Argument 4: The writing of the early church fathers contain massive quotations of the biblical texts.
Argument 5: The Bible is corroborated by overwhelming archeological evidence.
If you are still interested (this could go long) Keep reading.
Argument 1:The Bible comes from varied, yet consistent sources.
The Bible was written in three different languages, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. I speak English and I know a little Spanish (I grew up in FLorida...what can I say.) I also know just enough German and Korean to get into trouble (I did spend, after all 31 years in the Army.)
But enough about me.
One thing I do know is that it is difficult at best to think about simple concepts in two different languages. Imagine finding consistent, coherent thought flowing through a document that came from three language sources.
Furthermore, The Bible was witten on three separate continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe but the message is the same throughout. No in our modern age of technology (this is an IT site is it not?)l that would not be such an incredible feat but in a day and age when the best means of info tranfer took place by foot messenger this fact alone only increases the chances of the info contained within to not be congruent. Add another factor and the improbablity factor goes Waaaaaaaah up. The Bible was written by over forty different authors, most of whom never knew each other. They were from different cultures, different times, and different backgrounds. Moses was royalty, Josua was a military general, David was first a shephered and them a King. Amos was a fig farmer, Peter was a fisherman, Matthew a tax collector. What an awkward collaboration!
But there is more. The Bible was written over a peeriod of approximately 1600 years. This is the most interesting fact and the one that could have the greatest effect against corroboration. Yet in spite of all these things shows amazing continuity and corroboration. More so than congress can do in mutible sessions. This collections of books friom three continents, written in three languages over the course of 1600 years by more than forty authors has one central theme and purpose: The creation, the fall, and the redemption of humanity for the Glory of God...WOW!
But there is more...I will post this so you can begin ruminating over it.
Argument two: There is an abundance of early copies of the biblical texts.
Over 5000 Greek manuscripts contain all or part of the New Testament of the Bible. The earliest copies we currently have can be dated as early as the first half of the second century (earlier than AD 150) The dating of the documents is often discouraging to believers who are not familiar with ancient documents. In fact, some skeptics argue that documents written decades after the events which they record offer little compelling evidence -- that is until they compare the New Testament documents to other writing from antiquity.
For example: Julius Caesar's GALLIC WARS stands virtually unchallenged in regard to its authenticity and historicity In spite of the fact that we have only approximately 10 manuscripts of these writings the earliest of which is dated 900 years after Julius Caesars death.
Here's another, Aristotles POETICS is another classic. There are 5 portions of this document available today the earliest of which was written 1400 years after the life of Aristotle. Again this document is rarely challenged.
Now let's compare them to the New Testament Documents:
I stated that there were over 5000 Greek manuscripts or portions of manuscripts available today the earliest written around AD 150. In addition there are many many translations of these manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic dated very early, perhaps as early as the third century. This is a crucial point considering that many people argue for a very late writing of the New Testament. Such late dating is impossible when viewed in light of such early translations.
So why are the manuscripts of secular (of which there are so few) written much later than those of the Bible HARDLY EVER disputed, but we are so quick to discount the writing of the Bible because they were written SOOOOOOO late after the events? Are we just a little biased?
But on to Argument Three (In my next post).
Is it that big of a stretch to say that Jesus could very well have been delusional? Some guy wandering around claiming he is the son of some sort of divine being is probably hearing voices, and not from 'God'. I mean, in today's world, we lock up people who make ridiculous claims about resurrection and 'God' and all that stuff.
But thousands of years ago, people did not understand the mind as we do now, so I think its possible to make another safe assumption that people were 'awed' so to speak that someone could just go about boasting their divinity. As far as I can tell, it started the same as any other religion, some crazy guy wants power or money, or is just plain old crazy.
And in response to Allen, science has proven religious beliefs wrong on a near daily basis, but not the base of a religion. You see, religion can never be disproved, because it isn't based on fact in any way, it is all based in your mind. Thousands of years ago, if there was a flood, or wind flowing through trees, or sudden cold temperatures, your local druid would have said something about the Gods, without a doubt, because that was the only explanation at the time. But science little by little introduces answers over time to address problems, and now religion has been totally backed into a corner, using the only thing they have left, whatever is in their head. No longer is wind or rain or sun divine or a miracle, or fire or darkness and death divine wrath, but just a pattern we see every day.
I am responding to a post by "Cameron" as well as many of the other posts I have read. First of all, assuming that someone being a Christian is synonomous with them being uneducated is ridiculous...in fact, the Christian posts on here to seem to be the ones that are well-composed and grammatically sound. In fact, most Christians I know are highly educated in various subject areas.
Secondly, someone asked about the dinosaurs and, if that person is still interested, there are many literary works devoted to explaining the role of dinosaurs in Biblical history and no one denies their exsistence. There is even mention of Dinosaurs in Biblical times, they were just not called "Dinosaurs" (a term coined in the 19th century, which means 'terrible lizard').
