Over the last few months, I have been wondering what would happen to the Christian belief, if the body of Jesus was to be discovered. And he did not die as described in the bible. And along with the discovery of the body, the discovery of texts written by Jesus himself and these texts were in major conflict with what is written in the bible today. If these two things did happen and were confirmed to be true, how would this effect or change the Christian belief? Would it be passed off as a fraud, would it be justified using todays bible (apologetics), or would it be accepted and the current Christian belief modified using the new teachings found in the texts of Jesus himself?
Thoughts and opinions welcomed.
Nothing would change, except perhaps another war over it.
And if it did? What then? If you have an opinion or thought on the actual question posed, it would be appreciated. Simply saying "It is not going to happen", to a hypothetical question is not a thought or opinion for discussion (IMHO)
Logically the physical resurrection of Christ is puzzling when it comes to the traditional Christian narrative of Christ's death as a sacrifice. How can it be called a sacrifice if he returns to life in the same body. Perhaps my values are different from Christians because I think there is far more bravery in a wise man sacrificing himself and knowing full well he will be fully dead than some deity giving up his mortal life for a grand total of three days with the confidence that his death will be brief.
I think the body would likely weaken the faith of some Christians but then some would just claim its a fraud in the same way that some fringe groups will defend Genesis as literally true and claim all the science surrounding evolution is a fraud.
I thought about this as well. I am sure, that the bible passage referring to Jesus after he was "risen" and those who knew him didn't recognize him would be the arguement used to support that the body died, but he lived on.
Not saying I buy into the resurrection, or that the Christians have it right; but you are talking about a mortal. I don't know that the Christ continuously displayed a belief in his close connection to the deity. His own words go back and forth. Sometimes talking as if separated and then sometimes refering to himself as I AM.
I assumed the mortal was crucified, having fullness of faith in the will of God. Full faith that he could return as promised. But, it was still a leap of faith to allow the events to transpire. He suffered doubt not only the night of his arrest, but on the cross as well. This was no God prior to the death at the crucifixion.
A spiritual rebirth would not serve the full purpose. A mortal man dies, and through full faith rises from death. One with God, only after fully believing and living through the events that transpired because of that belief. I'm not sure any other scenario could make the same point. If the text were true, he'd be the first risen of the new way.
If this ever happened then Christianity would disintegrate before your eyes. It would also destroy Jewish religion too for it like Christianity is based upon the Holy Bible and that is based upon the Jewish Torah or bible. It would make all religion skeptical.
Right on Dave. Jesus rose from he grave and His garmets were all that was sitting in the tomb. His Body resureccted and made whole, not unbroken. He returned and ate with the disciples.
Original question. No one will find Jesus bones. Think on the return of Jesus. Much better focus. JK not. God Loves ALL. We choose who we will serve. Jesus or the World. Choose Jesus Christ. He is the only way to life everlasting John 3:16
skye2day: You are trying to discuss apples and oranges with someone who doesn't even like fruit. He is just baiting you into an argument.
I answered the original question but my answer was totally ignored. The ones responding now only seek to argue and they don't really care about what.
Ok, I understand. You do not wish to answer to question posed. I simply asked a "What If" question and wanted to see the thoughts and opinions based on something of this nature actually occuring.
Personally, I really don't care what or how you actually believe. To each their own.
I agree with several others here. Jesus' body will never be found. "If" there was any chance at all, don't you THINK the religious leaders of HIS Day would have made every effort to uncover that possibility?
There is no chance. There is no way. This will never occur.
HE'll return though, and let you know Himself, when the Day of L'RD arrives. On that day HE WILL clarify so much!
In the meantime,
BLESSINGS to you... in THE NAME of THE RESURRECTED MESSIAH!
Jesus body has been found and he never ascended to skies.
Mr. PaarSurrey, this response is to you, Sir.
From where do you get your information? Do you know how utterly ridiculous you sound?
"If" there was any basis to your statement, then so much of what exists as a form of faith people call Christianity would cease.
I'm sorry, Mr. Paarsurrey, but the foundations for your information are unreliable. You need to get on your knees and ask G'D for yourself. I know you believe JESUS was a prophet, but I will tell you, plainly. HE WAS NOT A PROPHET. JESUS IS G"D!
Now, I believe you won't want to do anything I say; however, by continuing as you are, you are placing your soul on this earth in jeopardy. More importantly, you are placing your spirit in eternal jeopardy. Please consider clarifying the facts.
Ask G'D yourself... not the 'idol' of G'D, in your mind, the made up version, but THE LIVING G'D. It may well be, that if you repent of all that which you are spouting off, without a measure of substance, HE WILL BE MERCIFUL and answer you, taking care of all these facetious remarks you make.
Sir, I don't know you and you don't know me. You don't have to listen to anything I say, but it will do your spirit good to give this suggestion a try. You have nothing to lose, but much to gain.
Ask G'D to make HIMSELF real to you. It may well be that these discussions are HIS Way of bringing you to realize you need to do this, for the sake of your eternal life.
In the meantime, MAY THE G'D of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob BLESS you, through JESUS, HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, Amen.
Thank you for feeling so much concern for me.
What do you understand from the "begotten son"? Are you a Catholic?
No. I am no longer Catholic. I was born and raised into a household that held to Catholic religious structures, but I wanted to " know G'D", not just know about G'D, from what I was told. I began searching and searching for HIM. I began reading Scripture and studying various viewpoints, by various theologians, but it wasn't until G'D Himself, in The Person of THE HOLY SPIRIT began to illuminate my eyes and grant me insight I would never have without HIS Help, that I began to understand some truth. That search began well over 30 years ago. I continue to search and analyze, uncover and overturn. I will not cease until I am unable to do so any longer, or until my appointed day with HIM in Eternity.
Please do not take my recommendation as an affront. I do not mean to be harsh. However, I do truly want G'D to be seen for WHO HE IS and not what some people 'think' HE Is. There is a vast difference; and that difference equals error. Any error pertaining to G'D equals idolatry.
No one can worship a god they do not know, or have made up using bits and pieces of their opinions or the opinions of others. G'D WANTS us to seek HIS FACE; and HE PROMISES to answer our desire to know HIM, if we are sincere.
That is what I am suggesting. Don't believe me. Don't believe anyone. Find out for yourself. Seek HIM. If you seek HIM, you shall find HIM... but only if you are sincere.
MAY HE BLESS you, Sir, through THE ONE Whose Shed Blood Has The Power to Make every sinner clean! JESUS of Nazareth! Amen.
paarsurrey begotton means born, not created. Jesus Christ is the born Son of God the Father, begotten by the Holy Spirit which came unto the virgin, Mary and 'knew' her in the biblical sense. The truth of this occurrance in the simplest terms is that God in His Spirit form had marital relations with a mortal woman, Mary, who had never been with a man in the same sense, so that there could be no question regarding the paternity of Jesus. God is His biological Father, which in God's economy, makes Jesus one with God,. i.e.; the physical embodiment OF GOD. This is from which the trinity concept of christianity is originated. Creator God the Father represent the mind of God, His Sprit is His Soul, and His Son is His Physical manifestation, which was given as a blood offering, first for the Jews, then for the Gentiles. I am no expert of the Muslim religion, but I am aware that Muslims routinely cite Hebrews 5:7 to repudiate the Christian claim that Jesus suffered, died, was buried and then resurrected on the third day of His 'physical' death. You cannot accurately interpret this excerpt from Paul's letter to the Hebrews (converted Jews) without referring back to Jesus' prayer in the garden just prior to His betrayal. Luke 22:42 records this request from the Son to the Father, "42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not MY will, but THINE be done.'" It is vitally important to understand here, as previously inferred in scripture, that Jesus is fully Man, as He is born of a mortal woman - Mary; and He is fully God, being of, from and sired by God's Substance, which is
His Holy Spirit. Jesus the Man prays to the Godhead to take the cup - not the cup of death, rather the cup of complete seperation from God the Father. Jesus did not fear death, He knew He would come back from the dead. What Jesus the Man feared was seperation from the Triune God. As God, Adoni, meaning earthly Lord, Jesus knew He had to go through with it, thus He acknowledges God's right authority to deny the temporal request of Jesus the Man.
BTW I am a protestant member of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod; agreeing with Martin Luther's interpretation of Scripture.
I think you have not correctly defined the word "begotten".
Please see the following:
World English Dictionary
archaic(of a child) being the only offspring of its father
bɪˈgɒt nShow Spelled[bih-got-n] Show IPA
a past participle of beget.
bɪˈgɛtShow Spelled[bih-get] Show IPA
verb (used with object), be•got or (Archaic ) be•gat; be•got•ten or be•got; be•get•ting.
(especially of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
I don't think as to what you explained is anyway connect with the word "beget".
Do you think Mary , I ask refuge from the Creator God, had a husband by the name "god" or god-the-father.
Please note that Christians then say that Jesus was god-the-father; which makes Jesus , the husband of Mary.
Is it acceptable to you?
It is not comprehendable by me, nor is is comprehendable by you. think of it in these terms...God impregnated Mary this is what begotten means. In doing so God also imparted His spiritual presence onto the infant Jesus. Here, God, omnipresent, manifests His presense in the Child Jesus. Jesus is a human Child in complete union with God. Yet He is still human. How can this be...God has instructed us that before we question these matters, we tell Him how creation was formed. Consider the book of Job.
God is not required to answer us with knowledge, especially when that knowledge is beyond our comprehension. That in Jesus which IS God, was is and always will be inseperable from God, present with God, in every imaginable way..God...Very God.Even at the conception of Christ, even after, always. As to whether Mary had relations with her hearthly husband, I cannot say. There is no scriptural evidence to prove one way or another. There is historical evidence to suggest that Mary's Jewish husband died at an early age, and Jesus stepped in to support Mary and younger children of the household, which are mentioned in scripture as James, Joses, and His sisters. It is presumed that Jesus did not undertake His ministry until the next oldest male child could assume responsibility for the offspring, wards, children, whatever ---whom Joseph was responsible for. In this sense you could say that Jesus became the Man of the Family on Joseph's death and carried out His responsibilities until a suitable replacement was available.
I don't understand it. You don't understand it. None of us understand it. Yet this is what He, Jesus the God Man, has revealed to us. In heaven, He has said, there will be neither the giving or the taking in marriage. We will all become one with God. We...humanity...we are God's bride. He is our husband. We are His people. Pray for understanding sufficient to accept this by faith.
Em Vee T - You are special! "Professing to be wise, they became fools . . . " Why waste words? Pray for salvation.
Hi WD Curry 111,
Because I can't hear the sound of your voice, and discern from the inflection of the words you have written, I can't tell if you're mocking me, or telling me to leave people to their misconceptions. I'm going to take it as the latter.
However, I disagree with you. I am not wasting my time. I don't know the gentleman to whom I am writing, but there is a possibility that he is seriously searching and is posting irrational thought processes and precepts, because they are all he knows.
G'D KNOWS his heart. I don't need to; but I'm believing there's something good in him, something hungry to know THE LIVING G'D, something that urges him to share his understanding, but that is willing to admit, he doesn't really understand.
I'm not wasting my time, just as I'm not that special. Honest.
I'm simply secure in my faith. I KNOW Whom I Believe. HE IS my Strength; and I rejoice whenever HE Becomes the strength of those who are blinded to the truth by the circumstances of their lives, and the misconceptions they've been fed since childhood.
I was one of those individuals once. But by the Grace of G'D, someone cared enough to help me discover my ability to search for G'D myself, not learning from others necessarily, but digging, analyzing, pestering even G'D Himself, until I begin to get, even just a glimmer of comprehension, until HE Gives me something to go by, to rest in, to move forward through. All of this, not because HE Owes me anything. I know better than that; but because HE Invites me to ask HIM, to knock, to seek, to listen, to come to HIM with all my cares and worries.
What greater worries can a person have than those fears that haunt us when someone we love dies, and/or our heart is perplexed, broken and anxious due to hardship or pain. G'D Casts out my fears, because HIS Love is perfect. HIS Care of me is complete. HE Meets me where I am, and as I grow, HE Prepares new challenges for me, takes me into new seasons, teaches me things that are more intimately designed to help me reach ever further.
WD, I choose to be 'Ezekiel's watchman on the wall'. I will tell anyone whose heart may be even remotely hungry for G'D. I will not stand before my KING, on that day when I finally meet HIM having given HIM nothing of myself, having shared nothing of HIS Truth.
HE Is TRUSTING me to share HIS WORD, HIS LOVE and HIS MATCHLESS GRACE. I may be a poor reflection of HIM, but I will make an attempt. HE Deserves no less from me. Neither does my fellow man, whether he seems to really be interested or not.
I want to see each individual through JESUS' Eyes. I pray never to turn my back on someone, even if they 'think' they don't care to know. G'D IS ABLE TO PENETRATE the darkness. I cannot. But I can be the flame HE Ignites or fans to stir the desire for HIS LIGHT.
I'm ready to do so... for HIS NAME'S SAKE!
...and yes, I will pray for Salvation as well. You are right. There's power in prayer, power humanity has no idea exists!
Thank you for the recommendation. I appreciate your encouragement. I hope I haven't taken your words the wrong way. I truly do appreciate your heart on the matter!
MAY G'D BLESS you abundantly, above all your expectations, in ways you can only imagine are possible, so that HE MAY BE GLORIFIED in your life, so that HE MAY DELIGHT in your every action, in your every word! through JESUS our ROCK! Amen.
Why don't you spell out any name refering to God?
Several years ago, I began a Bachelor's Degree in Messianic Studies. Ever since, I can't bring myself to spell HIS Name fully. I am in awe of HIM. I am completely and absolutely in awe.
It's not complicated, just a modification of my particular desire regarding the spelling of HIS Name. I do spell other names fully, such as El Shaddai, Adonai, Elohim, etc., just not the words L'RD or G'D.
... and I don't expect anyone else to do the same... I just cannot do so myself.
A very simple answer to a straightforward question. Thanks for your interest.
MAY G'D BLESS you Captain Redbeard.
I am not mocking you. Do not underestimate the power of prayer. You can only say so much. It says to "put on the full armor and stand". We want to go in after them with the sword. I am glad you were stirred to bless me and speak into my life and situation. Thank you, sister.
We all have our gifts. Discerning of Spirits sees low level minions of bantering demons around here. They want to keep you engaged for their own entertainment. They will not concede. Perhaps a word will slide through. I pray you will say what the Holy Spirit has for them. Meanwhile, I will check out your site, where I can hear the truth without distraction.
Ah, I see you're versed in and aware of Spiritual Warfare tactics, Dearest Sir. There have been several areas of study I've pursued in the years since I first became a Believer in JESUS. Prayer is one. JESUS, The Man, The Teacher, The Divine Sacrifice and more... and two more that I have immersed myself in without interruption: Eschatology and Spiritual Warfare.
Yes, there are many, many minions bantering around here, using unsuspecting vessels as their instruments of destruction. However, I am so secure that G'D IS GREATER! and I get so excited when I think of all the ways HE HAS THE POWER to Reveal HIMSELF to those who are taunting us, or trying to make us seem ignorant.
Best of all, HE DOES everything with an unsuspecting GRACE and MERCY, despite the hardness of some hearts; and the fact that many here may even be beyond HIS Grasp, not because HE IS Incapable of reaching them, but because they've closed themselves off completely, and HE WILL NOT Invade their space, for the mostpart. Only the enemy does that.
On occasion I remember the road to Damascus and wonder if there are any Saul of Tarsus' loitering. What a proclamation of Victory against every dark force is HIS when HE Chooses to break through insidious structures, because HIS Purpose Is Greater; and HE Knows no boundaries!
I sit on the sidelines waiting in anticipation for results that are unexpected, mysterious and even miraculous. Even though I know most of us will never know how much of an impression we leave on the hearts and minds of those we interact with, I embrace the thought of having my cup brim to overflowing when we all meet in GLORY, and HE Introduces one to another, saying "you've sown, I've Reaped" or "I've Sown, you've reaped"....
I've probably said too much on this Forum. I will look forward to any comments you have about my writing. I'm new to this. In public, that is....
BLESSINGS to you, In THE PRECIOUS Name of THE ALPHA and OMEGA! Amen.
What exactly are you in awe of from this invisible, silent being that noone can even demonstrate to exist?
I would have to write a book... oh.. no ... wait... hundreds of thousands of individuals already have!
Seriously though, there are too many elements to cite. So, I couldn't get into why I am in awe of HIM on a Forum. However, if you ever decide to give HIM a fair chance... you won't need me to tell you. You'll have awe-inspiring experiences of your own to keep you company and/or remind you of HIS POWER, SOVEREIGNTY, GRACE and GOODNESS.
BLESSINGS to you, Jesus was a hippy! I pray HE ALLOWS you a taste of HIS PRESENCE, and makes HIS LOVE Known to you, through JESUS, THE SAVIOUR! Amen.
Amen. See? Women can be leaders in the Church.
I don't want to be a leader in the "Church" as such. Oh, but I do love to sing HIS PRAISES! ... one of my deepest hearts desires is to sing for HIM, and to do so without inhibitions... I would love to see some strongholds come down!
BLESSINGS again and again... and again. In HIS MIGHTY NAME! YESHUA HAMASCIACH! Amen.
EnVee, you are making awesome replies and God is truly speaking through you with His Holy Spirit, the grace with which you bless those who seek to taunt is a lesson for us all.
I want to thank you, you are a blessing to all those who work in the forums and an example to follow.
Please understand that I pray and pray and pray before I ever answer anything. That's the reason I won't answer certain posts. I don't feel led by THE HOLY SPIRIT to do so, even though there have been times when I bristle with the desire to respond to some snide remarks or caustic rejoinders.
I'm not making "awesome replies" as such. I'm simply making an extra special effort to obey THE SPIRIT of G'D, WHO ALONE KNOWS the hearts and intentions of those who are posting, and what mockeries lie in wait in their hearts and minds.
When I see some of the remarks made by atheists and pantheists and theists and whomever, I almost feel sick. I am sorrowful that G'D IS considered 'wicked' for being SOVEREIGN. I feel anguish that G'D Is blamed for that which HE Does, that which HE Doesn't Do, but Allows, and/or that which HE Must do for the benefit of all.
The reality is: most of these people don't have a clue what insidious power is behind their effort. The reality is, Only G'D Will be able to make our point to anyone who is so convinced HE Doesn't exist, or HE IS everything HE's not.
I sometimes wish I could just prepare a table with hot chocolate or tea and some muffins or scones... to sit across from some of these individuals, to look into their eyes and search the depths, for what it is that propels them with their cynicisms. But, the fact is...
We only have a tiny window of opportunity to make a mark for The KING of All Creation. We won't always represent HIM well, or properly, or even fairly, but when our heart's intention is not to bash the other person, that person who is convinced they are right, that HE ISn't real... well, we will have done all we can do. And, HE'll Give HIS Peace.
There will be days when no answer will be gracious enough, balanced enough, or good enough. But, we don't need to fear that day, as long as we're following the prompting of G'D; and as long as we remember to HONOUR HIM.
If I think back to the first post I endeavored to answer, I will say the only reason I was able to maintain a semblance of calm was that I took the question to HIM. I asked HIM "how HE Wanted" me to reply.
I don't have all the answers, John. As you know. Just like you, and everyone else here, I'm only human.
The only thing I'm certain of, the only thing that gives me joy is knowing that G'D Does Have the answers! I can't even tell you how many times, as I'm typing out a post, I am praying simultaneously, that HE'LL provide that answer, not necessarily through me, but TO THAT OTHER person. I don't matter in this equation. HE Does!
