|
Name: crazichristian •
Title: Oh the insanity... •
Date posted: 02/28/07 3:40
|
Q: How amazing is this? It is so absolutely hilarious to think that people are actually buying into fictional claims about Jesus!
Entertaining, yet, saddening at the same time. I promise you that this documentary will not change history forever as it claims.
The thing is, whether we like it or not, the devout will most likely ignore it, and the skeptics will die for anything that seems to poke holes in what many people hold dear. The truth is, Jesus is the truth, His bodiliy ascension to sit at the right hand of the Father, his virgin birth, his sinless life, and I am prettty sure that if Jesus had a son or wife it would have been recorded in the many thousands of manuscripts that comprise the New Testament.
I would LOVE to hear what kind of "facts' support this theory!
I hope I don't sound like a jerk, I just want to make my point. Truly though, Jesus is the Son of God, who came down and put aside his omnipotence, omnipresence, and everything he had as God for 33 years only to die on a cross in your place and mine. And this God, who came down in human flesh, wants to have a personal relationship with you! Check more out at notreligion.org. God Bless =D
|
|
|
|
Name: Peas •
Date: 02/28/07 12:00 |
A: The devout will ignore it as being the tomb of jesus from the bible. They have plausable deniability. Archaeologists, on the other hand, need to look at the facts. The facts are that the tomb is real. The people inside are real. They are related by blood or other. They all died around 2000 years ago and their names are jesus, mary, joseph, juda and mary.
The fact that it fits in almost perfectly with the bible is coincidence.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 02/28/07 14:45 |
A: "The fact that it fits in almost perfectly with the bible is coincidence."
Yup, could be..... But what if it isn't?
What if Jacobovici has it almost right? Would it really make a difference? Could it be, that the Bible is not correctly interpreted or indeed a 100% historically correct (after all, there's inconsistensies between various sections, and they can't all be correct, right?)? Does faith require that a humanly edited and translated Bible is 100% historically correct? I doubt it.
I can obtain 4 eyewitness reports from the exact same event that happened 5 minutes ago. Would they be in unison? Hardly. Which one would be correct? Would they not all be subject to the beliefs and preconceived notions of each observer? Definately.
The gospels are hardly an objective recollection of the actual events. They might even leave details out for the reasons specified by Jacobovici (for instance, keep the identity of a son hidden?).
Sure, it's speculative, but not outside the realm of possibilities....
|
|
Name: mikegs •
Date: 03/01/07 14:07 |
A: The resurrection of Jesus is SO central to Christianity. It is referred to many times in almost every book of the New Testament. In books where it is not referred to explicitly (eg 2 Thessalonians) it is assumed to be true. (So, 2 thessalonians would make no sense without th resurrection, as it is largely about the return of Christ. If he has not been raised, he cannot return!)
If the resurrection did not happen, it isn't a question of whether the accounts are 100% accurate. It is a question of whether there they are complete and utter lies.
Yet the overwhelming eye-witness evidence (rather than the spurious speculation of those who want to make a quick buck) is that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion. those who claimed to see him alive were often persecuted and executed for the claim. They had nothing to gain but telling the joy of sharing good news. those who claim to have found Jesus' tomb have a great deal of money to make out of the claim.
|
|
Name: osirius608 •
Date: 03/01/07 21:05 |
|
A: VERY GOOD observation golfdane...I'm glad to see that there is someone who recognizes that translation and editing has its' backlash.
|
|
Name: pat •
Date: 03/02/07 16:14 |
A: Dear D,
While it is true that GOD is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient , it is also true that Numbers 23:19 very specifically and emphatically states that, "God is NOT a man (Hebrew: eesh = man) ........nor the son of an adam (Hebrew: ben adam = son of an adam)! However, instead of literally translating ben adam as "son of an adam," it is just translated as "man" in KJV. Because of this translation, we don't even realize that there are actually two different terms being used.
Son of an Adam just means a "human being." Adam was a human being. The Scripture says that God isn't a man or a son of an adam (human being). Mary was a human being. Her son was a human being. So we know that Jesus was a man, a human being and the son of a human being.
The Word of God says Messiah IS a man and God is NOT a man. Therefore one who is a man CANNOT be God.