Finally, in response to the post by "Cameron", why are you so anxious to see science discredit a religion in which you have no faith? Has Christianity ever negatively affected your life that you would hope to see it destroyed? Are you so self-righteous to yearn for the destruction of a faith to prove your opinion to be true (and, considering that it is a faith, it's not something to be disproven...how can you prove or disprove the existence of a Divine Being???) To say the Bible is just a book from 2000 years ago is ridiculous. Has any other book been more widely read or reproduced? And how many books actually survive 2000 years? In fact, the historical accuracy of it has been proven in many aspects. I suggest you read David Coram's post on here to learn a bit more about this "book". Oh, and it's interesting that you think that Christians can believe "whatever they want", when Christians believe what GOD has said (ATHIESTS believe whatever they want). And don't even get me started on calling faith "animalistic"...on what do you base this assertion? I regard myself as highly civilized and, more so, I've never met an animal with faith in anything. And lastly, the Bible never claims the earth is flat or round or that dinosaurs existed or didn't exist or that we should or should eat meat on Fridays nor does is state that the earth is the center of anything or how old the earth is or how long anything else has been in existence...it states that God created everything(ps, can you explain the "missing link" in evolution...can it be that, just maybe, that we DIDN'T come from monkeys?) You can't claim to know what's said in the Bible if you've never read it.
Also, let me say right now that those who continue to compare the "Church" to "Christianity and the teachings of Jesus" have it all wrong! The Church has oppressed people, Jesus has NOT! And only the CATHOLIC church as imposed man-made rules; the Bible is entirely from God and there is nothing oppressive about it. Stop confusing what you learn in history books and Dan Brown novels with the truth as to what ACTUAL Christianity is (the Catholic church is NOT a good example, for the most part). Oh, and to the person who posted "POV", it is in Secular history books that Jesus existed...his crucifiction is recorded...he's not a myth.
Phew, lots to cover it looks like.
First of all, I would like to say (because I cannot tell if it was directed to me), that I never said that only uneducated people are religious. Very knowledgeable people are religious (ie, Einstein). It has more to do with how the mind works in my opinion. My friend's mother is a highly religious nuclear physicist, she is also a lesbian, and schizophrenic, does she work in a nuclear power plant, of course, she even talks to God and Jesus on a near daily basis, unfortunately, she also talks to Bugs Bunny, which is a little discrediting, but my point is, is that anyone can be religious with any background, so knowledge has no part in this debate.
Also, yes I am just as self-righteous to prove the non-existence of a divine presence, just as everyone else who has made a single post to prove a divine existence does exist.
Christianity has yes, actually affected my life in a very negative way. I was beaten as a child because I was not a 'good Christian boy', so was my neighbor. To me, it hasn't brought a single shred of 'goodness' to the world, we have had crusades, stake burnings and slavery as a result of it. It would seem that if God really did have a part in the writing of this book, how could so much evil stem from it? And before I hear the argument, "But look how much good it has done too!", please let me inform you that just as much good has been done by people without faith as people with faith have done.
The missing link in evolution is just that, a missing link, but science is not the fastest ship in the sea, many hypothesis (hypotheses plural?) and theories need time.
And calling faith 'animalistic', yes, I do admit it is bad wording, at the time, it was the only thing I could think of to express old times, when man was much closer to nature in most parts of the world.
I am not arguing directly to discredit the bible, but the effect the bible has had on the world is definitely not divine, which I use to support my claims.
Atheists (which I am not) don't 'believe whatever they want'. A quick wikipedia search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) states that "Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of any deities." Sounds pretty solid to me.
And in an pre-emptive response to David Coram, I look forward to reading the rest of your posts, but I would like to request sources and how I can find them to support your claims.
"Has Christianity ever negatively affected your life that you would hope to see it destroyed? "
Every time someone dies in a Walmart stampede trying to get a Tickle Me Emo in the great Christian money spree, it affects me. Every time some huge group assaults another huge group because said group doesn't believe in the same invisable friends, it affects me. Every time a televangelist commits tax fraud or bankrupts some brainwashed viewer it affects me.
"I've never met an animal with faith in anything"
You are wierd, and/or do not know many animals
I've known animals that have faith in me as their master and companion. I've had pets run to me frightened in a thunderstorm because they have faith that I will help and protect them. I've never however met an animal that condemns groups of people to hell based on the "truths" from a tired book that has nothing to do with present day.
Lack of gullibility does not imply lack of faith
Argument #3: The Bible was translated into other languages soon after being compiled.
As I mentioned in Argument #2 above, the Bible was quickly translated into many languages known to them at the time. This was in direct response to the command by Jesus (a la The Great Commission, Matthew 28:19-20) Jesus told his followers to go and make Disciples of TA ETHNE which literally means �every people group.� This was a monumental task to say the least, especially when you consider that with multiple people groups came multiple languages. Therefore if the gospel message was going to be spread abroad, it first had to be translated.. This translation process gives us one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for the authenticity and historicity of the Bible. Documents that were translated into other languages could be traced back to their source. Further, if the date of their translation is known, they can be used to establish the authenticity of earlier source documents.