I appreciate this word of encouragement. By the same token, I ask that you don't place me on any mantles. Being human, I am so likely to fall off... .
BLESSINGS to you, In THE NAME of our SHEPHERD and FRIEND! JESUS, our Very Present Help in times of trouble! Amen.
The fact is no matter how long you stare into an unbelievers eyes, you won't see them thinking, which is what your posts lack and why you're not able to respond to others.
And, since you consider their words, 'mockeries... feel sickened and anguished... insidious... snide... caustic...' then theirs really no point in what you're doing unless you do begin to start thinking yourself.
A mind is such a terrible thing to waste.
Now you picking on a girl. A girl who is pouring out her heart to you. I don't like to quote scripture, but I will this time. "Don't cast pearls before swine. They will trample them under feet, and turn to devour you." Have a nice day.
Dearest Troubled Man....
The fact is no matter how long you stare into an unbelievers eyes, you won't see them thinking, which is what your posts lack and why you're not able to respond to others.
I would like to share this with you:
I respond very well to others, and to be absolutely honest with you, people respond with great interest to me. Sometimes a little more than I am comfortable receiving. For reasons that I cannot quite explain, people gravitate toward me, not that this has any bearing on my writing... but just in response to your analysis of me.
That aside, I would also like to explain that I see so much when I look into a person's eyes, especially if the person is looking back into mine.
There is often so much communicated through the eyes, that I rarely speak without looking at the expression released there. My sensitivity may be a characteristic I possess because I am a woman. Or it may be due to the fact that I've been working in the service industry for over thirty years,... I won't consider it a particular attribute gifted to me; but let me clarify this: what is 'in' a person's eyes is quite often more revealing than what is spoken with the mouth. Facial expression is a valuable and focal catalyst when it comes to face to face discussions. I'm not sure what type of conversations you prefer to engage in, but mine are usually not superficial unless I'm on my way out the door, or simply greeting someone in passing.
Now, you will take this as you like, and I can almost sense your desire to find something in what I've said to comment on, probably with a derogatory slant. But, none of that matters. What I've just shared with you are 'my facts of life'. If yours differ greatly, what can I say? I'm sorry?
I can't be. My life is my life. Your life is your life. Enjoy it. Explore it. Indulge in it; but bear this in mind... to assume you know the "facts" just because you've never experienced a particular aspect of social interaction, doesn't make it true.
And, since you consider their words, 'mockeries... feel sickened and anguished... insidious... snide... caustic...' then theirs really no point in what you're doing unless you do begin to start thinking yourself.
My statement was a generality. I can't give you more than this, because you've already proven to me that you misunderstand anything that carries more substance with your comment about the eyes. Again, it is my uneducated guess that you take pleasure in looking at anything written by anyone who isn't you, or isn't of the same mind set as you and try to deride it.
That is your privilege. If you ever want to have a more meaningful conversation though... you might consider taking a different approach. Maybe try looking more deeply into the eyes of the context... or as teachers say in English class, consider reading between the lines. Often, the rendering is worth the effort.
In the meantime, MAY THE G'D of ALL GOODNESS, MERCY and TRUTH BLESS you, through THE SON of RIGHTEOUSNESS, JESUS, The Messiah! Amen.
Warfare, enemies, minions, dark forces...
...notice that your religion has already taught you to hate others, that they are your enemies and that warfare is the only path to take?
We do not hate 'others' we fight those spiritual demonic forces that guide others to make inane comments and try to stop the word of God going out.
I would guess you would be embarrassed to know how many folk are praying you will meet with God, whilst alive.
If you understood the spiritual realm, you may have a clue about who is controlling your mind, words and forum posts.
Meanwhile we love you anyway even if it is like dealing with a sulky child most of the time.
LOL! That's a pc way of calling me demonic and inane.
Actually, I'm ashamed and pity them, that they waste their lives in futile subservience to an invisible sky fairy. What's embarrassing is their behavior in light such folly.
Anyone who says they do understand such a realm would be lying.
LOL! You call it love. That's funny. Another potshot from a good Christian.
Dearest Troubled Man...
I can't imagine that you are proud of your posting such words as:
LOL! That's a pc way of calling me demonic and inane.
Actually, I'm ashamed and pity them, that they waste their lives in futile subservience to an invisible sky fairy. What's embarrassing is their behavior in light such folly.
Anyone who says they do understand such a realm would be lying.
LOL! You call it love. That's funny. Another potshot from a good Christian.
My response may seem rather off topic, and I'm trusting that you will understand what I intend, but if you don't I won't be surprised. I promise.
Here it is:
When I was a child there was a season that I was a bully. That season lasted two years. I didn't ever do much of anything except threaten those who I wanted to keep far away from me. You see, there were some kids in the school I attended who made me feel threatened... and I didn't know how to deal with it, so I put on a brave front and pretended I was tough... so tough that they'd be better off to stay away from me.
Deep down inside I was frightened, so frightened. I'm not proud of acting like a bully, even if I never intended to hurt anyone, but I am glad I went through that season, because it allowed me to identify with those who 'bully' on different levels. I see it as 'fear', a deep down fear of something.
What could that fear be?
Well, when I read the derogatory remarks directed at "Christians" I come to think of it as a fear that just maybe, what we believe is true, because if it is true, well... that would mean, 'there IS A G'D", "sin exists", "hell is real" and those who engage in sin, resist G'D and want to do whatever they want all their lives, without ever having to give account, may one day have hell to pay for it.
Of course, these are just my thoughts relating to the matter. Do I dare ask yours?
I want to say: "No wait... I don't need to. I can imagine what you will say, and I don't think you're allowed to use vulgarities in a post..." but I may be underestimating the depth of your true sentiments relating to the actual issue this Forum was created to debate.
Besides, you don't know me and I don't know you. I lean toward you believing that I am mocking you, even though I'm not. I don't want to anger you. I would really just like... never mind. I won't get what I want here...
...and worst of all, in responding to your comments I feel as though I digress. Please forgive me if I just leave you to enjoy what you have to say, yourself.
I pray G'D BLESSES you none-the-less, actually ALL-THE-MORE, through JESUS, The Rock of Ages. Amen.
What makes you think that fear bears any relevance to what is believed?
I dont believe in a god because there is no evidence. Emotions have no bearing on my beliefs whatsoever and nor should they.
Have you ever thought that if someone fears hell, then they must think it is real otherwise they wouldnt fear it would they?
I can assure you, I dont fear hell. Jesus is a bitch, god sucks donkey balls and allah is a jew.
How's that for fearing hell?
Hi Jesus was a hippy....
I wasn't directing my analogy at you; however, I will say this relating to your comments:
Fear may not bear relevance on what you believe; and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Loving someone because you want to is so much more significant than loving them because you're obligated to do so.
You say, you don't believe in G'D because there is no evidence; and you have every right to feel this way. Although I have to disagree with you. You say emotions have no bearing on your beliefs, but you are asking for tangible proof. Tangible proof has the ability to satisfy the 'emotions'.
I have thought about reasons a person would fear hell. And, it makes perfect sense to fear hell only if you believe it is real.
What doesn't make sense to me, is to believe in hell and fear it, if you don't believe in G'D. Isn't 'hell' as intangible as G'D?
BLESSINGS to you, Jesus was a hippy, in THE NAME of THIS One you have chosen to identify with.
(On a different note: would it be acceptable to you if I write your name this way Jwah? ~ I don't have to... if you don't want me to, I won't.)
Dearest Jesus was a hippy,
I'm sorry to have upset you. I'm generalizing, thinking aloud, not assuming I know what you fear.
In any case, I see you have a very strong sense of what you want to immerse your 'faith' in. I will have to say, G'D BLESS you as you journey forth! In JESUS' PRECIOUS and POWERFUL NAME, MAY HE BLESS you, and BLESS you and then continue BLESSING you all the days of your life.
Again, I'm sorry to have upset you. That was not my intention.
Jesus was a hippy, I won't repeat what you wrote here, but I want to tell you what I've been thinking.
Actually, I take it back. I"m not sorry to have upset you. Obviously, my post triggered a response in you.
What I am sorry about is that you decided to respond to me using such common language. You're better than that. At least, that's what I think.
Here's what I don't know: I don't know if you're a male or female. I don't know your age. I don't know how you look. I don't know your height. None of these considerations matter one jot, relating to your posts to me.
This is what I do know: You have a good brain in that head of yours. You seem to delight in being logical; and you have been up until that last post. You have a good command of the English language. You have a short temper.
Now, I'm guessing you meant to upset 'me' by writing what you did. Unfortunately, all you did was disappoint me. I might have expected what you posted from someone else entirely. But from you I was expecting something solid, logical, perhaps even slightly brilliant. What I got was sludge.
Why am I bothering to tell you this? Because I think bigger of you.
You didn't hurt me by what you wrote. You didn't hurt G'D either, though I'm certain HE Didn't appreciate your selection of words. The person you hurt is yourself when you decide to have a verbal tantrum.
My recommendation to you is simple: use that brain of yours. Select your words with care. I'm certain you could have expressed the same 'upset' at me using vocabulary that would have complimented your sense of logic and your ability to rationalize.
If you choose to talk down to people, don't expect them to treat you with respect. Set your standard, Jesus was a hippy. You have the ability to do that. Set it high. I believe you have enough intelligence to achieve that goal.
G'D BLESS you, in THE POWERFUL NAME of JESUS, SON of G'D, L'RD of Lords, KING of Kings. Amen.
I replied, Sweetest Jesus was a hippy. Your logic failed you this time.
G'D BLESS you. In YESHUA HAMASCIACH! Amen.
It's very simple really. A Troubled Man is the last post with a (hit) reply (button) leading to your posts. Each time I hit reply on his post, I am able to position my answer to you right below your answer to me.
G'D BLESS you,.Jesus was a hippy.
Hmmm. I think I know your gender now.
G'D BLESS you, Jesus was a hippy.
There you go... You see, you really are a smart young woman. You've succeeded in letting me know that you don't want me to greet you with a blessing at the end of my posts, and that you are aware of some of the names of secular idols and cults.
Wasn't that easy?
I just want you to understand though: I'm not going to change my salutation because it irritates you. There are atheists that asked me to stop greeting as I do, and they were respectful enough to accept my lack of compromise. You can continue citing whatever secular or pagen entity you like, that won't change anything I do.
I pray that you will be big enough to grant me the same courtesy. You can choose not to do so of course, after all, being as young as you are, I don't expect you to comply. At this point, the only thing that you want most is to have the last word.
Go for it, if you have to... there will be other chances for us to dialogue, hopefully with more regard for one another.
G'D BLESS you, even if you've decided you hate HIM more because right now you hate me. In JESUS, my EMBLEM and STRENGTH, Amen.
I wasnt trying to get you to stop blessing me. It doesnt irritate me at all. What makes you think that? You cant have been offended by me blessing you in other gods names surely?
I am interested to know how you concluded I am a young woman.
For the record, I dont hate you, nor do I hate the non exstant. That would be silly.
FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER BLESS YOU!!!!! IN PASTA I FIND MY STRENGTH. RAMEN!!!
More hubs . . . the last one was tight. The video really topped it off well. I would leave the comment "box" (old school). People usually leave well meaning ones. Your "persona" is kind of limited, you may want to consider one that is shorter and has the potential for more versatility. You have a spark of brilliance, I would like to see you fan the flames.
How nice of you to perceive us that way. Of course, flattery will get you everywhere.
I would think that the body of "Jesus" could possibly be found. The body of the Christ, that might be a different story.
Double Scorpion there have been many bodies found of men named "Jesus" or some derivative of that name, before during and after the time of Christ! There has even been found a ossuary (tomb) from the correct time span in Jerusalem with bodies of several folks, some related to each other, at least one female was unrelated. I don't have the article in front of me but I believe the names carved on the 'coffin' (can't spell sarcoff-a-gus, lol) were Joseph, Mary, Mathew, Simeon, Jesus/Jesua and Miriamne, the last person being unrelated to the rest. James Cameron , the director, and some Jewish historian tried to prove these were the bones of the Christ, who had supposedly wed Mary Magdalene (Miriamne means 'bitter') and His parents - with Simeon being assumed as His brother and Matthew His offspring, but this has since been refuted.
Why? How? First, in those times, families were buried together in their ancestral homes...neither Joseph (Jesus' legal father) nor Mary (Jesus' mum) were from Jerusalem. They lived in Nasareth. Joseph was from Bethlehem, probably Mary as well. Jesus did have a brother named Simeon (not cited in the bible, but in other documents contemorary to that time. He also lived, died and was presumably buried in either Nasareth or Bethlehem. At any rate, the family of Jesus would not have been buried in Jerusalem Jesus WAS interned neat Jerusalem because that's where He was crucified - executed as a criminal. Therein lies several plausable explanations as to why Jesus was not interned in the family tomb. 1. Jewish law mandated He be buried on the day of His death, the night before Sabbath, before sundown. He was buried in a new tomb, owned by Joseph of Arimathia (sic) who later died in the British Isles, where his bones still lay. Three days later, that tomb way empty. No family bones there, nothing but His burial clothes. The Jews would not have reused that tomb. His followers would not have reused that tomb. Say what you will about what happened to the body, the bones found in the Jerusalem tomb were in no way connected to Jesus of Nazareth, His mother, step father or anyone else directly related to Him or His ancestors, or His ministry.
I am not sure about the Jewish Traditions...But, I think you make a valid statement. What if the writings were only in contrast to the NT teachings but supported the OT? There are so many different scenarios. Interesting to ponder. Thanks
One of the strongest arguments for the New Testament is that it correlates so closely with OT prophesy. Over 83 prophetic sayings regarding the Jewish Messiah were fulfilled by the life and death as well as circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, called King of the Jews, by the Roman governor Pontias Pilot, and crucified by the same. (that statement itself fullfilled one prophesy.) What if this, you say...or what if that....all you have are what ifs. This is what is.....the NT ccorrelates with the OT...some of us say, perfectly. Other historical documents exist that lend a certain amount of credibility to the Jewish and Christian scripture. No credible historical recors exist that disprove the historical accuracy of the bible. In fact, the more archeologists find, the more they find how accurate the biblical record truly is....not what if....what is!
I respectfully disagree. Human beings aren't nearly consistent enough to have their core beliefs challenged by such a thing. They would dissemble, and continue to believe in whatever it was that suited their emotional intelligence and upbringing, by using that largely deceptive device called language to wrangle meaning from the nonsensical. There is already ample "evidence", in the form of internal inconsistency, that Christianity has no bearing other than from faith. which is not to say that it is useless; not at all.
Sure Christianity will disintegrate; though some may remain clinged to it.
What if Jesus Christ himself walked up to you in a face to face encounter, introduced himself, offered proof by letting you see and touch his wounds, was able to verbally quote any and all biblical scripture to you and performed a miracle right before your eyes infront of witnesses? Would you then believe and accept Him as Jesus the Son of God or, would you still scoff?
I would have to say, that I accept proof when it is right in front of me.
And why do you assume that I scoff at anything.
Seriously, Can we not pose questions for the sole purpose of seeing the responses. I happen to enjoy discussions and debates. We have no need to discuss anything if we both approach a conversation with the exact same thoughts. There is nothing to talk about about, we both know the same things and say the same things. So why talk...We can just look at each other and give a quick nod and our interaction is completed. Points made.
Did Christ not take a different form and at first was not recognised by his disciple? So if they did find his body would they not just be his mortal remains not Christ the Son of God? - as he ascended to heaven - it would not be so easy in the wrappings of a mortal body.
This is the way I understand the story. Christ did come back in a different form, and that's why Thomas (doubting Thomas) did not recognize his old mentor. In the book of Acts, it says that Jesus remained on earth for forty something days after his resurrection. I read the Bible a few years ago, to make up my mind about it. I believe Jesus really existed, but that his message was both misunderstood, and most likely misreported due to all the different languages the NT has been interpreted into and from. He does refer to himself in different ways, and it is really open to interpretation when you read and study yourself. And I believe that's what one should do, not take the word of a priest or minister, but examine the religion for yourself. I don't think he expected a whole cult or religion to come about because of him. He had special gifts, and openly tells his disciples "You will do things even greater than these." This suggests that he had information sources and thought in the future this information would be more available to regular people. Plus where was Jesus from the time Mary and Joseph lost him only to find him at the temple (at around age 9) and at the age of his crucifixion at around age 33? Some suggest he was studying in mystery schools in India, learning esoteric teachings. It is all very interesting.
Jesus went to India after the event of crucifixion in which he survived:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DXCZFRsyl8 a BBC documentary.
http://hinduism.about.com/b/2005/09/22/ … -india.htm
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes … rine-jesus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentar … view.shtml
http://mystiquearth.blogspot.com/2008/1 … shmir.html
Some of the links are no longer up there!
Took this from one though:
There is nothing in the authentic sayings and teachings of Jesus to support or justify any of this. According to him he was a prophet raised among Israel particularly for the guidance of the "lost sheep of the House of Israel." (Matthew 15: 24). Were it true that he was the very God himself and that the sole purpose of his sojourn upon earth was to expiate mankind's sins upon the cross, he would not have prayed in agony and asked his disciples to pray in the Garden of Gethsemane that if possible, the cup (of death upon the Cross) may be turned away (Matthew 26 : 39). Jesus believed that God heard his prayers. He must have believed that this prayer would also be heard. If the whole purpose of his advent was to atone for the sins of mankind through his death upon the cross why this agonized prayer to be spared such a death? This prayer is a complete refutation of the whole alleged purpose of his advent.
But the writer missed part of the context (not surprisingly) when he forgot to mention the whole prayer Christ made in Gethsemane:
And going a little farther, He threw Himself upon the ground on His face and prayed saying, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will [not what I desire], but as You will and desire.
Here is TRUE submission to God, when we do His will and not our own, and it is a requirement for any believer to do this.
This is why it is irrelevant whether someone finds a body and claims it is Christ, for we worship Christ in Spirit and in Truth, not the man, but the God.
When Christ Resurrected he became ONE with God. Jesus yet a separate entity, and yet one with God. As we Christians are separate but will become One body.
Finding a body and claiming it Christ may crush the faiths of weak believers, but the true believers won't be moved.
the cup that jesus prayed to be taken away was not the cup of death. Death is not a cup. Wrath is a cup as we can read about in revelation. Jesus was not asking that he would not have to die - Jesus fully understood and supported the fact that he had to die - but to have God remove his spirit from him was something jesus did not want. Jesus had the Spirit from birth and continually all through his life and this one time He would experience separation.
What the jewish perspective and bible perspective teach is that the soul is the life of the body - all those things chemical and biological that make the body animate - Christ poured out his life (soul) on the cross and he knew this was the epitome of his existence. God dwelt fully in Him in what we term the Holy Spirit and God removed His Spirit from Christ. Notice that nowhere until the last 3 hrs on the cross does Jesus refer to God as God but as the father. My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me, not father why hast, but God... a repercussion of sin is separation from God. The children of Israel were separated from God because of their sins as was Adam, and this pattern, in keeping with the ritual of the sacrifice, was that Christ had to bear the sins of the humanity, therefore, God removed himself, hovered over, remained in the area of - however you want to phrase it - while the sins of the world were literally borne by Jesus. IF Jesus were to have prayed that the death - sacrifice - not occur would have been against the fathers will and the purpose for His life. In essence Jesus would be praying away his entire reason for being.
