tomb of jesus

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by saltn00b
thats contrary to recent things i have also heard and read. these findings explained that the new testament was pieced together close to 300 years after Jesus' time. the stories being told by word of mouth, and translated up to 8 times before ever being written down.
have you ever played the game of 'telephone' as a kid?
Translated and changed are two different issues and I think people like to use them in place of one another to achieve a desired result. The New Testament as a whole was assembled later. From earlier documents. There is a fragment of theGospel of John that is dated between AD 100 to AD 150 corroberated by many paleontologists.
Telephone is played by whispering in someones ear, not reading and copying text. Apples and oranges comparison.

 

[johnny84]

Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest critizism

 

[moneyman]

Originally Posted by socal57che
Translated and changed are two different issues and I think people like to use them in place of one another to achieve a desired result. The New Testament as a whole was assembled later. From earlier documents. There is a fragment of theGospel of John that is dated between AD 100 to AD 150 corroberated by many paleontologists.
Telephone is played by whispering in someones ear, not reading and copying text. Apples and oranges comparison.
The printing press wasn't invented back then either. Some poor soul (hopefully a believer and not some Muslim), has to write every strokes. If I, MoneyMan the 1st, have to do such a thing, I will skip a few pages ... but, that's just me. Surely, those that poor soul wont do that ... so you hope.
Oh yeah, no Mr Edison. So, someone sat there in daylight or candlelight.
Oh yes, and the Crusader ... They would have burn any inappropriate version of the bible.
History is written by the winners. The looser just vanish and deem Evil.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Johnny84
Critical scholarship starting in the 19th century further questioned John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes.
So, if I wait 3 decades to write a book that contains part of our discussion here today it must be dismissed as not valid because I wrote it decades later?

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by MoneyMan
Oh yes, and the Crusader ... They would have burn any inappropriate version of the bible.
Research the " Dead Sea Scrolls"

 

[socal57che]

It's 1:30 and I need to pick up my daughter from school.
I'm serious about the offer...anybody that would like a copy of the bible just email me. Confidentiality will be respected.

 

[johnny84]

Originally Posted by socal57che
So, if I wait 3 decades to write a book that contains part of our discussion here today it must be dismissed as not valid because I wrote it decades later?

I never said it was not valid, its valid to those that have faith that Jesus was the son of god. I would never try to persuade someone from their beliefs as I would hope no one would do the same to me. What I am saying to you is, everything I've said is true, its not a half truth, its not false or a lie. What I've said are historical facts. Your new testament was canonized by a group of monks to serve their version of Christianity. Now you dont have to believe that and thats fine, but it is an historical fact.

 

[beth]

I saw the documentary and it was interesting, although "proof" is not there; nor does the documentary say that the evidence is absolute. Many things in science, and archeology is not based on proof, but on "connecting the dots" and coming to a conclusion. Anyone who studies history knows that with each new piece of evidence, history can be changed. 100 yrs ago, the city of Troy was a myth, now we know it is a fact. Most people think that Mary Magdalena was the prostitute described in the Bible, however, historians now believe that she was not that person at all. Interpretations of history, and dare I say of religion as well, change. Those interpretations don't, however, change facts. Facts, are realities that we are left to discover.
The Jesus tomb is very interesting and I don't believe, even if it were confirmed to be Jesus, that it would conflict with faith in Christianity. No one can say for sure, based on names inscribed on ossuaries, if this is Jesus' tomb, or his family's tomb. And even if it were his tomb, there is nothing found in it that says he was married to Mary or had a child...that is only guessing on the part of the makers of this film.
And, if it is Jesus, it changes nothing. I never felt that Jesus took his body with him to heaven. Heaven is not a place for earthly bodies.

 

[johnny84]

Beth, When Jesus died and supposedly rose from the dead, the bible states that God did not allow Jesus' body to decay. So that can be interpeted as Jesus' body along with his soul went to heaven.
Its interesting that you bring up Mary Magdaline. She was portrayed as a prostitute by Christians because that is what they wanted you to believe. Once historians researched the life of Mary Magdaline they proved that she was in fact not a prostitute but a well known preacher. The Church in the 1960's or 70's, not sure what the date was, finally agreeded with historians and took the title of prostitute away from Mary Magdaline. I dont find it very hard to believe that Jesus was married to Mary, it was custom for Jewish men to be married and not looked upon well if you were not married. I do believe Jesus was married to her and had a child. Now I've read many different scenarios of this, some say they had a daughter named Sahra, other say they had a son, and when jesus talks to Mary while he was on the cross, he says "Mary behold your son", some believe he is talking to Magdaline about their son.