Lets imagine I write a poem addressed to my wife Renee. Eventually the overwhelming beauty and depth of this poem is too much for Renee to keep to herself, so she shares it with her sister Michelle. Michelle is moved to tears. In fact Michelle is so moved that she makes a copy for herself and returns the original to Renee. Eventually, Michelle, overwhelmed by the beauty and passion of this poem, makes copies for all her friends. One of her friends, Melissa, happens to be an international flight attendant to frequently flies to Spain and Portugal. This flight attendant is seen crying on one of her flights prompting a passenger to ask, in broken English, �Why are you crying?� The passenger reads the poem and is utterly astonished by its magnificence. �I must write this in my language,� the passenger exclaims, fighting back the emotions.
Now we have an international, multilingual poem traveling all over the world. Eventually the poem is printed in twenty languages. An Historian finds the original letter fifty years from now. He discovers a Chinese version and traces it back to its origins. Ultimately his diligence pays off, and he finds one of the copies written down by Michelle, the second recipient. Through comparisons of her handwriting he is able to find several of the copies she has made.
Eventually, he is able to re-create the document in its original form and compare the translation for accuracy. He can also accurately date the source material, and by investigating Michelle�s life, he can find her sister, Renee, and me the author who douched the world with the depth, passion, and beauty of the original poem. (hey it could happen, OK?)
As you can see, translations have great historical benefits. As I mentioned in argument #2, One Syriac translation of part of the New Testament was possibly translated as early as the 3rd Century. This is a crucial point, if you are arguing for a late writing of the New Testament. Such late dating would be impossible when viewed in light of such an early translation.
To go back to our illustration, that would be like our researcher finding my poem fifty years after it had been written and arguing that it had only been written five years earlier, when there are translations of the original poem in other languages that are more than forty years old. That is exactly what people do when they attribute the writings of the New Testament to first-century ghost writers or fourth- and fifth-century monks � but I will get to that theory later.
On to Argument #4. (In my next post)
Argument #4: The writings of the early church fathers contain massive quotations of the biblical texts.
The Church Fathers acted as sort of a preservation society with regard to Scriptures. They wrote letters, sermons, commentaries and journals in which they painstakingly copied passages of Scripture.
Many people argue that the Bible has been changed over the years by zealous monks trying to cover up inconsistencies. This type of behavior would be futile in light of the following:
1. There are over 5000 Greek manuscripts and any monk wishing to change the Bible would have to collect at least a majority of them.
2. This zealous monk would have to make sure that all the early translations were gathered and destroyed.
3. He would have to eliminate all the writings of the early church fathers and …..
4. He would have to spread his doctored documents throughout the world returning them to museums, monasteries, churches, and individual collections from which he stole them. If you can get in touch with this zealous monk, I want to hire him.
Needless to say the zealous-monk theory is ridiculous. There are layers of textual evidence that simply cannot be ignored. The biblical text was written early and copied often. Further it was translated into multiple languages and spread throughout the world. Those who read them, quoted and cited them so extensively that they virtually reproduced them again. All of this adds up to a mountain of evidence that can only be ignored by those who have a predilection to do so.
And last (but not least) Argument 5 (In my next post):
Before I begin, I would like to say that I am a scientist. I have been an atheist for most of my life. I recently became a Christian but I do NOT believe in religion.
Religion is following a set of rules, which can be oppressing. Jesus didn't seem to believe in rules either, as he and his disciples often got into trouble with the religious authorities for breaking rules like eating with unwashed hands.
Science is the study of the physical world. The various disciplines, e.g. physics and biology, focus on different aspects and see the same events in different lights. For example, in the scenario of a cat dropping to the ground, a physicist and a biologist would each measure different properties from each other.
Jesus's claim that he is the Son of God is spiritual. It does not come under the scope of science. Of course I love science and believe that it is a fantastic tool that performs its task very well, but with fundamental questions like "Is there a reason why we exist?", "Is there more than just this physical world?", and "Why do we even bother asking questions like this or questions at all?" science has no definite answer.
I like some of the previous comments like a lot of religions being dead due to "druids" inventing gods to explain natural phenomena and the series of posts about the integrity of biblical sources as historical documents.
A point I want to make is a variation on the analogy of how difficult it would be to prove that "there is no gold in China". Imagine someone said that there is a silver pebble with green spots on it. Neither you nor me have ever seen one ( unless you have :P ), how do we decide whether such a thing exists or not? To be pragmatic, it is easier to believe that it does NOT exist until a situation arises where its concept is needed to explain something. This line of thinking is "If I have no knowledge of something, it might as well not exist". This is a very natural and practical way of thinking; imagine if you considered the possibility of everything you never encountered! But how sturdy is this rule at resolving the existence of something you have heard of but never personally witnessed? If you lived all your life in a tropical country and had no access to the media, if someone came along and told you about snow you would conclude that it doesn't exist. So imagine if you came across that green-spotted silver pebble; what then? Your previous conclusion would have been incorrect. "People don't rise from the dead!" What if one person did? Even if no one ever rose from the dead before or after this one person, that is no evidence to disprove that it happened the one person.