Thanks BRO, I will study that, good reply.
WOW, That was a great teaching. It clears up alot of questions I have had and makes sense. Thank you for your willingness to study, learn and teach Brotheryochanan
The cup is the whole ordeal, including the wrath meant for sinners that he drank.
if it were the whole ordeal, it would mean that christ was praying against his purpose and he just would not do that.
The cup of wrath is a cup that could have been avoided. Jesus would still have died on the cross which would account for atonement. The cup of Jesus body, which would experience death would have meant no death, no atonement, so that is not an option.
The only cup able to be wanted to be avoided is the cup of the wrath of God.
Hello?! He didn't want to avoid being beaten and humiliated in public or an agonizing death on the cross? It wasn't just the wrath of God. It was the wrath of men as well.
The fact that he had to overcome profound reluctance speaks to his humanity.
One more thing . . . try to be more succinct. Your ponderings are too ponderous.
Do you really think that this kinda thing can occur....I don't think so. Well I welcome your view.
What I think is if Jesus's dead body is found then surely the Bible's way of death and resurrection would remain nothing else but a lie which we all Christians had been following for centuries. The faiths of the people towards God and Jesus would surely change and Christianity would be called a "False religion" which was being followed by many..
But yes I don't think that this kind of situation will ever come....
there is a theory that his boby is buried in a double grave in india jesus and one of their religious leaders of old but to date not allowed to dig to prove scans of the grave show two bodies but only one name mentioned on tomb.....................
And how again would you prove it's the body of Jesus? Would you compare his dna to God's???
We have ID'd mummies. We could probably not be able to definitely prove anything beyond a complete shadow of doubt. But it the markings on the "coffin" and any other "writings" pointed to his identity then it would be a highly probable identification. Same with the texts if something of that nature was found.
If texts were found that were supposed written by Jesus himself and it confirmed all current Christian beliefs, no-one would even question the findings or doubt that he wrote them. But, if they didn't agree, then there would be all kinds of debates.
Interesting post. However, I think that this is wrong, and 2besure above is quite right. We may have ID'd mummies, but mummies have never claimed divinity, nor any other dubious supernatural accoutrements. The whole "point" of Jesus is his alleged divinity and godhood. Finding a body could never be enough even in principle; you'd have to find some way in which this body had properties that no other mortal body had; even then, it might be Apollo. Or Hercules. Or Gilgamesh. Even in the latter case, the best you could say was that it's the body of something not mortal. And "no one would question [this or that]" as stated above is a poor argument from popularity, which can have about as much success as the belief that the world was flat.
The point behind Jesus being of a Divine nature, would be called into question if indeed a body was found. Common thought is that he was resurrected due to the fact that he was in fact divine.
seigfried23 is talking about myths here though. So why do so many Christians believe what I think are essentially myths? I don't doubt that Jesus lived at some point, but do think, especially in Genesis, much of it is myth. You have to take gigantic leaps of faith to believe all the stuff that happens there. And if you believe God created the world, science has proven that Earth is millions of years older than the Bible suggests that it is.
Another problem with "Jesus being of a Divine nature" is that you would have to decide what properties this would have on a body, if any. Jesus is just a name, and there is no conceivable way you could ever prove any body that you ever found was his. For example, if you found a body that was lifeless and yet had not decayed, that would be very intriguing. But that wouldn't make it Jesus'. Remember that "we" think of Jesus as the true God, just as the Greeks though of Zeus as the true leader of the Gods millenia before there was ever any mention of Jesus. Although Double Scorpion most certainly has a right to ask it, the question itself is brimming with too many fallacies of assumption; things that are actually very much in question, which are assumed true in order to ask that particular question.
The interesting thing about asking this type of question, is that many are not actually answering the question. Instead they are arguing how it can be proved or "just isn't possible" because Jesus is God.
The question is actually quite simple. Would finding the body of Jesus change your beliefs?
Finding a body, would imply he wasn't divine but was just another prophet as some claim.
And if writings were found that were from his hand and they differed from the bible, then that would imply that the modern Christian is not really following the teachings of Jesus.
I was not attempting to validate Jesus' divinity or lack thereof, or if he did or did not exist, or if he was risen or not risen. I was asking a "what if" scenario based on the "fact" that his body and writing were found, and how would that affect current christian beliefs.
While I fully maintain your right to ask this question precisely as stated, the fact remains too that it is a question rife with the philosophical delineation of fallacy of assumption. You might not have intended to do this; but, it remains so nonetheless. In order to even exist, the question requires the veracity of several axioms which are not at all known to be true (much like if a judge asks a man in court whether or not he beats his wife. The man answers "no" and so he is regarded as a good man. Later, it is found that the only reason he doesn't beat his wife is because he is not married to the girl he actually beat. She was his girlfriend. The original question the judge asked made a fallacy of assumption). Now, while the fallacious nature of your question doesn't invalidate it, and anyone may answer as they see fit, it doesn't seem unreasonable that others would raise serious objections as to the statement, itself, before being able to answer it; particularly given the fact that the nature/strength of different Christians' beliefs vary.
It should be obvious that those who have "true belief" would never waver at the question because it is predicated on "proof", which is never a matter of faith. If you "believe", then all that would just be scientists' way of trying to sway your belief system. We know this because there have been countless occurrences which directly put the veracity of biblical claims in serious doubt, just like your example would. They either ignore them, don't understand them, or distrust them. In my teachings to physics students, I find that the most popular by far is ignorance of them; distrust is second. To ask the question stated automatically "validates" the divinity of Jesus; because if he's not divine, then the entire tenet of Christianity is probably baseless.
Ultimately, despite the inherent problems with the question, it has fostered what appears to be months of debate, and so seems to be a resounding success.
It seems you are not comprehending the context of the question. It is "scenario based" or "what if". This type of question cannot be a fallacy as it is not stating anything as actual facts. It is simply asking a person's opinion based from a hypothetical situation. There is no right or wrong answers.
I am thinking that if someone is wishing to justify the validity of a "what if" scenario, it could mean they are not secure in their beliefs and hold an immense fear of their faith being proven wrong and in turn completely destroying their concept of what is or isn't "truth".
It is like asking the question "What would you do if you won a multi-million dollar lottery?" Everyone knows the actual odds of winning, but "what if".
Again; you are not quite there yet. The question about the lottery is completely unrelated to the previous, and cannot be a fallacy of assumption (note too that I have said "fallacy of assumption" and not "fallacy" as you said, which takes it out of context and thus changes the meaning. Your question is not a fallacy; it is a fallacy of assumption. I urge you to see and understand that this is not my interpretation of your question, but what it is by definition, because it necessarily assumes something that is not an axiom). Winning the lottery is not fallacy of assumption, because we all know it's possible! IT has happened before; there is no question as to its real existence. While the question about finding the body of Jesus is not a fallacy, it is a [fallacy of assumption], because it has the very dire problem that there is inherently no way it can conceivably, even in principle, be known to be true. It can still be asked, and not be a fallacy; but it is a [fallacy of assumption]. You must take the phrase and not a single word out of it, because then you change the meaning.
So based on your belief, the body of Jesus can never be found because he is "risen". Others of different beliefs say it just hasn't been found yet. And still other say it has been found in India.
My question is only a fallacy of assumption to you because of your beliefs. It is not a fallacy of assumption to all. Most of the other posters actually gave answers to the question and didn't bother with if it would or could really happen. Your not scared of having your beliefs proven wrong by answering a simple question are you?
And of course we all know the Lotto is Real, as you said, people have won there is no question to it's existance. There is physical proof...Can the same be said for Jesus? He existance does seem to be in question...
You could not be more wrong; demonstrably so - I don't believe Jesus is risen, or even existed, with any more objective certainty than that Gilgamesh was a magic warrior. The funny thing is that the components to the answer are staring you right in the face; you need only to put them together! "There is physical proof...can the same be said foe Jesus? His [existence] does seem to be in question..." is where your fallacy of assumption begins, because you then go on to ask a question that asserts his existence by its very nature, despite admitting that it's "very much in question" . And then, sadly, you make reference once again to the argument from popularity by referring to other posters..but that that is your right. I don't think the question, itself, is a fallacy, but it is a bit silly to take issue with anyone - as you did in a previous post - who challenges the validity to the precursors of your question. You have described a situation in which it isn't demonstrably possible to arrive at in theory. Pointing this out may enable you, if you are willing to see it, perhaps ask better questions in the future. It is, frankly, obvious that if the "body of Jesus was found", the first and only really important question any Christian or non-Christian (such as myself, for example) would ask is "How do you know it's Jesus?" You attempted to ask your original question as though it existed in a vacuum; unfortunately; it does not, it is irretrievably connected to several other quite valid questions - such as one of identity - especially if you are purporting to challenge the faith of so many.
I will apologize, as it seems, you feel I am not fit to ask a hypothytical question.
I personally don't care what people believe.
I am more interested in the philosophy that a question raises.
It doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not, it doesn't matter if his body is found or not. I am curious to what affect it would have on beliefs of a person who does in fact believes Jesus was a real person and follows the Bible.
I haven't posted anything based on my personal beliefs. I have only responded to responses and ask follow on questions to get a better understanding of a persons viewpoint. I don't have an issue with anyones responses, sometimes I am curious to the clarification of a persons response.
It has been interesting talking with you. Although I am still not quite sure what your actual point was regarding our discussion.
"Although I am still not quite sure what your actual point was regarding our discussion." LOL. That much is clear.
Ah well; you can lead a horse to water...
You haven't made a point that seems relevent in anyway. At least not to me anyways.
You did talk alot, but I am not sure that you were actually saying anything.
Nothing you wrote about was relevent to the OP. And it seems as if you were attempting to debunk a thought or theory that maybe you thought I have?
Maybe you could explain your point, as it seems you thought you had one. I see nothing more than an attempt to insult a question asked.
Leading a horse to water...Hmm...My thought on that is, It is not my job to lead anyone anywhere. We are all grown and have the ability to find our own way. I am not interested in changing anyone's mind (leading them to water), I am only interested in the discussion. I am interested in the debate. I am not interested in arguing over who's belief is right or wrong.
I'm 99.99999% certain it cannot happen, and even if it could, how can you prove a body once belonged to a man who had no confirmed sibling or descandants, and whose one known biological relative also left behind no remains? And then there's the problem of sorting out the extremely common names. Some guy named Josh, whose parents are Mary and Joe, is more than likely to not be the Josh son of Mary and Joe we're talking about.
Then how are we to know he even actually existed then? If we cannot confirm anything about him, then how are we to believe in him?
There is more than just physical evidence- but a claim to have found the corpse of a certain person also requires proof. DNA evidence proves nothing if the person left behind no biological relatives with which we can compare genes.
DS... How are we to know he even actually existed??? 2besure TOLD you how, I think twice. Real Christians have faith. Unlike you and me they "simply believe it." Its faith. You are quite obviously at least an Agnostic and maybe an Atheist, but DEFINITELY someone who doesn't believe in a Christian God. Sorry THE God, not a God. :-)
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
If all the info in the Bible is correct, like almost everyone else has said, we CAN'T find Jesus' body, BUT for ME to answer your original question however, if someone ACTUALLY found Jesus' body with his works? Some how if we all "just KNEW" it was really Him (since your hypothetical didn't say how "we" knew I just have to accept that we know its real) then IF one of more people didn't cover it up some people like myself would change to incorporate the new information. Everyone else would have to speak for themselves since I'd rather not write 5 paragraphs speculating what others would do.
The questions I ask, leads people to think certain things about me. Truth is, I don't advertize my beliefs. I just ask questions. It is easy to ask the questions that align perfectly with beliefs. It is asking the questions that really don't have a set answer across the board that interest me. I like to study people and their responses to certain stimulus. And alot of the people I have talked with, both online and in real life, never fail to respond as expected.
So you like to poke people with sticks sometimes even when you know what the response will be? Seems boring.
Also seems unfair to coerce the beliefs out of others when you're unwilling to share yourself. Makes the discussion rather one sided don't you think? IMHO you won't ever truly maximize learning/growth without a completely two sided conversation.
One doesn't have to respond to the questions posed. But yet many many do. And for a variety of reasons. I have absolutely no reason to justify myself, my actions or my beliefs to anyone. If someone one truly wished to know and learn my beliefs then I would answer them. But the truth is, most only wish to claim superiority of their beliefs over mine.
I don't poke, that is invading personal space of a person. I ask questions and follow up questions for clarifications. Choosing to answer those questions is on the other person. And of course is a part of the response as well. And as with any type of study or research, even when you know the result, you have to test it as well for inclusion into the equation.
And everything has three sides not two..."your side", "my side" and the Truth. I already know "my side" and by someone answering questions I get a portion of the "your side". The search however is for the truth.
One doesn't have to respond? We're all members of the forum here of course people will respond, especially to such a provocative hypothetical question. I'm sure you know that.
And I never said anything about justifying anything here. The forum is for discussion. Nothing more. Having an open discussion is generally the best way to explore/develop/learn about ideas that are others AND yours. Comparing and contrasting, nothing more. You seem self-confident enough really that someone proclaiming their views to be better probably wouldn't bother you. Seems to me someone who lacked confidence in their beliefs wouldn't have posted a question like you did. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be surprised.
Come on now, "poke" - although it might have had a slightly negative connotation - was simply a metaphor for asking questions. Certainly in this context. I think it was a good one however if your intent was to get some people a little excited, which is okay because in my opinion you didn't cross any lines. I like what you said though about sometimes you knowing the result, I retract the boring bit.
I just wonder if you adding "your side" might help the discussion. Maybe not. I believe I know it either way. Its all good.
Precisely! That's why it's called "belief". If something is true, then it doesn't require you to "believe in it"; indeed, proof is rather antithetical to faith. Which is why, despite that this post concerns Jesus, he has no more objective validity than Ra or Anubis.
For true Christian believers, it wouldn't matter. Faith is not based on proof, or it wouldn't be called faith. "It is the evidence of things not seen!"
Respectfully; there is an inherent inconsistency in that very statement (even though it's not your own): there is no "evidence" of things not seen (and by "seen", it is generally understood to encompass more than just the visual sense). History suggests that this is the case, given the countless gods that people worshiped before Jesus; indeed, the mythologies that pre-date Christianity, itself, and from which much or even most of Christianity was copied. "Evidence of things not seen" are really just the stories that human beings make up about natural phenomena when they don't understand why the storm wiped away their neighbors, or why the Sun "sets".
The mystery religions do not predate christianity. Christianity being a first century 1-100 event and the myths 2nd century and older 100-200.
Adonis is more than 100 yrs after Jesus. Attis is also long after jesus. Mithraism is latter 2nd century in rome and not connected to the persian mithra. The earliest mithraic inscription is on a statue dating 101AD in roman empire. The mithraea (temples) are dated early second century.
Try as anyone might there is no evidence to support the claim that christianity copied any part of itself from any other religion. The virgin births are untrue in the myths and far from virginal. Resurrections are not resurrections at all but tied in with the cycles of vegetation. Although by a stretch of imagination they can be loosely termed with christianities VB and RES they are not akin at all. Yes religions had common meals but this was not uncommon as all group functions and meetings also in the secular fields had meals too.
The only way you'll find His body is when He is walking this earth again and is ready to bring His faithful children to the Kingdon of Heaven.
While leaving behind the great unwashed ignorant scientists and thinkers to rot in hell.
It must be so wonderful being you!
Yes I can see you and your christian friends here are so much smarter and more worthy than the rest of us!
got yer knickers in a bunch huh
it must be so something being you, but i can't imagine what.
Your like a damn with a hole in it and the water keeps leakin out.
Couldn't refrain huh. just wasn't able.
terrible tables side manners you have.
This is why people with your kind of attitude cause so much war
It has already happened. Jesus died in India and is buried in a grave at Mohallah Khanyar, Srinagar, India.
I will definitely affect the beliefs of the Christianity for a positive change.
Of course. Who wouldn't take the word of an illiterate that claimed he heard it from an angel? That's the average criteria used to have information included in a history book.
For further information one may click one or more of the fillowing links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DXCZFRsyl8 a BBC documentary.
http://hinduism.about.com/b/2005/09/22/ … -india.htm
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes … rine-jesus
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentar … view.shtml
http://mystiquearth.blogspot.com/2008/1 … shmir.html
"The Urantia Book claims to be a revelation of the life of Jesus. It offers a detailed account of his childhood, adolescence and early adulthood and provides a comprehensive narrative of later events as recorded in the Gospels. According to the Urantia Book, Jesus never visited India; instead, beginning in his 28th year (AD 22, according to the Urantia book) he travelled with a wealthy merchant from India and the merchant's son. Jesus was invited, on a number of occasions, to visit India by the wealthy Indian merchant, but Jesus declined, citing responsibilities relating to his family in Palestine."
Of course Jesus never went to India.
Jesus was sent to the Jews. Jesus mission was jewish based. Gods original people, to repent them not the people of India.
He said what he was gonna do, preach to the jews, be crucified, resurrect and then ascend.
I heard he was a back-up singer for Elvis.
Of course Jesus went to India.Ten of the 12 tribes in exile went and lived in India and the neighboring countries, so Jesus had to go to them to accumplish his mission and he had hinted very clearly that he would visit them like Jonah visited his people when he was out of the belly of the fish.
It is a racial thing to say that only Jews were the original people of the Creator God; all people are the original people of Him.
History tells us that Jesus did go to India and died there at the age of 120 years; if NT Bible failed to mention it; it showes that it was written by ignorant people.
No, it does not, in fact, you have provided links that said he did not go to India.
Hindu scriptures mention of Jesus going to India:
From SRI BHAVISHYA PURANA. Pratisarga parva, Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, 19th Chapter. (text 20 onwards).
Ruling over the Aryans was a king called Salivahana, the grandson of Vikramaditya, who occupied the throne of his father. He defeated the Sakas who were very difficult to subdue, the Cinas, the people from Tittiri and Bahikaus who could assume any form at will. He also defeated the people from Rome and the descendants of Khuru, who were deceitful and wicked. He punished them severely and took their wealth. Salivahana thus established the boundaries dividing the separate countries of the Mlecchas and the Aryans. In this way Sindusthan came to to be known as the greatest country. That personality appointed the abode of the Mlecchas beyond the Sindhu river and to the west.
ekadaa tu shakadhisho
hunadeshasya madhye vai
giristhan purusam shubhano
dadarsha balaram raajaa
Once upon a time the subduer of the Sakas went towards Himatunga and in the middle of the Huna country (Hunadesh - the area near Manasa Sarovara or Kailash mountain in Western Tibet), the powerful king saw an auspicious man who was living on a mountain. The man's complexion was golden and his clothes were white. (Bhavishya Purana 19:22.)
ko bharam iti tam praaha
su hovacha mudanvitah
iishaa purtagm maam viddhi
"The king asked, 'Who are you sir?' 'You should know that I am Isha Putra, the Son of God'. he replied blissfully, and 'am born of a virgin.' "(Bhavishya Purana 19:23.)
mleccha dharmasya vaktaram
iti srutva nrpa praaha
dharmah ko bhavato matah
" 'I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas and I strictly adhere to the Absolute Truth.' Hearing this the king enquired, 'What are religious principles according to you opinion?' "(Bhavishya Purana 19:24.)
shruto vaaca maharaja
prapte satyasya amkshaye
mahiso 'ham samaagatah
"Hearing this questions of Salivahara, Isha putra said, 'O king, when the destruction of the truth occurred, I, Masiha the prophet, came to this country of degraded people where there are no rules and regulations. Finding that fearful irreligious condition of the barbarians spreading from Mleccha-Desha, I have taken to prophethood'." (Bhavishya Purana 19:25-26.)
mlecchasa sthaapito dharmo
mayaa tacchrnu bhuupate
maanasam nirmalam krtva
malam dehe subhaasbham
japeta nirmalam param
manasyai kena manavah
acaloyam prabhuh sakshat-
athaa suuryacalah sada
"Please hear Oh king which religious principles I have established among the mlecchas. The living entity is subject to good and bad contaminations. The mind should be purified by taking recourse of proper conduct and performance of japa. By chanting the holy names one attains the highest purity. Just as the immovable sun attracts, from all directions, the elements of all living beings, the Lord of the solar region, who is fixed and all-attractive, attracts the hearts of all living creatures. Thus by following rules, speaking truthful words, by mental harmony and by meditation, Oh descendant of Manu, one should worship that immovable Lord'." (Bhavishya Purana 19:27-30.)
isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa
ishamasihah iti ca
mama nama pratishthitam
"Having placed the eternally pure and auspicious form of the Supreme Lord in my heart, O protector of the earth planet, I preached these principles through the Mlecchas' own faith and thus my name became 'isha-masiha' (Jesus the Messiah)." (Bhavishya Purana 19:31.)