 

[fireshrimp]

Originally Posted by sig45
its like this smith wigglesworth has been recorded to bring several of People back from the dead, this is going to sound funny but look it up its documented he punted a dead baby aginst a wall, and brought that child back to life, now, smith was a vessle for god, so that babys parent probely had a real faith in god, her life was probely change forever, how would you like if your life was changed forever for the good, and one day you woke up and some one proved it was a lie, i dare you, ask that question to some one who should be dead but still lives, and believes it was a miricle from God.

You cannot prove any miracle has ever happened. Unless one of gods hands comes down and brings you back from the dead it is not a miracle.
People always use the term miracle. If someone is drinking and driving and they miss a oak tree by inches and their lives are "spared" it was not divine action that saved him it was dumb luck.

 

[saltn00b]

that and a little physics and geometry heh

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Johnny84
........and when jesus talks to Mary while he was on the cross, he says "Mary behold your son", some believe he is talking to Magdaline about their son.
That conversation is only mentioned in John 19,
[25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
[26] When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
[27] Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

 

[fatcats]

I dont get it why do christians need relicts to belive
ITS religion and the main point of religion is FAITH. faith isnt facts or relicts you have to find it in yourself.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by fatcats
I dont get it why do christians need relicts to belive
ITS religion and the main point of religion is FAITH. faith isnt facts or relicts you have to find it in yourself.
I dont know of any Christain faiths that needs relicts to beleive !! What particular ones do you mean ?
I know some claim to have authintic relicts, but I dont think even they say you need them....

 

[fatcats]

i am not saying you need them to belive but i think that people want them to help them belive as if there is some easy ticket to faith and religon

 

[watson3]

Originally Posted by fatcats
I dont get it why do christians need relicts to belive
ITS religion
The fact that some religions have RELICS, is not to prove to themselves the existence of Jesus, but to remind them of important people that have spread his word

 

[fatcats]

i dont understand then why people turn to relics in droves and try to prove that they are relics. isnt preching the bible good enough

 

[beth]

People are naturally interested in history, and if history can prove or back up religious beliefs, then Christians are interested. Just as they are interested in history or science that contradicts the literal meaning of the Bible (evolution).
This "find" of the tomb is a challenge to most Christians, because it contradicts what most believe: that Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven (not leaving behind a body in a tomb) and certainly never involving himself in a marriage to a woman or having a child. These things fly in the face of the belief that Christ was God come to earth for a very specific purpose that had nothing to do with enjoying life as we do. If it was a proven fact that Jesus married and had a child, then Christianity might as well come to an end as we know it. The truth is, it will never be proven or disproved. We do not have the means to say for sure one way or the other, except for those guided by faith.

 

[darknes]

I don't think that if it was proven Jesus was married and had children would really have any effect on Christianity. How Jesus lived in unimportant, and that's why very little of his personal life is mentioned in the writings of the Bible. What's important is that he is the son of God, and that he came to earth to save mankind and die for our sins.
Also, I'm a Catholic, and the Church has only defined the meaning of a few passages in the New Testament. The Church wants you to draw your own meanings from what is written and said by Jesus, and certaintly it doesn't want every word to be taken literally. The Bible wasn't written in English, and by translation, much of the true meaning is lost (especially in the Old Testament). Also, most of the customs of Mass do not come from the Bible, but rather through tradition.

 

[saltn00b]

Originally Posted by Darknes
Also, I'm a Catholic, and the Church has only defined the meaning of a few passages in the New Testament. The Church wants you to draw your own meanings from what is written and said by Jesus, and certaintly it doesn't want every word to be taken literally.
thats what i would think, not to be taken literally, but there are obviously some sects or groups or branches that whole heartedly believe everything, word for word, down to the punctuation. to me, it seems to do that, especially with a mistranslated text, is a recipe for disaster. look at the extremist islamics, taking a sentance here or there out of the koran, totally out of context , but word for word (in some cases, often times when these people are asked to point out the hateful things they utter in the koran, they are at a loss)