In conclusion, the best logical answer to determining the existence of something you have never witnessed is that it is EQUALLY RATIONAL to believe or not to believe in that thing. It is equally rational to believe that there is more than the physical world as it is to believe that the physical world is everything. It is equally rational to believe that there is a God as it is to believe that there is no God. I believe that there is more than just the physical. I believe God exists.
Hi Cameron and anyone else who cares to read,
I know the following comments will probably open up a totally new can of worms but so be it. I can appreciate where you are coming from because I too was very skeptical of religion for many years. But I want to let you know that not only am I a Christian, I'm also an ordained minister and a Pastor of my own church under a very well known, very conservative denomination.
First of all I'm sorry that you have such a negative outlook on Christianity and I appreciate you sharing your views so candidly. I'm sure that these short words may not do much to change your views but I want to put them out there to offer a different perspective.
I think that Christianity as a whole today has a very BIG problem. That problem is that true Christianity has been replaced with MORALISM. All these "How To" recipes are being given week in and week out. But you see I can NOT live a life of perfect obedience to God (in and of myself). I CONSTANTLY make mistakes that some would say causes God to be "angry with me."
But the Bible is clear that man is sinful. Even after I became a Christian I'm still a SINNER. WHO AM I TO JUDGE ANYONE?! The main difference between me and an unbeliever is that I've been forgiven of my sins and the unbeliever has NOT. I've put my faith in the fact that Jesus lived a substitionary life for me and died a substitutionary death for me. And that He sent His Holy Spirit to help me to overcome the daily struggles that cause me to live a life of disobedience.
I remember two years ago U2 came to my home town and Bono, (a professing Christian) had on a leather jacket that had the word "SINNER" embossed on the back of it. This is what Christianity is, understanding that man is imperfect without Christ.
However, so called "Christians" today don't do this. They are so quick to quote John 3:16 but nobody ever quotes the following verse 17 "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."
Jesus came to show man that in and of himself man can NOT live up to God's standards of perfect obedience. ONLY JESUS could do that. The problem is, all these ignorant, so called ministers of the "gospel" are trying to show man week after week how to accomplish this impossible task on their own. This can ONLY lead to a life of guilt.
This is why your parents beat you (and mine beat me) when you weren't being a "good Christian boy." Because they, like so many others, had Christianity confused with MORALISM and RELIGIOSITY. What I like to call, CHURCHIANITY... Doing what the church says instead of what the Bible says.
The message of the bible is simple, "salvation by Grace, through faith." It has NOTHING to do with MORALISM. MORALISM is what the Pharisess taught.
I welcome any comments...
Cameron - Thanks for sharing your thoughts. As a Christian it is interesting for me to hear a different perspective and try to understand a little bit more about a non-religious perspective. I'm really sorry that you have had a bad experience of Chrisitanity and have found it to be both oppressive and, by your desciption, even violent in your life. I think that there is nothing more disgusting than when Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or any religious group use their beliefs as justification to perform violence in any form - and I agree with you that many people have had extrememly negative experiences of the Church. The person who posted after you (post also entitled Re. Just A Book) seems to have touched on a few times when Christians have hurt others, whether that be financially, emotionally or physically and indeed these are definately areas which should not only be addressed by Christians and acknowledged as wrong but also apologised for and abolished as practices in the name of "religion".
What I find liberating about being a Christian is that Jesus is recorded in both the Bible and non-Canoncial writings as being anti-violence and a big fan of passive resistance. Among the sayings recorded and attributed to Jesus, there are statements such as "Blessed are the peacemakers", "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword", "Love your neighbour as yourself" and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you". Jesus was much like Gandhi or Nelson Mandella in promoting non-violent approaches to oppression and teaching a new way of life for those who are interested in spirituality. I find it hurtful as a Christian that many people ignore these words of Jesus and still act violently towards others, and I found it particularly sad to hear about what happened to you and your neighbour when you were young. If you would like to read more about Jesus and His statements of peace, feel free to check out
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/joshua3b.htm or you can look up the book of Matthew (available on line - just google it) and check out Chapter 6 and 7.
Would love to hear your thoughts and reply to my ideas!
Thank you for the sympathetic response, it is truly heartwarming and I gave your link a read. My only question of point is this: If God does exist, would he not have the foresight to see the madness that the bible and Jesus would cause whether or not he wanted it? We have had crusades, auto da fey (sp. mass stake burnings), the holocaust, and tyranny to say but a few things. I also think that more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.
But don't get me wrong, religion has done some help, my brother quit crystal meth through worship for one. But in the overall sense, something is wrong, I heard the other day on the radio a quote that said, "Even if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him!" I don't know who originally said it though.
Thank you for the sympathetic response, it is truly heartwarming and I gave your link a read. My only question of point is this: If God does exist, would he not have the foresight to see the madness that the bible and Jesus would cause whether or not he wanted it? We have had crusades, auto da fey (sp. mass stake burnings), the holocaust, and tyranny to say but a few things. I also think that more people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.