Mormon scriptures mention Jesus went to America. Funny guy.
'I am the expounder of the religion of the Mlecchas"
But jesus is not this expounder. He came to the jews.
We get something marginally close to a "carpenter" job in a story related by the Encyclopedia. As it goes, one day Salivahana was walking on a riverbank and saw a beached fish that was laughing at him. He asked some clever people what was up with that, and no one knew until finally one hermit told him the fish had been someone in a former life whom Salivahana in one of his own former lives, as a wood-carrier, had done a favor to. So the fish was laughing because he was happy to see Salivahana doing so well. "ency of Indian culture, 1278"
Salivahana is dated around 676AD.
Finally Salivahana is indeed, according to Wilford, "virgin born" but not virgin-conceived: his mother was impregnated by a snake gliding over her while she was asleep -- in her cradle, at 1 1/2 years of age! (The author also notes a story copycatters may parallel to King Herod chasing after Jesus: a local king went after Salivahana, with a large army, to destroy Salivahana and any followers he had; the child, however, beat the king back and killed him, though he was a tender 5 years of age at the time!) But again, Wilford saw none of this pre-dating the Christian era.
These stories are not to be found in the Puranas
This is sounding very much like the Greek mythical god stories. There is no trace of jesus in any of this or what you posted. There is no former life, no re-incarnation - how is this possible for one people and not another? His appearance is different, his style is very different, there is no mention of a crucifixion, atonement for sin. It is totally without connection to the Jewish religion. There is no way the person can be connected to christ - a risen savior who ascended as he promised.
I have no doubt that christianity went to India or that christianity is in India, but that jesus did not take it there i have no doubt.
I didn't know you could find LSD anymore.
I think you can be sure that if the body of Christ could have been found, the Israelis would have found it years ago, they are very good at that sort of thing.
But for me, if the claim was made, it could not interfere with the relationship I have with Him, but it would destroy Churchianity for sure, Christianity would carry on as it has since he first revealed himself to mankind.
You either are known by Him or you are not.
It would be interesting to see what the fallout would be of such a discovery. I,for one, would be very interested in documenting and studying the resulting issues something like this would bring about.
In many ways it would sort out the 'wheat from the chaff' i.e. all the people who had a relationship with Churchianity would need to re evaluate their position, whereas those who had a relationship with Christ would not be shaken.
Too many Christians have never made that leap of faith and started the relationship with Christ, for most the cost is too heavy, whereas feeling good in a church once or twice a week is low cost entertainment with a feel good factor.
No real demands except membership, tithes and agreement with the doctrines they support.
It would have to be passed as a fraud. If Jesus's body was found today, then it would likely cause a lot of problems in the Christian faith since Jesus is supposed to have risen.
I bet some Fraud is already trying to figure a way to produce a body supposedly belonging to Christ. I suggest you join the Yetti, Bigfoot I have a body crowd!
It's not going to happen, so I cant deal in delusions and you can not dictate a reply in an forum.
If it did happen it probably would strengthen my belief
A simple "what if" question, and we see such hostility.
I have never said it has, would or ever would happen. I was just curious to the "what if" with regards to faith.
You speak of delusion in the possibility of finding a historical person, yet many would argue that your beliefs are nothing more than a delusion.
I have not dictated a reply. I have posed a question and those who wish, are free to answer or ignore as they see fit. As you might notice, I said that "Thoughts and Opinions" were welcome. Not required.
I am curious to your last statement though...How would something that is not in line with your current beliefs and actually would say your current beliefs were in error, strenthen your current beliefs? I would think it would change them.
You wish that something like that would happen. It cannot. The world is full of "What ifs" but the facts still remain. He was killed. He was laid in a tomb, a tomb sealed and guarded by soldiers and three days later when the tomb was opened he was gone. What was there some back door to the tomb no one knew about or could see? I think not. You have to face it facts are facts.
And again, This is only a "what if" scenario.
There is no actual proof that Jesus died and was buried as described in the bible either. As a matter of fact, the bible has different "facts" concerning the event surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. So we still don't have any "facts" that are facts. One has to take that what is written in the bible as truth based on faith. Faith is not fact.
And just as you say that I "want" this to happen, in the same respect you "don't want" it to happen. Because if it did, it would completely shatter the beliefs of most, if not all, Christians.
The bible implicitely says that jesus was buried and rose again and Jesus after his resurrection said:
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, cling to me not; for I am not yet ASCENDED to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ASCEND unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Lets not forget about the sign of the prophet jonah
or about the temple being torn down
or psalm 22
how about this:
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; JESUS of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have CRUCIFIED and SLAIN:
Acts 2:24 Whom God hath RAISED up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be held of it.
Acts 2:32 THIS JESUS HAS GOD RAISED UP, WHEREOF WE ARE ALL WITNESSES. (Peters speech)
The resurrection is a point that commits Christianity. Its one of the, if not THE most important aspects of Christianity.
Faith, my friend, comes from facts.
The bible increases my faith.
The 'fact' that you do not call the bible 'fact' shows that you willfully ignore what scholars, theologians, historians, archaeologists and other noteworthy people, who after spending their whole lives scrutinizing, dissecting and confirming, choose to consider as a book of facts.
john Crossan: Jesus a revolutionary biography, 1991; p145
"That Jesus was crucified is as certain as anything historical can ever be", he is an extreme liberal.
Skeptic, James Tabor says: "I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead." Jesus dynasty p230.
Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman, atheist NT critic and agnostic -in that order, say: Jesus crucifixion is an indisputable fact.
We have friends of the bible and enemies of the bible mentioned above. To have enemies attestation, corroborating stories is definitely noteworthy.
Tacitus, a historian, says: "Jesus suffered the extreme penalty during he reign of Tiberius".
Josephus reports, "Pilate condemned him to be crucified".
Lucian of Samosata, a greek satirist mentions the crucifixion.
Mara bar-Serapion, a pagan, confirms jesus was crucified. "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished".
The Jewish Talmud proclaims that jesus was hanged. (They used hanged instead of crucified because He that is hanged on a tree is cursed of God (Deuteronomy 21:23)
and some other sources.
That christians died for their belief, suffered and were tortured speaks volumes for the amount of belief they had and ya just don't get that kind of belief from not understanding.
Jesus body will never be found
But it will be seen again
Who on earth will discover the body of Jesus? Let's just rule that out.
It would mean that Jesus did not ascend to heaven in the flesh as that stupid bible says! The whole thing is a story. And what about the bodies of lesser known bible figures like John the Baptist? The Virgin Mary? John the Apostle? Mark? Luke? No man in real life ever defeated death. And there was never a real man named Jesus in history. I know I researched it.
Balderdash! He never existed, and even in your story the guy has been dead for thousands of years.
What do you mean you've met him? That is crazy talk!
meet [meet] Show IPA verb, met, meet·ing, noun
verb (used with object)
1. to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter.
2. to become acquainted with; be introduced to.
3. to join at an agreed or designated place or time.
4. to be present at the arrival of.
5. to come to or before (one's notice, or a means of noticing, as the eyes or ears).
OK, I'm still waiting for No 4 to happen, but it will, and then we will see who are the crazy ones!
Now if you did not meet him during your three years in faith, it explains a lot!
Like I said, crazy talk.
During my 3 years of faith my perception was just as bad as yours is now.
You mean you did meet with Christ, but now wish to deny it?
I can understand that, someone who spends so much time denying God must have a reason, and whatever your reason is, I am sorry you decided to put your faith in mankind rather than God, but perplexed about why you spend the one life you have denying someone you say does not exist.
Why is that?
When I was a secularist, I just ignored God completely, and the words of His believers, so why all the effort you put in to deny a God that you say does not exist?
Nothing you will ever say will separate any believer from the love of God.
3 yrs of faith and 30 yrs of study?
you are a mystery religion yourself
is this a contradiction?
rest in peace Ernest, I hear this was your last posting.....
And, that is what you go around day to day telling people? At work? On the street? At dinner parties?
Yeah they been trying that for along time.........and soon they will find a body and say that it is Christ, not that it will be.........They did create all the other Religions and look how many follow imaginary beliefs already.... Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the other isms........
Imagine they havent noticed all the other empty graves, there was a resurrection in that time too..... and documented...
The key word in this sentence is BODY, and not REMAINS.
So the Hebrew Archaeological Society decides they have been looking at their map upside down and go over there and find a tomb with the stone still in front of it and they roll the stone away and inside they find a wholly intact body with a toe tag that says 'Jesus Christ'. The body would have to be glowing with a holy light or something in order to convince everyone, and anyone that touched the body would be healed of sickness and calmed in mind and spirit.
Jews would finally accept Jesus as the Messiah, the Ultimate Jew.
Muslims would decry this Jesus as Satan and do what makes us love them so much.
Most Christians would reject the evidence and cite Pauline dogma about the pretender blah blah blah.
I believe that Jesus taught some great meditation technique that got lost in the groveling and worshipping, so if his writings would be found with him and made public (a big maybe there) and his meditations could cause us to heal ourselves, then all the drama caused by organized religions would be seen as the comedy of errors that they really are.
(By the way, once Jews got their map properly oriented it was child's play to re-locate the arc of the covenant...)
I think all three would happen. You seem like a very wise person. Thanks for sharing. -Brewster
First thing first. If His body will be found, It should be proven that it is His
If the body of Jesus were found integrity would demand that I reject the Christian faith and conclude that I have been misguided all my life. Paul wrote that if Jesus is not risen our faith is in vain. I Corinthians 15
I have tried to come up with a good answer to this question but I cannot. What I know is this.
If the body of Jesus was still in the tomb after it was broadcast that He was risen, the San Hedrin would have removed it and displayed it publicly for all to see. This would have quelled any beliefs that he had risen from the dead.
Since there was no body found, it must stand to reason that he was either raised from the dead, or He never existed in the first place. If He never existed, then there is nothing to the stories written about Him. If He did exist and was raised, then what he spoke had to be the truth.
If the body of Jesus was produced then everything that my beliefs are based on would disappear. Christianity only makes sense because Christ defeated death and rose again.
Would you consider a different religion? And would you have any regrets for your life that you would have wished you could have changed based on this "new information"?
FYI Christianity is not a religion rather a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Christians are the body of Christ. Jesus scoffed the religious Pharisees. Religion is mans doctrine on the Bible and much of the time scripture is twisted or ignored or devised to meet own needs. One does not need to be in a religion to make eternal life (heaven)it is by believing in Jesus Christ who came for the sins of the world. John 3:16
FYI: The definition of religion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
I think that everyone would agree that Christianity would fall into this definition.
Double: Religion is a noun you got that right but that is just about where it ends. Christianity is a set of beliefs but Our God has always been he is not a created superhuman agent. Yes there are moral codes governing the conduct of human affairs.
Christianity is not a religion. It is a choice to believe that heaven and hell are real and that one can choose by their lifestyle and actions whether they can escape the suffering of hell and attain a peaceful existance without apin and suffering.
Not my definition. It is the dictionary definition. And the dictionary says that Christianity is:
Chris·ti·an·i·ty /ˌkrɪstʃiˈænɪti/ Show Spelled[kris-chee-an-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1.the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches.
2.Christian beliefs or practices; Christianquality or character: Christianity mixed with paganelements; the Christianity of Augustine's thought.
3.a particular Christian religious system: She followed fundamentalist Christianity.
4.the state of being a Christian.
Again the dictionary definition, not mine.
Christianity is a religion, by definition.
No, that is one particular set of beliefs of the Christian religion.
No regrets, whatsoever. Why should I regret belonging to any religion that prompts me to take care of the sick, the poor, etc.,?
Then body of Jesus has been found buried in a tomb in Srinagar, Kashmir, India.
Christianity should therefore has to be corrected.
But just like the other magic man stories you have no proof at all of that claim do you?
See what Paara?
A body and the beliefs of a group of people is all I would see I think.
How could anyone prove up a body as an individual without having any proof?
Same problem for all these beliefs in religious figures.
They just refuse to stand up in the face of any honest investigation of the "facts" that are offered to support them.
The body was not found just a tomb and the tomb is just supposed to the be the right one, but of course, it is not.
The problem with Jesus in India is that the beatings and scourgings that jesus took, lack of blood etc. would have rendered him incapable of such a journey. To say that christ was an enigma on the cross would have to include that he was an enigma before pontius pilate and thats a bit much to swallow isn't it. If we suppose that jesus went to the cross then we have to suppose he was beaten and terribly so, so there would be much healing time, if jesus were not the son of God. Why didn't he heal himself, he could but then that would be an act of God wouldn't it and God whom we know is truth, would not have allowed a lie such as jesus going to india to exist. And then we have to ignore the Gospel accounts, acts, all of the New Testament as well.
Jesus could take the needed time to heal; when he was seen by the people; his injuries were not healed fully as yet.
The question is NOT: what COULD God do?
Because all things are possible with God.
The question is: what DID God do?
The bible gives clear, sober, detailed reports of what DID happen, of what God DID do, therefore we cannot ignore, deny or just imagine otherwise. We need to let the information form our conclusions not just form our own conclusions.
Paarsurrey, in the words of Mary Magdalene, who was at gethsemane on the first resurrection sunday, "Please, sir...show me where you have taken Him...
25And there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleopas, and Mary the Magdalene;
26Jesus, therefore, having seen [his] mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he was loving, he saith to his mother, `Woman, lo, thy son;'
27afterward he saith to the disciple, `Lo, thy mother;' and from that hour the disciple took her to his own [home].
28After this, Jesus knowing that all things now have been finished, that the Writing may be fulfilled, saith, `I thirst;'
29a vessel, therefore, was placed full of vinegar, and they having filled a sponge with vinegar, and having put [it] around a hyssop stalk, did put [it] to his mouth;
30when, therefore, Jesus received the vinegar, he said, `It hath been finished;' and having bowed the head, gave up the spirit.
31The Jews, therefore, that the bodies might not remain on the cross on the sabbath, since it was the preparation, (for that sabbath day was a great one,) asked of Pilate that their legs may be broken, and they taken away.
32The soldiers, therefore, came, and of the first indeed they did break the legs, and of the other who was crucified with him,
33and having come to Jesus, when they saw him already having been dead, they did not break his legs;
34but one of the soldiers with a spear did pierce his side, and immediately there came forth blood and water;
35and he who hath seen hath testified, and his testimony is true, and that one hath known that true things he speaketh, that ye also may believe.
36For these things came to pass, that the Writing may be fulfilled, `A bone of him shall not be broken;'
37and again another Writing saith, `They shall look to him whom they did pierce.'
38And after these things did Joseph of Arimathea -- being a disciple of Jesus, but concealed, through the fear of the Jews -- ask of Pilate, that he may take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave leave; he came, therefore, and took away the body of Jesus,
39and Nicodemus also came -- who came unto Jesus by night at the first -- bearing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, as it were, a hundred pounds.
40They took, therefore, the body of Jesus, and bound it with linen clothes with the spices, according as it was the custom of the Jews to prepare for burial;
41and there was in the place where he was crucified a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one was yet laid;
42there, therefore, because of the preparation of the Jews, because the tomb was nigh, they laid Jesus.
1And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early (there being yet darkness) to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb,
2she runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter, and unto the other disciple whom Jesus was loving, and saith to them, `They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we have not known where they laid him.'
3Peter, therefore, went forth, and the other disciple, and they were coming to the tomb,
4and the two were running together, and the other disciple did run forward more quickly than Peter, and came first to the tomb,
5and having stooped down, seeth the linen clothes lying, yet, indeed, he entered not.
6Simon Peter, therefore, cometh, following him, and he entered into the tomb, and beholdeth the linen clothes lying,
7and the napkin that was upon his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but apart, having been folded up, in one place;
8then, therefore, entered also the other disciple who came first unto the tomb, and he saw, and did believe;
9for not yet did they know the Writing, that it behoveth him out of the dead to rise again.
10The disciples therefore went away again unto their own friends,
11and Mary was standing near the tomb, weeping without; as she was weeping, then, she stooped down to the tomb, and beholdeth two messengers in white, sitting,
12one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid.
13And they say to her, `Woman, why dost thou weep?' she saith to them, `Because they took away my Lord, and I have not known where they laid him;'
14and these things having said, she turned backward, and seeth Jesus standing, and she had not known that it is Jesus.
15Jesus saith to her, `Woman, why dost thou weep? whom dost thou seek;' she, supposing that he is the gardener, saith to him, `Sir, if thou didst carry him away, tell me where thou didst lay him, and I will take him away;'
16Jesus saith to her, `Mary!' having turned, she saith to him, `Rabbouni;' that is to say, `Teacher.'
17Jesus saith to her, `Be not touching me, for I have not yet ascended unto my Father; and be going on to my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and to your God.'
18Mary the Magdalene cometh, telling to the disciples that she hath seen the Lord, and [that] these things he said to her.
19It being, therefore, evening, on that day, the first of the sabbaths, and the doors having been shut where the disciples were assembled, through fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and saith to them, `Peace to you;'
20and this having said, he shewed them his hands and side; the disciples, therefore, rejoiced, having seen the Lord.
21Jesus, therefore, said to them again, `Peace to you; according as the Father hath sent me, I also send you;'
22and this having said, he breathed on [them], and saith to them, `Receive the Holy Spirit;
23if of any ye may loose the sins, they are loosed to them; if of any ye may retain, they have been retained.'
24And Thomas, one of the twelve, who is called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came;
25the other disciples, therefore, said to him, `We have seen the Lord;' and he said to them, `If I may not see in his hands the mark of the nails, and may put my finger to the mark of the nails, and may put my hand to his side, I will not believe.'
26And after eight days, again were his disciples within, and Thomas with them; Jesus cometh, the doors having been shut, and he stood in the midst, and said, `Peace to you!'
27then he saith to Thomas, `Bring thy finger hither, and see my hands, and bring thy hand, and put [it] to my side, and become not unbelieving, but believing.'
28And Thomas answered and said to him, `My Lord and my God;'
29Jesus saith to him, `Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed; happy those not having seen, and having believed.'
