They Found Jesus' Body!!!

Ever since this Davinci Code business and people on the internet and elsewhere keep going off about how there is some 'rule' about someone Jesus age would probably be married.
If not then something 'odd' has happened.
Ok,
Lets be clear about something, Jesus seems to think he is the Messiah and so he already starts off as something unique.
Next,
As a matter of a fact, there were many Prophets who were NOT married. You can think of this as a sort of 'Priestly' type situation where they are on a Mission from God.
Jesus as a Prophet being unmarried is NOT any sort of news.
More:
Jesus certainly seems to be convinced he is going to get killed early. As a matter of fact his Cousin John (who was the opener for the ministry) got beheaded asap.
So,
Lets combine two pretty obvious and major things here, ready:
-Jesus seemed to be a pretty nice man interested in loving others.
- Jesus seemed pretty convinced he was facing eventual shortened life expectancy.
Hmmm?
Does it seem to you that a decent man, convinced he was headed to an early grave would go ahead and marry a woman he was going to leave a widow in short time?
No.
No it doesnt seem like something Jesus would do.

But yeah, its NOT unusual for a Prophet to remain unmarried even until they are 30 years old (estimated time Jesus' Ministry starts).

As for the scandalous 'Where was he between 12 and 30!'.
Oh no!
How 'mysterious'.
In fact, you are just seeing how extraordinary the Gospels are that they account for his birth and earliest years in the first place.
Its a glass halfway full compared to almost any other historical figure where we rarely get anything except when their career/office/ministry starts.

More on that... the accounts actually DO give us an indirect indication of Jesus 'before' the ministry.
Totally paraphrasing but neighbours are recorded as saying "are we talking about Jesus... Joseph and Marys boy?"

Sorry but that makes it pretty hard to argue he was a world renowned buddhist prophet when neighbours are seemingly surprised that the Ministry Jesus is the same local boy they knew around town.

Gotta reemphasise what Alsharad and Campell keep trying to explain - There is an embarrassment of riches on the life and times of Jesus.
There is simply no other comparable historical figure with the massive deluge of manuscript, archeological accounts.
It would make you laugh out loud whenever someone plays the silly "Jesus...if he did exist at all" card.
If you were to tell me you dont accept Jesus as a real historical figure then throw out everyone else.
Dont you ever tell me Socrates, Caligula... heck, Napoleon Bonaparte was a 'real historical person' if you dont think Jesus has enough for you.

Heck, I dont think Muhammed had Divine revelation in writing the Koran but Id be an idiot to deny he existed as a real person in history.
If he didnt nobody did.
But,
You can rest assured there is an abundance of evidence Jesus most definately lived out a life and ministry as described in the four different accounts.

Its staggering: http://www.carm.org/questions/textualevidence.htm

 

The core of Christianity and much of Christ's teaching was fundamentally different from the Essene teachings.

Instead of just quotining the article, you can read it here. It's a short article.

When, in your opinion, would the church authorities have made the change? Have you checked to see if there are earlier manuscripts that predate the change? That would settle whether they had been edited, wouldn't it?

 

Well some people have called me a preacher, but I'm not. Well not officially.
There's no sheep skin hanging on my door. Jesus knew more about the Scriptures then the one's who had the schooling, yet he was a carpenter, and not an offical religious leader. Yet because of His preaching, and His incredible knowledge of the Scriptures, He was sometimes refered to as Rabbi.

No, I was not the person who questioned Josephus. He was involved with the revolt against Rome, but I believe he was captured by Romans during the first Jewish revolt and later became a historian for Rome. Most Rabbinical commentators believe Josephus to of been as they would describe, an upright Jew. The Romans did not kill everyone, and if you agreed with Rome, life would pretty much return to normal, what ever normal ment back then. Most main line thinking today accept Josephus and his writings as an important source which can be trusted.

 

Proof!

Proof!

Proof!

Proof!

Proof!

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

(1.) Matthew 7:28,29
28. And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these saying, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29. For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

(2.) Josephus captured by Romans in 67 A.D. after Rome invaded Galilee.

(3.) Most Rabbinical comentators consider Josephus an upright Jew.

(5.) Modern day scholars believe that Josephus was a patriot and a historian of some standing. His writings provide a significant, extra-biblical account of the post-exilic period of the Maccabees, the Hasmonean dynasty and the rise of Herod the Great.

Information for numbers 2,3,and 5, will be found at.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Romans treatment of Jews.

While the treatment of Jews by the Romans in Palestine was often harsh, relations with the rulers in Rome were generally much better. Julius Ceaesar, for example, was known to be a friend of the Jews; he allowed them to settle anywhere in the Roman Empire.
This information came from the Virtual Jewish History Tour-Rome

Hope this is enought Proof.

 

??? Where's the proof?

Spouting off at the mouth ... err, sorry ... fingers ...

more spouting ...

again ... more spouting ...

right ... like this is an aurthortative source of information ... this is not proof ...

So really you dont have any proof ... just a lot of spouting ...

Then everything you say is nothing more than simple repeating what others have to say, with no proof of what you speak ... or think.

Pity! A parrott can do as much.

I see now what is going on with you, Campbell. You, as well as a lot of other people I've seen like you, don't like to be wrong about anything so you speak incessently about things you have no direct experience with and you tout it as being truth when you really don't know what truth is, only that you dont like to be wrong and everyone else is wrong but you at any cost ...

I see.