But don't get me wrong, religion has done some help, my brother quit crystal meth through worship for one. But in the overall sense, something is wrong, I heard the other day on the radio a quote that said, "Even if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him!" I don't know who originally said it though.
First off, let me say that, hard to believe, that Jesus Christ was NOT the only Jesus walking around, in fact, he probably was not the only Jesus son of Joseph in the Jerusalem area. I can pretty much assure you that if you look in the phone book, you'll find more than one pair of Tom's whose father's name is James in the area. Point is, I'm pretty sure that just because two names are written on a box with bones in it doesn't mean too much. Also, considering there were also a large amount of Hebrew religious leaders who didn't exactly want the whole "raised from the dead" thing to get out, I'm pretty sure there were a few attempts to pull a cover up...believe me, Watergate and the Clinton scandels were not the first in a world of politics, which a large portion of the Jewish religious body was a part of during the Roman occupation.
And replying to Cameron, I understand the paradox here. I mean, why would God even want to have the Bible, send Jesus Christ and all of this if He knew it was going to cause the death and suffering of millions? I guess the main reason is that things would have been worse off without it. The Bible is more than just a book, it is the revalation of Jesus Christ through the writing of human hands. Yes, the Bible is not scientificly accurate and has historical flaws, especially in the Old Testiment...then again, how many other authors, including Greek and Mesopotamian writers, actually held scientific accuracy and unflawed historical data in their writings? However, the New Testiment is not based on oral tradition taught by religious leaders, but by actual eyewitness accounts comprised and recorded within the first 25-50 years after the death of Jesus Christ. This creates overwhelming historical accuracy among scholors and a few events can even be accounted for in other historical records of the time period. My point, the Bible is not perfect scientifically or historically at points (textbooks are for that) rather, it is perfect in means of salvation. Yes, I know of the suffering of people for the Gospel, I've seen people whose entire lives have been torn apart because of their beliefs, entire villages in Guatemala deserting a single mother of seven because of her belief in Christ. However, the reward reaches far beyond the suffering. A quote I remember is that the best lies and evils are the ones most closely connected with truth. A complete, hanus lie will never work, however, stretching the truth usually works pretty well. We take a proven fact and twist it to meet what we want to say and because of the iota of truth within that lie, people will believe it. In the same way, the hope Christianity offers has been consistantly warped over and over throughout the centuries. From Gnostic writings to the the martyrdom of Christans today. Even within the faith there are hundred upon hundred who in the midst of trying to establish a moral agenda, opress those who are in pain. People are cruel, no matter whether they are Christians or not, the Bible has been twisted to prove slavery is legal, to oppress minorites and condemn people rather than treat them with respect and love. Million have died for Jesus Christ, and they died for a reason. A month ago my best friend died in a car accident, an amazing Christian, and you have to ask why...why someone so young who had so much potential, why someone whose faith was stronger than anyone else I ever knew? I will never be able to answer why, but I can honestly say it was in God's hands, not my own and I hold all trust in Him. Christianity has, unfortunently, lead to pain and suffering, often overshadowing the good that comes from the faith. The point is, that human beings are inclined to be cruel and inhuman to each other, and though the Bible has caused harm, we are the ones who turned it into a weapon of war, a weapon of hatred.
I hope this helped somewhat. E-mail me with any questions
email@example.com cause I just joined this website to reply to this.
My prediction is that as a follow-up to his latest project, Mr. Cameron shall at some point declare himself to be the living descendant of Jesus Christ. After all, James Cameron ("JC") will have successfully debunked the myth of Jesus Christ ("JC") rising from the grave, and since only he and a few others know of the current resting place of the alleged tomb of Jesus, he shall conduct super-secret yet absolutely accurate and credible DNA tests which shall match perfectly with his own strands. I cannot wait for South Park to parody this event.
The lack of basic knowledge is sometimes so frustrating when having a conversation with Americans (I'm Greek). Christianity, Judaism and Islamic religion were indeed all born in the same region, Asia Minor, and they are definitely all WESTERN as compared to the EASTERN religions, such as Hinduism, Buddism, and several others born in Asia (e.g mostly regions that are today China, India & Japan). You can check this in the map, Asia is in the east and if you start going towards west comes Asia Minor, so when talking about religions born in this area it's logical that they are considered Western (as compared to truly eastern ones). Western does not mean USA or Americas in this conversation, because today's major religions were not born there and anyway, USA is not the center of the world. I don't want to shock you but similarly, when we talk about Western Civilizations, we refer to cultures that developed in Asia Minor/Mediterranean region not to USA/Americas.
It's not a challenge for Christians to condemn others for being human and making themselves look good by claiming that Jesus is the only son of God, therefore giving them the chance to look down on you for being such a small tiny grain of sand - a fragile inferior human being that could never be able to ascend to any spiritual heights close to where Jesus is. It's easy for fanatics to accept that there is some overly special being with the power to constantly perform miracles. But it is hard to accept that a person that Christianity has put on a pedestal might have been truly human. Who could possibly ever be open to the the possibility that Jesus was a simple although enlightened human being with a simple although enlightened life?
Understanding that imperfection and fragility are the true paths to enlightenment is the real challenge.
Zealots always need to have someone put up high on a pedestal next to God, so that they can claim to be the ones that represent God themselves.
While Jesua was alive, he was constantly preaching against priesthood (the Pharisee) and as we can all plainly see, those are the people representing him to this day.
All the religions that I know of have been perverted in some form or other.
Take Buddhism for example. Buddha told his followers never to make any statue or any picture of him and there are temples in Angkhor Wat, Cambodia with thousands of Buddha statues on them.
Or Islam, a religion of peace, is being promoted by angry Muftis, killing each other because they claim to be the true representatives of Mohammed or repressing women, when these bearer of children are the holiest vessel that Mohammed respected so much in his life.
If you want to remain illusioned all your life, then never be open for new possibilities.
I have seemed to open the floor for much debate in my last post entitled "Just a Book".
I asked if Christianity has ever affected someone "negatively" and I got the very surprising response of "yes" .
To Cameron, I am truly sorry that you have had such negative experiences in your life. Though, the fact that you were beaten for not being a "good Christian boy" may not reflect actual Christianity. The person responsible for this cruel behavior seems to have been putting forth a lot of judgement and little love...neither act being "Christian". Perhaps if you were exposed to those who were truly walking with God, you would understand why it is so hard for me to believe that anyone could be affected negatively by Christianity...real Christianity. I also understand how difficult it is for someone who has not experience Christ to understand how someone would defend the Bible and a seemingly oppressive faith. Chrisitianity and the Bible, in it's true nature, are not oppressive...the Church, on the other hand, has been very much so. I truly understand how the two can be confused. In answer to your question about God allowing such horrible things to happen, the answer is that he did know they would happen. See, God gave humans free will...that is what makes us unique. We choose to come to Him or not to come to Him...He wants it that way. If we lived in a world where faith in God was easy, accepted or made life perfect..wouldn't everyone just have faith for that reason; not because they love God or want to follow his ways? It is having faith despite the horrible things that makes our relationship with God that much stronger and closer. All I know is that God has worked positively in my life and I know I am blessed...I also know that bad things will continue to happen in the world but I cannot allow those things to shake my faith in God..it is just that, FAITH. However, Cameron, I do wish you wouldn't use your mother as an example in saying that she is an educated Christian but also schizophrenic which is why it makes sense...I am very mentally sound, work with at-risk children, attend Bible study, read all sorts of literature, DO NOT speak to Bugs Bunny, watch the news and yet I can still speak to God and not find it strange. Perhaps you should learn more about Christians and the way they actually live...have you ever met a missionary...a youth group leader....a sunday school teacher? Ask them about there testimony, see what makes them a Christian.
As for the following post
"Every time someone dies in a Walmart stampede trying to get a Tickle Me Emo in the great Christian money spree, it affects me. Every time some huge group assaults another huge group because said group doesn't believe in the same invisable friends, it affects me. Every time a televangelist commits tax fraud or bankrupts some brainwashed viewer it affects me."
I do not understand...waht is the great Christian money spree? Isn't Tickle me Elmo from Sesame Street and isn't that capitalism not Chritianity...and aren't those people just crazy with materialistic greed to stampede to buy their child a toy...that whole situation has nothing to do with Christianity. And what invisible friends? Do you have a picture that I imagine Jesus sitting on the chair next to me like a 5 year old girl with a pink rabbit for a friend? I won't even justify that comment with any other response. Oh, and the televangelist fraud is obviously not a real Christian but a scam artist looking for money....just asked the brainwashed viewer. Who turns to a televangelist for their Christian education anyway? In resonse to your comment about me being weird because I say that animals don't have faith...you are just ignorant. I have two cats and a dog and I love them dearly. However, while they do have faith in me as their caretaker and companion, there is little difference between that and the love a child has for their parent. The child loves the parent for taking care of them but does not worship them was a Divine Being. My pets do not have faith in a "God" and no animal that I know of has that type of faith. If you can name one that does, perhaps you are a bit weird.
Finally, someone has stated that the Bible is not relevant in today's society. That is funny because I read it quite often and consider it to be HIGHLY relevant. Perhaps you should read it before you make that comment.
All in all, this has all turned into an argument over faith that we should not be having. The truly faithful will not denounce their faith because of a widely discredited finding or because of the "reasonings" on non-believers. The most I can hope for is that the Christians who have been posting have shown themselves to be intelligent, understanding, compassionate and faithful people. Not zealots (though zeal isn't neccesarily a bad thing) but normal people with a strong faith. No one claims to be better than another for being a Christain...Christ is for everyone, not just a few. It is with hope that I put forth the words I have been writing (not meaning to offend anyone but to understand how someone can hate something they don't truly understand) that someone will hear them and take the time to learn more about Jesus and, just maybe, accept Him into their life.
"I do not understand...waht is the great Christian money spree?"
uhhhhhm.... December 25th? The most expensive and therefore best holiday on earth? The day so profitable that it begins two weeks before Halloween? The time of overdrawn checking accounts and spikes in suicide rates?