30Many indeed, therefore, other signs also did Jesus before his disciples, that are not written in this book;
31and these have been written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in his name.'
Thank you for your honest answer, KSchmutzler, it is very enlightening on this subject.
And, the shipping, duty, insurance and brokerage fees would be through the roof.
The supposed coffin of James, Jesus's brother (a proven fake) was originally valued at something like 1.3 million dollars. So yes, "ebay" bidding would be furious.
What if the sky was red instead of blue?
I agree with paradigmsearch
The Sky isn't Red??? Of course it is. The Sky contains every color except blue, because it reflects blue that is why we see blue....
As the sunlight goes through the air, some colors of light, like red and orange, pass straight through the air (the sky is filled with air). But, most of the blue light (the sky contains mostly blue) bounces off in all directions and gets scattered all around the sky (air). When you look up, you see blue light (not red, because red passes through the air, and blue stays scattered all over the air).
So, if you want, let’s put it this way:
Why is the sky black instead of brown? I mean, at night, the sky is black
There’s an explanation for it, but it was supposed to be a rethorical question LOL
I was joking actually in my post. But of course the "sky" itself isn't any color. We are simply seeing the blue spectrum of light that is being reflected from the air molecules that has absorb it.
Perhaps I didn't express it correctly in my other post. But as I said, it was mostly a joke.
@DoubleScorpion: Yes, I figured it was meant to be a joke. Sorry if I sounded offended or angry. It's just that I couldn't resist either LOL You're thoughtful - that's nice
If you live in England, you rarely see blue - just grey and sometimes darker.
I completely disagree. It was hundreds of years after Christ's death, that it was believed that his body rose from his grave. I believe his spirit left his body and rose. As do a lot of Christian's. I also believe that Christ would not be happy with the way that humans created a religion around him.
And, where exactly did you get that notion? It's untrue. It was about 40-60 years.
So the body of Jesus wouldn't change anything in your beliefs? What about the texts written by Jesus that were a major conflict with todays bible? Would you modify you beliefs to fit the "new" Jesus's teachings?
Not at all. I am gonna get some grief for this. But I look at Jesus a lot like I do the Buddha, when it comes to his teachings. I think 80% or more of his teachings was about living a clean moral life. Besides the Bible as we know it today wasn't fully devised until 325 AD with the council of Nicaea. Until then you had a lot of sects of Christians that were completely different from the Christians that "won". When I say won I am referring to the Catholics (The Universal Religion). And if you have ever read about the Essenes then you would know that there was a big difference in the belief system of the early Christian church. Therefore there is no telling what would be unearthed in the texts found with the bod of Christ or Yeshua.
@OP- It would certainly make things a lot more interesting that's for sure. However, I would have to say that it would probably be dismissed as a fraud. Too many Christians wouldn't abandon their beliefs and if they did, they wouldn't be Christians and probably go to another religion instead since Christianity(and all other sects couldn't be completely trusted).
If the bones of Jesus were found, how could they be identified? Nothing exists which has the DNA of Jesus, so there would be no way of knowing to whom the bones belonged. And I would have thought that his bones would have turned to dust a long time ago.
If writings were discovered which claimed to be written by Jesus, there would be no proof either way as to their authenticity. As no one even knows who really wrote the gospels, although there is a lot of disagreement over them, then I would assume this would also be the case for any writings claiming Jesus as the author.
We have mummies from before Jesus's time and we have identified them. We have texts from Paul, that we know he wrote because he listed his name as the author and we have other texts that are claimed to be authored by Paul which we think is false because they are not written in his style of writing. Speaking of the texts, I am refering to Texts that say that Jesus is the author and can be dated to the time period of when he was supposed to be alive.
Prove to me the text from Paul in the bible. I read the dead sea scrolls and found none. What proof please?
Dead Sea Scrolls is the OT. The Pauline letters copies that we have start with a greeting from Paul. Same as what is written in the NT. Certian books are attributed to Paul but don't follow his writing style.
But the Letters to Galatia, Thessalonia, Corinth, Philippians, and Philomon are his. Colossians and the second book of Thessalonians might not be.
You are so right. But I seriously do not believe he existed. If it were true you would not have to believe it. Thanks for your honest reply.
What if trees came to life and started yelling at everyone? I wonder about that from time to time.
There are people who truly believe that trees are alive and talk to them.
It would definitely change many aspects about christianity. For starters, Jesus would probably be put in the same category as modern day street ministers. The entire Bible would be discredited and many christians wwould probably be surprised with disbelief that the whole biblical account of Jesus is not true. The view of other major religions in the world would be affected in one way or another. The world would not be the same for many believers if Jesus's bones were discovered.
Archaeologist discovered bones a few years ago in the Middle East region in a bone box with the name of Jesus writing on it but it was later dismissed as the bones of someone else with that name, since it was a name that was very commonly used in the region around that time.
"Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27)
Scripture clearly teaches that Christianity is a religion! No one who truly wishes to be faithful to Scripture could fail to acknowledge that. It doesn't mean that you do not have a personal relationship with Jesus.
Where doe scripture teach that Christianity is a religion. Read Acts. This is where the word Christian evolved. It was a body of Believers in Jesus Christ the son of God. Jesus is alive and well and the Saviour of the World. It is a persona choice to believe in Jesus. Yes most religions I would say believe in Jesus and yes there are Christians in a certain religious denomination. You do not have to join a religion church.
Say what you want....humankind came up with the definition of what a "religion" IS and YOU are not going to change it, to suit your own use.
I am sure everyone here appreciates your Evangelical preaching. Christianity sets forth beliefs and practices based upon stories of a man they named Jesus, established through orthodox religion. All denominations and variations of Christianity found their roots from
within the Orthodox Church that was officially established in the early third century. Orthodox Christianity gained its strength as a religion when Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, and later formed the Council of Nicea in order to not only establish his chosen brand
of Christianity as the State religion of Rome. To take this further, Jesus did not create Christianity; Christianity created Jesus. Even his name
was created by the proponents of religion. Men created their teachings and ascribed them to a man they coined as "Jesus," never allowing the true man's message to come forth. The man's name was Yeshua, and this Jewish radical in fact spoke against religion, and hid his messages
within parables; stories that contain spiritual truths. Jesus didn't build a church building, take offerings, establish communion, write the Bible, or promote any other religious ideals that we can tell. But men who came after Yeshua, created a religion purportedly based upon him that is now
known as Christianity.
Way to go Skye2day, you tell em girl. I agree with you Christianity is not a religion. As Christians we/ I have chosen to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, to believe that He was crucified (proven by historic fact) to believe that he was resurrected by God. How did his guarded body in that tomb
disappear mass hypnosis? He was witnessed by thousands walking the earth after his death was that also mass hypnosis? Get real.
Skye2day, I'm with you on this 100%
If you would, please enlighten me to the "historic facts" that Jesus was crucified.
For all of these thousands who "witnessed" him walking around, why isn't there more writings of this miraculous event? It is only mentioned in a few places in the NT.
And where would you score your christianity from if not a religious tome.
To say christianity is not a religion is ridiculous!
Please learn to spell or get a check dictionary. Thanks. Your comments will make more sense. This one does not.
You did not mention the remaining verse found in James 1:27 You only used one half of the sentence. The remaining James 1:27 is, 'and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.'
Religion has customs, worship practices and doctrine written by man to 'belong' to the church. I agree and one can belong to a religion and believe in Jesus Christ. One should be very guarded in the scripture being taught or not, left out. (False teaching)
undeviled in the comcordence comes from the Greek which means pure, not blemished, not stained. The Word of God the Bible is written in order for a reason. To follow the pure unstained written word without blemish. Hope that helps you on the religion thing. God Bless You.
Sky you can say what you want. But Christianity is a religion. The Bible, Torah, Koran, etc... were written by man. They might have been "influenced" by God but they were written by man. The word "religion" was created by man. For us simpleton(humans) that are apparently different than you and your clan of worshipers, we are only able to understand a word through definitions. And using a man-made definition, Christianity is a religion.
It's a completely impossible scenario. There are no known relatives. No way to check dna to prove the body was Jesus. I suppose it isn't outside of the bounds of the possible that writings could be found.
I think a body would change the faith, not negate it. Contradictory writings would be ignored by the church. The church already ignores whatever there is in the text that doesn't suit them. So, they wouldn't make a difference one way or the other.
We do ID mummies. How do we accomplish this? There is no living relatives to compare. We base our ID's from what is written on their coffins and supporting documentation if found. I am sure that if Jesus was as widely known and revered as the Bible claims, then his body would have been processed as one would expect of Royalty and identification markings would be present.
I think you are pretty sharp at figuring things out. Think about what I am asking and see if you can figure out the points I am actually looking to discover.
Jesus was not buried like Royalty. He was the son of a carpenter. Not too mention that the tomb that he was supposedly buried in was donated because they had to have him entered because of Jewish tradition at that time. Based on what we know of Roman practice and Jewish custom Jesus was more than likely buried in shame in a criminals' tomb.
So what does this say about Jesus then? His body was taken by Joseph of Aramethia (a believer and follower of Jesus and was of wealth), Why would he bury Jesus as a criminal?
I am not saying you are right or wrong, I am simply asking follow-on questions based on your response.
*(To prevent any confusion, that I might be baiting or I am a believer or non-believers or any other assumptions)
If you really and honestly knew what you were talking about and who you are talking with, you wouldn't make such ridiculous meaningless statements.
Well, I guess looking at it from a personal perspetive; I'd be more prone to believe. First, because we would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a real historical person. Secondly, because I would have words I knew came from his mind. Contradictions might cause the faithful to fall away, but there'd probably be a great influx of new faithful.
And, I guess a body would be a great thing to discover. We can't imagine being able to raise the flesh from the grave, but we might feel that a spiritual resurrection was within our grasp.
Suppose that the way you currently live already follows the teachings of the texts.
And they simply added a better guide to understanding spiritual enlightenment.
I think I was already arrogantly laboring under the assumption that any documents found would prove that I had gleaned the correct information as far as how to live. I guess we all do.
But, the real hope of a spiritual awakening, with guidelines from someone who'd successfully walked that road? I don't know. Depending on how real we considered the chance of success; I think we'd be willing to walk away from anything and everything to attempt to achieve it. I think I would, and I'm not so different from any one else.
But, if it was like him. Death of the flesh first, I don't know if that's a leap of faith I could take lightly. It might just prove to be a worldwide tragedy.
Edit. I just realized. Either way it's a tragedy. I think governments would do anything in their power to stop a movement to find a connection, if that movement involved disrupting business as usual.
I'll be back later. I have business to attend to.
"governments would do anything in their power to stop a movement to find a connection, if that movement involved disrupting business as usual." I wholeheartedly agree with that, from government to religious entities they would try their best to stop it.
I think that if something of this nature was actually found, it would stir up a world of debate, discussion, research, arguments, and completely upset the balance of things for a good while.
It would be a very interesting find. And it would maybe even create a singular denomination of christains.
Hey DS, I guess it depends on who you know. I've a set of books that debunks many things, like spirituality(mysticism), religion(all of them) and answers many questions, like completely establishing Einstein's original thought on E=MC2, which was actually incomplete, the big bang full explained in lyman terms and how to bring about personal improvement to achieve a love for life and wealth. Not to mention, a simplistic system for operating a profit business. It also discusses morality and character of the individual, so one can always understand how to remain honest.
However, I'm bound by an agreement, so as to not divulge where I received the information. It's part of my research and it consists of over 3000 pages(just one book) of information. The secondary book expands on some of the topics, which grants the ability to increase knowledge and wisdom, so one would not be likely to be cheated or scammed, and it's another 1500 pages.
I would be interested reading those type of documents myself. Maybe one day I'll meet this person.
You are correct. And it would be fascinating to follow. I wonder how long it would take a religion born from such a discovery to fragment into sects of their own.
Also, I wanted to thank you for that Yale link. It's been fascinating so far, but I have to tell you. You said the Old Testament course was dry, so I must be dry myself. I've found it to be incredibly entertaining. I have actually gained a heightened respect for the ancient Israelites as she has shown their cosmology juxtaposed against that of their neighbors.
You are welcome for the Yale link. I am very interested in these types of topics myself, so I enjoy all of it. But not everyone share my enthusiasm for these types of courses. Most people (in my experiences) are most interested in the NT, and find the OT more on the dry side. There are quite a few people that I know, that is interested in learning more about the bible, but can't take the courses for one reason or another. So, I did some looking and found that site and shared it with them. Those courses are pretty much the same across the board in the undergraduate studies(minus the tests and research papers of course LOL).
Well, I always count no tests or research papers on the up side. But, I decided to simply read through both courses first (my computer keeps freezing up on the videos) and then follow up with a little more indepth study on the points I found of particular interest. It would have been nice to find the books they are using at the local library, but no can do. It doesn't matter, since these are introductory courses I haven't found myself at a loss without them. That may change as they get further in.
There are no "what ifs". Jesus is risen and lives eternally. He is "the first born from the dead" - the first to rise from death never to die again.
Neither am I, I am just stating what the Bible and other customs say as well as what was the custom of the time. Criminals back then were buried in the Pit of Hinnom in either basically a trash dump for bodies(where criminals were buried) or in the Valley of Hinnom at the public tomb, which is where the poor were buried. If you go with scripture they talk about rolling the huge stone in front of the doorway. Tomb's didn't have round stones is one of the issues they had square stones. Also, criminal burial was a subject on which there were major differences between the Romans and the Jews. Romans left criminals hanging on the cross for days and a Roman never would have buried a criminal. According to Jewish law though, even criminals were to be given a prompt burial. "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree; but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged." -Deut 21:22-23
Unlike upstanding citizens, though, criminals in the eyes of Jewish law would not be allowed to be buried in a family tomb. They would have been buried in the public tombs. I am not saying that Jesus wasn't buried in Joseph's tomb, but anything that has to do with the New Testament has been changed or withdrawn to make Jesus look Godly.
Double, it won't happen. And this is a ridiculous line of what-if's.
We could come up with all kinds of ridiculous what-if's.
What if we cracked open your noggin and found marshmallows inside? Or what if you opened your mouth and a jet airplane flew out of it? See what I mean? Nonsense!
Now, if you came up with a more interesting challenge -- something else that might be a more realistic threat to ideology -- that could pose a more interesting point for discussion.
Would all Christians fall in line to a new singular denomination? Not in a million years! Why? Ego -- the entitlement to consider self to be right and others to be wrong. (And did I do a little of that at the beginning of my post? Hmmm-m-m!)
There would likely be millions of different interpretations of the new discovery, whatever it is.
And no, E.G., it wouldn't start wars, but ego could, like the attitude you display so "religiously."
I, for one, would not join any denomination, because my search is personal and unique. I think everyone's is. Cookie cutter religion helps to keep things organized. It helped to keep the message alive for two thousand years until we had greater freedom plus democracy. Now, we can ask the really important questions without being burnt at the stake. I'm afraid a return to one denomination might be a return to such persecution, unless the leader was someone without an ego.
The true self that once visited this planet as Yehoshua of Nazareth would get my vote.
Wow. Didn't think your ego could display itself more aggressively - apparently I was wrong - Your need to prove you have greater understanding and can do better majik than anyone else is going a long way to convincing me you know absolutely nothing.
Do some more majik.
You mean Yeishu ben Pandera, or Yeishu ha-Notzri? Or Crixus?
Did you actually go to a school? Go on - do some majik for us.
I have to say, for someone that didn't consider this an interesting point for discussion you had a lot to say.
You make a valid point. And you are probably right, it wouldn't create a singular set of beliefs. I agree that Ego leads the many.
As we discover new things everyday, it would be nice to actually discover something like this.
But the purpose behind this question, was to see certian responses. I had a theory of what I would see, and I was wanting to see if what I would receive would confirm my theory or not.
This question leads to another, which is how would people (namely the Christian types) respond, if Jesus were to actually come back to human form and taught a message that differed from what is currently being followed by the majority who claim the title of Christian? What if he came back to rule and judge and it was based on something other than what is currently followed?
The main thing is, just how set in personal beliefs are people, that if proof was to come that showed everything they based their beliefs on was in error, would they change/adjust, or would they claim fraud, or would they attempt to justify still using current text and beliefs. In short, how many claiming the title of Christain, would actually believe the return of Jesus, or attempt to debunk or justify it.
Regarding your question, What would happen to the Christian belief if the body of Jesus were found?, I would suggest that you might ask yourself what has been your response or the response of others to discover that a spouse has been unfaithful? That is, does that kind of a disillusioning experience transform oneself? What kind of emotional and intellectual re-positioning must takes place in order for such an event to be absorbed? What happens to the relationship? The question of how upsetting experiences or new realities change our perspectives and self-perceptions is an interesting question. On the other hand, another thing I would say, in response to your question, is that while such a "what if" can be applied to all us humans and all the deceptions (and self-deceptions) that make the navigating of our relationships such a conundrum, it cannot be applied to Jesus the Christ's life and death, which were not beliefs but facts upon which the Christian faith rests. Based on reality (secular historicity), Christians have no reason to think that the body of Christ will ever be seen again until he comes again to collect the faithful, though many doubters may believe otherwise. Nevertheless, I have come to understand that it is almost impossible to alter what someone chooses to believe, despite all facts to the contrary.
And the texts, written by Jesus's own hand? If these were found and were in contrast with the bible?
And if Christians think the body of Jesus can never be found, and yet it was found, what does this do to their beliefs?
And every atheist I know, will believe facts if found. And no I am not talking about the bible which is believed to be, but not proven as facts.
I doubt that atheists will believe facts if found because atheism is as much a belief--a matter of faith--as belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ is a matter of faith. I say that because atheists have always had available to them plenty of facts (outside the Christian bible !) related to the life of Christ. For example, read the reports of Tacitus, a secular Roman historian and political analyst who lived circa 60 AD. Or, read the works of Josephus, who was a Jewish historian (and not a Christian sympathizer and never became a convert), living circa 40 AD. He was considered by the secular world to be a renown authority. Their writings validated not only the existence of Jesus the Christ but also substantiated a great deal of what was said about the ministry and life and Jesus. Google it! Check your local library! Refuting the hard, cold, unbiased facts about Jesus would be much like saying there was no Holocaust. For some misguided reasons, some folks deny that the Holocaust ever happened, but who can take such a position seriously, in light of all the evidence to the contrary? One may choose to believe or not believe in Christ's divinity--that's one thing. However, a thinking person cannot logically choose to believe or not believe in the facts surrounding the life and death (and events after the death) of Jesus.
Your question is hypothetical so is my answer: We will forget about Jesus and look for another Christ.
Some Muslims claim Jesus was removed from the cross before dying (his legs were not broken as was the Roman custom to assure certain death) by bribing the guard well.
He was placed in the tomb of his uncle- a very roomy and airy tomb for its day-and recovered a few days later. He eventually returned to the places he had spent traveling with his uncle, Joseph of Aramathea, from the years between his assault on the temple money lenders and his reappearance not long before his crucifixion.
He supposedly married Mary Magdalene and sired several children. He is said to lived out his life somewhere near to, or in the country of India. Considered a prophet and nothing more.
This would explain why no body has never been found, (if one holds that the biblical version isn't true). We would be looking in the wrong place.
It would also explain why the church was so desperate to paint Magdalene as a harlot when the Bible was edited by the powers-that-be. The idea of the Messiah having a female companion who seemed to have a strong influence on him didn't quite fit into the scheme of things.
So her reputation was sullied to cover the real facts by those doing the editing.
The church did many things...A list to long to post here...and the ones interested probably already know and the ones who really need to learn it, would refuse to believe it.
Let me see if I follow your argument. You think Jesus existed, but the NT lied about the end. You use as your evidence the words of an illiterate that claims an angel told him some six hundred years later.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why this hasn't been accepted as gospel by the christians.
Not saying I believe any of it. Merely repeating what has been said by some Muslims on these forums.
The Bibler never cast Mary of Magdala as a harlot. That resulted from people erroneously conflating several women in the Gospels. The sinner who washed Jesus' feet, the adulteress Jesus pardoned, and the woman who broke an alabaster jar full of spikenard are either not named in the Bible or other evidence is present indicating that they are not the same person and are not Mary of Magdala, which the Bible describes as a former demoniac, rather than a harlot, that Jesus had healed.
I would like to applaud you, for a very good question on *what if*. I guess, those who may suspect that some things aren't real will find themselves in the midst of things that are real. I know that I can't change the way I feel and believe when it comes to my faith or spirituality. One needs to walk their own paths and hopefully while doing so. They will encounter those who prove those things that are very reality based. Many will come and try to manipulate the unevitable outcome. The courage it takes to seek out truth and become englightened, is the key! Take care..
Why can you NOT change it?
Everything we think, believe and feel can be changed by each individual person. To think it cannot, is to limit oneself.
@ Cagsil..the reason why I can *not change it* is because I *don't want to*!
If someone doesn't want to do something, or believe in a certain way..they will not do so. And yes, I admit. I am a limited sort of person! And I happen to *not want to change this either*. I am very happy and content with being kind to others and being respectful as much as my human form will allow. Take care..great question! Give me all you got! I love it! You are helping me to grow. Please don't change your need to ask great questions
@ Cagsil, Thank you for the compliment! I have been wondering how I have been doing with this. I have been praying to this Jesus fellow and I asked that I may be a beautiful spirit. Are you conveying to me, that this is correct? hugs! I really do enjoy your intelligent thoughts,comments! It helps me to think. I promise to dedicate my next hub to you! And if you would like, I would like to feature you in my Spotlight series! You are amazing!
Please go to my profile to find out how!
If you found my post to be a compliment, then I would say that you have bigger issues than I realized at the beginning of our conversation.
Apparently, from your previous statement, you're still searching.
A beautiful spirit? Try being human than something imaginary.
I think my reply above shows it's not.
Thinking is good.
Not necessary. But, appreciate the thought.
No thank you. It's not about me. It's about each person making an impact on others, while being honest on both accounts, self and others.
I have don't read the whole thread just responding to the title. First Christ and Islam religion main conflict present in this. We followers of Islam have belief that GOD has take him up alive and they will be surely back to this world when there is Islam diminishing. Then there will be a war.
Religions always cause wars and have throughout history. The old "my god is better than your god" stuff. You know what I mean, don't you?
Religion does not cause wars but the zealots who use it to their own ends. Just like politicians.
Jesus did not incite war.
First this is not going to happen as Jesus died and rose again.when he died and rose again he did so for all our sins.
We are all sinners and have come short fo Gods glory.
And if this did happen christanty would come to an end as to be a christian is tobe christ like.
Christiany is based on a personal relationship with Christ Jesus it is not based on the sayings off Christ Jesus
un like other religans.
Jesus Christ is lord and saviour of the world.
Hope this answers your question.
First this is not going to happen as Jesus died and rose again.when he died and rose again he did so for all our sins.
We are all sinners and have come short fo Gods glory.
And if this did happen christanty would come to an end as to be a christian is tobe christ like.
Christiany is based on a personal relationship with Christ Jesus it is not based on the sayings off Christ Jesus
un like other religans.
Jesus Christ is lord and saviour of the world.
Hope this answers your question.
First this is not going to happen as Jesus died and rose again.when he died and rose again he did so for all our sins.
We are all sinners and have come short fo Gods glory.
And if this did happen christanty would come to an end as to be a christian is tobe christ like.
Christiany is based on a personal relationship with Christ Jesus it is not based on the sayings off Christ Jesus
un like other religans.
Jesus Christ is lord and saviour of the world.
Hope this answers your question.
A fair question. Where is the DNA sample coming from to compare the body with?
HAHA! Maybe the shroud of Turin? LOL
Good thinking! As the shroud has also been debunked, perhaps one of the other debunked shrouds could produce some DNA.
In that case we would just have to match the DNA with a body then claim it was jesus that was in that particular shroud of Turin!
I have never understood when Christians look outside the scriptures for evidence of their faith. The whole concept of Christianity is to have faith without seeing, so said Christ to the diciples after he appeared to them in a locked room with "doubting" Thomas. Know what I mean? It's one thing to see the structure of the ark from satillite pictures and say oh well there's something but another to be activily searching for these artifacts that will no more prove the words in the bible then a preacher from a pulpit.
I would venture a guess that since the catholic church has spend the entirety or their exsistence covering up or trying to cover up truth, we revolve around the sun for example instead of all the universe revolving around us, the would go to the great lengths of covering this up as well. Tho the whole bases of this question questions the levitity of Christians faith everywhere I think that the fallout of such an event is self evident don't you? I mean just use your imagination and let it run wild for a moment. The entire western world was forged from the pages of the NT. America's system of laws was "borrow" from the ten commandments. Time it's self was split into two sections, B.C. and A.D., crusades, Islam and countless other things would be effected.
I would rather his remains be unfound IF such a thing were possible.
Lay his remains to rest next to those of Mary Magdalene under the Louvre Museum in Paris - problem solved ....
History is about cross-referencing events, texts, and possibly carbon dating, amongst other methods.
There can be no way that a body of 'Jesus' will ever be found because there is no evidence either in scripture or events that points to any particular point of reference as to where Jesus would be found.
There are theories, but they are tainted by the WILL to believe that Jesus existed at all.
It will be the world greatest cover-up waiting to happen
Oh you lucky clever true christians, we who are about to rot in hell for our ignorance salute those mightier than us.
Why thank you Earnest, that's a very nice thing to say, do you actually believe in hell?
Why would it matter what I believed your godliness?
I am merely a cheap imitation of incredibly wretched Clark Bent, pretending to be superman while in reality the assistant spittoon cleaner pitifully crawling from spittoon to spittoon.
I can just hope I can live long enough in this squalor to watch your goodliness ascent to the invisible heaven thingy in the sky and get all the rewards you are due because you are just so much better than me. I can see that now, thank you for the education and thanks for the rabbits.
But do you actually believe in hell?
Was the question, and whilst I appreciate your wit and humour, I would better appreciate the answer to the question.
The answer is sure I do, but not the biblical hell.
Far too much of the world are living in hell while your god is busy seeing how much more deserving you are.
Earnest, nobody is more deserving than anybody else, we are all undeserving in this world, but there is the point that some people can be blessed by God because they CHOOSE to do His will and not their own.
Anyhow, if you do not believe in the biblical hell, why mention it, it does not affect you, nor does it affect any believer, the fact that the bible talks about it should not bother you, you discount the bible as relevant to your life.
We all die, and when we do, we will either; know the truth about heaven and hell, or know nothing more.
Where is your problem with that?
"Christ may crush the faiths of weak believers, but the true believers won't be moved."
This is what you said amen to and I challenged.
It is obvious the writer considers they have the upper hand over all others because only they have the correct invisible friend, and only those "special" people who are :true believers" will survive.
Megalomania needs a reply.
Luke 21 8:20
.....He said, Be on your guard and be careful that you are not led astray; for many will come in My name [appropriating to themselves the name Messiah which belongs to Me], saying, I am He! and, The time is at hand! Do not go out after them.
When you hear of wars and insurrections (disturbances, disorder, and confusion), do not become alarmed and panic-stricken and terrified; for all this must take place first, but the end will not [come] immediately.
Then He told them, Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.
There will be mighty and violent earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences (plagues: malignant and contagious or infectious epidemic diseases which are deadly and devastating); and there will be sights of terror and great signs from heaven.
But previous to all this, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, turning you over to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be led away before kings and governors for My name's sake.
This will be a time (an opportunity) for you to bear testimony.
Resolve and settle it in your minds not to meditate and prepare beforehand how you are to make your defense and how you will answer.
For I [Myself] will give you a mouth and such utterance and wisdom that all of your foes combined will be unable to stand against or refute.
You will be delivered up and betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and [some] of you they will put to death.
You will be hated (despised) by everyone because [you bear] My name and for its sake.
But not a hair of your head shall perish. [I Sam. 14:45.]
By your steadfastness and patient endurance you shall win the true life of your souls.
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know and understand that its desolation has come near.
Seems like a passage that recognises that there are those who will be found worthy to 'escape all these things' which indicates that have 'steadfastness and patient endurance' will gain a reward, which by default indicates that there will be some folk who do not.
So nobody is better than others, but some may show they did 'not become alarmed and panic-stricken and terrified; for all this must take place first'
It seems to me that the secularists posting in the forums spend more time trying to persuade themselves that they are right, than to persuade the believers that we are wrong.
Relationship with Christ gives believers an inner peace that 'surpasses all human understanding' and as such, whilst we may express the human responses of anger and annoyance when secularists attempt to disrupt matters, our peace returns quickly.
Token Christians, who have not been prepared to accept the words of Christ, and therefore stop their rebellion against God, by doing His will rather than their own, will not have that peace, and so will react to what the world throws at them.
We are entering these end times, so it is to be expected that scoffers will increase in volumn, indeed it is predicted, and being proven true as we speak.
All these things bring joy to the believer, who hears his redemption draw near, and knows that in a short while, Christ will return to deal with a rebellious world.
Not meglomania, just understanding what the bible tells us.
There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, which one is right? And don't forget about the Jewish faith (Jesus was a Jew afterall). This has been happening throughout recorded history, nothing new and nothing changed here. This has already happened. The early Christians were brought before the courts and killed. And various other killings approved by the "courts" and "synagogues"(Roman Catholic Church) It is doubtful this will happen in todays time, seeing as the USA, Europe, and various other countries have Christianity as the Major religion and we have laws that prevent these kind of psychotics. This happened during the inquision, not to mention the witch "trials" This happened as well. Refer to the early Christians No confirmation of this to date. This has already happened as well. 70CE
Please explain how this is the bible telling us these things are going to happen in todays world? Other than the wars and "insurrections", which is an never-ending process, all the things mention have already happened at least once already. So just how many years is: "this generation shall not pass".
I have nothing against beliefs of anyone. But, the bible can be interpreted just about anyway one wants to support their side of the debate. And this has been done since it was first written. Sadly we don't even use all of the books that the original early Christians used. We don't even use the ones referenced by the writers of the NT. I seen a comment on another thread, that implied that if a "certian" writer of the NT, was using the "Book of Enoch" as a reference, then he was wrong because that was a "Big No No". If anyone would actually bother to include certain books into their daily biblical studies, they would see that the NT writers drew conclusions from many sources. Many of which aren't included in Today's Bible. If the NT writers and early Christian felt they applied then, then why aren't they relevent now. Just because what became the Roman Catholic Church, decided what was or wasn't actual canon? For those who feel Catholics are really Christians, there sure is an awful lot of "Christians" still following the bible that was put together by the Catholic church.
Amplified Bible (AMP)
So also when you see these signs, all taken together, coming to pass, you may know of a surety that He is near, at the very doors.
Truly I tell you, this generation (the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period) will not pass away till all these things taken together take place.
Adds a bit of spice to it, because yes these things have all happened at some time, but only when we are in the end times will they all happen together, which they seem to be doing as we write.
The world is reaching a crescendo of problems, as gradually the restraint imposed by the presence of the Holy Spirit is lessened to allow even the elect to be deceived if that were possible.
The world boasts that Christianity is loosing it's grip, when the truth is that God is allowing the world to slip into more and more iniquity, and as it does, people either rejoice or turn to Christ for salvation.
We are in the testing time.
I know many good Catholics who are Spirit filled believers, God has hidden His body amongst ALL the denominations.
There is ONLY one body of Christ, and He knows who they are, and whilst we all think we may be the only faithful believer on earth, God has always had an unseen 'remnant' hidden amongst the tares of Churchianity.
No matter which denomination one belongs to (or none at all) we are all the body of Christ, or not.
Simple distinction, eternal benefits or consequences, and not at all affected if someone claims to have found Christ's body, because His REAL body is alive and kicking today in every believer.
I was only pointing out that the bible can be interpreted in various ways to fit one's argument.
And there are alot of things happening, but these things have been happening for most of recorded history.
I don't see the "believers" being brought to court or churches and killed for belief in Jesus (sure some christians( so are other faiths) are killed in terrorist bombings and other things but this is not the "norm" for them all), nor do I see them hated by the masses for his namesake either (except for the extremist muslim, who hate everyone not muslim).
If holding a belief in Jesus or any other God becomes a legal crime (with punishment attached) worldwide (or mostly worldwide), I might start to consider that particular prophesy as coming true.
https://persecution.com/public/newsroom … Fpbl9tZW51
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search. … ersecution
Of course, persecution starts with what we see here and progresses to the laws to punish worldwide, and indeed when you DO see those laws being instated, you will know that it is too late to realise the prophesy has come true.
Because you will have been required to swear allegiance to the Anti-Christ New World Order by then, or you too will be persecuted.
And this happens to all religions. Not just those of Christian faith. But it is a very small percentage. This isn't the "norm" across the board though. Most of the Christian percecution is done in Muslim countries, where it is against the law to publicly speak on any religious matter other than Muslim.
This is more of a case of breaking civil laws within respective countries vice percecuting them because of their faith.
How many cases of percecution did the USA have against those presumed to be Muslim by those who claimed to be Christian? What about the UK?
I don't believe in the Anti-christ or Hell, so I don't fear "being to late".
I get "percecuted" (mostly by those claiming to be Christian) due to my personal beliefs. As I am sure that many Christians (and other religions) feel the same concerning thier beliefs. It seems anytime someone holds a belief that differs, there is bound to be some level of "percecution".
These are countries where Christianity isn't the major religion. It is accepted as a religion though. Although, if you are of Christian beliefs in these countries, you are less likely to have much of a say in the political matters of state. It is not illegal to be a Christian in any of these countries.
And here's how the bible may be interpreted to FIT ones argument.
Concerning the Great Tribulation:
How do we know this is gonna happen worldwide? We know that plagues and certain things happen to 1/3 of the world - 3 times... mathematically that leaves nothing remaining.
Perhaps the tribulation is, like other times - garden of eden, flood, kingdoms of kings - the tribulation is contained or pertains to only a (known) world or a particular area. Jesus is concerned about the nation of Israel acknowledging Him as their messiah so perhaps this tribulation is aimed at his area of missionary work.
So you may not see christians being hauled off to court for belief in God in CANADA or AMERICA but this aspect may not even be relevant. We do see this happening in ...oh look a map... in the area of christs missionary work.
Wow. Great post, Double Scorpion; took the words right out of my mouth. There has never been a time when all of these things that the Bible supposedly "predicts" will come to pass, haven't been endemic to the human condition. If there was ever a time Jesus "should've" come back, the Middle Ages, or after the European-razing Bubonic Plague, or perhaps WWII, or maybe WWI, or when 50 million (at least) African slaves were forced from their homeland by captors who did so using Jesus' name, or the same thing with Native Americans, or after the mind-churning Hitlerian persecution of the Jews, or after the absolutely devastating Indian Earthquake of 2004, or any of the other countless calamities that have likely befallen the Chinese, Indian, African populations before Europeans left their caves. The Bible is the biggest plagiarizer of any purportedly prophetic book out there, claiming obvious trends as its purview.
well a few indicators are mentioned which have not happened and these separate from all the events that you have mentioned and although you see them as atrocities, atrocities are not what God is concerned about, in fact God has used atrocity to wake up his people in past times, so looking at atrocity as though this one or that one are good times for christ to come back, they are not what God is looking for.
God is waiting for the jews to accept Him as messiah as a nation and the spread of atheism is not helping the situation lol. So while all christians await and welcome Christs return and pray for the salvation of the jews, atheists throw out stumbling blocks like rice at weddings and keep the starving children starving, etc.
notice these are all catholic churches... not separate denominations, one catholic head office with many other offices
Notice how in another listing of denominations, catholic once again appears.
So once again there are not 32,000 denominations. Indeed there are far fewer than that ostentatious number.
This system of numbering is like the system of numbering the variants in the bible. If there is a typing mistake in one word that is repeated 2,000 times then it is recorded as 2,000 variants, instead of just one variant, repeated 2,000 times. So should X,000 catholic denoms be stated as one denomination, with X,000 offices.
Why all the denominations, whatever their number, cannot decide to follow what Jesus did and believed? Why they follow sinful Paul and the faulty Church?
Only the Roman Catholic branches fall under the "POPE". Not all Catholics follow the same structures or doctrines.
But, to follow your logic, lets just name a few.
Here is nine, if they all follow the same bible, and it's interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit, then why don't the all believe exactly the same way?
The holy spirit is not with all those groups.
Protestantism evolved from catholicism because they perceived new truths the catholics were not willing to embrace. The baptists perceived truths in baptism but only the pentecostals were to believe in the baptism of the holy ghost.
More recent churches do not want to be lumped in with denominationalism so they choose different names.
Its an evolutionary process not an incorrect one.
I agree. But how is a non-believer to know which one is the actually correct version then? How does the non-believer know which group is actually following the holy spirit with it's biblical interpretation?
This is the problem most non-believers have, so many claiming to be the true version and the others are not quite right.
There is and always has been ONLY one body of Christ, and the fact that God has allowed it to be hidden in different denominations makes not one jot of difference, secular folk reject that concept that God is in control, even some Christians have a problem remembering that, but He is in control, albeit He gave ALL power and authority to Christ until the job is done, but they are One in Spirit anyhow.
God has ensured that we believers are all there at His command, in many different places and denominations, a Holy Priesthood, a 'remnant' hidden in plain sight.
And as we move towards the end times, He is calling us to come forward and speak to the nations, silence the enemy and bring edification and encouragement to His 'ingelsia'.
I do not look upon anyone's denomination, I seek to see that they are of His body, where God has placed them in His body is not an essential for me.
The canon could not be stopped as i mentioned before. The criteria for canon makes sense. The catholics did not pick the books of the bible as it stands now, the books could not be refuted canon. The catholic religion did add apocrypha and that was - booted out - rightfully so, as anyone who reads them should be able to discern why.
Jude does NOT quote from apocrypha but alludes to it. These books were rampant at the time, but no scholar, theologian or well versed christian will admonish their need to have these books reinstated to complete what God has already written. Jesus and Paul use and quote the OT often and that gives us confidence in the OT but neither access apocrypha. I am assured the apocrypha are nonsense books and if you want to take that to the bank i will co-sign the cheque.
14 Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones
15 to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Book of Enoch Chapter 1:9
9) And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones
To execute judgement upon all,
And to destroy all the ungodly:
And to convict all flesh
Of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed,
And of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
Maybe I am reading it wrong? Seems like a quote to me.
And which church was at the Nicean Counsil? The Roman Catholic Church...Unless you know of another church the formed this counsil in 325CE. And since this counsil is the one who choose which books would make up the canon. I have to say yes, it was the Catholic church that formed the bible everyone using today. The 14 books of the apocrypha was removed by the new protestant movement in 1885 (give or take a year). Up until that time the majority of bible had the 66 books we see today and the 14 books of the apocrypha.
