They Found Jesus' Body!!!

Amen (no pun intended) Religion, not just christianity, but religion in general has done more BAD than good for mankind.

"Religion is the opium of the people"

 

Hey Darrel glad to see you, don't worry, we Christians don't kick people out of here.

Darrel don't stop at verse 27, try reading verses 30 and 31. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

I don't see a pile of dried bones doing this.

 

Yet you may get a pile of dried bones...

Stuborn and blind belief of the bible and no thought to other possibilities isn't good. For a whole group of people to be like that is dangerous, for example look at our president, and look what he has done. Alot of what Bush has done is because of his blind and confident views as a christian.

 

Sadly enough we now half a half-retard with his finger on the button in the oval office who actually BELIEVES in the apocalypse. Who's the antichrist now?
:arabia:

 

It seems that some folks on here lump all Christians together. The Catholic Church was behind The Crusades and the Inquisition. The Crusaders murdered Orthodox Christians along with Jews and Muslims. The Inquistions targeted mostly so called heretics(later known as Protestants) not just Jews and Muslims.

The KKK, racism, lynchings etc as well as gw's foriegn policies are the result of Calvinist theology which does not truly follow what Christ taught." Blessed are the peacemakers" seems to b pretty self explanatory to me.Weslyan/Arminian theology is far more in keeping with Jesus's teachings.

I'll post more about Calvinism VS. Weslyan/ Arminian theology after my fingers heal up. Its kinda hard to type with five stiches in my left pinky finger and a nice wide gash in my right index finger.

btw Skip I've had more than a few fundie types call me a bad Christian because I refuse to support gw's greedy warmongering ways. Not all of us Christians are hateful,greedy warmongers that want an Armageddon in the MIddle East and a Theocratic Dictatorship here in at home.

 

People do a lot of things in the name of religion. Yet the Bible has to many prophecies to ignore. And if you have a Book that is telling you 100% truth and you ignore it. Then that is really what is dangerous. The Bible is telling you in great detail what is going to happen. And there are at least three chapters telling you what is going to happen to America.

 

You and I agree, maybe so, or maybe there was a reason that the identity of the groom is not mentioned. If it was a relative, then the other passages which do not omit the names of the family members present beg the question as to why in this instance the couple who are the sole reason for the gathering are not named. I am only saying it is something to think about.

Many times throughout the NT there are accounts of Jesus' works and miracles, where names are given, even when they are less central to the event than the key two people who are the reason for the gathering.

Those are explanations that are possibly the reason, but I wouldn't say they are good. I don't find the proposition that 'it would be expected from clues in the text the reader would know...' to be a good explanation. That is more like a guess that is not unreasonable. The conclusion I arrived at, based on the clues in the text, was just the opposite. I see more clues pointing towards his being married than not.
How could something as important as marriage be irrelevant? It is one of the, maybe the, most sacred traditional rituals in all of humanity's history. That is not my idea of something that would be irrelevant.

Rabbi and teacher are not synonymous, as you imply, and I find it worth noting the cases in which one or the other is used. I can't say that I know for certain it was not an absolute standard back then, though I have heard that it was more often than I have heard it was not. In any case, there is significance in the use of a title which is generally considered to require one be married.

I haven't said that I was correct, only that I find my position to be the most rational conclusion based on the information I have read. I may well be wrong, and if I am, I will be pleased to learn so.

I find that answer was the most compelling, and if it is all as you say, I agree. But, I suggest the possibility he is not God, which is what I believe. Or at least he is no more God than you or I, as Psalm 82: 6 says " I have said ye are Gods, and all of you are children of the most high. "

I do rest easy, thank you. But, from what I have seen the support for Christ as a historical person is far from robust. In terms of first hand eye-witness testimony, or contemporary records mentioning him or any of his entourage, I have seen none in existance today. Maybe there was some, but all I have seen were written after his lifetime. That is not what I would call robust.

 

You certainly like distracting from the point of my last post ...

When my response to you was to point out your interpretation was your own and not that which was being conveyed by the bible. A convenience, I'm sure.