"Do you have a picture that I imagine Jesus sitting on the chair next to me like a 5 year old girl with a pink rabbit for a friend?"
Well, now that you mention it...
"My pets do not have faith in a "God" and no animal that I know of has that type of faith."
O rly! Is everyone who seems to be on speaking terms with Jesus equally enabled to talk with animals? What do you know, maybe animals have their own league of gods. After all, "All Dogs go to Heaven"!
Hey, don't look at me like that. You started it. Call animals faithless and uncivilized, fine, at least they don't bomb each other on the basis that one camp's invisible friend is better then the other's.
"Perhaps you should read [the bible] before you make that comment."
Dog dammit... how come every fundie's answer to to critism is to read the bible. FYI, I went to Sunday school for five years, I've already done it your way, thanksomuch. All things equal I should ask you when you didn't let some tired teachings dictate your lifestyle.
And yeah, I'm goin to hell... good great fine. I've heard it all. I won't be in bad company though. I assume you aren't a Muslim, and all non-Muslims go to hell. (certainly their religion is no less real then yours, right?) Bring your pink bunny friend! We can hang out with all the Muslims, who will be there since they aren't Christians. I'll bring marshmellows, we will all have a hell of a time burning while the animals laugh at us for not believing in the great Dog God!
It's sad that most of the humans on earth will believe anything without any need for proof. Why is it all "miracles" happened 2000 years ago when there wasn't science like we have today to challenge such claims? I'm so sick of hearing stuff about Jesus that I hope someone does ruin the bible. It doesn't matter how much science proves that the bible is wrong because people with faith will not admit they are wrong. Religous people need to have their faith or their entire world would crumble down on them. People are told their entire life that the bible is the normal/right thing so they just follow along. Religous people are like lemmings. Most people just say they have faith because it seems that it is an easy way to not have to really think about it. They don't want to deal with an explaination so they just go along with what they've been taught. Some religous people do have true faith and that means they are willing to believe in something without need for physical evidence. If Bigfoot doesn't really exist then that means you can't run tests/experiments on something that isn't real in the first place! The only thing you get is an individuals opinion on something. Faith in something is simply that persons opinion. An opinion is just a theory. Until something is proven to be true by human science through the use of experiments then it is known to be a theory and not a fact. You have to have some way to base our reality or you just have nonsense.
Number one, if anyone beleives this, you're just as deceived as Mr. Cameron.
How is a guy, with no more than a highschool education going to go against the curator or the Israeli museum, who also found the tomb to begin with, to say that it is Jesus?
Jesus rose from the grave, 3 days later. That's it. The ascension into Heaven was both physical, and spiritual. Henceforth, there would BE no remains left. That 20 year period 'unaccounted for' in Christ's life, should be explained to you all. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the life of Jesus, knows he was poor- and a carpenter. So what did He do in that 20-odd year period? Hm...carpentering? OH GEE. Who'd have thought?
By doing this, James Cameron is trying to re-write Christianity into his own Hedonistic, hollywood religion- basically saying, 'If Jesus can marry a whore, I can do whatever I want'. Thus being, a religion of doing whatever you want. And I'm sorry- you're wrong. Jesus died sin-free. He died for OUR sins. Died, a shameful death. For us. And we're twisting His word around, and making ourselves look ungrateful.
Cameron is trying to do the same thing that the Mormon's do, and that the Jehova's Witness does. Along with the Unitarians, and and Skeptics, and Christian Scientists- they're cults. Because, the one common factor in all of the above is- they all denounce or warp Christ's existence/purpose. CULTS.
We cannot be led astray by Cameron. Lies are paraded around in Sheep's clothing, but really, they are as ravenous as wolves underneath. We have to see through the lies, and beleive that Christ was killed for our sins.
The pope was right- Islam was founded on violence. Muhammed killed all those opposing him. Get mad if you will- I don't care. Buddhism is a self-based religion. Scientology is an all-out lie, probably based on a 50's sci-fi book.
I will continue to pray for all of you who are led into worshiping false idols. I pray that you wall come to your senses, and see who is the true King.
What is the point if it is all true we are all as good as dead any way look at the prophets in the Bible and all the outhers, Gorge W. has started WW3 and the Apocalypse is fast aproching. Why even belieave in the Bible or any word in it look at where it originated in the Middle East we all know that we cannot trust a word any of them say they have been fighting over religion for over 2,000 years now. The Christion religion came from there and what has it done since (Start Wars, Persicute Iniosent people, Etc.) it is Evil the whole dam idea it is Insanity and that is why Religion is so afraid that this is Jesus because it proves he was just a man nothing more and if it is they will loose control of alot of their sheep and also didn't one of the prophets fortell the destruction of the church and religion in the end. My question is why is there part of a Masonic symbol on the Tumb a Compas and part of the all seeing eye Draw in the rest of the eye and the Ruler and what do you have the same symbol was on a few of the outher Carcofigus's of people who were known to be followers of Jesus this goes back to that old erban legond that the Free Masons are in fact the Knights Templars and what was their first job (Besides Taking Over The World) It was to protect the Holy Grail or (Mary Magdalin/Jesus's unborn Child) are there Masonic Lodges in the Holy Lands there are to many things happening here. Back to the prophets isn't Jesus suposto return or reveal himself at the end of the world well maybe he just did, has anyone thought about that I'm not saying any of that is true I personaly dont beleave the bible or the prophets in it I do beleave all the outhers prophets but technecaly they all say the same thing even the bible but most of that could have come from an earlyer prophet we just don't know maybe we all just need to start beleaving in our selves for a change and stop letting Religion and Governments do all of our thinking for us. sorry if my spelling is wrong!