A Quote from http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-engli … e-history/
"The original 1611 King James contained the Apocrypha, and King James threatened anyone who dared to print the Bible without the Apocrypha with heavy fines and a year in jail. Only for the last 120 years has the Protestant Church rejected these books, and removed them from their Bibles. Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration)."
Brother, while we might not agree when it comes to beliefs. My biblical facts are accurate by the scholars of today. I don't post personal opinions about the bible. I only post facts as they are accepted by the majority of todays biblical scholars.
I don't down your beliefs, but your biblical facts seem to be based more on a personal opinion, than actual accepted facts. One biblical scholar who's interpretation is different than everyone else's does not count as accepted fact. I am not saying he/she is right or wrong, just that thier thoughts aren't supported as facts by the majority of scholars.
Its not a quote, a quote is a quote, it contains the same words and is identical.
the brown cow jumped the fence
the blue cow hovered near the fence
The second is not quoted from the first.
This is why i dislike writing. When i think of canon i automatically think of the Early Church canon.
When you mention king james, yes i have said before, he was catholic and of course they want the apocrypha included. The very reason the catholic church is so polluted with false doctrines is because they blended pagan, hellenistic mystery religions and just about everything goin on to appease all. Catholic means universal.. and universal includes everyone. Catholic and king james were never pure in their pursuit of christianity. King james was just another catholic.
The importance of the protestants kicking the apocrypha out of the bible cannot be expressed enough to be fully wonderful.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up
Double Scorpion: The quest to believe must start before the concept of god is rationalized.The body and mind must be primed and willing. As a christian, how do we prepare the unbelieving for faith?
When the body of Jesus is found, it will be found RISEN! He is seated at the right of the Father alive. The BIBLE is not just a book, it is the inspired word of God, and for me it is a settled truth that goes far beyond mere human capacity, one must receive revelation to grasp the love of God and to believe He sent His son to die and be raised from the dead so that we could live a blessed life both here on earth and in heaven. Now, for fun let's just entertain your question. The body of what scientists believe is Jesus is found, then what? I personally would still believe, but this is just to entertain your notion. I am a believer...so I believe, simply put. I do, however, like the way in which you presented your question. I have also had someone ask can God die? I am always amazed by the imagination of people, so I am never offended and enjoy being opened to express my opinion and beliefs.
Then it's confirmed, believers will believe no matter what is placed in front of them as evidence to the contrary.
Are we not then dealing with brainwashing?
The same can be said of unbelievers, they will not believe even when evidence is placed before their eyes.
Brainwashing? Are atheists or agnostics brainwashed? I am not brainwashed...I am informed and confident of my belief
LOL! Why are just repeating what I said when it's obvious that isn't true at all? Is that the best you can do?
If they were, they wouldn't atheists or agnostics?
You just said you would continue believing in your beliefs despite the fact evidence to the contrary is presented to you. That is not informed and confident, that is delusional.
Did you read my post? I said let's entertain the question, you know, hypothetically speaking. Of course, I don't believe that Jesus' body would be found, it'd absurd. I did not repeat you, I simply made a statement which I stand by...lol.
If you don't believe in Jesus then die...and let me know if He is in fact real....oh that would be impossible being that those who die can no longer access the natural realm, but that's another topic.
It's been fun, off to read...my BIBLE...lol
Why is it absurd? Other than the fact Jesus never existed?
Wow, over 50 posts in less than 24 hours, impressive..... Ever thought of getting a job, maybe doing SEO or writing articles about coffee machines? might pay better than ghosting in the forums, unless you ARE paid to write this trash?.... in which case you should get employee of the month and a big bonus from your masters.
Careful, when you stretch so far out to make an irrelevant point, you fall into the abyss of gobbledegook, forever wallowing in nonsense.
Jesus did not die on the Cross that is why he was seen after the event of crucifixion by many people; he was walking with an injured body and was still fearful of his enemis which is an ample proof that he escaped a death on the Cross.
You speak of all of this as if you were there, paarsurrey. If truth is truly your purview, you must start by understanding that the definition of "eyewitness evidence" is not subject to your whim. Or, if you choose to espouse something, you must be honest with yourself as to why - to what extent does emotion play a part. Too often do we hear words misused to support an underlying emotional edifice.
You may differ with me; but if you will research for truth then you will know that the gospel writers were not eye-witnesses; they wrote with a wrong motive. Jesus did not die on the Cross.
You may read the eye-witness account by clicking the following link:
Crucifixion By An Eyewitness.com
BY AN EYEWITNESS
dear paarsurrey; I'm not sure disagreement is quite the word here, since I was ignorant of your beliefs. Now that I have perused the link you sent, I see that even though you do not believe as I thought you believed, it is largely irrelevant: you haven't solved the problem at all, just displaced it! That story has no more objective validity than the Bible or Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. You must submit that the only reason you call it "eyewitness evidence" is because the thing, itself, says "eyewitness evidence". That is the definition of circular reasoning. It is tantamount to asking those with whom you disagree (Bible-believers) "well, how do you know the bible is correct?"; only for them to reply, "because it says so." I am not saying either of you are wrong; I am saying the things you claim to be true is a misuse of the word true, since they are not objectively distinguishable from each other. They have no more ability to discern amongst the stories they tell than if you change a location or name of a person or date of an event. You are certainly welcome to choose to believe it; but to call it truth is a fallacy. I can write a book today claiming I was an eyewitness to the Thunder God Woten causing the 2004 Indian Earthquake; millenia from now, someone like you could find it under rubble and claim it was a "true" account of what actually happened. What you are doing is no different.
I would ask, do you truly know the bible (the word of God). And if you do think or know that you do, would you be willing to put it to the test versus those who are "Atheists"?
I am not downing your beliefs in anyway. I am curious just how well you know the bible, if the body of Jesus and his writings(which differed from the bible) were actually found and didn't shake your faith at least slightly.
And no I am not an "Atheist". But I don't claim to be Christian either.
IF the body of jesus and his writings (which are different from the bible)...
what are you talking about here? What book other than the bible do you use?
Its an underhanded question to ask people how well they know the bible. Must they quote 1,000 verses to you? Do they need to recite from genesis onward? Must they have a piece of paper with letters on it? Are you stating that your theological stance surpasses their belief?
In all of the words of the bible and they are many there are core beliefs and the core beliefs is all that is needed to know to be christian. As i have said before, some believe in a literal snake in the garden others do not but this is not salvation dependent.
I checked her answer and it is good enough that your questioning how well she knows her bible is unfounded for any good discussion, it is just belittling trite thrown out from someone who is being haughty.
If someone uses the bible as a foundation for their beliefs, then they should indeed know it better than those who don't believe. I don't expect a "layperson" to know more about Science than the Scientist. Nor the Student to know more than the Teacher. And that is kinda what this is like. If the non-bleiever knows more about the "Texts" or the dogma of a belief system than the believer, it makes the non-believer less likely to hold the believer as someone of knowledge and for what purpose would they wish to convert when the person debating doesn't know the information to hold a convincing argument.
I don't not think an education surpasses a belief. But an education would allow one to have a better understanding of their belief and allow them to better "debate" the questions posed to them concerning thier faith.
As I have told you many times. I don't argue beliefs, I have no interest in debating a person's personal belief. That is not mine or anyone else's place to do in my opinion. I do not dispute anyone's belief. Never had. I don't throw personal insults at someone because of thier beliefs differ from mine.
I had orginally hoped that my education in the Text that is the bible, might be of use to those of Christian faith who had questions. But, what I have found, is that the majority of those who claim to be Christian are not intersted in the "facts" of the Texts themselves as taught by today's scholars. The Atheists on the other hand are very interested in the "facts" of the Texts themselves. And you might notice that I said the TEXTS, not the belief in those texts.
I see many that claim to be Christian, that don't follow what is taught in the bible, written, beliefs or otherwise. While I have seen those who claim to be atheist live a lifestyle quite similar to what is decribed as being a "Good Christian". The difference, what one claims to believe. There are good and bad people in the world, believer and non-believer alike. The trouble with claiming to be a "true Christian" is that others actually expect you to live and act like one. Sadly, many do not.
Many people read these forums. And I feel confident in stating, that I have proven my side of the information that we have debated and others would agree. Everyone has the ability to Google any of the "facts" we have both stated. I am not debating "Beliefs or Faith" and only debating the "facts" of the Texts and authors themselves.
it has already been scientifically proven that trees communicate with each other using chemicals. It is no wonder there is so little peace on the world when educated adults can not communicate effectively without resulting in snide comments and calling names.
heard about shrine in Kashmir which is believed by few to be of jesus christ...ahamadis believe jesus never died on cross and survived , came to kashmir and died natural death there...
Someone posted some information that I think should be expounded on.
Tacitus was a roman historian from who lived from 56CE-117CE, While he does mention Christ (Christus is assumed to mean Christ) in his writings, the name Jesus is not mentioned and his work was referencing the belief of christians not the fact that the "Christus" was a real person.
Josephus a Roman apologetic Jewish historian from 37CE to 100CE, wrote about the Christ as well, but was written in reference to the beliefs of the Christian movement.
Lucian of Samosata, a greek satirist from 125CE to 180CE. Once again, does not name Jesus, he just makes fun of the christian follows. He finds it funny that they worship a MAN who was crucified for introducing a new "cult" to the world.
A person named Mara bar-Serapion wrote a letter sometime between late in the first century to the third century that is often thought to be one of the first non christian writings to speak of Jesus, however he never mentions Jesus in his writings. He does reference a "wise king" but never says a name or how he is killed.
That would be me
josephus Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, FOR he was a DOER of WONDERFUL WORKS, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had CONDEMNED HIM TO THE CROSS, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.
Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1
But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.
Tacitus Annals 15.44
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Lucian of Samosata
“It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, NEXT AFTER THAT OTHER, to be sure, WHOM THEY STILL WORSHIP, THE MAN WHO CRUCIFIED IN PALESTINE BECAUSE HE INTRODUCED THIS NEW CULT INTO THE WORLD.
mara ben serpion
What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after this that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews ruined and driven from their land, live in dispersion.
I enjoyed your opinions
well, no i didnt lol.
The extremes that unbelievers go to to discredit something is fascinating to me. You have an excuse for all of them but you overlook the obvious and that would be the text around the quotes which place each evidence into appropriate time lines. Serpion does not say how he was killed but he does not have to. Just because you want him include certain things does not diminish what has been said. The text around Serpion quoted above put it into a fixed place in time, the diaspora, when christ lived.
As i have said before, the christian walk is a walk of faith. If we had all sorts of secular corroborating evidence of Jesus; faith would go out the window, indeed "blessed are those who have not seen and do believe" is true, at any time in history if a man died and rose again as is according to the habit of time and that is to pass, any event would eventually be in the past and with more past the harder to confirm of course chrisianity is not concerned with historical evidence as it is in faith and this is due to the passing of time. We have these few occurrences and should let the information process correctly instead of trying to toothpick the evidence away to meet some particular bias.
I wasn't attempting to discredit anything. I was simply expounding on the information given. And as I stated before. These are discriptions of the beliefs held by Christians only. And if you read Josephus, he tells you that he took his information for his antiquities from the "Old Testament" and other sources.
The name/title "Christus" is debated, (I didn't debate it in my post) But simply stated that it was used in reference to the beliefs that were held by the Christians.
And as I stated, the term used by most of the writers is the word "Christ" not Jesus. Josephus is the only writer that was listed that uses the name Jesus and he stated that he got his information from other sources.
I agree that the Christian belief is based in faith. I do not dispute that and never have. What you seem to fail to understand, is that I am not disputing the Christian faith. I am only pointing out the "facts" concerning the texts as we (Biblical Scholars) know them.
And you still wish to stoop to insults when someone writes something that doesn't agree with you.
None of the writers you listed, were from the time of Jesus, they all were born and wrote after Jesus was already gone.
Assuming from your comments of Faith, then faith is not based in facts, but on the belief of things that lack facts. And again I am not saying that your (or anyone else's) faith is right or wrong, it seems you are assuming that because I don't share your particular faith, that the "facts" that I post about the texts and authors themselves is somehow a challenge to your faith. And it isn't. If anything it should help strengthen your faith. But of course, you only wish to argue because we do not agree on our "Faiths/beliefs". Personally I don't care if you "believe" what I post or not. The fact of the matter is, the Majority of Christian Biblical Scholars are in agreement with the information I have posted. As I have said before, I don't post my personal beliefs, I only post the "facts" about the texts and writers as agreed by the majority of scholars. I don't post the interpretation or beliefs that is taken from these texts. I leave that to those who choose to use the text as the foundation for their beliefs.
The Greek usage of Christos (transcribed in Latin as Christus) in the New Testament as a description for Jesus.
Christus is not debated at all, its a name, albeit Latin and not Greek although the two are very similar.
What other sources.. the old lady at the market square? Really, such tactics to poison the well. Josephus', a historian, would have used the very best sources of this we can be sure. He gave the tenants or creeds of Christianity. did he directly say he used sources for this? Perhaps this information was ever so widely and commonly known? This is a huge book and I know he used other book sources for his exposition about the OT. which this book starts at Genesis and goes past Christ. Again that is history too.
So what kind of facts were you looking for?
If a believer had written it, one might say, oh lying for jesus.
But when a non believer writes something about christianity that is entirely different, but still, of course, other things have been written off, like jesus deity, his ascension into heaven, his being the son of God, a virgin birth, etc.. so why not this?
So as i said, let the people read them and decide for themselves.
the "facts" are this is secular evidence whatever you want to read into it is not relevant and your claim that most scholars agree with you means nothing to me, because quite obviously that is speculation based on; why, then was josephus not a believer? and not based on; why he wrote what he wrote.
He wrote what he wrote for integrity sake and for honesty and because it was too big an issue to omit. Its part of history and this is the corroboration we wanted. He did wonderous works, he was the christ he was on the cross... well you can read it over again if you want.
Seriously, I am not disputing your beliefs or anyone else's, I made a comment based from what Josephus wrote himself.
If you take his portion of concerning Christ as factual, do you agree that the rest of his work is factual as well? If so, you might want to read his work again and compare it to the bible you have now, as it doesn't agree on all points.
We have had many discussions and I agree with you on one thing. Let others read for themselves and see what they get. So far, you have yet to prove any of the "facts" (not beliefs) I have said as wrong.
You have on occasions made some good points here on the forums with the people you talk with. There are even points of your beliefs, that I agree with myself. However, the majority of my posts are based on todays scholarly teachings. I rarely post my personal beliefs or opinions and when I do, I label them as such. I rarely post anything from an emotional view, I post from a logical or "thinkers" viewpoint.
It really doesn't matter to me if you think my beliefs are right or wrong, as I am not attempting to shove my beliefs on to you or anyone else.
There is a reason I don't discuss "faith" or "beliefs", most cannot be proven and are of a personal nature, and that type of "truth" is not for any of us to decide for anyone but ourselves.
And I don't use the phrase "Liars for Jesus". You are getting me confused with other posters.
I find myself in complete agreement with you.
There is plenty of secular evidence of the fact that Jesus was here. Pliny and so on. This is the faith question," Is he who he claimed to be?"
Sorry, but that is not true at all.
What is obvious to those who actually take the time to do the research is that there is ample explanations and refutations of "Pliny and so on" regarding their so-called "secular evidence" of Jesus and where exactly they got that information.
But, of course, like so many other concepts, believers will keep posting their claims of that 'evidence' time and again.
What's really hilarious about the whole thing is that some of the claims are based on the Crucifixion and Pilate, even though there are no records of the event ever having taken place.
Try again. I didn't just fall off the truck.
I don't suspect nor imply you did fall off a truck. Maybe it was a car?
The explanations and refutations are out there for all to see. Sorry, if you refuse to accept reality.
Here's the reality. You have been hanging around here for three months. You have zero hubs, 12 followers . . . 11 if I drop you. There are forums all over the net, why are you hanging around here being a drive-by quipper? This is actually a work place and as such your behavior is inappropriate and unacceptable. You are obsessed with this sick game you are playing. I am from Florida . . . you are a tourist . . . I95 is right over there. Get on it and drive north! C-ya!
Is that the behavior your religion teaches you? Atrocious, and laughable. Sorry that you feel your lack of forming arguments makes you angry and you need to lash out.
Actually our religion teachs us not to argue. We all are however human and fall into the trap occasionally of arguing with people.
Very plainly put, we are to tell people about Christ cruxified and reserected. We are to go into the world and tell about what he has done in our lives. Christ came to give us life, more abundant life. What does that mean? It means having peace in the worst of times. While some judge their life by fine wines, luxery items or how many books they have read, Christ teaches to be content in all things because in him is life, apart is death. I can honestly say that in my most troubling times I can breath easy and don't loose sleep over anything. It's our job to tell, it's your job to decide. Christ was or was not. You do or do not believe. Goating people on however to laugh at them is not only rude but immature. I would think a grown man would have a little more respect for people.
No, I don't think it does.
That is extremely disrespectful for those people you are telling. It looks like your religion also does not teach respect for others.
Ignorance is bliss, so the say...
No, it is not your job to tell me to decide. Clearly, those who perceive they have that job are doing it out of sheer selfishness as they choose to disrespect the needs of others in order to further their own religious agendas.
Staggeringly hilarious response. It's perfectly respectful for you to shove your beliefs down my throat with expectations I make a decision, but disrespectful of me to laugh at their childish beliefs.
Grown man? You believe in fairy tales of ridiculous and magical proportions and that to be the position of a grown man?
nothing to see here folks, just another drive by.
facts are facts man.
wrap your head around it.
perhaps he should have made a whip and cracked warning shots over your head.. or called you a whited sepulchre or a viper. Or told you that you are only out to rob and destroy. But no, he put up a nice post and look what it got him... and you think you are better?
So what makes his statements any less christian? and for that matter, what makes yours more proper?
all i heard you say was,
whine, whine, whine...
Grown men do believe in God and women also, so do the elderly and teenagers, and people in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s.. etc.
Grown men discuss, give some sorta information that is relevant.
Grown men don't just point fingers and laugh at things just because their personal bias prompts them to.
Grown men actually have looked into the subject they are talking about. Children spout what you spout.
Maybe one day you will show some signs of being a grown man.
@ A troubled man, For you to disagree with what my religion teaches would mean that you would have had to study it to know what it talks about correct? Or would this be another situation like your opinion on Stephen King? You say he is and I quote,
"Sorry, it was all I could do to drag my way through The Stand, I simply couldn't read another King book after that. I doubt any of his other books are any different.
I know sales of literary dung like Kings books are high, but they are still literary dung."
This is you judging an entire body of body of work off of one piece of evidence of it, did you just read one passage from the bible and then decide you know and understand it all without reading anything else?
See the difference here is when I said you were acting rude and immature, it was calling out your character without laughing at you or the intend to make you feel worse about yourself. Another interesting thing that my "religion" teaches is that every word we speak, we will have to give an account for.
Lastly, I would really like for you to tell me how it is disrespectful for me to tell people what it is I believe. Above all else, this is the only thing I will be looking for in your response. Explain to me how it is disrespectful for me to share my faith with people.
LOL! Sorry, but did Stephen King suddenly develop literary skills we should know about? Did he stop writing for tv?
No, I don't think it does.
I already did. Why repeat myself?
"I already did. Why repeat myself?"
That's all you do anyway, why not just answer the question for a change?
I forgot, you're one of those people.
See I can repeat myself. It's easy.