You make some pretty interesting arguments, but arguments are just what they are and have no real intrinsic value. What I see is ... you don't practice christianity ... rather ... cambell34-anity, or whatever your "real name is"-anity.

But then, this is all from my own perspective and may or may not reflect the views and perspective of others.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Jesus was not an OFFICIAL rabbi so marriage was not a requirement for Him. He never went to shcool to become a rabbi this can be seen John 17:15 "And the Jews marveled, saying, 'How does this man have learning, having never studied?"

The wedding at Cana was not Jesus Christs wedding because in John 2:2 it clearly states that Jesus was invited to come to this wedding. You donot invite a groom to come to his own wedding.

And no Josephus did not come up with a fictional Jesus, because he was a historian for Rome. And unless he wanted to have his job and his life terminated quickly back then, he would have to report the events of that day accurately. If Josephus started to write falsehoods in the Roman offical records, he himself would of ended up on the cross.

 

On this I think we will just disagree. To go much further would be to seriously digress from the forum topic.

Well, it isn't a DNA sample with retinal scan and fingerprint along with video footage. However, the evidence that we have for Christ is far *more* robust than it is for any other ancient person.

Look at Socrates. Not only can we not verify the existence of Socrates, we cannot even verify the textual authenticity of the writings of Plato. We cannot show that Socrates or Plato existed. The time span between the recorded documentation and when they supposedly lived is simply too great. The same holds true for Homer, Tacitus, and even Josephus. We simply don't have enough documentation to prove that they existed. We cannot cross check any of the sources for accuracy and the documentation that we do have is dated roughly 500+ years after they lived and those are sparse (roughly 25 copies in existence for each, with the exception of Homer who has a few hundred). The New Testament has roughly 15,000 manuscripts all dated to before 1000 AD and some dated to less than 100 years after Christ's death, hundreds, if not thousands, are within 500 years. All things being equal, if Christ was a fictional person, then the rest of history is truly a blank slate and we know nothing of the events of ancient history.

 

The entire New Testament drives home that Jesus Christ is alive, and He is a Risen Lord, and Saviour. He will not be found in the desert, or in a tomb. For He has risen. When Christ returns, the world will not be pleased to see him, because the world has fled away from Him. I am a Christian who has heard His voice, He is the best friend I have. I always tell people, if they want to know Christ, ask Him to reveal Himself to you. It's a pretty bold move, yet if you have a searching heart, God is up to the challenge. Jesus is no stranger to me, and that's why I can speak with confidence when I tell you, He will not be found in a box.

 

Your source materials are highly suspect.

 

My source materials are copies of the orginal and these copies number in the thousands, all of them agree, and they are filled with prophecies that can be observed, and have been proven to be true.

 

Something I don't understand is why call him Rabbi if he was not one? How old was he when the John 17:15 event happened? I thought he was still a child. It is unknown what he did from 13 to around 30, so it is possible he was ordained in that time, which if it was the case, it is my feeling that the best bet as to his specific denomination is the Nazoreans, since there is much to suggest Nazareth did not even exist until centuries later, and the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the region they were living. Essenes were a sect that I feel taught lessons which match up well with the message Jesus taught.

I agree that if that verse is true, it was not his wedding. The only way that I see it could be his wedding is if the verse is not correct, and I believe that there is a chance that it is not. In my view, later church authorities possibly editted the texts to suit their own needs. But if John 2:2 is true, then it was not Jesus wedding.

Did you not just write that Josephus is very hard to support as a real person? It is my understanding that some of his tales are implausible as having really happened. Did he not say he was a Jewish military man who fought and killed Romans? It is hard to imagine him later being a Roman, as I would think they would have killed him. It is also a contention of Jewish writers that the reason he may have written the falsehoods was in the interests of Rome, to try to develop a stronger Roman public opinion against Jews, in order to grow their support of a military campaign against the Jews. In that case, he would be rewarded for his falsehoods, and apparently his descendants were indeed very well rewarded for something, rising to the top of Roman society.

 

"Rabbi" is simply a Hebrew word meaning "teacher." It was given to many holding leadership roles in Jesus' time. Kind of like how Catholic priests are called "father" even though they don't have any biological children.