OK, my gander is up. First of all, why are so many people posting here making absurdly sterotypical assumptions about those not of their own mindset, ie ("maybe we all just need to start beleaving in our selves for a change and stop letting Religion and Governments do all of our thinking for us") Speak for yourself my friend, because I doubt that anyone on this comment board is letting government and religion or science do all the thinking for them.
In response to Paul, science is not and has not disproved the Bible, unless you believe in a STRICT LITERAL interpretation (as I said in an earlier post, the Catholic Church, for instance does not teach that view). And saying that most people have faith because it is easier than looking for explanations shows that you are either ignorant of (or have forgotten) that many people struggle with religion before becoming believers and even then can often be plagued with doubts. True Religion is not easy!
Also it would be just as easy to say that irreligious people are lemmings. They go along with what modern education crams down their throats because it is easier than contemplating the idea that their actions and lives may have greater significance or that their way of life may require drastic change.
Paul, do you BELIEVE in gravity? It is just a THEORY, but maybe a really good one, good enough to bet your life on. Your reasoning is also flawed namely, FACTS do not presuppose proof. A fact is something that exists. If bigfoot exists he is a fact whether you believe it or not. If GOD exists, that is a FACT whether you can prove it or not (P.S. Many intellegent people believe that God's existence can be prove--Check out St. Anselm for starters.) Again, you don't have to prove something for it to be a fact.
Entertaining for the moment that the idea of God is a THEORY, similarly the idea of materialism (ie that only the physical world exists) is a THEORY. Science cannot prove that ONLY the material world existence. Quite to the contrary, science is limited to the physical world. Science oversteps its boundaries when it thinks it can speak of miracles (which, by definition, interrupt the everyday order of the natural world). I would encourage everyone to seriously come to grips with the limits of science in "disproving" religion.
Finally, to all those who find great hope in Mr. Cameron's documentary, read up on the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano. This is a case where science seems to be proving religion. Believe it or not, you should still consider the possibility, after all we wouldn't want to be CLOSE-MINDED would we? And for all those who would rush to the "Church conspiracy theory" argument, don't be so naive to think that it can't work the other way around (as in the Cameron documentary).
I have a few questions to ask to the Christain faith people, In the New testament there is a verse, that states, that a child would be born to a virgin , and his name will be called Immanuel.Who decided to call him "Jesus" and Why? I looked up the names of the twelve Apostals, and discovered something shocking, There are only six Apostals, the other six names are the same people. Do the research, because your paster didn't! In the tombs that were discovered. were there any dates on the tombs, or did that family all die on the same day?. Just asking. And Since all Christians, believe that Jesus lives in them. why not donate, your DNA? Just asking.
It is always a wonder why those that argue against religion tend to insult and use abusive rhetorics against those who believe in God. Why do you find belief in God to be retrogressive? Is it because your moral standards and ethical composition of your private lives are threatened by the authority of holiness and righteousness. There is nothing logical that can be used to explain the spiritual meaning that God brings to lives that turn to him in repentance. Many Christians and of course "intelligent men like Allen" have tried to logically explain these complex spiritual things but have endded in error. If you want to explain anything in biology, you have to use biological knowledge, if it is chemistry, it sure has to come from the lab geniuses and if it is spiritual, why dont you leave it to people that are spiritually elightened? Now that is logical! The Bible may physicall be put on Library shelves just like any other book but it does contain very important life mysteries that can change the dullest of minds to "enlightened" minds through inpiration from God. Let Cameron have fun and make money off the inept minds of people that are derelect of private morals and want to hide from the "all knowing and almighty God" who will expose their sins presently!
"It is always a wonder why those that argue against religion tend to insult and use abusive rhetorics against those who believe in God."
Let's not waste time digging around and go only by your message, which states in no uncertain terms that non-religious folks are:
"threatened by the authority of holiness", "uninspired", the "dullest of minds", "derelect of private morals". And they are hiding from God as well (which athiests don't believe in anyway, how much sense do you make?)
And you are upset because a godless hethen insulted "you"? What comes around goes around, your post is as senseless as it is hypocritical. You almost had a point in there somewhere, a bit muddy but along the lines that only spiritual folks will understand spiritual enlightenment stuff. THAT begins to make sense. But in the end you make both athiest AND spiritual folks look bad.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020