LOL! Yes, one of those people who gets religion shoved down his throat by selfish, disrespectful Hypochristians.
Thanks for noticing.
ok, I'm out of here. Nice going back and forth with you Troubled Man.
What if the body of Jesus was found?
That will end the mythical religion founded by clever Paul and sinful writers of the gospels called "Christianity"; then the true religion of Jesus Christ will be known with a great fervor.
Will you elaborate? Sometimes I am slow on the uptake. I don't know what you mean.
Paul who invented the Christianity; knew what was the basis of the religion he had invented; he admitted that if it is proved that Jesus did not die a cursed death on the Cross; then the basis of this religion whould simply crumble down. If Jesus' body is found buried like any other human being that would logically be end of Christianity.
The resurrection of Christ from the dead is the linchpin of the Christian faith -- the event upon which Christian doctrine stands or falls. The apostle Paul makes this clear in his first letter to the Corinthians: But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty. … For if only in this life we have hope in Christ, we should be pitied more than anyone (1 Cor. 15:13-14, 19).
How can Paul have invented Christianity. Christianity is a name for a community of believers. You don't invent a name. Luke writes, prior to Paul's conversion, that the Pharasees, Romans and Greeks began calling Christ's disciples and other followers Christians. We do not follow Paul...in fact Paul admonished his contemporaries from following him. Paul said 'follow Christ. Paul didn't write the gospels. Matthew, John; Christ's disciples...Luke a physician and historian who later wrote Acts, and John Mark, who was a youth when Christ was crucified...they wrote the Gospels on which Christianity is based. Paul came after. As I state elsewhere...SHOW ME HIS BODY!!! But you can't, can you? You are either a liar or woefully ignorant of the truth.
2 hubs in 20 months? Why are you here? Say hi to Lilian for me.
A lady of that stature would say street address, not physical. Not advisable to stop by.
You mentioned the true Christian faith. What is that? So far you are talking about a false Christian faith. Is it fair to say you are anti-Christ? The Bible says that many anti-Christs will come. From what I am witnessing here, many anti-Christs have come. That would support Biblical prophesy. This is my last post here. I will be on the art forums for now on. Good luck with your quest. Big Brother is watching. The military is one thing, the militia is another. we see you on the bus with your maps.
Paul is the seed of anti-Christ; when it blossomed with the Church in full; the Church and its missionaries became the anti-Christ.
I am a supporter of Jesus and I love Jesus; and his 2nd coming in character- and that is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah.
And then if anyone says to you, See, here is the Christ (the Messiah)! or, Look, there He is! do not believe it.
False Christs (Messiahs) and false prophets will arise and show signs and [work] miracles to deceive and lead astray, if possible, even the elect (those God has chosen out for Himself).
But look to yourselves and be on your guard; I have told you everything beforehand.
Once more prophesy is fulfilled. well done parrsurrey.
I lied. I am back for one more thing. I see what you are talking about now. I respect that with all of my heart. Don't try to tell me where to walk my dog, though. Shalom
My point is based on this premise...in over 2000 years, what you describe has failed to happen. There have been some magnificent attempts to make it appear that the scenerio you describe, or something like it, has happened. None of these have withstood the burden of scientific inquiry. I predict that none ever will. The nature of scientific discovery has always been such...experts declare this has happened, or that is irrefutably true only to sheepishly admit later this or that has been disproven in light of new evidence. But those xains keep saying that Jesus is the physical embodiment of the Eternal Godhead, and not one shred of credible evidence exists to prove otherwise. We have evidence of so many other historic and prehistoric events. Why not this? Because there is no more evidence...it doesn't exsist. The burden of faith, or the lack of such, is left to be accepted or denied by the human heart...or mind, if you prefer."Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." ~ Hebrews 11:1
As I've come to this argument lately, i've been reading up the line and feel the need to respond to the muslims and others in the group who claim Jesus Christ's physical body is in India. Show me the body. Let me see the body. Where is the body? Why won't you make it available foir inspection. Because you can't Whatever bodies you have, or claim to have, cannot be proven to be of the Christ...or else the bodies you have will all actually prove to NOT be the body of Christ. And here's an interesting fact. Muslims are permitted to LIE so long as it furthers the cause of Allah....who, by this very fact is disproven because God, the one true God, Jehovah, El, Eliohim, El ShaddaI, Adoni...THAT God cannot/will not abide with a LIE for ANY REASON!!!! Because to do so would be to invalidate Himself. And this, scripture says, is the ONE THING God CANNOT do...He cannot disprove Himself. However, Allah can, and does many times, every day.
Do you know what passage in the Quran says they may lie to further the cause of Allah? I haven't read that before.
There seems to be a lot of passages about lying.
There is none; if you don't agree with me, please quote a verse from Quran with the verses in context.
"However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good.""
From the article, 'lying in islam,' cited by virgil newsome above.
" This point is proven by many incidences in the life of Mohammed. He often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. He rationalized that the prospect of success in missions to extend Islam's influence overrode Allah's initial prohibitions against lying. A good example of sanctioned lying is the account of the assassination of Kaab Ibn al-Ashrf, a member of the Jewish tribe, Banu al-Nudair. It had been reported that Kaab had shown support for the Quraishites in their battle against Mohammed. This was compounded by another report that infuriated Mohammed. It was alleged that Kaab had recited amorous poetry to Muslim women. Mohammed asked for volunteers to rid him of Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf. As Mohammed put it, Kaab had "Harmed Allah and His Apostle." At that time Kaab Ibn al-Ashraf, and his tribe were strong, so it was not easy for a stranger to infiltrate and execute the task. A Muslim man by the name of Ibn Muslima, volunteered for the murderous project on the condition that Mohammed would allow him to lie. With Mohammed's consent, Ibn Muslima, went to Kaab and told him fabricated stories that reflected discontent about Mohammed's leadership. When he had gained Kaab's trust he lured him away from his house one night and murdered him in a remote area under the cover of darkness. "
Also from the source cited above. I never made the claim lying was sanctioned by the Koran. My claim was that muslims consider lying to be acceptable, even encouraged, by muslim clerics, according to words spoken by Mohammed. Whether these words are recorded in the Koran is of little interest to me. The Koran is irrelvant to my faith and salvation in Jesus Christ. Muslem leadership says lying is ok. Muslims decide what is good enough to lie for. No scripture to support it. Don't get me wrong, Christians lie all the time and get caught, and pay the temporal penalty, but if they confess, they receive God's forgiveness because the blood price has been paid through Christ. I don't think I've ever heard a Christian cleric write, preach or teach that lying, or bearing false witness, is acceptable for any reason....because to do so would repudiate God's law, which clearly forbids lying for any reason.
Quran is the only source of knowledge of those times; and Quran recorded everything in it; others sources came 200/300 years after the death of Muhammad.
Please quote from a source of Muhammad's time; to support your claim. Muhammad never spoke except the truth.
Please mention the teaching of not speaking truth from Quran.
As I said, I am referring to teachings by muslim clerics of this era. I do not claim to be expert in what the koran says, my point is that Islam clearly has moved away from the teaching of the koran. I have also referred to one famous departure by muslim leadership (i.e. mohammed, the false prophet) that validated the practice of lying to acheive a goal in the name of allah. The Almighty Lord Jesus Christ - very God of very God, does not need lies to advance His Kingdom. That is my point. You read the koran. I'll stick with the Bible.
Clerics don't present any religion. Did clerics of the Jesus' time represent Moses or his teachings; no.
Jesus spoke against the clerics, you know?
Should I quote from Jesus in this connection?
The same is true about the Christian clerics; they don't represent Jesus; most of them are anti-Christ and represent the anti-Christ.
mish mash I have a football game to watch...good day to you, sir!
Please quote the verse with some verses preceding and some verses following.
Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:
Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.
Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."
Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).
Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.
Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.
The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'
The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.
Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.
You could not quote a verse of Quran is support of your claim.
Please quote a verse with some verses preceding and some verses following.
Why, you know your Quran, you know that Muslims are allowed to lie to any non Muslim, you quote me a verse that PROHIBITS Muslims lying to NON MUSLIMS.
If I can be bothered I will give you your chapter and verse, but frankly Islam is a political organisation intent on taking over the world, not a religion, so why bother.
YUSUFALI: Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.
PICKTHAL: Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.
SHAKIR: He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.
Three different translations saying it is OK to lie in certain situations.
I provide the above verse with the verses in the context:
[16:102] And when We bring one Sign in place of another — and Allah knows best what He reveals — they say, ‘Thou art but a fabricator.’ Nay, but most of them know not.
[16:103] Say, ‘The Spirit of holiness has brought it down from thy Lord with truth, that He may strengthen those who believe, and as a guidance and glad tidings for Muslims.’
[16:104] And indeed We know that they say that it is only a man who teaches him. But the tongue of him to whom they unjustly incline in making this insinuation is foreign, while this is Arabic tongue, plain and clear.
[16:105] As for those who do not believe in the Signs of Allah, surely, Allah will not guide them, and they shall have a grievous punishment.
[16:106] It is only those who believe not in the Signs of Allah, that forge falsehood, and they it is who are the liars.
[16:107] Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed — save him who is forced thereto while his heart finds peace in the faith — but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is Allah’s wrath; and they shall have a severe punishment.
[16:108] That is because they have preferred the present life to the Hereafter, and because Allah guides not the disbelieving people.
[16:109] It is they on whose hearts and ears and eyes Allah has set a seal. And it is they who are the heedless.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … p;verse=99
There is no commandment here to speak lie.
Those who contend it should substantiate their viewpoint.
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64:
Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."
It is not from Quran- the first and the foremost source of Islam, whatever the denomination.
Hadith did not exist in the time of Muhammad; it was written/collected 200/300 years after Muhammad's demise.
It is not the root source of Quran/Islam/Muhammad.
It is not from koran, it is not from koran...that is all you say, like banging the bottom of an old metal pot. Yet I know enough historr regarding Islam that you are taught to respect the previos teachings of the Torah (first five books of the bible) and the sayings of Christ. First and foremost, Christ said He would die, and be raised from the dead. When He was transfigured, He appeared to His followers in the presence of Moses and Elijah, two great prophets who were taken by God, having never tasted physical death. Jesus is the culmination of all Jewish prophesy, He is the Messiah. There is no need for Muhammed. OMG yers I dare utter the name of the (so called) prophet Mohammed Mohammed Mohammed! Still here...God has not stuck me dead....
MY POINT IS THIS You say all proodf must come from Koran, yet your religion clearly teaches respect for Jewish teaching and the words of Christ. Furthermore, you are not opposed to quoting from the epistles (letters of the disciples in the new testament) when they appear to support your argument, but when we quote scripture that clearly repudiates your muslim claims, or disagrees with what the koran claims, all of a sudden, the only proof you will accept is the Koran. You repeatedly lecture us to present koran verses in proper context yet you refuse our arguments when we show you biblical proof to substantiat correct biblical context. Either you take the Bible as a whole, with correct hebrew translation as it applies to the situation according to context, and as it applies to the reader, who has been instructed and has prayed for illumination---or you accep nothig that the bible says. The Old Testament points to a savior, a blood sacrifice, a Son of God. The new tesetament clearly is fullfillment of the law revealed in the Old testament. And in the final book of the bible we are told to add nothing to, and take nothing from the words contained in the whole Bible....predating Mohammed's delusions by nearly 600 years. Finito, the end, and all true believers live happily ever after. Right after the battle on the plains of Armeggedon...with you guys...and oh by the way, we win!
Apologies if I sound rude or threatening to you, but that is the prophesy. For all the world. Not the koran. Jesus is perfect in every way. Mohammed was.....not. Jesus lives and reigns....Mohammed....does not. I encourage you to check out a book by an insightful theologian and Christian apologist Ravi Zacheriah...He is Indian. The name of the Book is "Jesus and Mohammed." Ravi uses data from the Hebrew Torah, the hebrew prophets and the teachings of Christ as presented in the Old Testament; as well as data from the Koran to demonstrate the superiour argument that Jesus is the fulfillment of all prophesy and Mohammed is just plain wrong.
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged Him.
2And the soldiers plaited a crown of thorns and put it on His head, and they put on Him a purple robe
3and said, "Hail, King of the Jews!" And they smote Him with their hands.
4Pilate therefore went forth again and said unto them, "Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him."
5Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said unto them, "Behold the man!"
6When therefore the chief priests and the officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" Pilate said unto them, "Ye take him and crucify him, for I find no fault in him."
7The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God."
8When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid.
9And he went again into the judgment hall and said unto Jesus, "From whence art thou?" But Jesus gave him no answer.
10Then said Pilate unto Him, "Speakest thou not unto me? Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?"
11Jesus answered, "Thou couldest have no power at all against Me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore he that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin."
12And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar."
13When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14And it was the Preparation of the Passover and about the sixth hour, and Pilate said unto the Jews, "Behold your king!"
15But they cried out, "Away with him, away with him! Crucify him!" Pilate said unto them, "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar!"
16Then he delivered Him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led Him away.
17And He, bearing His cross, went forth into a place called the Place of a Skull (which is called in the Hebrew, Golgotha)
18where they crucified Him and two others with Him, one on either side and Jesus in the midst.
19And Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
20Then many of the Jews read this title, for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city, and it was written in Hebrew and Greek and Latin.
21Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, "Write not `The King of the Jews,' but, `He said, I am King of the Jews.'"
22Pilate answered, "What I have written, I have written."
23Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His garments and made four parts, to every soldier a part, and also His coat. Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
24They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith, "They parted My raiment among them, and for My vesture did they cast lots." These things therefore the soldiers did.
25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
26When Jesus therefore saw His mother and the disciple standing by whom He loved, He said unto His mother, "Woman, behold thy son!"
27Then said He to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour, that disciple took her unto his own home.
28After this Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst."
29Now there was set there a vessel full of vinegar; and they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it upon hyssop, and put it to His mouth.
30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, He said, "It is finished." And He bowed His head and gave up the ghost.
31The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, and so that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath day (for that Sabbath day was a high day), besought Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.
32Then came the soldiers and broke the legs of the first and of the other who was crucified with Him.
33But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was dead already, they broke not His legs,
34but one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith there came out blood and water.
35And he that saw it bore record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith truly, that ye might believe.
36For these things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled: "A bone of Him shall not be broken."
37And again another Scripture saith, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."
38And after this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore and took the body of Jesus.
39And there came also Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds in weight.
40Then took they the body of Jesus and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the manner of the Jews for burial.
41Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulcher wherein was never man yet laid.
42There they laid Jesus therefore because of the Jews' Preparation Day, for the sepulcher was nigh at hand.
On the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher and saw the stone taken away from the sepulcher.
2Then she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and said unto them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid Him!"
3Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulcher.
4And they both ran together, and the other disciple outran Peter and came first to the sepulcher.
5And stooping down and looking in, he saw the linen cloths lying, yet he went not in.
6Then came Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher and saw the linen cloths as they lay
7and the napkin that had been about His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
8Then the other disciple, who came first to the sepulcher, went in also; and he saw, and believed.
9For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.
10Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11But Mary stood outside at the sepulcher weeping, and as she wept she stooped down and looked into the sepulcher,
12and saw two angels in white, sitting one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.
13And they said unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" She said unto them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him."
14And when she had thus said, she turned around and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15Jesus said unto her, "Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" She, supposing Him to be the gardener, said unto Him, "Sir, if thou have borne Him hence, tell me where thou hast laid Him, and I will take Him away."
16Jesus said unto her, "Mary!" She turned herself and said unto Him, "Rabboni!" (which is to say, "Master").
17Jesus said unto her, "Touch Me not, for I am not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say unto them, `I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'"
18Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He had spoken these things unto her.
19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in their midst and said unto them, "Peace be unto you."
20And when He had so said, He showed unto them His hands and His side. Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord.
21Then said Jesus to them again, "Peace be unto you. As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you."
22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
23Whosoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained."
24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25The other disciples therefore said unto him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said unto them, "Unless I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe."
26And after eight days the disciples were again within, and Thomas was with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be unto you."
27Then said He to Thomas, "Reach hither thy finger and behold My hands, and reach hither thy hand and thrust it into My side: and be not faithless, but believing."
28And Thomas answered and said unto Him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Jesus said unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed."
30And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life through His name.
The above texts from John's gospel; chapters 19 & 20
And he showed me a pure river of the Water of Life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, there was the Tree of Life, which bore twelve kinds of fruit and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.
4And they shall see His face, and His name shall be in their foreheads.
5And there shall be no night there, and they will need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light. And they shall reign for ever and ever.
6And he said unto me, "These sayings are faithful and true," and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show unto His servants the things which must shortly be done.
7"Behold, I come quickly." Blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
8And I, John, saw these things and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9Then said he unto me, "See that thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the sayings of this book. Worship God!"
10And he said unto me, "Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
11He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still."
12"And behold, I come quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every man according as his work shall be.
13I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last."
14Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the Tree of Life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15For outside are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers and murderers and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16"I, Jesus, have sent Mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the Bright and Morning Star."
17And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let him that heareth say, "Come." And let him that is athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the Water of Life freely.
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book.
20He that testifieth these things saith, "Surely I come quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
put on display
if i were him
id wish to forever
Some of us find his body everyday, apparently he rose from the dead.
@ aware the point, dear one, is this...praise the LORD, you are not Him! Can you know the mind of God, what He wishes, what He doesn't wish...Again, praise Jesus...no you cannot. Because you are mortal while He is eternal. You are darkness and He is light. You can't hide the ligt. It is not the nature of light to stay hidden. It must burst forth to dispell the darkness. Either enter the light or flee to your doom!!! Merry Christmas!
Christianity is not a religion - it is a belief. Whether you believe Jesus or not, it is left for you, and you who claimed that Jesus has not risen or Jesus has never exist, you will know the truth at the moment you breath your last on this earth. And if you are reading this, believe me, that at that moment you are going to remember this post.
For me: I personally believe in Jesus and with that belief I feel his presence within my life. He is my provider as well as my future designer. I don't claim to be a christian in any circumstances or social debates. As you talk, as you walk, people will sense the presence of who you believed in––and they are sensing Christ.
Additionally, I am a personal witness of Jesus Christ as comforter, councelor and friend. There are many witnesses in the 20th century of people who desired to see Jesus Christ, and guess what? He'd appeared to them and speak to them as well. I also have many witnesses around me who saw a sign of Him in their dreams. –– so, Jesus lives and I believe, and nothing in this world can change this believe.
by lucieanne5 years ago
After reading and contributing to so many posts about Christianity on here I'd love for someone to answer this question. Which form (if any)of Christianity is the real deal? It's one thing to get into heated debates...
by Steve Andrews5 years ago
On Facebook I know of at least two profiles where the people running them have offended some Pagans by comments they have made from a Christian viewpoint and links they have posted. I have seen this sort of problem...
by ShaunLindbergh5 years ago
Christians often speak of having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.What does this mean? Please describe your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. What makes it a "personal" relationship?
by Julianna5 years ago
In the Bible it is clear that Jesus was Jewish. You will find it written multiple times, however what religion was he leading the followers to? Catholicism believes that Jesus told Peter, " And I say unto thee,...
by Captain Redbeard2 years ago
I just read a post from someone stating that Christianity is based on the Bible which stands to reason, "If Christianity is based off the bible then that means it would have never come to furition since the book...
by Julie Grimes11 months ago
I think that the Christian religion would have been entirely different, if Apostle Paul hadn't screwed things up. It is my firm belief that if Christians really want to be Christ-like, they need to have a dual...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.