We have been taught to worship a man AS God. Although this is not our fault, it is a very serious mistake. The Messiah of Israel loves, serves and is loved by God. However it is GOD, our Heavenly Father, who loves us, redeems us, and is our Savior.
All of the Idolatorous nations surrounding ancient Israel worshipped god-men who were supposedly born of their main god and a virgin mother. The children of Israel were warned repeatedly to have nothing to do with them and their belief systems. But they did. Ahab, Jezebel, the prophets of Baal are perfect examples of this. Elijah confronted their false beliefs, and the people turned back to God - for a while. Then they went back to their idolatry/adultery.
We have been handed down these lies from our fathers. Jeremiah 16:19 says, "O LORD, my strength, and my stronghold, and my refuge in the day of affliction, nations shall come to thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies........"
Of course I don't want or expect you to take my word for this. Just PRAY! Ask your Heavenly Father. He loves you and He will teach you. He will guide you into all righteousness. Just keep your eyes and heart staid on Him, on His precious love and forgiveness. He will delight to reveal Himself to you.
My love and best wishes to you, D,
Pat
|
|
Name: Herby •
Date: 03/05/07 1:48 |
|
A: D, It's an Holographic Universe little brother. Your epiphany is divine. MIne too..just different. The bottom line is that proselytizing and projecting your epiphany onto the world turns out to be antithetical to Jesus' message. It becomes nothing short of spiritual abuse. Exclusive God clubs or cosmologies that exude fundamentalist rhetoric are what turns out to be a strange form of atheism. Jesus message was, is and ever shall be the Truth. The rest is just a cruel and unusual way to control homosapiens with guilt and fear. There is no proof D, it's a holographic universe and thoughts are things. Give up what you are to become what you can be. Jesus did. Transform consciousness by opening up to the bigness of it all. Let go of the smallness of 'it has to be this way' thinking. I frame these revelations as the second coming and their implications, an invitation to the Kingdom Within. Will you join us?
|
|
Name: thepupil •
Date: 03/05/07 4:39 |
A: Sadly, without the sensationalism of a docu-drama like this, scientific speculation on these ossuaries would not occur in our lifetime. It's not about whether this is the tomb of the Son of God. It's about making sure nothing shakes the dead leaves off the tree.
I have no interest in the outcome of this story, but at least someone is telling it.
|
|
Name: GaryR54 •
Date: 03/05/07 5:45 |
A: "I would LOVE to hear what kind of "facts' support this theory!"
Oh, so you're condemning the film without having seen it yet?
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/05/07 16:44 |
|
A: What facts support your belief of Bodily accension? You want facts yet your belief offers none. Your belief makes the claim. Where are the 'facts' to your claims??
|
|
Name: Beth •
Date: 03/09/07 19:07 |
|
A: Respectfully, if you believe that Jesus was the "lamb" of G-d that takes away the sins of the world, I suggest you read the laws of sacrifice in the original (old) covenant. On the one day of attonement per year (Yom Kipper), the sacrifice that was made to take away the sins of Israel was a goat--the scapegoat. One goat was killed to cleanse the temple, but the goat that carried the sins of Israel was LET GO----it was NOT to be killed. Was Jesus a lamb----or the scapegoat? You can't have it both ways. Lambs were used for other, more personal offerings --but never for the sin offering for the "world" . A goat was let set free to "redeem the world". You should study more about the faith that your religion is based on. To me, it seems that your beliefs are built on sand.
|
|
Name: endthefish •
Date: 03/10/07 18:20 |
|
A: d is clearly a member of paul's church. take pity upon the misguided.
|
|
Name: Shlomo •
Date: 03/10/07 20:55 |
A: Think logically, right hand of the father? virgin birth? sinless life? son of
g-d? It is anathema towards the original covenant which is still in effect. If you look closer at the new covenant you will observe it convicting itself of the golden calf. The reason this is so is becasue no one has properly studied the original covenant or they were predisposed to bias towards the original covenant to understand the important necessary basics.
|
|
Name: lady andromeda •
Date: 04/02/07 4:53 |
|
A: Beth, Thank you for sharing the info about *scapegoats* and the lamb of G-d. That was very informative. I never looked at it that way before. It is definitely something to think about. Take care now.
|