There may be hope for you somewhere along life's path. Perhaps not in this lifetime, but hopefully in the next form of existence you choose.

After all, it took an untold number of eons for the one called Sidharta Gotama to become a Buddha. But then, I dont have any proof for this. Nor would it really matter if I did have proof.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Well Darrell I have given you historical accounts that would be accepted by most reasonable scholars. Yet you call that just spouting off at the mouth.
If that is your approach, I would say there is little you could believe in, because everything could be seen as just someone spouting off at the mouth. Your faith, or your religion, is just some other person spouting off at the mouth. Any religious text you read, could be viewed as just someone else spouting off at the mouth, ect. ect. ect. Now I myself have heard the voice of God, and I have seen His power, I have had encounters with demons from Hell, so I know my belief has substance. And I know Gods Word is true.

What proof is your faith built on?

 

well put man

rok on

 

I have a question for you. What is your opinion on islam, the jewish religion, buddhism, voodoo, Hindu, and Pagans? Are all of these religions wrong?

 

Ah. You've been audited by the IRS too, huh?

 

DarrelK Im really disappointed in that response from you.
Id expect that from 14 year olds in AOL chat but not from someone like you who can do much better.

You know full and well that you cannot 'prove' anything and it comes off as the 'last chance desperation' when the best you can do is use the 'prove it' line as well as the flame 'Spout'.
I notice only Christians can 'spout' btw. interesting.

Seriously though, when it comes to historical evidence its just a plain old fact of life that Jesus is one of the most reliable, well documented and verificable humans that walked the planet.
Sorry Darrel but this is just where the facts take us and while you cant empirically 'prove' anything you end up with so much overwhelming evidence its well beyond a reasonable doubt.
(thats the best you can ask for for anything .. unless you get that time-machine built soon).

Here is a Wikipedia and believe me they will be critical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Apologetic article with more on 'extrabiblical' sources:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html

Tekton has volumes of info about the historicity of Jesus and you can even look at that from asking 'what if he didnt exist':
http://www.tektonics.org/gk/godthere.html

More on this:
http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

There is some great point in this article including this false pretense that the Gospels 'do not count' (which is nonsense from a unbiased point of view) as well as pointing out the obvious - Romans destroyed Jerusalem shortly after Christs life (and much of Israel). Razing and burning things down.
Thats amazing.
If you think of it that is amazing that not only were eye-witnesses killed in that but untold amounts of manuscripts, references and probably entire churches were incinerated and destroyed.
YET,
Jesus STILL remains one of the best documented historical figures in history.
Even after that!
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Now brace yourselves because the next link is massive and will go through overwhelming amounts of research on the Archeological evidence, manuscript evidence about the life of Jesus, the New Testament and early Christianity:
http://www.biblehistory.net/bible_history.htm

An interesting story concerns Simon Greenleaf. He is one of the guys who founded the Harvard Law School.
What he did was go about attempting to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah.
DarrelK... duly note that like everything in life you cannot 'prove' anything but Greenleaf went to prove by our standard 'Beyond a reasonable Doubt'.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

I mean the evidence for Jesus Ministry is just overwhelming and if only we had a tenth of that on the life of Buddha or anyone else.
Its simply a goldmine.

Of course, some people make a mistake in believeing that simply 'questioning' any evidence somehow 'cancels it out' or is of equal value.
It doesnt work like that.
Of course you can 'say anything' and often your thing cannot be 'disproved' either.
I can simply say that you cannot prove to me Buddha existed and furthermore I suggest that he is a made-up character by some Monks who wanted to get power.
'Prove' me wrong?
Does that mean I just 'cancelled out' the historical evidence of Buddha - no. I can just say anything or 'ask' anything.
But,
I have to provide at least as much evidence Buddha was fabricated and I simply cant.
Likewise, you can make up imaginary stories about Constantine 'ratifying' (lol) a fake Bible.
But,
You better have at least as much evidence for that as for the common historical account or else you got nothing here.

More on the reliability of the New Testament from FF. Bruce:
(huge)
http://worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc01.htm

 

I have a question for you: Whats your opinon on Islam and are Christianity, Buddhism and Hindu all wrong religions?

 

Well I'm an athiest, does that answer your question?

 

So are all those other religions wrong.. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity are all wrong according to you?

 

Well if I dont believe in god, then most of those religions in a major way to me would be considered wrong in what they preach or say. I was asking Campbell, because he seems to be a hardcore believer in everything the christian religion says. I was asking whether he thought all of those other religions are wrong according to his beliefs and whether or not he is tolerable of the beliefs of those religions.

 

Yes I saw the documentary and I thought it provided alot of questions and I personally believe that what they found was the tomb of jesus of nazareth and his family. I do think there needs to be an extensive study done, which it seems no one is willing to do.

 

Quite alright. Besides ... it's your feelings ... not mine. I never asked you to join HipForums to be pleased or displeased with what I have to say. Matter-of-fact, I never asked anyone to do so. And any feelings you may have, or thoughts, are your own. Not mine. And therefore have no bearing on how I feel or think.

You just dont get it do you ???

Besides, we've strayed way off the topic of this thread as it is. Time to get back on it.

Yes, I do also. So if anyone would like to disagree with how I feel or think on that, then by all means disagree. Besides ... its your feelings ... not mine.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Proof!
Prove it!
Until then you are just spouting off!

Right?

 

Now you're just being downright silly. Whose being a 14-year-old now?

HTML:

HTML:

HTML: